Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tiny Neutrinos May Have Broken Cosmic Speed Limit
NY Times ^ | September 22, 2011 | DENNIS OVERBYE

Posted on 09/22/2011 9:54:37 PM PDT by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last
To: neverdem

Is it possible that neutrinos have no mass and are therefore not subject to Einstein’s equations? That seems to be about as likely as an ability to exceed the speed of light. I know that that hypothesis calls for a redefinition of energy.


41 posted on 09/23/2011 4:31:32 AM PDT by Savage Beast (Big Brother is not a person. Big Brother is the Federal Government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garjog
"What if you could send a message to your past self? That could come in handy so that you could avoid stupid mistakes."

I'd spend so much time on the phone I wouldn't get anything else done.

42 posted on 09/23/2011 4:36:13 AM PDT by Savage Beast (Big Brother is not a person. Big Brother is the Federal Government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve
Light slows down about .1% in the atmosphere...

So does light speed up again when it reenters a vacuum?

43 posted on 09/23/2011 4:46:35 AM PDT by TangoLimaSierra (To the left the truth looks Right-Wing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TangoLimaSierra

So just where are the police to give these reckless fools speeding tickets????????


44 posted on 09/23/2011 5:00:59 AM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TangoLimaSierra
Yes.

THe speed quoted in the article and discussed in general is the speed of light in a vacuum.

When photons hit another medium, air, glass, etc., it slows down a tiny bit.

As an example, if light passes from vacuum to the atmosphere then through a piece of glass and then back to vacuum, the measured speed of light will slow down in the air, slow down more in the glass and then jump back up upon returning to the vacuum.

45 posted on 09/23/2011 5:09:49 AM PDT by Freeport (The proper application of high explosives will remove all obstacles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TangoLimaSierra
Yes.

The speed quoted in the article and discussed in general is the speed of light in a vacuum.

When photons hit another medium, air, glass, etc., it slows down a tiny bit.

As an example, if light passes from vacuum to the atmosphere then through a piece of glass and then back to vacuum, the measured speed of light will slow down in the air, slow down more in the glass and then jump back up upon returning to the vacuum.

46 posted on 09/23/2011 5:09:49 AM PDT by Freeport (The proper application of high explosives will remove all obstacles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I guess it’s really dark when the neutrinos get to their destination?


47 posted on 09/23/2011 5:44:09 AM PDT by Eagle Bomba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Some French guy, as well as someone in California, has been doing this for years, maybe over a decade (because I was still in grad school then) though using some other subatomic particle.


48 posted on 09/23/2011 5:46:31 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Waht about Cherenkov radiation?


49 posted on 09/23/2011 5:47:19 AM PDT by CPOSharky (The only thing straight, white, Christian males get is the blame for everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Bomba
I guess it’s really dark when the neutrinos get to their destination?

I guess it depends on whether that destination was already illuminated.
50 posted on 09/23/2011 5:48:10 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MikeSteelBe
"Time is not a constant when approaching the speed of light, so how can something like 186,000 miles per second be the “law” if it is a function of time?"

That was an old quote from a high school poster (pre-internet). I guess I forgot the /sarc ?

Although I thought it was pretty obvious.

51 posted on 09/23/2011 5:55:17 AM PDT by roxtar221 (It's only hubris if I fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ETL

Maybe the flight path of the neutrinos in space-time isn’t ‘bent’ the same way by gravitation as photons, and is therefore ‘shorter’?

(Whatever the h3ll that means...)


52 posted on 09/23/2011 9:32:00 AM PDT by SargeK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: roxtar221

I did not learn time dilation equations until I took physics in college.

I got the sarcasm, I just wanted someone who thinks the speed of light is a fixed, constant barrier to explain that.


53 posted on 09/23/2011 10:45:49 AM PDT by MikeSteelBe (Austrian Hitler was as the Halfrican Hitler does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: MikeSteelBe
"I got the sarcasm, I just wanted someone who thinks the speed of light is a fixed, constant barrier to explain that."

To explain why it is, or why I think that?

I was taught in school 186k/sec was the limit. I haven't really updated that concept. Since I don't work in a field where concerning myself with such esoteric things is beneficial, it never mattered.

54 posted on 09/23/2011 3:22:31 PM PDT by roxtar221 (It's only hubris if I fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Explorer89

Of course, they knew the neutrinos in the cave 450 miles away were the same ones from the particle accelerator - right? Did these particles wear name tags, perhaps?


55 posted on 09/23/2011 4:35:04 PM PDT by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Boy what a universe. Massless particles that have mass and speed limits that aren’t. I guess old Occam would deduce that the same ruler is not being used.


56 posted on 09/23/2011 4:45:33 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dsc

“time is not a dimension, but merely the way our brains deal with the fact that everything in the universe is in constant motion.”

I admit I don’t know a lot about this, but hasn’t it be experimentally proven that time is a dimension with atomic clocks in space?

You know, time for the astronaut traveling at near the speed of light literally slows down.

The faster you move, the slower pace of time. So, time back on earth is 20 years, but time in the near light speed space ship is only five years.

Also, your post is confusing to me. First you say that time is a function of consciousness, merely the way that our brains work, then you say that the past is gone and the future has not yet occurred.

But, then you say that it isn’t linked to our brain, but is a physical reality.

So, which is it?

Here is an interesting show about time travel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiusH2-6OaM


57 posted on 09/23/2011 8:40:26 PM PDT by garjog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: garjog

“I admit I don’t know a lot about this, but hasn’t it be experimentally proven that time is a dimension with atomic clocks in space?”

I don’t claim to be an expert either, but how would one prove that time is a dimension with atomic clocks in space?

“You know, time for the astronaut traveling at near the speed of light literally slows down.”

Theoretically. It has yet to be observed.

“First you say that time is a function of consciousness, merely the way that our brains work,”

Don’t recall putting it that way.

“then you say that the past is gone and the future has not yet occurred. But, then you say that it isn’t linked to our brain, but is a physical reality.”

I don’t recognize anything I said in that.

I said that time is our way of dealing with the fact that everything in the universe is constantly in motion. We arbitrarily select objects and measure the passage of “time” in terms of their motion.

Since everything is in motion, everything has changed position and/or state since any point in the past, and there isn’t any way of getting everything in the universe back to its previous positions.

Everything will continue to move, but there is no sense in which “the future” exists now, so you can’t go there.

Ain’t no “which is it.” Just us trying to understand how things work.


58 posted on 09/24/2011 1:00:52 AM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: SargeK
Maybe the flight path of the neutrinos in space-time isn’t ‘bent’ the same way by gravitation as photons, and is therefore ‘shorter’?

There is something called "quantum tunneling" where subatomic particles at least appear to pass through a 'barrier' faster than light speed. I have no idea if it plays a role here.

"Quantum Tunneling is an evanescent wave coupling effect that occurs in quantum mechanics. The correct wavelength combined with the proper tunneling barrier makes it possible to pass signals faster than light, backwards in time."

http://www.andersoninstitute.com/quantum-tunneling.html

59 posted on 09/24/2011 5:40:50 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: SargeK

“Quantum tunnelling is in the domain of quantum mechanics, the study of what happens at the quantum scale. This process cannot be directly perceived, so much of its understanding is shaped by the macroscopic world, which classical mechanics can adequately explain. Particles in that realm are understood to travel between potential barriers as a ball rolls over a hill; if the ball does not have enough energy to surmount the hill, it comes back down. The two forms of mechanics differ in their treatment of this scenario. Classical mechanics predicts that particles that do not have enough energy to classically surmount a barrier will not be able to reach the other side. In quantum mechanics, these particles can, with a very small probability, tunnel to the other side, thus crossing the barrier.

The reason for this difference comes from the treatment of matter in quantum mechanics as having properties of waves and particles. One interpretation of this duality involves the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which defines a limit on how precisely the position and the momentum of a particle can be known at the same time.[13] This implies that there are no solutions with a probability of exactly zero (or one), though said solution may approach infinity. Hence, the probability of a given particle’s existence on the opposite side of an intervening barrier is non-zero, and such particles will appear—with no indication of physically transiting the barrier—on the ‘other’ (a semantically difficult word in this instance) side with a frequency proportional to this probability.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling


60 posted on 09/24/2011 5:45:28 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson