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/[email protected]/ Perhaps, you should try http://goo.gl instead of tinyurl.com –Jouni 2011/9/24 Horace Heffner <[email protected]>: > 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 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: > > sigma = Lp^2 = (1.616x10^-35 m)^2 > > We then have an average virtual particle numerical density rho: > > rho = 1/(sigma L) = 1/((1.616x10^-35 m)^2 * (6.513x10^-31 m)) > > rho = 5.89x10^99/m^3 > > These numbers only set a limit on virtual particle density. It could be much > less if the diameters are many Planck lengths wide. > > This high virtual particle density would have to be due to the effect of the > electron-nucleus field. This implies the atom is a very busy place, even > outside the nucleus. > > The hypothesis is tenuous. However, it indicates a possible experimental > direction, looking at the effect of a through earth's core pathway. > > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > > > >
