[ldavidcooke]

Hey All,

Just as a heads up, tests at CERN appears to suggest that there appears to be no error in the start time and release of the neutrinos in the faster then light experiment, according to an AP news release. With that being said is it time to return to thecquestions posed on Jan. 1 of 2010?

Given a giant whitefaced mechanical clock face superimposed over the solar system, from a polar perspective, with a giant black sweeping second hand and a space craft capable of moving at the speed of light, if rising from a point above the sun, does the clockface turn red then black as the craft obtains light speed or does the sweep second hand simply stop? Einstein tells us it should look like a bowl which collapses with the rim forming an event horizon. Very interesting..., in the words of Artie Johnson...

[JOKE_SNOW]

Or there was the string/multiverse theory as depicted on the Horizon show about the CERN results being picked up at Gran Sasso. I think a lot of people confuse theoretical physics with mathematics, remember Einstein was never a mathemetician and all his works were based on theory & observed principles. The more technologically advanced we become the more we'll start learning that not everything we know (maybe everything we know) has been miscalculated, resulting in us starting from scratch.

I mean we don't even know the theoretic principle to infinite (fractionals) so the mathematicians suck a nice horizontal 8 to satisfy theoretical physicians with a quick answer.

[Bazmundo]

Well, I'm not entirely sure what this thread is about, but suffice to say this is far from conclusive. The AP article (reproduced here) only states that "...[scientists] have ruled out one possible error..". There are still other potential errors to consider in what is a tiny amount of difference in the results.

Neutrinos are known to change form as they travel (MSW effect) particularly in the case of encountering different media (they were passing underground IIRC?). It's quite feasible that, as a probability function (which could be represented as a wave of possible locations) they could propagate forward during these transitions - not unlike a forward propagating supercell. This could be the effect witnessed, the mid-point of probabilities forming on the leading edge due to forward scattering. This isn't strictly the same as the original vector despite being in the same direction.

Neutrino research is in it's infancy, and comparisons with photons and the speed of electromagnetic radiation are trivial really, especially as neutrinos are fundamentally mass-less particles, and so disrupt quite a lot of theories. That, considered with the idea that the speed of light was different in the early universe (see: the alpha or fine structure constant) shows us that you can't get a comfortable set of rules to describe all scenarios. Alpha "α" is the reason why we interact with our universe in this state, if it was only slightly different you wouldn't have anywhere near as many physical (matter) reactions, nor much of a universe.


There is precious little difference between a mathematician and a theoretical physicist, trust me. Einstein only saw two experiments which nodded toward Special Relativity before 1905 and he denied that they were an influence. Once you get to the edge of a weak gravitational field, Special Relativity becomes General Relativity and therein breaks down a little in integrity.


Also, if you truly wanted to know the speed and position of a neutrino you'd have to be flying next to it at the same speed. Even then we're not sure of the speed that the universe is travelling... oh dear, now where did I put my frame of reference?

P.S: physicians are doctors

[rc1102]

Another possibility is that the neutrinos exist in a higher dimension and have taken a short cut through an extra dimension, therefore Einstein will still be correct.

To scale it down to 1d and 2d for ease of imagination, imagine a piece of string sitting on a desk. The string is curved just like space is. The desk top represents a 2d plane which is parralel to the 1d plane. If you imagine the distance along the string and then just between the 2 ends of the curve in a straight line. If the photon travels along the string at c and the neutrino at <c straight between the 2 points then the law would not be broken.

Thats a woeful description but perhaps someone could word it better

[Bazmundo]

That's a perfectly good description. I prefer that time alone is distorted by gravity and space is the same, doesn't conjure up extra dimensions but goes a bit further from a purely philosophical point-of-view. Essentially neutrinos, being mass-less, aren't as bogged down by physical principles as the other particles in our little corner of the universe; so it's quite pertinent to describe them as being in their own 'dimension'.

They've recently started bumping virtual photons from within vacuums out of their pairings, using a quantum electric 'mirror'. Essentially light from nothing. Interesting times...

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Baz and RC,

I would love to believe there are different dimensions; however, with baryon matter it makes more sense that Bohr's QM s a better model. The interesting theory there is when we start discussing entaglement. I could understand if the discussion about entaglement were descriptions of matter and anti-matter components or not. The reason I have concerns about about additional dimensions is that we can only measure baryonic matter in three dimensions and time. If we believe that time can be compressed or expanded then we have to trust that so can height, width and length, in that case nothing can be real or measured, as the measure would only be valid for the observer.

( This means that there can be no time reference or physical dimension reference that can be agreeded upon. (Thus women are correct, 20 min. in a mans mind really are 5 min. and 8 inches really are 6...) )

The point is, if we can measure neutrinos in reference to our space-time they do not move outside of our dimension. If they are moving in relation to our space-time then the real test would be if we could generate a anti-matter neutrino sending one particle on a faster the light trip while we measure the other particle. If the spins remain constant this should suggest that there has to be a different process at work... Likewise, we still have not answered the inital question, if you were able to reflect light off of the neutrino would it continue getting redder until it turned black or would it simply freeze in place?

[Bazmundo]

I'm afraid I don't agree Dave, distorting time (I wouldn't use 'expanding' or such) shouldn't have much of an effect on the space. Think of all cumulative reactions/processes in agreement on the passage of time as slowing but the space in which they do this staying the same. That means that being within a meshed web of gravitational fields you won't have an original inertial frame of reference, and all measures will only be valid for that observer (of course, in such a large universe two of us at different sides of the planet could be considered as the same observer).

Neutrino and antineutrino pairs (two pairs req) are constituents of photons, so maybe being out on their own lets them fly more freely? I wouldn't have thought 'we' were capable of measuring that precisely though, which is where the error issue creeps back in again.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Baz,

Hmmmm., I think we are missing the point of the change in space-time... I am basing my thoughts on the fact that time is considered a variable in that for any two observers at the same physical location, if one were to travel 3000km by jet at 1000km/hour their time references change. The one that traveled has lost roughly 0.000000003 seconds. Which means time for them expanded, though their spacial dimensions did not. Yet, according to a third person sitting on a ship in the middle of the ocean a picture they took with a high resolution spy came of a calibration scale painted on the bottom of the same jet shows that it was roughly 0.0000003cm narrower and the same length longer, (yea, a heck of a camera I know).

So the measures would suggset that though the jet may have measured that it traveled 3000km, it is quite possible to the observer it actually travelled 299999.9999997cm instead. The space-time dimensions changed. However, if that were true then what happened to the electron that was orbiting every atom in the airplanes skin that was traveling at 60% the speed of light did the orbit change to prevent a collision with the nucleas or is the distance between the electrons orbit wide enough to accomidate a compresson of time and space up to the dimension of the tumbling jumble of protons and neutrons at its center.

Or to take it further do electrons exist at a different space-time then the atoms that they populate and the photons that impact them causing their energy shell level to change. Or to take it even further where do electrons get their energy to orbit the atoms core at nearly 1/2 the speed of light in the first place. Which also begs the question of what happens then to hydrogen at absolute zero K, does the jumble of protons and neutrons stop moving and the electrons stop orbiting? Sorry, so many simple questions and so few answers.

[Bazmundo]

The travellers temporal frame only changes according to the static observer, and at the point of comparison they are still in separate frames (they haven't met up to compare notes yet). I've tried to apply SR with the decelerative effect, but wouldn't be confident enough to show my methods the light of day.

As for the electrons, they don't have a specific particle velocity as they are treated as a wave function when bound into an atomic orbital, but they neatly shift wavelength from the given de Broglie when accelerated to significant percentages of 'c' and above and in doing so become able to avoid interaction with the nucleus by being small enough. They aren't lost or slowed down when you drop to absolute zero either, they simply blend back into an undisturbed ether (ie: their waveform amplitude or 'energy' dissipates). The fact that you still have particles in the nucleus that have a 'higher than particular' mass means that should you reintroduce energy to the system, the existence of the electrons becomes more probable, and hey presto they pop back in again. This bit is little understood, especially by me lol, but needless to say nature abhors a vacuum and thus zero-point kicks in.

For info, that photon experiment I nodded to is the key for me at the moment, making zero-point into an enhanced Casimir effect that you mess with when considering (unnaturally so) speeds nearing 'c' in a theoretical utter vacuum. I say unnatural because there isn't such a thing in the observable universe, hence the odd behaviour of some particles as per what happens on paper.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Baz,

There in lis the corrundum, reduce the containment effect of the electron cloud/orbit and you would lose the cohesion of the atoms core. If you suggest electrons are energy then they would have no mass. An orbiting mass can have a wave appearance without being a wave of energy, if measured in 2 dimensions. Take a simple hydrogen atom moving through space if its orbit was always in the same plane as it passed by a fixed 2 dimensional observation point, its orbit would describe a sine wave. (As for any direction other then within maybe 10 degrees of a perpendicular plane it would simply appear as a point either on the top or bottom at the orbit distance.)

Hit the electron with a photon charge or even increase its spin by close fly bys of free electrons and the sine wave stays the same other then the amplitude or period changes. Hence, if you change the rate of movement in reference to a fixed position the orbit must change. Where at one point the electron moves away from you at 1/2 the speed of light and in the other direction it moves towards you at 1/2 the speed of light. Shoot it away from you at 1/2 the speed of light and what would become of it. See we can still get a wave effect though it is a particle...

The orbiting around an atom is no different then orbiting in the CERN ring, the effects should be universal, it just requies less energy. Creating a CRT or a Alpha particle gun is little different though, bombard an aluminum sheet and the after effects are very different; One, gun increases the electron population surrounding the aluminum atoms and the other causes the atoms to emit gama rays and positrons... If electrons are moving near the speed of light and the alpha particles are at the guns excelleration rate why would the alpha particle emit a greater energy relase? The reason is not complicated, the electrons do not strike each other, where the alpha particle will, similar to a photon, the resultant is different only in that the photon adds to the energy of the electron whereas the alpha particle collision releases the energy contained in the two.

The most interesting thing is that a collision of an alpha particle both boosts the energy of the surrounding electrons and causes a chain reaction in which the surrounding electrons also decay into positrons... It is this behaviour that clearly eliminates that electrons are waves; but, are particles; but, that when measured appear to move in waves.

The question for me is what is the electron orbiting to act as a wave when it is emitted by an electron gun? For that matter what is a photon orbiting...?

[Bazmundo]

Electrons are waves when encased in an atomic orbital, at prerequisite distances from the nucleus as per the value of alpha. When travelling alone they are dominated by the parent magnetic field. Orbiting CERN is nowhere near the same as orbiting the nucleus. Alpha particles are more massive than electrons, which have a questionable mass dependant on their state, hence why alpha particles emit more energy (E=mc²). Positrons can be described as waves also. Photons don't orbit as they are not bound by the same rules, and being energy (with trace mass) can easily boost the amplitude of the electrons waveform without changing the orbital distance from the nucleus, if anything the electron changes up to the next prerequisite level (photoelectric effect).

I'm not really sure where you're going with this thread Dave, it was originally about the neutrino issue; but I'm happy to continue with clarifications of particle physics if that's what members want.

[ldavidcooke]

Bazmundo, on 19 November 2011 - 20:09, said:

Electrons are waves when encased in an atomic orbital, at prerequisite distances from the nucleus as per the value of alpha. When travelling alone they are dominated by the parent magnetic field. Orbiting CERN is nowhere near the same as orbiting the nucleus. Alpha particles are more massive than electrons, which have a questionable mass dependant on their state, hence why alpha particles emit more energy (E=mc²). Positrons can be described as waves also. Photons don't orbit as they are not bound by the same rules, and being energy (with trace mass) can easily boost the amplitude of the electrons waveform without changing the orbital distance from the nucleus, if anything the electron changes up to the next prerequisite level (photoelectric effect).

I'm not really sure where you're going with this thread Dave, it was originally about the neutrino issue; but I'm happy to continue with clarifications of particle physics if that's what members want.

Hey Baz,

I think part of the point of difference that I am trying to demonstrate is that a common current pov regarding the wave versus particle premise of baryonic matter is not necessarily definite. Many of the characteristics that have been noted could be explained by the observation. It as not until a cloud chamber with three separate electron microscopes that a 3d image of a track could be confirmed. Plus the physical evidence of a actual track suggests that though the electron might appear to behave as a wave it is a particle. A wave cannot create a definite track having a beginning and end without a material to absorb or reflect it. As to the observation of an electron orbiting a neucleas or the CERN loop, the appearance will have a circuit appearance which equates to a wave function in the description of its movement, though the electron is a particle.

Next a positron is not a proton; or a photon; but, an anti-matter equivalent to the electron. An alpha particle, such as that emitted by radium or uranium can be directed with a em field the same as an electron. (Keeping in mind that alpha particles are protons similar to the particles in the solar wind, they are in essence hydrogen atoms stripped of their electron.) When we direct alpha streams at a light metal the impact of the proton with the metal causes the emission of an anti-matter electron and a gama ray burst as the positron hits an electron. Again, the point is not in the energy of the impact causing different results; but, the difference in the type of interaction again suggesting tbat we are discussing real physical particles and not waves.

With all of that said the point was to turn to photons, generally they are described as energy and not a particle. Photons have neither mass nor travel in free air at a speed less than 300,000km/sec. They are measured by their resonating frequency and density. Their path can be bent by interaction with either the electro-static or electro magnetic character of matter. As can most atomic particles. The difference between photons and protons is that photons will raise the energy level of an electron where as a proton has a tendency to anniliate it instead. (Conservation of matter/energy?) With the main point being that photons move as a wave and as such can change phase or have the phase angle warped so as to appear to have a velocity greater then the speed of light. (Back to the 2001 experiments...) That a neutrino can have a similar action is not surprisinjg except that a neutrino is supposed to be a particle. Where this ties back is that this is the first time a particle appears to be FTL. (The long way around the end as forced by the wave versus particle issue injected earlier.)

This still brings us back to how to observe the probability that the experiment is true and for that I was suggesting a entanglement experiment using a matter-anti-matter pair and accelleration of one to near light speed and observe the other containd in a block of ice. The spins should be equal and opposite, if we accellerate one the spin should change on both.

[Bazmundo]

An electron orbiting a nucleus will have the same oscillation wavefunction as one orbiting CERN, but the two are in fundamentally different quantum states. You're mixing classical and quantum there.

Photon paths can't be 'bent', the electron-positron pair are disturbed prior to recombination.
You can't compare protons and photons Dave, they are fundamentally different classes of particle. Photons are absorbed and emitted as per changes in electron energy level. Protons are fundamentally more massive, so I can't see why you don't understand the difference between a photon collision and a proton collision (wrt to an atom). One will excite, maybe ionise, the other will cause more mayhem.

Neutrinos aren't independent of wave/particle duality and their speed is in direct correlation with this, and I don't get what an entanglement experiment would prove in this case. Why accelerate something to 'c' when it already is travelling at 'c'?

[ldavidcooke]

Bazmundo, on 20 November 2011 - 13:00, said:

An electron orbiting a nucleus will have the same oscillation wavefunction as one orbiting CERN, but the two are in fundamentally different quantum states. You're mixing classical and quantum there.

Photon paths can't be 'bent', the electron-positron pair are disturbed prior to recombination.
You can't compare protons and photons Dave, they are fundamentally different classes of particle. Photons are absorbed and emitted as per changes in electron energy level. Protons are fundamentally more massive, so I can't see why you don't understand the difference between a photon collision and a proton collision (wrt to an atom). One will excite, maybe ionise, the other will cause more mayhem.

Neutrinos aren't independent of wave/particle duality and their speed is in direct correlation with this, and I don't get what an entanglement experiment would prove in this case. Why accelerate something to 'c' when it already is travelling at 'c'?

Hey Baz,

Actually, I am trying to differentiate the introduced blur between classic and QM. As to differences in quantum states, I disagree, whether the electrons have been stripped from the electron cloud surrounding a metalic atom/molecule, or is in the outer shell of a non-metalic atom the energy will be different; but, an electron will not be different in any other regard, IMHO.

As to the bending of photon paths, I find that gravitational lensing is common in astronomy. Also, when watching the path of light moving through a glass lense or two different mediums will also bend light or the path of a photon...

As to a electron photon versus proton collision, a photon simply increases the ambient energy in an electron, it does not "impact" as it has no electro-static charge or mass, (and yet can be redirected via a gravity well..., must be a space-time issue). A proton-electron interaction at an equivalent energy level would be an electro-static reaction if the electron did not increase in energy level and go into orbit of the proton, due to the approach rate and difference in mass apparently actually creates an electron shell orbit. It is not until you increase the energy level of the proton that you can actually cause a collision. Even then when the proton interacts with the electron you suggest that it is the mass collision which releases the gama photon and a anti-matter electron, this is unlikely. To my knowledge no one has yet determined why an anti-matter electron is emitted.

As to entanglement, this is based on the Bohr/Einstein battle over whether "God throws dice". It has been determined that any two particles that have been entangled that when seperated should have mirror characteristics. (My idea of a electron and it's anti-matter partner would form the strongest entanglement bond that could be formed.) Hence, if you could corral two separate groups, sending one away at near the speed of light, the effect of the space-time change in one should be mirrored in the other partner located where you can measure it. The point is to use the entanglement as a test or confirmation of the time warping or speed of the entangled partner.

[ldavidcooke]

Chris Lloyd, on 20 November 2011 - 13:39, said:

This makes for very heavy reading. I am not sure about all these theories here. What this essentially comes down to at the moment is the issue of 3 possible scenarios. There are erroneous results being recorded ( the subject of the thread), particles are travelling at greater than the speed of light (which challenges currently 'known' theory) or particles are still travelling at the speed of light but because of some other theory that we do not understand we do not know why they appear to be arriving sooner. If the results are accurate are they getting there quicker or does a to b become a different distance when something is travelling between the 2 points at the speed of light.

I suggest that if the neutrinos are travelling at the speed of light, then time for the earth, relative to the neutrinos has stopped, the earth does not spin, the devices that measure the event time are not actually measuring as it is based on time alone and the clocks will stop etc, etc, etc. I think this may be why the neutrinos appear to arrive sooner. They are travelling forward in time, hence why they arrive sooner.

I will contact CERN to explain my eureka moment ( I am not joking LOL). It's all in a days work and you heard it here first on UKWW.

Hey Chris,

Not a bad assesment... It is more likely the neutrino is emitted and detected faster then the expected period. It is clear that the differential between trigger and emittion is satisfactory. This leaves the detection issue and several other degrees of freedom to be resolved. The greatest zone of error is likely within the measurement as opposed to occurrance. A prior experiment performed in 2001 pointed to the wave form compression within the baryl substrate as the main cause of the measured and predicted difference. (Have you considered how great a length that the dfference between 10 nano seconds and 60 nano seconds are?)

[l21bjd]

Hi,

Just a couple of random things, having scanned through the thread!

Photons have no mass. They do have momentum however.
An alpha particle is a helium-4 nucleus: ie 2 protons and 2 neutrons.
Rather than saying electrons are waves, it might be better to say they have wave-like properties.
I think in gravitational lensing, the photon path is straight, but space is bent. Or something.
A positron is indeed the antiparticle of the electron. Certain radioactive isotopes (eg Na-22, which is commercially available) emit them when they decay.

I'll be quite surprised if then neutrinos in the experiment are indeed travelling faster than c, but it would be interesting if it turns out to be true!

Cheers,
Jon.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Jon,

Thanks wrt the He4, I was just going off the top of my head and seemed to remember from the physics class that the sun emitted alpha particles and they were considered to be Hydrogen stripped of electrons. When I go back to my 40ya book they mention the proton component; but not the neutron.

Looking at the Curie's experiment based on a modified Crookes tube, the result of bombarding an aluminum plate was profound in that the decaying positron/electron pair resulted in additional reactions that would eventually ( over several min. ) stop, creating a new isotope. It was this reaction that intrigues me as to the creation of an entangled substance for confirming the current state of the science... Again, appreciate your participation...

[Bazmundo]

ldavidcooke, on 20 November 2011 - 17:39, said:

Hey Baz,

Actually, I am trying to differentiate the introduced blur between classic and QM. As to differences in quantum states, I disagree, whether the electrons have been stripped from the electron cloud surrounding a metalic atom/molecule, or is in the outer shell of a non-metalic atom the energy will be different; but, an electron will not be different in any other regard, IMHO.

As to the bending of photon paths, I find that gravitational lensing is common in astronomy. Also, when watching the path of light moving through a glass lense or two different mediums will also bend light or the path of a photon...

As to a electron photon versus proton collision, a photon simply increases the ambient energy in an electron, it does not "impact" as it has no electro-static charge or mass, (and yet can be redirected via a gravity well..., must be a space-time issue). A proton-electron interaction at an equivalent energy level would be an electro-static reaction if the electron did not increase in energy level and go into orbit of the proton, due to the approach rate and difference in mass apparently actually creates an electron shell orbit. It is not until you increase the energy level of the proton that you can actually cause a collision. Even then when the proton interacts with the electron you suggest that it is the mass collision which releases the gama photon and a anti-matter electron, this is unlikely. To my knowledge no one has yet determined why an anti-matter electron is emitted.

As to entanglement, this is based on the Bohr/Einstein battle over whether "God throws dice". It has been determined that any two particles that have been entangled that when seperated should have mirror characteristics. (My idea of a electron and it's anti-matter partner would form the strongest entanglement bond that could be formed.) Hence, if you could corral two separate groups, sending one away at near the speed of light, the effect of the space-time change in one should be mirrored in the other partner located where you can measure it. The point is to use the entanglement as a test or confirmation of the time warping or speed of the entangled partner.

Actually Dave, you were comparing an atomic orbital with a lap of CERN, not metallic and non-metallic atoms; but it's good to see you've stopped digging a gravitational potential well there.

An electron in orbit is a shell, the position of it is the probability density function of that shell, hence it's perfectly acceptable to describe it as a wave. Nature and man have both created magnetic fields to channel and contain them, whereupon they exhibit properties pertaining to mass (as per the calculation of rest mass) but they can still be described as waves within that field - all particles have a subsequent field - Higgs - LHC - present...

I haven't suggested that "it is the mass collision which releases the gamma photon and a [positron]", I only suggested that the proton being more massive is where the comparison ends wrt photons.

Entanglement is very nice, Einstein didn't think so, but it's still irrelevant when the neutrinos apparently change "flavour" (type) not spin whilst in flight between mediums.

Thanks for the clarification on the photon path Jon, I'm keen to understand whether the effect of gravity on the near-vacuum environment actually enhances the zero-point density whereupon the travelling photon could encounter more matter/anti-matter loop collisions in which it results in a 'bent' overall path. Perhaps the same could be true of neutrinos (having their own equivalence in anti-matter) and this is why there is a change of type, and some effect on forward propagation.