0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
They don't seem to be much faster. Maybe it's because they have negative mass 
I hope it is the tunnelling (or other unexpected thing) rather than a mismeasurement - but I am pretty certain it will be an experimental/datahandling error.
Most probably its a slight directional error or geometrical error. I'm not sure of the geometry of the situation the size of the source and detectors but the time error represents a distance of about 60 feet in a total distance of 500 miles. There is one other interesting factor. Neutrinos change between types all the time this is probably a quantum mechanical tunnelling process. Now there are strong reasons to believe that tunnelling takes zero time and if the particles are in slightly different positions along their track before and after each tunnelling happens it might just be possible to get from A to B a little bit faster.It may also be an energy thing because there are also some slight suspicions that very high energy gamma rays travel at a slightly different speed to lower energy ones.
On a more serious note: When was the last time that they measured that distance to San Grasso, Italy?
Geezer, it's rather pointless to argue over whether they made a mistake in measuring distance or not, since we don't have their data. (And I highly doubt if we're experts enough to offer any useful comments if we did have their distance measurement data). They claim that by using GPS units placed in tunnels and optical triangulation, they have an accuracy of 20 cm. They also say that's the largest source of error in the measurement, so no doubt it's been checked and rechecked many times. (I'd put even money on the error being somewhere else that they didn't check as thoroughly.)You can check out that section of their talk, where they (roughly) explain their techniques. Click the link in the first post to check out the talk, and it's on slides 32-33. Actually, even if you don't want to listen to the talk, it's worth checking out just for the cool web interface they have. You can click on each slide and it brings up a picture of the slide along with a video of the presenter during the portion of the talk for which that slide was shown.But there's always a slim chance they discovered something new, and since they did a very thorough job of checking their work, it will no doubt be taken seriously and rechecked by others who are a bit more expert than us.
Yeah, they said something similar in the talk. I have no idea how much error a "terrestrial traverse" causes.
Someone says the statistical interpretation of the experiment is wrong:http://johncostella.webs.com/neutrino-blunder.pdf
Quote from: lightarrow on 24/09/2011 13:05:09Someone says the statistical interpretation of the experiment is wrong:http://johncostella.webs.com/neutrino-blunder.pdfThanks Lightarrow! Very interesting.Reducing 16,000 events with a tolerance of 10.5 microseconds to a probable tolerance of 6.9 nanoseconds obviously requires very careful analysis.
I think that the refutation of statistical accuracy paper found by light arrow is very plausible and they are pushing their theoretical accuracy far too far
Quote from: Soul Surfer on 24/09/2011 23:53:10I think that the refutation of statistical accuracy paper found by light arrow is very plausible and they are pushing their theoretical accuracy far too farIt was plausible, but it had an error. John Costella has a new paper up (same link) that explains his error and why they were right about their uncertainty...
Maybe this also blows away the theory that an object traveling at the speed of light increases in mass?"as an object approaches the speed of light, the mass increases without limit"and even though the mass of a Nuetrino is extremely small - it would still increase.. to what degree???wonder if they can detect any change in mass ( another experiment perhaps!)But this question of light speed..... is it truly a Limit!? or just that we'v found nothing that exceeds it! ( until now that is! ) Speed and time dilation - perception of time changing - or factual time change when getting to speed of light or greater.. could this be the explanation? you go faster than the speed of light, and a "time" shift takes place!? but then again - does time exist? isn't it simply a measurement we devised to keep track of one day to the next, one moment to the next, a means to reference something that took place in the past, and something that will take place in the future."Time" is of no consequence to the physics of the universe, it's little more than as said, a means by which WE measure one moment to the next? 
Mike - the paper only mentions neutrinos (but it would as the timing would be identical). the neutrinos were formed by decay of pions (and kaons) π+ -> μ+ + νμπ- -> μ- + antiνμFrankly I cannot find which form was happening - and as neutrinos are uncharged they could be their own anti-particle - does it really matter.