Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Einstein is rolling over in His Grave, or Cern makes a big mistake
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 74 (635545)
09-29-2011 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by AZPaul3
09-29-2011 5:18 PM


Re: Let's Speculate some more
Hi AZPaul3
Thanks, that makes sense:
If we are measuring departure time from the peak production max point in the starting bell curve, and the arrival time from the peak detections max point in the arrival bell curve ...
AND the arrival bell curve is significantly smaller (both lower and thinner) than the departure bell curve ...
THEN it could logically be displaced anywhere along the range of the departure that it fits under the departure bell curve and still be a sampling of the departed neutrinos.
              __
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ _ \
/ / \ \
_ / _ / \ _ \ _
It could be earlier, it could be later, or it could be about the same time.
One test for this would be the spread of the detected bell curve -- if it is the same width as the production bell curve, then we could assume that it is random sampling from the production of neutrinos, whereas if it is narrower then that could indicate biased sampling.
And given that the result has been repeated quite a number of times already, that would be another indicator of bias in the sampling.
* The questions then become (a) what makes one type of neutrino more detectable than another type of neutrino and (b) how do they become sorted in this test.
** This could also be tested by varying the distance between production and detection: if the variation is constant it likely indicates bias but if it varies with distance then not so likely.
Enjoy.
Edited by Zen Deist, : questions
Edited by Zen Deist, : *'s added by edits * and **

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by AZPaul3, posted 09-29-2011 5:18 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by AZPaul3, posted 09-29-2011 6:20 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 32 of 74 (635547)
09-29-2011 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
09-29-2011 5:03 PM


Re: So what is different?
So we have light, e-m waves and neutrinos -- what is different?
Photons (EM) are massless particles. Neutrinos are not massless. Their mass is so slight however that they do not (often) interact with anything.
But they do have mass and as such are restricted by Relativity to less than 'c' velocities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2011 5:03 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Rahvin, posted 09-29-2011 6:11 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 33 of 74 (635550)
09-29-2011 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by AZPaul3
09-29-2011 6:00 PM


Re: So what is different?
Neutrino mass is less important than their lack of a charge. Most matter interactions, after all, are electromagnetic repulsion between electrons in atomic orbits.
Since atoms are mostly just empty space and neutrinos have no charge to attract or repel them from either the electron shell or the protons in the nucleus, they just pass right on through.
The low mass of a neutrino does mean that it can move faster. Accelerating a non-zero mass toward the speed of light requires more and more energy scaling to infinity, so you can never quite get there, but the low mass of a neutrino lets it get pretty close.
Photons, of course, are absorbed by atoms and re-emitted (in transparent substances anyway), and this slows light down (even though the actual photons always move at c, every time they strike another atom there's a delay as it's absorbed and re-emitted). It's why c is specifically the speed of light in a vacuum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by AZPaul3, posted 09-29-2011 6:00 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by AZPaul3, posted 09-29-2011 6:38 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 34 of 74 (635552)
09-29-2011 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by RAZD
09-29-2011 5:48 PM


Re: Let's Speculate some more
One test for this would be the spread of the detected bell curve ...
At the present time, with our technology, I do not see any way to make this test.
Detecting only a few thousand of the trillions of neutrinos generated does not give enough data to make a meaningful comparison. I'm also not so sure we can test the initial proton generator to determine the starting curve. Also, since the only results we can presently achieve are aggregate results we cannot know the spread we are dealing with. We cannot detect single neutrinos and know their mass. We can only aggregate the (very few) detections with respect to time. And a bias in generation and/or detection, presently unknowable given our technology, could produce the aggregate data reported.
Edited by AZPaul3, : clarify
Edited by AZPaul3, : more

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2011 5:48 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 35 of 74 (635554)
09-29-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Rahvin
09-29-2011 6:11 PM


Re: So what is different?
good points. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Rahvin, posted 09-29-2011 6:11 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 36 of 74 (635651)
09-30-2011 10:15 AM


End of an Era
I wonder where we would be now in the world of physics if the SSC in Texas had been completed.
Tevatron atom smasher shuts after more than 25 years

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by kbertsche, posted 09-30-2011 12:19 PM GDR has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 37 of 74 (635665)
09-30-2011 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by AZPaul3
09-29-2011 5:18 PM


Re: Let's Speculate
quote:
Nothing in this universe is perfect. The mas (energy) of a proton has been measured at 1.672621777(74)10−27 kg (about .938 GeV). Note the (74) in this measurement. That is the error bar. Some protons may be slightly more massive, some less so, than the mean measurement. The neutrino mass is given as less than 3x10-36 kg (about 2 eV). We cannot yet be certain how much less then 2 eV in mass the various flavors of neutrino are but we can be sure that, as with everything else, it will vary across some (very small) range.
The high energy protons generated by CERN (or anywhere) will be generated over a range of masses. The masses of the resultant pulse of protons will form a bell curve with very narrow arms and a steep high peak at the mean value. Most of the generated protons would have measured mass clustered very close to the mean with a few (100,000s?) of slightly greater and slightly lesser mass within the narrow arms around the mean value.
  —AZPaul3
Correction: we believe that all protons have the same fundamental mass. The bell curve is not due to a spread in mass, but due to uncertainty in our measurement of the mass.
The protons extracted from CERN will have a small spread in energy, determined by the details of the accelerator. But because the beam is highly relativistic and the neutrino production target is very close, this should have essentially no effect on the timing.
quote:
Similarly, the timing of proton generation will vary. So we will have another bell curve where most of the protons in the pulse are generated around a specific mean time with a few (100,000s?) generated ever so slightly earlier and ever so slightly later.
  —AZPaul3
This timing is determined by the extraction pulses. No protons will be extracted until the kicker magnets are fired. But jitter in the timing system would have the same effect as the mechanism that you describe, and this is a plausible issue.
quote:
Now to speculate on the OPERA results. And, yes, admittedly, with the view that Relativity is preserved.
There are three (3) speculations that may be at work here.
1. There may be a correlation between the (slightly) increased mass (energy) of a generated proton and a (slightly) increased mass (energy) of the neutrino generated by that specific proton collision.
  —AZPaul3
We believe that the masses of protons and each flavor of neutrino are fixed fundamental constants. There is certainly a correlation between proton energy and neutrino energy. But how would this make the neutrinos appear to be super-luminal?
quote:
2. There may be a correlation between (slightly) higher proton mass and its (slightly) earlier release from the proton generator.
  —AZPaul3
Assuming that you mean energy instead of mass, it is indeed possible that there is a correlation between proton energy and time along the extraction pulse. But again, how would this make the neutrinos appear to be super-luminal?
quote:
3. There may be a bias in polystyrene scintillators that detect (slightly) higher energy neutrinos only (and very few of those anyway).
  —AZPaul3
Yes, there will be some energy dependence to the neutrino detectors. But again, how would this make the neutrinos appear to be super-luminal?
For what it's worth, I suspect the problem will turn out to be a subtle error in either the timing or the distance:
Timing: Have they mis-measured or mis-calculated a time delay in their electronics chain somewhere? Have they ever calibrated the timing through the entire systems which generates their trigger pulses and their detection pulses? This would be an easy mistake to make.
Distance: They have relied on GPS measurements, which are very precise, and are very accurate for short-range differential measurements. But how accurate is GPS over the distance from Geneva to Gran Sasso? (GPS mapping reduces to a differential short-range measurement, since the map-maker and the user both rely on the same GPS signals.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by AZPaul3, posted 09-29-2011 5:18 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by AZPaul3, posted 09-30-2011 2:38 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 38 of 74 (635666)
09-30-2011 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by GDR
09-30-2011 10:15 AM


Re: End of an Era
quote:
Tevatron atom smasher shuts after more than 25 years
  —GDR
From Fermilab Today, Friday, Sept 30, 2011:
The Tevatron shuts down today, after 28 years of operation.
Fermilab will shut down the Tevatron this afternoon for the last time. A broadcast of the event will begin at 2 p.m. CDT. Fermilab staff and users can watch the broadcast in Ramsey Auditorium. The broadcast will also be available online.
Fermilab Director Pier Oddone will host the broadcast, which will feature the shutdown in the Main Control Room, and the CDF and DZero control rooms.
The event will be streamed online beginning at 1:45 PM CDT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 09-30-2011 10:15 AM GDR has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 39 of 74 (635681)
09-30-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by kbertsche
09-30-2011 12:06 PM


Re: Let's Speculate
Correction: we believe that all protons have the same fundamental mass. The bell curve is not due to a spread in mass, but due to uncertainty in our measurement of the mass.
The protons extracted from CERN will have a small spread in energy, determined by the details of the accelerator.
For rest mass, yes, I agree, but, E=mc2 so a spread in energy = a spread in mass.
But again, how would this make the neutrinos appear to be super-luminal?
If the three speculations are correct then
- the more energetic (massive) protons will be at the leading edge of the proton pulse.
- the more energetic (massive) neutrinos will be at the leading edge of the neutrino pulse.
- the leading edge of the pulse is (slightly) prior to the mean time value which is used in the calculations.
- the polystyrene scintillators will only detect the more energetic (massive) neutrinos at the leading edge of the pulse.
The expected arrival time calculations are made based on the mean time value of the departure pulse, when infact (if this speculation is correct) the only neutrinos detected were at the leading edge of that pulse (slightly) prior to the mean time value given for the departure. Nothing superluminal here.
If we could time individual neutrinos the same as we can photons then we would expect to find a velocity < c. But since this cannot be done and we must time pulses of millions of particles, the speculation is that the spread of mass (energy) values, correlated with a spread of departure time values, may appear to show the differential reported by OPERA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by kbertsche, posted 09-30-2011 12:06 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 09-30-2011 3:46 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 40 of 74 (635691)
09-30-2011 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by AZPaul3
09-30-2011 2:38 PM


Re: Let's Speculate
AZPaul3 writes:
The expected arrival time calculations are made based on the mean time value of the departure pulse, when infact (if this speculation is correct) the only neutrinos detected were at the leading edge of that pulse (slightly) prior to the mean time value given for the departure. Nothing superluminal here.
Score! Me in Message 3:
Percy writes:
This has the same feel as that discovery a decade or so ago of light packets that could arrive before they departed.
AbE: Turns out it was about five years ago, I found the thread, start here: Message 227
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : AbE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by AZPaul3, posted 09-30-2011 2:38 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by AZPaul3, posted 09-30-2011 8:41 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 41 of 74 (635708)
09-30-2011 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Percy
09-30-2011 3:46 PM


Re: Let's Speculate
Score!
Way to go Opus! ... eh ... Percy!
I think you are right. Something like this is quite likely the answer. In the mean time we could be entertained with causality jokes.
Maybe we could get 1.61803 to start with one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 09-30-2011 3:46 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 42 of 74 (637400)
10-15-2011 10:21 AM


Physics Saved!
Geez, the explanation is even more mundane than we guessed, different reference frames. Found several articles:
This proposed solution has yet to be vetted, but I bet it sticks. Faster than light particles, physics overturned, physicists baffled, science in an uproar: sheesh!
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Taz, posted 10-15-2011 2:20 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 44 by AZPaul3, posted 10-15-2011 10:47 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 45 by cavediver, posted 10-16-2011 4:30 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 47 by DWIII, posted 10-16-2011 3:06 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 43 of 74 (637426)
10-15-2011 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
10-15-2011 10:21 AM


Re: Physics Saved!
Damn you, I just saw this news and was going to post it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 10-15-2011 10:21 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 44 of 74 (637457)
10-15-2011 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
10-15-2011 10:21 AM


Re: Physics Saved!
Geez, the explanation is even more mundane than we guessed ...
Mundane, nothing. This is elegant. Simple, beautiful.
It turns the OPERA experiment and its physics defying hype into another proof of Relativity. Gotta love the irony.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 10-15-2011 10:21 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 45 of 74 (637490)
10-16-2011 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
10-15-2011 10:21 AM


Re: Physics Saved!
This proposed solution has yet to be vetted, but I bet it sticks.
Hmmm. While the general principle suggested may well lie behind the discrepancy, the particular paper in question leaves much to be desired. The doubling of the 32ns to 64ns is especially amusing/worrying*.
Faster than light particles, physics overturned, physicists baffled, science in an uproar: sheesh!
Yep, popualr science press working its wonders yet again...
*
quote:
In other words the observed time of flight should be about 32 ns shorter than the time-of-flight
using a baseline bound clock. Now we should examine the experiment again to identify potential
other locations where these types of error can be made. Most of the corrections to the result
are estimated using baseline based clocks, these corrections do not change the expected observed
time-of-flight. However to relate baseline time to GPS clock time the GPS clock time is corrected
for time-of-flight of the radio signals. It is likely that this is also done using the baseline reference
frame where the clock reference frame should be used. As this involves the same clock and the
same events the error should be the same, i.e. from the baseline reference frame the time-of-flight
of the radio signals in the clock reference frame is overestimated by ǫ and hence we expect that
the total error is in the order of 2ǫ = 64 ns.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 10-15-2011 10:21 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024