View Full Version here: : New test for faster than light neutrino experiment
29-10-2011, 01:35 AM
Just in from the BBC website
Two other teams are also going to do a test next year.
Ron. Very controversial and continues to create a lot of interest.
"Since September, more than 80 scientific papers about the finding have been posted to the arXiv pre-print server." That's science in action!
The new experimental regime should be more definitive. I'm excited about what the results will show. Will they confirm relativity or will we have to modify our view of the universe?
29-10-2011, 11:47 AM
If the redesigned experiment highlights in an issue over the original results analysis, there will be some interesting philosophical messages for scientists as well.
One of Rob's themes about the theory and models getting beyond the human mind to understand is an interesting point and at the moment, new results might turn out to be evidence in support of that conjecture.
Once again, we'll just have to wait and see …. very interesting.
29-10-2011, 01:14 PM
Thank you Ron if nothing else this has folk very excited.
Hi Ron, Craig, Alex and readers,
Rather than start a new thread, I thought it would be more appropriate to bump this one back up again.
New results still show faster than light neutrinos.
Article here ...
Not everyone is convinced.
18-11-2011, 03:38 PM
I have a firm memory of the then existing speed of light being 'wrong' outside the error bars in 1973! Never mind, a slight tweak and all is normal.
Neutrinos are very bad as solid evidence. They just will not stay in the dock giving evidence let alone being pinned down to a time and place! They are the least probable witnesses as they do not know where they were at the time or place! I will go back to elucidating Physics by random methods such as reading the idiots in the MSM!
18-11-2011, 04:49 PM
Thanks for the update, Ron. [Edit: 'Rob' .. not 'Ron' ...apologies to both for that].
Very interesting .. the plot thickens, eh ?
Accurate measurement of the transit time (or length) of the optical fibre between the receiver and the data collection point would seem to be a good idea ... all sorts of strange things can happen in systems between where data is generated, (in this case the receivers underground), and the data aggregation point. I haven't the foggiest idea about what an RPC is, but this may introduce other errors/discrepencies (??).
Oh well, looks like Mr Stanco is taking it 'slow and steady' .... mind you, it does start to look more exciting with each confirming development, eh ?
PS: Ooops !! I mean thanks for the update, Rob ... not Ron. Apologies to both for the typo ... :ashamed:
18-11-2011, 05:35 PM
More here. (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/faster-than-light-neutrinos-opera.html)
Even though the results have not convinced everyone yet, they seem somewhat firmer than before. It is possible a system error is common to the earlier and the current experimental run. But no-one's found it yet.
It certainly makes for exciting reading. Physicists everywhere will be looking for errors. I can't wait to see how it pans out!
18-11-2011, 07:31 PM
Neutrinos probably travel at the true "light speed" and the error is in the calculations for light speed. I know all you scientists that learnt your science out of books and other peoples work will want to shoot me down on this, but think about it!
25-11-2011, 08:43 AM
The absence of an increase in neutrino events at the Kamiokade-II detector in 1983 as a precursor to SN1987a refutes your argument.
The detector picked up an increase in neutrino activity hours before the discovery of SN1987a.
25-11-2011, 08:49 AM
25-11-2011, 09:19 AM
How will they if they aren't just repeating the same mistakes made in the original experiment? :)
Thanks for that.
And for those wanting an easier read ...
25-11-2011, 10:01 AM
The comments are interesting as well ;)
25-11-2011, 10:10 AM
Ok … I'm perplexed although, I concede I may be confusing sufficiently separable parts of the Standard Model.
From Rob's article, the detection of the neutrinos is actually inferred primarily from the actual detection of muons, and secondarily from various nuclei breaking into 'showers of light hadrons'. This interpretation is very much dependent on the Standard Model as the back-drop for the whole experiment. The power spectrum argument is then derived from the momenta distribution of the muons remaining following the decay of the neutrinos, (which results from them having given up their unit electric charges). This is also critically dependent on the Standard Model back-drop.
So then I read this article (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-year-higgs-particle-exclude.html) about the implications if the Higgs is not found next year. This guy, (Prof. Dr. Siegfried Bethke, Director at the Max Planck Institute of Physics in Munich), says of the implications of non-detection:
Ok … so we have a respected particle Physicist, (he is not alone in his prediction, either), saying that the entire 'Standard Model' may have to be scrapped if the Higgs is not discovered (which seems a little extreme, to me), and yet, all of the neutrino measurements, (and its counter arguments), are critically dependent on a solid Standard Model .. which seem to be not all that 'solid' at all !
Either the OPERA crowd will have to publically admit they don't know how to measure neutrino velocity at all, or if the Higgs is not discovered, they can point to the flawed Standard Model?
Is my interpretation too simplistic here? I seem to recall that the Electo-weak theory and Supersymmetry are at stake if the Higgs isn't found however, this guy seems to think the entire Standard Model will have to get the heave-ho !
What gives here?
25-11-2011, 11:12 AM
The neutrinos don't decay, they may oscillate between the electron, muon and tau neutrinos. The neutrino detection process involves part of the energy and momentum of the neutrino being transferred to the nuclei in the detector fluid resulting in the emittance of a Cherenkov type radiation.
The reaction is a result of the conservation of energy and momentum, not on the symmetry requirements of the Standard Model.
Incidentally neutrino oscillation cannot be explained by the Standard Model.
Scrapping the Standard Model seems somewhat of an overkill. The Standard Model is clearly incomplete, but theoretical predictions of the model led to a host of particle discoveries in the 70s and 80s. How does one explain the discoveries if the model is wrong?
The electroweak theory was built on the Higgs mechanism, but there are several models that preserve the theory without relying on the existence of Higgs bosons.
25-11-2011, 11:19 AM
It's a sad state that there are individuals out there who resent the intellectual capabilities of the gentleman and so therefore need to bring him down on the number of hyphens he uses. :shrug:
25-11-2011, 11:49 AM
Thanks for the clarifications there Steven .. it seems that using the Standard Model is almost inappropriate for just about anything to do with neutrinos … (eg: even explaining their mass !)
25-11-2011, 04:04 PM
The people I really hate are the lucid and rational. So I look carefully at their posts and if I find the slightest aberration I will castigate them for it so negating their lucidity and reason! Simple really. Wanna see some stolen emails?
25-11-2011, 05:28 PM
Neutrinos are a nightmare to the Standard model.
They participate in reactions that violate P-symmetry.
Neutrino oscillation violates CP-symmetry.
In our Universe only left handed neutrinos exist.
25-11-2011, 05:41 PM
I recall a maths tutor at Uni who had a psycho-pathological dislike of one of the undergrads. An assignment required a mathematical proof which was correctly handled by the student.
The tutor being unable to find any flaws in the proof marked down the student for using a biro that produced excessively thick lines.:(
Same principles apply.:lol:
25-11-2011, 05:53 PM
Sounds like my loony physics lab tutors …
One of them got violent whenever someone made a mistake. He was seemingly in practice for the Olympic 'Discus' throw and he exercised his right arm frequently on undergraduate exercise/lab experiment books.
25-11-2011, 06:08 PM
I didn't have time to go into more details this morning but it also seemed to me that the Cohen-Glashow concept relies on a theoretical Standard Model view of neutrino behaviours (which are hopelessly 'kludged' in the Standard Model).
The MSW effect looks interesting and relevant, as the propagation speed of neutrino through solid rock vs free space is different and leads to the conclusion of a variable effective neutrino mass (??)
The interpretation of this whole thing looks very complicated the more one goes into the history of neutrinos - ie: how the Standard Model has been adapted to explain them … and 'other' explanations conjured up to describe their behaviours every time a new behaviour is observed !
Tricky stuff ! .. And all with a mass of less than a couple of eV !
I reckon they'll be working on the answers to this one for years !
I wouldn't be holding my breath for an outcome soon !
25-11-2011, 08:42 PM
I gave a talk for thirty minutes on signal to noise in xray data collection and the relevant optics that improved the signal to noise at CSIRO. I thought I had dumbed it down enough. When I finished the sea of about one hundred people's faces were looking like stunned mulletts.
The only person who asked the first question was my supervisor. He looked as lost as the rest. It was then I realised that what I was doing was beyond their comprehension. I mumbled something about everything I have done is self evident.
From then on I was tagged with this epithet. Everything is self evident to Bert and yet we do not understand.
In labs far and wide when they had a major problem they would joke that the answer was self evident! Just ask Bert!
23-02-2012, 10:38 AM
Looks like neutrinos are NOT FTL.. after all. And they should clean their optical connectors more often.
23-02-2012, 12:46 PM
Typical jibe from the average guy. I ran into similar problems. In the end The bosses said "fix it and then tell us what you did"
The other common instruction to you about the opposition was don't tell them how to do it or they will get your job. I found like you that telling them was the best way to get them completely flamboozled and ensure you were irreplaceable.
PS back to neutrinos I said that neutrinos would be closest to the speed of light and there must be something wrong with the way they measured light. I still stand by this statement.
23-02-2012, 05:31 PM
That was funny. :lol:
23-02-2012, 08:58 PM
I had searched in vain for something, outside of politics, that would provide a simple illustration of the word Supercilious. I will be forwarding them to this particular forum in future.
24-02-2012, 01:14 AM
Or it could be a nice way of saying...."nothing to see here....please move on..." all the while they have found a way to make a FTL drive.....sorry I've been watching too many re-runs of SGU etc...
26-02-2012, 10:26 AM
Read follow up article. It is possible that bad optical cable connection would underestimate the anomalous speed of neutrinos.
26-02-2012, 11:03 AM
A mischievous neutrino named tau,
Noted Opera’s mathematical flaw,
So he led them astray
In a neutrino sort of way
And slipped in by means of the back door.
New update on faster-than-light neutrinos.
Looks like they "respect the cosmic speed limit"!
09-06-2012, 10:14 AM
Interesting,proves the scientific method works :)
10-06-2012, 12:07 AM
Nothing is faster than the phenoma we refer to as the speed light.
A flash of light at a given point in time appears everywhere at the same time. It is our concept of time and space that makes it seem different.
If there is a "thing" called a neutrino it must have mass of some value therefore it can never reach the speed of light. The same goes for the "photon"
I am not a scientist but I know this to be true but I can't explain why.
10-06-2012, 10:19 AM
Here is the explanation.
Suppose the neutrino mass is extremely small say 1 eV.
When the neutrinos reached the detector they had an energy of around 1 GeV according to the OPERA experiment.
Now 1 GeV/1eV = 10^9.
We can use this factor to calculate the theoretical speed of the neutrino by using the Lorentz factor in SR. The factor represents the increase in mass as the neutrino is accelerated towards the speed of light c.
1/(1-(v^2/c^2))^0.5 = 10^9
Solving for v gives v= 0.9999999999999999995c
The neutrinos travelled a distance of 732 km in the ICARUS experiment. The time difference between a neutrino travelling at 0.9999999999999999995c and c at this distance is 10^-12 nanoseconds.
This is way beyond the detection capability.
Rounding off errors results in neutrinos "travelling" at speed c.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.