Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result

Wow, I actually feel like becoming a physicist and study what properties neutrinos have that separates them from normal mass.

Interesting article. If nothing else, I now know the collective noun for a group of neutrinos is apparently a "bunch". As in a "bunch of bananas" or a "bunch of grapes". Nuclear physicists don't seem to be overly whimsical when it comes to naming conventions.

reply to post by BIGPoJo


Quantum physics covers a number of discoveries where time seems to not mater in the outcome. The famous double slit experiment shows electrons interfering with each other like waves even when separated by time, and particle entanglement as discussed by Erwin Schrodinger seems to show that these particles seem to do the impossible when viewed in our time reference.

Sometimes I wonder if this linear realm of time is something we are bound by… but the subatomic world is not…

reply to post by NickK3


What if everything happened simultaneously, like viewing every frame of an animation at once, simply because we decided to do an experiment, but we have to wait for time to pass to see the results play out on the Big Screen?

I relate that to the idea of a multi-verse; everything has already happened, yet I only see the outcome of one result (e.g. holding a playing card on-edge has two outcomes - face up or face down - but I only ever see it fall one way).

I am only a sociologist, but I wonder if what gets consumed in these arguments is mostly semantic in nature. There are terms introduced and discussed here that could mean the same thing, from different perspectives, but are termed different, in their own time. A problem like the elephant and the blind men. But the blind men are present at a different time than the elephant.

reply to post by edorien


The problem with "Time dilation is proven and well studied" is that to prove it and study it well, means doing so at different times in space(time). Trying to capture the event like a particle collision in one instance won't work. There has to be variables at all points in spacetime to recognize it as an "event" where such conjecture can be made. So far, we have only relied on one event at one space at one point in time to provide data on a problen that cannot delivered within these limits, at least in such a way that accounts for the results you would hold in your hand afterward. You won't get those simultaneous conditions. Heisenberg proved this. The best you can do is to see one "side" and like the blind men and the elephant, "guess" what the rest of it acts and looks like. At this point you have to introduce a new logic based on something like "faith". Most humans think of the evolution of their minds as moving away from a static position of "faith", while what must happen is a move toward it, to master "faith" so that the logic of time is revealed long enough to complete the resolution of time dilation. So far no one has made an algorithm representing an element of "faith" that sticks long enough to carry any theorem to resolution.

Originally posted by BIGPoJo


This is huge news. Much like the way that Newton's laws break down at quantum levels, Einstein's relativity will break down at speeds faster than light. It does not mean that both these men were wrong, it means we do not have the full story yet. This kind of thing is what excites scientists, the idea that they don't know and that they have to look harder. It's job security! Let's see how many hardcore arm chair skeptics try to come out and dismiss the findings of the worlds foremost experts.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I heard somewhere that while quantum mechanics cant account for massive objects like planets, it holds again true for supermassive objects like the way two massive black holes behave around each other.

reply to post by BIGPoJo


Good find. Thanks. ...Any evidence showing the role of neutrinos in the nervous systems, and in protein folding?

Thanks,
sofi

S&F&

reply to post by BIGPoJo


Thanks for posting this! I was very excited to see what new information came to light in this debate. I really like your breakdown in your second (personal) post.

One of the things I try to point out frequently to people is that physics is layered like an onion. Each layer has its own governing principles. The principle may carry through to different layers, but it doesnt necessarily mean they are a governing principle for EVERY layer.

I was glad to see you stated that einsteins principles begin to break down after the speed of light.