=======================================================================
Interesting research Gerhard, now all we need is a Science20 article describing the unlikely but possible hypothetical causes and effects of CERN and the LHC generating trillions of tachyon neutrinos for 3 years at least. Something somewhere between this pseudoscience article and the usual 'superluminal neutrinos can't possibly exist in this dimension and what's more I'll bet my last dollar, my Einstein index AND my scientific reputation' articles.
Helen Barratt | 10/27/11 | 17:18 PM
-
--------------------------------------------------
...describing the unlikely but possible hypothetical causes and effects of CERN and the LHC generating trillions of tachyon neutrinos for 3 years at least.Well, then why not discuss the "unlikely but possible" demise of the human race due to the Mayan 2012 cataclysm? Why not discuss the "unlikely but possible" invasion of the Earth by an alien species set on stealing our natural resources?
You see, that's the problem with such scenarios, because the first thing that needs to be established is; how unlikely? If it is highly unlikely, then there's not much point in anything further. This doesn't mean that there's nothing there, it just means that it's probably not the most prudent use of time and resources until something more compelling raises the interest bar.
Gerhard Adam | 10/27/11 | 17:22 PM
Well, then why not discuss the "unlikely but possible" demise of the human race due to the Mayan 2012 cataclysm?Actually, you do seem to be discussing this a lot of the time! Gerhard, the OPERA scientists have spent THREE YEARS checking and rechecking their thousands of LHC to Gran Sasso superluminal neutrino measurements, while repeatedly taking into account special relativist effects upon beam clusters, exact locations, world clocks and satellite GPS. Isn't it time to start at least wondering in this particular SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT whether JUST MAYBE the measurements are correct and if they are what could possibly be causing these tachyon neutrinos and what the effects could be? Oh sorry I forgot, we only back favorites here don't we?
Helen Barratt | 10/27/11 | 17:50 PM
Your question and comments make no sense. If the experimental data is correct, then tachyonic neutrinos would seem to exist. However, what does it mean to ask "what could possibly be causing these tachyon neutrinos"? Obviously they are capable of faster than light travel, so what are you asking regarding cause? Do you ask what causes photons to travel at the speed of light?
Then you bring up "what the effects could be"? Such as? The whole problem is how difficult they are to detect, and that they rarely interact with anything. So what "effect" are you looking for? After all, with years of research, don't you think that some unusual behavior would've occurred before this particular result? If not, why do you think that detecting superluminal neutrinos changes anything in the macro world?
Unfortunately, your suggestion that people want to "back favorites" is just silly. You want to throw out everything that works and run headlong into speculation with no hypothesis, no explanation, and no understanding. If you want to dispute the physics then let's hear your hypothesis. There are plenty of posts from people that are quite prepared to offer their views on why the measurements may be in error, as well as those that have suggested explanations for what it would mean if they should prove to be true. Which do you consider "favorites"?
However, I suspect that you aren't really interested in the neutrinos as much as you're viewing this as an excuse to resurrect your "idea" that the LHC may be generating high energy particles that can cause earthquakes (or some other natural phenomenon). IT CAN'T!
The reason it can't is because for some result like that to occur, then we must have interactions on a massive scale, which doesn't happen. So forget it. Regardless of the result of the neutrino measurements, you're barking up the wrong tree in asking about "causes" and "effects".
Consider this as a reality check:
http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutrinos-be-superluminal/
Then you bring up "what the effects could be"? Such as? The whole problem is how difficult they are to detect, and that they rarely interact with anything. So what "effect" are you looking for? After all, with years of research, don't you think that some unusual behavior would've occurred before this particular result? If not, why do you think that detecting superluminal neutrinos changes anything in the macro world?
Oh sorry I forgot, we only back favorites here don't we?That's just an unjustified smart-ass comment. "Favorites" as you call them, are formally known as science that has been demonstrated to work. We don't simply drop everything that has succeeded because of one measurement which is suspect. Bear in mind, that there have been other measurements that do NOT support superluminal neutrinos. In addition, even if they occurred, that doesn't necessarily mean that current theories are any more wrong than Newton was "wrong".
Unfortunately, your suggestion that people want to "back favorites" is just silly. You want to throw out everything that works and run headlong into speculation with no hypothesis, no explanation, and no understanding. If you want to dispute the physics then let's hear your hypothesis. There are plenty of posts from people that are quite prepared to offer their views on why the measurements may be in error, as well as those that have suggested explanations for what it would mean if they should prove to be true. Which do you consider "favorites"?
However, I suspect that you aren't really interested in the neutrinos as much as you're viewing this as an excuse to resurrect your "idea" that the LHC may be generating high energy particles that can cause earthquakes (or some other natural phenomenon). IT CAN'T!
The reason it can't is because for some result like that to occur, then we must have interactions on a massive scale, which doesn't happen. So forget it. Regardless of the result of the neutrino measurements, you're barking up the wrong tree in asking about "causes" and "effects".
Consider this as a reality check:
The past 24 hours have suddenly been awash in neutrinos, in addition to the 65 billion passing through every square centimeter of your skin every second from the Sun’s core.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/2011/09/23/superluminal-muon-neutrinos-dont-get-your-hopes-up/
http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutrinos-be-superluminal/
Gerhard Adam | 10/27/11 | 20:54 PM
Your question and comments make no sense. If the experimental data is correct, then tachyonic neutrinos would seem to exist. However, what does it mean to ask "what could possibly be causing these tachyon neutrinos"? Obviously they are capable of faster than light travel, so what are you asking regarding cause? Do you ask what causes photons to travel at the speed of light?Ha ha Gerhard, you're hilarious, that was a quick switch from non-existent tachyon neutrinos to there being no question about their cause! First of all thank you for those links they are great. Especially this one which even to my untrained eye shows how extensively CERN and OPERA have checked and double checked and treble checked every single tachyon measurement before concluding the following :-
• The OPERA detector at LNGS in the CERN CNGS muon neutrino beam has allowed the most sensitive terrestrial measurement of the neutrino velocity over a baseline of about 730 km.
• The measurement profited of the large statistics accumulated by OPERA (~16000 events), of a dedicated upgrade of the CNGS and OPERA timing systems, of an accurate geodesy campaign and of a series of calibration measurements conducted with different and complementary techniques.
• The analysis of data from the 2009, 2010 and 2011 CNGS runs was carried out to measure the neutrino time of flight. For CNGS muon neutrinos travelling through the Earth’s crust with an average energy of 17 GeV the results of the analysis indicate an early neutrino arrival time with respect to the one computed by assuming the speed of light:δt = TOFc-TOFν= (60.7 ± 6.9 (stat.) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns
• We cannot explain the observed effect in terms of known systematic uncertainties. Therefore, the measurement indicates a neutrino velocity higher than the speed of light:(v-c)/c = δt /(TOFc- δt) = (2.48 ± 0.28 (stat.) ± 0.30 (sys.)) ×10-5with an overall significance of 6.0 σ.C
• A possible δt energy dependence was also investigated. In the energy domain covered by the CNGS beam and within the statistical accuracy of the measurement we do not observe any significant effect.
• Despite the large significance of the measurement reported here and the stability of the analysis, the potentially great impact of the result motivates the continuation of our studies in order to identify any still unknown systematic effect.
• We do not attempt any theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of the results.I also appreciated your indirect link to this paper from CERN in 2008 called 'On velocities beyond the speed of light c' by Giani Simone which says :-
From a mathematical point of view velocities can be larger than c. It has been shown that Lorentz transformations are easily extended in Minkowski space to address velocities beyond the speed of light. Energy and momentum conservation fixes the relation between masses and velocities larger than c, leading to the possible observation of negative mass squared particles from a standard reference frame. Current data on neutrinos’ mass square yeld negative values, making neutrinos as possible candidates for having speed larger than c. In this paper, an original analysis of the SN1987A supernova data is proposed. It is shown that all the data measured in ’87 by all the experiments are consistent with the quantistic description of neutrinos as combination of superluminal mass eigenstates.What I think is interesting about these hypothetical tachyon neutrinos if they exist, is what happens when and if they slow down, keep accelerating and/or cross the speed of light barrier and what energies would they release/radiate and where would this happen? The paper says :-
...the speed of light is a threshold velocity, but not the maximum allowed velocity. The speed of light remains the only velocity which is constant in any reference system, making the invariant s2 =∆x21 + ∆x24 equal to 0. Particles with velocities lower/greater than c have a negative/positive s2 (and different velocity for different reference systems).
From this discussion, it does not follow that it is possible to accelerate a particle in vacuum from a velocity lower than c to velocities greater than c (similarly, it is not possible to decelerate a photon in vaccum to a speed lower than c). Howeverit is argued that special Relativity does not exclude the possibility for particles to exist in three different regimes of velocities V :0 ≤ V < c ; V = c ; c < V < ∞.So how could tachyons have possibly been created by the LHC accelerating and colliding particles at just below the speed of light? I guess that this happened outside of a vaccuum and was influenced possibly by intense magnetic effects, very low temperatures, gravitational effects, oscillations, see-sawing Dirac and Majorana masses and/or the 'matter effect' and some violation of the Born rule and/or CP violations maybe? Also, I can't help wondering what the same paper means when it suggests under 'future research' that :-
From a theoretical perspective, it would be interesting to re-analyse the concept of simultaneous events in the framework of Special Relativity when considering velocities greater than c. In addition, some gravitational effects, in particular for black-holes, could be revisited in view of the existence of superluminal neutrinos of known mass.Why should the concept of simultaneous events, velocities greater than c and superluminal neutrinos of known mass mean that these gravitational effects for black holes should be revisited?
Helen Barratt | 10/28/11 | 03:57 AM
...that was a quick switch from non-existent tachyon neutrinos to there being no question about their cause!What are you talking about? That was conditional on the results being verified. That hardly confirms their existence. They are still quite hypothetical, just as they have been for decades. You clearly failed to read the parts in those links that pointed out all the theoretical problems that would present and why people are skeptical.
So how could tachyons have possibly been created by the LHC accelerating and colliding particles at just below the speed of light? I guess that this happened outside of a vaccuum and was influenced possibly by ...This is gibberish. We don't know that these tachyons exist. Therefore there is nothing more to be said until they are either confirmed or refuted. Other posts have offered theoretical explanations for superluminal neutrinos, but those aren't proof of anything either.
Especially this one which even to my untrained eye shows how extensively CERN and OPERA have checked and double checked and treble checked every single tachyon measurement before concluding the following...Again, this means nothing until it can be confirmed. It is ironic how your "untrained eye" is so willing to accept their conclusions, while those that actually work in the field are expressing great skepticism of the results.
...keep accelerating and/or cross the speed of light barrier and what energies would they release/radiate...Obviously, NONE since if the OPERA results are correct, then this has already happened and NOTHING was detected beyond their "early arrival".
Why should the concept of simultaneous events, velocities greater than c and superluminal neutrinos of known mass mean that these gravitational effects for black holes should be revisited?What?!?
Gerhard Adam | 10/28/11 | 07:23 AM
--------------------------------------------------...keep accelerating and/or cross the speed of light barrier and what energies would they release/radiate...
Obviously, NONE since if the OPERA results are correct, then this has already happened and NOTHING was detected beyond their "early arrival".
Gerhard, I'm surprised that you don't already realise that there's a lot of output from particle collisions at the LHC that doesn't get detected, consequently methods of detecting are always being improved as this article explains :-
Protons travel around the accelerator through a 27 kilometer-long (16.74 miles) vacuum chamber called a beam pipe, Brandt said. The pipe focuses the mass of protons to a more uniform beam to make them easier to aim and collide with another proton beam. Large magnets keep the protons going in circles, he said.“Protons have a lot of momentum. It takes a lot of energy to make them turn,” Brandt said.
Sometimes, after a collision, a proton will scatter away from the central collision, or vertex point, he said. The scattered protons will lose momentum and their paths will be deflected, or changed, like two pool balls that glance off each other, Brandt said. The current detectors at ATLAS don’t have the ability to detect these protons, he said. The current detectors are located 200 meters (656 feet) away from the vertex point, Brandt said. Scattered protons are only about one-eighth to three-fourths of an inch away from the original focused mass of protons, he said.
Brandt is working to develop a specialized beam pipe into which a smaller detector can slide to get closer to the focused proton beams and measure the scattered protons. The new detector will track the proton’s path and measure when the proton hits it more precisely, Brandt said. Many of the events scientists are looking for in the collisions are rare, so they sometimes create 25 to 50 collision events at a time, Brandt said. Accurate timing and positioning of the protons tells researchers which collision the scattered protons are from.
The current detector measures the timing of the protons to 100 picoseconds, or one-trillionth of a second, resolution, which can tell a proton’s position to within three centimeters (1.17 inches), he said. “What we’re looking at takes advantage of what’s already been done,” Brandt said. “We’re adding an extra measurement.”The new detector will increase the resolution to 10 picoseconds, which can tell a proton’s position to within three millimeters (0.12 inches), he said.
We don't have detectors in the rock between the LHC and Gran Sasso, so how would we know what 'matter effects' are happening and what Cherenkov radiations or equivalent shock-waves are being released as the beams and scattered particles pass through different underground minerals and even just plain underground water on Earth, at faster than the speed of light before and after Gran Sasso?
Then many of these man-made, oscillating, hypothetical superluminal neutrinos will continue scattering infinitely in every direction from the LHC throughout the universe. An excellent SETI transmission signal for proof of 'intelligent' life on Earth, that I imagine will one day inevitably be detected by other intelligent life forms, that must also inevitably exist in an infinite Multiverse.
Why should the concept of simultaneous events, velocities greater than c and superluminal neutrinos of known mass mean that these gravitational effects for black holes should be revisited?
What?!?This was taken directly from the proposed 'future research' part of that 2008 CERN paper by Giane Simone that I was referencing earlier. I doubt if you would know what they are proposing and explaining unless you have suddenly become a theoretical physicist Gerhard?
Helen Barratt | 10/28/11 | 12:07 PM
We don't have detectors in the rock between the LHC and Gran Sasso, so how would we know what 'matter effects' are happening and what Cherenkov radiations or equivalent shock-waves are being released as the beams and scattered particles pass through different underground minerals and even just plain underground water on Earth, at faster than the speed of light before and after Gran Sasso?OK, let me say this slowly. If there had been ANYTHING happening between the LHC and Gran Sasso, the neutrino would have NEVER gotten to Gran Sasso to be detected. That's what interaction means. These neutrinos arrival was measured because they INTERACTED in the medium (at Gran Sasso) that allowed them to be detected in the first place. They are mutually exclusive events.
Neutrinos are the only particles that survive the journey, because they pass through matter completely unscathed whereas the others do not.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/basic-space/2011/09/23/faster-than-light-neutrinos-show-science-in-action/
The data come from a 1300-metric-ton particle detector named Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (OPERA). Lurking in Italy's subterranean Gran Sasso National Laboratory, OPERA detects neutrinos that are fired through the earth from the European particle physics laboratory, CERN, near Geneva, Switzerland. As the particles hardly interact at all with other matter, they stream right through the ground, with only a very few striking the material in the detector and making a noticeable shower of particles.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/09/neutrinos-travel-faster-than-lig.html
The distance from CERN to Gran Sasso is 732 km straight through the Earth, traveling up to 11.4 km below the Earth’s surface. Remember, neutrinos don’t interact with matter so the Earth is invisible to the tiny particles.
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/09/neutrinos-and-the-speed-of-light-a-primer-on-the-cern-study/
Aside from being inconsistent with both relativity and causality, the result doesn’t appear consistent with the past behaviour of neutrinos either. I’ve written before about supernova 1987a, whose arrival was heralded by a burst of neutrinos. In this case, the neutrinos, travelling at the speed of light, reached Earth 3 hours before the light did. The light from the supernova was delayed because it had to get through the remnants of the stellar explosion, not because of any sneaky faster-than-light travel on behalf of the neutrinos. Dr Ben Still, a particle physicist working on the T2K neutrino experiment, blogged earlier today about the Opera result and calculated that if the neutrinos from supernova 1987a had exhibited the same odd behaviour as those that are under the spotlight today, they could have arrived 4.14 years before the light did. The neutrinos and light from supernova 1987a are well documented and this does not appear to have been the case.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/basic-space/2011/09/23/faster-than-light-neutrinos-show-science-in-action/
Gerhard Adam | 10/28/11 | 12:16 PM
OK, let me say this slowly. If there had been ANYTHING happening between the LHC and Gran Sasso, the neutrino would have NEVER gotten to Gran Sasso to be detected. That's what interaction means. These neutrinos arrival was measured because they INTERACTED in the medium (at Gran Sasso) that allowed them to be detected in the first place. They are mutually exclusive events.Can I rephrase that for you please? If there had been ANYTHING tachyon neutrino annihilating or tachyon neutrino deflecting happening between the LHC and Gran Sasso, that particular tachyon neutrino would have NEVER gotten to Gran Sasso to be detected.
Gerhard, we only detect a tiny percentage of these trillions of man-made, hypothetical, oscillating tachyon neutrinos being generated at the LHC and then beamed towards Gran Sasso's detectors. You don't know what's happening to the other trillions that aren't being detected as they travel oscillating though different matter here on Earth and then throughout the multiverse, no one does yet.
Helen Barratt | 10/28/11 | 12:32 PM
If there had been ANYTHING tachyon neutrino annihilating or tachyon neutrino deflecting happening between the LHC and Gran Sasso.What do you expect particle interactions to do? Have a coffee and relax? They collide. That's what they do.
...that particular tachyon neutrino would have NEVER gotten to Gran Sasso to be detected.That PARTICULAR neutrino is ALL you have to claim as possibly being superluminal. You certainly can't be suggesting that a neutrino interacted with another particle and then continued on unimpeded as if no interaction had taken place.
You don't know what's happening to the other trillions that aren't being detected as they travel oscillating though different matter here on Earth and then throughout the multiverse, no one does yet.Yes, we do. They aren't interacting with anything which is precisely why we don't detect any events. That's what you seem to ignore. There are hundreds of billions of such neutrinos passing through us ALL the time. You cannot detect something that doesn't interact, and when it does interact you clearly can't say anything more about it than is described by the interaction.
Gerhard Adam | 10/28/11 | 12:41 PM
Gerhard, you do realise that Cherenkov radiation from these man-made neutrinos is potentially happening all over the Universe, whether you happen to have a detector in situ or not, don't you?
If man-made superluminal tachyon neutrinos are passing through any matter faster than light in that same medium, anywhere in the universe or on Earth, including on the way to Gran Sasso and beyond Gran Sasso, say in Turkey for example, the optical equivalent of a sonic boom or shock wave will occur in that same medium and will be accompanied by Cherenkov radiation. Unless there happens to be a detector sitting nearby no one will know. Just like no one hears a tree falling in the forest if no one is there to hear it. It doesn't mean that the tree hasn't fallen or even that all the trees have fallen but one day all of the trees will fall and only some will have been heard.
If man-made superluminal tachyon neutrinos are passing through any matter faster than light in that same medium, anywhere in the universe or on Earth, including on the way to Gran Sasso and beyond Gran Sasso, say in Turkey for example, the optical equivalent of a sonic boom or shock wave will occur in that same medium and will be accompanied by Cherenkov radiation. Unless there happens to be a detector sitting nearby no one will know. Just like no one hears a tree falling in the forest if no one is there to hear it. It doesn't mean that the tree hasn't fallen or even that all the trees have fallen but one day all of the trees will fall and only some will have been heard.
Cherenkov radiation is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through a dielectric medium at a speed greater than the phase velocity of light in that medium. The charged particles polarize the molecules of that medium, which then turn back rapidly to their ground state, emitting radiation in the process. The characteristic blue glow of nuclear reactors is due to Cherenkov radiation.
Helen Barratt | 10/28/11 | 17:28 PM
Are you crazy? If no one hears the tree falling then correspondingly no one cares that it fell. If it falls on your house, then it doesn't much matter what noise it made when it was doing so. However, your example is just silly. We're not talking about a single event, but the equivalent of a billion trees falling every second all over the planet. Kind of hard not to notice.
Similarly with your claims regarding neutrinos. What the hell is the optical equivalent of a sonic boom?
Similarly with your claims regarding neutrinos. What the hell is the optical equivalent of a sonic boom?
Unless there happens to be a detector sitting nearby no one will know.There's nothing to know. Do you really believe that with all the work done over the years with HEP and particle detection that no one has ever noticed an interaction that would be indicative of a superluminal neutrino, if it's as interactive as you claim? Your statement is the worst sort of logic, because it claims that anything that hasn't been specifically observed could be out there violating all manner of physical laws. That's just nonsense.
Gerhard Adam | 10/28/11 | 17:40 PM
For crying out loud, what reality do you live in Gerhard? Do you think that you could ever smell as well as a dog, hear as well as a bat, see as well an eagle, echolocate as well as a dolphin? Do you think that what you do smell, hear, see and echolocate is representative of the true spectrum of events that are occuring around you? All of these senses are simply forms of detectors. We can only build specific man-made detectors in specific locations to detect specific stimuli that we specifically know about, surely you realise that?
What I find terrifying is that men like you always think you know it all, that you have it all under control, until the next man-made disaster happens or is detected. Asbestosis, radiation sickness, Thalidomide, AIDS from blood transfusions, cancer from UV lamps, mercury poisoning from pollution, millions of women who died for centuries after giving birth because stupid men doctors didn't know to wash their hands between patients, religious witch hunts, war for hegemonic purposes, locking up dissidents, destroying kids creativity with rote learning, the list is endless.
Now you think that we would have already noticed any interactive effects indicative of the hypothetically tachyon neutrinos we might be generating, which all of the scientific evidence suggests that we are. I'm not saying that we are violating all manner of physical laws that would be stupid, I'm saying that we don't yet fully understand what the repercussions of what these hypothetical tachyon neutrinos could be, unlike you who doesn't even want to think creatively about it because that part of your brain has probably never been utilised and was stifled years ago. You say that you were once a professional musician who could improvise well after years and years of practice and rote learning but I expect that all you did was play around within the chord structure in a very safe manner. I hope I'm wrong though.
What I find terrifying is that men like you always think you know it all, that you have it all under control, until the next man-made disaster happens or is detected. Asbestosis, radiation sickness, Thalidomide, AIDS from blood transfusions, cancer from UV lamps, mercury poisoning from pollution, millions of women who died for centuries after giving birth because stupid men doctors didn't know to wash their hands between patients, religious witch hunts, war for hegemonic purposes, locking up dissidents, destroying kids creativity with rote learning, the list is endless.
Now you think that we would have already noticed any interactive effects indicative of the hypothetically tachyon neutrinos we might be generating, which all of the scientific evidence suggests that we are. I'm not saying that we are violating all manner of physical laws that would be stupid, I'm saying that we don't yet fully understand what the repercussions of what these hypothetical tachyon neutrinos could be, unlike you who doesn't even want to think creatively about it because that part of your brain has probably never been utilised and was stifled years ago. You say that you were once a professional musician who could improvise well after years and years of practice and rote learning but I expect that all you did was play around within the chord structure in a very safe manner. I hope I'm wrong though.
Helen Barratt | 10/28/11 | 18:08 PM
We can only build specific man-made detectors in specific locations to detect specific stimuli that we specifically know about, surely you realise that?Surely you realize that you're making no sense. You're saying that we can only build a detector to find something once we know it exists, which we can't know because we can't detect it without a detector.
...because stupid men doctors...Well, now you've gone from unreasonable to irrationally sexist.
...but I expect that all you did was play around within the chord structure in a very safe manner.While I won't engage in a brutal critique here, let's remember which one of us was the professional musician (for all the creativity you keep claiming). That statement alone suggests that your music knowledge is marginal. What other structure would you play in, if you're performing a song? Perhaps you've invented a 13-bar blues pattern?
...unlike you who doesn't even want to think creatively about it because that part of your brain has probably never been utilised and was stifled years ago.I see, so we've concluded that you are the creative one and I'm the hapless drone that suffers through a stifling rigid existence. So, unless I climb aboard your neurotic train to Pseudoscience-ville, then I'm not being a creative thinker. Let's keep in mind that it isn't creative to flap your arms while stepping off a 100 story building. So unless you've got a rather compelling reason as to why we should shuck modern physics theory in favor of your [ultimately the LHC will create a black-hole to devour the earth, or at least cause massive earthquakes] theory, then I'll go ahead and un-creatively stick with the physics that actually works.
Gerhard Adam | 10/28/11 | 20:11 PM
Why does this sound as though I don't understand Cherenkov radiation? Why don't you simply read my Wikipedia link? Do you not realise that man-made neutrinos are also capable of travelling in every direction throughout the universe just like any other extra-terrestrial neutrino can? However, these hypothetical superluminal tachyon neutrinos are far more likely to exceed the speed of light through many other mediums and this will naturally release Cherenkov radiation wherever this occurs in whatever medium. They will also probably keep accelerating infinitely.
What I should have also said is that not only are these hypothetical superluminal neutrinos and many of the normal oscillating neutrinos probably capable of generating Cherenkov Radiation but they may also be capable of producing reverse-Cherenkov effects, Askaryan Effects in ice, rock salt, silica sand and whatever other as yet unknown mediums that can produce these effects, as well as thermal Bremsstrahlung or 'breaking radiation' and even cyclotron radiation if they hit a strong magnetic field.
What I should have also said is that not only are these hypothetical superluminal neutrinos and many of the normal oscillating neutrinos probably capable of generating Cherenkov Radiation but they may also be capable of producing reverse-Cherenkov effects, Askaryan Effects in ice, rock salt, silica sand and whatever other as yet unknown mediums that can produce these effects, as well as thermal Bremsstrahlung or 'breaking radiation' and even cyclotron radiation if they hit a strong magnetic field.
Helen Barratt | 10/28/11 | 23:39 PM
Do you not realise that man-made neutrinos are also capable of travelling in every direction throughout the universe just like any other extra-terrestrial neutrino can?What's the medium in space? Hmmm ... vacuum?
Why don't you simply read my Wikipedia link?I don't care whether Wikipedia understands Cherenkov Radiation.
However, these hypothetical superluminal tachyon neutrinos are far more likely to exceed the speed of light through many other mediums and this will naturally release Cherenkov radiation wherever this occurs in whatever medium. They will also probably keep accelerating infinitely.Exceeding the speed of life in other mediums, isn't very significant since it occurs rather routinely. That's why there is Cherenkov radiation in the first place. That's what defines it. Superluminal isn't simply exceeding the speed of light in a medium (since that isn't "c").
What does infinite acceleration look like? Obviously that wouldn't simply be superluminal ... it would go on forever. What's the basis for this assertion? Where is the energy acquired by which this acceleration is supposed to occur? You do realize that radiation is incompatible with increasing energy?
You can throw in as many terms as you like, but in the end you aren't saying anything, since all the phenomenon you're mentioning are already known to exist. They have nothing to do with superluminal particles of any type, and, quite frankly, you're just making stuff up.
...even cyclotron radiation if they hit a strong magnetic field.You're really reaching here, since these particles are supposed to be neutral.
In case you haven't figured it out yet, despite your perpetual claims of creativity, you need to understand that you cannot explain truly extraordinary new phenomenon (i.e. superluminal neutrinos - if they exist) by using well known explanations for known phenomenon. It will require new theories and addressing a considerable number of problems. So despite your ridiculous claims about "backing favorites" and the lack of "creativity", the truth is that you are the one that is clinging to well established theories, while trying to portray them in inappropriate ways and applying them to situations for which they were never intended.
Using physics terminology that you don't understand is not convincing.
Gerhard Adam | 10/29/11 | 00:28 AM
Then many of these man-made, oscillating, hypothetical superluminal neutrinos will continue scattering infinitely in every direction from the LHC throughout the universe. An excellent SETI transmission signal for proof of 'intelligent' life on Earth, that I imagine will one day inevitably be detected by other intelligent life forms, that must also inevitably exist in an infinite Multiverse.Don't know how I missed this pearl of a quote. I guess you're going to rewrite a major portion of modern physics ...
I did notice how you got your bit in about how life must "inevitably exist" in an infinite Multiverse. This article is becoming more and more appropriate. At least you're staying on topic ...
Gerhard Adam | 10/28/11 | 22:01 PM
How does this rewrite modern physics? Gerhard, surely you've heard of Drake's Equation? Don't you agree that an amended formula must also apply in an infinite multiverse when N is replaced by the number of civilisations in an infinite multiverse not just our galaxy, regardless of whether communication might be possible or not?
The Drake equation states that where:-
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
I suppose that regardless of Drake's equation, the simple fact that our 'intelligent' civilisation occurred even once means that in an infinite universe there must be infinite other 'intelligent' civilisations.
The Drake equation states that where:-
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
I suppose that regardless of Drake's equation, the simple fact that our 'intelligent' civilisation occurred even once means that in an infinite universe there must be infinite other 'intelligent' civilisations.
Helen Barratt | 10/28/11 | 23:14 PM
...surely you've heard of Drake's Equation...I'm not going through that discussion again. First ... there is no such thing as an actual Drake equation regardless of how many web sites want to post that nonsense. Drake recognized it only as a vehicle for putting all the possible considerations and variables involved into a form so that they could be discussed and to represent the considerations that assessing life would entail.
However, even using the word "infinite" is ridiculous in this context, since such a thing is only a mathematical fiction.
It isn't an equation, since there's no mathematical basis for it. The majority of the probabilities are simply wild guesses and there is nothing meaningful that can be determined from it (except as Drake indicated ... a loose basis for framing the discussion).
You can list all the terms you like, but they are nonsense, since few can be established.
These listed terms are sheer fantasy.
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some pointAt present the ONLY known values that could be put in these is zero. In fact, even if life were discovered on another planet, these terms don't even begin to define what these probabilities are supposed to represent.
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
Gerhard Adam | 10/28/11 | 23:14 PM
Are you saying that because you can't comprehend infinity you therefore refuse to believe that it exists and that it is simply mathematical fiction? I think the opposite is true. Trying to imagine a non-infinite universe is almost impossible for me. Do you think that at the end of the universe there is a big sign saying 'THE UNIVERSE ENDS HERE' and if there is then what lies beyond it, infinite nothing?
Helen Barratt | 10/28/11 | 23:44 PM
You don't know what you're talking about. Why do you persist in believing that everything you're presented with is simply made up? There are only two directions in which infinity can be established. It either expands indefinitely, or it approaches zero. We already know that you can't go infinitely small, since that would require that particles get smaller and smaller, which is physically impossible. Similarly, you must realize that infinite expansion isn't possible either, because at some point, stars and galaxies will fall below the perceptible event horizon at which point, light can no longer reach you no matter how long it travels.
Now if you want to insist that this is still infinite, it is a meaningless point, because it can never be confirmed, nor can anything on the other side of the event horizon even be said to exist.
So you can imagine whatever you'd like, but the concept of infinity is a meaningless one in this discussion. Furthermore to invoke infinity in an attempt to rationalize the existence of life in the universe, is not just mathematically improper, it is physically wrong.
Now if you want to insist that this is still infinite, it is a meaningless point, because it can never be confirmed, nor can anything on the other side of the event horizon even be said to exist.
So you can imagine whatever you'd like, but the concept of infinity is a meaningless one in this discussion. Furthermore to invoke infinity in an attempt to rationalize the existence of life in the universe, is not just mathematically improper, it is physically wrong.
Gerhard Adam | 10/29/11 | 00:19 AM
You don't know what you're talking about. Why do you persist in believing that everything you're presented with is simply made up? There are only two directions in which infinity can be established. It either expands indefinitely, or it approaches zero.Actually that's not true Gerhard. Just following your own link to the limits of infinity proves that there are more than 2 directions for infinity. For example there is infinity within irrational numbers and they are everywhere. Even PI is an irrational number that stretches to infinity. My favourite is Euler's number 2.7182818284590452353602874713527 (and more, all the way to infinity ...) which is included in most loans and investments as part of the continuous compound interest formula and affects most people's lives in a capitalist economy and in those non-capitalistic economies that they exploit, on a daily basis, one way or another. Anyway, I digress, there are more than 2 directions for infinity, zero and indefinite expansion, there are the many infinities in infinite directions within the infinite numbers of irrational numbers, so you are wrong!
We already know that you can't go infinitely small, since that would require that particles get smaller and smaller, which is physically impossible. Similarly, you must realize that infinite expansion isn't possible either, because at some point, stars and galaxies will fall below the perceptible event horizon at which point, light can no longer reach you no matter how long it travels.Why should particles get smaller and smaller, why can't space just get smaller and smaller? Of course it can, it is just not measurable by us. Infinite expansion is definitely possible and is the only sensible explanation for our infinite multiverse. The infinite time dimension means that our universe is always infinitely and continuously expanding and has no limits, what else could it possible be doing? To say its not possible because at some point stars and galaxies would fall beyond the perceptible event horizon is ludicrous, you are no different to an ostrich sticking its head in a bucket of sand and saying the universe is finite and contained in an event horizon called a bucket!
Helen Barratt | 10/29/11 | 16:24 PM
So what you are saying is screw superluminal neutrinos and screw me too, simply because you can't successfully win an argument in logic against one hypothetically existing and the other hpyothetically being right, or rather difficult to prove wrong.
Sorry I can't give you the 'good stuff' that you crave so much, don't worry, I'm sure its all in your rote learning and everyone else's opinions that you value so much, who rote learn it too. Just remember to take a breath and listen occasionally to eachother in between beating up anyone that hasn't yet been indoctrinated with your 'proven' science and dares to question it, let alone refuses to rote learn and regurgitate it for you.
Sorry I can't give you the 'good stuff' that you crave so much, don't worry, I'm sure its all in your rote learning and everyone else's opinions that you value so much, who rote learn it too. Just remember to take a breath and listen occasionally to eachother in between beating up anyone that hasn't yet been indoctrinated with your 'proven' science and dares to question it, let alone refuses to rote learn and regurgitate it for you.
Helen Barratt | 10/29/11 | 18:32 PM
Do you think that at the end of the universe there is a big sign saying 'THE UNIVERSE ENDS HERE' and if there is then what lies beyond it, infinite nothing?Perhaps instead of being such a smart-ass, you might consider the universe as it is currently known. Obviously the universe is expanding, but have you considered what is expanding? Especially when you consider that there can't be anything for it to expand into?
Maybe you're entertained with simplistic answers and concepts, but if you really want to understand how things work, then you're going to need to do more than indulging yourself in fanciful nonsense, just because it seems convenient and easy.
It should also be obvious that infinity cannot have a physical existence, since that would require infinite energy and infinite number of particles. If that's the case, then the entire universe becomes mathematically absurd, because no matter what is identified, the mathematical conclusion is that the universe is empty because any finite quantity can be considered the same as zero when compared to infinity.
Just examine the simple discussion here and see if you understand why your position is untenable.
http://www.mathsisfun.com/calculus/limits-infinity.html
Gerhard Adam | 10/29/11 | 00:43 AM
Perhaps instead of being such a smart-ass, you might consider the universe as it is currently known. Obviously the universe is expanding, but have you considered what is expanding? Especially when you consider that there can't be anything for it to expand into?Ha ha, well now we are tending towards zero. We are just a bunch of apes with a few measuring tools who think we know it all. What do you mean that there can't be anything for it to expand into? Its expanding into infinity. Its your perception that creates these stupid limits.
Maybe you're entertained with simplistic answers and concepts, but if you really want to understand how things work, then you're going to need to do more than indulging yourself in fanciful nonsense, just because it seems convenient and easy.Actually, the opposite is true, you are the one indulging yourself with simplistic answers and concepts such as anything beyond the event horizon can't possibly exist, thats very convenient and easy and ludicrous.
It should also be obvious that infinity cannot have a physical existence, since that would require infinite energy and infinite number of particles.You are missing an important dimension here, that is time! At any one point in time the universe exists and is theoretically calculable, just like an irrational number exists and is always theoretically calculable up to that particular point in time of the calculation. Unless you can stop time you can never make this final calculation and therefore you can only ever know the universe's approximate (but pretty close to accurate) total energy and total mass at one point in infinite time. How does that preclude an infinitely expanding universe from existing? Quite the opposite in my opinion.
Helen Barratt | 10/29/11 | 16:45 PM
...that was a quick switch from non-existent tachyon neutrinos to there being no question about their cause!I just realized that what was troublesome about this statement is that it seems to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding about science. You seem to behave as if science is a matter of voting, or picking favorites. Myself (and others) are not opposed to the idea of tachyons, it's just that they seem highly unlikely. If the measurements should turn out to be correct, then we adjust accordingly. That's the point of science. It isn't to put a stake in the ground and argue that we won't be swayed by evidence, nor is it being a cheerleader for one set of anomalous results (after all these weren't the first neutrinos ever measured).
If relativity were shown to be incorrect, then it would be a big deal in terms of explaining its wide range of successes and what needs to change to accommodate these particles (although alternative explanations have been offered that don't deny relativity).
Personally, I'm agnostic about the whole thing, although it would seem that the likely of an OPERA error is higher than the likelihood that superluminal neutrinos exist. That IS just an opinion, based on the fact that we've seen such "one-trick ponies" in the past and they've never amounted to much.
Gerhard Adam | 10/28/11 | 07:56 AM
If relativity were shown to be incorrect, then it would be a big deal in terms of explaining its wide range of successes and what needs to change to accommodate these particles (although alternative explanations have been offered that don't deny relativity).Exactly, the paper I linked to earlier for example explains how tachyons can exist without denying relativity. I am just trying to imagine what would cause the hypothetical tachyon neutrinos to be created at the LHC as opposed to the standard non-tachyon neutrinos being generated at nuclear reactors and in the sun because for example, neutrinos occur in different flavours. Creative thinking about hypothetical tachyon neutrinos creates new recipes to utilise these flavours to allow us to anticipate new dishes on the menu, instead of just the good old Mum's apple pie.
Helen Barratt | 10/28/11 | 12:17 PM
Comments