It is not confirmed that neutrinos travel slightly faster than light, but what if it were? Why would neutrinos travel superluminally? I have a possible explanation. The speed of light is
c = 1/sqrt {permittivity*permeability}.
The permittivity of free space is epsilon = 8.854187817620... × 10−12 F·m−1.
The permeability of free space is µ0 ≈ 1.2566370614...×10−6 H·m−1
If both the permittivity and permeability were decreased slightly, then the velocity could increase slightly. But neutrinos are electrically neutral. As such, they don't interact with electric and magnetic fields.
If neutrinos don't have to interact with electric and magnetic fields, then how would they know that the permittivity and permeability of free space was less? They wouldn't know. Could that be the reason why neutrinos can travel faster than light?
Your looking at it backwards. The permittivity and permability of free space are set by the nature of free space. They tell us something about the nature of spacetime. Fundamentally the speed of light speed limit of the universe is a consequence of the nature of free space and the values of the permittivity and permability just reflect this.
Basically put the neutrino doesn't care what the permittivity and permability are, it cares about the underlying nature of space. That underlying nature is manifested in these values but the values are not independent of the underlying nature. A change in the values is simply evidence that the underlying nature changed.
Basically put the neutrino doesn't care what the permittivity and permability are, it cares about the underlying nature of space. That underlying nature is manifested in these values but the values are not independent of the underlying nature. A change in the values is simply evidence that the underlying nature changed.
I can’t wrap my pea brain around the chirality of neutrinos. Is the neutrino a Majorana particle or not? I don’t understand the Lorentz boost, either. I know this is an old book but was the pilot wave theory ever dismissed?
The de Broglie–Bohm theory
The de Broglie–Bohm theory
QUOTE (Sithdarth+Sep 30 2011, 03:01 AM)
Your looking at it backwards. The permittivity and permability of free space are set by the nature of free space. They tell us something about the nature of spacetime. Fundamentally the speed of light speed limit of the universe is a consequence of the nature of free space and the values of the permittivity and permability just reflect this.
Basically put the neutrino doesn't care what the permittivity and permability are, it cares about the underlying nature of space. That underlying nature is manifested in these values but the values are not independent of the underlying nature. A change in the values is simply evidence that the underlying nature changed.
I will agree with you that the speed of light, permittivity and permeability are all set by the space-time continuum. I will agree unto the last 10ppm of c. Superluminal neutrinos are not a verified fact, at least not yet. If they are verified, then there will be a huge push to figure out why. I really hope to see some new ideas, a new concept for what causes the space-time continuum to exist, and how do particles interconnect with it.
Basically put the neutrino doesn't care what the permittivity and permability are, it cares about the underlying nature of space. That underlying nature is manifested in these values but the values are not independent of the underlying nature. A change in the values is simply evidence that the underlying nature changed.
I will agree with you that the speed of light, permittivity and permeability are all set by the space-time continuum. I will agree unto the last 10ppm of c. Superluminal neutrinos are not a verified fact, at least not yet. If they are verified, then there will be a huge push to figure out why. I really hope to see some new ideas, a new concept for what causes the space-time continuum to exist, and how do particles interconnect with it.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 30 2011, 04:00 AM)
I can’t wrap my pea brain around the chirality of neutrinos. Is the neutrino a Majorana particle or not? I don’t understand the Lorentz boost, either. I know this is an old book but was the pilot wave theory ever dismissed?
The de Broglie–Bohm theory
NymphaeaAlba,
You have a strong physics/mathematics background. Maybe you can answer my question. In your opinion, how are the laws of physics implemented? for example, some people have suggested a solid state crystalline model. But that doesn't work because there is no absolute frame of reference.
Would you care to guess at how the laws of physics are implemented?
The de Broglie–Bohm theory
NymphaeaAlba,
You have a strong physics/mathematics background. Maybe you can answer my question. In your opinion, how are the laws of physics implemented? for example, some people have suggested a solid state crystalline model. But that doesn't work because there is no absolute frame of reference.
Would you care to guess at how the laws of physics are implemented?
QUOTE (Mazulu+Sep 29 2011, 10:47 PM)
NymphaeaAlba,
You have a strong physics/mathematics background. Maybe you can answer my question. In your opinion, how are the laws of physics implemented? for example, some people have suggested a solid state crystalline model. But that doesn't work because there is no absolute frame of reference.
Would you care to guess at how the laws of physics are implemented?
Mazulu,
I don’t have a strong background in anything. I’m a housewife. I can’t even figure out how to write the math symbols. Maybe it’s because I’m using a laptop but there’s supposed to be a hidden numeric keypad somewhere on laptops. BTW, how do you make exponents with the keyboard? I tried to copy and paste some of the symbols from the character map but that’s a pain. I’m just an avid reader (nonfiction only), and I enjoy many things, science being my favorite. I’m great at research but I don’t have any original ideas, or opinions, they’re rare. If you ever think you have one, try Googling it first. I’m overly curious and I like to know stuff, that’s all.
Goodnight…ZZzz
You have a strong physics/mathematics background. Maybe you can answer my question. In your opinion, how are the laws of physics implemented? for example, some people have suggested a solid state crystalline model. But that doesn't work because there is no absolute frame of reference.
Would you care to guess at how the laws of physics are implemented?
Mazulu,
I don’t have a strong background in anything. I’m a housewife. I can’t even figure out how to write the math symbols. Maybe it’s because I’m using a laptop but there’s supposed to be a hidden numeric keypad somewhere on laptops. BTW, how do you make exponents with the keyboard? I tried to copy and paste some of the symbols from the character map but that’s a pain. I’m just an avid reader (nonfiction only), and I enjoy many things, science being my favorite. I’m great at research but I don’t have any original ideas, or opinions, they’re rare. If you ever think you have one, try Googling it first. I’m overly curious and I like to know stuff, that’s all.
Goodnight…ZZzz
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 30 2011, 07:33 AM)
Mazulu,
I don’t have a strong background in anything. I’m a housewife. I can’t even figure out how to write the math symbols. Maybe it’s because I’m using a laptop but there’s supposed to be a hidden numeric keypad somewhere on laptops. BTW, how do you make exponents with the keyboard? I tried to copy and paste some of the symbols from the character map but that’s a pain. I’m just an avid reader (nonfiction only), and I enjoy many things, science being my favorite. I’m great at research but I don’t have any original ideas, or opinions, they’re rare. If you ever think you have one, try Googling it first. I’m overly curious and I like to know stuff, that’s all.
Goodnight…ZZzz
Im new to the forum, hi hi.
Try a search online for a scientific calculator. then you have all the buttons. hope that helps.
I don’t have a strong background in anything. I’m a housewife. I can’t even figure out how to write the math symbols. Maybe it’s because I’m using a laptop but there’s supposed to be a hidden numeric keypad somewhere on laptops. BTW, how do you make exponents with the keyboard? I tried to copy and paste some of the symbols from the character map but that’s a pain. I’m just an avid reader (nonfiction only), and I enjoy many things, science being my favorite. I’m great at research but I don’t have any original ideas, or opinions, they’re rare. If you ever think you have one, try Googling it first. I’m overly curious and I like to know stuff, that’s all.
Goodnight…ZZzz
Im new to the forum, hi hi.
Try a search online for a scientific calculator. then you have all the buttons. hope that helps.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 30 2011, 07:33 AM)
Mazulu,
I don’t have a strong background in anything. I’m a housewife. I can’t even figure out how to write the math symbols. Maybe it’s because I’m using a laptop but there’s supposed to be a hidden numeric keypad somewhere on laptops. BTW, how do you make exponents with the keyboard? I tried to copy and paste some of the symbols from the character map but that’s a pain. I’m just an avid reader (nonfiction only), and I enjoy many things, science being my favorite. I’m great at research but I don’t have any original ideas, or opinions, they’re rare. If you ever think you have one, try Googling it first. I’m overly curious and I like to know stuff, that’s all.
Goodnight…ZZzz
NymphaeaAlba,
I'm just an electronics technician; I troubleshoot circuit boards for a living. To me, every signal is conducted through a medium at some speed
v = 1/sqrt{permittivity*permeability}. When I look at physics I see signaling from event to observer with a very weird rule: the speed of light is fixed to c for all observers. The only way this could be implemented is if every observer is wired (via some medium) to the event in such a way that the medium restricts the signal velocity to c. The space-time continuum doesn't look like a lattice; it looks more like a fully connected network to me. If GR is implemented this way, then photons can travel across links in the network like waves. The network is the medium, the network is the space-time continuum. The mathematics is unnecessarily complicated because there is no good concept to describe how GR and QM fit together.
If the physics community was on the right track, then the physics would make more sense; the physics would be entrenched in common sense. Instead, the mathematics that describes the physics is becoming incredibly complicated and removed from common sense.
I'm looking at a book called Motion Mountain by Christoph Schiller. This author says he can derive QM and GR from what he calls a "strand". I would have called it a fiber.
I need some Zzz's too.
I don’t have a strong background in anything. I’m a housewife. I can’t even figure out how to write the math symbols. Maybe it’s because I’m using a laptop but there’s supposed to be a hidden numeric keypad somewhere on laptops. BTW, how do you make exponents with the keyboard? I tried to copy and paste some of the symbols from the character map but that’s a pain. I’m just an avid reader (nonfiction only), and I enjoy many things, science being my favorite. I’m great at research but I don’t have any original ideas, or opinions, they’re rare. If you ever think you have one, try Googling it first. I’m overly curious and I like to know stuff, that’s all.
Goodnight…ZZzz
NymphaeaAlba,
I'm just an electronics technician; I troubleshoot circuit boards for a living. To me, every signal is conducted through a medium at some speed
v = 1/sqrt{permittivity*permeability}. When I look at physics I see signaling from event to observer with a very weird rule: the speed of light is fixed to c for all observers. The only way this could be implemented is if every observer is wired (via some medium) to the event in such a way that the medium restricts the signal velocity to c. The space-time continuum doesn't look like a lattice; it looks more like a fully connected network to me. If GR is implemented this way, then photons can travel across links in the network like waves. The network is the medium, the network is the space-time continuum. The mathematics is unnecessarily complicated because there is no good concept to describe how GR and QM fit together.
If the physics community was on the right track, then the physics would make more sense; the physics would be entrenched in common sense. Instead, the mathematics that describes the physics is becoming incredibly complicated and removed from common sense.
I'm looking at a book called Motion Mountain by Christoph Schiller. This author says he can derive QM and GR from what he calls a "strand". I would have called it a fiber.
I need some Zzz's too.
NymphaeaAlba,
My keyboard don't go that either so when I need to include a symbol I cannot find I go to one of these sites. copy and paste. Most seem to work.
Greek symbols with descriptions
Infinity
Math symbols
If you can copy and paste these should be all the symbols you need.
Wikipedia is useful for something after all.
Have a nice day
Ed Wood
My keyboard don't go that either so when I need to include a symbol I cannot find I go to one of these sites. copy and paste. Most seem to work.
Greek symbols with descriptions
Infinity
Math symbols
If you can copy and paste these should be all the symbols you need.
Wikipedia is useful for something after all.
Have a nice day
Ed Wood
Maybe neutrinos can be used to define an absolute reference frame.
CERN physicists would need to send neutrino beams in 3 different directions to see it. then there is the matter of 2 more detector sites.
just a thought that popped in my brain.
CERN physicists would need to send neutrino beams in 3 different directions to see it. then there is the matter of 2 more detector sites.
just a thought that popped in my brain.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Sep 30 2011, 10:43 AM)
Maybe neutrinos can be used to define an absolute reference frame.
CERN physicists would need to send neutrino beams in 3 different directions to see it. then there is the matter of 2 more detector sites.
just a thought that popped in my brain.
Good luck trying to raise the money to pay for it. If the test could be performed inexpensively, I'd say go for it. Cern lab performed over 15,000 neutrino experiments. Over a period of a few years. During this time, the earth rotated and traveled around the sun. If you think there is an absolute reference frame, you'll have to look through there data. Good luck with that.
CERN physicists would need to send neutrino beams in 3 different directions to see it. then there is the matter of 2 more detector sites.
just a thought that popped in my brain.
Good luck trying to raise the money to pay for it. If the test could be performed inexpensively, I'd say go for it. Cern lab performed over 15,000 neutrino experiments. Over a period of a few years. During this time, the earth rotated and traveled around the sun. If you think there is an absolute reference frame, you'll have to look through there data. Good luck with that.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 30 2011, 04:00 AM)
I can’t wrap my pea brain around the chirality of neutrinos. Is the neutrino a Majorana particle or not? I don’t understand the Lorentz boost, either. I know this is an old book but was the pilot wave theory ever dismissed?
The de Broglie–Bohm theory
It's an interpretation of QM. As for the question about Bohmian Mechanics read the objections part
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#o
The de Broglie–Bohm theory
It's an interpretation of QM. As for the question about Bohmian Mechanics read the objections part
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#o
QUOTE (brucep+Sep 30 2011, 10:52 AM)
It's an interpretation of QM. As for the question about Bohmian Mechanics read the objections part
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#o
You're awesome! Thanks, Brucie...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#o
You're awesome! Thanks, Brucie...
QUOTE (Sithdarth+Sep 30 2011, 03:01 AM)
Your looking at it backwards. The permittivity and permability of free space are set by the nature of free space. They tell us something about the nature of spacetime. Fundamentally the speed of light speed limit of the universe is a consequence of the nature of free space and the values of the permittivity and permability just reflect this.
Basically put the neutrino doesn't care what the permittivity and permability are, it cares about the underlying nature of space. That underlying nature is manifested in these values but the values are not independent of the underlying nature. A change in the values is simply evidence that the underlying nature changed.
That's what I've been saying all along. It is free space. I call it inertial space, (space that has no force applied). And in gravitational free fall, there are no forces applied or felt, (neglecting wind resistance). This is why I say free space or inertial space is accelerating inward towards the center of mass. Once stationary status is attained on the surface of the earth, then there is the force of gravity felt and measured.
Basically put the neutrino doesn't care what the permittivity and permability are, it cares about the underlying nature of space. That underlying nature is manifested in these values but the values are not independent of the underlying nature. A change in the values is simply evidence that the underlying nature changed.
That's what I've been saying all along. It is free space. I call it inertial space, (space that has no force applied). And in gravitational free fall, there are no forces applied or felt, (neglecting wind resistance). This is why I say free space or inertial space is accelerating inward towards the center of mass. Once stationary status is attained on the surface of the earth, then there is the force of gravity felt and measured.
QUOTE
That's what I've been saying all along. It is free space.
No it is it and the fact that you think it is makes you delusional.
QUOTE (cbennett+Sep 30 2011, 10:10 PM)
That's what I've been saying all along. It is free space. I call it inertial space, (space that has no force applied). And in gravitational free fall, there are no forces applied or felt, (neglecting wind resistance). This is why I say free space or inertial space is accelerating inward towards the center of mass. Once stationary status is attained on the surface of the earth, then there is the force of gravity felt and measured.
No forces are felt when you're in any un-powered orbit, either. Inertial space must be accelerating in all kinds of directions...
No forces are felt when you're in any un-powered orbit, either. Inertial space must be accelerating in all kinds of directions...
QUOTE (cbennett+Sep 30 2011, 10:10 PM)
That's what I've been saying all along. It is free space. I call it inertial space, (space that has no force applied). And in gravitational free fall, there are no forces applied or felt, (neglecting wind resistance). This is why I say free space or inertial space is accelerating inward towards the center of mass. Once stationary status is attained on the surface of the earth, then there is the force of gravity felt and measured.
I think the words you're lookiing for are:
proper acceleration: which is the force (force = ma) measured by a scale or accelerometer. Human beings can withstand up to 8g before passing out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration
coordinate acceleration: which is dependent on choice of coordinate systems and thus upon choice of observers. You can watch a skydiver or a ball fall towards the ground.
If you are sitting, then your chair (and/or the ground) is exerting an equal and opposite force to keep you from falling. You don't accelerate towards the center of the earth because the ground/chair balances to gravitational force.
I think the words you're lookiing for are:
proper acceleration: which is the force (force = ma) measured by a scale or accelerometer. Human beings can withstand up to 8g before passing out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration
coordinate acceleration: which is dependent on choice of coordinate systems and thus upon choice of observers. You can watch a skydiver or a ball fall towards the ground.
If you are sitting, then your chair (and/or the ground) is exerting an equal and opposite force to keep you from falling. You don't accelerate towards the center of the earth because the ground/chair balances to gravitational force.
QUOTE (Sithdarth+Sep 30 2011, 10:41 PM)
No it is it and the fact that you think it is makes you delusional.
No, you just don't understand the simple and the obvious.
No, you just don't understand the simple and the obvious.
cbennett, your idea is wrong. Inertial guidance systems wouldn't work if inertial space was accelerating toward centers of masses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_space
QUOTE (Lasand+Oct 1 2011, 12:22 AM)
cbennett, your idea is wrong. Inertial guidance systems wouldn't work if inertial space was accelerating toward centers of masses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_space
Your Wikipedia link only serves to support my concept. Centrifugal force is an internal force resulting from rotation within a platform. This has no bearing on the mechanism of gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_space
Your Wikipedia link only serves to support my concept. Centrifugal force is an internal force resulting from rotation within a platform. This has no bearing on the mechanism of gravity.
I think it is fair to say.
The only 'time' the force acceleration is 'felt' is when a mass changes it's position in time at a different 'rate' than when @ rest.
I'd go deeper into that but I don't wish to pick a fight.
The only 'time' the force acceleration is 'felt' is when a mass changes it's position in time at a different 'rate' than when @ rest.
I'd go deeper into that but I don't wish to pick a fight.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Oct 1 2011, 02:28 AM)
I think it is fair to say.
The only 'time' the force acceleration is 'felt' is when a mass changes it's position in time at a different 'rate' than when @ rest.
I'd go deeper into that but I don't wish to pick a fight.
Hi Ed. It has been hard for me to get across a very important but simple and obvious point. In free fall, no force is felt yet a mass in free fall does change its position in time. Occupants in a falling mass would feel weightless. An accelerometer reads zero in free fall. It also reads zero in deep space or what I have been calling inertial space. However, when a mass is at rest on the surface of the earth, the force of gravity is felt the same as the mass feels a force when a rocket motor accelerates it in deep space. This is Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence. Who can pick a fight with this?
The only 'time' the force acceleration is 'felt' is when a mass changes it's position in time at a different 'rate' than when @ rest.
I'd go deeper into that but I don't wish to pick a fight.
Hi Ed. It has been hard for me to get across a very important but simple and obvious point. In free fall, no force is felt yet a mass in free fall does change its position in time. Occupants in a falling mass would feel weightless. An accelerometer reads zero in free fall. It also reads zero in deep space or what I have been calling inertial space. However, when a mass is at rest on the surface of the earth, the force of gravity is felt the same as the mass feels a force when a rocket motor accelerates it in deep space. This is Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence. Who can pick a fight with this?
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Oct 1 2011, 02:28 AM)
I think it is fair to say.
The only 'time' the force acceleration is 'felt' is when a mass changes it's position in time at a different 'rate' than when @ rest.
I'd go deeper into that but I don't wish to pick a fight.
Ed,
The summation of forces equals mass*acceleration.
F_1 + F_2 + ... F_n = ma. The force of your body weight, pointing down, is balanced by the force of the ground, pushing up. Result: Sum F = 0 = ma; the floor doesn't let you accelerate.
The only 'time' the force acceleration is 'felt' is when a mass changes it's position in time at a different 'rate' than when @ rest.
I'd go deeper into that but I don't wish to pick a fight.
Ed,
The summation of forces equals mass*acceleration.
F_1 + F_2 + ... F_n = ma. The force of your body weight, pointing down, is balanced by the force of the ground, pushing up. Result: Sum F = 0 = ma; the floor doesn't let you accelerate.
Mass at least the mass of matter is constantly changing its position in time @ a rate of C. Change that rate in any direction relative to any other direction and you get acceleration in that direction.
Light is a different matter as it is at rest in the dimension of time always moving away from Matter @ C. the only 'time' light changes it's position in time is when it interacts with matter.
Light is a different matter as it is at rest in the dimension of time always moving away from Matter @ C. the only 'time' light changes it's position in time is when it interacts with matter.
Seems as if the " little neutral one " was created by the "Old One " to drive physicists bonkers.
Is the neutrino an energy parasite?
Is the neutrino an energy parasite?
Well, folks, I am (or was) a physicist. If neutrinos have mass, then it should be possible for there to be a rest frame for them where the only energy they have is the rest mass energy, mcsquared. (I have trouble with the mathematical notation as well! ). A photon (in all it's manifestations), is the only thing known to be able to transfer energy without having mass involved. Think about "solar sails". Because it has no mass, it has no rest frame, which is basically why it has the same velocity in all inertial frames (a la SR). SR would work perfectly well with c being any sufficiently large value (as acknowledged by "Big Al" and many others). The properties of free space are effectively the electromagnetic properties which affect the electromagnetic oscillations which make up light and photons, and which make c what it is.
I suspect that the neutrino experiment will be proven incorrect, and that the problems will have to to with the apparatus used for timing. What would be a really good test would be to figure out a way to send photons along the same path as the neutrinos (which, alas, go through solid rock) and use their time of flight for timing. Sort of a horse race, as it were. . I don't think this situation will be resolve by a longer baseline.
I suspect that the neutrino experiment will be proven incorrect, and that the problems will have to to with the apparatus used for timing. What would be a really good test would be to figure out a way to send photons along the same path as the neutrinos (which, alas, go through solid rock) and use their time of flight for timing. Sort of a horse race, as it were.
. I don't think this situation will be resolve by a longer baseline.
Whoops
QUOTE
It appears that the faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame.
Physicists had detected neutrinos travelling from the CERN laboratory in Geneva to the Gran Sasso laboratory near L'Aquila that appeared to make the trip in about 60 nanoseconds less than light speed. Many other physicists suspected that the result was due to some kind of error, given that it seems at odds with Einstein's special theory of relativity, which says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. That theory has been vindicated by many experiments over the decades.
According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer. After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed. Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos. New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.
Physicists had detected neutrinos travelling from the CERN laboratory in Geneva to the Gran Sasso laboratory near L'Aquila that appeared to make the trip in about 60 nanoseconds less than light speed. Many other physicists suspected that the result was due to some kind of error, given that it seems at odds with Einstein's special theory of relativity, which says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. That theory has been vindicated by many experiments over the decades.
According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer. After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed. Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos. New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.
QUOTE (AlexG+Feb 22 2012, 09:42 PM)
Whoops
Looks like the 'slight of hand' to cover up the mistake they made in modeling the GPS component of the measurement. It's good because it ends any need to make further attempts to verify the initial results. The list of folks on the initial paper is huge. I wonder if they had a gravitational physicist on the team?
Looks like the 'slight of hand' to cover up the mistake they made in modeling the GPS component of the measurement. It's good because it ends any need to make further attempts to verify the initial results. The list of folks on the initial paper is huge. I wonder if they had a gravitational physicist on the team?
They didn't need a gravitational physicist as much as they needed a cable installer .
QUOTE (brucep+Feb 22 2012, 03:10 PM)
Looks like the 'slight of hand' to cover up the mistake they made in modeling the GPS component of the measurement. It's good because it ends any need to make further attempts to verify the initial results. The list of folks on the initial paper is huge. I wonder if they had a gravitational physicist on the team?
Actually its possible they missed a few things. Its ok for neutrinos to travel slower than light.
Actually its possible they missed a few things. Its ok for neutrinos to travel slower than light.
QUOTE (AlexG+Feb 23 2012, 01:25 AM)
They didn't need a gravitational physicist as much as they needed a cable installer .
Was that your job?
Was that your job?
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Feb 23 2012, 02:50 AM)
Actually its possible they missed a few things. Its ok for neutrinos to travel slower than light.
Neutrinos do travel slower than light. They blame the bogus result on equipment failure rather than their team messing up the GPS calculations.
Neutrinos do travel slower than light. They blame the bogus result on equipment failure rather than their team messing up the GPS calculations.
QUOTE (brucep+Feb 23 2012, 02:22 AM)
Neutrinos do travel slower than light. They blame the bogus result on equipment failure rather than their team messing up the GPS calculations.
Yeah but what I'm saying is that they could have indeed missed such a loose wire which slows the result even further as well and maybe even other issues we haven't realized yet.
Yeah but what I'm saying is that they could have indeed missed such a loose wire which slows the result even further as well and maybe even other issues we haven't realized yet.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Feb 23 2012, 09:35 AM)
Yeah but what I'm saying is that they could have indeed missed such a loose wire which slows the result even further as well and maybe even other issues we haven't realized yet.
It's kinda interesting. All those runs and the 'big claim' and they had a loose wire throughout the experiment.
It's kinda interesting. All those runs and the 'big claim' and they had a loose wire throughout the experiment.
QUOTE (brucep+Feb 23 2012, 09:47 AM)
It's kinda interesting. All those runs and the 'big claim' and they had a loose wire throughout the experiment.
Measuring Time of Flight Using Satellite-Based Clocks
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2685
Looks like the experimental team missed some big stuff.
Measuring Time of Flight Using Satellite-Based Clocks
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2685
Looks like the experimental team missed some big stuff.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.