Hi Dave, Well, some great physicists don't believe it. And I've read a comment by another who says this wouldn't upend relativity but require a "patch" for an unusual circumstance, just as Newtonian physics wasn't invalidated -- for the most part -- by Einstein. Best wishes, Joe ________________________________ From: Dave Gary <davegary@me.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Faster than the Speed of Light Joe, This would be revolutionary, indeed. So, according to special relativity and assuming that flavor changes occur with neutrinos (Kamiokande II results), i.e., neutrinos have a rest mass, neutrinos would have to acquire infinite energy to achieve light speed or beyond. Special relativity would fall and we’re back to square one. Is there a luminiferous ether? To me, these results are akin to finding that conservation of energy and mass are invalid. Pretty mind blowing. Neutrinos have been in the news, lately. I’m thinking our understanding of the weak force leaves something to be desired. Now, I know how those guys felt 100 years ago with the strange results of quantum mechanics. Everything I’ve learned and assimilated for the past 50 years in terms of particle physics may be hokum. Bummer. Joe, I’m too old for this. My mantra is: change is bad. On Sep 23, 2011, at 9:50 PM, Joe Bauman wrote:
Let's not forget that an enormous number of tests has been run with the world's best accelerator and timing expertise, with the distance calculated to within 20 cm. over 7,000 km. It's hard to know how to do the experiment better. Fermilab had somewhat similar results in the past but wasn't as sophisticated as CERN so it couldn't get results that were detailed enough to announce. But it is an indication, I think. I agree with Patrick: a lot of physicists may be thinking, it can't be true, therefore it isn't. -- Joe
________________________________ From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:42 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Faster than the Speed of Light
Exciting stuff.
I exchanged emails with a physics friend at the U. He is a theoretical physicist and, like some have said here, he wonders if the effect will disappear with further measurements.
Now with all this that's being made with Einstein being questioned I wonder if there was a similar feeling in the science community back when Einstein first questioned Newton.
patrick
On 23 Sep 2011, at 14:36, Joe Bauman wrote:
Actually, the effect wasn't small in terms of the needed level of scientific proof. It was far beyond the margin of error, to the point at which it would have been declared an official discovery if hadn't seemed so preposterous. The result was duplicated by CERN. It didn't happen just once; the experiments were repeated over several years. The scientists aren't just now starting to hedge their wording with statements like "it appears." They were so baffled by this that they wanted other laboratories to try it themselves; they always had their questions about its validity but could not find anything wrong with the experiment, even with the most careful possible measurements and checks. Fermilab immediately said they would try it too; years ago they had a similar finding but their measurements weren't as precise as CERN's and they couldn't verify it beyond their margin of error.
The CERN web page says:
"The OPERA result is based on the observation of over 15000 neutrino events measured at Gran Sasso, and appears to indicate that the neutrinos travel at a velocity 20 parts per million above the speed of light, nature’s cosmic speed limit. Given the potential far-reaching consequences of such a result, independent measurements are needed before the effect can either be refuted or firmly established. This is why the OPERA collaboration has decided to open the result to broader scrutiny."
Also, I vividly remember the discovery of a supernova -- later I found it was the big, close one in 1987 -- where a bombardment of neutrinos showed up before the light. At the time, if I recall correctly, the explanation was that the neutrinos must have been emitted in the first stage of the star's collapse, with the light shooting out a little later. But what if both neutrinos and light blasted out at the same time? It could serve to reinforce the argument that CERN really did measure motion at higher speeds than light.
Just because a finding is incompatible with present understanding doesn't mean it's wrong. We shouldn't equate these top-flight physicists at CERN with dumbbells who believe in the Myan mumbo jumbo.
-- Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php