to get back to the original point I was trying to make... the time delay between SN neutrino arrival time and the photon arrival time is most probably due to the density of the medium.
That could be correct, regarding super nova data. Its hard to see how that relates to the CERN experiment though.
At CERN they had used highly accurate, syncronized atomic clocks to time the departure and arrival of the neutrinos. Of cource it is not so simple as using atomic stop watches to time the neutrinos, but that is the gist of it. They concluded that if it had been a light beam instead of a neutrino beam, traveling the same path, it would have taken ~60 ns longer to reach its destination.
KitemanSA wrote:Folks,
Neutrinos leave the exploding core immediately, the light has to fight its way out thru all that ...stuff.. before it can reach real light speed.
I suspect it all had to do with the density of the medium.
yes, thats obvious. Thats why the neutrinos arrived only 5 hours before on Earth... if they were travelling FASTER than light, by the same fraction verified on the CERN experiment, they would arrive YEARS before (coming from a star distant 160 thousand ly)
the supernova neutrino detection DISPROVES that neutrinos travel faster than light, despite neutrinos arriving earlier.
The Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect (often referred to as the matter effect) is a particle physics process which can act to modify neutrino oscillations in matter. The work by American physicist Lincoln Wolfenstein in 1978 and the work by Soviet physicists Stanislav Mikheyev and Alexei Smirnov in 1986 led to an understanding of this effect. Later in 1986, Stephen Parke of Fermilab provided the first full analytic treatment of this effect.
In a nutshell, high energy neutrinos change flavors at a higher rate when traveling through a dense medium then low energy neutrinos do.
Also, the rate of flavor change is low for a neutrino of any energy level in a vacuum.
The flavor change is analogous to the electromagnetic process leading to the refractive index of light in a medium. This means that neutrinos in matter have a different effective mass than neutrinos in vacuum, and since neutrino oscillations depend upon the squared mass difference of the neutrinos being transformed, neutrino oscillations may be different in matter than they are in vacuum.
When these quntum particles transit dense media, whereas light slows down, neutrinos may speed up.
The Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect will lead to different flavor change rates detected in neutrinos from a super-nova traveling through a vacuum verses neutrino flavor change rates seen when neutrinos penetrate dense media.
For high-energy solar neutrinos the MSW effect is important. This was dramatically confirmed in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, where the solar neutrino problem was finally solved. There it was shown that only ~34% of the electron neutrinos (measured with one charged current reaction of the electron neutrinos) reach the detector, whereas the sum of rates for all three neutrinos (measured with one neutral current reaction) agrees well with the expectations.
If neutrinos undergoing flavor change are entangled via coherent forward scattering which I strongly suspect, then the speed that these entangled virtual particle pairs cover distance during the flavor change (quantum information exchange) could be far faster than C ( light speed). See my post in the other thread.
That is to say, neutrinos changing their flavor will go very fast (at warp speed) for a very short period of time during flavor change then once flavor change is complete, continue to move along ndefinitely at light speed.
Last edited by Axil on Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
From the CERN paper, all the neutrinos stated out as muon neutrinos and where received as muon neutrinos without flavor change. So no flavor changing occurred.
The speed of the muon neutrinos was not a function of their energy either.
These results rule out the MSW effect as a possible cause. Also there was no opportunity for quantum data transfer to occur via entanglement after muon neutrino creation.
These results shoot my aforementioned speculations down and makes the CERN results far more deliciously curious.
1839 - James MacCullagh invents an elastic aether in which there are no longitudinal waves. In this
aether the potential energy of deformation depends only on the rotation of the volume elements and not on
their compression or general distortion. This theory gives the same wave equation as that satisfied by E and
B in Maxwell’s theory.
1839 - William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) removes some of the objections to MacCullagh’s rotation theory
by inventing a mechanical model which satisfies MacCullagh’s energy of rotation hypothesis. It has spheres,
rigid bars, sliding contacts, and flywheels.
Nevertheless, the field equations stemming from this purely gyrostatic medium were shown to be in accord with all known laws, including those of Snell and Fresnel.
The idea of MacCullagh's aether, and its property of purely rotational elasticity which had been expounded objectively by W. J. M. Rankine, was therefore much vivified by Lord Kelvin's specification (Comptes Rendus, 1889) of a material gyrostatically constituted medium which would possess this character. More recently a way has been pointed out in which a mobile permanent field of electric force could exist in such a medium so as to travel freely in company with its nucleus or intrinsic charge—the nature of the mobility of the latter, as well as its intimate constitution, remaining unknown.
One of the most interesting models was the gyrostatic aether proposed by MacCullagh in 1837, a medium characterized by resistance to rotation but not to compression or distortion, and designed to secure a dynamical foundation for Fresnel's wave theory of light [2]. This proposal lay dormant until taken up again many years later by Fitzgerald (1880), followed by Kelvin (1892) and Larmor (1894), who assimilated it to Maxwell's field equations.
An aether with mechanical properties completely imaging electromagnetic phenomena, and containing mobile singularities imaging material particles, would be perfectly compatible with the Special Theory of Relativity. It would, however, go beyond that theory in also providing a rational theory of matter. The purpose of this communication is to introduce the gyrostatic aether on a fresh mathematical basis, capable of assimilating charges and currents as well as fields, and thereby fulfilling the primary condition of any acceptable aether hypothesis.
Too early to say. This is from the same team with potentially the same systematic errors. The criticism that they have not properly accounted for relativistic effects when using GPS needs to be addressed explicitly and independently before we can know.
True believers will never be convinced, there will always be some room for their doubt. It will likely have to wait until most of them pass into the next world.
Best regards
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Too early to say. This is from the same team with potentially the same systematic errors. The criticism that they have not properly accounted for relativistic effects when using GPS needs to be addressed explicitly and independently before we can know.
Come on Tom, the whole reason to run it again and use 3ns pulsing was to better eliminate artifacts. They also reviewed (again) the timing concerns, as well as now have a proposal for yet another run with a modified timing setup to re-look (again).
Your argument smacks of, "well, we need to keep dropping it, because gravity may not work ALL the time." At some point, you need to push the "I believe button" on your forehead and move on.
I take it you are not reporting this on Channel 4?
Haven't read the paper or article or anything. Is Tom saying this because there's clearly no sign from the (same) team that they modified the protocol to clearly test the relativistic refutal their previous experiment was met by?
Betruger wrote:Haven't read the paper or article or anything. Is Tom saying this because there's clearly no sign from the (same) team that they modified the protocol to clearly test the relativistic refutal their previous experiment was met by?
No matter what the experiment shows no one is going to buy this until it is independently verified several times. By different teams.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.