Neutrino timing
Fascinating stories. It looks like they covered all the bases, so if
correct, then it should have a big impact on physics. I can only
conclude one of the following:
- There is some undiscovered measurement error or effect that
accounts for the discrepancy. - The data are correct and the neutrinos can exceed c, or distort
space-time so that it appears that way. - Neutrinos actually do interact with matter more than supposed, and
in unusual ways. This would mean that rock would have a negative
index of refraction to neutrinos.
It's too bad the equipment has to be gigantic. If the beam line could
be built vertically, it could be fired through the entire earth
instead, to a detector on the opposite side, getting about sixteen
times more distance. I wonder what the beam dispersion is for those things.
Ed
It's too bad the equipment has to be gigantic. If the beam line could be
built vertically, it could be fired through the entire earth instead, to a
detector on the opposite side, getting about sixteen times more distance. I
wonder what the beam dispersion is for those things.
Sounds like a good excuse to build a moon base...
Brent
When I first heard of this, I had a thought for a 4th explanation:
It seems likely, given everything we know, that neutrinos have a
very-small, but non-zero mass. Part of the point of this experiment was
to try to get a better idea of what what mass is. We've always assumed
it was very small, non-zero and positive. What happens if it's
very-small, non-zero, and negative?
Rick
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:06:40 -0700, ed breya wrote:
Fascinating stories. It looks like they covered all the bases, so if
correct, then it should have a big impact on physics. I can only
conclude one of the following:
- There is some undiscovered measurement error or effect that
accounts for the discrepancy. - The data are correct and the neutrinos can exceed c, or distort
space-time so that it appears that way. - Neutrinos actually do interact with matter more than supposed, and
in unusual ways. This would mean that rock would have a negative
index
of refraction to neutrinos.
It's too bad the equipment has to be gigantic. If the beam line could
be built vertically, it could be fired through the entire earth
instead, to a detector on the opposite side, getting about sixteen
times more distance. I wonder what the beam dispersion is for those
things.
Ed
My bet is on an experimental error. That is the safe bet. I hope I
loose because this being real faster than light neutrinos would be a
lot of fun.
If true my off the cuff guess is that this proves the existence of
dimensions higher than four. These are tiny and some closed shape.
most mater takes some long path through these and all the particles
that do interact, neutrinos don't take the long path and thereby
"miss" most mater and don't interact with it. Either they don't move
in that dimension or they take a bee-line
Under special relatively the speed of all particles is a constant, C
(This is why nothing can exceed C because everything in the universe
moves at constant speed (not constant velocity) of C. If the
Neutrinos really are "fast" then my guess is that the constant C holds
in more than four dimension. So this result would not disprove
Einstein, it would generalize the theory to n>4 dimensions.
The neutrinos, like every other particle pin the universe are moving
at exactly C through 10-space. (OK I guessed at the number 10 but
n-space where n>4)
I think this has to be the simplest possible explanation. "Short path
through dimensions > 4 explains both the apparent faster than light
speed (that is not faster than C in n-space) and why neutrinos don't
interact with matter very much. I'm sure I'm not the first to think
of this. It fall out obviously if you let N be > 4
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:06 PM, ed breya eb@telight.com wrote:
Fascinating stories. It looks like they covered all the bases, so if
correct, then it should have a big impact on physics. I can only conclude
one of the following:
- There is some undiscovered measurement error or effect that accounts for
the discrepancy. - The data are correct and the neutrinos can exceed c, or distort
space-time so that it appears that way. - Neutrinos actually do interact with matter more than supposed, and in
unusual ways. This would mean that rock would have a negative index of
refraction to neutrinos.
It's too bad the equipment has to be gigantic. If the beam line could be
built vertically, it could be fired through the entire earth instead, to a
detector on the opposite side, getting about sixteen times more distance. I
wonder what the beam dispersion is for those things.
Ed
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
--
Chris Albertson
Redondo Beach, California
Le 25/10/2011 03:51, Rick Thomas a écrit :
When I first heard of this, I had a thought for a 4th explanation:
It seems likely, given everything we know, that neutrinos have a
very-small, but non-zero mass. Part of the point of this experiment
was to try to get a better idea of what what mass is. We've always
assumed it was very small, non-zero and positive. What happens if
it's very-small, non-zero, and negative?
Rick
I like this one. Or what about an imaginary mass. in this case v would
always be above c.
On 10/25/2011 10:48 AM, mike cook wrote:
Le 25/10/2011 03:51, Rick Thomas a écrit :
When I first heard of this, I had a thought for a 4th explanation:
It seems likely, given everything we know, that neutrinos have a
very-small, but non-zero mass. Part of the point of this experiment
was to try to get a better idea of what what mass is. We've always
assumed it was very small, non-zero and positive. What happens if it's
very-small, non-zero, and negative?
Rick
I like this one. Or what about an imaginary mass. in this case v would
always be above c.
The traditional formula would not make a speed difference due to the
sign of the mass, but imaginary mass would. That would be a bit of
extrapolation out of a single formula. Then again, so much of the
quantum world is a mix of read and imaginary numbers, so why not an odd
mass case. That would however change a lot, but it would indeed keep the
theoretical physics occupied quite a bit. That's the definition of the
experimental physics work-description... find out things for the
theorists to figure out... :)
Cheers,
Magnus
On 10/25/2011 07:06 AM, Chris Albertson wrote:
My bet is on an experimental error. That is the safe bet. I hope I
loose because this being real faster than light neutrinos would be a
lot of fun.
If true my off the cuff guess is that this proves the existence of
dimensions higher than four. These are tiny and some closed shape.
most mater takes some long path through these and all the particles
that do interact, neutrinos don't take the long path and thereby
"miss" most mater and don't interact with it. Either they don't move
in that dimension or they take a bee-line
Under special relatively the speed of all particles is a constant, C
(This is why nothing can exceed C because everything in the universe
moves at constant speed (not constant velocity) of C. If the
Neutrinos really are "fast" then my guess is that the constant C holds
in more than four dimension. So this result would not disprove
Einstein, it would generalize the theory to n>4 dimensions.
The neutrinos, like every other particle pin the universe are moving
at exactly C through 10-space. (OK I guessed at the number 10 but
n-space where n>4)
I think this has to be the simplest possible explanation. "Short path
through dimensions> 4 explains both the apparent faster than light
speed (that is not faster than C in n-space) and why neutrinos don't
interact with matter very much. I'm sure I'm not the first to think
of this. It fall out obviously if you let N be> 4
It opens up several issues. Can we say that neutrinos have a meaningful
interaction such that dielectric constant for instance is relevant. What
if the speed of light is relevant only as a interaction slowed down
variant of the speed of particles, where neutrinos has higher speed due
to less interactions.
What if neutrinos only have apparent mass?
If the experiment checks out in all its aspects, it could prove
important to re-evaluate results and we might get a better view of what
needs to go into a GUT.
When studying the electron, don't forget to integrate over the
surrounding universe to understand it's properties (as Feynman did in
his early works). It has it's properties in context of the universe,
which it constantly interacts with.
In short, neutrinos may still have a few important things to teach us.
Cheers,
Magnus
El 25/10/2011 18:39, Magnus Danielson escribió:
The traditional formula would not make a speed difference due to the
sign of the mass, but imaginary mass would. That would be a bit of
extrapolation out of a single formula. Then again, so much of the
quantum world is a mix of read and imaginary numbers, so why not an
odd mass case. That would however change a lot, but it would indeed
keep the theoretical physics occupied quite a bit. That's the
definition of the experimental physics work-description... find out
things for the theorists to figure out... :)
And an imaginary mass would imply and imaginary energy (in the sense of
complex number with no real part... :) ) and that would imply also that
lower energy neutrinos (in module value) would be faster. Sounds fun :)
Regards,
Javier
I wonder if the idea of mass (and other properties) being an complex
number is not exactly equivalent to an assumption of there being more
than 4 dimensions. I think it's two sides of the same coin. What we
see is as the real component is just the vector projected onto the
dimensions we can perceive. The component that is "perpendicular" to
the four perceived dimensions we call "imaginary". So IMO, "complex
number" and "extra dimension" are the same thing. We need not choose
one interpretation over the other. So, if one is proven to be the
case then is is the other
I think there are two decision points people will have to make.
Decision trees are useful. We can go a few layers deep and not have
to know which options are in fact true.
-
Is this an experiential error? If "yes" then we can all forget
about this if "no" then...... -
Is C a universal speed limit? Given that we did not stop a #1 if C
is a limit becomes a religious issue and you can flip a coin or you
can simply define C as the limit. In other words you now have to
decide but have no rational reason for going either way. So you have
two options (given you did not stop at #1 above)
2.1 The NO option: Clearly C is not a limit because we have observed
something that goes faster on a large macroscopic scale. We must
accept that there might be some even more exotic particles that are
even faster than Neutrinos and maybe interact even less with matter
than neutrinos. If so now we have a real problem. Quantum
weirdness is OK if we confine it to the microscopic world but now it
has leaked out to the macro world and it will take down Einstein.
Once you toss out the speed limit much else goes with it. I guess
you've have to allow time to run backwards for anything that can
outrun C.
2.2 The YES Option: Yes C is still the limit because we observe
neutrino velocity and photon velocity only after each projected onto
4-space from n-space where n>4. So C's magnitude must be a little
faster then we thought because we only observe C's real component.
This does not change much. It proves what many people have suspected
but an air-tight proof of higher dimensions pushes the Copernican
revolution yet further along.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Magnus Danielson
magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org wrote:
The traditional formula would not make a speed difference due to the sign of
the mass, but imaginary mass would. That would be a bit of extrapolation out
of a single formula. Then again, so much of the quantum world is a mix of
read and imaginary numbers, so why not an odd mass case. That would however
change a lot, but it would indeed keep the theoretical physics occupied
quite a bit. That's the definition of the experimental physics
work-description... find out things for the theorists to figure out... :)
Cheers,
Magnus
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
--
Chris Albertson
Redondo Beach, California
Javier,
On 10/25/2011 07:50 PM, Javier Herrero wrote:
El 25/10/2011 18:39, Magnus Danielson escribió:
The traditional formula would not make a speed difference due to the
sign of the mass, but imaginary mass would. That would be a bit of
extrapolation out of a single formula. Then again, so much of the
quantum world is a mix of read and imaginary numbers, so why not an
odd mass case. That would however change a lot, but it would indeed
keep the theoretical physics occupied quite a bit. That's the
definition of the experimental physics work-description... find out
things for the theorists to figure out... :)
And an imaginary mass would imply and imaginary energy (in the sense of
complex number with no real part... :) ) and that would imply also that
lower energy neutrinos (in module value) would be faster. Sounds fun :)
Exactly, remember where you heard it first ;)
Once the imaginary axis is introduced, you can also expect complex
numbers for mass. But really, it is not the explanation I would expect
to turn out true.
So, we have at least two neutrino-machines to verify the time on. But
really, I would not expect that we would provide evidence which the
world of physics would accept, but possibly provide a report giving
sufficient insight on how these things works. Mostly because it would be
a good opportunity to explain it to fellow time-nuts.
Cheers,
Magnus