New test for faster than light neutrino experiment

[astroron (Ron)]

Just in from the BBC website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15471118
Two other teams are also going to do a test next year.
Cheers

[Robh (Rob)]

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?

Regards, Rob

[CraigS]

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.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Thank you Ron if nothing else this has folk very excited.
alex

[Robh (Rob)]

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 ...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ef=online-news

Not everyone is convinced.

Regards, Rob

[avandonk]

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!

Bert

[CraigS]

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 ?

Cheers
PS: Ooops !! I mean thanks for the update, Rob ... not Ron. Apologies to both for the typo ...

[CraigS]

More here.

A major concern among the dissenters is the fact that the "time window" within which neutrinos were detected by OPERA in the most recent run had a width of 50 nanoseconds, something that the leader of the superluminal analysis, Dario Autiero, only revealed once the tests had been carried out.

It was initially assumed that this window was just 10 nanoseconds wide. This difference does not affect the final result itself, the source notes, but dissenters say it highlights poor experimental procedure. Some researchers are also unhappy that only a small fraction of the analysis, which was carried out by Autiero, has been independently checked by others within the collaboration. This leaves open the possibility, they say, that not all possible errors have been accounted for.

Cheers

[Robh (Rob)]

Hi Craig,

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!

Regards, Rob

[Barrykgerdes]

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!

Barry

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

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!

Barry

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.

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3763v2

Regards

Steven

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

How will they if they aren't just repeating the same mistakes made in the original experiment?

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3763v2

Regards

Steven

Thanks for that.

And for those wanting an easier read ...
http://www.science20.com/quantum_dia...eutrinos-83684

Regards, Rob

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by Robh

Thanks for that.

And for those wanting an easier read ...
http://www.science20.com/quantum_dia...eutrinos-83684

Regards, Rob

Thanks Rob
The comments are interesting as well
Cheers

[CraigS]

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 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:

Bethke: No, not at all. If we could definitely exclude the existence of the Higgs boson on the basis of our measurements, it would even be a revolution. We would have to scrap the standard model. Theoreticians would have to look for an alternative theory which can conclusively describe the world down to the tiniest detail. This would be significantly more exciting than simply confirming the Higgs particle.

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?

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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.

Hi Craig,

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.

So then I read this article 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 !

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?

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 !

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.

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by astroron

Thanks Rob
The comments are interesting as well
Cheers

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.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

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 !)

Cheers

[avandonk]

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?

Bert