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

Search Forums
Custom Search
Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 96 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
New Thoughts About Early Earth.
by Bill S.
6 minutes 21 seconds ago
FIRST LINEAR MOTION DETECTOR ( CLASSICAL MECHANIC)
by Orac
Today at 04:17 AM
Mathematics / Physics / Quantum theory and God
by Revlgking
Yesterday at 04:38 PM
2014 Ebola Outbreak Map HealthMap.Org
by paul
Yesterday at 08:09 AM
Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked
by paul
Yesterday at 07:44 AM
EBOLA Novel Nano Tech Based Antiviral Agents
by paul
Yesterday at 07:28 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 54
newton 46
samwik 30
Bill 24
Amaranth Rose II 15
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#41146 - 10/25/11 09:59 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
gan Offline
Member

Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 55
Dude, Tachyon is a hypothetical theory. No one knows it is true or not. And for neutrinos, particle physics actually says that tau and muon neutrinos faster than light. But you should know,it will have a whole bunch of complex number when you go through the mathematical stuffs(such as Lorentz factors).

I don't like it.

___________________________________________________________________
No man lives if all women dies.

Top
Of Interest?
#41149 - 10/26/11 12:40 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2090
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I strongly doubt it is tachyonic much as Bill S would like it.

QM provides a much more simple and compelling way for it to occur called quantum teleportation and nuetrinos exhibit a weird oscillation that may make it possible.

But before we get all excited and ahead of ourselves we need confirmation of the speed and to do the sort of due diligence checks like Mike brought up.

Tachyonic behaviour should actually be rather easy to detect by comparison because it should exhibit an energy radiation trail which Icarus experiment doesn't see.
_________________________
QM crazy, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#41158 - 10/26/11 07:34 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Online   confused
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2925
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
Tachyonic behaviour should actually be rather easy to detect by comparison because it should exhibit an energy radiation trail which Icarus experiment doesn't see.


Could it be that such a trail is not seen because it is travelling backwards through time?

Actually, I don't much like the idea of tachions, precisely because they are theorised as travelling backwards through time.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41159 - 10/26/11 08:00 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Mike Kremer Offline

Megastar

Registered: 10/16/04
Posts: 1696
Loc: London UK
Originally Posted By: Orac
And checking all that is a fair call Mike but our first call will be to check the nuetrino speed.


Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer


Wonderful..That seems to be in agreement with what i said in my previous post.



Originally Posted By: Orac

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

Originally Posted By: Orac

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.


Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer


Well I am amazed that that is the only comment you have made...In fact I was expecting quite a bit of Flak with my idea that the speed constant of the speed of light
is not sufficiently accurate for the purposes of this particular experiment.!!

That is why in my last post I made the 4 comments regarding the measurements of the speed of light.
I did say that Light is affected by a number of external influences on its journeys.

I made the comments "not so the Neutron." It is unaffected upon external influences. ...un-like Light.
I expected comments regading that idea.

I expected a lot of comments when i said I think the Neutrons speed was a better and more accurate substitute for the speed of light. ...Still no comments.
I said that it was Light that was actually going slower ...in relation to the measured speed of the neutron . and gave my reasons.. Still no comments.

I did say " Light SLOWS and gets tired as it travels across the UNIVERSE"
and got the only comment that light never tires. (thank you for that one comment)

Well maybe i should have said "Light SLOWS and reddens as it travels across the UNIVERSE"
Admittedley ..I go slower, tired, and redden if I exert myself at my age. Hehe.

So on the face of it prehaps every one agrees with my new proposal ..
That its the neutron that will give us the more accurate constant for the speed of light

_________________________
.

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



Top
#41160 - 10/26/11 09:37 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Online   confused
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2925
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
Well maybe i should have said "Light SLOWS and reddens as it travels across the UNIVERSE"


Why would light need to slow and redden? Even if the tired light idea is correct, wouldn't the reddening be sufficient?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41161 - 10/26/11 11:43 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Online   confused
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2925
Loc: Essex, UK
Mike, your questioning our knowledge of the true speed of light prompted me to look back through my notes and unearth the following:

"....when we claim that the speed of light is well known, what we are really saying is that we know the speed of light relative to any observer, and since we have already established that such an observer can be travelling at any speed, or in any direction relative to the light, at the time of making the observation, then we must ask ourselves how well, in truth, we know the actual speed of light. Of course, if we are thinking relativistically, we also have to ask ourselves if talking about the actual speed of light is in any way meaningful.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41173 - 10/26/11 10:43 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2090
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
No Mike you miss your own point

The experiments to measure the speed of light were done by lasers in 1975 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)

Quote:

After centuries of increasingly precise measurements, in 1975 the speed of light was known to be 299,792,458 m/s with a relative measurement uncertainty of 4 parts per billion. In 1983, the metre was redefined in the International System of Units (SI) as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1&#8260;299,792,458 of a second. As a result, the numerical value of c in metres per second is now fixed exactly by the definition of the metre.[5]


I am not going into your side issue but you do bring up a valid point how good was the 1975 measurement was there an error.

I am a scientist if the nuetrino number holds up I also need to check an error was not made in the 1975 work.

Remember the discrepency is very small.

As I said tired light breaks QM it is completely inconsistant with it. So if you want to have tired light you now need to propose a theory to replace QM because light can't be Quantized in a way QM proposes anymore and I have a pile of observations and experiments that need explaining.

Hence tired light has exactly zero traction in science and why I was struggling to even find references to it except historic.


Edited by Orac (10/26/11 10:46 PM)
_________________________
QM crazy, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#41183 - 10/27/11 09:07 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Online   confused
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2925
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
Hence tired light has exactly zero traction in science and why I was struggling to even find references to it except historic.


Come back Bill 6, you must have something to sy about this!
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41306 - 11/02/11 09:23 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill 6 Offline
Member

Registered: 02/28/11
Posts: 74
Loc: Australia
I predicted, in the Australian metaphysics journal 'Exposure' (October-November, 1996), that particles, such as neutrinos, that are projected toward the Earth's centre of gravity will travel faster than light.

Top
#41307 - 11/02/11 10:32 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Bill S.]
Bill 6 Offline
Member

Registered: 02/28/11
Posts: 74
Loc: Australia
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
Hence tired light has exactly zero traction in science and why I was struggling to even find references to it except historic.

Come back Bill 6, you must have something to sy about this!

I'm not sure if I raised this point previously - if a beam of light is projected through a sheet of glass the latter heats up.

The energy content of the emitted beam will be lower than that of the original beam hence the beam has lost some of its energy to the medium.

Top
#41309 - 11/02/11 11:17 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Bill 6]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2090
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill 6
I'm not sure if I raised this point previously - if a beam of light is projected through a sheet of glass the latter heats up.

The energy content of the emitted beam will be lower than that of the original beam hence the beam has lost some of its energy to the medium.


We did this dance and I showed you that effect is real but the heat up is caused by the loss of total photons which become the heat.

What we see is identical energy photons come out the glass and missing photons which equal the heat. What we never see is photons coming out with less energy or as you would call them tired.

BTW what was the reasoning behind a nuetron fired at the earths core being faster than light?
_________________________
QM crazy, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#41311 - 11/03/11 02:24 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill 6 Offline
Member

Registered: 02/28/11
Posts: 74
Loc: Australia
Originally Posted By: Orac

We did this dance and I showed you that effect is real but the heat up is caused by the loss of total photons which become the heat.

What we see is identical energy photons come out the glass and missing photons which equal the heat. What we never see is photons coming out with less energy or as you would call them tired.

On the assumption that we have already done this dance, my response would most likely have been the same - when the atoms of the medium absorb the photons it is my understanding that the atoms then emit their own photons.

I see nothing there which indicates that the atoms totally absorb some of the photons.

If the increased temperature of the medium is due to a loss of total photons then the emitted light would incur a reduction in intensity.

In order for us to see that the emitted photons are of the same frequency as the original beam we would have to determine the frequency of both beams however the difference between them would be minimal to the point of being virtually indeterminable until we start talking about the considerable number of free atoms of matter scattered over vast tracts of space.

We have no way of determining the frequency of light emitted by distant stars before it traverses the distance to our location ergo we cannot claim conclusive evidence either way.

Originally Posted By: Orac
BTW what was the reasoning behind a nuetron fired at the earths core being faster than light?

(Incidentally, it is only faster than a horizontally emitted beam of light not faster than a beam that is traveling in the same direction.)

When a beam of sub-atomic particles is accelerated horizontally much of the accelerative force is required for no other reason than to overcome the particles' increasing relativistic mass whereas if the beam is projected vertically the planet's gravitational field is aiding the acceleration.

Top
#41312 - 11/03/11 02:57 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Bill 6]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2090
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill 6

On the assumption that we have already done this dance, my response would most likely have been the same - when the atoms of the medium absorb the photons it is my understanding that the atoms then emit their own photons.

I see nothing there which indicates that the atoms totally absorb some of the photons.

If the increased temperature of the medium is due to a loss of total photons then the emitted light would incur a reduction in intensity.

In order for us to see that the emitted photons are of the same frequency as the original beam we would have to determine the frequency of both beams however the difference between them would be minimal to the point of being virtually indeterminable until we start talking about the considerable number of free atoms of matter scattered over vast tracts of space.

We have no way of determining the frequency of light emitted by distant stars before it traverses the distance to our location ergo we cannot claim conclusive evidence either way.


Again as I said at the time we should be able to do this in the lab which we don't see. I would do it tomorrow if it were true Bill 6 ... nobel prize awaits me if I could prove it true.

Alas as much as you want it to be true to make some observation on cosmology work for you it is not so.

Now your never going to believe me because when we did this dance last time you then went to some sort of science conspiracy theory.

All I can say is I personally don't care if it is true or not, I have no vested interest either way. Unfortunately if I test it comes out false.


Originally Posted By: Bill 6

(Incidentally, it is only faster than a horizontally emitted beam of light not faster than a beam that is traveling in the same direction.)

When a beam of sub-atomic particles is accelerated horizontally much of the accelerative force is required for no other reason than to overcome the particles' increasing relativistic mass whereas if the beam is projected vertically the planet's gravitational field is aiding the acceleration.


Okay I can see the logic behind that so you are extending normal Newtonial principles.


Edited by Orac (11/03/11 02:59 AM)
_________________________
QM crazy, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#41314 - 11/03/11 03:16 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill 6 Offline
Member

Registered: 02/28/11
Posts: 74
Loc: Australia
Originally Posted By: Orac
when we did this dance last time you then went to some sort of science conspiracy theory.

And even a vague reference to same suffices to ridicule a person's submissions.

Top
#41315 - 11/03/11 05:05 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Bill 6]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2090
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill 6
And even a vague reference to same suffices to ridicule a person's submissions.


There was no riducle intended it was more a statement of what happened.

If you have a claim of some experiment you feel will show something important I am offering to help make it happen if it is within my power.

Certainly therefore to claim that science is conspiring is a falacy we love controversy, well I do personally perhaps there is such thing as establishment although most I know love when we get something we can't explain.
_________________________
QM crazy, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#41476 - 11/15/11 09:25 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2090
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
As a stroke of luck I happened to be reading background for something entirely different on Lubos's website and notice what he posted.

The rumour mill has it the results from those pesky Nuetrinos second run are in and to be released within 2 days ... and even at 2ns spacing between batches they are superluminal on the current testing.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/11/opera-neutrinos-ftl-even-at-3-ns.html?

This one is going to get some head scratching from scientists ... break out the popcorn, barbeque and sausages ... physics for the next few weeks is going to get interesting.
_________________________
QM crazy, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#41532 - 11/18/11 12:44 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2090
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
_________________________
QM crazy, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#41537 - 11/18/11 09:27 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 1386
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Well, that certainly makes things more interesting. I still have my doubts about it, but I don't have the skills to actually critique their results. Of course the final decision on whether they are traveling faster than light will wait for somebody else to come up with the same thing using a different experiment. In the mean time a lot of people will be running around trying to explain it away, or come up with some kind of theory to match it.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#41539 - 11/18/11 04:52 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Online   confused
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2925
Loc: Essex, UK
"those pesky Nuetrinos" made it onto the 6pm (GMT) news on Classic FM, today. I guess they are escaping from the realms of science.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41540 - 11/18/11 06:36 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 1386
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
I checked "Starts With a Bang" just now and Ethan has a link to this site About superluminal neutrinos. This writer has another take on the subject. I haven't followed all of his links yet, so I don't know for sure what he is going on about. He seems to think that it has been established that the neutrinos may be making a very short run at very large superluminal velocities, then slowing to a more natural speed. I really need to check his links to see if I can make head or tales of it. Maybe tomorrow.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >



Moderator:  Amaranth Rose II, Kate, Mike Kremer 
Newest Members
Gareth, hussen, charliechucks7, tom, albert
700 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

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

Copyright © 1998 - 2013 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.