• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Puzzling results from CERN

Anders Lindman said:
But don't neutrinos spin? I'm just guessing here, but if so then the vacuum energy could affect the speed of the neutrinos. And the vacuum friction idea is very new, not decades old as you say. Their paper is from 2010: http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v82/i6/e063827
Click to expand...

Ummm, you do know that neutrinos are not actually really small, billiard ball-like particles, right? So the idea of a neutrino "spinning" through your ether-like "vacuum energy" like a baseball spinning through the air is a poor analogy.

Hint: take some time to read up on wave-particle duality.
 
nathan said:
You do know that gold is not an elementary particle, right?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but don't particles like neutrinos also have angular momentum? I don't understand what I found, lol, but it talks about spin and momentum in relation to neutrinos:

"The asymmetry of neutrino spin may be caused by momentum energy being imparted onto the doublet substructure by the weak force in a manner subject to the asymmetry of the unit particle of matter accepting the energy." -- http://xb0423.xb0.serverdomain.org/...r/PartI/I3/I3StepsStep2.html#NeutrinoHelicity
 
Roboramma said:
Anders, quantum mechanical spin, as has been pointed out twice, is not the same as classical rotational movement.

If you are interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)
Of interest to you:
Click to expand...

"Although the direction of its spin can be changed, an elementary particle cannot be made to spin faster or slower."

Hmm... Yes, an electron can be in spin + or - so it's a digital property. And that is used in for example quantum computers if I remember correctly. Ok, if neutrinos are elementary particles, maybe they can't be slowed down I admit.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Van Flandern was hired to do some consulting work for the physics department at the University of Maryland on the global positioning system (GPS)...According to him, the confusing "rigmarole" of relativity isn't needed to maintain the GPS, even though in theory it should be." --
Click to expand...

dasmiller spent 7 years working in various senior engineering roles on GPS and has written parts of the current GPS system spec. Despite his best efforts, he still gets called back to do consulting work on GPS.

dasmiller's conclusions are very different from Mr. Flandern's.



IIRC, the mods created a separate thread to discuss relativity conspiracy theory stuff; I applaud that action and suggest that we support it by not reintroducing it to this thread.
 
dasmiller said:
dasmiller spent 7 years working in various senior engineering roles on GPS and has written parts of the current GPS system spec. Despite his best efforts, he still gets called back to do consulting work on GPS.

dasmiller's conclusions are very different from Mr. Flandern's.



IIRC, the mods created a separate thread to discuss relativity conspiracy theory stuff; I applaud that action and suggest that we support it by not reintroducing it to this thread.
Click to expand...

Ok, yeah, that makes it kind of like a conspiracy theory. I will stick to the other thread for the conspiracy stuff. I slipped up a bit here. :blush:
 
Anders Lindman said:
Yeah, but don't particles like neutrinos also have angular momentum? I don't understand what I found, lol, but it talks about spin and momentum in relation to neutrinos:

"The asymmetry of neutrino spin may be caused by momentum energy being imparted onto the doublet substructure by the weak force in a manner subject to the asymmetry of the unit particle of matter accepting the energy." -- http://xb0423.xb0.serverdomain.org/...r/PartI/I3/I3StepsStep2.html#NeutrinoHelicity
Click to expand...

This is discussing a (hypothetical?) pair of neutrinos, which would have a dipole moment.

As sol and others have repeatedly pointed out to you, the spin of fundamental particles is not the same as classical angular momentum.

I have highlighted the bit you appear to understand -- you really need to read up on the fundamentals of QM, because you are getting more and more confused.
 
nathan said:
This is discussing a (hypothetical?) pair of neutrinos, which would have a dipole moment.

As sol and others have repeatedly pointed out to you, the spin of fundamental particles is not the same as classical angular momentum.

I have highlighted the bit you appear to understand -- you really need to read up on the fundamentals of QM, because you are getting more and more confused.
Click to expand...

Yes, in post 485 I corrected my mistake. Still, I think interactions between elementary particles and the vacuum energy is possible. I found this article which may be pseudoscience but it describes something similar that I have in mind:

"New quantitative formula of wave energy loss in vacuum is proved and presented in this article." -- http://alemanow.narod.ru/pioneers.htm
 
Anders Lindman said:
"The strength of the effect depends on the object's make-up and size. Objects whose electronic properties prevent them from easily absorbing electromagnetic waves, such as gold, may decelerate little or not at all. But small, low-density particles, which have less rotational momentum, slow down dramatically." -- http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927994.100-vacuum-has-friction-after-all.html

That sounds like something that could relate to neutrinos if they have rotational momentum. So when the neutrinos move in a straight line, then the vacuum energy could slow them down or speed them up when their rotational momentum is other than strictly perpendicular to the forward linear movement.
Click to expand...

This sounds like you cherry picking...

New Scientist? Cite the actual source not that made up stuff....

Wow Anders, double fail!

"The strength of the effect depends on the object's make-up and size. Objects whose electronic properties prevent them from easily absorbing electromagnetic waves, such as gold, may decelerate little or not at all. But small, low-density particles, which have less rotational momentum, slow down dramatically."

What is the property of neutrinos and EM waves?

Do you even try to understand before you post?
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
This sounds like you cherry picking...

New Scientist? Cite the actual source not that made up stuff....

Wow Anders, double fail!

"The strength of the effect depends on the object's make-up and size. Objects whose electronic properties prevent them from easily absorbing electromagnetic waves, such as gold, may decelerate little or not at all. But small, low-density particles, which have less rotational momentum, slow down dramatically."

What is the property of neutrinos and EM waves?

Do you even try to understand before you post?
Click to expand...

Here is an example of EM waves and the vacuum energy (translated via Google Translate): http://translate.google.com/transla...rabai.narod.ru/shtyrkov/evolution.htm&act=url

"IV. Conclusion

We discuss a new model of cosmological redshift on the basis of classical electrodynamics and the pilot of the Hubble law. The resulting wave equation (3) in contrast to the usual a third term, taking into account the interaction of light with the physical vacuum as a real environment. From the solution of this equation that light travels in a vacuum while maintaining the wavelength (10) and a velocity change (15) because of the gradual evolution of the vacuum and relative annual rate of change of the parameters of 10 -10.

In fact, because of this evolution, for the great time spent in the light path from the quasar to the Earth decreases the wavelength of the reference source on Earth as compared to the wavelength arriving from the remote object light. In other words, when making the origin of our era, we have red shift for light from the quasar in its observation of the Earth. This model provides an explanation but also the nature of the redshift and other properties of reality, for example, the paradox of Olbers and limitation in the observation of large relative spectral shift Z."
 
Anders Lindman said:
"the paradox of Olbers"
Click to expand...

Olber's paradox is only a paradox if one presumes an infinitely old universe of infinite size with a uniform density light sources. There's no need to bring red shift into resolve it at all.
 
nathan said:
Olber's paradox is only a paradox if one presumes an infinitely old universe of infinite size with a uniform density light sources. There's no need to bring red shift into resolve it at all.
Click to expand...

He did get one thing right. It is the paradox of Olbers (and thus Olbers' paradox) not Olber.

I'll stop being pedantic now.
 
nathan said:
Olber's paradox is only a paradox if one presumes an infinitely old universe of infinite size with a uniform density light sources. There's no need to bring red shift into resolve it at all.
Click to expand...

Olbers' paradox was interesting. Here they claim that redshift is needed to explain it: http://johanw.home.xs4all.nl/PhysFAQ/Relativity/GR/olbers.html

But, yeah, Olbers' paradox has been solved, so I don't understand why it is mentioned in that paper. ETA: Maybe it's mentioned because redshift caused by vacuum energy gives a very simple and clean explanation compared to the standard theories.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Here is an example of EM waves and the vacuum energy (translated via Google Translate): http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fbourabai.narod.ru%2Fshtyrkov%2Fevolution.htm&act=url
Click to expand...
Actually not an example of EM waves and the vacuum energy.
The author has had the rather silly idea of replacing the vacuum with "real matter with time-dependent dielectric permittivity" and then fitting that dielectric permittivity to get the observed redshift.

No references past 1993 and no mention of when the author wrote this web page. I would say that it is an old paper made moot by the COBE WMAP observations of the CMB and the discovery of dark energy.
 
Reality Check said:
Actually not an example of EM waves and the vacuum energy.
The author has had the rather silly idea of replacing the vacuum with "real matter with time-dependent dielectric permittivity" and then fitting that dielectric permittivity to get the observed redshift.

No references past 1993 and no mention of when the author wrote this web page. I would say that it is an old paper made moot by the COBE WMAP observations of the CMB and the discovery of dark energy.
Click to expand...

How about a combination of the vacuum friction redshift theory and the standard theories in a way that removes the need for dark energy? I don't know much about physics, but what I have learned about dark energy is that it is an ad hoc theory that doesn't really match earlier standard theories.
 
Anders Lindman said:
How about a combination of the vacuum friction redshift theory and the standard theories in a way that removes the need for dark energy? I don't know much about physics, but what I have learned about dark energy is that it is an ad hoc theory that doesn't really match earlier standard theories.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as "vacuum friction redshift theory".
Dark energy is not a theory. Dark energy is a set of observations that give strong evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
The theoretical parts are the candidates for cause of dark energy. The nost probable one (a positive cosmological constant) is basic General Relativity (nothing 'ad hoc', definitely matches earlier theories).
 
Anders Lindman said:
I don't know much about physics, but what I have learned about dark energy is that it is an ad hoc theory that doesn't really match earlier standard theories.
Click to expand...

do you understand how science works?

'copernicus's heliocentric model appears to be an ad hoc theory that doesn't really match earlier standard theories'

'newton's inertial model appears to be an ad hoc theory that doesn't really match earlier standard theories'

'darwin's natural selection model appears to be an ad hoc theory that doesn't really match earlier standard theories'

'the nuclear atomic model appears to be an ad hoc theory that doesn't really match earlier standard theories'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom