Hm.. improved..
60 nsec mean offset, but with 50 nsec error, flat distribution...
It could also be a normal distribution, but with such low statistics one can simply not state anything. (20 events)
The other experiment had obtained less error on the same bunch. But they can not say anything about the absolute offset -yet.
Let's say, the new beam structure gives promising results, but should wait for a real run, next year.
60 nsec mean offset, but with 50 nsec error, flat distribution...
It could also be a normal distribution, but with such low statistics one can simply not state anything. (20 events)
The other experiment had obtained less error on the same bunch. But they can not say anything about the absolute offset -yet.
Let's say, the new beam structure gives promising results, but should wait for a real run, next year.
One thing I don't see them doing is a comparison test, same conditions sending light instead of neutrinos. They just keep saying it's arrived x quicker than expected, rather than thinking about the conditions.
Maybe they are, hey they're smarter than me, but I just haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.
Maybe they are, hey they're smarter than me, but I just haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.
I'd worry about loop stability. If that thing starts to oscillate the amplitude could increase exponentially and destroy the whole universe.
Well I do know that light travels faster then sound.
At first you guys looked smart to me until I heard you speak.
AL
At first you guys looked smart to me until I heard you speak.
AL
I know but that was kind of the point I was making really. They're saying that these neutrinos sent through matter that light cannot pass is travelling faster than light.
Surely a side by side test is the only accurate way to conduct this test, ie an environment with which both would be unaffected by outside influences.
To me, conducting a test and then saying if light were to travel this distance it would have got here in a longer amount of time than the neutrinos isn't accurate when you're basing it on ideal figures.
X-Rays won't get too far...that lead bib the technician wears verifies that. That is why they bury some of the particle physics experiments in abandoned mines - a km or so of earth cuts the background of cosmic radiation very effectively. I don't think any photonic radiation could be sent alongside the neutrinos in this experiment and be expected to make it to the detector.
Remember that 'speed of light' is just shorthand for 'speed of massless particle'. Nothing special about light, photons just happen to be massless.
Yes light is just EM radiation we are able to see with our eyes.
The lead bib reduces medical grade X-ray levels enough for very short exposures. If you wear two bibs it will only cut it back by %25.
The lead bib reduces medical grade X-ray levels enough for very short exposures. If you wear two bibs it will only cut it back by %25.
Originally Posted by RichIOM
One thing I don't see them doing is a comparison test, same conditions sending light instead of neutrinos.
And that's part the problem. If we drill a tunnel just big enough NOT to act
as a waveguide (no touching the sides), does it invalidate "through miles
of solid rock" measurement for light? Do we get the same shortcut without
direct proximity to the mass that possibly causes the distance to be less?
But if you shoot the Neutrino through the same empty tunnel, and it also
doesn't get the speed boost, maybe we can guess something from that...
----
My universe is infinite, the same size it always ever was. Something
banged into this snowglobe everywhere at once. And gravity has been
re-snowballing all that mass back into black holes ever since. Space
in the emptying parts of the universe expands, as space in the massy
parts shrink. If the galaxy we are inside is growing, expansion of the
emptying spaces between will appear to accelerate.
I don't believe in Singularities. Black holes are hollow and have a large
surface area where mass doesn't all have to occupy the same point.
If time stops from an outside perspective at the event horizon, why
would anything from outside have had "time" to fall further inside?
Stuff from inside (like when the hole was smaller) get pulled outward
toward the growing shell, if time might re-start inside where gravity
cancels... Would any energy be lost to fall further in? I think not...
One thing I don't see them doing is a comparison test, same conditions sending light instead of neutrinos.
And that's part the problem. If we drill a tunnel just big enough NOT to act
as a waveguide (no touching the sides), does it invalidate "through miles
of solid rock" measurement for light? Do we get the same shortcut without
direct proximity to the mass that possibly causes the distance to be less?
But if you shoot the Neutrino through the same empty tunnel, and it also
doesn't get the speed boost, maybe we can guess something from that...
----
My universe is infinite, the same size it always ever was. Something
banged into this snowglobe everywhere at once. And gravity has been
re-snowballing all that mass back into black holes ever since. Space
in the emptying parts of the universe expands, as space in the massy
parts shrink. If the galaxy we are inside is growing, expansion of the
emptying spaces between will appear to accelerate.
I don't believe in Singularities. Black holes are hollow and have a large
surface area where mass doesn't all have to occupy the same point.
If time stops from an outside perspective at the event horizon, why
would anything from outside have had "time" to fall further inside?
Stuff from inside (like when the hole was smaller) get pulled outward
toward the growing shell, if time might re-start inside where gravity
cancels... Would any energy be lost to fall further in? I think not...
Last edited:
They have hyper-accurate clocks now (so accurate they can measure time dilation in a four story elevator roundtrip), so why not do this line of sight (20mi or so) with light + neutrinos?
For practical reasons, neutrino has to be underground.
20 Miles might not be far enough to tell anything.
Ever tried digging a 20 mile tunnel in a straight line?
Would such a tunnel remain straight long enough?
20 Miles might not be far enough to tell anything.
Ever tried digging a 20 mile tunnel in a straight line?
Would such a tunnel remain straight long enough?
Last edited:
Modern tunnel drilling is certainly up for this, the Chunnel is certainly long enough and the resolution record on atomic clocks is getting to be 10-16 to 10-17 seconds
Perhaps we could shoot these beams from one mountain to another...
Earth to moon would give us distance, and the dark side might
be well enough shielded from the sun for some sort of detector...
I don't know what this could tell you that the supernova didn't.
It doesn't answer the question if the measure of space is different
where mass concentrates... And how local is the effect? And is the
measure of emptying space appearing to expand linearly or by some
rule like log or square compared to the content of galaxies that might
have shrunk by some inverse of that rule as they gathered mass?
Earth to moon would give us distance, and the dark side might
be well enough shielded from the sun for some sort of detector...
I don't know what this could tell you that the supernova didn't.
It doesn't answer the question if the measure of space is different
where mass concentrates... And how local is the effect? And is the
measure of emptying space appearing to expand linearly or by some
rule like log or square compared to the content of galaxies that might
have shrunk by some inverse of that rule as they gathered mass?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.