Re: [Utah-astronomy] Faster than the Speed of Light
Bill, Thanks for raising this. It is something I was unaware of, and am not up to speaking to. From internet chatter about their presentation, I understand the CERN scientists made a reference to tunneling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light http://www.aei.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/FTL/tunnelingftl.html My own preliminary Oczam's Razor question about their presentation is how the CERN scientists compensated for the known faster-then-light effect associated with the refractive index (which I also posted about upthread) when light passes through a solid substance. They passed their signal through the Earth's crust, which is composed of many different materials. How did the CERN researchers compensate for the unknown composition of materials? That would be a simple Oczam's Razor explanation for their results. - Clear Skies, Kurt P.S. - For other readers. If I understand this correctly, quantum tunneling means that under Heisenberg uncertainty principle, a small number of particles in any interaction will violate classical rules of mechanics. Thus, light or radiation can be shot at a thick wall and by classical mechanics, all the particles should reflect off the wall. But under the uncertainty principle, a very small number of particles will violate classical mechanics and will pass through the wall. Extending this uncertainty idea by analogy to Einstein's light barrier and the assumption of normal space-time, all particles should not exceed c when transiting a vacum of normal space, but under quantum tunneling, a small number of light particles might violate the natural laws of physics for ordinary space and arrive early. One hypothetical method by which particles would circumvent those natural laws would be to transit another dimension. P.P.S. - Which is an example of cosmology and quantum physics gives me a headache and I try to stick with observation astronomy!
That's an excellent question too. One for which I have no answer nor even hypothesis. On 9/27/2011 3:55 PM, Canopus56 wrote:
Bill,
Thanks for raising this. It is something I was unaware of, and am not up to speaking to. From internet chatter about their presentation, I understand the CERN scientists made a reference to tunneling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light http://www.aei.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/FTL/tunnelingftl.html
My own preliminary Oczam's Razor question about their presentation is how the CERN scientists compensated for the known faster-then-light effect associated with the refractive index (which I also posted about upthread) when light passes through a solid substance. They passed their signal through the Earth's crust, which is composed of many different materials. How did the CERN researchers compensate for the unknown composition of materials? That would be a simple Oczam's Razor explanation for their results.
- Clear Skies, Kurt
P.S. - For other readers. If I understand this correctly, quantum tunneling means that under Heisenberg uncertainty principle, a small number of particles in any interaction will violate classical rules of mechanics. Thus, light or radiation can be shot at a thick wall and by classical mechanics, all the particles should reflect off the wall. But under the uncertainty principle, a very small number of particles will violate classical mechanics and will pass through the wall.
Extending this uncertainty idea by analogy to Einstein's light barrier and the assumption of normal space-time, all particles should not exceed c when transiting a vacum of normal space, but under quantum tunneling, a small number of light particles might violate the natural laws of physics for ordinary space and arrive early. One hypothetical method by which particles would circumvent those natural laws would be to transit another dimension.
P.P.S. - Which is an example of cosmology and quantum physics gives me a headache and I try to stick with observation astronomy!
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
On 9/27/11, Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote:
My own preliminary Oczam's Razor question about their presentation is how the CERN scientists compensated for the known faster-then-light effect associated with the refractive index (which I also posted about upthread) when light passes through a solid substance. They passed their signal through the Earth's crust, which is composed of many different materials. How did the CERN researchers compensate for the unknown composition of materials? That would be a simple Oczam's Razor explanation for their results.
My understanding is that only photons are subject to classical refraction effects, not neutrinos.
I guess I haven't seen the presentation, but I thought the neutrinos were passed through the particle accelerator tunnel, not the Earth's crust, otherwise why did they dig that huge circle out? On a less serious note, here is an alternate explanation for the FTL neutrinos: http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2011/09/24/bored-neutrino-cant-get-out-of-switzer... Ian On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/27/11, Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote:
My own preliminary Oczam's Razor question about their presentation is how the CERN scientists compensated for the known faster-then-light effect associated with the refractive index (which I also posted about upthread) when light passes through a solid substance. They passed their signal through the Earth's crust, which is composed of many different materials. How did the CERN researchers compensate for the unknown composition of materials? That would be a simple Oczam's Razor explanation for their results.
My understanding is that only photons are subject to classical refraction effects, not neutrinos.
_______________________________________________ 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 neutrino experiment went through the Earth. There are some serious questions about it concerning the possibility of the scientists' not taking account of Earth's rotation regarding relativistic effects -- that is, frame rotation. I don't claim to understand it well and I personally am not confident about this new paper, but here it is: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6160 -- best wishes, Joe ________________________________ From: Ian Glenn <root.ibg@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:23 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Faster than the Speed of Light I guess I haven't seen the presentation, but I thought the neutrinos were passed through the particle accelerator tunnel, not the Earth's crust, otherwise why did they dig that huge circle out? On a less serious note, here is an alternate explanation for the FTL neutrinos: http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2011/09/24/bored-neutrino-cant-get-out-of-switzer... Ian On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/27/11, Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote:
My own preliminary Oczam's Razor question about their presentation is how the CERN scientists compensated for the known faster-then-light effect associated with the refractive index (which I also posted about upthread) when light passes through a solid substance. They passed their signal through the Earth's crust, which is composed of many different materials. How did the CERN researchers compensate for the unknown composition of materials? That would be a simple Oczam's Razor explanation for their results.
My understanding is that only photons are subject to classical refraction effects, not neutrinos.
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks for linking to the paper Joe. On 9/29/2011 4:14 PM, Joe Bauman wrote:
The neutrino experiment went through the Earth. There are some serious questions about it concerning the possibility of the scientists' not taking account of Earth's rotation regarding relativistic effects -- that is, frame rotation. I don't claim to understand it well and I personally am not confident about this new paper, but here it is: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6160 -- best wishes, Joe
________________________________ From: Ian Glenn<root.ibg@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy<utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:23 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Faster than the Speed of Light
I guess I haven't seen the presentation, but I thought the neutrinos were passed through the particle accelerator tunnel, not the Earth's crust, otherwise why did they dig that huge circle out?
On a less serious note, here is an alternate explanation for the FTL neutrinos:
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2011/09/24/bored-neutrino-cant-get-out-of-switzer...
Ian
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Chuck Hards<chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/27/11, Canopus56<canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote:
My own preliminary Oczam's Razor question about their presentation is how the CERN scientists compensated for the known faster-then-light effect associated with the refractive index (which I also posted about upthread) when light passes through a solid substance. They passed their signal through the Earth's crust, which is composed of many different materials. How did the CERN researchers compensate for the unknown composition of materials? That would be a simple Oczam's Razor explanation for their results. My understanding is that only photons are subject to classical refraction effects, not neutrinos.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
I read the original paper. I’m re-reading and still slogging through it. It’s interesting to say the least. What I find fascinating is that on page-20 (and in the "Conclusions" section on page-22) the experimental group found that δt did not depend on the neutrino energy. What? Am I reading that correctly? So, for a particle with a very small rest mass, that attains superluminal velocity, its energy content is independent of that process? That seems to stand to reason for a non-relativistic process, but it's a hard pill to swallow. Of course, they take the same approach as Newton when he was trying to decide what gravity, actually, was. The authors "feign no hypotheses" and do not attempt any interpretation of their results. Good move. They may end up as Pons and Fleischmann if they take too bold an approach. I haven't had a chance to read the other paper you reference. The one regarding frame rotation. That will have to wait as I need to read some of the other methods papers referenced in the above-mentioned paper to get a grip on some of the fundamentals of the experiment. There's something fundamentally wrong. I can feel it, as HAL would say. However, frame rotation, a general-relativistic effect, would seem ill-equipped to address a superluminal and, possibly, non-relativistic process. Of course, that's the big question. What is, truly, going on? I've always thought that the generalization of Special Relativity yielding a theory of gravity one of the most monumental achievements of the 20th century. Any century, come to think of it. I'm, basically, a creature of the 20th century. However, I feel like a dinosaur. Never say die. Become a fossil. Dave On Sep 29, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Joe Bauman wrote:
The neutrino experiment went through the Earth. There are some serious questions about it concerning the possibility of the scientists' not taking account of Earth's rotation regarding relativistic effects -- that is, frame rotation. I don't claim to understand it well and I personally am not confident about this new paper, but here it is: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6160 -- best wishes, Joe
________________________________ From: Ian Glenn <root.ibg@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:23 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Faster than the Speed of Light
I guess I haven't seen the presentation, but I thought the neutrinos were passed through the particle accelerator tunnel, not the Earth's crust, otherwise why did they dig that huge circle out?
On a less serious note, here is an alternate explanation for the FTL neutrinos:
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2011/09/24/bored-neutrino-cant-get-out-of-switzer...
Ian
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/27/11, Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote:
My own preliminary Oczam's Razor question about their presentation is how the CERN scientists compensated for the known faster-then-light effect associated with the refractive index (which I also posted about upthread) when light passes through a solid substance. They passed their signal through the Earth's crust, which is composed of many different materials. How did the CERN researchers compensate for the unknown composition of materials? That would be a simple Oczam's Razor explanation for their results.
My understanding is that only photons are subject to classical refraction effects, not neutrinos.
_______________________________________________ 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 (6)
-
Canopus56 -
Chuck Hards -
Dave Gary -
Ian Glenn -
Joe Bauman -
William Lockman