Thanx Chris.
I am practicing up for a new career as a gag writer.
 
 
BR
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
 message dated 9/23/2011 8:02:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
[email protected] writes:

 
You got a chuckle  from me on that one Billy. 
 
 
From:  [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]]  On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011  6:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc:  [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RC] Saddle up those  tachyons

 
 
message dated 9/23/2011  [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])    writes:
 


 
The  screwy universe theory has none of the simple elegance of, “every 
action has  an equal and opposite reaction”.   
How about  :    
"Every action has  an equal and opposite reaction --except when it doesn't. 
 Reality is  much more fun this way." 
Still simple and elegant. But  also more of a challenge. 
Just an idea. 
Billy 
 

 
 
From:  [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected])   
_[mailto:[email protected]]_ 
(mailto:[mailto:[email protected]])   On Behalf Of 
[email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected]) 
Sent: Friday,  September 23, 2011 5:45 PM
To: [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected]) 
Cc:  [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) 
Subject: Re: [RC]  Saddle up those tachyons

 
 

 
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]_ (mailto:[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]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to