Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 92 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
So if the oscillation is a QM tunnel effect and that tunnelling was biased in some way along the axis of the travel path the particle would appear to micro jump the width of the oscillation.


Would the extra movement in one direction not be balanced by extra movement in the opposite direction it the neutrinos were oscillating?


There never was nothing.
.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Remember assuming the speed of light is fixed the sort of backward biasing won't occur that would be a movement effect if I am understanding what you are implying.

You have to think of this relativistically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(physics))

Quote:

For massive particles—such as electrons, quarks, and neutrinos—chirality and helicity must be distinguished. In the case of these particles, it is possible for an observer to change to a reference frame that overtakes the spinning particle, in which case the particle will then appear to move backwards, and its helicity (which may be thought of as 'apparent chirality') will be reversed.


Quote:

A common source of confusion is due to conflating this operator with the helicity operator. Since the helicity of massive particles is frame-dependent, it might seem that the same particle would interact with the weak force according to one frame of reference, but not another. The resolution to this paradox is that the chirality operator is equivalent to helicity for massless fields only, for which helicity is not frame-dependent. For massive particles, chirality is not the same as helicity so there is no frame dependence of the weak interaction: a particle that interacts with the weak force does so in every frame.

A theory that is asymmetric between chiralities is called a chiral theory, while a parity symmetric theory is sometimes called a vector theory. Most pieces of the Standard Model of physics are non-chiral, which may be due to problems of anomaly cancellation in chiral theories. Quantum chromodynamics is an example of a vector theory since both chiralities of all quarks appear in the theory, and couple the same way.

The electroweak theory developed in the mid 20th century is an example of a chiral theory. Originally, it assumed that neutrinos were massless, and only assumed the existence of left-handed neutrinos (along with their complementary right-handed antineutrinos). After the observation of neutrino oscillations, which imply that neutrinos are massive like all other fermions, the revised theories of the electroweak interaction now include both right- and left-handed neutrinos. However, it is still a chiral theory, as it does not respect parity symmetry.

The exact nature of the neutrino is still unsettled and so the electroweak theories that have been proposed are different, but most accommodate the chirality of neutrinos in the same way as was already done for all other fermions.


If it isn't making sense yell and I will try and explain it. If you get passed understanding the left handedness it's a downhill run thats the hard part to get your head around usually.

This is alot like the issue I bought up with PreEarths two worlds spinning the forces align differently depending on there spin.

Ahh found a reasonable 3D approximation of spin the top graphic may help (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/neutrino3.html)

Last edited by Orac; 09/30/11 03:53 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Thanks, Orac. It begins to make more sense now that I am not bogged down with the chemical version of Chirality. Still needs some more thought, though.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Tommaso broke the story of possible superluminal nuetrinos now he breaks the first paper I have seen that at least provides consistancy with the result.

(http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries...tivity_ok-83428)

That would mean the result is a derivative of the MSW effect which we actually discussed so my physics isn't completely destroyed :-)

Whilst it makes me feel happy that if the result is correct (and thats still a big if), I at least understand something of the process that creates the effect.

I like a few of the comments to the article still have a huge problem

>>> How does it avoid energy loss of known electroweak processes (e+ e- emission) <<<

First one to confirm superluminal nuetrinos and solve the energy problem get the Nobel prize :-)

Last edited by Orac; 10/11/11 06:24 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
where do thing go when they Quantum tunnel ....


Just another "plus" for the idea that QM gives us a window on the infinite. If the jump is in the infinite realm it needs no time, because there is no change.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: Orac
Ok I will post a link from Tommaso Doringo for those who haven't seen it

http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/sixsigma_signal_superluminal_neutrinos_opera-82744
...........>
If this stands we have new physics ... something faster than the speed of light has been recorded for the first time.

[quote=Mike Kremer]

Interesting discussion, I have not been around to pass any comments until now.

Orac states: "something faster than the speed of light has been RECORDED for the first time"
RECORDED is the operative word and extremely important in this context.

Because, if I might suggest--- The infinitesimal possible speed comparison between 'superluminal' Neutrinos and light speed measurements...is so minute...that the difference has not been detected before. Nor has there has there been any particular reason to check the specific speed of Neutrinos against light, until now?.
Nothing is faster than light ...its our basic physical law of the Universe...Einsteins Mantra.

Fact...the speed of light is slowed, or will speed up again, dependant upon the medium thru which it travels.

Fact, all the mathematics to do with the speed of light...are still correct, even when you input the speed of light as FASTER.
In this case the maths then correctly states that nothing can go SLOWER than the speed of light!

Since light speed differs according to the medium thru which it travels, however,Einsteins equations hold good, whichever part of the Universe or distant nebulae we look at.
Because the ultimate constant, we would require, to make any true measurement (overturn Einstein) would be DISTANCE.
Super accurate distance measurement, an impossibility I think.
Since we can never measure any very long distances, (part or light years apart),with enough accuracy
to enable us to then state the certainty of different speeds of particles moving thru different mediums.

The Micheleson Morley type of experiments come to mind. (Im not using this as a basis, since it used light only, and not
Light AND Neutrinos along the same path, and coming from the same point)
I want to show how difficult it will be to make an absolute measurement of particle/light speed. Dare I say impossible?
Just think of how many times they have checked the Neutreno/Light Speed measurement between Cern in Switzerland
and the Lab in Rome, Italy.

I believe it was 500 or more times.....much of that checking the actual microscopic distance between the sending and receiving Lab instruments.
Even the heating of the Earth in sunlight, also the gravitational effect of the Moon will come into play, when one tries to measure the difference in SPEEDS of two Particles, a measurement that ultimately depends upon absolute distance.

Who is to say whether the speed of light is any different when its moving AGAINST, (upstream) a powerful source of light, or 'downstream' together (parallel) with the main source.
Or more to the point ...any other type of Particle, or Graviton, moving towards and/or against its source or visa versa?
Can you visulise the hyper-theoretical particle the Graviton moving towards or against its source...and visulise its speeds?
Prehaps thats a little extreme for you, try using other particles ..does it makes you think?
Accurate measurement dependant upon the longest distance possible, its an absolute requirement just to check for the POSSIBILITY of particle speed differences.


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
So, how do they measure the distance through solid rock?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
So, how do they measure the distance through solid rock?


They used the GPS system. Normally the GPS only gives accuracy within a few meters. But if you take many many readings and average them you can get quite good accuracy.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Thanks Bill.

Would you not need more than "quite good accuracy" to measure something as small as the difference between "c" and the speed of these neutrinos?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Would you not need more than "quite good accuracy" to measure something as small as the difference between "c" and the speed of these neutrinos?

It depends on your definition of "quite good accuracy". My definition is "good enough for the job on hand". If I'm on an interstate highway "good enough" is probably on the order of a couple of miles. If I'm trying to measure the speed of neutrinos then it has to be a lot better.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
It depends on your definition of "quite good accuracy".


I agree with your definition, Bill, but I would be inclined to think that achieving the accuracy necessary for this sort of measurement, using the GPS would qualify as "b....y good" smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: MK
Fact, all the mathematics to do with the speed of light...are still correct, even when you input the speed of light as FASTER.
In this case the maths then correctly states that nothing can go SLOWER than the speed of light!


You've lost me here, Mike. I thought I knew what you meant first time, but having read it a few times I'm not so sure.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I agree with your definition, Bill, but I would be inclined to think that achieving the accuracy necessary for this sort of measurement, using the GPS would qualify as "b....y good" smile


Well, it does require a lot of patience to get it that good. In fact it requires even more patience than it takes to just get a good reading. You have to keep doing it over and over, because of course the surface of the Earth isn't stable. For the kind of accuracy they need even very small changes in the Earth will affect the distance.

I know that the Earth shifts because one of the last projects I worked on before I retired was to find an automated way to determine true North for the inertial guidance package on the Delta IV Launch Vehicle. There is a standardized way they use on the Delta II which uses a theodolite to make several very precise measurements to determine the value to upload to the guidance system. But it is done the day before the launch, while they can still have people in the area of the vehicle. For some reason they don't want people close to the vehicle just before launch. Something about it being a hazardous location. Anyway they wanted a way to do the measurement in real time just before launch. I came up with several concepts of ways it might be done, but nothing with off-the-shelf equipment, so they attacked it from the other end and settled for the day before measurement.

The thing about this is that the measurement requires several precisely located points in the vicinity of the launch pad and they have to resurvey the site every year to make sure they haven't drifted. Now this was in Florida, which is not very seismically active, but is built on rather soft material that drifts pretty badly. The sites at CERN and OPERA are more stable, but I don't think they are stable enough to maintain their separation for all that long, at least not for the accuracy they need.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
It's one of those situations in which, the more one learns about it, the more amazing it seems that a degree of accuracy could be attained that would be sufficient even to lead to a suspicion that there might have been a speed difference.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
The paper was totally debunked there were huge cracks even in the comments if you read it.

The clocks are on the >>> ground <<<< and synchronized to the satelite and this is tested to 1 nanosecond. The paper assumes the clocks are up on the GPS satelites and thats the source of the papers error ... they aren't ... end of theory and FTL nuetrinos live for the moment.

Fermilabs is setting up to do confirmation or refuting the measurement and it's really pointless discussing it stuff until then probably other than more general speculation.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I'm not sure what to think. There are a lot of criticisms in the comments section of the article. I can't follow them very well, but I suspect some of them don't know any more about it than I do. In any case, I note that Lubos commented and said,
'Well, this "paper" is equivalent to one paragraph of what I wrote on September 24th ... including the 30-nanosecond result.'

Which is not to say the paper is right.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
And that is the correct scientific approach. Suspect everything.

I don't accept the original result in the first place the only thing I am sure of the effect mentioned in that paper is not in play.

There may be other issues with GPS such as height etc I have seen a few papers.

Trust me if someone really debunks the FTL claim you will see it reported on every physics site.

Until we get another result in from Fermilabs probably not much else to comment on.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: Orac
And that is the correct scientific approach. Suspect everything.

I don't accept the original result in the first place the only thing I am sure of the effect mentioned in that paper is not in play.

There may be other issues with GPS such as height etc I have seen a few papers.

Trust me if someone really debunks the FTL claim you will see it reported on every physics site.

Until we get another result in from Fermilabs probably not much else to comment on.


Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer


Mike Kremer reads that..."...there is probably not much else to comment upon, unless we get further information-from Fermilabs"

I did mention in my previous post in this discussion-
That nobody has really had the need to measure the speed
of Neutrinos in the past.
Obviously every scientist in the World accepts the fact that Neutrinos travel at the speed of light.
Everyone accepts that, so the applecart remains stable and the World is saved. QED.

However after 500 re-tests by the Fermi lab, its obvious that something is wrong...which is why I suggested that maybe Neutrinos DID travel a tiny, tiny bit FASTER than light (since they must have re-checked and re-checked countless times.)

So here is my revised comment.

NO the NEUTRON DOES NOT travel FASTER than Light.
Its the Light that travels a teeny teeny bit SLOWER than the NEUTRON!!
(They have all got it wrong)

The calculated speed of the Neutron may well become the real actual speed of light,for all future calculations!!

Its the speed of light that we have all got wrong by a tiny tiny bit!!... Why???

BECAUSE nobody has ever calculated the REAL ACTUAL speed of light in a true Vacuum!!
Yes we have reflected it millions of times in a vacuum'd glass tube, using end mirrors.!
Yes we have measured the light from a star grazing the edge of a Planet! etc...etc.
BUT THATS NOT REAL DEFINITIVE MEASUREMENT is it?
I mean Neutrons pass thruu the Earth unimpeded, they are NOT affected by atmosphere, like light!!
NOT affected by Gravity like light!!
THEY are NOT affected by DENSITY, like LIGHT
Light SLOWS and gets tired as it travels across the UNIVERSE
Light being light is obviously affected by the density of of the medium it travels thru and many other things I would suggest.

YES we have the actual speed of light... from which every thing else is calculated from. Thus... Einstein and the Universe is vindicated and saved!!
And we all think we know the real speed of light??? I wonder??

Maybe the unaffected Neutron is the real actual speed of light.!!

And FERMI LABS have got it right, and might suddenly realise that -- the Speed of light as a constant, is just a tiny, tiny wee bit SLOWER that all the calculations have ever suggested.
The world is SAVED the Speed of light is actually the speed of the Easier to measure ubiqutous NEUTRON!!



.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
And checking all that is a fair call Mike but our first call will be to check the nuetrino speed.

CERN is going to send a tighter bunches of particles into the accelerator, Giving a much tighter time constraint on the neutrinos. The test will occur between 21 October to 6 November and expected to be seen between 10 and 15 neutrinos by opera.

So not a huge amount of data but very very tight release time. The clocks and distances have been checked so lets see what we get.

The only comment I don't agree with in your response

Originally Posted By: Mike

Light SLOWS and gets tired as it travels across the UNIVERSE


There is absolutely no observational or theoretical reason to believe light ever tires. It was an old unproven astronomical theory that is totally inconsistant with modern QM theory, Tired light would infact break QM.

Last edited by Orac; 10/26/11 02:26 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5