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
It's all relative. (that is meant as a joke). or Can hyperdrive be far behind - You have to be a Star Trek person to appreciate that :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy Matro" <nancy.matro@gmail.com> To: Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 7:40:09 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Faster than the Speed of Light 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
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
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
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
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
Remember that they had similar results in 2007, and have been working since then to eliminate possible error. I'm willing to let peer review do it's thing before I start rolling my eyes, blaming the media, and pontificating. Hyperdrive is cool, but I'm hoping that if this turns out to have some credibility, it might give us insight into the nature of dark matter and dark energy- what the universe mostly consists of. It could also have trans-dimensional implications.
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
Here here! On Sep 23, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> 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
________________________________ 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
PS: A video of today's CERN seminar on the issue is here: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1384486 ________________________________ From: Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 2:36 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
Here's how I feel: http://xkcd.com/955/ Dan On Sep 23, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Joe Bauman wrote:
PS: A video of today's CERN seminar on the issue is here: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1384486
________________________________ From: Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 2:36 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
-- Daniel Holmes, danielh@holmesonics.com "Laugh while you can, monkey boy!" -- Lord John Whorfin
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
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
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
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
Hey, Patrick, I don't mind doing it with people who know what they mean -- but the general public doesn't, and if I use them for public consumption in a blog I should translate them into good old inches, miles, etc. -- Joe ________________________________ From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:56 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Faster than the Speed of Light (hot place just froze over) Congrats Joe! I think that's the first time I've seen you use modern units of measure. :) patrick On 23 Sep 2011, at 21:50, Joe Bauman wrote:
...with the distance calculated to within 20 cm. over 7,000 km...
_______________________________________________ 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
Methinks this is one giant standing on the shoulder of another giant. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Bauman" <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:50:33 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Faster than the Speed of Light 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
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
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
Here's the question I have. I haven't seen this addressed in anything I've read. The whole "nothing can travel faster than light" thing is addressing the speed at which stuff can travel /through/ space time. There is no rule against space time expanding or contracting faster than light. Apparently sometime during the early life of our universe, this happened, hence there are parts of our universe where the light hasn't gotten to us yet. So do they know the neutrinos really traveled through space time faster than light, or could neutrinos have some property that allows them to warp space time thus allowing them to get from point a to point b without actually moving that distance through space time? On 9/24/2011 8:51 AM, Dave Gary wrote:
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 weÂ’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. IÂ’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 IÂ’ve learned and assimilated for the past 50 years in terms of particle physics may be hokum. Bummer.
Joe, IÂ’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, natureÂ’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
Hi William, These particular neutrinos were sent on their way from CERN to a target in Italy some 7,000 km. away. The time they took to travel that distance is what's at issue, not the distance neutrinos traveled in cosmological a cosmological time frame. Best wishes, Joe ________________________________ From: William Lockman <lockman@aznex.net> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Faster than the Speed of Light Here's the question I have. I haven't seen this addressed in anything I've read. The whole "nothing can travel faster than light" thing is addressing the speed at which stuff can travel /through/ space time. There is no rule against space time expanding or contracting faster than light. Apparently sometime during the early life of our universe, this happened, hence there are parts of our universe where the light hasn't gotten to us yet. So do they know the neutrinos really traveled through space time faster than light, or could neutrinos have some property that allows them to warp space time thus allowing them to get from point a to point b without actually moving that distance through space time? On 9/24/2011 8:51 AM, Dave Gary wrote:
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
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
7000 Km is a short distance when traveling the speed of light, I guess it all gets down to the accuracy of timing. Kurt's post indicated we are talking about time differences that seem incredible to imagine and more importantly incredible to measure. His post also seems to indicate that neutrinos have been "clocked" faster than light rather routinely. The Uncertainty Principle comes to mind here.
I am not going yo throw my iPhone out quite yet. Hi William, These particular neutrinos were sent on their way from CERN to
a target in Italy some 7,000 km. away. The time they took to travel that distance is what's at issue, not the distance neutrinos traveled in cosmological a cosmological time frame. Best wishes, Joe
________________________________ From: William Lockman <lockman@aznex.net> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Faster than the Speed of Light
Here's the question I have. I haven't seen this addressed in anything I've read. The whole "nothing can travel faster than light" thing is addressing the speed at which stuff can travel /through/ space time. There is no rule against space time expanding or contracting faster than light. Apparently sometime during the early life of our universe, this happened, hence there are parts of our universe where the light hasn't gotten to us yet. So do they know the neutrinos really traveled through space time faster than light, or could neutrinos have some property that allows them to warp space time thus allowing them to get from point a to point b without actually moving that distance through space time?
On 9/24/2011 8:51 AM, Dave Gary wrote:
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 weâre 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. Iâm 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 Iâve learned and assimilated for the past 50 years in terms of particle physics may be hokum. Bummer.
Joe, Iâm 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, natureâs 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
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
But if the neutrinos have properties that allow them to either warp space or, more likely, make the trip in a series of short tunneling jumps through a tiny wormholes, they could have traveled from CERN to Italy without actually traveling the 7,000 km. They could get there before light without actually ever exceeding that speed limit because the distance the neutrinos actually went would be less than the distance we measured through our space time. It seems doubtful to me that we could have measured the tiny little tunneling events where the neutrinos took little shortcuts along the way. My only question is do they know for sure neutrinos can't tunnel or warp space time and that they actually traveled the entire distance? You don't even have to move very fast to get from point a to point b faster than a beam of light. If you had a reflector on the moon whereby you could shoot a laser beam (the laser and its on button at point a) at it and it would reflect the beam back to a point about a foot away from where you pushed the button on the laser to send the beam (point b), you could easily move your hand from the laser (point a) to the point to where the beam would reflect (point b) before the beam got there because the actual distance the beam traveled would be much longer than the distance your hand had to travel, yet your hand would never approach the speed of light. On 9/25/2011 11:49 AM, Joe Bauman wrote:
Hi William, These particular neutrinos were sent on their way from CERN to a target in Italy some 7,000 km. away. The time they took to travel that distance is what's at issue, not the distance neutrinos traveled in cosmological a cosmological time frame. Best wishes, Joe
________________________________ From: William Lockman<lockman@aznex.net> To: Utah Astronomy<utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Faster than the Speed of Light
Here's the question I have. I haven't seen this addressed in anything I've read. The whole "nothing can travel faster than light" thing is addressing the speed at which stuff can travel /through/ space time. There is no rule against space time expanding or contracting faster than light. Apparently sometime during the early life of our universe, this happened, hence there are parts of our universe where the light hasn't gotten to us yet. So do they know the neutrinos really traveled through space time faster than light, or could neutrinos have some property that allows them to warp space time thus allowing them to get from point a to point b without actually moving that distance through space time?
On 9/24/2011 8:51 AM, Dave Gary wrote:
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
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 (12)
-
Chuck Hards -
Daniel Holmes -
daniel turner -
Dave Gary -
erikhansen＠thebluezone.net -
Jay Eads -
jcarman6＠q.com -
Joe Bauman -
Josh M -
Nancy Matro -
Patrick Wiggins -
William Lockman