[Merged] Neutrinos travel faster than light?

[Taita]

Ahh, but the theory doesnt require FTL travel at all then.

You are assuming it must be an argument of if FTL is possible by the particle. If that is the case then they must be arguing the impossibility of all theories, such as concern boson, tacheon or string,et al, under investigation worldwide wouldn't you say?

Mark

[sepulchrave]

I think Stellar is referring to ``conventional'' FTL travel, where the line integral of the particle in 3+1 space-time is spacelike. This implies traveling continuously between two space-time coordinates.

It is valid to describe FTL travel as simply going from point A to point B faster than light could travel the A to B geodesic by making use of extra-dimensional shortcuts.

However making the claim that neutrinos are skipping through other dimensions is an argument that (just like claiming that they travel at FTL conventionally) needs to be very very carefully examined. Topologically speaking, Earth is in a fairly flat region of 3+1 space-time. It is a bit odd suggesting that our 3+1 space-time is appropriately curved in the larger n+m manifold to allow for neutrino FTL travel.

It also seems odd to me that neutrinos can skip freely though higher dimensions while we are all bound to 3+1 space-time. Neutrinos interact with protons in beta decay, and appear to be bound to the weak nuclear field; why can they get out when everything else involved in these processes is stuck in 3+1 space-time?

[Taita]

I think Stellar is referring to ``conventional'' FTL travel, where the line integral of the particle in 3+1 space-time is spacelike. This implies traveling continuously between two space-time coordinates.

It is valid to describe FTL travel as simply going from point A to point B faster than light could travel the A to B geodesic by making use of extra-dimensional shortcuts.

However making the claim that neutrinos are skipping through other dimensions is an argument that (just like claiming that they travel at FTL conventionally) needs to be very very carefully examined. Topologically speaking, Earth is in a fairly flat region of 3+1 space-time. It is a bit odd suggesting that our 3+1 space-time is appropriately curved in the larger n+m manifold to allow for neutrino FTL travel.

It also seems odd to me that neutrinos can skip freely though higher dimensions while we are all bound to 3+1 space-time. Neutrinos interact with protons in beta decay, and appear to be bound to the weak nuclear field; why can they get out when everything else involved in these processes is stuck in 3+1 space-time?

Clearly stated and with no argument on any account made. My knowledge is limited to a few classes on nuclear matter and propegation and the various theories and projects currently being investigated and the possible industrial and social boons to be gained from them.

[Copasetic]

At this point there is no coup de grace for the not faster than light camp and while it seems all of the ones in that camp are solidly in that camp, they do not say 'see this is why you are off', they say 'we know somewhere, somehow, you made an error we just can't find yet'.

I would think the "coup de grace" occurred in 1987, via SN1987a. That the neutrinos didn't arrive 4 years prior to the light, as would have been expected if they behaved the way the OPERA experiments measured, is a pretty strong indication that error has been introduced either into the experimental setup or collection of data. What that error was or if it occurred, well have to wait and see. I wouldn't hold my breath though for FTL neutrinos.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Copasetic

[Taita]

I would think the "coup de grace" occurred in 1987, via SN1987a. That the neutrinos didn't arrive 4 years prior to the light, as would have been expected if they behaved the way the OPERA experiments measured, is a pretty strong indication that error has been introduced either into the experimental setup or collection of data. What that error was or if it occurred, well have to wait and see. I wouldn't hold my breath though for FTL neutrinos.

That isn't a final deadly play but rather, a personal obsevation tinged with a great deal of cynisim and hope that in the future there is a resonable explanation against such as may have happened. You and many many others are of the same hope and this is why the results are so hotly debated; there is no proof against. All the arguments are based on the fact that if it happened it changes "everything". A weak argument at best.

An equal argument would be all the theories and laws to state a person can not exceed 50 mph are proof a person has never exceeded 50 mph.

How can you say the proof is the particles didn't show up years ago is proof anyway? The number of tests to date do not allow full knowledge of what each test will produce and statistically speaking it is impossible to think they had learned everything. I guess that is why the test have been ongoing after the 1st test was complete!

Mark

[Copasetic]

That isn't a final deadly play but rather, a personal obsevation tinged with a great deal of cynisim and hope that in the future there is a resonable explanation against such as may have happened.

You mistake skepticism for cynicism--A pretty common thing for people outside of science to do. Unvetted results are just that: not yet vetted.

You and many many others are of the same hope and this is why the results are so hotly debated; there is no proof against. All the arguments are based on the fact that if it happened it changes "everything". A weak argument at best.

An equal argument would be all the theories and laws to state a person can not exceed 50 mph are proof a person has never exceeded 50 mph.

Mark, you can stop amusing you know anything about me right now and save yourself the embarrassment of looking the fool. I've made no "weak arguments", the rest of your jumble here is a bowling ball aimed at a strawman, not really worth my time.

How can you say the proof is the particles didn't show up years ago is proof anyway? The number of tests to date do not allow full knowledge of what each test will produce and statistically speaking it is impossible to think they had learned everything. I guess that is why the test have been ongoing after the 1st test was complete!

Mark

Your reading comprehension problems, not mine. Science doesn't deal in proofs. I said that prior observations suggest that error resides in either experimental setup or data collection. As is often the case when results depending on measurement don't match results based upon observations. In deed, the scientists themselves published the results in opening to their colleagues to identify possible errors they were blind too (were that we not blind to our own errors, then confirmation bias wouldn't need guarded against in science).

Either way, I have no vested interest in whether neutrinos travel faster than light. I left physics and my post-graduate degrees in it behind, for medicine and haven't looked back.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Copasetic

[Taita]

You mistake skepticism for cynicism--A pretty common thing for people outside of science to do. Unvetted results are just that: not yet vetted.

Mark, you can stop amusing you know anything about me right now and save yourself the embarrassment of looking the fool. I've made no "weak arguments", the rest of your jumble here is a bowling ball aimed at a strawman, not really worth my time.

Your reading comprehension problems, not mine. Science doesn't deal in proofs. I said that prior observations suggest that error resides in either experimental setup or data collection. As is often the case when results depending on measurement don't match results based upon observations. In deed, the scientists themselves published the results in opening to their colleagues to identify possible errors they were blind too (were that we not blind to our own errors, then confirmation bias wouldn't need guarded against in science).

Either way, I have no vested interest in whether neutrinos travel faster than light. I left physics and my post-graduate degrees in it behind, for medicine and haven't looked back.

Pardon me. It sounded greatly as if you were arguing the possibility rather than, as I do, view the results as a step worthy of discussion and further corroboration before anything is close to settled. My sincerest apologies on my misunderstanding.

I do not and can not in good conscience argue against any opinion on this matter as I am skeptical at best on what has happened and how the results will test out in time. I do however, look on with disdain on arguments which presume to declare 'can not' when at best they should be saying 'it is too early to accept as proven' or 'I do not believe...'.

Again, I apologize for my misunderstanding. I am interested in the outcome even if personally, in this case, I feel the corroboration will be hard pressed find. So much the sadder as well.

Mark

I never gave up physics or nuclear science as nuclear engineering is my professional field.

[Copasetic]

Pardon me. It sounded greatly as if you were arguing the possibility rather than, as I do, view the results as a step worthy of discussion and further corroboration before anything is close to settled. My sincerest apologies on my misunderstanding.

I do not and can not in good conscience argue against any opinion on this matter as I am skeptical at best on what has happened and how the results will test out in time. I do however, look on with disdain on arguments which presume to declare 'can not' when at best they should be saying 'it is too early to accept as proven' or 'I do not believe...'.

Again, I apologize for my misunderstanding. I am interested in the outcome even if personally, in this case, I feel the corroboration will be hard pressed find. So much the sadder as well.

Mark

I never gave up physics or nuclear science as nuclear engineering is my professional field.

No worries, its hard to read people sometimes online. I agree it would certainly be cool if this turned out to be true--Like I said, I have no vested interest in neutrinos not traveling FTL. I don't, as far as I can recall, worship Einstein or consider is "wisdom" inerrant. SR and GR have stood on their own two feet, when put to the test and that is the only thing modern science is beholden to them for.

I agree that it is good to be skeptical (all science, we should be skeptical of). That is what I was trying to point out in my first post--Is that prior evidences, mean we should be skeptical of the claim--not that it isn't true or cannot be true. Forgive me if that was not clear. My only reading of it prior to this week had been, unfortunately, lots of terrible science journalism--Which had already declared SR toppled! I assume there is probably a lot of that going around on the net and in the lay-community as well, though I haven't the time to look or educate anymore, as I've been buried to my neck in books these last few months.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how it resolves whatever way it turns out. I do give the authors credit though, for how they have conducted themselves and their publication of the material. It seems someone has at least learned through the stupidity of others the woes of science by press conference (**Cough** **NASA** **Cough** **"Arsenic-life** **Cough** )

Edited November 3, 2011 by Copasetic

[bison]

post withdrawn- expired link makes it irrelevant.

Edited November 3, 2011 by bison

[Taita]

No worries, its hard to read people sometimes online. I agree it would certainly be cool if this turned out to be true--Like I said, I have no vested interest in neutrinos not traveling FTL. I don't, as far as I can recall, worship Einstein or consider is "wisdom" inerrant. SR and GR have stood on their own two feet, when put to the test and that is the only thing modern science is beholden to them for.

I agree that it is good to be skeptical (all science, we should be skeptical of). That is what I was trying to point out in my first post--Is that prior evidences, mean we should be skeptical of the claim--not that it isn't true or cannot be true. Forgive me if that was not clear. My only reading of it prior to this week had been, unfortunately, lots of terrible science journalism--Which had already declared SR toppled! I assume there is probably a lot of that going around on the net and in the lay-community as well, though I haven't the time to look or educate anymore, as I've been buried to my neck in books these last few months.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how it resolves whatever way it turns out. I do give the authors credit though, for how they have conducted themselves and their publication of the material. It seems someone has at least learned through the stupidity of others the woes of science by press conference (**Cough** **NASA** **Cough** **"Arsenic-life** **Cough** )

Heheheheh, I was thinking the same thing.~"I do give the authors credit though, for how they have conducted themselves and their publication of the material. It seems someone has at least learned through the stupidity of others the woes of science by press conference "

The very carefully worded release seemed to have been sanitized of the landmines generally victimizing risky revealations/findings. If only NASA, the military or governmant were so particular in their wordings for press releases.

Mark