Faster-than-light particles repeat speed despite tweaks

Faster-than-light particles repeat speed despite tweaks - Technology &
Science - CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/st...neutrinos.html

"Subatomic particles were again clocked travelling faster than light by
European researchers after the experiment was revised to rule out a
certain type of error."

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Nov 18, 11:34*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Faster-than-light particles repeat speed despite tweaks -
Technology & Science - CBC News
snip link now broken by Google.Groups

"Subatomic particles were again clocked travelling faster than
light by European researchers after the experiment was revised
to rule out a certain type of error."

.... But they never took care of the possible 65ns timing error, for
the fact the two sets of detectors are many miles apart, and they did
not discern between gamma photons created in spallation processes, and
those form the original event.

Still so not news...

David A. Smith

On 11/18/11 12:34 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Faster-than-light particles repeat speed despite tweaks - Technology &
Science - CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/st...neutrinos.html


"Subatomic particles were again clocked travelling faster than light by
European researchers after the experiment was revised to rule out a
certain type of error."


We often had students that would send a print job to the printer,
and when that didn't print, they would send it again... and again...
and again... and again...

I wonder how many times the neutrino experiment will be repeated
without changing anything.

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:26:34 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 11/18/11 12:34 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Faster-than-light particles repeat speed despite tweaks - Technology &
Science - CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/st...neutrinos.html


"Subatomic particles were again clocked travelling faster than light by
European researchers after the experiment was revised to rule out a
certain type of error."


We often had students that would send a print job to the printer,
and when that didn't print, they would send it again... and again...
and again... and again...

I wonder how many times the neutrino experiment will be repeated
without changing anything.

If you don't like the results attack the messenger, call'em stupid...
If you were those experimenters you'd never think of the obvious,
would you? How stupid can they be, right?

On Nov 18, 2:21*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Nov 18, 11:34*am, Yousuf Khan wrote: Faster-than-light particles repeat speed despite tweaks -
Technology & Science - CBC News

snip link now broken by Google.Groups



"Subatomic particles were again clocked travelling faster than
light by European researchers after the experiment was revised
to rule out a certain type of error."

... But they never took care of the possible 65ns timing error,
for the fact the two sets of detectors are many miles apart,
and they did not discern between gamma photons created in
spallation processes, and those form the original event.

Still so not news...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/...s/00326397.pdf
.... why in the world would gamma photons detected be the identical
photons originally emitted? Absorption and re-emission is not a zero
duration process. How did they account for that?

David A. Smith

In sci.physics Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/18/11 12:34 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Faster-than-light particles repeat speed despite tweaks - Technology &
Science - CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/st...neutrinos.html


"Subatomic particles were again clocked travelling faster than light by
European researchers after the experiment was revised to rule out a
certain type of error."


We often had students that would send a print job to the printer,
and when that didn't print, they would send it again... and again...
and again... and again...

I wonder how many times the neutrino experiment will be repeated
without changing anything.

Sam, you seem to have a lot of trouble understanding that science is built
on experimentation and numbers and not arm waving press releases from UN
committies.

The first experiment had results at odds with current knowledge.

The second experiment was run to eliminate a possible source of error and
still had results at odds with current knowledge.

A scientist would expect the experiment to be rerun until either a source
of error is found or all errors have been eliminated, at which point the
search for new knowledge begins.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In sci.physics dlzc wrote:
On Nov 18, 2:21Â*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Nov 18, 11:34Â*am, Yousuf Khan wrote: Faster-than-light particles repeat speed despite tweaks -
Technology & Science - CBC News

snip link now broken by Google.Groups



"Subatomic particles were again clocked travelling faster than
light by European researchers after the experiment was revised
to rule out a certain type of error."

... But they never took care of the possible 65ns timing error,
for the fact the two sets of detectors are many miles apart,
and they did not discern between gamma photons created in
spallation processes, and those form the original event.

Still so not news...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/...s/00326397.pdf
... why in the world would gamma photons detected be the identical
photons originally emitted? Absorption and re-emission is not a zero
duration process. How did they account for that?

David A. Smith

Why don't you ask them since they have been asking for input on sources
of error?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Nov 18, 3:26*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/18/11 12:34 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:

Faster-than-light particles repeat speed despite tweaks - Technology &
Science - CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/st...nce-faster-tha...

"Subatomic particles were again clocked travelling faster than light by
European researchers after the experiment was revised to rule out a
certain type of error."

* *We often had students that would send a print job to the printer,
* *and when that didn't print, they would send it again... and again....
* *and again... and again...

* *I wonder how many times the neutrino experiment will be repeated
* *without changing anything.

Actually, they did change something. The pulses are now much narrower,
so that the chief complaint -- pulse-shape matching -- can be ruled
out as a systematic error.

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:21:17 -0800, dlzc wrote:


Still so not news...


They tightened up the neutrino bunches to get a better fix
on the departure time.

But is the effect energy dependent? If so, the arrival time
will vary as the neutrino energy is altered.

In this experimental scheme, how difficult would it be to
change the neutrino energy?

On 18/11/2011 4:21 PM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Nov 18, 11:34 am, Yousuf wrote:
Faster-than-light particles repeat speed despite tweaks -
Technology& Science - CBC News
snip link now broken by Google.Groups

"Subatomic particles were again clocked travelling faster than
light by European researchers after the experiment was revised
to rule out a certain type of error."

... But they never took care of the possible 65ns timing error, for
the fact the two sets of detectors are many miles apart, and they did
not discern between gamma photons created in spallation processes, and
those form the original event.

Still so not news...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What difference do gamma rays
make here? Are you saying that neutrinos are also emitted within
spallation events beside the gamma rays? Where is the spallation taking
place?

Anyways, my favored theory is still that this is an underground
geological anomaly caused by the Aquila Earthquake. It's simple, and
it's mundane compared to all of the other theories out there.

Yousuf Khan