I believe the neutrino scientist at CERN will be vindicated

I think the scientist who lead team OPERA at CERN who measured the neutrinos going faster than light will be vindicated. He resigned and it was probably under the pressure and ridicule of the scientific community.

Telling a scientist about a particle moving faster than light is like telling a liberal that big government can't fix every problem. It's like dogma or ideology with scientist.

I think faster than light particles must exist because of things like non locality and black holes. I think the scientist detected an ultra high energy neutrino moving faster than light and gravity waves should be next. These things will tell us more about what happens after matter passes the event horizon and it will tell us more about the beginning of the universe and things like dark matter.

I think there was a split at the beginning of the universe. When this split occurred one universe contained the visible matter we see today and the other universe contained faster than light matter that doesn't interact with photons which is dark matter. There are dark matter galaxies and probably dark matter beings. The discovery of gravity waves and faster than light particles will tell us more about the physics of dark matter galaxies.

reply to post by neoholographic

He resigned and it was probably under the pressure and ridicule of the scientific community.

He resigned because faster than light neutrinos don't exist, and it was merely a faulty cable, once replaced, everything went as planned.

faster than light travel has nothing to do with dark matter, dark energy, or black holes. Our universe is indeed full of dark matter, no need for a separate universe for that.

Interesting idea though.

Agreed. The speed of light seems to only apply to "normal matter" and EM forces, neutrinos and other subatomic particles dont seem to move through space time they we are used to and ive no doubt theres some out there that appear to 'travel' faster than light.

Heck they may even take a LONGER route to get to the same point in space, but still arrive there faster than a light beam.

Really cool stuff and i hope that scientists stay bold enough to make huge claims, we wouldn't have science at all if humans didn't dream and explore.

Neutrino has no mass, so their acceleration could exceed light speed. Remember that photons do have a tiny mass. A neutrino with absolute 0 mass can exceed this photon.

Originally posted by neoholographic
I think the scientist who lead team OPERA at CERN who measured the neutrinos going faster than light will be vindicated. He resigned and it was probably under the pressure and ridicule of the scientific community.

Telling a scientist about a particle moving faster than light is like telling a liberal that big government can't fix every problem. It's like dogma or ideology with scientist.

I think faster than light particles must exist because of things like non locality and black holes. I think the scientist detected an ultra high energy neutrino moving faster than light and gravity waves should be next. These things will tell us more about what happens after matter passes the event horizon and it will tell us more about the beginning of the universe and things like dark matter.

I think there was a split at the beginning of the universe. When this split occurred one universe contained the visible matter we see today and the other universe contained faster than light matter that doesn't interact with photons which is dark matter. There are dark matter galaxies and probably dark matter beings. The discovery of gravity waves and faster than light particles will tell us more about the physics of dark matter galaxies.

I totally agree Op and hope soon they will jump on board! S&F

It would definitely make more since in the Quantum World.

This split you speak of, dark matter, dark matter beings and galaxies are possible for sure and I too have thought along the same lines.

reply to post by neoholographic


the only laughing going on is us ...laughing at the scientists who think they know all the answers.



silly scientists

reply to post by phishyblankwaters

and it was merely a faulty cable, once replaced, everything went as planned.

No, they never retested after "They Replaced the Cable", actually.

Are you just making this stuff up?

faster than light travel has nothing to do with dark matter, dark energy, or black holes. Our universe is indeed full of dark matter, no need for a separate universe for that.

Actually, yes it does, A LOT.

Faster than light travel would invalidate Relativity, both Special, and General...

And our mass estimates of the universe (Where the "error correction factor" of "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" comes from) are based on several different factors of general relativity, such as Gravitational Red-shift, and Gravitational Lensing.

Therefore, if we have a faster than light particle, that means that our mass estimates for the universe could be wrong, and *THUS* Dark matter and Dark energy could be completely WRONG and non-existent.

Originally posted by infowarrior9970
reply to post by neoholographic

 

the only laughing going on is us ...laughing at the scientists who think they know all the answers.

silly scientists

Stupid scientists.

When will they learn they can find all the answers in the world for everything by just browsing internet forums.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

No, they never retested after "They Replaced the Cable", actually.

Are you just making this stuff up?

Basically, after researchers tightened the suspect cable and measured how long a signal took to travel along it, they found it may account for the 60 nanosecond discrepancy in the neutrino travel time.

Link

reply to post by boncho


The truth is they're retesting it in May. The cable being loose is just a theory.

The CERN particle physics laboratory in Geneva has confirmed Wednesday's report that a loose fiber-optic cable may be behind measurements that seemed to show neutrinos outpacing the speed of light. But the lab also says another glitch could have caused the experiment to underestimate the particles' speed.

In a statement based on an earlier press release from the OPERA collaboration, CERN said two possible "effects" may have influenced the anomalous measurements. One of them, due to a possible faulty connection between the fiber-optic cable bringing the GPS signals to OPERA and the detector's master clock, would have caused the experiment to underestimate the neutrinos' flight time, as described in the original story. The other effect concerns an oscillator, part of OPERA's particle detector that gives its readings time stamps synchronized to GPS signals. Researchers think correcting for an error in this device would actually increase the anomaly in neutrino velocity, making the particles even speedier than the earlier measurements seemed to show.

The two effects will get a new round of tests in May, when the two labs are scheduled to make velocity measurements with short-pulsed beams designed to give readings much more precise than scientists have achieved so far.

news.sciencemag.org...

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


that's not true. einstein never said nothing could travel faster than light. only that you couldn't accelerate faster than light due to mass and energy needed reaching towards infinity the more you accelerate.

Originally posted by swan001
Neutrino has no mass, so their acceleration could exceed light speed. Remember that photons do have a tiny mass. A neutrino with absolute 0 mass can exceed this photon.

It's actually the other way around. Photons are thought to be massless, but neutrinos are thought to have a non-zero (although negligible) mass.

First of all, we are talking about resting mass. A photon is only considered to have mass due to momentum. The force caused by a moving photon's momentum is equivalent to having a mass. However, it is thought that the resting mass of a photon is zero.

When neutrinos were first hypothesized back in the 1930s, it was assumed they also had a resting mass of zero. However, some more recent observations suggest neutrinos DO have a mass -- albeit their mass may be extremely negligible.

One of those observations occurred with neutrinos that were detected in 1987 as par of a supernova explosion. 10 neutrinos were detected by a neutrino detector in Japan, but the more energetic ones reached the detector before the less energetic ones, hinting that the less energetic ones were slightly slowed by the neutrinos' mass

Supernova 1987A and Neutrino Mass


An experiment was done in 1998 that seemed to confirm an effect known as neutrino oscillation. Neutrino oscillation is a term describing the way a neutrino seemingly changes from one type into another type. According to the math (which, I admit, is beyond my level of understanding, but no one has found fault in thee math), the only way a neutrino can oscillate among different types is if those types of neutrinos have different masses. So the theory says that and if all neutrinos have mass of "zero", then their masses would NOT be different. However, since they oscillate, the different types of neutrinos must have different (and thus non-zero) masses.

Neutrino Oscillation and Mass

reply to post by neoholographic

The truth is they're retesting it in May. The cable being loose is just a theory.

Yes but they have retested since the original finding:

In what's hopefully the final page to the story that wouldn't die – at least, not until someone takes a cue from Star Trek and invents a warp drive – scientists have gone and performed a retest of last year's experiment that suggested some subatomic particles were travelling faster than the speed of light.

The result? Hold onto your hats: Einstein's special theory of relativity remains in effect. The measured neutrinos do not, in fact, cross the speed limit of 186,282 miles per second.

Link

I imagine it will be conclusive in May.

reply to post by boncho


Oh, You're NOT getting away with that...

According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer.

Basically, after researchers tightened the suspect cable and measured how long a signal took to travel along it, they found it may account for the 60 nanosecond discrepancy in the neutrino travel time.

The above, QUOTED part of *YOUR ARTICLE* is the part where THEY quoted from the Science Insider Blog:

According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer. After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed.

news.sciencemag.org...

And the really interesting part?

The Neutrino's clocked in EARLY, meaning that if there was a *DELAY* in the recorded measurement of the neutrino's arrival time...

That would make the TOTAL discrepancy 120 nanoseconds... not 60, or Zero.

Man, these people aren't even BOTHERING to THINK about their coverups anymore, are they?


The part of YOUR article that YOU quoted, was from the AUTHOR of the article, not a scientist.

Basically, after researchers tightened the suspect cable and measured how long a signal took to travel along it, they found it may account for the 60 nanosecond discrepancy in the neutrino travel time.

^^^^^ That.

That is not REAL.

That is the Author of a BLOG, talking out of his [snip]


THIS is from the article that YOUR link was quoting:

After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed.

That means that the DELAY in the timing would actually have pushed the recorded neutrino's flight time towards the SLOWER end of the spectrum.

Meaning that the neutrino was actually FASTER than originally measured.

OOPS!

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


what? no it wouldn't. the neutrinos arrived 60 ns early, so they tested the cable voila they found the 60 ns skew. they don't add up. that's not how it works.

reply to post by optimus primal

what? no it wouldn't. the neutrinos arrived 60 ns early, so they tested the cable voila they found the 60 ns skew. they don't add up. that's not how it works.

The SKEW has 2 possible ways of going, Sir.

It can ADD to the time, (120 ns) or it can SUBTRACT from the time (0 ns)

When they tightened the cable, the signal arrived 60 ns EARLIER than it DID before they tightened the cable.

Which means that the cable (during all of the tests) was sending the data SLOWER than it should have.

Meaning that the DATA from the neutrino's arrival, would have arrived SLOWER than it should have.

Meaning that the recorded FLIGHT TIME of the neutrino's was being OVERESTIMATED because of the cable.

Meaning that the experiment saw the neutrino's as SLOWER than they actually were, because the loose cable took 60 EXTRA nanoseconds to deliver the data.


What this means, is that the neutrino's were FASTER than they were recorded at in the experiment.

*OR*

This entire "Cable" debacle was made up on the fly to cover up the REAL story of the neutrino's *CRUSHING* Einstein's theory of relativity, because they got the signs wrong (+/-)

I never credited them with an over-abundance of intelligence, and if this is the best they got.... I'm just going to laugh...

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


that's not what the article said at all. it did not say the data arrived 60 ns earlier than before they tightened the cable. it said they tightened the cable and then measured the 60ns early skew that shouldn't be there.

reply to post by optimus primal

that's not what the article said at all.

Oh?

After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed.

Are you being paid to post here?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by optimus primal

 

that's not what the article said at all.

Oh?

After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed.

Are you being paid to post here?

apparently you can't read. see my bold edits. AFTER TIGHTENING. again they didn't say anything about there being a 60ns skew BEFORE they did the test measure.

being paid to post here? i wish. although i'm not really suprised you would throw that strawman out.

reply to post by optimus primal

Are you being paid to post here?

No, I am not being paid to post here... First link in my Signature Pal.

I notice that you conveniently forgot to answer the very same quesiton.

apparently you can't read. see my bold edits. AFTER TIGHTENING. again they didn't say anything about there being a 60ns skew BEFORE they did the test measure.

After tightening, the signal SPED UP, which means that the TIMESTAMP from the GPS had a LAG during the original experiment, meaning....


*Meaning*

That the flight time of the neutrino was actually FASTER than the original experiment RECORDED it.


Unless you are implying that a LAG in the timing of the flight time of the neutrino actually made the neutrino REGISTER as having taken *LESS* time than it actually did.....

And that seems quite mad.

being paid to post here? i wish. although i'm not really suprised you would throw that strawman out.

You didn't answer my question.

Are you being PAID to post here?