Update: October 17 00:00 UTC: whether this supposed explanation out of at least 80+ different papers attempting to debunk the neutrino FTL results has a shred of truth will take a while for the physics community to sort out. Regardless, the point of this post was to show that the frontier science journalism/communication falls victim to “viral theories” that have not been adequately tested. In this day and age, anyone with access to a computer and the internet can engage a global audience with their cockamamie ideas on physics or perhaps climate change or medicine. The moral of the story is that with any new discovery which may challenge conventional wisdom is to be patient and keep an open mind. — Ryan Maue.
Not so fast little neutrinos. Turns out that the discovery of superluminal or faster-than-light (FTL) neutrinos at CERN has been “explained”. Before reading the explanation, here’s a tidbit of information that would have probably tipped off a lot of skeptics from the start: to measure the “speed” of the neutrinos from point A to point B, the scientists used our constellation of GPS satellites in earth orbit. Turns out Einstein’s theory of relativity comes in handy to explain those missing 60 nanoseconds over 730 km distance…
I won’t spoil the explanation any further: from an open source Physics journal: Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity
— somehow I’m betting the real explanation is still out there…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Speed of light from GPS satellites is affected by water vapor. They used the water figures calculated by NOAA GISS.
Not sure they took all of the relativistic consequences into account:
1 time difference due to speed of satellite relative to earth
2 length contraction in direction of motion of satellite
3 time difference due to lower gravity in space (free fall does not count only the actual difference in gravity at that altitude).
Anything I am missing?
How many times do you need to be told
=> the atomic clocks were AT THE SITES not in the dam satelite.
The clocks were simply syncronized to the satelite signal and the technique has been done and tested to an accuracy of 1ns
So everything you bring up Jim G is not in play.
Can you all please go and READ before making silly comments mathman2 spelt it all out for you all above and made the same conclusion you all can’t or won’t read yet want to have your say.
Final comment I should need make for those who still think the GPS sync on atomic clocks is not valid it has been checked via a two way communication technique
(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=563247) or google “Ultra-precise clock synchronization of remote atomic clocks with PRARE onboard ERS-2”
The technique confirms accuracy of GPS sync’ed atomic clocks to 1ns end of story.
Elftone says:
October 16, 2011 at 5:45 pm
George E. Smith; says:
October 16, 2011 at 1:08 pm
You both got it wrong.
e < ΦC∞ is a new observation
This is a new (well, not new, known for at least more than 40 years) explanation concerning a sub-particle traveling faster then the speed of light, rest of it is an illusion. That's what he said.
For detailed explanation go to:
Sequel 1
The Truth About The Creation Or The Big Bang Theory Commonly Explained at:
http://www.visutech.net/peace365/index.asp?pageID=86
LdB says:
October 17, 2011 at 9:21 am
Anna then you should know better the discrepency is 60ns not 20ns so given you can’t get that fact right excuse me if I take a grain of salt on the rest and doubt your analysis.
You are right, it is 60 ns corresponding to about 18meters with the error in the baseline measurement 20cm, which must have confused me. Mea culpa.
I have not as yet seen an answer on whether the “meter definition” after all the GPS corrections, is the meter defined by the fraction of the distance covered by light in in vacuum on Cs clock second. One can interpret the experiment as demonstrating that it is not, since the neutrino does not suffer of refraction effects.
Last time I looked, the meter was defined as a bunch of wavelengths (to many decimal places) of cadmium red light. GPS is useful for calibrating a precision/atomic clock. Do it in my lab. Assuming (dangerous, I know) that CERN took the known stuff into account, the issue is not with the time measurement. Perhaps the neutrino detector has an problem, that’s far beyond my expertise. But time? That’s easy.
For those who are still following this, there exists a paper in archive where the complicated relationship of moving systems in special relativity is examined, where time and space cannot be considered independently. The author estimates an “error” of maximum 64 ns when this is not taken into account.
Anna as we have said relativity was never in play the paper has been totally debunked.
They even had a full CERN theoryfest just on it http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21064-neutrino-watch-speed-claim-baffles-cern-theoryfest.html
The only real new information is ICARUS does not see Glashow radiation for its nuetrinos it saw but that assumes we understand the physics correctly.
You may like to argue your case then go to a physics website not a climate website … until then the physicists have spoken and the issue is far from dead although everyone is rightly skeptical.
>>
Retired Engineer says:
October 18, 2011 at 11:12 am
Last time I looked, the meter was defined as a bunch of wavelengths (to many decimal places) of cadmium red light.
<<
You should look again. The speed of light in a vacuum is defined as exactly 299792458 m/s. The (see NIST) definition of a meter is “the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second.”
Jim
I’m a bit dated,obviously. In 1960, the definition was “Hyperfine atomic transition; 1650763.73 wavelengths of light from a specified transition in Krypton 86 ” rather than cadmium. In 1983, it became “Length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second” (from Wiki of all places) Problem is obtaining a good vacuum down here on Earth. On a practical basis, the wavelength of a certain Helium-Neon laser is defined as 632.99139822 nm. None of which depends on the GPS system. When designed, GPS had a major objective of position measurement for the military. (Remember Selective Availablity?) and a second objective of time synchronization. The system accomplished both, a rare feat for the government. Like Spirit and Opportunity, a 90 day mission that lasted over five years. Once in a while we do it right.
Assuming no obvious blunders, I think CERN has made an interesting discovery.
>>
Retired Engineer says:
October 19, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Assuming no obvious blunders, I think CERN has made an interesting discovery.
<<
I agree. We are looking at a new source of error that crept into this experiment, an old source of error that was overlooked, or maybe new physics. (That’s not an exhaustive list.)
I have seen experiments where the physics concepts are easy to understand, yet the results lead to incorrect interpretations. The field equations of General Relativity are so complex, that the possibility of overlooking some minor detail is pretty good. I’m sure physicists will solve this quickly. I have far more faith in these scientists than those in the climate group.
Jim