• 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

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

GPS signal go how far into the Earth? The moleman use them.

And GPS use time correction factors rather than calculate from relativity.

How do you get up to cosmic ray energies?

It is a whole lot easier if the speed up light increases. Lights energy doesn't increase. But the effects of time dilation and the inertial mass doesn't increase as quickly, which allows you to pump more energy into a particle.

When that particle, that was accelerated where the speed of light was much higher, reaches space where the speed of light is much slower, it has a huge amount of energy, beyond anything you could do with your dedicated machines.

So the universe kicked you and your accelerators butt, by cheating and changing the rules.
 
ben m said:
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.
Click to expand...

You also assume that the gravitational field exists within a mass. CERN casts that into doubt.

What if the gravitational field you are familiar with, does not exist within the mass generating it. Any void, cave, or opening, and the field reappears.

This is just something I am tossing out there to see if you have an argument that will stomp it. I do not know either way, it is just one possible explanation. Though it does seem vaguely familiar to some other type of physics.
 
When was the last time anyone tried to read the time of flight of a particle (Neutrino) through a planet?

I was surprised that they had a difference from the calculated light speed.

Do you know of any experiments that sent a particle through matter and measured its time of flight?

You get an extraordinary result, from an extraordinary experiment. That is how surprises happen.
 
DeathDart said:
You also assume that the gravitational field exists within a mass. CERN casts that into doubt.

What if the gravitational field you are familiar with, does not exist within the mass generating it. Any void, cave, or opening, and the field reappears.

This is just something I am tossing out there to see if you have an argument that will stomp it. I do not know either way, it is just one possible explanation. Though it does seem vaguely familiar to some other type of physics.
Click to expand...

So, in your view would there be a gravitational field in the microscopic "voids" between the molecules in rocks?
 
DeathDart said:
What if the gravitational field you are familiar with, does not exist within the mass generating it. Any void, cave, or opening, and the field reappears.
Click to expand...

Remarkable speculation. How big does this void need to be? So there is no gravity withing the solid iron core of the earth, remarkable.
 
DeathDart said:
You also assume that the gravitational field exists within a mass. CERN casts that into doubt.

What if the gravitational field you are familiar with, does not exist within the mass generating it. Any void, cave, or opening, and the field reappears.

This is just something I am tossing out there to see if you have an argument that will stomp it. I do not know either way, it is just one possible explanation. Though it does seem vaguely familiar to some other type of physics.
Click to expand...

Nope. Geologists have done plenty of gamma-ray, NMR, and Mossbauer spectroscopy, measuring properties of nuclei within the rocks of mine and borehole walls. There's no sudden change in frequency from inside-the-tunnel to embedded-in-the-mine-walls. (Mossbauer, in particular, is sensitive to the tiniest frequency shifts.)
 
DeathDart said:
You also assume that the gravitational field exists within a mass. CERN casts that into doubt.

What if the gravitational field you are familiar with, does not exist within the mass generating it. Any void, cave, or opening, and the field reappears.
Click to expand...

If the field starts at the surface, what holds stars and planets together?
 
phunk said:
If the field starts at the surface, what holds stars and planets together?
Click to expand...
6874f3157f1d2043.jpg
 
DeathDart, Can you understand that a difference of 10,0000 times is different

DeathDart said:
Do you know the exact distance to 1987a to an accuracy of 1e-8? Do you know the time they began their journey?
...inane gibbersish....
Click to expand...
You have now shown conclusvely that you cannot understand what you read!
I will put the important bit in bold blue 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.

Also: Is the OPERA Speedy Neutrino Experiment Self-Contradictory?
 
ctamblyn said:
So, in your view would there be a gravitational field in the microscopic "voids" between the molecules in rocks?
Click to expand...
A very good question.


The CERN result suggested that there was very little gravitational field field present, so the scaling or (void?) factor may be larger than the molecular distance. If the (void) factor is this large, it may be possible to use a fiber optic to verify the CERN result.

You measure the TOF of a fiber on the Earths Surface in water at a pressure and temperature equal to the bottom of a lake or sea.

You place that fiber in a mass, like a ocean or a deep lake so that it experiences the same pressure and temperature.

You then test the TOF from a pulse and timing source on the surface so that just the fiber is immersed in a body of waters gravitational field.

If the TOF goes down an equivalent amount, it would be a verification of the CERN result.

Interpreting that result would still be unresolved.

If the change in the TOF increased very slightly, with distance from the equator, it would suggest a different type of gravitational field.
 
DeathDart said:
A very good question.


The CERN result suggested that there was very little gravitational field field present, so the scaling or (void?) factor may be larger than the molecular distance. If the (void) factor is this large, it may be possible to use a fiber optic to verify the CERN result.

You measure the TOF of a fiber on the Earths Surface in water at a pressure and temperature equal to the bottom of a lake or sea.

You place that fiber in a mass, like a ocean or a deep lake so that it experiences the same pressure and temperature.

You then test the TOF from a pulse and timing source on the surface so that just the fiber is immersed in a body of waters gravitational field.

If the TOF goes down an equivalent amount, it would be a verification of the CERN result.

Interpreting that result would still be unresolved.

If the change in the TOF increased very slightly, with distance from the equator, it would suggest a different type of gravitational field.
Click to expand...

I think ben m's post mentions the most problematic observation for your hypothesis: if the field strength in the rock was something other than what we'd expect on the basis of standard theory, we'd have spotted it by now.

Another problem springs to mind. If your hypothesis is correct, why do air bubbles rise from the bottom of a puddle of liquid mercury (or from the bottom of a swimming pool for that matter; I chose mercury as it has a fairly high density)?
 
Last edited:
phunk said:
If the field starts at the surface, what holds stars and planets together?
Click to expand...

I really don't know, I will give you a couple of choices and see which, if any, survive.

I suggest that it may act like an external pressure.

If the space between fragments exceeds the void threshold, it reverts to its field form.

A form is gravitation is still present, but its affect on time is much less.

The neutrinos did not introduce any voids into the Earth. So any other ways of repeating the experiment may have poorer results.
 
ctamblyn said:
I think ben m's post mentions the most problematic observation for your hypothesis: if the field strength in the rock was something other than what we'd expect on the basis of standard theory, we'd have spotted it by now.

Another problem springs to mind. If your hypothesis is correct, why do air bubbles rise from the bottom of a puddle of liquid mercury (or from the bottom of a swimming pool for that matter; I chose mercury as it has a fairly high density)?
Click to expand...

How would you have spotted such a small change? What experiment would have shown it? The large distance of the experiment is about the only thing that allowed them to pull it out of the background.

On bubbles, is there a bubble size that won't rise? The smaller the bubble, the more difficult it is to remove. This can be explained by surface tension and other scale forces, but is there a bubble size where these other explanations break down?

A physicist gets paid to watch the bubbles in his beer.
 
Reality Check said:
You have now shown conclusvely that you cannot understand what you read!
I will put the important bit in bold blue 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.

Also: Is the OPERA Speedy Neutrino Experiment Self-Contradictory?
Click to expand...

Light does not carry a log of how fast it was going at any particular time.

Light and time define the properties of the framework.

Time goes faster, light goes faster.

Red and Blue shifts are not created by changing time. due to space. Doppler and relativistic shifts are due to velocity within that framework.

In faster Time Space, the wavelength of light is identical to normal space.

To an observer in faster Time Space, the speed of light is identical to normal space. If time is ten times faster and light is traveling tens times as far, the two effects cancel. Light may be moving ten times faster, but the observer's second is only one tenth as long.
 
DeathDart said:
How would you have spotted such a small change? What experiment would have shown it? The large distance of the experiment is about the only thing that allowed them to pull it out of the background.
Click to expand...

ben m was referring to Mössbauer spectroscopy, which is astonishingly sensitive (you can detect nuclear energy level shifts as ridiculously tiny as one part in 1011, and changes in the gravitational field would show up as corresponding shifts in energy levels).

DeathDart said:
On bubbles, is there a bubble size that won't rise? The smaller the bubble, the more difficult it is to remove. This can be explained by surface tension and other scale forces, but is there a bubble size where these other explanations break down?
Click to expand...

Much of this depends on how much you claim that the gravitational field is reduced within dense matter.

Let's try this: if you tell me exactly how much the gravitational field is weakened in matter of given density, I can calculate what effect that will have on bubbles in mercury.

DeathDart said:
A physicist gets paid to watch the bubbles in his beer.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a tough job but someone's got to do it. :D
 
DeathDart said:
How would you have spotted such a small change? What experiment would have shown it? The large distance of the experiment is about the only thing that allowed them to pull it out of the background.
Click to expand...

Baloney. This was not an unusually large experiment, nor an unusually precise one. The reason OPERA's measurement is so *poor* is that neutrinos are hard to work with. They have an error bar of 5x10^-6 on their speed, in a field where anyone working with photons is getting 10^-9 routinely or 10^-11 in special cases. Any gravity-related photon anomaly would have been beyond trivial to detect.

It went deep into the earth? Only ten kilometers; humans have been to 4km below Earth, and 11km undersea, and boreholes have been to 12km underground.

It went a long distance? Baloney. We're timing photons back and forth to the Moon, and Cassini, and Pioneer 2, and so on (including the huge gravitational fields encountered along such flights, along which the GR time delay is easily seen) with the centimeter accuracy typical of all photon-timing experiments.
 
What about starting new thread ? This becomes a bit unrelated, and I bet many people follow this thread to be in touch with current news on Cern experiment. By making new thread with clear name, DeathDart can also find much more people to discuss his ideas with.
 
Dr.Sid said:
What about starting new thread ? This becomes a bit unrelated, and I bet many people follow this thread to be in touch with current news on Cern experiment. By making new thread with clear name, DeathDart can also find much more people to discuss his ideas with.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Could someone please split off DeathDart's posts and the responses to them, so that we can get back to neutrinos at CERN?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom