Hi Joan, That may well be re. 1987A -- maybe the flare was seen first and then scientists checked neutrino detectors to see if a wave of them had hit. But the pertinent fact is that the neutrinos arrived on Earth three hours before the light. Still, when I watched the video explanation of this latest neutrino finding from CERN, the presenting scientist brushed over the supernova saying results with it were negative. It seemed to have no bearing, for whatever reason. So I am a little confused about it. Also, I gather many scientists are heartily skeptical of the CERN finding. Having watched the long seminar -- and having no expertise in the matter -- I'm convinced that these high-powered scientists at the world's most sophisticated accelerator know what they're doing. Thanks, Joe ________________________________ From: "jcarman6@q.com" <jcarman6@q.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:23 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Faster than the Speed of Light Joe, Help me on my memory on this one. As I recall, 1987A was discovered and then they checked and discovered the increase in neutrinos and put two and two together. 1987A had been "shining" for who knows how long before the humanoids noticed it. Still, its an intrigueing prospect that maybe the neutrino's really did get here before the light. That was certainly the impression that was left on my mind. I agree, as I read the article Nancy linked - the measurement was outside the margin of error and they had repeated it before announcing it. Fermilab had some similar findings a few years back, but they were not outside the margin of error. In all fairness CERN didn't make this announcement just for kicks. Their reputation is on the line and this is a big leap. Although it is such a small fraction above the speed limit, it makes you wonder what else is possible. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Bauman" <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 2:36:22 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Faster than the Speed of Light 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 ________________________________ From: "erikhansen@thebluezone.net" <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Faster than the Speed of Light
The beauty of science, their results will have to be duplicated before they are excepted.
We never seem to learn on these things. Already they are starting to
hedge the wording with "it appears" and "if it's true". The effect is so small that it could easily be a simple calibration error. But we have Chicken Little running around yelling that the sky is falling. It could easily be an over eager publicity hungry researcher successfully manipulating a gullible news media. Remember Cold Fusion? The inability to recreate the results was a long drawn out process and the news media didn't have the attention span to follow it through. So some people still believe in it.
Remember quantuum entanglement? It was supposed to give us faster than light communications and transponder beams. It hasn't happened and really the initial science never claimed what the hype presented as solid fact. No wonder we have to deal with UFO and Mayan calendar speculations when we try to educate the public on the science of Astronomy. DT From: Jay Eads <jayleads@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Faster than the Speed of Light
Nice catch Nancy. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:26 AM, <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
Sounds like even the CERN folks think there was a some sort of error. Stay tuned I guess.
For those who haven't read this yet. Neutrinos have been clocked faster
than the speed of light.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44629271/ns/technology_and_science-science/
Nancy
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jay Eads _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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