Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
On 10/04/2011 08:27 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here, says the bartender. A neutrino walks into a bar. It made its way to the news http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gone-in-60-nanoseconds/2011/10/06/gIQAf1RERL_story.html Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
On 25 Sep 2011, at 05:31, Axil Axil wrote: That is to say, neutrinos changing their flavor will go very fast (at warp speed) for a very short period of time during flavor change then once flavor change is complete, continue to move along indefinably at light speed. Hi Axil, I thought that it's only been relatively recently that a mathematical mechanism for treating the flavour changing oscillations has been added to the standard model (in the form of a new CKM-like flavour changing matrix). Have there been observations that the Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect can modify the oscillations, or is that conjecture on your part? Can you share the mathematics that show this warp speed during a flavour change? How are you modelling the flavour change? As far as I understand, there is no known flavour changing process - we just have to treat them as ad-mixtures of the fundamental neutrinos, and give up treating them individually. I've not been following developments as closely over the last few years. What have I missed? Thanks, Joe
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here, says the bartender. A neutrino walks into a bar.
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here, says the bartender. A neutrino walks into a bar. Tachey?
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
Hi, :-)), good one. MoB
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
Love it! :) -- Dr Joe Karthauser On 5 Oct 2011, at 00:27, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here, says the bartender. A neutrino walks into a bar.
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
From the CERN paper, all the neutrinos stated out as muon neutrinos and where received as muon neutrinos without flavor change to tau neutrinos. So no flavor changing occurred. The speed of the muon neutrinos was not a function of their energy either. These results rule out the MSW effect as a possible cause. Also there was no opportunity for quantum data transfer to occur via entanglement after muon neutrino creation. These result shoots my aforementioned speculations down and makes the CERN results far more deliciously curious. On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect (often referred to as the matter effect) is a particle physics process which can act to modify neutrino oscillations in matter. The work by American physicist Lincoln Wolfenstein in 1978 and the work by Soviet physicists Stanislav Mikheyev and Alexei Smirnov in 1986 led to an understanding of this effect. Later in 1986, Stephen Parke of Fermilab provided the first full analytic treatment of this effect. In a nutshell, high energy neutrinos change flavors at a higher rate when traveling through a dense medium then low energy neutrinos do. Also, the rate of flavor change is low for a neutrino of any energy level in a vacuum. The flavor change is analogous to the electromagnetic process leading to the refractive index of light in a medium. This means that neutrinos in matter have a different effective mass than neutrinos in vacuum, and since neutrino oscillations depend upon the squared mass difference of the neutrinos being transformed, neutrino oscillations may be different in matter than they are in vacuum. When these quntum particles transit dense media, whereas light slows down, neutrinos may speed up. The Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect will lead to different flavor change rates detected in neutrinos from a super-nova traveling through a vacuum verses neutrino flavor change rates seen when neutrinos penetrate dense media. For high-energy solar neutrinos the MSW effect is important. This was dramatically confirmed in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, where the solar neutrino problem was finally solved. There it was shown that only ~34% of the electron neutrinos (measured with one charged current reaction of the electron neutrinos) reach the detector, whereas the sum of rates for all three neutrinos (measured with one neutral current reaction) agrees well with the expectations. If neutrinos undergoing flavor change are entangled via coherent forward scattering which I strongly suspect, then the speed that these entangled virtual particle pairs cover distance during the flavor change (quantum information exchange) could be far faster than C ( light speed). See my post above. That is to say, neutrinos changing their flavor will go very fast (at warp speed) for a very short period of time during flavor change then once flavor change is complete, continue to move along indefinably at light speed. On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 09/24/2011 11:04 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: The New Scientist article, Dimension-hop may allow neutrinos to cheat light speed, here: http://www.newscientist.com/**article/dn20957-dimensionhop-**may-allow-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow- neutrinos-to-cheat-light-**speed.html suggest dimension hops as the means for neutrinos traveling faster than light, as measured in the CERN OPERA experiment, described by Adam et al., Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 The arrival time of the neutrinos across a 730 km distance was 60.7 ns early, representing 2.48x10^-5 relative difference vs light travel time. This measurement conflicts with early arrival time data for neutrinos from supernova. The New Scientist article quotes Marc Sher of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, It's not reasonable. ... If neutrinos were that much faster than light, they would have arrived [from the supernova] five years sooner, which is crazy, says Sher. They didn't. This implies a difference in travel speed in matter vs vacuum for the neutrinos. That's a possibility. Another is that this implies an extra difference in travel speed in air vs. vacuum for light. The electromagnetic signals sent by the gps systems are delayed a little bit more than expected according to current theory. And that becomes apparent only when compared with neutrino speeds, which are unaffected. This is consistent with the Cahill and Kitto paper about the non-null results of Michelson Morley type experiments and the relation with the refractive index of the medium: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/**0205065http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065 Interestingly, the 7.5 km/s reported difference in neutrino speed is in good agreement with the
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
On 09/24/2011 09:57 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: On 09/24/2011 11:04 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: The New Scientist article, Dimension-hop may allow neutrinos to cheat light speed, here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow- neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html suggest dimension hops as the means for neutrinos traveling faster than light, as measured in the CERN OPERA experiment, described by Adam et al., Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 The arrival time of the neutrinos across a 730 km distance was 60.7 ns early, representing 2.48x10^-5 relative difference vs light travel time. This measurement conflicts with early arrival time data for neutrinos from supernova. The New Scientist article quotes Marc Sher of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, It's not reasonable. ... If neutrinos were that much faster than light, they would have arrived [from the supernova] five years sooner, which is crazy, says Sher. They didn't. This implies a difference in travel speed in matter vs vacuum for the neutrinos. That's a possibility. Another is that this implies an extra difference in travel speed in air vs. vacuum for light. The electromagnetic signals sent by the gps systems are delayed a little bit more than expected according to current theory. And that becomes apparent only when compared with neutrino speeds, which are unaffected. This is consistent with the Cahill and Kitto paper about the non-null results of Michelson Morley type experiments and the relation with the refractive index of the medium: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065 Interestingly, the 7.5 km/s reported difference in neutrino speed is in good agreement with the 8 km/s result estimated for Michelson Morley type experiments in air. And a third possibility: the underground distance estimation between laboratories is wrong according to current theory. This can be the case, by example, if unaccounted for length contraction is happening due to gravitational effects. I would search for the difference in height between both laboratories, the way to estimate length contraction due to gravitational effects, and the estimated intensity of the gravitational field at the neutrino beam mean travel depth. And a fourth (and obvious one), sugested in one of the comments of Nature's announcement(http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html): Light speed in vacuum is not the maximum possible speed. That is, /c/ is not equal to the speed of light in vacuum, but slightly more. The vacuum has a refractive index slightly greater than one. Light interacts ligthly with the vacuum, then, whereas neutrinos don't interact (or interact less) with the vacuum or matter. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
Maoro, i did propose that idea also here at Vortex, but it does not work and it cannot explain 7 km/s difference. We have measured that speed of light in vacuum is not depended on direction at least accuracy of ±0.1 m/s. I do not remember how accurately it was measured, but it was much more accurate than the absolute value for c that is measured with accuracy of ±1m/s. Hence there is absolutely no observable difference between real c and the speed of light in vacuum and indeed we can measure very accurately the slowing down of light in medium/aether versus the real c. —Jouni On Sep 25, 2011 8:56 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 09/24/2011 09:57 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: On 09/24/2011 11:04 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: The New Scientist article, Dimension-hop may allow neutrinos to cheat light speed, here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow- neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html suggest dimension hops as the means for neutrinos traveling faster than light, as measured in the CERN OPERA experiment, described by Adam et al., Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 The arrival time of the neutrinos across a 730 km distance was 60.7 ns early, representing 2.48x10^-5 relative difference vs light travel time. This measurement conflicts with early arrival time data for neutrinos from supernova. The New Scientist article quotes Marc Sher of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, It's not reasonable. ... If neutrinos were that much faster than light, they would have arrived [from the supernova] five years sooner, which is crazy, says Sher. They didn't. This implies a difference in travel speed in matter vs vacuum for the neutrinos. That's a possibility. Another is that this implies an extra difference in travel speed in air vs. vacuum for light. The electromagnetic signals sent by the gps systems are delayed a little bit more than expected according to current theory. And that becomes apparent only when compared with neutrino speeds, which are unaffected. This is consistent with the Cahill and Kitto paper about the non-null results of Michelson Morley type experiments and the relation with the refractive index of the medium: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065 Interestingly, the 7.5 km/s reported difference in neutrino speed is in good agreement with the 8 km/s result estimated for Michelson Morley type experiments in air. And a third possibility: the underground distance estimation between laboratories is wrong according to current theory. This can be the case, by example, if unaccounted for length contraction is happening due to gravitational effects. I would search for the difference in height between both laboratories, the way to estimate length contraction due to gravitational effects, and the estimated intensity of the gravitational field at the neutrino beam mean travel depth. And a fourth (and obvious one), sugested in one of the comments of Nature's announcement( http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html): Light speed in vacuum is not the maximum possible speed. That is, /c/ is not equal to the speed of light in vacuum, but slightly more. The vacuum has a refractive index slightly greater than one. Light interacts ligthly with the vacuum, then, whereas neutrinos don't interact (or interact less) with the vacuum or matter. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
On 09/25/2011 03:19 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Maoro, i did propose that idea also here at Vortex, but it does not work and it cannot explain 7 km/s difference. We have measured that speed of light in vacuum is not depended on direction at least accuracy of ±0.1 m/s. I do not remember how accurately it was measured, but it was much more accurate than the absolute value for c that is measured with accuracy of ±1m/s. Hence there is absolutely no observable difference between real c and the speed of light in vacuum and indeed we can measure very accurately the slowing down of light in medium/aether versus the real c. But it does not need to be an anisotropic effect. Simply, the maximum possible speed (let's call it /c/), is slightly more than the maximum speed of light(let's call it /cl/). Until the neutrino speed measurement, it was assumed that light speed in vacuum was the maximum possible speed (that is, that /cl = c/). Now we know (if the experiment is correct and hasn't another more mundane explanation) that neutrino speeds are closer to a putative /c/ than light speeds. That is equivalent to saying that the refractive index of vacuum is slightly more than 1 for light. How slightly more will depend on how the new /c/ is defined, and at least in principle, it makes sense to define it based on the neutrino speed measurements. Now, I wonder if this is all there's to it, and I certainly doubt it. Probably the new /c /will also be slightly less than the maximum possible speed, that is, neutrinos will have a refractive index closer to but greater than one too. And finally: there's still the possibility of systematic effects related to Earth's movement, gps signals traveling in air, neutrinos traveling underground, etc. Regards, Mauro —Jouni On Sep 25, 2011 8:56 PM, Mauro Lacyma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 09/24/2011 09:57 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: On 09/24/2011 11:04 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: The New Scientist article, Dimension-hop may allow neutrinos to cheat light speed, here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow- neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html suggest dimension hops as the means for neutrinos traveling faster than light, as measured in the CERN OPERA experiment, described by Adam et al., Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 The arrival time of the neutrinos across a 730 km distance was 60.7 ns early, representing 2.48x10^-5 relative difference vs light travel time. This measurement conflicts with early arrival time data for neutrinos from supernova. The New Scientist article quotes Marc Sher of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, It's not reasonable. ... If neutrinos were that much faster than light, they would have arrived [from the supernova] five years sooner, which is crazy, says Sher. They didn't. This implies a difference in travel speed in matter vs vacuum for the neutrinos. That's a possibility. Another is that this implies an extra difference in travel speed in air vs. vacuum for light. The electromagnetic signals sent by the gps systems are delayed a little bit more than expected according to current theory. And that becomes apparent only when compared with neutrino speeds, which are unaffected. This is consistent with the Cahill and Kitto paper about the non-null results of Michelson Morley type experiments and the relation with the refractive index of the medium: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065 Interestingly, the 7.5 km/s reported difference in neutrino speed is in good agreement with the 8 km/s result estimated for Michelson Morley type experiments in air. And a third possibility: the underground distance estimation between laboratories is wrong according to current theory. This can be the case, by example, if unaccounted for length contraction is happening due to gravitational effects. I would search for the difference in height between both laboratories, the way to estimate length contraction due to gravitational effects, and the estimated intensity of the gravitational field at the neutrino beam mean travel depth. And a fourth (and obvious one), sugested in one of the comments of Nature's announcement( http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html): Light speed in vacuum is not the maximum possible speed. That is, /c/ is not equal to the speed of light in vacuum, but slightly more. The vacuum has a refractive index slightly greater than one. Light interacts ligthly with the vacuum, then, whereas neutrinos don't interact (or interact less) with the vacuum or matter. Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
Years ago there was a theory of Professor Günter Nimtz at university Kölln Germany. He had the theory (basing on experimental data) that Light has infinite speed inside Tunnel Effect regions. He made measurements and presented an Experiment where a Mozart Symphony was transmitted over short distance faster than light. Nimtz is not a crack, he is a high level expert for microwaves, This theory was heavily fighted and ridiculed and then forgotten after creating a lot of sensational reports in media. In his experiment only some photons where observed at FTL speed and so the Mozart Symphony was rather noisy ;-) So this is similar. Only some Neutrinos where observed to be FTL at CERN. Most what is published in media is in german: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Nimtz but his scientific publications are in english. Example: Macroscopic violation of special relativity: http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.0681
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
Horace, I was going to forward your message to another forum and put reference to mail-archive, but again your message did not make it into the archive. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/ Perhaps, you should try http://goo.gl instead of tinyurl.com –Jouni 2011/9/24 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: The New Scientist article, Dimension-hop may allow neutrinos to cheat light speed, here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html http://tinyurl.com/3bh52ab suggest dimension hops as the means for neutrinos traveling faster than light, as measured in the CERN OPERA experiment, described by Adam et al., Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 The arrival time of the neutrinos across a 730 km distance was 60.7 ns early, representing 2.48x10^-5 relative difference vs light travel time. This measurement conflicts with early arrival time data for neutrinos from supernova. The New Scientist article quotes Marc Sher of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, It's not reasonable. ... If neutrinos were that much faster than light, they would have arrived [from the supernova] five years sooner, which is crazy, says Sher. They didn't. This implies a difference in travel speed in matter vs vacuum for the neutrinos. A possible hypothesis to explain this difference is that dense matter presents numerous tunneling barriers to the neutrinos in their flight through such matter. The neutrinos spend 2.48x10^-5 of their travel time tunneling through barriers when traveling through matter with the density of the crust material. More accurately, about 2.48x10^-5 of the distance travelled in crustal matter is made up of tunneling barriers for the neutrinos. This neutrino tunneling occurs infinitely fast, because the quantum wavefunction of the neutrino is already there, on the other side of the barrier with some probability. That probability is large because the size of a neutrino wavefunction is large for a particle, due to its 2 eV or less rest mass. When tunneling occurs the wavefunction collapses, because the center of mass of the particle is suddenly changed. Its momentum and velocity remain in tact though, and its quantum wavefunction rebuilds with the new center of mass. The neutrino is thus teleported through small tunneling barriers, and its effective speed is increased. Such a large proportion of tunneling distance implies an extrememly dense set of tunneling barriers in matter. It implies the tunneling barriers are composed almost entirely of virtual particles within atoms, because the nuclear barrier lengths and cross sections are too small to account for the speed-up. The electron clouds must create vast numbers of virtual particles that present tunneling barriers to the neutrinos. An alternate explanation could be that these virtual particles actually present access ports to alternate dimensional paths through them. Taking such teleporting pathways could still be considered a form of, called, tunneling. The conflict between the observation of a difference of speed of travel of neutrinos in dense matter vs vacuum is explained bythis hypothesis. This hypothesis might be verified by sending a neutrino beam through the earth's core, which is far more dense, and thus should provide a much more dense virtual particle environment, a more frequent tunneling environment for the neutrinos. This hypothesis creates some mysteries, however. The total tunneling distance Dt encountered by the OPERA experiment neutrinos would be: Dt = 730 km * (2.48x10^-5) = 18.1 meters Using a mean atomic mass of 40 the mean nuclear radius Rn is: Dn = (1.25x10^-15 m)*40^(1/3) = 4.3x10^-15 m and the mean nucleus diameter is 8.6x10^-15 m. If the mean tunneling distance is 8.6x10^-15 m, then (18.1 m)/(8.6x10^-15 m) = 2.105x10^15 tunneling events would have to occur in the 720 km travel distance. The mean free path is (720 km)/(2.105x10^15) = 3.42x10^-10 m, or about 3.42 angstroms, roughly the distance between atoms. Conversely, if there is one tunneling event per atom, the tunneling distance is roughly the distance across the mean sized nucleus. Unfortunately, the nuclear cross section is insufficient for nuclear tunneling to be an explanation. The mean nuclear cross section sigma would be Pi*(4.3x10^-15 m)^2 = 5.81x10^-29 m^2. The nuclear density rho to explain a mean free path L would be given by: rho = 1/(sigma L) = 1/((5.81x10^-29 m^2)*(3.42x10^-10 m)) = 5x10^37/m^3 rho = 8.4x10^13 mol/m^3 or 8.4x10^7 mol/cm^3 For average atomic weight 40 that is: rho = 3.36x10^9 gm/cm^3 = 3.36x10^22 kg/m^3 This exceeds the density of the nucleus itself: 3×10^17 kg/m3, and the densities of neutron stars. It seems reasonable then that the interaction must be with virtual
[Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
The New Scientist article, Dimension-hop may allow neutrinos to cheat light speed, here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow- neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html suggest dimension hops as the means for neutrinos traveling faster than light, as measured in the CERN OPERA experiment, described by Adam et al., Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 The arrival time of the neutrinos across a 730 km distance was 60.7 ns early, representing 2.48x10^-5 relative difference vs light travel time. This measurement conflicts with early arrival time data for neutrinos from supernova. The New Scientist article quotes Marc Sher of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, It's not reasonable. ... If neutrinos were that much faster than light, they would have arrived [from the supernova] five years sooner, which is crazy, says Sher. They didn't. This implies a difference in travel speed in matter vs vacuum for the neutrinos. A possible hypothesis to explain this difference is that dense matter presents numerous tunneling barriers to the neutrinos in their flight through such matter. The neutrinos spend 2.48x10^-5 of their travel time tunneling through barriers when traveling through matter with the density of the crust material. More accurately, about 2.48x10^-5 of the distance travelled in crustal matter is made up of tunneling barriers for the neutrinos. This neutrino tunneling occurs infinitely fast, because the quantum wavefunction of the neutrino is already there, on the other side of the barrier with some probability. That probability is large because the size of a neutrino wavefunction is large for a particle, due to its 2 eV or less rest mass. When tunneling occurs the wavefunction collapses, because the center of mass of the particle is suddenly changed. Its momentum and velocity remain in tact though, and its quantum wavefunction rebuilds with the new center of mass. The neutrino is thus teleported through small tunneling barriers, and its effective speed is increased. Such a large proportion of tunneling distance implies an extrememly dense set of tunneling barriers in matter. It implies the tunneling barriers are composed almost entirely of virtual particles within atoms, because the nuclear barrier lengths and cross sections are too small to account for the speed-up. The electron clouds must create vast numbers of virtual particles that present tunneling barriers to the neutrinos. An alternate explanation could be that these virtual particles actually present access ports to alternate dimensional paths through them. Taking such teleporting pathways could still be considered a form of, called, tunneling. The conflict between the observation of a difference of speed of travel of neutrinos in dense matter vs vacuum is explained bythis hypothesis. This hypothesis might be verified by sending a neutrino beam through the earth's core, which is far more dense, and thus should provide a much more dense virtual particle environment, a more frequent tunneling environment for the neutrinos. This hypothesis creates some mysteries, however. The total tunneling distance Dt encountered by the OPERA experiment neutrinos would be: Dt = 730 km * (2.48x10^-5) = 18.1 meters Using a mean atomic mass of 40 the mean nuclear radius Rn is: Dn = (1.25x10^-15 m)*40^(1/3) = 4.3x10^-15 m and the mean nucleus diameter is 8.6x10^-15 m. If the mean tunneling distance is 8.6x10^-15 m, then (18.1 m)/ (8.6x10^-15 m) = 2.105x10^15 tunneling events would have to occur in the 720 km travel distance. The mean free path is (720 km)/ (2.105x10^15) = 3.42x10^-10 m, or about 3.42 angstroms, roughly the distance between atoms. Conversely, if there is one tunneling event per atom, the tunneling distance is roughly the distance across the mean sized nucleus. Unfortunately, the nuclear cross section is insufficient for nuclear tunneling to be an explanation. The mean nuclear cross section sigma would be Pi*(4.3x10^-15 m)^2 = 5.81x10^-29 m^2. The nuclear density rho to explain a mean free path L would be given by: rho = 1/(sigma L) = 1/((5.81x10^-29 m^2)*(3.42x10^-10 m)) = 5x10^37/m^3 rho = 8.4x10^13 mol/m^3 or 8.4x10^7 mol/cm^3 For average atomic weight 40 that is: rho = 3.36x10^9 gm/cm^3 = 3.36x10^22 kg/m^3 This exceeds the density of the nucleus itself: 3×10^17 kg/m3, and the densities of neutron stars. It seems reasonable then that the interaction must be with virtual particles, which have no gravitational mass, and which can have extreme densities. Suppose the mean tunneling distance is the Planck length Lp = 1.616x10^-35 m. The mean free path L then is: L = (1.616x10^-35 m)/(2.48x10^-5) = 6.513x10^-31 m Suppose the particle cross section sigma is:
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
On Sep 24, 2011, at 5:13 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Horace, I was going to forward your message to another forum and put reference to mail-archive, but again your message did not make it into the archive. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/ Perhaps, you should try http://goo.gl instead of tinyurl.com –Jouni Thanks for the info! I sent an updated one that also does not have the tinyurl. It archived OK: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg51772.html This is still a work in progress of course. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
On Sep 24, 2011, at 1:08 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Years ago there was a theory of Professor Günter Nimtz at university Kölln Germany. He had the theory (basing on experimental data) that Light has infinite speed inside Tunnel Effect regions. He made measurements and presented an Experiment where a Mozart Symphony was transmitted over short distance faster than light. Nimtz is not a crack, he is a high level expert for microwaves, This theory was heavily fighted and ridiculed and then forgotten after creating a lot of sensational reports in media. In his experiment only some photons where observed at FTL speed and so the Mozart Symphony was rather noisy ;-) So this is similar. Only some Neutrinos where observed to be FTL at CERN. Most what is published in media is in german: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Nimtz but his scientific publications are in english. Example: Macroscopic violation of special relativity: http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.0681 This is an amazing article! Thanks for posting that. It will take some time for me to digest that, if I ever can. What I suggested earlier is similar. The Feynman diagram would look similar to the article diagram, except a virtual particle would merge at the left with the real particle to form a new virtual particle, which then splits to become the original two particles. Obviously Nimtz is dealing with photons only. What I have suggested is essentially similar but involving neutrino-virtual-particle interaction. One has to wonder at the possibility of electron- virtual-particle interaction. The large rest mass of the electron may prevent coupling of its string to a virtual photon. Alternatively, Heisenberg could limit the duration of such a merger for an observable time. This area is of great importance to the deflation fusion theory: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
rom the experiment done back in 2008 as discussed in this article, quantum information can travel at speeds that exceed 100,000 times C (the speed of light in a vacuum). http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080813/full/news.2008.1038.html The concept of time may not necessary apply to quantum particles. Einstein called such behavior “spooky action at a distance”, because he found it deeply unsettling. He and other physicists clung to the idea that there might be some other way for the particles to communicate with each other at or near the speed of light. The experiment shows that in quantum mechanics at least, some things transcend space-time, says Terence Rudolph, a theorist at Imperial College London. It also shows that humans have attached undue importance to the three dimensions of space and one of time we live in, he argues. “We think space and time are important because that’s the kind of monkeys we are.” Some theorists believe that particles connected by quantum entanglement communicate in a higher dimension other that the four that we know from our everyday life. “Hints of universal behavior seen in exotic three-atom states” at http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-hints-universal-behavior-exotic-three-atom.html anounce a new field of quantum chemistry where multiple atoms entangel themselves at low energy in “Trimers”. The trimers were first predicted almost 40 years ago by theoretical physicist Vitaly Efimov. The most striking feature of Efimov's prediction was that the effect was both universal and repeating. That meant that the trimers could form from anything, be it as large as an atom or as small as a quark. And it also meant that Efimov's trimers would form repeatedly, up and down the energy scale in a stepwise fashion. Efimov, now at the University of Washington, even predicted the spacing in energy of the trimers; he said they would appear every time the binding energy increased by a factor of 22.7. “Efimov's 1970 work met with much skepticism, especially since his prediction specified that three particles could form stable partnerships even though none of the two-particle matchups were stable. That is, 3 particles could accomplish what 2 particles could not. This novel arrangement has been compared to the Borromean Rings, a set of three rings used on heraldic symbol for the Borromeo family during the Italian Renaissance. The three rings hold together unless any one of the rings is removed.” Creating and braking the Borromean Rings, require a higher topological dimension than our classical Einsteinian world can support. “These trimers are quantum objects; they have no classical counterpart. The weak binding of the super-cold Cs atoms is described in terms of a parameter, a, called the scattering length. If a is positive and large (much larger than the nominal range of the force between the atoms), weak binding of atoms can happen. If a is negative, a slight attraction of two atoms can occur but not binding. If, however, a is large, negative, and three atoms are present, then the Efimov state can appear. Indeed an infinite number of such states can occur. The Efimov state has an energy spectrum, as if it were a chemical element all by itself, with each binding energy level scaling with the value of a. This kind of universal behavior was expected.” By the way, I speculate that Mills chemistry might possible be explained by entangled high energy trimer quantum objects as opposed to hydrino theory. On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: The New Scientist article, Dimension-hop may allow neutrinos to cheat light speed, here: http://www.newscientist.com/**article/dn20957-dimensionhop-** may-allow-neutrinos-to-cheat-**light-speed.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow-neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html suggest dimension hops as the means for neutrinos traveling faster than light, as measured in the CERN OPERA experiment, described by Adam et al., Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 The arrival time of the neutrinos across a 730 km distance was 60.7 ns early, representing 2.48x10^-5 relative difference vs light travel time. This measurement conflicts with early arrival time data for neutrinos from supernova. The New Scientist article quotes Marc Sher of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, It's not reasonable. ... If neutrinos were that much faster than light, they would have arrived [from the supernova] five years sooner, which is crazy, says Sher. They didn't. This implies a difference in travel speed in matter vs vacuum for the neutrinos. A possible hypothesis to explain this difference is that dense matter presents numerous tunneling barriers to the neutrinos in their flight through such matter. The neutrinos spend 2.48x10^-5 of their travel time tunneling
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
On 09/24/2011 11:04 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: The New Scientist article, Dimension-hop may allow neutrinos to cheat light speed, here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow- neutrinos-to-cheat-light-speed.html suggest dimension hops as the means for neutrinos traveling faster than light, as measured in the CERN OPERA experiment, described by Adam et al., Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 The arrival time of the neutrinos across a 730 km distance was 60.7 ns early, representing 2.48x10^-5 relative difference vs light travel time. This measurement conflicts with early arrival time data for neutrinos from supernova. The New Scientist article quotes Marc Sher of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, It's not reasonable. ... If neutrinos were that much faster than light, they would have arrived [from the supernova] five years sooner, which is crazy, says Sher. They didn't. This implies a difference in travel speed in matter vs vacuum for the neutrinos. That's a possibility. Another is that this implies an extra difference in travel speed in air vs. vacuum for light. The electromagnetic signals sent by the gps systems are delayed a little bit more than expected according to current theory. And that becomes apparent only when compared with neutrino speeds, which are unaffected. This is consistent with the Cahill and Kitto paper about the non-null results of Michelson Morley type experiments and the relation with the refractive index of the medium: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065 Interestingly, the 7.5 km/s reported difference in neutrino speed is in good agreement with the 8 km/s result estimated for Michelson Morley type experiments in air. And a third possibility: the underground distance estimation between laboratories is wrong according to current theory. This can be the case, by example, if unaccounted for length contraction is happening due to gravitational effects. I would search for the difference in height between both laboratories, the way to estimate length contraction due to gravitational effects, and the estimated intensity of the gravitational field at the neutrino beam mean travel depth. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
The Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect (often referred to as the matter effect) is a particle physics process which can act to modify neutrino oscillations in matter. The work by American physicist Lincoln Wolfenstein in 1978 and the work by Soviet physicists Stanislav Mikheyev and Alexei Smirnov in 1986 led to an understanding of this effect. Later in 1986, Stephen Parke of Fermilab provided the first full analytic treatment of this effect. In a nutshell, high energy neutrinos change flavors at a higher rate when traveling through a dense medium then low energy neutrinos do. Also, the rate of flavor change is low for a neutrino of any energy level in a vacuum. The flavor change is analogous to the electromagnetic process leading to the refractive index of light in a medium. This means that neutrinos in matter have a different effective mass than neutrinos in vacuum, and since neutrino oscillations depend upon the squared mass difference of the neutrinos being transformed, neutrino oscillations may be different in matter than they are in vacuum. When these quntum particles transit dense media, whereas light slows down, neutrinos may speed up. The Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect will lead to different flavor change rates detected in neutrinos from a super-nova traveling through a vacuum verses neutrino flavor change rates seen when neutrinos penetrate dense media. For high-energy solar neutrinos the MSW effect is important. This was dramatically confirmed in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, where the solar neutrino problem was finally solved. There it was shown that only ~34% of the electron neutrinos (measured with one charged current reaction of the electron neutrinos) reach the detector, whereas the sum of rates for all three neutrinos (measured with one neutral current reaction) agrees well with the expectations. If neutrinos undergoing flavor change are entangled via coherent forward scattering which I strongly suspect, then the speed that these entangled virtual particle pairs cover distance during the flavor change (quantum information exchange) could be far faster than C ( light speed). See my post above. That is to say, neutrinos changing their flavor will go very fast (at warp speed) for a very short period of time during flavor change then once flavor change is complete, continue to move along indefinably at light speed. On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 09/24/2011 11:04 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: The New Scientist article, Dimension-hop may allow neutrinos to cheat light speed, here: http://www.newscientist.com/**article/dn20957-dimensionhop-**may-allow-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20957-dimensionhop-may-allow- neutrinos-to-cheat-light-**speed.html suggest dimension hops as the means for neutrinos traveling faster than light, as measured in the CERN OPERA experiment, described by Adam et al., Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 The arrival time of the neutrinos across a 730 km distance was 60.7 ns early, representing 2.48x10^-5 relative difference vs light travel time. This measurement conflicts with early arrival time data for neutrinos from supernova. The New Scientist article quotes Marc Sher of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, It's not reasonable. ... If neutrinos were that much faster than light, they would have arrived [from the supernova] five years sooner, which is crazy, says Sher. They didn't. This implies a difference in travel speed in matter vs vacuum for the neutrinos. That's a possibility. Another is that this implies an extra difference in travel speed in air vs. vacuum for light. The electromagnetic signals sent by the gps systems are delayed a little bit more than expected according to current theory. And that becomes apparent only when compared with neutrino speeds, which are unaffected. This is consistent with the Cahill and Kitto paper about the non-null results of Michelson Morley type experiments and the relation with the refractive index of the medium: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/**0205065http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065 Interestingly, the 7.5 km/s reported difference in neutrino speed is in good agreement with the 8 km/s result estimated for Michelson Morley type experiments in air. And a third possibility: the underground distance estimation between laboratories is wrong according to current theory. This can be the case, by example, if unaccounted for length contraction is happening due to gravitational effects. I would search for the difference in height between both laboratories, the way to estimate length contraction due to gravitational effects, and the estimated intensity of the gravitational field at the neutrino beam mean travel depth. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
2011/9/24 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: When tunneling occurs the wavefunction collapses, because the center of mass of the particle is suddenly changed. Its momentum and velocity remain in tact though, and its quantum wavefunction rebuilds with the new center of mass. The neutrino is thus teleported through small tunneling barriers, and its effective speed is increased. This sounds nice hypothesis. This hypothesis would imply that it is possible transmit information via teleportation faster than light. Therefore it will falsify special theory of relativity. It would be interesting, if this finding is confirmed soon, to see how we can fit on theoretical basis seemingly inconsistent facts together. Namely how we can explain all the time dilation related observations, if we allow instant information transfer via quantum teleportation? Because this would mean that space traveler Alice would be able to observe her time slowing down in real time in respect to her brother Bob who was left at home. Most sad thing this is for entertainment, because lots of movies will lose their theoretical consistency. I just watched the movie Thor and it also utilized Einstein-Rosen bridge, and now this movie's plot generator just collapsed. –Jouni
