The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Poll

The experimental results suggest that neutrinos are "Faster than light". Why is that?

Swiss watches are better than Italian watches.
2 (12.5%)
It turns out the Swiss meter is slightly different from the Italian meter.
0 (0%)
Systematic computational error
2 (12.5%)
Neutrinos "tunnel" faster than light through atomic nuclei.
2 (12.5%)
Previously unknown gravitational anomaly
2 (12.5%)
Safely grazing sheepies used magic to speed up neutrinos
1 (6.3%)
Too many adult beverages
2 (12.5%)
The Earth is more curved than we thought
0 (0%)
Any mass with very high energy can travel faster than light.
1 (6.3%)
There is only one neutrino that travels infinitely fast and is thus everywhere at once
1 (6.3%)
A missing delay in electronics or a problem of synchronization with satellites
0 (0%)
It's not the neutrinos that are fast, it's the photons that are slow
1 (6.3%)
Neutrinos are allowed to take shortcuts through one of the other 7 dimensions
1 (6.3%)
The neutrinos were being chased by Zurich gnomes
0 (0%)
Insufficient slide-rule lubricant
1 (6.3%)
Some of the Swiss neutrinos were unknowingly entangled with Italian neutrinos
0 (0%)
Surveyors were beguiled by sheep
0 (0%)
The technicians cocked it up and the scientists are going to make sure they take the heat.
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 16

Author Topic: Why don't OPERA Gran Sasso results comply with current knowledge?  (Read 21469 times)

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The experimental results suggest that neutrinos are "Faster than light". Why do you think that is the case?

Please provide a summary of any opinions you would like considered and we'll add them to the list of options.

You can only vote once, but you can change your vote.

I've started with a couple of suggestions to get the ball rolling.
« Last Edit: 05/12/2011 00:10:27 by Geezer »


 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3822
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Quote from Soul Surfer

"Syhprum That is an interesting and reasonably plausible idea"

I notice that despite this endorsement from an authoritative source my suggestion has not been included in the poll ? 
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Quote from Soul Surfer

"Syhprum That is an interesting and reasonably plausible idea"

I notice that despite this endorsement from an authoritative source my suggestion has not been included in the poll ? 

My fault! These were only intended to be a selection.

Just post how you would like your voting option to read and we'll add it to the list.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3822
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
No need it has just been destroyed by Imatfaal,s logig
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
I think that some sheepies were grazing on the mountain and intercepted the neutrinos.  They used their sheepy magic to speed up the neutrinos.
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Any mass with very high energy can travel faster than light.
 

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
My theory is that there is only one photon that travels infinitely fast and is thus everywhere at once. Its speed is the speed we happen to measure. Ditto for the neutrino, we measure it as having a faster speed.
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Clocks are like chocolate sheep, Swiss do better...

More seriously, a missing delay in electronics or a problem of synchronization with satellites (20 meters is not that much). GPS are controlled by military people, don't ask too much... [:o)]
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3822
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Are we asking the correct question ? Should we be asking what slows down photons as they move thru inter stellar space but does not affect Neutrinos ,does the small density of gasses present provide an answer (1000 atoms/M^3), should talk we about the "new" c the speed of Neutrinos.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2011 08:44:19 by syhprum »
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
In my original post on this subject (23-09-11)I suggested a gravitational time dilation anomaly
see http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=41198.msg367930#msg367930

It would seem I am not alone in this thought as mentioned in Nature Journal (05-10-11 based on an original paper published 28-09-11)
see http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/news.2011.575.html

The experiment
see http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf
This includes details of how the timing was accomplished.
« Last Edit: 24/11/2011 09:38:49 by MikeS »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Mike,

Give us some "one-liners" and we'll add them. If we keep this up long enough, somebody is sure to be right.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Geezer

I voted for the gravitational time anomaly and was just explaining why.
 

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 964
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
I voted for the watches because it's closest to what I think happened: The chronometer wasn't started and stopped accurately enough
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
I voted for the watches because it's closest to what I think happened: The chronometer wasn't started and stopped accurately enough
  Very close to my thoughs - but I voted systematic error.  The watches are very good and easily able to time accurately enough ; the problem isn't the machinery it's the decision that signal x rather than signal y is the point at which to start or stop the clock.  The stopping seems a simple system with less assumptions (from my lay reading) but the starting the clock running seems to have lots of potential for systematic error.  Poor accuracy should lead to a blurred picture - we have a time-shifted picture, we were starting the clock 60ns late consistently
 

Offline Murchie85

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
I think its just not quite easy as we think to get accurate numbers for this. I mean there is still disputes on the exact time of creation of the neutrino, maybe a math or technical problem. I don't think it represents a huge change that needs to be done on modern physics.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The most interesting idea I've seen so far discuss the 'creation' of a neutrino as the effect making the 'jump'. Treating it as 'matter waves' as I presume. If that is the case maybe we can relate it to the way 'inflation' is thought to work. After all, with the 'expansion' we will have an effect where it's possible that some stars never will shine on earth, as the space 'expands' faster than light speed in a vacuum, depending on its distance from us.

And if particles is defined through their 'surrounding', then those might become different when high energies are involved at that first instant of creation? Not that I know of course :) But if you assume that a creation of a 'matter wave' will be as fast no matter how 'big' we later measure it to be, only energies differing its possible size?

Maybe ::))
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
I think its just not quite easy as we think to get accurate numbers for this. I mean there is still disputes on the exact time of creation of the neutrino, maybe a math or technical problem. I don't think it represents a huge change that needs to be done on modern physics.
Einstein's followers cannot create  modern physics without  Einstein. Therefore you will fail. :D
« Last Edit: 03/12/2011 07:05:22 by simplified »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
I voted for the watches because it's closest to what I think happened: The chronometer wasn't started and stopped accurately enough

It would be a bit embarrassing if it turned out that was the cause, but I suspect it's quite tricky to properly synchronize two clocks at different locations. Anyone know what the procedure is, and how much tolerance is acceptable for this experiment?
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Geezer

OPERA claimed six standard deviations.
See http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/news.2011.575.html

This is a PDF about the experiment as published by OPERA.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3822
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
If in fact photons are slowed by the small amount of inter stellar gas could this not solve the supernova event anomaly as the density of gas in the local region is about 1000 times higher than in inter galatic space
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
I voted for the watches because it's closest to what I think happened: The chronometer wasn't started and stopped accurately enough

It would be a bit embarrassing if it turned out that was the cause, but I suspect it's quite tricky to properly synchronize two clocks at different locations. Anyone know what the procedure is, and how much tolerance is acceptable for this experiment?

Nah - synchronizing the clocks is a comparative doddle (using doddle almost completely wrongly).

Metrology institutes around the world have long established the common view GPS method of synchronization/comparison.  This algorithm and protocol for synchronizing geographically remote clocks is not new and has been exhaustively tested (there remains the possibility that Gran Sasso didnt follow the instructions properly).

I seem to remember that with the upgraded beacons and after the swiss and german metrology institutes (now I bet they are a bunch of fun and hoopy guys) got involved that the max error was single nanaoseconds
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
If in fact photons are slowed by the small amount of inter stellar gas could this not solve the supernova event anomaly as the density of gas in the local region is about 1000 times higher than in inter galatic space

The refraction/scattering by gas/dust that affected light but not the neutrinos was indeed the cause of the slight delay in observations from SN1987a.  The neutrinos were a few hours earlier than the photons - but if Gran Sasso speed differentials are correct then the neutrinos should have been 3 years or so early - maybe they were and we never noticed them or maybe different energy neutrinos behave differently
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
I voted for the watches because it's closest to what I think happened: The chronometer wasn't started and stopped accurately enough

It would be a bit embarrassing if it turned out that was the cause, but I suspect it's quite tricky to properly synchronize two clocks at different locations. Anyone know what the procedure is, and how much tolerance is acceptable for this experiment?

Nah - synchronizing the clocks is a comparative doddle (using doddle almost completely wrongly).

Metrology institutes around the world have long established the common view GPS method of synchronization/comparison.  This algorithm and protocol for synchronizing geographically remote clocks is not new and has been exhaustively tested (there remains the possibility that Gran Sasso didnt follow the instructions properly).

I seem to remember that with the upgraded beacons and after the swiss and german metrology institutes (now I bet they are a bunch of fun and hoopy guys) got involved that the max error was single nanaoseconds

Well yes, but how does it actually work? If science was based on "following the instructions", we'd still be hanging from a gumm tree.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3822
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Imatfaal

has any research been on the slowing of photons by low density gas I know that it almost impossible to produce a vacuum as low as interstellar space but are there any figures published as to how c varies as near vacuum is approached so that any trend might apparent.
We should not be too surprised at photons being slowed down we see examples of it happening around us all the time the very reason we can see anything is due to the slowing down as they pass thru the lenses of our eyes.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2011 11:11:18 by syhprum »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
I don't know if Gran Sasso, 730 km away, uses  Carrier phase tracking? But "Tracking carrier phase signals provides no time of transmission information. The carrier signals, while modulated with time tagged binary codes, carry no time-tags that distinguish one cycle from another. The measurements used in carrier phase tracking are differences in carrier phase cycles and fractions of cycles over time. At least two receivers track carrier signals at the same time. Ionospheric delay differences at the two receivers must be small enough to insure that carrier phase cycles are properly accounted for. This usually requires that the two receivers be within about 30 km of each other. Carrier phase is tracked at both receivers and the changes in tracked phase are recorded over time in both receivers." and that's not 700 km

Still "All carrier-phase tracking is differential, requiring both a reference and remote receiver tracking carrier phases at the same time.
Unless the reference and remote receivers use L1-L2 differences to measure the ionospheric delay,  they must be close enough to insure that the ionospheric delay difference is less than a carrier wavelength.
Using L1-L2 ionospheric measurements and long measurement averaging periods, relative positions of fixed sites can be determined over baselines of hundreds of kilometers.
Phase difference changes in the two receivers are reduced using software to differences in three position dimensions between the reference station and the remote receiver. High accuracy range difference measurements with sub-centimeter accuracy are possible. Problems result from the difficulty of tracking carrier signals in noise or while the receiver moves. Two receivers and one SV over time result in single differences."

It's? Maybe, maybe not, working.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2011 14:43:54 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums