The speed of light may have been broken.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Pincho Paxton, Sep 22, 2011.

  1. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    No, Tach, the ICARUS results only contradict the OPERA results if the Cohen and Glashow theoretical result is valid.

    The ICARUS experimental result was a description of the received neutrino energy spectrum.

    The contradiction with the OPERA result is in the interpretation of the ICARUS experimental result through the lens of the Cohen and Glashow theoretical result.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    I don't think it's quite that simple. I get the impression from the paper that there are good theoretical reasons to expect weak interaction radiation from superluminal neutrinos, and that these are the same reasons that we expect Cherenkov radiation... ie it's not a simple analogy.

    But I'm not a particle physicist either, so who knows.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    IF the neutrinos were superluminal, THEN they would have a radiative spectrum different from what Icarus measured. They don't, so they can't be superluminal. Very simple.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    That sentence is a lovely summary of Cohen and Glashow's theoretical result.
    Why is it more reliable than the OPERA result?
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2011
  8. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    I explained that to you twice already: because it is confirmed by the Icarus experimental results. There are no questions about the Icarus measurements while there are plenty of questions about the Opera measurements.
     
  9. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    What?

    The Cohen and Glashow result is that superluminal neutrinos would lose energy.

    The ICARUS result was that the neutrinos did not lose energy.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2011
  10. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Look, this is basic logic:

    1) Cohen and Glashow theoretical result - All superluminal neutrinos will lose energy
    2) ICARUS empirical result - CERN neutrinos did not lose energy.
    3) Interpretation of 2) in light of 1) - CERN neutrinos were not superluminal.

    It's a valid syllogism.

    But I don't understand why you imply that premise 1) is unquestionable?
    It hasn't been empirically tested.

    Or maybe it has. If the CERN neutrinos were superluminal, then the ICARUS empirical result refutes the the Cohen and Glashow theoretical result.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2011
  11. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    This is exactly why I said the Cohen and Glashow paper required experimental verification before it could be used as any kind of proof.

    The problem could be in finding a detector close enough to a collider that can duplicate the energy levels CERN does. I am not sure either of the other two potential colliders can or that there is currently a detector close enough to CERN.
     
  12. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Except that if the SM is right it cannot be experimentally verified, as it would have to violate special relativity!

    The C&G result shows that the interpretation of the neutrinos by Opera based on something SM-like is not consistent, that you cannot use the SM to get the results they claim. Either there's another factor at play or the SM is seriously wrong. If the SM is seriously wrong then even the claim of super luminality is open to question because its dependent upon so many SM related principles. C&G are basically saying that there's no need to do serious digging into the SM, peoples' time is better spent elsewhere like checking clock synchronisations etc, which is it has no transpired can pretty much be considered the issue.
     
  13. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Correct. Neither did the Opera neutrinos lose any energy since the radiative profiles for the Icarus and Opera neutrinos are very similar. Meaning that the neutrinos aren't superluiminal in EITHER experiment. We have gone over this three times now.
     
  14. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    This is the LEAST probable conclusion of all of them because it would show that there is something very wrong with the SM.
     
  15. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    And you missed the point each time.

    But never mind, AlphaNumeric has answered it adequately.

    Agreed.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2011
  16. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    Or maybe, you can't accept that nothing travels faster than the speed of light?
    Not even in this experiment,because according to them, measuring was wrong, and satellite position...?
     
  17. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Don't forget that "The OPERA experiment began in 2006 with the main goal of studying neutrino oscillation". The standard model doesn't cover neutrino oscillation.

    Besides, 730,000 metres and 20 parts per million means we're only talking of a distance of 14.6 metres. It isn't much. I wasn't that impressed. But I was spectacularly unimpressed by the Glashow/Cohen rebuttal, if that's the right word. It's "mere theory", and experiment trumps theory. We need experiment here, another team making measurements, hard facts. Not somebody saying it can't have happened because "we show that such superluminal neutrinos would lose energy rapidly via the bremsstrahlung of electron-positron pairs". Personally I have a hunch that it will turn out that the neutrinos were travelling at the speed of light, which is enough as a problem as it is.
     
  18. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    Wouldn't that just prove that a neutrino had no mass? I know there is still some controversy on that question. But I think if neutrinos can move at any speed other than the speed of light, then they do have mass, small as it might be.
     
  19. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Nonsense. Why do you keep posting about things that you know nothing about?

    What do you think Icarus is?
     
  20. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Yes. See neutrino types and neutrino oscillation. A neutrino is supposed to have to have a small mass, meaning it's going at less than c, and it's supposed to oscillate, which means the mass varies. I see it as wavefunction propagating with a "concertina" action myself. But if its going at c it can't have any mass, whatever flavour it's supposed to be.
     
  21. prometheus viva voce! Moderator

    Messages:
    2,045
    What you see is completely irrelevant. The standard model includes neutrino oscillation and it includes a neutrino mass (which is required for neutrino oscillation).
     
  22. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,520
    Neutrino mass is a presumption because of detected oscillation. Some theories exist that do not require mass for oscillation. All of this is only recently in the SM as oscillation is only recently discovered.
     
  23. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    I know I have read about this somewhere, but since there a number of knowledgable posters here...,

    Leaving off the tau neutrino due to its short half life, do the electron and muon neutrinos oscillate equally into one another or is there a bias in the oscillation?
     

Share This Page