Alternate Dimensions (1 Viewer)

[Thales750]

CERN

The OPERA neutrino experiment at the underground Gran Sasso Laboratory has measured the velocity of neutrinos from the CERN CNGS beam over a baseline of about 730 km with much higher accuracy than previous studies conducted with accelerator neutrinos. The measurement is based on high-statistics data taken by OPERA in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Dedicated upgrades of the CNGS timing system and of the OPERA detector, as well as a high precision geodesy campaign for the measurement of the neutrino baseline, allowed reaching comparable systematic and statistical accuracies. An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 \pm 6.9 (stat.) \pm 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured. This anomaly corresponds to a relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity with respect to the speed of light (v-c)/c = (2.48 \pm 0.28 (stat.) \pm 0.30 (sys.)) \times 10-5.

My guess is that neutrinos don’t exist full time in our universe.

Either they don’t exist at all in our universe, and what we observe is a shadow or a wake. Or they Intermittedly exist here, and we see the effects of them colliding with chlorine on the rare occasion that they exist here and a molecule happens to be in the same place at the same time.

Anyway that’s what occurred to me today.

 

[speakers_86]

Why do you think they do not exist? I'm sure all this is in response to the news of particles traveling faster than the speed of light. But I am sure that the problem is that the value they used for the refractive index was off a hair. Seems like the simplest answer. How can we know with that much precision what the refractive index is of over 700 km of earth?

 

[Thales750]

Why do you think they do not exist? I'm sure all this is in response to the news of particles traveling faster than the speed of light. But I am sure that the problem is that the value they used for the refractive index was off a hair. Seems like the simplest answer. How can we know with that much precision what the refractive index is of over 700 km of earth?

First I said in this universe or dimension. Second if the calibrations are off then my little opinion is as worthless as the next persons.

However, if the measurements were correct, then it would be cool if I am right about this.

You heard it here first.

Oh, by the way, we are capable of measurement finer than a nanosecond and light travels about 11 inches in a nanosecond; so 700 kilometers is quite large by comparison.

 

[Galaxiom]

Beware the hype. Other measurements of the speed of Neutrinos across astronomical distances have not shown them to be moving faster than the speed of light.

Also note that the researchers are asking for help to find the problem rather than announcing they have evidence of something exceeding the speed of light.

The largest unknown in the system is the precise measurement of the time the Neutrinos are created. There is no detector at the starting line.

If they are ultimately unable to find a problem then a Neutrino detector will be need to be built at the source so they can clock them from detector to detector.

It is interesting but the results are not independently replicated. If it does pan out then it will be of great importance but that is still several years away with big hurdles to be jumped.

 

[Galaxiom]

BTW I don't think a refractive index comes into the equation at all.

 

[Thales750]

Beware the hype. Other measurements of the speed of Neutrinos across astronomical distances have not shown them to be moving faster than the speed of light.

How exactly do they measure them across astronomical distances?

 

[Thales750]

Another supposition could be that the gravitational field inside the cyclotron is being wrinkled or oscillated, if neutrinos don’t follow curved space than they conceivably could reach the end sooner than the photons.

Which would tend to agree with my earlier supposition that they (neutrinos) don’t completely exist in normal (curved) space.

An argument might be that we would record a longer travel time of the photons through the oscillated space because of the longer path for the photons. However, if the space time continuum was altered by the gravitational wrinkles, than the observation of the time difference would be ameliorated by the observed.

 

[Galaxiom]

How exactly do they measure them across astronomical distances?

Supernovae produce copious quantities of Neutrinos so it is not hard to recognise a bunch of them coming from a supernova when they arrive here. The accompanying flash of light is also easily recognised.

Supernova 1987A occured in the Large Magellanic Cloud at a distance of 168,000 light years. The Neutrinos arrived at detectors on Earth about three hours before the light flash.

This is not because the Neutrinos travelled faster than light in a vacuum but because it took three hours for the light to escape the exploding system. (It actually takes millions of years for photons produced by the nuclear fusion in the centre of Sun to be released into space.)

Neutrinos barely interact with anything so pass unhindered, gaining a head start on the light. Over this distance, a similar speed to that observed by CERN would have the Neutrinos arrive several years before the light.

 

[Galaxiom]

... if the calibrations are off then my little opinion is as worthless as the next persons.

Two independent metrology teams have checked both the measurement of the distance to the detector and the timing system. It seems unlikely that this is the problem.

The researchers have applied for an upgrade to the timing system which they hope to have in place by 2014. The distance was measured using equipment that could detect the tectonic plate movement in real time and the triangulation has no doubt been checked again and again.

The discrepancy is 60 nanoseconds. Light travels nearly 30 cm in a nanosecond so we have 18 metres in 730 km to explain or about 0.0025 percent.

 

[Galaxiom]

Another supposition could be that the gravitational field inside the cyclotron is being wrinkled or oscillated, if neutrinos don’t follow curved space than they conceivably could reach the end sooner than the photons.

There is no known mechanism by which space time could be wrinkled in the LHC. The masses involved are trivial. Moreover, any waves would propogate to gravitational wave detectors set up at several sites.

BTW, Gravitational waves have never been detected.

 

[Thales750]

There is no known mechanism by which space time could be wrinkled in the LHC. The masses involved are trivial. Moreover, any waves would propogate to gravitational wave detectors set up at several sites.

BTW, Gravitational waves have never been detected.

I of course realize all that, I'm merely playing a little game of let's see what fits.

 

[Galaxiom]

I of course realize all that, I'm merely playing a little game of let's see what fits.

But since it already doesn't fit, why suggest it?

 

[Thales750]

But since it already doesn't fit, why suggest it?

I see, a neat little box huh? You have proven nothing about either gravity nor alternate dimensions, and yet you are willing to discount any other possibilities.

I've noticed you exhibit that personality often.

Well mister “Science Created the Universe” how are you going to view the world if the fundamental constant is no longer valid. Do you think you will find a way to look outside the box for a change?

It is so easy to be a nay sayer and so hard for most people to ever have an original thought.

Hopefully you are advanced in years, It would be a shame indeed if a young person had lost their ability or desire to look at the universe with wonder.

If the impossible has been done, then all other rules are subject to verification. I would have thought that someone of your intelligence would have known that.

So what do you suppose would account for it, assuming it actually did exceed the universal constant?

 

[CBrighton]

There's a difference between not having an original thought and dismissing something which is proven wrong.

If gravitational waves have been proven not to occur then disagreeing with a hypothosis which includes gravitational waves does not make you a nay-sayer, it makes you rooted in reality.

Personally I think measurement issues are to blame somehow, but who knows. I've heard theories varying from FTL being possible to the scientists not taking into account the fact that the earth rotates / orbits the sun, etc.

 

[Galaxiom]

I see, a neat little box huh? You have proven nothing about either gravity nor alternate dimensions,

You dismissed your own hypothesis when I criticised it. Now you are accusing me of being dismissive. ??

... and yet you are willing to discount any other possibilities.

Well mister “Science Created the Universe” how are you going to view the world if the fundamental constant is no longer valid. Do you think you will find a way to look outside the box for a change?

The speed of light is a very fundamental unit in many aspects of Physics from the behaviour of charges to the energy mass ratio. It is very accurately measured and any variation from the correct value would have shown up in other units not being correct.

I have not discounted that these outcomes could be due to another previously unobserved effect. I actually hope they are.

If the impossible has been done, then all other rules are subject to verification. I would have thought that someone of your intelligence would have known that.

In science, one team coming up witha finding that is contrary to previous established measurements does not consitute proof, especially for such an extraordinary claim that cuts to the core of a theory that has steadfastly shown its value for a centrury.

When the results have been replicated and all possible experimental error removed we should then get excited. As I said earlier the researxhers themselves are still expecting to find an error.

So what do you suppose would account for it, assuming it actually did exceed the universal constant?

I don't know and I don't pretend to. I was simply offering valid criticism of your hypothesis. That is how science works. Those who get too attached to their pet theory never do well.

Your suggestion of other dimensions is not particularly novel and you will find it put forward by several scientists. However their explanation will actually show some knowledge of the field and make more sense than this one:

Either they don’t exist at all in our universe, and what we observe is a shadow or a wake. Or they Intermittedly exist here, and we see the effects of them colliding with chlorine on the rare occasion that they exist here and a molecule happens to be in the same place at the same time.

Their explanation will involve something going on during the spontaneous mutation between the flavours of the Neutrino during the journey. It won't have exceeded the speed of light but somehow gained 60ns on time during the change.

If this is the case it will be exciting indeed because it will be the first time Relativity and Quantum Mechanics both participated in a transaction.

However all scientists will be waiting until the results are confirmed. The extent of the effect on science would compell anyone to be very sure of the facts before making any claim. This is demonstrated by the fact that despite having been observed up to three years ago, nobody had previously said anything.

 

[Galaxiom]

It should also be noted that Einstein's equations cover velocities between zero and the speed of light. It shows that a particle with a non-zero rest mass cannot travel at the speed of light because it would acquire infinite mass.

When applied to faster than light, the equations do not run into this conundrum but instead return complex numbers that have no current meaning in Physics. They do not actually preclude faster than light travel per se.

Human sensibilities preclude faster than light travel on the basis that the particle would have to first accelerate to a speed before exceeding it. However we are considering Quantum phenomena here and QM has no respect for human sensibilities. If a neutrino was to be somehow created already having a velocity that exceeded c then it would not need to pass through the impossible state.

However it would also be impossible for it to decelerate through that point and that in itself could present a problem.

If this does turn out to be the case we would need to look hard at what those complex numbers actually mean. Faced with this prospect or the one I mentioned earlier (essentially time travel) it is little wonder that scientists are more concerned with the far more likely prospect and are focussed on ensuring that all possible errors are eliminated.

Whatever the outcome, the prospect of overturning the value of c and its foundational position in the structure of SpaceTime is incredibly remote.

 

[gemma-the-husky]

if something has no mass, then presumably it is not limited by the speed of light, since its mass will not increase.

other than that, i am more inclined to suspect a measurement error

 

[Galaxiom]

Something with no rest mass can travel at the speed of light but there are other considerations that mean it can't be exceeded even for a massless particle.

Put simply, there is only one speed in the Universe, the Speed of Light. The Universe has four observable dimensions including Time. From a broader perspective there is no difference between the three spacial dimensions and Time.

Stationary objects are travellling at the Speed of Light in the direction of Time. Any motion through Space leaves less speed to travel through Time which is why Time slows down appreciably for very fast moving objects. Time stops completely at the Speed of Light through Space.

It is governed by a very simple Pythagoran formula. The square of the speed through Time plus the square of the speed through Space is eqaul to the square of the Speed of Light.

So nothing can be observed to exceed c because it simply doesn't have anywhere to get the extra speed required.

 

[Lightwave]

Put simply, there is only one speed in the Universe, the Speed of Light. The Universe has four observable dimensions including Time. From a broader perspective there is no difference between the three spacial dimensions and Time.

Stationary objects are travellling at the Speed of Light in the direction of Time. Any motion through Space leaves less speed to travel through Time which is why Time slows down appreciably for very fast moving objects. Time stops completely at the Speed of Light through Space.

It is governed by a very simple Pythagoran formula. The square of the speed through Time plus the square of the speed through Space is eqaul to the square of the Speed of Light.

So nothing can be observed to exceed c because it simply doesn't have anywhere to get the extra speed required.

That's really brilliant never heard that explanation before...

I regard myself as intelligent but I tend to stear clear of talking about special relativity ... I think unless you understand the mathematics your never going to be coherent.

 

[Galaxiom]

I got that explanation from a book called Relativity Visualized by Lewis Caroll Epstein. It also covers General Relativity just as effectively.

I picked it up at a clearance sale in a bookstore in 1985. It was without a doubt the best dollar I have ever spent in my life.

The maths in Relativity is surprisingly simple. The concept was one of the most spectacular thoughts in history.