• 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

Would (assuming we had sufficent and sufficiently far apart space labs/whatever) this experiment have a lot less variables in Earth orbit or in deeper space? Seems a lot of the objections are about GPS accuracy and the effects of the dense Earth.
 
Anders Lindman said:
"Objects whose electronic properties prevent them from easily absorbing electromagnetic waves, such as gold, may decelerate little or not at all."

That sounds like something that could relate to neutrinos
Click to expand...

Really? You think something that doesn't affect objects that don't interact with electromagnetic waves might relate to neutrinos, which are particularly well know for not interact with electromagnetic waves?
 
FattyCatty said:
You must not have read all the comments.
Click to expand...

Like this one?

Relativity is rigorously derived and contains no errors within its boundary conditions. Relativity cannot be internally falsified. OPERA is not, cannot be observation of massed superluminal particles any more than Euclid can fail on a plane or cylinder.

Try Euclid on a torus or sphere. Relativity can selectively fail outside its founding postulates.

Relativity is weak toward angular momentum - material spin ("dark matter"), quantum spin (polarized fermion spin and/or orbital angular momentum as magnets), spin-orbit coupling. Einstein knew this, hence his 1928 "Fern-Parallelismus." Revised edition's exceptions fail to appear *strong field* in pulsar binary systems with solar stars (hydrogen plasma) or with white dwarfs (Fermi-degenerate matter). They also fail to appear weak field in Nordtvedt effect and Eotvos experiments.

Quantitative geometric chirality arises from moments of inertia (angular momentum). Crystallography is outside physics' box. Test spacetime geometry with atomic mass distribution geometry,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/erotor1.jpg
Opposite shoes violate the Equivalence Principle.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/shoes2.png
Opposite shoes on a vacuum left foot melt to identical socks with different transition energies.

That a foundation of physics could selectively fall to two calorimeters, three undergrads, and 24 hours is... the best reason *not* to look. $billions to confirm, not a single penny to falsify. More's the pity.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I generally try to avoid reading the comments on physics sites.
 
Last edited:
Buckaroo said:
Like this one?




Yeah, I generally try to avoid reading the comments on physics sites.
Click to expand...
I was referring to these:
sunil.thakur Today 10/14/2011
23 Comments

We are forgetting that experiment was conducted over a period of 3 years and same travel time was noticed for over 16000 neutrinos. If this explanation is correct then we cannot have same travel time for all the neutrinos.

______________________________________

nlw Today 10/14/2011
1 Comment

News or what?

I don't get this. What is this blog, is this just some blog, or is it trying to be a more serious "news outlet" of sorts?

Do you just pick up articles that people send to arXiv, and if you like it you publicize it?

That looks like a pretty incipient research to me, and seemingly uninformed not only about how the experiment was conducted, but about GPS technology in general. This kind of effect _is_ taken in consideration on GPS receivers... The author seems to assume something was taken in account and something else was not, finds out a good number, and multiply it by two just to arrive at the magical 60ns.

Until the work receives some more scrutiny, it should not receive as much attention and praise as this blog article here is giving.

This is awful journalism. It that what you want this blog to be?

___________________________________

nxj18 Today 10/14/2011
1 Comment

One thing in the paper...

From the referenced paper: "The clocks in the OPERA experiment are orbiting the earth in GPS satellites."

I believe that's incorrect. The clocks in the OPERA experiment are atomic clocks on the ground that are synchronized by GPS clocks. If I remember correctly, they are then checked against each other using other on-ground, highly accurate atomic clocks.
Click to expand...
 
Buckaroo said:
And that's that. It was fun while it lasted:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/
Click to expand...

But is this really correct?

"But there is an additional subtlety. Although the speed of light is does not depend on the the frame of reference, the time of flight does. In this case, there are two frames of reference: the experiment on the ground and the clocks in orbit. If these are moving relative to each other, then this needs to be factored in." -- http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/

The observer is stationary on the ground, and the frame of reference is the moving satellite. That's ONE frame of reference, not two.
 
Dan O. said:
I like the way he does the math and comes up with an answer that is only half what he needs and simply doubles it to make it right. The same corrections applied to both ends would cancel and not add.


I noticed that 60ns is roughly 2 pi^3. This has to be the answer because everybody likes pi. :)
Click to expand...

Exactly! The clocks were synchronized the same way at both source and destination, so relative to each other, the clocks were synchronized correctly.

"The OPERA team timed the neutrinos using clocks at each location that were synchronized using GPS (Global Positioning System) signals from a single satellite." -- http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/news.2011.575.html

ETA: Unless one clock was synchronized with the satellite moving towards it, and the other when the satellite was moving away from it. But what effect would that have? :confused: Plus, didn't they resynchronize the clocks many times when they got such an extraordinary result? Of course they would. And would they synchronize the clocks with the motion of the satellite in opposite directions every time? Maybe, but if so that seems a bit amateurish that they didn't take that into account. 3 years of investigation for what could be a measurement error and they wouldn't see this?
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
I like the way he does the math and comes up with an answer that is only half what he needs and simply doubles it to make it right. The same corrections applied to both ends would cancel and not add.
<snip>
Click to expand...

I think this is the right answer.
Anders Lindman said:
<snip>

ETA: Unless one clock was synchronized with the satellite moving towards it, and the other when the satellite was moving away from it. But what effect would that have? :confused: Plus, didn't they resynchronize the clocks many times when they got such an extraordinary result? Of course they would. And would they synchronize the clocks with the motion of the satellite in opposite directions every time? Maybe, but if so that seems a bit amateurish that they didn't take that into account. 3 years of investigation for what could be a measurement error and they wouldn't see this?
Click to expand...

It is reasonable to assume that they made an error and many people failed to detect it. Whatever the error is, it would be almost exactly 64ms.
 
rjh01 said:
I think this is the right answer.


It is reasonable to assume that they made an error and many people failed to detect it. Whatever the error is, it would be almost exactly 64ms.
Click to expand...

Here is a comment about that from another website:

"The experiement was done 15000 times, over 3 yrs and speed measured to 6-sigma. If this 32 nanosecond error in each direction is accurately calculated and accounts for the difference that OPERA derived then consequenty, the same level of accuracy could be applied to the velocity these satelites were orbiting, the constant speed they orbited varied and the thier distance from earth should be also taken into account. This all effects measured time-space measured by the orbitor, especially when we consider the 6-sigma. The net effect would have altering neutrino measurments, over the course of 3 years, which was not the case and especially over 64 nanoseconds." -- http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...s-explained-not-so-fast-folks/#comment-429112
 
But don't we need the error to be larger than 64ns?

Do neutrinos move at the speed of light or slower? And if at the speed of light, how can any object that has mass move that fast?

(I'm sure I'm missing something there...)
 
Dan O. said:
I like the way he does the math and comes up with an answer that is only half what he needs and simply doubles it to make it right. The same corrections applied to both ends would cancel and not add.


I noticed that 60ns is roughly 2 pi^3. This has to be the answer because everybody likes pi. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't think there's anything to that paper. I think the most likely explanation is in the statistics, as discussed earlier in this thread.
 
nvidiot said:
Do neutrinos move at the speed of light or slower? And if at the speed of light, how can any object that has mass move that fast?
Click to expand...

I think the upper bound on a neutrino's mass is a few tens of eV (any flavour of neutrino). As I recall that comes from the 1987a supernova results, and probably other things. That is *tiny*. For reference an electron's mass is 511keV and a proton is around 940MeV.

So, neutrinos cannot[*] travel at c, but of any known massive particle will travel closer to c for any given energy input.

[*] is the OPERA results are faulty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom