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
0 registered (), 85 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Scientist Boyd Bushman UFO interview
by Tutor Turtle
Yesterday at 10:46 AM
A WEEK AT THE MACKENZIE HEALTH CENTRE, MARKHAM, ON
by Revlgking
10/30/14 10:52 PM
Is_the_Universe finite or infinite?
by Bill S.
10/30/14 06:30 PM
Recent Developments in Solar Power
by Bill
10/30/14 11:50 AM
24h test - How heavy is ORAC's intelect
by newton
10/30/14 10:31 AM
Do we ask too much of time?
by pokey
10/29/14 05:01 PM
Top Posters (30 Days)
Bill S. 31
Orac 25
newton 24
Revlgking 22
Bill 17
Page 4 of 4 < 1 2 3 4
Topic Options
#41541 - 11/18/11 08:06 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2133
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I am quite familar with Sascha's view about pion's before they decay to nuetrinos. There are a few threads of support here and there but what is playing out loudly in my head is the original minos report of FTL nuetrinos.

The suggestion myself and a quite a few others have been suggesting is to lower the energy of the nuetrinos to as low as they can take them.

If the speed remains unchanged then the effect is clearly either a system error or something akin to what Sascha is suggesting.

If the speed is occuring through the nuetrino travel time the nuetrinos should slow down and move closer to the speed of light.

I keep seeing the graph by Tamburini and Laveder which simply plotted the data with no theoretical explaination.



Time to try plotting some new points are what most are saying.



Edited by Orac (11/18/11 08:07 PM)
_________________________
I hate QM, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
Of Interest?
#41545 - 11/19/11 09:37 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 1408
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Ok, I went over and read through Sascha's stuff. I can't say that I really understand what he is talking about, but I sort of followed his discussion based on the neutrinos "splashing" out of our brane into the bulk. The first thing that comes to my mind is that he assumes that the neutrinos all splash out. I don't see that myself. He compares it to an ocean wave that causes drops of water to splash out into the air, where they can travel faster than they could in the water. But I don't see how all of the neutrinos would splash out. I would think that some might, but not all of them, so that what would happen would be that the pulse would smear out, instead of just shortening the transit time.

He did say that he thinks it is probably just some sort of system error, but this is a possible mechanism to explain it if it isn't.

In the mean time we will have to keep on waiting to see if there are other experiments that will confirm the superluminal effect.

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

Top
#41557 - 11/20/11 04:02 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2962
Loc: Essex, UK
If the superluminal effect is confirmed, will these neutrinos be travelling backwards through time? If not, why not? If so, how can we observe them?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41559 - 11/20/11 05:43 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Bill S.]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 1408
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
I think the backwards in time thing is associated with tachyons, which are inherently superluminal. The solution posited by Sascha is a different matter. I'm not sure how much you know about string theory (or as I like to think of it string hypothesis), but there is an extension of string theory to what they call branes. These are multidimensional membranes that exist in a higher dimensional space, the bulk. According to this idea our universe exists in a 3-dimensional (plus time) brane, and we are stuck in this brane. One of Sascha's proposals is that the neutrinos may momentarily burst out of the brane into the bulk. The speed of light is higher in the bulk, so when they fall back into the brane they are further along than they would have been if they had stayed in the brane. He also has some other ways of doing the same thing but I didn't follow up on other things he might have listed.

Keep in mind that the string hypothesis is, as far as I am concerned, still just that. After working on it for over 30 years the string community still hasn't come up with a way to attach it to our universe, and they have no testable predictions. That is why I consider it a hypothesis rather than a theory.

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

Top
#41569 - 11/21/11 04:39 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2962
Loc: Essex, UK
Could be I go it wrong, but I thought that travelling backwards through time was something that went with FTL travel. Why might it apply to one thing, but not another?

The idea that the neutrinos might pop out of the brane for a moment does seem to require accepting quite a lot on faith. However, I shall have a look at Sascha's ideas.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41570 - 11/21/11 05:47 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Bill S.]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 1408
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Could be I go it wrong, but I thought that travelling backwards through time was something that went with FTL travel. Why might it apply to one thing, but not another?

The difference is that the neutrinos would still be traveling at or below light speed in the bulk, it is just that light speed in the bulk is much higher than light speed in the brane. So when they dropped back into the brane they would appear, to us, to have been traveling FTL.

Of course the whole idea of branes is speculative at present. You have to accept a lot of ideas that have not been shown to have anything to do with the real universe.

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

Top
#41832 - 12/18/11 10:42 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2962
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Johnnes Koelman
Will the ultimate trading package be available soon? If the neutrinos traveled at superluminal speeds, they must have arrived younger than when they were send away. Encoding current foreign exchange rates in superluminal neutrino packets would allow you to get access to future exchange rates. The ultimate trader's dream come tru?


Looks like someone, much better qualified than I, thinks the reversed time bit could be a problem.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41836 - 12/18/11 01:20 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Bill S.]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 1408
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
First of course are the obligatory ifs: If the results are upheld, and if the reason the neutrinos are getting there too soon is because they are jumping into the bulk, then:

I can think of no particular reason why there should be any time reversal during the passage of the neutrinos through the bulk. This is not the same thing as the proposed tachyon. The tachyon always travels faster than the speed of light. A particle traveling in the bulk would have no reason to travel faster than the speed of light. It is just that things, including light, travel faster in the bulk than they do in the brane. When the neutrinos jump into the bulk they would sped up, but not turn back in time. The light cone would presumably be pretty much the same. It might have a different slope, but I'm not enough of a physicist to be able to say much about that. Anyway after the neutrinos had traveled a short distance in the bulk something (gravity?) would pull them back into the brane, and they would just wind up have taken a sort of a short cut from the place they started to the place they ended up. You know, like getting off of the city streets and onto the freeway for a little way. If there isn't a back up on the freeway you may make better time than if you stopped at all the lights on the city street.

Now then, excluding the travel through the bulk situation. The idea of sending information back in time does run into the standard time travel paradox. The information would cause changes that would make the information false. Plus of course if they traveled back in time there would be a transfer of energy back in time. If that happened then it seems to me there would be a problem with the basics of QM. The uncertainty principle allows a certain amount of variation in the energy balance of the universe. I suppose that could allow very short time travel events, but I doubt if they could amount to as much as the 60 nS reported. 60 nS isn't much time, but compared to typical high energy reactions it is an enormous time. 60 nS is a long time compared to Planck time.

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

Top
#41837 - 12/18/11 03:01 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2962
Loc: Essex, UK
Bill, the first part of your explanation makes perfect sense, as long as you accept another "if": if string theory is correct.

As far as the second part is concerned; if the neutrinos are just taking a short cut, there would be no paradox; just the chance of a quicker way to share information, which would confer an advantage only until everyone could do it.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41842 - 12/18/11 08:50 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Bill S.]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 1408
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Well, in the quote you gave they specifically said that "they must have arrived younger than when they were send away". That certainly tells me that they were talking about traveling back in time. So they would be hit with the time travel paradox. And for that matter, even in that case the advantage would only exist as long as nobody else could do it.

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

Top
#41846 - 12/19/11 01:36 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2962
Loc: Essex, UK
In the end, I guess, it all comes down to interpretation.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42644 - 02/24/12 08:30 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

Top
#42646 - 02/24/12 10:18 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2133
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
A few jumped the gun there were actually two errors they found with the fibre optic cable connection of the GPS to the atomic clock.

One underestimates and the other overestimates and it's not easy to work out what the exact experimental change will be, no change at all is still within the possible outcomes as is removing the 60 ns error.

They are saying they won't actually know till they retest it and see if the changes to the atomic clock timing makes a difference.

Most are guessing since we have a system error the nuetrinos will behave but there is no guarantee :-)
.
_________________________
I hate QM, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#42647 - 02/24/12 12:05 PM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Originally Posted By: Orac

Most are guessing since we have a system error the nuetrinos will behave but there is no guarantee :-)
.


Good point.

Top
#42649 - 02/26/12 08:29 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2962
Loc: Essex, UK
Any idea when a retest is planned?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42650 - 02/26/12 08:59 AM Re: Superluminal nuetrinos? [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2962
Loc: Essex, UK
Bill, looking back through this thread I found your comments about light travelling faster in the bulk, and therefore the neutrinos, if they escaped into the bulk, not travelling FTL. This stirred past thoughts about gravitational lensing. Such thoughts are probably a bit off topic in this thread, so Im going to start another.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
Page 4 of 4 < 1 2 3 4



Moderator:  Amaranth Rose II, Kate, Mike Kremer 
Newest Members
Millias, donella07, Staley5536, mikehussey, Philep
713 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.