|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Einstein is rolling over in His Grave, or Cern makes a big mistake | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi AZPaul3
Thanks, that makes sense: If we are measuring departure time from the peak production max point in the starting bell curve, and the arrival time from the peak detections max point in the arrival bell curve ... AND the arrival bell curve is significantly smaller (both lower and thinner) than the departure bell curve ... THEN it could logically be displaced anywhere along the range of the departure that it fits under the departure bell curve and still be a sampling of the departed neutrinos.__ It could be earlier, it could be later, or it could be about the same time. One test for this would be the spread of the detected bell curve -- if it is the same width as the production bell curve, then we could assume that it is random sampling from the production of neutrinos, whereas if it is narrower then that could indicate biased sampling. And given that the result has been repeated quite a number of times already, that would be another indicator of bias in the sampling. * The questions then become (a) what makes one type of neutrino more detectable than another type of neutrino and (b) how do they become sorted in this test. ** This could also be tested by varying the distance between production and detection: if the variation is constant it likely indicates bias but if it varies with distance then not so likely. Enjoy. Edited by Zen Deist, : questions Edited by Zen Deist, : *'s added by edits * and **by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
So we have light, e-m waves and neutrinos -- what is different? Photons (EM) are massless particles. Neutrinos are not massless. Their mass is so slight however that they do not (often) interact with anything. But they do have mass and as such are restricted by Relativity to less than 'c' velocities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Neutrino mass is less important than their lack of a charge. Most matter interactions, after all, are electromagnetic repulsion between electrons in atomic orbits.
Since atoms are mostly just empty space and neutrinos have no charge to attract or repel them from either the electron shell or the protons in the nucleus, they just pass right on through. The low mass of a neutrino does mean that it can move faster. Accelerating a non-zero mass toward the speed of light requires more and more energy scaling to infinity, so you can never quite get there, but the low mass of a neutrino lets it get pretty close. Photons, of course, are absorbed by atoms and re-emitted (in transparent substances anyway), and this slows light down (even though the actual photons always move at c, every time they strike another atom there's a delay as it's absorbed and re-emitted). It's why c is specifically the speed of light in a vacuum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
One test for this would be the spread of the detected bell curve ... At the present time, with our technology, I do not see any way to make this test. Detecting only a few thousand of the trillions of neutrinos generated does not give enough data to make a meaningful comparison. I'm also not so sure we can test the initial proton generator to determine the starting curve. Also, since the only results we can presently achieve are aggregate results we cannot know the spread we are dealing with. We cannot detect single neutrinos and know their mass. We can only aggregate the (very few) detections with respect to time. And a bias in generation and/or detection, presently unknowable given our technology, could produce the aggregate data reported. Edited by AZPaul3, : clarify Edited by AZPaul3, : more
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
good points. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I wonder where we would be now in the world of physics if the SSC in Texas had been completed.
Tevatron atom smasher shuts after more than 25 years
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Correction: we believe that all protons have the same fundamental mass. The bell curve is not due to a spread in mass, but due to uncertainty in our measurement of the mass. The protons extracted from CERN will have a small spread in energy, determined by the details of the accelerator. But because the beam is highly relativistic and the neutrino production target is very close, this should have essentially no effect on the timing.
quote:This timing is determined by the extraction pulses. No protons will be extracted until the kicker magnets are fired. But jitter in the timing system would have the same effect as the mechanism that you describe, and this is a plausible issue. quote:We believe that the masses of protons and each flavor of neutrino are fixed fundamental constants. There is certainly a correlation between proton energy and neutrino energy. But how would this make the neutrinos appear to be super-luminal? quote:Assuming that you mean energy instead of mass, it is indeed possible that there is a correlation between proton energy and time along the extraction pulse. But again, how would this make the neutrinos appear to be super-luminal? quote:Yes, there will be some energy dependence to the neutrino detectors. But again, how would this make the neutrinos appear to be super-luminal? For what it's worth, I suspect the problem will turn out to be a subtle error in either the timing or the distance: Timing: Have they mis-measured or mis-calculated a time delay in their electronics chain somewhere? Have they ever calibrated the timing through the entire systems which generates their trigger pulses and their detection pulses? This would be an easy mistake to make. Distance: They have relied on GPS measurements, which are very precise, and are very accurate for short-range differential measurements. But how accurate is GPS over the distance from Geneva to Gran Sasso? (GPS mapping reduces to a differential short-range measurement, since the map-maker and the user both rely on the same GPS signals.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: From Fermilab Today, Friday, Sept 30, 2011:
The Tevatron shuts down today, after 28 years of operation. Fermilab will shut down the Tevatron this afternoon for the last time. A broadcast of the event will begin at 2 p.m. CDT. Fermilab staff and users can watch the broadcast in Ramsey Auditorium. The broadcast will also be available online. Fermilab Director Pier Oddone will host the broadcast, which will feature the shutdown in the Main Control Room, and the CDF and DZero control rooms. The event will be streamed online beginning at 1:45 PM CDT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Correction: we believe that all protons have the same fundamental mass. The bell curve is not due to a spread in mass, but due to uncertainty in our measurement of the mass. The protons extracted from CERN will have a small spread in energy, determined by the details of the accelerator. For rest mass, yes, I agree, but, E=mc2 so a spread in energy = a spread in mass.
But again, how would this make the neutrinos appear to be super-luminal? If the three speculations are correct then - the more energetic (massive) protons will be at the leading edge of the proton pulse.- the more energetic (massive) neutrinos will be at the leading edge of the neutrino pulse. - the leading edge of the pulse is (slightly) prior to the mean time value which is used in the calculations. - the polystyrene scintillators will only detect the more energetic (massive) neutrinos at the leading edge of the pulse. The expected arrival time calculations are made based on the mean time value of the departure pulse, when infact (if this speculation is correct) the only neutrinos detected were at the leading edge of that pulse (slightly) prior to the mean time value given for the departure. Nothing superluminal here. If we could time individual neutrinos the same as we can photons then we would expect to find a velocity < c. But since this cannot be done and we must time pulses of millions of particles, the speculation is that the spread of mass (energy) values, correlated with a spread of departure time values, may appear to show the differential reported by OPERA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
AZPaul3 writes: The expected arrival time calculations are made based on the mean time value of the departure pulse, when infact (if this speculation is correct) the only neutrinos detected were at the leading edge of that pulse (slightly) prior to the mean time value given for the departure. Nothing superluminal here. Score! Me in Message 3:
Percy writes: This has the same feel as that discovery a decade or so ago of light packets that could arrive before they departed. AbE: Turns out it was about five years ago, I found the thread, start here: Message 227 --Percy Edited by Percy, : AbE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Score! Way to go Opus! ... eh ... Percy! I think you are right. Something like this is quite likely the answer. In the mean time we could be entertained with causality jokes. Maybe we could get 1.61803 to start with one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Geez, the explanation is even more mundane than we guessed, different reference frames. Found several articles:
This proposed solution has yet to be vetted, but I bet it sticks. Faster than light particles, physics overturned, physicists baffled, science in an uproar: sheesh! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Damn you, I just saw this news and was going to post it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Geez, the explanation is even more mundane than we guessed ... Mundane, nothing. This is elegant. Simple, beautiful. It turns the OPERA experiment and its physics defying hype into another proof of Relativity. Gotta love the irony.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
This proposed solution has yet to be vetted, but I bet it sticks. Hmmm. While the general principle suggested may well lie behind the discrepancy, the particular paper in question leaves much to be desired. The doubling of the 32ns to 64ns is especially amusing/worrying*.
Faster than light particles, physics overturned, physicists baffled, science in an uproar: sheesh! Yep, popualr science press working its wonders yet again... *quote: Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024