Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Magnus Danielson]

On 11/21/2011 11:49 AM, Jim Palfreyman wrote:

Neville,

If they haven't thought of that one I'd be very very disappointed.


They have.

The neutrino path goes as deep as 11,2 km below ground if I recall 
things correctly.


Cheers,
Magnus


Jim


On Monday, 21 November 2011, Neville Michie  wrote:


Has anyone thought about the fact that verticals converge towards the

centre of the earth?

The surface distance is greater than the distance at a depth.
A map distance is made less, a few hundred metres underground.
Just another thought,
Cheers, Neville Michie

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to

https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts

and follow the instructions there.


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Magnus Danielson]

On 11/21/2011 09:49 AM, Hal Murray wrote:


michael.c...@sfr.fr said:

I heard on the BBC the other day that a repeat experiment is planned,
firing neurinos from the US into Canada. The labs were not cited, but I
expect it would be Fermilab  to Sudbury Ontario. If this is the case,  then
there will still be the problem of not being able to run a parallel  fibre
as the Sudbury detectors are  also deep underground. ...


I don't think that running a parallel fiber will help much.  I see two
problems.

First, fibers don't run in straight lines.  Even if you could accurately
survey the pipes in the ground, there is slack in the fiber within the cable
bundle so it doesn't break if somebody pulls on the cable.

Second, the speed of light in fibers isn't known to the required level of
accuracy.  (It's probably temperature dependent.)


It is. About 10% of the change is due to length-changes in the fibre and 
about 90% of the change is due to group-delay shifts in the fibre.


If you laser frequency (wavelength is the traditional value here) shifts 
then the dispersion effect also causes shift in delay.



In the context of fibers, having the detectors located deep underground in
not a problem.  They have to get power and data cables down to the
instruments somehow.  It would be easy to run a fiber in parallel with those
cables.

There is also the delay in the amplifiers that you will need every 100 miles
or so.  Or the low rise time if you try to avoid the amplifiers because you
don't need much bandwidth...


Depends on the amplifiers you are using. EDFA amps has fairly high 
bandwidth and delay is like normal fibre of the same length.


Cheers,
Magnus

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Azelio Boriani]

Have you already made calculations? For 200 meters underground I have a
path 20 meter shorter...

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Neville Michie  wrote:

>
> Has anyone thought about the fact that verticals converge towards the
> centre of the earth?
> The surface distance is greater than the distance at a depth.
> A map distance is made less, a few hundred metres underground.
> Just another thought,
> Cheers, Neville Michie
>
>
> __**_
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/**
> mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Jim Palfreyman]

Neville,

If they haven't thought of that one I'd be very very disappointed.

Jim


On Monday, 21 November 2011, Neville Michie  wrote:
>
> Has anyone thought about the fact that verticals converge towards the
centre of the earth?
> The surface distance is greater than the distance at a depth.
> A map distance is made less, a few hundred metres underground.
> Just another thought,
> Cheers, Neville Michie
>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Neville Michie]

Has anyone thought about the fact that verticals converge towards the  
centre of the earth?

The surface distance is greater than the distance at a depth.
A map distance is made less, a few hundred metres underground.
Just another thought,
Cheers, Neville Michie

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[mike cook]

Le 21/11/2011 09:49, Hal Murray a écrit :

michael.c...@sfr.fr said:

I heard on the BBC the other day that a repeat experiment is planned,
firing neurinos from the US into Canada. The labs were not cited, but I
expect it would be Fermilab  to Sudbury Ontario. If this is the case,  then
there will still be the problem of not being able to run a parallel  fibre
as the Sudbury detectors are  also deep underground. ...

I don't think that running a parallel fiber will help much.  I see two
problems.

First, fibers don't run in straight lines.  Even if you could accurately
survey the pipes in the ground, there is slack in the fiber within the cable
bundle so it doesn't break if somebody pulls on the cable.

Second, the speed of light in fibers isn't known to the required level of
accuracy.  (It's probably temperature dependent.)

I was thinking more of using fibre  for determining the distance by 
another method rather than for comparing the time of flight,  and being 
better than 18m  over 740km would stretch the technology .


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Hal Murray]

michael.c...@sfr.fr said:
> I heard on the BBC the other day that a repeat experiment is planned,
> firing neurinos from the US into Canada. The labs were not cited, but I
> expect it would be Fermilab  to Sudbury Ontario. If this is the case,  then
> there will still be the problem of not being able to run a parallel  fibre
> as the Sudbury detectors are  also deep underground. ...

I don't think that running a parallel fiber will help much.  I see two 
problems.

First, fibers don't run in straight lines.  Even if you could accurately 
survey the pipes in the ground, there is slack in the fiber within the cable 
bundle so it doesn't break if somebody pulls on the cable.

Second, the speed of light in fibers isn't known to the required level of 
accuracy.  (It's probably temperature dependent.)

In the context of fibers, having the detectors located deep underground in 
not a problem.  They have to get power and data cables down to the 
instruments somehow.  It would be easy to run a fiber in parallel with those 
cables.

There is also the delay in the amplifiers that you will need every 100 miles 
or so.  Or the low rise time if you try to avoid the amplifiers because you 
don't need much bandwidth...



-- 
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's.  I hate spam.




___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Marco IK1ODO -2]

At 08:16 21-11-11, you wrote:

I heard on the BBC the other day that a repeat experiment is 
planned, firing neurinos from the US into Canada. The labs were not 
cited, but I expect it would be Fermilab  to Sudbury Ontario. If 
this is the case, then there will still be the problem of not being 
able to run a parallel fibre as the Sudbury detectors are  also deep 
underground. This means that the emitter->detector path length will 
still be a paper length, and if there is a problem with the 
reference frame definition, or time transfer methodology , then the 
results may also be subject to questions raised in the case of 
OPERA.  The distance between these labs and the OPERA experiment are 
of the same order of magnitude so it will be interesting to see what hatches.


Even if you could run a fiber exactly parallel and straight on the 
neutrino path (drilling a vey deep tunnel :-)) then the speed in 
the fiber will be lower than c, due to the refraction index. So, in 
any case a synchronization system is needed, and it is not necessary 
to run a straight fiber.


73 - Marco IK1ODO


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[mike cook]

Le 20/11/2011 23:57, Hal Murray a écrit :

Perhaps if enough funding can be obtained repeating the measurments between
three or more stations (with diferent distances between them but similar
equipment at each site) might eleminate some of the ambiguity.  Being able
to compare the measurements over two or more paths of different lengths
would seem usefull to me.


I heard on the BBC the other day that a repeat experiment is planned, 
firing neurinos from the US into Canada. The labs were not cited, but I 
expect it would be Fermilab  to Sudbury Ontario. If this is the case, 
then there will still be the problem of not being able to run a parallel 
fibre as the Sudbury detectors are  also deep underground. This means 
that the emitter->detector path length will still be a paper length, and 
if there is a problem with the reference frame definition, or time 
transfer methodology , then the results may also be subject to questions 
raised in the case of OPERA.  The distance between these labs and the 
OPERA experiment are of the same order of magnitude so it will be 
interesting to see what hatches.


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Arnold Tibus]

Am 20.11.2011 23:50, schrieb Magnus Danielson:
> On 11/20/2011 11:10 PM, Justin Pinnix wrote:
>> I'm no physicist, but is it possible that the speed of light is faster
>> than
>> we thought it is?  Space isn't a perfect vaccum, and we know neutrinos
>> are
>> less affected by "stuff" than photons.  Maybe they travel closer to c
>> than
>> the actual photons we have been able to measure...
> 
> The speed of light is the speed of photons. For all we know we have
> pinned down the speed of light fairly well, and a deviation of 25 ppm or
> so would have been noticed.
> 
> The speed of "normal matter" (electrons, quarks, etc), all being
> particles of charge and thus interacting with photons also seems to obey
> the speed of photons, and then the laws of relativity surely applies.
> 
> The speed of neutrinos might be higher than photons, and current
> measures seems to indicate a slightly higher speed, but then again
> neutrinos does not interact with photons. Possibly this has a deeper
> meaning. It might be that the laws of relativity is relevant within that
> force-carrier system, but not outside it. This doesn't really shakes the
> laws of relativity in its grounds, it just defines a slightly different
> box within the laws applies.
> 
> Recall, physics advances with unexplained observations. Either it can be
> explained within the existing system and everybody is happy about that,
> or new core theories needs to be developed. Neutrinos has been hard to
> do qualitative measures on and looking at the OPERA, MINOS and T2K
> experiments indicates that there is indeed not small efforts.
> 
> Now, regardless if photons and neutrinos has the same speed or not, it
> becomes interesting to ask what makes them have the speed they have. If
> it differs, why is the photons slower than neutrinos? Is there in fact
> some underlying subtle force acting on them?
> 
> If we think we don't quite understand neutrinos, do we really understand
> photons? Their particle/wave duality is indeed strange and just taken
> for granted now, but it is really not explained.
> 
> This little micro-cosmos may have familiar names by now, but even with
> vibrating strings, membranes and other esoterical stuff, we just don't
> really understand it very well, we just have a bunch of theories.
> 
> Cheers,
> Magnus
> 

Hi,
this paper seem to be very interesting. But does it fully explain this
subject-matter correct and fully? I am not in the position to assess it.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf//.0805v1.pdf

Cheers
Arnold


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Magnus Danielson]

On 11/20/2011 11:10 PM, Justin Pinnix wrote:

I'm no physicist, but is it possible that the speed of light is faster than
we thought it is?  Space isn't a perfect vaccum, and we know neutrinos are
less affected by "stuff" than photons.  Maybe they travel closer to c than
the actual photons we have been able to measure...


The speed of light is the speed of photons. For all we know we have 
pinned down the speed of light fairly well, and a deviation of 25 ppm or 
so would have been noticed.


The speed of "normal matter" (electrons, quarks, etc), all being 
particles of charge and thus interacting with photons also seems to obey 
the speed of photons, and then the laws of relativity surely applies.


The speed of neutrinos might be higher than photons, and current 
measures seems to indicate a slightly higher speed, but then again 
neutrinos does not interact with photons. Possibly this has a deeper 
meaning. It might be that the laws of relativity is relevant within that 
force-carrier system, but not outside it. This doesn't really shakes the 
laws of relativity in its grounds, it just defines a slightly different 
box within the laws applies.


Recall, physics advances with unexplained observations. Either it can be 
explained within the existing system and everybody is happy about that, 
or new core theories needs to be developed. Neutrinos has been hard to 
do qualitative measures on and looking at the OPERA, MINOS and T2K 
experiments indicates that there is indeed not small efforts.


Now, regardless if photons and neutrinos has the same speed or not, it 
becomes interesting to ask what makes them have the speed they have. If 
it differs, why is the photons slower than neutrinos? Is there in fact 
some underlying subtle force acting on them?


If we think we don't quite understand neutrinos, do we really understand 
photons? Their particle/wave duality is indeed strange and just taken 
for granted now, but it is really not explained.


This little micro-cosmos may have familiar names by now, but even with 
vibrating strings, membranes and other esoterical stuff, we just don't 
really understand it very well, we just have a bunch of theories.


Cheers,
Magnus

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Alberto di Bene]

On 11/20/2011 11:17 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
> How does that interact with the SuperNova observations?
>
> I thought that was a good match for current theories.

>From what I know of the supernova observations (very little, indeed), in that 
>case there were
some assumptions, impossible to verify for correctness, on the exact instant of 
the departure
of the photons and the neutrinos from the exploding star
Maybe those assumptions were not totally correct.
Consider that in our Sun a photon can take up to one million year to travel 
from the kernel to
the surface, before escaping, finally free...   :-)

--
73  Alberto  I2PHD

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Hal Murray]

dib...@usa.net said:
> Theoreticians are inclined to think in terms of a fourth spatial dimension.
> This is the current line of thought at CERN. In this perspective, the
> neutrinos would have traveled for a distance shorter than thought, taking a
> shortcut via the fourth dimension, so to speak... 

How does that interact with the SuperNova observations?

I thought that was a good match for current theories.


-- 
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's.  I hate spam.




___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Justin Pinnix]

I'm no physicist, but is it possible that the speed of light is faster than
we thought it is?  Space isn't a perfect vaccum, and we know neutrinos are
less affected by "stuff" than photons.  Maybe they travel closer to c than
the actual photons we have been able to measure...

On Sunday, November 20, 2011, Robin Kimberley 
wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236
>
> Thoughts anyone?
>
> Rob Kimberley
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Chris Albertson]

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Alberto di Bene  wrote:
> On 11/20/2011 8:17 PM, Robin Kimberley wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236
>>
>> Thoughts anyone?
> Theoreticians are inclined to think in terms of a fourth spatial dimension.
> This is the current line of thought at CERN. In this perspective, the 
> neutrinos
> would have traveled for a distance shorter than thought, taking a shortcut
> via the fourth dimension, so to speak...

If there is no experimental error that has to be the answer.  These
other dimension must be very tiny if they have not been detected.  The
only way for the photons to take a longer path is if they oscillate in
these higher dimensions.  And neutrinos simply oscillate differently,
maybe a lower frequency.  so they both take corkscrew-like paths
through higher dimensional space the difference is how tightly the
screw is wind up.

I think when the answer comes out t will be like everything else, so
simple we all will say "it's obvious"

There is nothing exotic or hard to understand about a fourth spacial
dimension.  In our "old" 3d space we specify location with three
numbers, x,y and z.  With 4D we just need one more w,x,y and z.  But
if all this is correct the size of the entire universe in the "w"
direction is much smaller then a proton, so we just never noticed.
-- 


Chris Albertson
Redondo Beach, California

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <4ec95f99.80...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
>On 11/20/2011 08:55 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

>It seems that nature has something to teach us. A whole bunch of new 
>physics have something new to work on. :)

One of the really interesting things about neutrions is that nuclear
reactors emit a lot of anti-neutrinos.

When I learned physics, neutrinos were assumed mass-less, and
whatever interactions with matter they had, were probably "accidental"
rather than "by nature".  The standard way to deal with them, was
to just ignore them, as they could be "safely ignored".

As a result of this "everybody knows" assumption, any and all studies
about cancer and other health-issues from living close to nuclear
reactors have totally ignored the anti-neutrinoes, which are as
intense as the solar neutrinos if you are close to a reactor.

Now neutrinoes probably have a bit of mass, and they do interact
with matter in a biologically very nasty "one step to the side in
the periodic table" way, which can wreck havoc if they damage RNA/DNA
(C->N, N->O, O->F, P->S).

Suddenly the barely perceptible child-leukemia over-population 
really close to reactors has a plausible physical explanation.

But nobody in the radiation-health business looks at this, because
they were all educated many years ago, and just "know" that neutrinos
can be "safely ignored".

As long as you live more than a km away from the reactor, you and
your children should be prefectly safe.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp   | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer   | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Mark Spencer]

Perhaps if enough funding can be obtained repeating the measurments between 
three or more stations (with diferent distances between them but similar 
equipment at each site) might eleminate some of the ambiguity.  Being able to 
compare the measurements over two or more paths of different lengths would seem 
usefull to me.  
On Sun, 20 Nov, 2011 3:23 PM EST W2HX wrote:

>I heard an interview with a physicist who deals in this kind of research. He
>seemed to think that the precise distance between the two locations is
>uncertain. Plus the difficulties in syncronizing the clocks at both
>locations to that degree of precision seemed to cast some doubt on the
>certainty of the results.  I think these two issues are also issues with the
>first experiment (of which this second one seems to confirm the results). I
>agree with John that if there was some other way to measure this phenomenon,
>other that the same way these two tests used, I think it could be a real
>breakthrough. 
>
> 
>73 Eugene W2HX
> 
>
>-Original Message-
>From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On
>Behalf Of J. Forster
>Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 2:35 PM
>To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...
>
>They havn't found the systematic error yet?
>
>I'd be far more inclined to believe the result if it were confirmed by
>another lab, using a different methodology.
>
>-John
>
>=
>
>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236
>>
>> Thoughts anyone?
>>
>> Rob Kimberley
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to
>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>___
>time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>To unsubscribe, go to
>https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>and follow the instructions there.
>
>
>
>___
>time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
>To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>and follow the instructions there.


___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Alberto di Bene]

On 11/20/2011 8:17 PM, Robin Kimberley wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236
>
> Thoughts anyone?
Theoreticians are inclined to think in terms of a fourth spatial dimension.
This is the current line of thought at CERN. In this perspective, the neutrinos
would have traveled for a distance shorter than thought, taking a shortcut
via the fourth dimension, so to speak...

So Relativity still holds. What does not hold anymore is, perhaps, our view
of the universe having only three spatial dimensions plus time.

Interesting times are ahead of Physics  too bad to not be anymore young
enough to fully enjoy them  :-(

73  Alberto  I2PHD
 
___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[W2HX]

I heard an interview with a physicist who deals in this kind of research. He
seemed to think that the precise distance between the two locations is
uncertain. Plus the difficulties in syncronizing the clocks at both
locations to that degree of precision seemed to cast some doubt on the
certainty of the results.  I think these two issues are also issues with the
first experiment (of which this second one seems to confirm the results). I
agree with John that if there was some other way to measure this phenomenon,
other that the same way these two tests used, I think it could be a real
breakthrough. 

 
73 Eugene W2HX
 

-Original Message-
From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On
Behalf Of J. Forster
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 2:35 PM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

They havn't found the systematic error yet?

I'd be far more inclined to believe the result if it were confirmed by
another lab, using a different methodology.

-John

=


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236
>
> Thoughts anyone?
>
> Rob Kimberley
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
>



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Magnus Danielson]

On 11/20/2011 08:55 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

In message<01cca7b9$09112a50$1b337ef0$@btinternet.com>, "Robin Kimberley"
writes:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236


The most intelligent comment I have heard about it so far, was from
Demitrious @ USNO, who said that since Neutrinoes are not of
electromagnetic nature, there is really no reason to think relativity
applies to them.



Indeed. Neutrinos does not interact with photons, where as most other 
matter connects with photons. So if one think of neutrinos as being 
non-photonic it becames apparent that the limit of speed of light (i.e. 
of photons and photonic matter) does not really.


So, maybe one needs not to ask why neutrinos are so fast, rather ask why 
photons are so slow.


The Sagnac effect between the labs is 2.201 ns, but wither to actually 
use this effect or not becomes an open question, because we can't be 
sure that neutrinos actually obey that law, we can only guess.


It seems that nature has something to teach us. A whole bunch of new 
physics have something new to work on. :)


Cheers,
Magnus

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <01cca7b9$09112a50$1b337ef0$@btinternet.com>, "Robin Kimberley" 
writes:

>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236

The most intelligent comment I have heard about it so far, was from
Demitrious @ USNO, who said that since Neutrinoes are not of
electromagnetic nature, there is really no reason to think relativity
applies to them.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp   | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer   | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Re: [time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[J. Forster]

They havn't found the systematic error yet?

I'd be far more inclined to believe the result if it were confirmed by
another lab, using a different methodology.

-John

=


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236
>
> Thoughts anyone?
>
> Rob Kimberley
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
>



___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

[time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Robin Kimberley]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236

Thoughts anyone?

Rob Kimberley





___
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.