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
Re: [Vo]:Neutrinos, FTL, and scientific textus receptus
On Sep 23, 2011, at 9:58 PM, Kyle Mcallister wrote: --- On Fri, 9/23/11, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: 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. AFAIK, Sher wouldn't know this. Kamiokande I came online in 1983, Kamiokande II in 85. SN1987A obviously happened in 1987, so how he gets 5 years as being impossible makes no sense to me. If no neutrino detector existed 5 years prior, then he doesn't know. Sher based his comments on the fact that neutrinos arrived 3 hours before the supernova - as predicted in advance. The prediction was based on the longer time it takes photons to make it through a supernova's interior. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A It occurred approximately 51.4 kiloparsecs from Earth, approximately 168,000 light-years ... Approximately three hours before the visible light from SN 1987A reached the Earth, a burst of neutrinos was observed at three separate neutrino observatories. ... At 7:35 a.m. Universal time, Kamiokande II detected 11 antineutrinos, IMB 8 antineutrinos and Baksan 5 antineutrinos, in a burst lasting less than 13 seconds. Sher's number seems to be off a bit, but he may have just been talking top of the head estimates. In the CERN OPERA results, neutrinos arrived about 2.48x10^-5 the travel time sooner than expected. For a 168,000 ly trip the expected photon arrival delay time Dt should be Dt = (2.48x10^-5)*(150,000 yr) = 1359 days = 3.72 years This also assumes that the neutrinos produced in SN1987A would have traveled at exactly the same speed greater than C as those produced at CERN. That's a big assumption. A supernova obviously has a / slightly/ greater power output than a human-made collider. [snip] The CERN result did not show any dependence on neutrino energy in the range checked. If neutrino energy is not a factor then the size of the burst only has to do with the number of neutrinos arriving, not the difference in time from neutrino arrival to light arrival due to distance. The fact early arrival time is not dependent on energy indicates the fast tunneling is more likely provided extra-dimensionally than simply due to ordinary wavefunction collapse. If the teleporting were due to wavefunction collapse then delay should be a function of the de Broglie wavelength, which is a function of momentum. Under the hypothesis, collision of a neutrino with a virtual particle then results in the taking of an instant (or nearly instant) path to the other side of the position occupied by the virtual particle. Another variation of the hypothesis exists if sound can travel on strings at superluminal speeds. The interaction then involves a neutrino-virtual-photon string merging on the arrival side and similar string separation on the departure side. If the string vibration propagation speed is not instant, but significantly larger than c, the same result occurs - an early arrival of the neutrino. In the case of the OPERA experiment this merely means the 18.1 meter cumulative tunneling distance I calculated would be replaced by a longer cumulative distance during which neutrinos effectively travel at the speed of sound in the strings. The neutrinos then are momentarily converted from a separate string into a vibration, a pulse, traveling on a momentarily merged string. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Neutrinos, FTL, and scientific textus receptus
A slight correction to the Dt calc made below. On Sep 23, 2011, at 9:58 PM, Kyle Mcallister wrote: --- On Fri, 9/23/11, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: 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. AFAIK, Sher wouldn't know this. Kamiokande I came online in 1983, Kamiokande II in 85. SN1987A obviously happened in 1987, so how he gets 5 years as being impossible makes no sense to me. If no neutrino detector existed 5 years prior, then he doesn't know. Sher based his comments on the fact that neutrinos arrived 3 hours before the supernova - as predicted in advance. The prediction was based on the longer time it takes photons to make it through a supernova's interior. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A It occurred approximately 51.4 kiloparsecs from Earth, approximately 168,000 light-years ... Approximately three hours before the visible light from SN 1987A reached the Earth, a burst of neutrinos was observed at three separate neutrino observatories. ... At 7:35 a.m. Universal time, Kamiokande II detected 11 antineutrinos, IMB 8 antineutrinos and Baksan 5 antineutrinos, in a burst lasting less than 13 seconds. In the CERN OPERA results, neutrinos arrived about 2.48x10^-5 the travel time sooner than expected. For a 168,000 ly trip the expected photon arrival delay time Dt should be Dt = (2.48x10^-5)*(168,000 yr) = 1521 days = 4.17 years This also assumes that the neutrinos produced in SN1987A would have traveled at exactly the same speed greater than C as those produced at CERN. That's a big assumption. A supernova obviously has a / slightly/ greater power output than a human-made collider. [snip] The CERN result did not show any dependence on neutrino energy in the range checked. If neutrino energy is not a factor then the size of the burst only has to do with the number of neutrinos arriving, not the difference in time from neutrino arrival to light arrival due to distance. The fact early arrival time is not dependent on energy indicates the fast tunneling is more likely provided extra-dimensionally than simply due to ordinary wavefunction collapse. If the teleporting were due to wavefunction collapse then delay should be a function of the de Broglie wavelength, which is a function of momentum. Under the hypothesis, collision of a neutrino with a virtual particle then results in the taking of an instant (or nearly instant) path to the other side of the position occupied by the virtual particle. Another variation of the hypothesis exists if sound can travel on strings at superluminal speeds. The interaction then involves a neutrino-virtual-photon string merging on the arrival side and similar string separation on the departure side. If the string vibration propagation speed is not instant, but significantly larger than c, the same result occurs - an early arrival of the neutrino. In the case of the OPERA experiment this merely means the 18.1 meter cumulative tunneling distance I calculated would be replaced by a longer cumulative distance during which neutrinos effectively travel at the speed of sound in the strings. The neutrinos then are momentarily converted from a separate string into a vibration, a pulse, traveling on a momentarily merged string. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[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/
[Vo]:Mind Reading 1 Step Closer to Reality
The technology takes an fMRI (fMRI ???) setup, a supercomputer, and a subject willing to undergo hours of pre-training, but still ... pretty amazing! http://techland.time.com/2011/09/23/scientists-can-almost-read-your-mind-tur n-thoughts-into-movies/ Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Neutrinos, FTL, and scientific textus receptus
Kyle, Enjoyed your rant! Thx. RE: the 'god' particle being really hard to find... Makes me wonder if the (unconscious?) motivation for its existence came out of a realization by the physics powerbrokers that they needed a reason to justify an even larger research budget. Let's hypothesize a new particle that probably doesn't exist, and it'll take a ginormous accelerator, which will take 10 years to build, to prove that! -m
Re: [Vo]: Latest from Thane
Mark, Thane posted this reponse to my comments: Dear hveeder, Actually if you want to use a gasoline engine analogy (as coined by one of our engineer investors...) the vehicle would be accelerating while the gas tank is filling up with fuel and eventually you would have to stop at the side of the road to dump excess gas into the ditch! As far as unlimited acceleration is concerned there may be an upper coil limit and certainly there is an upper physical limit - we have not seen it yet. Cheers Thane Thane also emphasizes in the demo that the acceleration is accompanied by an 8% DROP in input power. Harry PS Dear Vortex members, if you respond to my mail and want the message sent to vortex, please make sure the vortex mail address appears in the 'TO' box. I think this problem is related to the lastest improvements Yahoo has made to their mail system. From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: 'Harry Veeder' hlvee...@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 9:28:08 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Latest from Thane Harry said: “However, I get the impression that the duration of the acceleration is effectively unlimited, but Thane limits it for safety reasons.” Thane limits the speed (~3000rpm) for safety reasons, but I doubt that the effect is unlimited. If I understand it correctly, the rotor needs to be going at least some lower threshold speed (1800rpm???) or else when the load is applied it will slow down and eventually stop. At that threshold, the ability of the magnetic domains to respond to the changing conditions, and those effects on the electrical properties of the coils, results in the acceleration effect – opposing magnetic fields occurring at or shortly after the rotor has passed the centerline of the coils, thus pushing the rotor in the direction it is turning, thus increasing its speed. However, my gut feeling is that as the rotor continues to speed up, the ‘push’ will diminish until it is too small to affect the rotor’s speed. The electrical properties of the coils have everything to do with how the effect manifests… -mark From:Harry Veeder [mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]: Latest from Thane It is like an electric or gasoline vehicle accelerating without consuming more electricity or gasoline. The kinetic energy of the vehicle is increasing without increasing input energy. Now you could say this is merely because the engine was switched to a more energy efficient mode, but in that case the duration of the acceleration should be limited. However, I get the impression that the duration of the acceleration is effectively unlimited, but Thane limits it for saftey reasons. Harry From:Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:50:57 PM Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]: Latest from Thane Hi Mark, I would like to believe he has discovered another method of tapping the zero point but without separating how much energy is contained strictly in the mechanical flywheel from the energy being magnetically coupled across from the stator you have to question what role efficiency might play [simply becoming more efficient as frequency increases]. If I understand the clip correctly the regenerative coils are on the driven device not the motor drive… could the spinning fields be radiating power like an antenna and the addition of the extra coils reduces Rf output ? Fran From:Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]: Latest from Thane Latest from Thane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_wleUlcMK0 The Theory of Conservation of Energy states that: Energy cannot be created This theory is false as is shown in this video by employing the Work-Energy Principle. The Work-Energy Principle basically states that in order to increase the inertia (kinetic energy) of a mass some EXTERNAL WORK MUST be performed. This video shows that this is no longer the case. Kind regards and happy International Day of Peace Thane
Re: [Vo]:Mind Reading 1 Step Closer to Reality
THAT is astounding. There has been slow progress toward mind-reading machines and machines that can be controlled by the mind. This looks like a large leap. Kind of like that Google self-driving car versus earlier attempts to make antonymous cars. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Neutrinos, FTL, and scientific textus receptus
On 11-09-24 01:58 AM, Kyle Mcallister wrote: [ ... ] It should be pointed out that there are formulations of relativistic transforms (Tangherlini, Selleri, etc.) which allow some form of absolute reference frame, and therefore absolute simultaneity. There is a distinct 'past' and 'future'. These various formulations are indistinguishable from conventional special relativity up to C. Above C, they give wildly different predictions; with special relativity, you run into causality violations. I believe I alluded to something like this earlier. In a universe which adheres in general to the SR model, you can, none the less, allow instantaneous information transfer in a single, distinguished universal rest frame without leading to any causality violations. It's when you allow the instantaneous transmitter to move at an arbitrary velocity, and send information to an arbitrary receiver in the same inertial frame as the transmitter, with arrival time being instantaneous in the (arbitrarily selected) rest frame of the transmitter, that you run into trouble. The causality violations happen when you send information FTL in one frame (frame #1), relay it to someone in another (carefully selected) frame (frame #2), and send it back to the starting point in the that other frame. When it comes back in frame #2, it's going backwards in time in frame #1, and it ends up at the same spatial coordinates it started at in frame #1, but at an earlier time. Note well: Time travel is just fine (entails no contradictions) as long as the destination is outside the backward light cone of the starting point. It's getting the destination into the backward cone of the starting point which requires the frame hopping. This becomes clear if you try to draw the contradiction on a space time diagram. You can move from certain positions which are outside the backward light cone of an event to inside it, if we allow single-frame FTL travel, but to move from the event to a position outside either of its cones from which you can still get to a point inside its backward cone, you need to frame-hop. To put it another way, two events which are separated by a space-like interval can occur at (nearly) any relative times you like in any particular inertial frame. To get the contraction, you need to travel across one or more space-like hops, and end up with a time-like separation from your starting point -- and the separation must be in the wrong direction. (I hope this made at least a little sense...) If an assumed absolute frame is present, Which, BTW, is the case according to at least some modern theories of cosmology. Any model in which you can see yourself if you look far enough out into space has an implicit absolute frame in it. As I recall, there was a major search, using Hubble, for just such a situation a while back (no luck, tho, the universe may still be open for all that experiment showed).
Re: [Vo]:Neutrinos, FTL, and scientific textus receptus
2011/9/24 Kyle Mcallister kyle_mcallis...@yahoo.com: If an assumed absolute frame is present, these do not happen, you simply arrive quicker, but the speed in different directions is varied. It would be, I think, an interesting experiment, if possible, to measure the speed of these (if they are) superluminal neutrinos at various times of year, or with travel paths oriented in particular directions. Points of interest might be in the constellations Leo/Crater, Aquarius, Octans, and in the vicinity of Ursa Major. I am speculating based on our apparent motion WRT the CMBR. Absolute reference frame does not necessarily mean that we could observe velocities in respect of something classical absolute frame of reference, but velocity is rather the property of moving body itself. It does not matter in which direction we are moving, but only thing that matters is when we are changing the velocity. I.e. when we can observe Δv while accelerating. It does not matter into what direction satellite is orbiting the Earth, but both have the same intrinsic velocity that is ca. 8 km/s greater than ours. Therefore both satellites that are orbiting Earth into opposite directions measure for their internal clocks the same pace, although their relative speed is different in respect of our frame of reference due to Earth's rotation. It might be difficult to understand this perspective, because we are so used to think velocities as relative value in respect of other bodies, but it is no more difficult than understanding rotational motion. We can define rotation in respect of some absolute frame of reference or surrounding stars, but we can also define rotation in respect of the object itself. Similarly we can define the velocity of object in respect of the object itself. Therefore the absolute frame of reference is nothing that is external for the moving object itself, but it is the similar to angular momentum, that is the property of rotational body itself. Although on Earth we travel very fast around the sun and towards Andromeda, but we do not observe any Δv's. Therefore every observation we have made, have been made without changing our own velocity. Therefore the rate of our clocks has remained always constant although we have observed change of pace in clocks that have been moved faster than us. Such as myons or airplanes. If we are to test this hypothesis, we should leave Earth's low orbit. We cannot observe probably time dilation itself, but if time dilatation is realistic and is depended on our absolute speed, then we should be able to measure different value for speed of light, because speed of light is not affected by our local time dilatation. Too bad that we can measure the speed of light only within the accuracy of ±1m/s, therefore we may not get accurate enough measurements at low Earth orbit, but if we go to Venus' orbit or fly fast to Mars, we should get total Δv more than 15 km/s, therefore we should be able to measure the greater value for speed of light, if time dilatation happens in real time and is depended on intrinsic velocity of observer. Anyways this kind of absolute velocity is extremely difficult to understand, because there is no change of absolute velocity in circular orbital motion. But orbital motion is no different that rotational motion in general. It was also from Newton very insightful observation when he noticed the problem that do we need to define rotational motion in respect of absolute frame of reference? Same logic will apply also for steady motion! Do we need to really define steady motion in respect of some frame of reference? Note also that this interpretation of absolute motion is mathematically identical to special theory of relativity, if we are making observations from the frame what's Δv is close to zero, i.e. ±10 km/s. Therefore we have not seen this effect in our scientific tests. But from logical point of view this is radically different, because it allows superluminal transfer of information in principle. And indeed I do believe that quantum mechanics does predict that in teleportation, there is information exchanged instantly over arbitrary distance. I was so confident for this theory that I have bet €100 to support my theory. And also I was 19 years old when I invented this, and I have not needed to change it's core principles and also I have not seen any scientific observation that would be in conflict with this interpretation, but it neatly explains everything from GPS to pulsars. And now I am very sure that we have first indirect evidence that supports this kind of absolute motion. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Neutrinos, FTL, and scientific textus receptus
And by the way... On 11-09-24 01:58 AM, Kyle Mcallister wrote: Now, the article goes on to say that maybe the neutrinos did some funny travel through another dimension, and arrived at the destination sooner by taking a shortcut. So, no, they never really traveled faster than light. This is quite possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. If you crack open Taylor and Wheeler, do a few space-time diagrams, you will find that it DOES NOT MATTER whether the thing took a shortcut through the dimension of somebody else's problem via bistromathics; from our point of view, the thing traveled at a global speed defined by V = D / t, and since the arrival at position D = x (with the origin being defined as D = 0) took place at time t x / c, it still went faster than light as far as special relativity is concerned. Period. Yeah. Bien sur. The whole issue isn't that some religious law might be broken; it's that you can get contradictions if we allow stuff like this to go on without careful controls on it, and short cuts, improbability physics, and bistromath make no difference to that conclusion. And, frankly, I, and lots of other people (I'm sure!), feel pretty strongly that Nature doesn't allow contradictions. Paradoxes may be allowed in the math of the model, but they're never in the real world. Ergo, if FTL travel is possible, there are surely some restrictions buried in the fine print.
Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point
First, you hit a sore point here, and I'm going to address it first. The sore point is people giving some special, unusual meaning to a common word, and then pretending that they've done something more clever than just introduce a monkey wrench into the discussion. On 11-09-23 07:32 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: I'll probably tell you too that for me science, real science, is about knowledge of the way things really are. Wrong on the face of it. Language is for communication, and communication using language requires a previously agreed to set of meanings for the words to be used. Consequently, you are welcome to define some word to mean knowledge of the way things /really/ are, along with your own personal definition of the term really are, but the word for that isn't science, which has rather more limited goals. You can pretend that /real/ science would have a more broad reaching goal than what /ordinary/ science has, but science is just a word, words are just for communication, and to have value in communication the word must be vested with its commonly accepted meaning. By definition, a word means what it is commonly agreed to mean -- nothing more and nothing less. If you use a word to mean something other than that, then you are using it for obfuscation, not communication. Science, as the word is commonly used, refers to a particular technique and the knowledge which has been gained by that technique. The (extremely simple) technique of science consists of observing reality, making guesses about what makes it all go, and then /testing/ the guesses. The knowledge which has been gained by applying that technique is the aggregate of the guesses which have been made, and the results of the tests which have been applied, and really, that's all there is to it. Anything else is outside the realm of science, as the word is commonly used. In particular, determining the nature of some unknown and ultimately untestable absolute reality is utterly beyond its scope. On 11-09-23 07:32 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: [ ... ] Now, looking at the picture again, I can ask you: what is moving in the galaxy? In general, you'll answer that stars, dust clouds, etc. are moving, and that their movement has taken a spiral form, again, due to gravity and due to a given initial rotation of the system, which was in the past a giant dust cloud of some kind(which was rotating who knows why), and gradually developed stars and planets out of the initial irregularities. And then I'll ask you: the empty space between stars, planets, etc. which is in the galaxy, is also moving? You'll probably answer that, given our current understanding of the matter, only matter can move, not empty space. Moreover, you'll cite scientific premises like Occam's razor and the like, to announce that we shouldn't multiply the entities, that only observables and measurable things must be considered, etc. No, I won't invoke Occam's Razor at all. I'll merely point out that we can easily cast your comments about the motion of space itself in classical terms. You are talking about an aether, and a sort of reverse aether drag where the moving aether drags the stars along. To date, the aether theories which are consistent with experimental results are also consistent with the predictions of SR, which is purely geometric and does not require an aether. Consequently, to date there's no evidence for the existence of an aether. But that could change tomorrow. If the motion of the stars in spiral galaxies can be explained by an aether theory, then obviously that would change things rather a lot -- and the aether would move from the realm of speculation (which is what an untestable theory is) and into the realm of theories producing testable predictions. But to get to that point, you'd need to refine your speculation enough to explain not just precisely what the interaction between the aether and the stars is, but you would also need to explain what was making the aether whirl around like that. If you can't come up with a solid reason for the latter, then you've got no constraints on how you can assume the aether moves, and your theory starts looking untestable. It is not Occam's Razor that says that any theory which produces no testable predictions is not a valid theory. Rather, it's the basic principle of science: You observe, you guess, and you /test your guess/. If you can't test your guess in any way, then it's a useless sort of guess. And then I'll answer that it strikes me as completely self evident that what has caused the beautiful spiral arrangement of the stars in the galaxy arms is the movement of space itself. As I said, quantify that, so that it makes a testable prediction, and it becomes an interesting theory. Absent such quantification, it's just speculation, and is outside the realm of science, which doesn't deal with things which cannot be tested.
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
[Vo]:Re: Response to Henk Houkes
Horace, thanks for your reply. Your frustration about the incompleteness of the EK travel report is understandable, but by questioning everything that was or was not measured or reported, and by generating a lot of new uncertainties you certainly do not help those who seek to converge to possible conclusions. I guess that the saying If it looks like an elephant, sounds like an elephant, smells like an elephant and feels like an elephant it is probably an elephant will not get your full endorsement :). My post was a reaction to the following part of your original post on Sept 21st. Based on the T vs t slopes it seems possible the power for most of the first part of the elbow, for abut 9 minutes, was around 533 W, and the second part of the elbow, and maybe beyond, it was about 748 W, the power applied in the Krivit demonstration. This is certainly more credible than a nearly instant power surge of 4 kW when the temperature hit 100°C. It looks as if power was possibly switched to the preheater element at some initial point and then the band heater kicked in at a later point. There is no way of knowing exactly what electrical power was applied throughout because it was not recorded, and most importantly not integrated via a kWh meter. There is no way of knowing the actual enthalpy was generated because the output heat flow was not measured. My point is that EK DID record and monitor the applied electrical power by measuring the input current and they found it to be basically constant, with a decrease in time. The fact that they do not provide this info in a nice time sequenced metafile does not render it obsolete. With a power fairly constant over time you do not need to measure and record it every few seconds or so. And a KWh meter to do the integration is also not really necessary. You also seem to imply that EK somehow failed to include the possible power for the preheater element: The power source is not the only issue, though that seems to me not credible without a kWh meter or continual data acquisition. Also, it makes no sense to drive only the band heater when the auxiliary heater is supposedly what heats the fuel and triggers the reaction. Why was no mention made of this? But that's because you created this auxiliary heater problem yourself in your first post: There appears to be two power cords running from two receptacles on the rightmost (in the photo) back side of the blue box. This could indicate that both the main band heater and the auxiliary heater were in use, indicating more than 300 W was in use at some point. The electrical current was measured at the input of the blue box, so everything is included. EK specifically mention the 30W to drive the instrumentation. So I think my 364 Watts of total max input power are in the right ballpark. Of course the flowrate of input water should have been properly recorded, but there is no indication that it did change considerably over time. They quote Levi as saying that a 5% error is a conservative estimate. As for the temperature measurements, you can think of all possible schemes, but if you look at the pictures of the chimnee, and see that the output for the hose is above the point where the thermometer is inserted, it is very likely that the measurements do reflect the temperature of the water/steam. All in all, I think there is evidence that a certain amount of excess heat was generated. In view of the steam uncertainties and the geometrical constraints outlined by you it may well be considerably less than the calculated 4.4 kW, but to me that is less important. Further understanding of the physics, finetuning and non-Rossi engineering will find the practical operating range for this technology. We just might have an elephant in the room ... regards Henk I emailed a response to Henk Houkes over 4 hours ago, but I think the bad subject line prevented acceptance by the server. On Sep 23, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Henk Houkes wrote: Horace, Regarding the input power measurements you may want to re-read the Nyteknik article athttp://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/ energi/article3144827.ece It states: A phenomenon that Kullander and Essén noted was that the curve for the water temperature at the output showed a steady increase up to about 60 degrees centigrade, after which the increase escalated. The curve then became steeper, it clearly had a new derivative. At the same time there was no increase in power consumption, it rather decreased when it got warmer, said Essén. This suggests that contrary to your assumptions, the input power (actually the input current) was monitored and did not increase at the moment of the bend. My comments were a review of the article: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf I do not find this remark in the article. However, the remark clearly is quoted in the article you reference above however. In any case
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]:Neutrinos, FTL, and scientific textus receptus
--- On Sat, 9/24/11, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: In the CERN OPERA results, neutrinos arrived about 2.48x10^-5 the travel time sooner than expected. For a 168,000 ly trip the expected photon arrival delay time Dt should be Dt = (2.48x10^-5)*(168,000 yr) = 1521 days = 4.17 years Right. But either way, Sher's claim that (it's) crazy doesn't really hold up. Kamiokande wouldn't have seen anything anyways if they had arrived that much sooner. The facilities weren't up and running, or just barely. It would be interesting if they DID have some preliminary data to see if there was a spike around that timeframe. The CERN result did not show any dependence on neutrino energy in the range checked. If neutrino energy is not a factor then the size of the burst only has to do with the number of neutrinos arriving, not the difference in time from neutrino arrival to light arrival due to distance. I don't know if neutrino energy by itself has anything to do with their speed. I don't see any reason why they couldn't have different speeds due to different initial conditions. That is to say, technically, the oscilloscope sitting across the room from me has more energy (on a per mass basis) than an individual alpha particle being emitted from the Am-241 source in my smoke detector. But the alpha is moving far, far faster. Put another way, how much of the neutrino's energy is expressed as kinetic energy? How/what is required/done to make the neutrino move at a given speed? I do recall reading, years ago, in Cramer's Alternative View column about an experiment purporting to measure the rest mass of the electron neutrino as being the square root of a negative number. I.E., tachyonic. I don't know what came of it. At the very least, it's something to think about. Another variation of the hypothesis exists if sound can travel on strings at superluminal speeds. The interaction then involves a neutrino-virtual-photon string merging on the arrival side and similar string separation on the departure side. If the string vibration propagation speed is not instant, but significantly larger than c, the same result occurs - an early arrival of the neutrino. In the case of the OPERA experiment this merely means the 18.1 meter cumulative tunneling distance I calculated would be replaced by a longer cumulative distance during which neutrinos effectively travel at the speed of sound in the strings. The neutrinos then are momentarily converted from a separate string into a vibration, a pulse, traveling on a momentarily merged string. Regardless of the mechanism, does it still provide the same result, arrival of information at the destination at t D / c? If so, it is still FTL, and could conceivably be used for the transfer of data. Don't get me wrong, figuring out HOW it works is bloody interesting, but the big thing at the moment is, it seems to me, can it transfer information faster than light in free space. If so, it is nothing short of wonderful. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]:Neutrinos, FTL, and scientific textus receptus
but the big thing at the moment is, it seems to me, can it transfer information faster than light in free space. No, only in dense matter, not free space... Best regards, Axil On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Kyle Mcallister kyle_mcallis...@yahoo.comwrote: --- On Sat, 9/24/11, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: In the CERN OPERA results, neutrinos arrived about 2.48x10^-5 the travel time sooner than expected. For a 168,000 ly trip the expected photon arrival delay time Dt should be Dt = (2.48x10^-5)*(168,000 yr) = 1521 days = 4.17 years Right. But either way, Sher's claim that (it's) crazy doesn't really hold up. Kamiokande wouldn't have seen anything anyways if they had arrived that much sooner. The facilities weren't up and running, or just barely. It would be interesting if they DID have some preliminary data to see if there was a spike around that timeframe. The CERN result did not show any dependence on neutrino energy in the range checked. If neutrino energy is not a factor then the size of the burst only has to do with the number of neutrinos arriving, not the difference in time from neutrino arrival to light arrival due to distance. I don't know if neutrino energy by itself has anything to do with their speed. I don't see any reason why they couldn't have different speeds due to different initial conditions. That is to say, technically, the oscilloscope sitting across the room from me has more energy (on a per mass basis) than an individual alpha particle being emitted from the Am-241 source in my smoke detector. But the alpha is moving far, far faster. Put another way, how much of the neutrino's energy is expressed as kinetic energy? How/what is required/done to make the neutrino move at a given speed? I do recall reading, years ago, in Cramer's Alternative View column about an experiment purporting to measure the rest mass of the electron neutrino as being the square root of a negative number. I.E., tachyonic. I don't know what came of it. At the very least, it's something to think about. Another variation of the hypothesis exists if sound can travel on strings at superluminal speeds. The interaction then involves a neutrino-virtual-photon string merging on the arrival side and similar string separation on the departure side. If the string vibration propagation speed is not instant, but significantly larger than c, the same result occurs - an early arrival of the neutrino. In the case of the OPERA experiment this merely means the 18.1 meter cumulative tunneling distance I calculated would be replaced by a longer cumulative distance during which neutrinos effectively travel at the speed of sound in the strings. The neutrinos then are momentarily converted from a separate string into a vibration, a pulse, traveling on a momentarily merged string. Regardless of the mechanism, does it still provide the same result, arrival of information at the destination at t D / c? If so, it is still FTL, and could conceivably be used for the transfer of data. Don't get me wrong, figuring out HOW it works is bloody interesting, but the big thing at the moment is, it seems to me, can it transfer information faster than light in free space. If so, it is nothing short of wonderful. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]:Neutrinos, FTL, and scientific textus receptus
--- On Sat, 9/24/11, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com I believe I alluded to something like this earlier. In reading back over previous emails, yes, you're right. In a universe which adheres in general to the SR model, you can, none the less, allow instantaneous information transfer in a single, distinguished universal rest frame without leading to any causality violations. Well, as far as I can tell (and remember from the countless space-time diagrams I sketched out) it is of equal, isotropic velocity in that rest frame. From other frames' perspectives, the speed (of some superluminal motion) is different in differing directions. The difference between conventional special relativity and theories including an absolute rest frame, seems to me, to be that effectively, in the absolutist framework, time is universal, or put another way, propagated instantaneously. In SR, time is apparent propagated at c. Relativity of simultaneity and all that. I can see how an /apparent/ causality violation could happen; if a body exceeds c, it outruns its own light signal, and a suitably positioned observer could detect photons emitted from the body at the destination before photons from its departure position reached it. It would LOOK like the thing moved acausally, but it is just a trick of the light in this case. But whereas in one case it is just an illusion, in the other case, it is assumed to be something real. It's when you allow the instantaneous transmitter to move at an arbitrary velocity, and send information to an arbitrary receiver in the same inertial frame as the transmitter, with arrival time being instantaneous in the (arbitrarily selected) rest frame of the transmitter, that you run into trouble. Yes. There should be, for superluminal velocities, an anisotropy in different directions of propagation velocity. It would seem, if I am thinking this correctly, that if we have thing that can travel at v c, that we can build an 'ether compass', to borrow an outdated term, to determine our velocity with respect to an absolute rest frame, and determine the direction in which we are moving against it. Unless something weird happens see my upcoming response to Jouni's post. Note well: Time travel is just fine (entails no contradictions) as long as the destination is outside the backward light cone of the starting point. It's getting the destination into the backward cone of the starting point which requires the frame hopping. This becomes clear if you try to draw the contradiction on a space time diagram. You can move from certain positions which are outside the backward light cone of an event to inside it, if we allow single-frame FTL travel, but to move from the event to a position outside either of its cones from which you can still get to a point inside its backward cone, you need to frame-hop. Right. Which is why I said, if you do some frame switching, you can cause real problems within the scope of conventional special relativity if FTL is allowed. (I hope this made at least a little sense...) It did. Many thanks! If an assumed absolute frame is present, Which, BTW, is the case according to at least some modern theories of cosmology. Which theories in particular? Robertson-Walker is one I've heard about in the past. If I even remembered the name right. Don't remember much to be honest. Any model in which you can see yourself if you look far enough out into space has an implicit absolute frame in it. As I recall, there was a major search, using Hubble, for just such a situation a while back (no luck, tho, the universe may still be open for all that experiment showed). That gives me something to think about. --Kyle
