Neutrino's still going too fast

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
Jeroen Vriesman
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:08 pm
Real name: Jeroen Vriesman
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Neutrino's still going too fast

Post by Jeroen Vriesman » Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:04 am

Could someone please tell those nasty neutrino's to stop breaking the speed limit!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... than-light

So the moving GPS satellites were not the cause of error, I guess we have to wait for someone to reproduce it somewhere else.

Would be great if it was possible to somehow use a natural source of neutrino's and measure the speed on a galactic scale.
Attachments
lichtspeed-speed-limit-round-sign.jpg
lichtspeed-speed-limit-round-sign.jpg (18.04 KiB) Viewed 3648 times

Richard Hester
Posts: 1458
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 4:07 am
Real name:

Re: Neutrino's still going too fast

Post by Richard Hester » Fri Nov 25, 2011 6:18 am

Write them a ticket, and send the bad news to their insurance carrier....

richnormand
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 12:30 pm
Real name: rich normand

Re: Neutrino's still going too fast

Post by richnormand » Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:32 pm

Jeroen Vriesman wrote:
> Would be great if it was possible to somehow use a natural source of neutrino's and measure the speed on a galactic scale.


You might be interested in this measurement for a supernova explosion:

http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/a ... rino-1.cfm

Delay was about 3 hours over that distance. Delay could also have been caused by the light being slowed down in the gases index of refraction or scattering before escaping.

If the CERN results are OK the delay would have been much larger (year?) Perhaps different flavour of neutrinos? New physics (neat!)

Note the last comment in the article about measuring only half of the expected solar flux (at the time) from the sun. This was resolved later by discovering neutrino oscillations between three flavours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation

That resolved the solar issue but there may be lots we still dont understand about these little gems!



Too bad these novae dont blow up on cue, that would be handy.

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2111
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Neutrino's still going too fast

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:24 pm

Hi Guys,

Here is a good balanced lecture on the neutrino problem.

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

Note, it's quite a long lecture..

PS: When these neutrino detectors are eventually decommissioned, there is going to be a heck of a lot of PMT's for sale on ebay

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG

Jeroen Vriesman
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:08 pm
Real name: Jeroen Vriesman
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Neutrino's still going too fast

Post by Jeroen Vriesman » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:18 am

This is a strange article about the "speedy neutrino problem":

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/ ... ZX20111121

It says that "they cannot go faster than light because they would have lost more energy if they did"

Which is a bit strange, if faster than light is possible, the only thing we know about it is that we don't know anything about it.
Superluminal speed contradicts any known theory for as far as I know, so how is it possible to say anything about the energy of these particles?

The Cherenkov radiation analogy seems to make sense, neutrino's loosing energy by polarization of the medium because of their (very small) magnetic moment.
But extrapolating that to speeds faster than light in vacuum and drawing conclusions from that seems a bit strange to me, any relativistic calculation would give imaginary results for the interaction time between the neutrino and the medium, which doesn't make sense if time is one-dimensional.
Trying to apply theory of relativity for something faster thank light is a contradiction anyway.

Rich Normand:
63ns on 725km is more than 4 years on 160000 lightyears, definitely more than 3 hours.

David Geer
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:51 pm
Real name:
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Neutrino's still going too fast

Post by David Geer » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:56 am

You've got to remember that the theory of relativity is just that... a theory. Even Einstein said it wasn't finished and there's still much of the atomic and quantum level physics that we've yet to understand. Gravitational fields affect velocities even on the atomic scale, as does, entropic/exothermic effects. Who knows what else plays a part in defining the luminal speed.
- David Geer

Jeroen Vriesman
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:08 pm
Real name: Jeroen Vriesman
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Neutrino's still going too fast

Post by Jeroen Vriesman » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:27 pm

Maybe the "lightspeed" is higher for neutrino's.
They don't have any relation with electric charge, just a tiny magnetic moment.

With " lightspeed" being 1/sqrt(permitivity x permeability)

It's just that the permitivity for neutrino's is the permitivity of vacuüm, and SiO2 and water are diamagnetic.

Does anyone here know the average relative permeability of rock?

For some common diamagnetic values a difference of 60ns over a distance of 750 km seems normal.

Or am I talking nonsense?

Jeroen Vriesman
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:08 pm
Real name: Jeroen Vriesman
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Neutrino's still going too fast

Post by Jeroen Vriesman » Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:26 am

Or in other words: the relative magnetic permeability of rock should be 0.999949 to explain the 60ns over a distance of 725km.

The neutrino only has magnetic interaction with matter.
For any other particle the "lightspeed" is lower than c, because of the >1 relative permitivity.
But for the neutrino only the magnetic interaction matters.

I wonder how fast a neutrino would go in a superconductor.

DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:13 am
Real name:

Re: Neutrino's still going too fast

Post by DaveC » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:59 am

Are any of the "confirming" data for c being the maximum attainable velocity, not produced in electromagnetic accelerators?

A simplistic solution might be that all particles with electromagnetic parts i.e. charges, whether or not neutral... may be limited to c because of electromagnetic interaction with a field that has a finite propagation velocity.

The old "luminiferous aether" ideas struggled with implications of this. Assuming that electromagnetic waves were disturbances in some unknown medium (the aether), the observed enormous velocity of c, led to requirements of simultaneously impossibly high density and impossibly low dissipation.

Desperation physics to the rescue: "Assume this doesn't happen...."

Ions, (protons and electrons) and photons, are all electromagnetically influence-able
hence could share this observed limiting velocity. Non- interacting particles - neutrinos and what else (??) may not be so restricted.

Measuring "non-interacting" things is not easy. And other critters in the particle zoo, may have so far escaped detection with this amazingly simple technique.

Of course, the easy answer, and far less interesting, is that there's a mistake hidden away, waiting to leap out and teach humility to the scientific community, once again.

Dave Cooper

User avatar
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 1616
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 6:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA

Re: Neutrino's still going too fast

Post by Frank Sanns » Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:32 am

The fact that the velocity measured is close to c says it is either an error or an adjustment is needed to describe the effect with current physics. It is not an instantaneous speed, it is close to c and this is similar to metamaterials that have a negative index of refraction. Interesting to see how this one plays out but I think no new physics here, just a little more understanding.

Frank Sanns

Post Reply