Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos
Joe, Take a look at this article. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.6562v1 Basically, superluminal neutrinos radiating via the same mechanism as Cerenkov radiation. These authors calculate that neutrinos reaching the detector would have an energy of ~12.5 GeV. The OPERA scientists report an average energy at the detector of 28.1 GeV. For now, I’m going with Sheldon’s calculation because it requires no change in my thinking. I hate change. Dave
Sadly this is the part of the process that the media will not cover. Instead the public is left with the memory of the sneering headlines about Einstein rolling in his grave. The anti-science blowhards still believe that "it's all just a theory" and that no one actually has to learn anything because it will just be out of date soon anyway. The confused public will hear their viewpoint and give it respect that it just doesn't deserve. And it's been happening for a century now. DT ________________________________ From: Dave Gary <davegary@me.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 7:45 AM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos Joe, Take a look at this article. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.6562v1 Basically, superluminal neutrinos radiating via the same mechanism as Cerenkov radiation. These authors calculate that neutrinos reaching the detector would have an energy of ~12.5 GeV. The OPERA scientists report an average energy at the detector of 28.1 GeV. For now, I’m going with Sheldon’s calculation because it requires no change in my thinking. I hate change. Dave _______________________________________________ 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
Yes, I read that earlier. I'm leaning toward the idea there may have been an error in the neutrino experiment, but I haven't made up my mind. And let's not act as if this announcement were quack science --it was made by a distinguished group of something on the order of 150 physicists who made extremely careful measurements and then asked the rest of the scientific world to check their experiment. If there were any sneering headlines I didn't see them. Some scientists said if this were true, it wouldn't invalidate Einstein's theories, but require an extension for certain extreme conditions -- a patch. People with two great accelerators, in Japan and Illinois, are taking the discovery seriously enough to shift their attention to validating or invalidating it. When I read Glashow's analysis, I couldn't understand the math, of course, but my impression was that he said it couldn't be true because it couldn't happen. There are other strong arguments against it, but then there may be experimental evidence for it. So it's just not settled yet. Do not dump this experiment in the wastebasket of pseudoscience along with cold fusion. That's an insult to a great many scientists who spent years carrying out a sophisticated experiment with diligence, extremely precise equipment and careful double-checking. We should know within a couple of years if they were right; meanwhile, remember that America's own Fermilab had similar results years ago but lacked precise enough equipment to confirm them. -- Joe ________________________________ From: daniel turner <outwest112@yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos Sadly this is the part of the process that the media will not cover. Instead the public is left with the memory of the sneering headlines about Einstein rolling in his grave. The anti-science blowhards still believe that "it's all just a theory" and that no one actually has to learn anything because it will just be out of date soon anyway. The confused public will hear their viewpoint and give it respect that it just doesn't deserve. And it's been happening for a century now. DT ________________________________ From: Dave Gary <davegary@me.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 7:45 AM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos Joe, Take a look at this article. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.6562v1 Basically, superluminal neutrinos radiating via the same mechanism as Cerenkov radiation. These authors calculate that neutrinos reaching the detector would have an energy of ~12.5 GeV. The OPERA scientists report an average energy at the detector of 28.1 GeV. For now, I’m going with Sheldon’s calculation because it requires no change in my thinking. I hate change. Dave _______________________________________________ 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
Here we go again! What CERN did (or didn't do) is mind numbing, time to rethink a few things time. The naysayers are starting to have their day. This is "peer review" at its ugliest. You would think that scientists - all dedicated researchers looking to push back the envelope - would be on the same page, but not so. It is the same thing that happened with Pluto. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... It might be a goose or a swan, but it is not a cat or a dog. When the researchers started finding KBOs back in the early nineties, the issue of Pluto's status was on the horizon, but then, it always has been. Pluto has (pardon the pun) always been an odd duck. It was extra-ordinary, never fitting anywhere. When the similiarites between KBOs and Pluto got too much to ignore, rather than scientists getting together to push back the envelope, the "fit hit the shan." Learned men - scientists - respectable people, fought tooth and nail not to change the thinking about Pluto. The meeting of the IAU was as divided as the U.S. Congress. Thus we have the silly "definition of dwarf planet." It was and still is embarrassing. So here we go again. I am willing to sit back and let the scientists go at it. If CERN is wrong, I certainly want to know about it. But I don't intend to say - no way couldn't happen. Unfortunately, this may turn into a Pluto circus, which is all the more embarrasing to me, because I often see myself as the go-between science and the lay public. What do I tell people? If there are people who are really interested in understanding and learning this, how do I explain to them that learned, intelligent, cream of the crop scientists are finger pointing and fighting like cats and dogs. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Bauman" <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 12:28:50 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos Yes, I read that earlier. I'm leaning toward the idea there may have been an error in the neutrino experiment, but I haven't made up my mind. And let's not act as if this announcement were quack science --it was made by a distinguished group of something on the order of 150 physicists who made extremely careful measurements and then asked the rest of the scientific world to check their experiment. If there were any sneering headlines I didn't see them. Some scientists said if this were true, it wouldn't invalidate Einstein's theories, but require an extension for certain extreme conditions -- a patch. People with two great accelerators, in Japan and Illinois, are taking the discovery seriously enough to shift their attention to validating or invalidating it. When I read Glashow's analysis, I couldn't understand the math, of course, but my impression was that he said it couldn't be true because it couldn't happen. There are other strong arguments against it, but then there may be experimental evidence for it. So it's just not settled yet. Do not dump this experiment in the wastebasket of pseudoscience along with cold fusion. That's an insult to a great many scientists who spent years carrying out a sophisticated experiment with diligence, extremely precise equipment and careful double-checking. We should know within a couple of years if they were right; meanwhile, remember that America's own Fermilab had similar results years ago but lacked precise enough equipment to confirm them. -- Joe ________________________________ From: daniel turner <outwest112@yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos Sadly this is the part of the process that the media will not cover. Instead the public is left with the memory of the sneering headlines about Einstein rolling in his grave. The anti-science blowhards still believe that "it's all just a theory" and that no one actually has to learn anything because it will just be out of date soon anyway. The confused public will hear their viewpoint and give it respect that it just doesn't deserve. And it's been happening for a century now. DT ________________________________ From: Dave Gary <davegary@me.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 7:45 AM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos Joe, Take a look at this article. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.6562v1 Basically, superluminal neutrinos radiating via the same mechanism as Cerenkov radiation. These authors calculate that neutrinos reaching the detector would have an energy of ~12.5 GeV. The OPERA scientists report an average energy at the detector of 28.1 GeV. For now, I’m going with Sheldon’s calculation because it requires no change in my thinking. I hate change. Dave _______________________________________________ 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
I would use my voice of authority and say as you said, "that learned, intelligent, cream of the crop scientists are finger pointing and fighting like cats and dogs." I believe the lay public will understand that. ;-)
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 15:07:31 -0400 From: jcarman6@q.com To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos
Here we go again!
What CERN did (or didn't do) is mind numbing, time to rethink a few things time. The naysayers are starting to have their day. This is "peer review" at its ugliest. You would think that scientists - all dedicated researchers looking to push back the envelope - would be on the same page, but not so.
It is the same thing that happened with Pluto. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... It might be a goose or a swan, but it is not a cat or a dog. When the researchers started finding KBOs back in the early nineties, the issue of Pluto's status was on the horizon, but then, it always has been. Pluto has (pardon the pun) always been an odd duck. It was extra-ordinary, never fitting anywhere. When the similiarites between KBOs and Pluto got too much to ignore, rather than scientists getting together to push back the envelope, the "fit hit the shan." Learned men - scientists - respectable people, fought tooth and nail not to change the thinking about Pluto. The meeting of the IAU was as divided as the U.S. Congress. Thus we have the silly "definition of dwarf planet." It was and still is embarrassing.
So here we go again. I am willing to sit back and let the scientists go at it. If CERN is wrong, I certainly want to know about it. But I don't intend to say - no way couldn't happen. Unfortunately, this may turn into a Pluto circus, which is all the more embarrasing to me, because I often see myself as the go-between science and the lay public. What do I tell people? If there are people who are really interested in understanding and learning this, how do I explain to them that learned, intelligent, cream of the crop scientists are finger pointing and fighting like cats and dogs.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Bauman" <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 12:28:50 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos
Yes, I read that earlier. I'm leaning toward the idea there may have been an error in the neutrino experiment, but I haven't made up my mind. And let's not act as if this announcement were quack science --it was made by a distinguished group of something on the order of 150 physicists who made extremely careful measurements and then asked the rest of the scientific world to check their experiment. If there were any sneering headlines I didn't see them. Some scientists said if this were true, it wouldn't invalidate Einstein's theories, but require an extension for certain extreme conditions -- a patch. People with two great accelerators, in Japan and Illinois, are taking the discovery seriously enough to shift their attention to validating or invalidating it. When I read Glashow's analysis, I couldn't understand the math, of course, but my impression was that he said it couldn't be true because it couldn't happen. There are other strong arguments against it, but then there may be experimental evidence for it. So it's just not settled yet. Do not dump this experiment in the wastebasket of pseudoscience along with cold fusion. That's an insult to a great many scientists who spent years carrying out a sophisticated experiment with diligence, extremely precise equipment and careful double-checking. We should know within a couple of years if they were right; meanwhile, remember that America's own Fermilab had similar results years ago but lacked precise enough equipment to confirm them. -- Joe
________________________________ From: daniel turner <outwest112@yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos
Sadly this is the part of the process that the media will not cover. Instead the public is left with the memory of the sneering headlines about Einstein rolling in his grave. The anti-science blowhards still believe that "it's all just a theory" and that no one actually has to learn anything because it will just be out of date soon anyway. The confused public will hear their viewpoint and give it respect that it just doesn't deserve.
And it's been happening for a century now.
DT
________________________________ From: Dave Gary <davegary@me.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 7:45 AM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos
Joe,
Take a look at this article. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.6562v1
Basically, superluminal neutrinos radiating via the same mechanism as Cerenkov radiation. These authors calculate that neutrinos reaching the detector would have an energy of ~12.5 GeV. The OPERA scientists report an average energy at the detector of 28.1 GeV. For now, I’m going with Sheldon’s calculation because it requires no change in my thinking. I hate change.
Dave _______________________________________________ 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
ROFL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Fisher" <iotacass1@hotmail.com> To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 1:14:04 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos I would use my voice of authority and say as you said, "that learned, intelligent, cream of the crop scientists are finger pointing and fighting like cats and dogs." I believe the lay public will understand that. ;-)
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 15:07:31 -0400 From: jcarman6@q.com To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos
Here we go again!
What CERN did (or didn't do) is mind numbing, time to rethink a few things time. The naysayers are starting to have their day. This is "peer review" at its ugliest. You would think that scientists - all dedicated researchers looking to push back the envelope - would be on the same page, but not so.
It is the same thing that happened with Pluto. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... It might be a goose or a swan, but it is not a cat or a dog. When the researchers started finding KBOs back in the early nineties, the issue of Pluto's status was on the horizon, but then, it always has been. Pluto has (pardon the pun) always been an odd duck. It was extra-ordinary, never fitting anywhere. When the similiarites between KBOs and Pluto got too much to ignore, rather than scientists getting together to push back the envelope, the "fit hit the shan." Learned men - scientists - respectable people, fought tooth and nail not to change the thinking about Pluto. The meeting of the IAU was as divided as the U.S. Congress. Thus we have the silly "definition of dwarf planet." It was and still is embarrassing.
So here we go again. I am willing to sit back and let the scientists go at it. If CERN is wrong, I certainly want to know about it. But I don't intend to say - no way couldn't happen. Unfortunately, this may turn into a Pluto circus, which is all the more embarrasing to me, because I often see myself as the go-between science and the lay public. What do I tell people? If there are people who are really interested in understanding and learning this, how do I explain to them that learned, intelligent, cream of the crop scientists are finger pointing and fighting like cats and dogs.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Bauman" <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 12:28:50 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos
Yes, I read that earlier. I'm leaning toward the idea there may have been an error in the neutrino experiment, but I haven't made up my mind. And let's not act as if this announcement were quack science --it was made by a distinguished group of something on the order of 150 physicists who made extremely careful measurements and then asked the rest of the scientific world to check their experiment. If there were any sneering headlines I didn't see them. Some scientists said if this were true, it wouldn't invalidate Einstein's theories, but require an extension for certain extreme conditions -- a patch. People with two great accelerators, in Japan and Illinois, are taking the discovery seriously enough to shift their attention to validating or invalidating it. When I read Glashow's analysis, I couldn't understand the math, of course, but my impression was that he said it couldn't be true because it couldn't happen. There are other strong arguments against it, but then there may be experimental evidence for it. So it's just not settled yet. Do not dump this experiment in the wastebasket of pseudoscience along with cold fusion. That's an insult to a great many scientists who spent years carrying out a sophisticated experiment with diligence, extremely precise equipment and careful double-checking. We should know within a couple of years if they were right; meanwhile, remember that America's own Fermilab had similar results years ago but lacked precise enough equipment to confirm them. -- Joe
________________________________ From: daniel turner <outwest112@yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos
Sadly this is the part of the process that the media will not cover. Instead the public is left with the memory of the sneering headlines about Einstein rolling in his grave. The anti-science blowhards still believe that "it's all just a theory" and that no one actually has to learn anything because it will just be out of date soon anyway. The confused public will hear their viewpoint and give it respect that it just doesn't deserve.
And it's been happening for a century now.
DT
________________________________ From: Dave Gary <davegary@me.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 7:45 AM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos
Joe,
Take a look at this article. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.6562v1
Basically, superluminal neutrinos radiating via the same mechanism as Cerenkov radiation. These authors calculate that neutrinos reaching the detector would have an energy of ~12.5 GeV. The OPERA scientists report an average energy at the detector of 28.1 GeV. For now, I’m going with Sheldon’s calculation because it requires no change in my thinking. I hate change.
Dave _______________________________________________ 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
On 10/1/11, Steve Fisher <iotacass1@hotmail.com> wrote:
I would use my voice of authority and say as you said, "that learned, intelligent, cream of the crop scientists are finger pointing and fighting like cats and dogs."
Cool. I've always wanted to spray particle physicists with the garden hose. A rolled-up newspaper will finish the job.
Another ROFL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Hards" <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 1:53:00 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos On 10/1/11, Steve Fisher <iotacass1@hotmail.com> wrote:
I would use my voice of authority and say as you said, "that learned, intelligent, cream of the crop scientists are finger pointing and fighting like cats and dogs."
Cool. I've always wanted to spray particle physicists with the garden hose. A rolled-up newspaper will finish the job. _______________________________________________ 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
Really!!! I heard rubbing their noses in it really doesn't work but I'm still willing to try. Steve
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 15:56:32 -0400 From: jcarman6@q.com To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos
Another ROFL
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Hards" <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 1:53:00 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos
On 10/1/11, Steve Fisher <iotacass1@hotmail.com> wrote:
I would use my voice of authority and say as you said, "that learned, intelligent, cream of the crop scientists are finger pointing and fighting like cats and dogs."
Cool. I've always wanted to spray particle physicists with the garden hose. A rolled-up newspaper will finish the job.
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (6)
-
Chuck Hards -
daniel turner -
Dave Gary -
jcarman6＠q.com -
Joe Bauman -
Steve Fisher