Ernie : What I'd suppose, if your "screwy universe" theory holds up, is that the quantum realm, until now regarded as essentially only applicable to the ultra tiny, has a mega dimension no-one has seen before now. Something like that. Maybe you should patent the screwy universe concept and market it
Billy message dated 9/23/2011 4:26:08 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Hi Billy, On Sep 23, 2011, at 4:14 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Ernie : It won't happen overnight but one implication --if this doesn't turn out to be an error of some kind-- is that the door is now open for the "next Einstein." General Relativity did not render Newton obsolete, it simply relegated him to a circumscribed realm of physics. A large realm but nonetheless circumscribed. Same kind of thing may happen for Einstein. It is certainly possible, though admittedly unlikely. The tricky thing with General Relativity is that it is based on some fairly simple assertions about the consistency of the universe. If it is wrong, then there's something very odd going on with the universe (as in, "Left" is not just the opposite of "Right" kind of screwiness). E Also : If anything can move faster than light the search is now on for other-than-neutrinos that can really skedaddle. The Future Belongs to Pony Express Physics. Billy ------------------------------------------------------------------ message dated 9/23/2011 3:41:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: Hi Billy, On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:03 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: > Hopefully the visuals will transmit --they are crucial to the story. > If not, and you have an interest, please go to the site. > > Question for Ernie : If this pans out, what are the implications for > the General Theory of Relativity ? > > Just thought I'd ask. As implied by my previous point, I honestly don't know. The odds are still in favor of some sort of calibration error. If it does pan out, the most likely explanation is "the speed of neutrinos" is the true absolute speed limit for the universe, and that the light we use for GPS and such is slower than that under some circumstances. But to be fair, if this measurement holds up and can be robustly quantified, it will definitely shake up physics. Not "overturn relativity" and move us back to Newtonian physics, as some hotheads are claiming, but it would certainly imply something fishy about our current understanding. Who knows where it could lead? -- Ernie P. > Billy > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > from the site : Starts With a Bang > « And the Temperature of Dark Matter is...? | Main > > This Extraordinary Claim Requires Extraordinary Evidence! > > Category: Physics • relativity > Posted on: September 22, 2011 5:42 PM, by Ethan Siegel > > > "Nothing travels faster than light, with the possible exception of bad news, which follows its own rules." -Douglas Adams > My inbox is on fire today with messages about this story about neutrinos breaking the speed of light: > > > What's going on here? A group (a large group, mind you) of physicists known as the OPERA collaboration have made a neutrino beam, and have been studying it for the past few years. > > Making a neutrino beam is the easiest type of beam to make, by the way. All you do is shoot a bunch of high-energy particles into the Earth, like so. > > > (Image credit: CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso.) > > You shoot a high-energy beam of protons into a fixed target, and you make all sorts of unstable particles -- things like pions, kaons and other mesons -- which have a lifetime of at most a paltry few nanoseconds. > > You focus this beam very tightly, so that the decay products you get out travel in a narrowly collimated beam as well. What are these decay products? > > > Among other things, you get a bunch of high-energy muon neutrinos. And if you fire it through the Earth, everything that isn't a neutrino gets wiped out in short order by the intervening atomic material. > > But the muon neutrinos, for the most part, pass straight through the Earth uninhibited. Why? Because neutrinos hardly interact with anything at all! We've built neutrino beams like this before: from Fermilab (in Batavia, Illinois) to Minnesota, from KEK (in Japan) to Super-Kamiokande, and others. > > > And what we'd expect, based on measurements of neutrino mass, is that these particles should be traveling at almost, but just a hair under the speed of light! > > And then you go and detect your neutrino. > > But I just said they don't interact with anything! So how do you do this? > > > (Image credit: Super-Kamiokande.) > > You build a giant tank of something liquid for neutrinos to interact with. And although nearly all of your neutrinos pass right through it, every once in a while, one neutrino undergoes an interaction (through the weak force) with one of the atoms in your detector! > > And when it does, because of how hugely energetic these neutrinos are, you produce either a muon (for a mu-neutrino) or an electron (for an electron-neutrino) that's moving close to the speed of light in vacuum, and faster than the speed of light in your liquid! > > > (Image credit: Georgia State University.) > > When you move faster than the speed of light in a medium, you give off a special type of light known as Čerenkov radiation. If you line the outer rim of your neutrino detector tank with photomultiplier tubes, you can not only detect this radiation, you can use the information from it to reconstruct exactly where and when, in your tank, this neutrino interacted with one of your atoms! > > > (Image credit: Tomasz Barszczak.) > > Now, in the past, we've found that these neutrinos move, more or less, at the speed of light in vacuum (c), as expected. One experiment based out of Chicago, a few years ago, found marginal evidence that neutrinos might move just a tiny bit faster than the speed of light, at 1.000051 (+/- 0.000029) c. > > Of course, this result is consistent with neutrinos moving at or slower than the speed of light; the errors are not significantly smaller than the measured difference from c. So OPERA, whose detector is shown below, performed this measurement with great care, and announced their results today. > > > The 730 kilometer trip should have taken these neutrinos 2.43 milliseconds, were they traveling at the speed of light. But according to the OPERA collaboration, the neutrinos arrived 60 nanoseconds earlier than expected, with a claimed uncertainty of only ten nanoseconds! > > Translating that into a measurement for the speed of neutrinos, that means they are traveling at 1.0000247 (+/- 0.0000041) c. > > Now, measurement at this level of precision is not easy, and I am certainly not going to be the first person to come out and say I don't believe, based on this, that neutrinos move faster than the speed of light. (But, as one of many, I don't.) > > > Because there's a much better constraint out there on the speed of high-energy neutrinos from some time ago. Above is a Hubble Space Telescope time-sequenced image of the closest supernova in my lifetime: Supernova 1987A, which took place in the Large Magellanic Cloud 168,000 light-years away. > > This supernova was discovered, optically, on February 24, 1987. About three hours earlier, 23 neutrinos were detected over a timespan of less than 13 seconds. The reason for the 3 hour delay? When the core of a star collapses (in a type II supernova; see here), most of the energy is radiated away in the form of neutrinos, which pass freely through the outer material of the star, while the emission of visible light occurs only after the shock wave reaches the stellar surface. > > > (Image credit: TeraScale Supernova Initiative.) > > However! > > Even if you assume that the light and neutrinos were created at the same time, but the visible light moved at c and the neutrinos moved faster than light, which is why they got here first, know what value you'd get for the speed of these neutrinos? > > 1.0000000020 c, which is inconsistent with the results from the OPERA collaboration. > > Now, something fishy and possibly very interesting is going on, and there will certainly be scientists weighing in with new analysis in the coming weeks. But in all the excitement of this group declaring that they observe neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light, don't forget what we've already observed to much greater precision! And be skeptical of this result, and of the interpretation that neutrinos are moving faster than light, until we know more. > > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) > > Google Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ (http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) > Radical Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ (http://radicalcentrism.org/) -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) > Google Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ (http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) Radical Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ (http://radicalcentrism.org/) -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) > Google Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ (http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) Radical Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ (http://radicalcentrism.org/) -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ (http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) Radical Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ (http://radicalcentrism.org/) -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
