Merged Puzzling results from CERN

[Reality Check]

What is your explanation for the CERN result?

Something in their experiment that they did not take account of or account for incorrectly.

Their results predict the neutrinos from supernova 1987a would arrive 4 years before the light and they arrived within hours. This means that their results are wrong. The only question is by how much and why.
Good explanation at Game Over for Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos?

P.S. This also invalidates whatever fantasy you have since you say this fantasy explains the Opera result. But the Opera result is wrong!

 

[Dancing David]

I thought it was the Crane Stance

What is your explanation for the CERN result?

You are hardly steady enough to claim a crane stance.

If you haven't read the thread, you may want to.

 

[DeathDart]

You are hardly steady enough to claim a crane stance.

If you haven't read the thread, you may want to.

Okay I have an inner ear problem.

I have read the beginning so I have been in context.

And I didn't change anything with my equation to nail a perfect sample of 1.

It the (CERN Result) makes a kind of sense, but connecting it back to a whole theorem, I am going to need a few more data points or they will find their error and I can throw this data point out.

While the ambiguous zone terrifies some of the formally trained, people like me thrive in it. NOT I can tolerate it just a little bit longer (Like swimming with piranha) and I am more persistent than some ( I don't taste very good, it pays to spoil your piranha). This was a stream of semi-consciousnesses.

 

[ingoa]

Okay I have an inner ear problem.

I have read the beginning so I have been in context.

And I didn't change anything with my equation to nail a perfect sample of 1.

It the (CERN Result) makes a kind of sense, but connecting it back to a whole theorem, I am going to need a few more data points or they will find their error and I can throw this data point out.

While the ambiguous zone terrifies some of the formally trained, people like me thrive in it. NOT I can tolerate it just a little bit longer (Like swimming with piranha) and I am more persistent than some ( I don't taste very good, it pays to spoil your piranha). This was a stream of semi-consciousnesses.

What does that mean in English?

 

[ben m]

While the ambiguous zone terrifies some of the formally trained,

Translation: I know there's this class of people I want to feel superior to, so I like to imagine they have this flaw I just made up.

people like me thrive in it.

Translation: ... and I'm the Chuck Norris of overcoming this flaw I made up. My feel-superior mission is accomplished.

 

[dlorde]

Sorry, just had to do it: (SFW)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4

Always wondered if that had any connection to Lt. Pigeon's 'Mouldy Old Dough'...

 

[Dancing David]

Okay I have an inner ear problem.

I have read the beginning so I have been in context.

And I didn't change anything with my equation to nail a perfect sample of 1.

It the (CERN Result) makes a kind of sense, but connecting it back to a whole theorem, I am going to need a few more data points or they will find their error and I can throw this data point out.

While the ambiguous zone terrifies some of the formally trained, people like me thrive in it. NOT I can tolerate it just a little bit longer (Like swimming with piranha) and I am more persistent than some ( I don't taste very good, it pays to spoil your piranha). This was a stream of semi-consciousnesses.

This has nothing to do with the OP or many fallacies of discussion you engage in and in fact points out your spin issues.

The OPERA results will need years to understand and be replicated, meanwhilte there is plenty of evidence that does not match your interesting ideas, so perhaps toning down the rhetoric and learning more about the convergent data would be helpful.

 

[DeathDart]

This has nothing to do with the OP or many fallacies of discussion you engage in and in fact points out your spin issues.

The OPERA results will need years to understand and be replicated, meanwhilte there is plenty of evidence that does not match your interesting ideas, so perhaps toning down the rhetoric and learning more about the convergent data would be helpful.

The data is converging.

They would need to be 17 meters short to get the result they did.

Previous experiments with lower accuracy equipment was suggesting the same result. So they tightened up everything. Nada

But I have to remember, you are only human.

If you want to understand the CERN result without the possibility of human error, there is a universe out there that isn't following your rules, either.

 

[Reality Check]

The data is converging.
....

You are wrong. The OPERA results diverge from the previous results.
Good explanation at Game Over for Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos?.
The IceCube, Kamiokande and 1987 supernova results all say that any excess of neutrino speed over light speed is less than 5 parts per billion. The OPERA result is at least 10,000 times greater than these.

Is the OPERA Speedy Neutrino Experiment Self-Contradictory?

And so where do we stand, according to Cohen and Glashow?

• We have supernovas neutrinos with energies 100–1000 times smaller than those in OPERA’s beam that travel within a few parts per billion of light speed.
• We have neutrinos with energies 100–1000 times larger than OPERA’s that travel within a few tens of parts per billion of light speed.
• We have OPERA, which observes an effect of 20 parts per million, and yet if neutrinos traveled as fast as that, OPERA should have seen its high-energy neutrinos depleted before they even arrived, due to CG emission, but did not.

What that tells us is that is the most likely cause of the OPERA result is a systematic error in the experiment.

 

[Dancing David]

The data is converging.

How many data points in that claim?

They would need to be 17 meters short to get the result they did.

Previous experiments with lower accuracy equipment was suggesting the same result. So they tightened up everything. Nada

Oh wow, so what is the error margin, explicitly in the runs? Do you even know?

But I have to remember, you are only human.

If you want to understand the CERN result without the possibility of human error, there is a universe out there that isn't following your rules, either.

Your arrogance is amazing, so when will you say that you are right, or wrong. Six months or a year? care to commit? two years?

 

[DeathDart]

You are wrong. The OPERA results diverge from the previous results.
Good explanation at Game Over for Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos?.
The IceCube, Kamiokande and 1987 supernova results all say that any excess of neutrino speed over light speed is less than 5 parts per billion. The OPERA result is at least 10,000 times greater than these.

Is the OPERA Speedy Neutrino Experiment Self-Contradictory?

[/LIST]What that tells us is that is the most likely cause of the OPERA result is a systematic error in the experiment.

Both the light and the neutrinos were following the same path from 1987a to Earth. The light got here first. No surprise.

At CERN we can't send light through 700+ km of rock, we could send neutrinos. If light could have gone through the rock, it would have still beat the neutrinos.

At CERN you were measuring an increase in the speed of light. Big surprise!

Now the two experiments do not contradict each other. They do contradict how you think the universe works. Silly Humans

 

[DeathDart]

How many data points in that claim?

Oh wow, so what is the error margin, explicitly in the runs? Do you even know?

Your arrogance is amazing, so when will you say that you are right, or wrong. Six months or a year? care to commit? two years?

Lets see OPERA had 15,223 events. I have given up trying to use this since it is only one data point. Other than proving light can travel faster than was assumed, I do not know what else it might prove. From one data point you really can't build a theory.

The distance error margin was 20 cm.

Thank you, my arrogance is amazing. I have a green thumb for arrogance

You mistake persistence for arrogance. I make mistakes and I learn from them.

Here I stand, until your logic, or an applicable experiment beats me. That is the way it should be.

 

[Reality Check]

Both the light and the neutrinos were following the same path from 1987a to Earth. The light got here first. No surprise.

Both the light and the neutrinos were following the same path from CERN to OPERA. The neutrinos were detected at OPERA first. Surprise!

Now the two experiments do not contradict each other. They do contradict how you think the universe works. Silly Humans

Now the two experiments do contradict each other. Silly DeathDart

Since you are proving that you cannot understand what you read, I will put the important bit in bold red just for you.
Game Over for Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos?.
The IceCube, Kamiokande and 1987 supernova results all say that any excess of neutrino speed over light speed is less than 5 parts per billion. The OPERA result is at least 10,000 times greater than these.

Is the OPERA Speedy Neutrino Experiment Self-Contradictory?

 

[GodMark2]

Both the light and the neutrinos were following the same path from CERN to OPERA. The neutrinos were detected at OPERA first. Surprise!

No, they didn't. No light traveled from CERN to OPERA, there was a planet in the way. Neutrinos don't care about the planet and pass right through it, but photons get stopped.

They had a measured time of the start of the neutrino flight, a measured time of arrival, and a measured distance, this gave a speed, which was compared to the already known speed of light.

But the rest of your post stands.

 

[Reality Check]

Whoops - I should have made it clear that the "light" the followed the same path was theoretical light.

 

[DeathDart]

Both the light and the neutrinos were following the same path from CERN to OPERA. The neutrinos were detected at OPERA first. Surprise!


Now the two experiments do contradict each other. Silly DeathDart

Since you are proving that you cannot understand what you read, I will put the important bit in bold red just for you.
Game Over for Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos?.
The IceCube, Kamiokande and 1987 supernova results all say that any excess of neutrino speed over light speed is less than 5 parts per billion. The OPERA result is at least 10,000 times greater than these.

Is the OPERA Speedy Neutrino Experiment Self-Contradictory?

Do you know the exact distance to 1987a to an accuracy of 1e-8? Do you know the time they began their journey?

So you don't know if BOTH the neutrinos and light broke your speed limit either?

I have not said that neutrinos can go faster than light, they can't.

Light could not travel the same path, a parallel path in surface fiber optics is not the same path. Something about the path is different.

That difference may cause the speed of light to increase.

The neutrinos were not traveling faster than light. You could not send light through the same path and you assume that the speed of light along the path was unchanged. Your argument is based on assumptions that you cannot prove.

We agree on neutrinos being incapable of traveling faster than light.

We do NOT agree that the speed of light is the same in all frames.

And in all frames light will beat the neutrinos.

You cannot prove that light would not beat the neutrinos because it is impossible to send a beam through rock. Even if the rock were perfectly transparent it would still slow the light down and allow the neutrinos their full velocity. Light is an EM wave and strongly interacts with matter, neutrinos do not, they hardly interact at all.

The neutrinos covered the distance faster then your calculated speed for light.

You are incapable of proving that the neutrinos exceeded the speed of light along that path, without being able to send a beam of light along that path.

You assume a property for a framework, which you cannot prove.

 

[DeathDart]

Whoops - I should have made it clear that the "light" the followed the same path was theoretical light.

I will accept that whoops because I have made them myself.

And I don't have 100% confidence in this solution, it just seems correct.

I have been theorizing about time moving faster (as well as light) for about a year, so I am psychologically less resistant to it. If I was seeing it cold, for the first time, I would probably argue the same as you are.

 

[nathan]

That GPS continues to function suggests to me that the speed of light (as displayed by photons) has not changed.

 

[ben m]

DeathDart, are you aware of the vast amounts of data on the behavior of space/time/light in gravitational fields? Your suggestion (if translated into actual physics) is that the OPERA result is an extreme, non-GR version of the Shapiro delay. Sorry, that's nonsense. The Shapiro delay---i.e. the slowdown of light in a gravitational field---has been measured extensively, and the measurements agrees with GR and disagree with your interpretation of OPERA. This is true both in vacuum (light paths near the Earth, Sun, Jupiter) and underground; if there were an actual 20ppm shift in light speed underground, you'd be able to measure it by taking a cheap digital watch down a mine, where (according to you) it should gain two seconds per day.

Sorry, Deathdart. I've been down a mine personally, with instruments MUCH more precise than 20ppm, and there is no super-hyper-Shapiro timing anomaly.

 

[nathan]

DeathDart,... Your suggestion (if translated into actual physics) is that the OPERA result is an extreme, non-GR version of the Shapiro delay.

IIUC he's saying it's an anti-Shapiro delay -- the photons will go faster than predicted too.