Now if we could only find a way to put a charge on these "neutrinos", and build some sort of "neutrino" vacuum tube, then with a circuit large enough we could probably manage to apply negative feedback at the point when the record currently playing was recorded, and thus compensate for dreadful remastering.
But I could easily be mixing up some facts though, so don't give it too much thought.
But I could easily be mixing up some facts though, so don't give it too much thought.
DF96, you know much more about this stuff than I do, but I was thinking the distances involved in GPS aren't great enough to reveal the error.
I considered the brief second page of the OP article very important to the whole. In monitoring the supernova, they "arrived within hours of each other." It isn't explicitly stated which arrived first, but I'm assuming the neutrinos lagged in that case, due to it being presented as a contradiction to this latest experiment. Definitely some strange and interesting things going on.
I considered the brief second page of the OP article very important to the whole. In monitoring the supernova, they "arrived within hours of each other." It isn't explicitly stated which arrived first, but I'm assuming the neutrinos lagged in that case, due to it being presented as a contradiction to this latest experiment. Definitely some strange and interesting things going on.
The neutrinos preceded the light, ~3hours. But if You look it up, it is well described, and was expected like this.
Shortly: it took ~ 3 hours for the the detonation shock wave to reach the surface, and generate light. The neutrinos got a "head start", flying directly through of that superdense material.
With this 0.0025 % difference, they would have been ~4 years ahead, if it were valid even in that case. Obviously not..
Or.. who knows.. If there had been a primary neutrino signal 4 years earlier, I think it's close to zero the chance to dig it out of the general noise. I'm not sure if there were at all any detectors operative at that time. Real time neutrino detectors are not simple or cheap toys, and only proliferating recently.
{Kamiokande original only started up at 1983 april. Supernova happened in 1987 february. That is 1987-4 --> 1983 february..}
Ciao, George
Shortly: it took ~ 3 hours for the the detonation shock wave to reach the surface, and generate light. The neutrinos got a "head start", flying directly through of that superdense material.
With this 0.0025 % difference, they would have been ~4 years ahead, if it were valid even in that case. Obviously not..
Or.. who knows.. If there had been a primary neutrino signal 4 years earlier, I think it's close to zero the chance to dig it out of the general noise. I'm not sure if there were at all any detectors operative at that time. Real time neutrino detectors are not simple or cheap toys, and only proliferating recently.
{Kamiokande original only started up at 1983 april. Supernova happened in 1987 february. That is 1987-4 --> 1983 february..}
Ciao, George
Good point, but then again, my statistical gut feeling tells me this can not be the case. After all, what are the chances of having light and neutrino measurements on a confirmed supernova event that coincide so well in time?
As DF96 mentioned, GPS would not work if it where not for relativistic compensations. @sofaspud, it is et. al. time dillatation where it is compensated for. Not so much distance. So, at least the Big E. had the beginning of the curve right good enough for engineers to work with.
Perhaps there are some surprises at the asymptotes. But the start of the curve is confirmed to work.
vac
Interestingly no...the current value of C is 299,792,458 meters/second exactly. This is so because the meter is defined as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299,792,458 seconds, so the definition of the meter and C are sort of entangled. In this case the limiting factor in establishing the relationship is the accuracy of the timebase that ties C and the meter together. Today's best clocks are considered precise to a few parts in 10^14, so 0.0025% is about 8 orders of magnitude sloppier than the state of the art.
^^ Yes, I should have remembered that from studying my SI units. Wikipedia says, "After centuries of increasingly precise measurements, in 1975 the speed of light was known to be 299,792,458 m/s with a relative measurement uncertainty of 4 parts per billion (4e-9)." So this 60 nanoseconds is a "sore thumb" in relativity theory (not that that was really in doubt). This is one of those threads that make me feel just a little bit smarter and a whole lot more perplexed. I doubt I'm the only one. It's a shame the Big E isn't around to comment. Hopefully some sort of answer is forthcoming before I'm gone.
They didn't fire light through the same path and see which gets there first.
I suspect the distance through dense mass is simply less than empty space,
therefore true distance was computed wrongly.
We already know mass warps space, and that space between the galaxies
appears to grow as they accumulate mass, or maybe galaxies are shrinking.
These are probably related.
You can't shoot light unimpeded through 500 miles of dense mass, so we
probably never measured it before.
You are right, it would be interesting to see if they find something. The search must be on by now.
Just to confuse the audience further: some things we hold to be constant are not constant at all. Take the kilogram. The French institute that maintains that standard periodically recalls the kilo-clones that have been send off to all quarters of the world. These consist of platinum/irridium cylinders, which are kept in double glass bells, filled with an inert gas.
The remarkeable thing: they never weigh the same upon their return to France. This while one can be reasonably assured that the number of atoms in the cylinders has not significantly changed. So, the atomic weight must have seen some variation. The more you know, the less you understand.
vac
You could in theory do this with gamma rays? I don't know if it has ever been done.kenpeter said:
I still expect someone to find an error in the calculations. Failing that, some gravitational effect due to the fact that the path is downhill at first then uphill at the end. When gravity is involved, 'straight' lines are no longer straight.
There's a recent article in the Wall Street Journal by Michio Kaku about the neutrino experiments. If you read carefully, you can see he is calling himself a crackpot since he questions Einstein.
Michio Kaku: Has a Speeding Neutrino Really Overturned Einstein? - WSJ.com
Michio Kaku: Has a Speeding Neutrino Really Overturned Einstein? - WSJ.com
Maybe the different viewpoints of the truth clash again:
Stars say relativity still works ? The Register
As in Kurosawa's film, Rashomon.
Stars say relativity still works ? The Register
As in Kurosawa's film, Rashomon.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.