"Squish just like grape."
Posted on 06/08/2012 8:33:17 PM PDT by presidio9
Eight months after the multinational Opera research team caused an uproar among physicists with its findings that some neutrinos appeared to travel faster than light, its findings have been officially refuted.
CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, on Friday said that four experiments have found that neutrinos actually travel no faster than the speed of light.
Opera's original measurements can be attributed to a faulty element of its experiment's fiber optic timing system, CERN said.
The findings were announced at the 25th International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics in Kyoto, Japan, by CERN research director Sergio Bertolucci.
Life in the Fast Neutrino Lane
Opera's initial findings, announced in September, triggered skepticism among the scientific community because, if validated, they could have meant that Einstein's theory of special relativity was wrong. Special relativity will only hold true when space-time is flat, and if the theory is wrong, it could mean that the curvature of space is hidden somehow.
Another possibility suggested by faster-than-light neutrinos was that special relativity doesn't apply to neutrinos. That would have impacted quantum theory because it's based on the balance between quantum behavior and special relativity.
A neutrino is an electrically neutral elementary subatomic particle with a small mass that usually travels close to the speed of light.
The Opera Experiment
The Opera team shot a high-intensity, high-energy beam of muon neutrinos produced at the CERN SPS accelerator in Geneva at the LNGS underground laboratory at Gran Sasso in Italy, 730 km (454 miles) away and measured the speed at which the neutrinos emitted traveled.
Preparations for the experiment were apparently meticulous. The Opera team worked with experts in metrology, or the science of measurement, from CERN and other institutions to measure the distance between CERN SPS and LNGS with an uncertainty of 20 cm (7.9 inches) over 730 km. Advanced GPS systems, atomic clocks and other sophisticated instruments were used to ensure the scientists could measure the neutrinos' time of flight to within less than 10 nanoseconds of accuracy.
The neutrinos' velocity was determined using high-statistics data collated by the Opera neutrino detector at LNGS from 2009. This detector consists of two identical Super Modules, each being an instrumented target section with a mass of about 625 tons followed by a magnetic muon spectrometer.
It took the neutrinos about three milliseconds to travel the 730 km. This is a measure of the time distribution of protons each time the beam was fired, aggregated and normalized. It's not possible to precisely measure the time of flight of any single neutrino because any proton might produce the neutrino detected by the Opera detector.
E=MC2, Dammit!
Four teams conducted experiments at Gran Sasso in May to check Opera's findings. They are Opera, Borexino, Icarus, and LVD.
Borexino, Icarus, Japan's T2K experiment and the United States' Minos experiment were originally slated to conduct the cross-checks, and it's unclear why the lineup was changed.
"Each experiment necessarily has its own timing system to record the time of its events," Michael Witherell, vice chancellor for research at the University of California Santa Barbara's physics department, told TechNewsWorld.
Opera's discovery of problems with its timing system was announced on Feb. 23, Witherell said. "At that time, CERN said that Opera would have their first neutrino run with the repaired timing system in May. Apparently, all four experiments ran in that May run, and all say transit times were consistent with the speed of light."
Into the Sun
In October,
"Squish just like grape."
Earlier I made this comment:
“Perhaps you should read more, because your education seems to have stopped after you were ten years old, based on you inability to SELECT and DEFEND one of the four ‘possibilities’ for the ‘makeup’ of the Universe that you did learn.”
I wanted to, and therefore am, apologizing to you for that snarky remark. I was making an assumption that was obviously not true to ‘throw a dart’ back at you. I was doing what I was accusing you of. If you never respond to me, I deserve it.
I respect your knowledge, whatever it may be, and still look forward to your ideas on why you believe it is finite.
But it’s cool. It just seems that your mentors admit they do not have absolute proof, either way, so I just wondered what you knew that they didn’t ?
See... I’m rather skeptical when someone claims to know the ‘extent’ of something that may be shrinking, may be expanding, may be staying the same size while the actual ‘size’ of it , if it has a size, will always be slightly beyond our ability to detect/prove. Claiming to know the extent of endless fog you can never reach, little lone navigate deserves more than a one word answer.
You make the craft out of anti-matter, and propelled by anti-energy engines which produce 'pull' (not thrust) by fissioning particles with negative-mass which creates an almost boundless amount of 'directed-gravity', and capable of light speed.
This craft would survive.
The crew , however, would not.
Christ calls himself “Alpha and Omega...the first and last”...I’m no great scientist but it seems to me that understanding of the great volumetrics of time, space, and energy must first begin with “ Alpha and Omega” in mind.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, And do not return there, But water the earth, And make it bring forth and bud, That it may give seed to the sower And bread to the eater, So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” — Isaiah 55:8-11
Note the themes of “higher, lower, sending out empty and returning full “ in those verses.
While it might be considered “scientific heresy” to consider “faith” as a starting point for theoretical experimentation in the relms of astro physics...the first “ Christian and there-fore heretic scientist” who goes for broke will make the discoveries necessary for FTL, zero point energy schemes, ect. and open up new areas for discovery currently locked away by the anti-tautologous, “anti religion in science” police!
Consider this verse, which describes a rather INFINITE VIEW:
“He has made every thing beautiful in its time: also he has put ETERNITY in men’s hearts, so that no man can find out the work that God does from the BEGINNING to the END.”
Ecclesiastes 3:11.
I expect that some physics minded person who dares factor in “Alpha and Omega” into their math equations, will, like the the American inventors at the beginning of the last century( who were taught their Bible lessons and from them derived their inspirations , whether they would admit to it or not) change the world!
I was not given a talent and grasp for higher math, or else I would be trudging about where the Libtard anti God whiners of the Scientific American would fear tread! But I can still dream!!!
There is much ‘truth’ in ‘religion’ and there is much ‘truth’ in science. Neither are completely correct, or understood.
Those who immerse themselves in a study of both often find many parallels and correlations.
In a way, the quantum foam is mentioned in Genesis. There is actually little difference between the ‘creation’ described in Genesis and the Big Bang / Resulting Expansion ‘theory’.
Both are attempts to explain the ‘unknown’ and may be beyond our ability (at least right now) to comprehend.
We (making an assumption here) have ‘faith’ in science to explain the ‘natural’, and ‘faith’ in a religion to explain the supernatural.
And yet... there really may be no difference between the natural and supernatural, other than our ability to ‘comprehend and prove’.
“We (making an assumption here) have ‘faith’ in science to explain the ‘natural’, and ‘faith’ in a religion to explain the supernatural.
And yet... there really may be no difference between the natural and supernatural, other than our ability to ‘comprehend and prove’.”
Your statement brings to mind this following verse, spoken when Paul was preaching to the learned Greeks:
Remember what the apostle Paul said....” For in Him we live and move and have OUR BEING, as certain of your own Poets have said, For we our also His offspring..” Acts 17:28
We “HAVE our BEING”....not just illusory consciousness as some Zen Buddhists would try to argue. (”or not” tee hee!).
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.