The team submitted the results for publication in a journal on Thursday and is awaiting judgment. But some of the experimenters from the OPERA team still insist that more tests must be done before it can be decided that the results are valid.
As you may remember, a few weeks ago the OPERA team began to perform new precise tests in Gran Sesso in Italy to verify the claim that they discovered neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light. The team submitted the results for publication in a journal on Thursday and is awaiting judgment. But some of the experimenters from the OPERA team still insist that more tests must be done before it can be decided that the results are valid. And what will the judges of the article decide?
In the original experimental setup, the neutrinos sent from CERN to the OPERA detector were created by proton collisions in relatively long pulses: each pulse is 10,500 nanoseconds long. As a result, the OPERA team had to perform a statistical analysis to determine the time it takes for neutrinos to travel from CERN to the OPERA detector.
The new tests were completed on November 6. As I recall, they omitted the need for statistical analysis, which was the source of one of the problems and one of the possible mistakes in the experiment. The experimenters split each pulse of neutrinos into two, where each pulse is 1 to 2 nanoseconds long. Between each pulse there is an interval of 500 nanoseconds. Every neutrino detected at Gran Sasso was associated with a particular proton pulse generated at CERN. The experiments were carried out over ten days and they provided 20 impact events. The researchers verified that the neutrinos arrived 60 nanoseconds earlier, with an uncertainty of 10 nanoseconds, relative to the initial September result.
After this experiment, four researchers among the 15 researchers in the OPERA team who did not sign the preprint sent to arXiv, signed the article sent to the journal. But Elia and a thorn in her... four new researchers decided this time not to sign the article sent to the journal. And that leaves, as before, four additional absentees, therefore still 15 researchers out of the 180 researchers in the OPERA team have not signed the article sent to the journal...
And why are there 15 absentees? They are concerned that the window of opportunity given to neutrinos to be detected by the OPERA detector in recent experiments was 50 nanoseconds. A fact that the head of the super-Oriental research, Dario Otero, revealed only as soon as the tests were carried out. At first assume that the time window will be only 10 nanoseconds. Although this difference does not affect the final result itself, the source noted, but in their opinion it points to an incredibly inaccurate experimental course. This leaves the possibility that not all possible errors have been accounted for.
Remember the flow of preprints to the arXiv server as a response to the announcement of the trial result on September 23? Most of them were criticisms that it is impossible for neutrinos to travel faster than the speed of light. Some criticisms have been leveled at the method the OPERA team used to verify their findings. These reviews include Carlo Contaldi's review of The effect of the Earth's gravity on the measurement of the neutrino speed.
And the criticism that it seems that the OPERA team did not take into account The effect of time extension in the use of GPS satellites.
Since the article has not yet been published, it is not known whether the researchers from the OPERA team considered these two reviews at all when they calculated the result.
It seems that the question of whether the OPERA team actually observed faster-than-light neutrinos will only be settled when other experimenters in other laboratories confirm or refute the results. Meanwhile within the OPERA team informed sources report that the team is exhausted. "Everyone should be convinced that the result is real, but they are not convinced", so it is with the OPERA team. And what would Albert Einstein think of all the commotion?
For news on the subject in the journal Science
The last articles on the nitrites in the series:
Phantom of the Opera
Relativity may solve the faster-than-light neutrino problem
91 תגובות
mr safkan,
I read the news yesterday, but the author of the article also qualifies that the connection claim of the optical fiber should be tested experimentally.
But let me ask you a more in-depth question: one of the proofs of the 'big bang' is the CMB - the cosmic background radiation. The differences in radiation could not survive if the universe was not expanding faster than the speed of light... and Einstein claimed that matter/and energy cannot move above the speed of light, he has no problem with space itself. So if space can expand, then why can't space also shrink? And if space can be contracted, then why can't matter actually move faster than the speed of light? Let's say a spaceship flying to the nearest star (4.2 light years) will shrink the space to 0.1 light year, then cross the contracted space in a year. It's not 'faster than the speed of light', where is the violation of physics here?
: )
They discovered a serious error in the OPERA experiment facilities on the speed of light (the famous experiment according to which a neutrino speed on light is possible).
The hardware error is a loose fiber in the communication to the GPS. The first publication to discover this error was made about 12 hours ago (on February 22, 2012).
They will have to (in my opinion) re-experiments. Because it is impossible to know at the moment what effect the hardware error has on the results.
There are so many computer viruses, and their evolution is frighteningly fast. This particular virus hid under another virus (rootkit) and constantly warned about imaginary viruses (except itself) and did not allow me to run any software but only demanded payment for removal. A free antivirus that I installed, Avast, did not solve the problem.
Although I believe that the biggest profiteers from viruses are the antivirus manufacturers, I gave in and bought the best Norton antivirus for my money. It did clean up nicely, but the bitter taste remained. Now I have a lot of work to do in recovery. 🙁
It seems to me that this is a relatively complex virus. And it seems to me that, even though we are in different countries, that the virus comes from the Internet providers (maybe they were attacked by the Saudis? 🙂 )
According to what I found out, the problem is mainly in the wmiprvse.exe file - it seems that the malicious commands take over it and cause it to open additional communication channels - a UDP channel - which are used to take over a remote computer. There are several more DLL files from which the commands are sent, but from what I found - these files already come with the installation of 'Windows' (but Windows XP and older. Regarding the new Windows, I did not check).
In short, you can overcome the virus, that is, you can bypass the commands of the virus. But the virus itself cannot be deleted, because the commands are hidden in essential Windows files, and they are written there in the first connection to the Internet (TCP channel - RPC file dump), even if it is performed after a clean installation of Windows.
If it is the same virus as yours, and you have an idea, or someone else reading the comment, how to get rid of the virus, I would love to know. Thanks.
jubilee
Hello. Do you have any idea what virus this is?
My computer also got infected with a virus.
hello free shadow,
I also suffer from a severe attack of viruses - on the computer.
Speedy recovery to both of us.
For a long time I have been planning to build a computer model of my particles, but it is more complicated than it seems. These particles are not the primary thing but the result of something more primitive which I have not specified. I would be very happy to provide you with all the details, but it is better in private correspondence.
Thanks in advance
ivrit.yuval00@googlemail.com
Your idea fascinates me more, I need some time to think about it (especially since I don't have a temperature of 39...), I guess that tomorrow if my temperature drops I will try to build a computer model of your idea just to see how the particles behave, that way I will have a visual explanation in front of my eyes.
Sorry for the short answer, but the heat is killing me...
And again, thank you very much for the explanations
free shadow,
More than she understands me, I'm learning how to explain myself, and it's only thanks to you. Thanks.
The particle I am talking about, the one I tend to attribute to dark matter, does not meet any physical property known to us. It has no mass and no elastic collision between particles. Also, there are no conservation laws to speak of in terms of this particle. All he "knows" how to do is move through space in a random motion without any defined direction or speed (no law from Newton's laws applies to him). When I said that he is not affected and does not affect, I was not precise. Its only effect, which stems from its definition as "zepid", is that it does not allow other particles to pass through it. What happens when two such particles collide is that they are not repelled from each other (because there is no elastic collision) but they do not penetrate each other. That's why the particles can gather in colonies (which I called "protons").
At this level of the model it is not yet electromagnetic radiation and these colonies do not explain the wave-particle duality of the photon or the electron. What explains this duality is the elasticity of the empty space between the particles. When a particle moves from point A to point B, a portion of empty space moves from point B to point A. To this portion of empty space I attribute the photon. But the photon is not a locally defined particle but part of a wide empty space. Therefore, on the one hand, it behaves like a particle (the one that moved from point B to point A), but on the other hand, it is part of a large empty space and therefore progresses as a wave.
What looks like the effect of gravity on the movement of light ("the curvature of space"), is due to the fact that light moves faster in a dense area (but not too dense, in which case it is blocked) and that the phenomenon of attraction between "colonies" of particles is stronger in a dense area. Instead of using the term "space curvature" I say "density change".
The entire model is much more complex and complicated than the description I gave, but I hope I was able to convey a reasonable intuitive picture.
And thanks again
Shabbat shalom/good week
Again, first for Israel, everything is theoretical, but the will is decisive.
To Yuval... Shabbos Shalom... I understood the model you are developing in more depth, I have a problem with a certain sentence: "It is not affected and does not affect" after all, photons are affected by gravity, and they get curvature in the vicinity of objects with a strong gravitational force, so they are affected...
I liked your explanation of the colony - it explains the wave-particle duality, if I understood correctly.
However, I have more doubts and questions regarding the model.
hello free shadow,
I unwittingly entrusted you with "secret" material that I did not elaborate on. The space in which the particles "navigate" is not necessarily what corresponds to our intuition. With your permission, I will break down your question and try to detail:
* Suppose the particle moves in superspace,
Suppose. But this superspace needs a definition
* But also a space on a term as a layer on the existing space,
I do not reach this level of complexity
* In areas with low density the speed slows down and in areas with high density the attraction speeds up the speed,
the speed of what? of the light of the photons. Not that of the precise particles but that of the spaces between them. The particles themselves are completely indifferent to rotating them. From here on out, my model really doesn't fit your description.
* And let's say this particle actually passes through hyperspace like water in the irrigation pipe and gravity "distorts the space" but does not affect the particle itself, (again the irrigation pipe),
It's hard for me to relate to this analogy.
* If so, when the particle undergoes acceleration due to attraction, it affects our space back...
The particle does not undergo acceleration due to attraction. He is unaffected and does not influence. My model talks about completely different things, but I take all the blame on myself because I didn't elaborate enough. Gravitation is not a property of a particle but a phenomenon observed from a collection of particles. Think of a proton as a "colony" of particles. Particles leave it randomly and others join. The number of particles inhabiting the proton at a given moment is a function of the total regional density. Now consider two protons. Particles leave them and others join. The two protons are destroyed and built up continuously, but during the destruction and rebuilding they get closer to each other, because in the area between them there is a greater concentration of particles than the area outside them. It seems as if they are attracted to each other, and this feature we call "gravity". Starting from a certain proximity, another phenomenon is evident, electrical repulsion, but this arises from additional properties of the collection of particles, and will be discussed on another occasion.
Dear shadow.
Without any regard for modesty, don't take anything I say too seriously, unless and until I prove something measurable. Until then it's all speculation. I believe that Yuval will join me in a similar approach to his theories.
Hi Yuval and Israel...
I will start with Israel, with your kind permission, because my answer to him is the shorter of the two - not yet, but I asked to find out for myself, I also forwarded the request to our partners in Russia and I assume based on my rich experience with them that they will already find what is needed (and at a cheaper price than anyone else...).
To Yuval, right now I have to admit that I'm smiling from ear to ear, similar to Alice's cat (one of the children's books that contains many mathematical questions), your explanation helps me a lot, and two more questions came to my mind:
1. Suppose the particle moves in superspace, but also superspace is superimposed on the existing space, in areas with low density the speed slows down and in areas with high density gravity speeds up the speed, and let's say this particle actually moves through superspace like water in an irrigation pipe and gravity "distorts space" but does not affect the particle itself, (again the irrigation pipe), if so when the particle undergoes acceleration due to attraction it affects our space back... and the product of this particle is an effect at the point of connection between the layers (dimensions) and the product of the passing particle is a type of "friction" The product we get is dark matter that goes through a "reversal" and two effects are obtained, one is the photons we know, massless but moving at a finite speed which are actually dark matter turns into baryonic matter in its initial stage - first photons and then when they accelerate more they begin to gain mass - become a particle Primary baryonic or something like that, and the second is gravity...that is, gravity is a product of dark matter turning into baryonic matter, therefore high concentrations of dark matter have a greater gravitational effect - the compression of the matter causes higher "friction" therefore there is more dark matter that is repulsed backwards And higher gravity?
2. I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the time you spend answering, and to thank you and Israel and others for bothering to answer, and to expand our knowledge. Thanks and on your way.
Thanks.
Shadow thanks.
Do you have any idea where and how to get a timer that measures time with great accuracy? The best is the one that measures the arrival time of a radio signal. Preferably in nanoseconds or less.
Free shadow, thanks
I will look forward to reading the study.
You read well among the shit. Indeed, my hypothesis is that the celestial bodies are formed in regions where the density of the dark matter is above a certain threshold. The dark matter creates the gravitation and at the same time is also a medium for the passage of light. As its density increases, the speed of light passing through it increases. But beyond this density threshold, in places where baryonic matter is formed, the dark matter ceases to transmit light. The density of dark matter in intergalactic space is too low to sustain baryonic matter. The speed of light there is also low. The light from the distant galaxies increases its speed as it gets closer to us, because it passes through dark matter whose density is increasing. This phenomenon manifests itself, among other things, in a Doppler-like effect and leads us to think that the galaxies are accelerating. This explanation frees us from looking for negative gravitations.
The baryonic matter particles are actually black holes. Every proton is a black hole. The sun, paradoxical as it sounds, is a black hole. Every black hole forms a hot shell around it. This is what the black holes in the centers of galaxies do, the protons that create shells of electrons around them, as well as every gram of the celestial bodies.
I usually liken the dark matter to sharp balls that travel through space and create structures. The size of the structures depends on the density of the dark matter. The empty space between the dark matter particles is the medium that conducts the light. This explains, by the way, the particle-wave duality of the photon and other phenomena.
Hi Yuval,
I must admit that you have piqued my curiosity even more, I did a comprehensive test and found a partial answer for you, on several levels, there is research at JPL in the field of calculating position according to the lensing effect, I am trying to get permission to accept the research - it has not yet been published, but regarding your hypothesis that gravitation Created by dark matter, is an explanation that can explain why it is not possible to create a full unified field theory, another detail that agrees with your theory that light moves in superspace, and therefore can pass through space and intergalactic space without dissolving....
At the same time I am checking the new study at JPL regarding the fact that they claim to be able to measure differences in the times of different laser beams that pass through different points, they have a variety of different explanations - I am still going through their explanations.
Actually, according to your explanation, gravitation originates from the dark matter, I have a question: so the gravitation we feel is actually a side effect - something that actually "leaks" from the dark matter that surrounds us and affects the baryonic matter? Is it possible that celestial bodies are actually formed in areas where the density of the dark matter is higher?
How do you explain the existence of black holes? Absolute compression of dark matter?
free shadow,
Compliments are always received with love. Thanks.
To explain how gravity can be a repulsive force, you first need to understand how it works at all. Yael asked how the proton "knows" when to attract and when to repel, and I answered that the conditions in intergalactic space do not allow the existence of protons. My assumption is that the gravitation is not created by the baryonic matter but by the dark matter that surrounds it. The dark matter, when its concentration rises above a certain threshold, also crystallizes to form baryonic matter. In the intergalactic space the concentration of dark matter is lower than inside the galaxies, and baryonic matter caught there will dissolve.
However, at the moment I am preoccupied with another, more practical, astrophysical question: since a galaxy is, in fact, an optical lens, it has the characteristics of one, for example a refractive index and a focal length. It is possible to assume with high probability that similar galaxies form similar lenses, and I am trying to see if it is possible to base on this assumption methods for calculating the distances of celestial bodies - both of the galactic lenses themselves and of the objects whose image is distorted by them.
Hey
To Israel:
1. Send me a list of equipment (grayshadow666@gmail.com) - and see what I can do... I have some interesting features - the first is that I am able to get equipment at low prices and I am a master at maneuvering the budget I have... in any case, I have access to equipment at Nova Cybersic and I work Adjacent to laboratories there (and believe me the prices I get there are unbelievably low...), the other feature is that I am able to raise funds for scientific projects (which is why I am so loved by so many scientists).
2. Listening to pulsars is something that usually requires a radio telescope... in the case - I have the possibility to get access to the years (one needs repair - and I can get them the part they need for a quarter of the price in return for use...), the second telescope is the time of use it costs quite a lot so only if necessary.
3. I totally agree with your questions after seeing the demo.
4. Indeed, I have a laboratory at my disposal both in Israel and at Nova Cybersic, most of my work deals with the identification of substances - alkanes and benzenes and recently with the analysis and construction of metallic pleurones and on the other hand we deal with the analysis of advanced organic materials - just an amazing puzzle: from the strongest organic material - a rigid material (flexible is A spider "only" 6 times as much steel as the same weight)?
Regarding the experiment, I will go through the equipment list and if I can help I will do my best.
To Yuval "the middleman pimp" I think that a developed sense of humor is evidence of genius... so in order to be true to this statement I, I take my hat off to you and to Israel...
I am starting to work on your question "Is gravitation a two-way force", your model intrigues me very much, the question is how do we prove the existence of superspace?
Yael,
What is the question!? (Is it okay if I don't call you Mr. Yael? 😉 "Mr. Yael" reminds me of a [true] story about two sisters; the firstborn was named Yael, and to show that she was not named after the biblical character, her sister was named after another animal: a pig. When they became aware of the connotation The negative, shortened the name of a pig to "Zir". In all seriousness).
You intrigued me very much about the article in Scientific American. I run to look.
The proton reverse gravitation question is a good one. In the model I'm cooking up, intergalactic space is empty of protons, so any behavior we choose for a proton will exist in an empty state.
Yuval (may I call you Yuval?),
Just a few days ago I read an article in Scientific American that claims that the force constant is different in some distant galaxy, they were based on the thickness of certain chemical compositions.
It is quite clear that if the physical constants and physical laws change with space and time, then anything can happen. In fact this kind of approach is pretty much the consensus in the big bang inflation phase.
But your approach raises questions no less difficult than the ones we face today. Like for example: how does a particle (say a proton) "know" that it is in the intergalactic medium and that now it must repel and not attract?
Yael and everyone, you have another chance to pick up a glove:
Is it possible that the force of gravity is bidirectional (as we know from the UN force)?
Inside the galaxies we know gravitation as an attractive force only, but in intergalactic space we witness the possible appearance of a repulsive force (the one that led to the dark energy hypothesis).
And for those wondering: I'm not just asking. This may be due to a model that has been brewing for me for many years.
Hua Shera Marti
you are getting better
If you continue like this for many years, you will be a poet as well as a bag
😀
Hear our voice, evil Yovi,
Your heart is so kind and compassionate.
Our prayers, that we may be saved,
How would it not feel to break a brother?
Let's just remember that a tachyon is a completely theoretical particle for which no proof of its existence has yet been found. Regarding "negative mass"... after all, compared to the other forces, gravity is an unusually weak force. As I know, only because gravity does not have a negative/offsetting force is the force that controls the great distances. But it will always be interesting to be surprised by something new!
free shadow,
Your question is not stupid at all. The possibility that the photons move in space on a medium other than that in which particles of matter move is the only conceivable one. It is easy for me to present two such mediators involved in each other without them interfering (almost) with each other. But for tachyons, a new medium must be added on top of the previous two, and I am unable to do this.
Israel!
You get better with time. I have a good gut feeling that in the end you will manage to discover the truth (and even win world fame, if that interests you). But for that you must refine your words.
The "Hidan" site serves as a council for the wise, but sometimes it is desirable to conduct a good and orderly discussion in a small forum. I believe that the nickname "mediator" or even "pimp (to speak of a mitzvah or offense)" could have been more effective than the nickname "spokesman".
And "evil", what to do, inborn traits are hard to erase. But I mean well.
shadow.
Thank you for devoting time and thought to the subject. As you can see, the matter is not really simple, and it is easier to ask questions than to get answers. And I didn't try. See, for example, a link that explains the issue of time extension through a demonstration:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html
And some questions I sent to the author of the article:
Hello Dr. Fowler.
My name is Israel Shapira, and I read your worked example on Time dilation. I wonder if you can take the time to answer some questions I have re the example.
1. Can't both Jack and Jill know the "real" distance to Clock C1 by measuring the intensity of the light reaching their telescopes? I don't believe the Doppler matters here.
2. Suppose we have a third observer, Joe, who comes from the right, and everything is identical to Jill, except that the direction is opposite. In this case, both Joe and Jill will reach clock C2 at time 8 sec. Now if we look at Joe and Jill frame only, we'll see that they are moving relative to each other faster than 0.6c; but without time dilation. Am I right?
3. We know that the universe has an age (about 13.7 billion years) and has a temperature associated with it according to the Friedman equation. Can't we know the "real" time in each point at the universe just by measuring this CMBR temperature? How can 2 observers have different times, even millions of years apart, if they are measuring the same temperature at a certain moment and place in the universe?
Thanks,
Israel.
So far I have not received an answer. It seems to me that if I accept, it will be so convoluted and complicated that old Occam would freak out.
In my opinion, a simple alternative explanation is possible for the phenomenon of the constancy of the speed of light in all reference systems, an explanation that derives directly from a logical and binding correction to the ether theory and Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. The rejection of the site theory is absurd in my opinion, and I explained why in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-318851
It is possible, if you are interested, to try and explain what the correction is. It is also possible to conduct an experiment to prove if there is something to the whole idea, or if it is just wild speculation. I am now trying to organize the experiment, but it is not so simple.
I heard a rumor that you have something to do with the lab. (That's right, Yuval the Harman). If you - or anyone reading - can help me, either with an idea or suggestions for obtaining equipment, I will be eternally grateful.
The most important thing is to get a timer that measures time in fractions of seconds. The ideal is a radio receiver that shows the exact time of signal reception, best of course in femtoseconds, or picoseconds, but if you have no choice, you can also use nanoseconds. So far I haven't been able to find out where to get it. The rest is easy.
The second thing, if someone knows maybe how it is possible (if you buy equipment, or try it in an existing facility, I can do it) to receive signals from distant pulsers, or from any distant body that sends sufficiently short signals. I know you can listen to spacecraft with a scanner, but that's not far enough.
Jubilee the evil one always accuses me of writing too much, so I think we're done.
This is one of the explanations... tachyons have a negative mass... the other possibility is that they move in a different way in the dimension, the question is whether there are particles that move in space and not in time, a question that may seem stupid... but the answer is much more complicated...
Is the mass of tachyons negative?
Hi Israel,
I read the article and the comments, I must say that it is certainly an interesting discussion, but the main question remains, a particle with mass, moving at the highest speed at the speed of light, assuming that the results of the experiment are correct, does not agree with the theory of relativity, but in any case quantum mechanics does not agree completely with Relativity...I guess they will invent a kind of patch...PATCH as in software versions, so that they can say...in the case of Nityrino, there is an exception...after all, this is what the mainstream has been doing for years...instead of rethinking everything, they put patch on patch...
By the way, the woman sends greetings back... and Yuval from above asked to give greetings
I am quite doubtful with you about the upper limit of light, and as a result the lengthening of times, although it seems to me that I have some mistake. But until now I have not received an explanation that would put my mind in the fruitless crusade that I have been conducting on the site for almost a year, and additional correspondence. See:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/demonstrating-relativity-1403111/#comment-288212
And more comments in other articles on the subject.
To the point: if it is proven that the neutrinos do indeed exceed the speed of light, we will probably have to find a replacement for relativity, because of the reasons I listed in the previous responses. One cannot simply decide that there is an exception to the rule called a neutrino. As far as I understand, tachyons have never been below the speed of light, which is not true in our case.
Regards to the woman.
Israel, I have to take my hat off to you, I told my wife the part about traveling at the speed of light and I had a fit of laughter... On the subject of time travel itself, I am looking for the link to the JPL study on time travel, they have some interesting ideas, the existence of white holes, and the fact that it is possible that photons at different wavelengths moving at different speeds, and because there are points where light moves slower, I hope to find it today, but without prejudice to the aforementioned, the existence of tachyons does not necessarily contradict the fact that the speed of light is a constant speed, I also started working on an idea On the subject of nityrins, I'm not sure that they travel the speed of light, but only the distance itself at a speed higher than the speed of light, the explanation could be that the short distance between two points is not necessarily a straight line, what about these company created a super space window, I know it sounds customer From science fiction, but it can certainly give an answer, the particles moved in a shorter space than our space and came out on the other side closer in relation to the distance they have to travel, this is definitely an over explanation of how a particle with mass traveled the distance at a speed higher than the speed of light, the question is, let's say I'm right, how Are we checking it?
I would appreciate ideas and even a response saying that I am completely wrong and there is no way in the world that...:-).
Shadow, apart from psychology there is this matter of going back in time beyond the speed of light.
When I once told my wife that high speeds get old slowly, she expressed her desire to fly close to the speed of light. Then when I mentioned that we were also getting heavy and short, she changed her mind. Go understand women.
Speaking of which - where did Gali go?
Hey…
The mysterious material (metallic silicone - with strange programming.), came to me because I have a laboratory...
Oh yes and by the way, I am a scientist... although my fields are more zoology, molecular biology, quantum chemistry and biological computers... but physics is the mother of all processes (I wonder who the father is :-)),
Unfortunately, I also have to make a living, so I am involved in identifying biological processes that create benzene and alkanes gases.
To Israel Shapira, I think the problem with breaking the speed of light is more psychological, it throws the ground under what has become one of the "Ten Commandments" of modern physics, I have a friend who teaches physics to both high school and undergraduate students, she found herself lacking Power in the face of questions such as "Shouldn't a particle have infinite mass?" ", "Doesn't it require infinite energy to bring it to such a speed? And the more interesting question: "What else we thought was permanent is actually not?" "
"Penlak's constant?" , by the way, I ran a computer model of Gali's idea, that the speed of the group can exceed the speed of light but not the speed of the signal, I'm not sure that the computer agrees with it... the software continues to claim that there is an error - I consulted with the company that prepares the software and they claim that simply the speed of light is constant that it is not possible to change it in the software... an update to the software will be released soon 🙂
Regarding the team that conducted the experiment, I submitted a request to receive the raw information for the purpose of conducting an analysis of the results using a number of different algorithms than they use, and I was told that at the moment it was decided not to give the results to anyone, so I spoke with one of the scientists who announced that he was withdrawing his signature, and I received a rather strange explanation , the decision to withdraw his name and that of some others has nothing to do with physics or these results for political and economic considerations.
hello shadow,
If you were a scientist, you would probably send the mysterious substance to be tested in a laboratory.
If you want, I will be happy to send you the story by email (this is my address ivrit.yuval00@googlemail.com).
The global scientific community has managed to raise huge sums of money for various studies. It is not impossible that you can convince her to perform the experiment you are talking about as well.
sparrow
"I also don't understand what is so terrible about a possible breaking of the light barrier at the level of such small particles, and what is the difference between this and the paradoxical phenomena discovered in quantum theory."
You can find an explanation and link at:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/opera-confirms-and-submits-results-but-unease-remains-191111/#comment-315454
The reason is mainly logical, not just physical.
Did you mean non-locality in quantum entanglement?
It's me again, and I have only "two" things to say:
1. Yuval We have no idea how gravitation affects the particles and the light, but we know that there is an effect, here too there is an effect, the only possibility to perform a "clean" experiment is to look for a clean point in space and put two satellites - only I am not sure that there is such a thing as a point Clean.. After all, galaxies also have an effect.. and what about all the dark matter... that's why the experiment I proposed took into account the gravity factor, if they are right then there will be a difference at a short distance and at a far distance, the second option is of course a nanometer distance so a large distance will not have an effect. But there are also a series of problems that I am sure do not need to be detailed.
The goal of an experiment with a large distance is to show that there is a significant difference - thereby allocating budgets for proper research in the field. I absolutely agree with the possibility that there is a pile of particles that may be moving at a higher speed and we do not have the equipment to detect them.
2. Again regarding cold fusion - recently LENR showed nice results, but it's nothing compared to what I recently encountered, everyone knows that palladium / detrium systems produce energy at a low level, the problem with these systems was that not every cathode produces a process and not the same cathode produces reactions Variation (different level of output) - recently an explanation was found that answered this, and it made possible the design of a new molecule based on Becky spheres (Flerons). According to the computer model, this certainly appears to be an interesting solution.
3. And again I know I only wrote "two" things - about the story about a free shadow I liked.
4. In light of the repeated references here to aliens, I must comment - before number two, an unidentified substance came into my possession from a metallic deposit that was claimed to have been left in the area where aliens landed, it took quite a bit of time to define this deposit but it has two amazing properties - electrical resistance changes in a way which seems random and unexpectedly, has nothing to do with the power we tried to convey - something seems to explain it... a second, more illusory feature, the material, despite being at its core something that looks like metallic silicon, showed "organic" or "crystalline" properties, unfortunately I only received a tiny sample of the material , it turns out that this material is sold among alien enthusiasts at rather exorbitant prices.
So: "There is more between heaven and earth than in your philosophy, Horatio" is not just a sentence, I'm afraid it is a prophecy - indeed particles will move at a speed higher than the speed of light...:-)
Gali, it's interesting that you bring up the example of ROSSI. But even with him it is still too early to say that he is another flop in the chain of leading perfume inventors. Give it another year or two.
The field of "cold fusion" is currently full of serious research with results whose continuous accumulation over 20 years even caused (?) NASA to enter this research seriously. In general today it is called LENR and less use is the slanderous term COLD FUSION. I'm fine with the rigid attachment of "Hidan" to the mainstream, but in my opinion LENR will be based there in the end.
I agree with Hanan's point, that things that seemed ridiculous to first-rate scientists in the past turned out to be absolutely possible. There are entire books with historical documentation of this snickering phenomenon.
I also do not understand what is so terrible about a possible breaking of the light barrier at the level of such small particles, and what is the difference between this and the paradoxical phenomena discovered in quantum theory.
Free shadow!
Where did the name come from? It reminds me of a story; Below is a quote from him:
[I moved forward a little, so that I could see the sun and know that the shadow of my head stood out from the shadow of the wall and I said: "Do you know that you are a special creature?".
"Oh, yes", he answered, "I know. You are an ordinary shadow, one that has a partner. But I am an independent shadow. free!"]
Note to proposal 1: Large distances are not necessarily a guarantee of accurate measurement results. The speed measured in this way is an average and does not reflect specific speeds. For example, along the axis between the earth and the moon there are gravitational changes, and it is not clear how these affect the speed of light and the speed of neutrinos.
ivrit.yuval00@googlemail.com
I have to say two things:
1. That they put the detector on the moon - after all, there is a mirror that reflects the light, and there is an international competition to place an object on the moon - a Google project, JBL designed a tiny neutrino detector, that way there will actually be enough distance to see who is faster.
2. Regarding cold fusion - there is the project in Omer that was verified by the DOD, the problem that they show is a 60% response, much more than you would expect in detium / palladium systems. The problem is not why it happens, it is why only 60%.
3. I know I only said two things...but the question of a particle faster than the speed of light is a world-changing question, and despite several responses here, it must be taken into account that a particle with mass moving at the speed of light has direct consequences on the curvature of space / time in general, think about it, maybe The very fact that there is such a particle can explain many things about gravity and make it possible for the first time to give solutions to the unified field theory.
Regarding the design of the detector, I would love to hear ideas...
Did these experiments take into account the possibility that it is Cherenkov radiation?
jelly,
True, but in your report you mentioned that they are going to repeat the experiment, and now they are publishing the results, see the links I attached. So maybe you should translate the news.
R.H.
We have already reported here on the article of the competing group called ICARUS.
See the previous article in the series on nitrites:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/phantome-of-the-opera-2510119/
Hanan.
Do you perhaps have a link to the studies of Prof. Chiao from Berkeley?
I couldn't find it on Google.
Thanks.
And on the other hand : http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre7ah0t7-us-neutrinos-light/
So everything is still open and the money is counted only on the stairs
To all fast neutrinos watchers,
Last weekend an article was published by an international group on the same website where Oprah's original article was published claiming that the results are wrong.
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre7aj0zx-us-neutrinos/
My father should be translated in light of the great interest.
And don't worry - I thought about it a few days ago.
There are many problems with it - as you are finally beginning to perceive.
If you want to move the beam through the air, you have to build quite a few towers.
I also thought about balloons, but they have a stability problem.
I also thought about an optical cable.
I hinted at all the changes that need to be made by saying that what would be detectable is only the fact that the measurement method is wrong (did we talk about reading comprehension?)
Yehuda:
Unlike you - I speak the truth.
I understand that you decided to appropriate the idea to your credit
for health,
Don't forget to take into account that the fund moves in the air, when you discuss with people "worth discussing with you",
Unless you want to build an empty pipeline over 700 km long
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
When I responded to your comment, a fan's comment had not yet appeared.
Your response was stupid and I fully understood what was written in it.
It turns out that a fan also saw the mistake in your words and offered a correction.
He suggested moving the beam on the surface (rather than above the surface).
It is more logical but not entirely possible - both because of the structure of the ground surface and because of the sphericity of the earth.
As I said - there are ways to improve the idea and I have already started discussing them with people worth discussing with you.
It will be impossible to send a light beam that will go through exactly the same path, but in principle you can see if there is an error in the measurement method if the speed of the photons is also found to be different from the speed of light.
Mikel
Understanding reading
A fan said that the photon beam should be sent above the surface and not as you understood "through the rocks"
Only "sane" people think that my intention was to transfer the photons inside the rocks
but
What is more important is that Haifa is already leading by three to one against Beitar
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
For the sake of non-stupid order:
Photons do not pass through rocks.
Every sane person thought about the idea and realized the error in it.
The initiative takers among the intellectuals also made sure to find alternative solutions and start discussing them with other interested parties.
Yehuda Your idea is original and I really like it!
I mean, you are actually suggesting that as soon as the particle beam is sent, they will also activate a light source (for example, a laser beam) on the surface and check how long it takes until a suitable sensor on the other side receives the light, right?
Sounds not bad, I wonder why they didn't do it until now and if no one there thought of it.
I liked!
For good measure, and after the scientist commenters got tired of coming up with stupid solutions, I will give the scientist site the reason for the whole mess, and of course the most logical solution to the whole problem.
Well, please concentrate:-
The mistake in the experiment that was done is that they forgot to transmit a beam of photons along with the netrin beam.!!
They should have sent the two rays together and had a competition between them.
If the photons achieve then everything is fine and dandy, and it doesn't matter how fast they raced!
But if the netrins achieve… then…
Continue the experiment until the netrins fly away!
Good night and please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Unconventional scientific solutions
I think there is another possibility why the neutrinos pass the speed of light by so little.
Which are simply the only neutrinos that can be discovered with the technical means at our disposal.
Just as a rifle bullet penetrating a block of plasticine hanging on a rope will cause the rope to move, while a fast bullet will pass through without any effect on the rope. Or like fast neutrons that penetrate the uranium 235 nucleus without effect, while the slow ones cause it to react.
Or in short, neutrinos, as they are called: more and more neutral as their speed increases, until at a certain speed they are no longer detectable.
Yehuda:
Of course you are fascinated and of course you say nothing about the things in response to which this was written.
That's how it is when the honesty is from you and on.
Dear Michael
I am fascinated by your scientific responses!:-
Gillian - Regards to your aliens
Hanan - Everyone knows you are a UFO
Good night everyone
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Gillian:
I have already learned that receiving negative titles from you is something that should be taken as a compliment.
Almost everything you say is the opposite of reality.
Greetings to your aliens.
Hanan:
Everyone knows you are a UFO.
This sentence is merely a response to the unqualified audacity of your response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/opera-confirms-and-submits-results-but-unease-remains-191111/#comment-315410
The nonsense in the response has no point in responding at all.
You compare opposition to science on religious grounds to opposition to revolutionary claims on scientific grounds.
You obviously know enough to understand the difference so it's also obvious that you're lying because of your own agenda.
The discoveries made in the age of science were not rejected when they were presented.
Not relativity, not quantum theory and nothing.
In fact, these are turns received quite quickly.
Of course not with the method of discovering the truth that you advocate (the political method) but through serious tests.
It takes time because it is much more difficult (technically) to test (the way of science) than to just believe (the way you do).
The current finding is also not rejected by the scientific community - on the whole, it is examined with a lot of attention - exactly as it should be. The politics you try to bring into the matter will not help you.
Everyone forgets that neutrinos and light arrive at about the same time from distant supernovae. If the neutrino was faster than light the differences should have been accordingly. Therefore, from the point of view of science, the neutrino is not faster than light.
And with regard to this experiment, it seems to me that there is a simple and basic error, exactly this type of explanation that it is not possible, due to relativistic effects, to synchronize the three systems at the same time.
I would like to support the words of Michael, Gali and R.H
The significance of discovering movement at a speed higher than the speed of light is enormous and says that the entire physical understanding in the last 100 years contains very fundamental misunderstandings - it is not impossible, but you need to check carefully before throwing away theories that were well understood and tested thousands of times.
As far as I understand, movement at faster than the speed of light does not stand on the same level as cold fusion in terms of the extent to which it contradicts accepted scientific theories.
Cold fusion means the production of nuclear energy from the fusion of nuclear - without the need for the high energy needed to overcome the Coulombic barrier. In the meantime - it is impossible and thus a temperature of the order of tens or hundreds of millions of degrees is needed to do this. However, there is no principled prevention here that violates all the laws of physics -
In theory, if we were to compress cold matter to a huge density - we could create a situation where Fermi energy is high enough to allow fusion at 0 temperature (this happens naturally and is called a nova, but it requires the gravity of a white dwarf). It is possible to think of other ideas, but these require complicated technological solutions and for now they are not possible - and yet, in my opinion, this does not stand on the same level as moving at a speed higher than the speed of light, which means breaking basic principles such as causality or the conservation of energy (which boils down to one of the basic and intuitive symmetries of nature).
in summary
We may be witnessing history in the making
But you have to wait - most events of this type end with the discovery of an error in the experiment or at most with the discovery of an additional and interesting aspect of a well-known and well-known theory.
my father
It is impossible to simply "raise the bar" and say that from today the maximum speed is the neutrino speed and not that of light.
The reason is completely theoretical: it can be shown that, from a logical point of view, if any phenomenon moves at the same speed for every measurer in any reference system, then this speed is the theoretically highest possible speed.
If, for example, the speed of the geese of 10 m/s was the same for every measurer in every reference system, then this was the maximum possible speed in nature. Therefore it is also impossible, according to the logic that governs relationships, to have more than one speed that is identical to all in any frame of reference, even if by a fraction of a percent.
A simple explanation of the reason why can be found in Prof. Yigal Meir's lecture:
http://university.qwerty.org.il/?p=580#more-580
58 minutes.
An alternative explanation of how it is possible (in my opinion) to circumvent this principle, is given in my response (a bit long):
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-312259
I admit that I did not perform an experiment, and that the model needs improvements. But I think it works.
Dr. Weinstein - you wrote "Every time someone jumps in with the idea of cold fusion and it's clear that it won't work"...... Here is the example I was talking about: What does "and it's clear that it won't work" mean??? clear to whom?
There are endless examples of things that were "obviously" not going to work and even studies were published as to why they wouldn't work... then came the study that proved exactly the opposite...
My father - they also thought they would not pass the speed of sound; Rockets weren't supposed to be able to get out of Earth's gravity either; Aircraft heavier than air were also never supposed to lift off, etc., etc., etc... Everything is true, until someone comes along who thinks differently, who develops things differently - these are the real breakthroughs - when things are done differently and they are not the logical and direct continuation of the existing technologies...\
Hanan
I make it clear that I am not a physicist and therefore I do not come here to deal specifically with the experiment itself, but with what is happening around it and that was my intention in my first response.
I deal with the way in which innovative information is received in the scientific community and the difficulty of presenting such information. I don't mean the importance of in-depth research and obtaining unequivocal results, but the way in which it is done.
In all those cases where there were breakthroughs, instead of the researchers coming and examining the results and continuing the research or repeating it, they preferred to pour boiling water on the heads of those who brought the new data.
The bottom line in the above experiment means for me, as Yehuda pointed out, that we have to wait for the results of additional experiments, but we have to prepare for the possibility that the speed of light is not the final limit known to us and hence - that it may be necessary to correct some central worldviews. Based on previous experiments and these experiments, the possibility arises that something fundamental is indeed broken here... It is not a matter of the percent per mille, but the very possible situation that the speed of light is not the limit - per mille of the percent is equal in this case to an earthquake...
Hanan Sabat and others,
It is impossible to jump on every finding that contradicts the existing theories and claim that it is true. The more revolutionary it is, the more likely it is to be true. Therefore the real steps are (editing your words above):
. The precautionary phase - the basic research is tested in 7 poor people, they try to find flaws in it at all costs, sometimes they pour fire and brimstone on the researchers and of course some accuse the researchers of frivolity, mistakes, lack of knowledge, ignorance and even forgeries.
2. The stage of trying to prove the mistake - after a while, when the initial information is confirmed again and again, several other researchers in the field arise and agree to examine it themselves, or at least to examine the experiment because an examination of more groups is needed in order to confirm such an important experiment.
3. The credits stage - finally, when it turns out that the new theory is correct, the first researchers will probably receive the Nobel Prize.
See for example the Yamanka case who will receive a Nobel Prize in the coming years for stem cell research. A young Japanese researcher from a small laboratory made an amazing discovery that changed all thinking on the subject and paved the way for gene therapy. Several laboratories repeated it. Today the whole world that is involved in the field adores the ground it steps on.
what would you expect That every revolutionary idea will immediately be welcomed with open arms? Do you have any idea if Oprah is right or not?
my father
fix please:
The maximum speed of light will not be the speed of light but the speed of natrino
of course….
Until the next particle!
Something fundamental is broken here, and I'm afraid that there will suddenly be another one corresponding to dark mass, i.e. an explanation in style there is a dark speed that joins the speed of the netrino, etc.
You have to sanctify the measurements whatever they are, take a deep breath, and move on, and if necessary, then with a new theory.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Joining the wave…
There are so many doubts and inconsistencies in the scientific theories, that I am not sure that this important discovery will really shake "everything": the "inflation" in the big bang assumes speeds higher than the speed of light. After all, light moves at the speed of light and is affected by gravity, so there is a "washed" solution that talks about rest mass. Many implications of quantum theory are at odds with the macro world.
On the other hand, and without being "Israelites", it is also permissible to be patient and careful. The case mentioned by Gali (star in a jar) is a classic case of good (and less good) people who were simply wrong!
Gillian, if the results are restored, it will only say that the maximum speed is the neutrino speed and not the speed of light. After all, the differences between them are fractions of a percent anyway.
Gillian,
It is not that simple. As I explained above. Movement at a speed higher than that of light is like discovering a phenomenon in nature that violates the principle of conservation of energy.
Imagine building a leading perfume or a more realistic example.
Rossi's Cold Melting Machine:
http://rossifocardifusion.com/
http://e-catsite.com/2011/10/22/dr-george-miley-replicates-patterson-names-rossi/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E&feature=related
Every time someone comes up with the idea of cold fusion and it's clear that it won't work. But still every now and again someone invents such machines and is sure that he will discover the hidden secret.
An article here in the science on the topic of cold fusion and Rossi's machine would be nice and especially entertaining...
If they discover that particles move faster than light, not only will they have to change the special theory of relativity. They will have to change the entire modern physics.
Another thing. Regarding the researchers who find it difficult to accept the result. Don't forget that special and general relativity don't exactly agree with quantum theory. After all, they are trying all kinds of unification theories and quantum gravity and string theory. And what about the APR experiment and the particle that is in two places at the same time and the particle that is on the moon and a measurement is performed on it and this apparently affects the measurement that is performed on the particle on Earth (it's just a thought experiment yes). What do you think, does a signal travel faster than the speed of light?
The group speed of the nitrites. This idea also came up. I think I gave a link in one of the articles I posted here. The speed of the group of neutrinos can exceed the speed of light but not the speed of the signal.
It's over and we won't pay and it's not certain that the argument will end.
I read Dr. Weinstein's articles and Michael Rothschild's responses on this topic, and I can only feel sorry for people who are so attached to their private beliefs that they have forgotten (if they ever knew) what science is. I'm just wondering what you will do on the day (which will undoubtedly come) when the results are restored. I have no doubt that even then you will search underground for reasons why the results are wrong, just like those 15 researchers who prefer to turn a blind eye to reality because their prestige and honor may be damaged.
Hanan,
Some researchers find it difficult to accept the results because of the consequences that movement at speed has on Orit.
Particles moving at a speed faster than light can violate causality.
Think Minkowski spacetime and the light cone.
The speed of light is not just an arbitrary limit. It is a border that sets the world in order. Neutrinos that travel faster than light are tachyon neutrinos and this entails many paradoxes.
And so we look for the mistakes in the experiment, because to the extent that the experiment correlates, it opens the door to a very paradoxical world.
It's not exactly that experimenters are afraid of accepting a new theory. They are afraid to accept a non-causal and paradoxical world.
It's like an experiment will come and violate the principle of conservation of energy or the principle of conservation of momentum.
The speed of light as an upper limit has roughly the same status in physics.
Dear Michael Rothschild -
We all know that you consider yourself a physicist on an international scale and know the occult, not to say omniscient.
I did not talk about the field of UFOs that I am investigating and I did not link it to what I wrote. The very fact that you try to do this, only proves that you are not able to judge findings and information, but are quick to attack the person who brings the information.
Now for your arguments - of course you are wrong. The most important discoveries in the world, were rejected when they were presented: the theory of evolution, the theory of quantum, the theory of relativity, the need for sterility during surgeries (see the story of the life of Zemlweiss), the rejection of the possibility that humans will fly airplanes (two months before the Wright brothers), the rejection of the possibility that rockets will ever be able to detach from the force of gravity of Kdvaa and Kdd.
The world of science has become a world where politics and intrigue dominate, no less than the need for objective and disinterested research...
Hanan
I don't understand how, if you take into account the equations of relativity, a particle with mass can even reach the speed of light - let alone pass it.
Shouldn't its mass reach infinity at the speed of light?
Doesn't it take an infinite amount of energy to bring it to the speed of light?
Wouldn't the principle of causality, according to which a cause precedes the result, be violated if a particle or information passes the speed of light?
In short, if it is proven that there is no mistake in the experiment, and neutrinos with mass exceed the speed of light, and perhaps even by much more than what was measured in the repeated experiment - we can say goodbye to relativity as we know it.
No?
Yaron:
I repeat my words and just add the sensational information that my name is Michael and not Hanan.
No one claimed here that it is known that time is not quantized.
It is only claimed that you do not know what you are talking about and it is easy to understand it from your words.
It is clear that even if time is quantized - the quanta are not of the order of 60 nanoseconds! After all, otherwise we wouldn't be able to measure much shorter periods of time, which we actually measure with great success.
After all, it is also clear that quantized time does not affect the measurement of the time of flight of neutrino particles in a different way than it affects the measurement of the time of flight of other particles - including photons - and all the distance measurements we do using a laser would not work.
I also know a lot more about Mond than you do, but it seems to me that there is no point in arguing between us because you are simply trying to teach others things that you yourself do not know.
Yehuda:
First of all, it makes me happy that when people tell you in a lecture what I have told you many times in the past - then you finally come to the conclusion that you should think again and not attack them.
Regarding how science is progressing - I don't know what you think is "enough" and how much is "too much" and I'm not that interested either.
What is clear to me is his. If it were up to you, science would become pseudo-science.
anonymous:
You can really think - and if you know how to do it, you can understand that the axioms you started from are not correct and the information is open to other people who help the site manager in his management.
No one revealed the impersonator's IP number and the fact that his impersonation (which is prohibited according to the site's procedures) was revealed - he has nothing but himself to blame.
An honest person is not an impostor.
Correction: "the IP addresses"
May I ask how Michael knows the IP addresses of the people who write here?
Shouldn't this be confidential information that only the site owner can see?
And so the second act opens in the opera, which could be a type of comedy of errors or a tragedy (not yet determined) in which our tormented heroes have found some peace of mind and some have sinned.
We will wait for the next campaign
And to remind you, the opera is not over until the fat lady sings.
Hanan:
There was an article in which Annie found it in which an unknown physicist submitted an application for a research grant on the theory of contained time. The Fermi accelerator and another laboratory (in Japan?) repeat the experiment. Is it because they are sure there was a measurement error? No - they start to take into account that maybe the experiment is correct. If space is compact, energy and momentum and all other parameters, why not time? You are watching a movie - are you able to see more than 24 images per second and distinguish them? Here it is about something more absolute.
If time is quantized, then it is lattice (grid, lattice) If it is lattice then the group speed of the wave (because the neutrino is represented by a wave) can exceed the speed of light. I'm not sure the neutrino is faster than light, but I think so
that a great opportunity has opened up here - to get out of stagnation. At least I started to think differently since the experiment. After all, the Michaelson-Morley experiment was done with light and not with neutrinos. When your world is made of particles even smaller than electrons, then what was known in the 20th century to Einstein is not necessarily valid. The general principles of general and special relativity will remain. There is no simultaneity and therefore time shortens/lengthens. The curvature of space and more.
The speed of light is one in every reference system and more.
Regarding modified gravity, do a little search on the net and you will see that there are research papers on it that try to remove the need for dark matter.
Dear Michael
You cannot deny that many times (too many) things go exactly as Hanan Sabat describes them.
It really has nothing to do with alien views or masses and dark energies,
So please don't say I'm saying this because of my opinion on "favorite" dark mass and energy.
And by the way many claimed after my talk that my pressure difference idea is very similar to dark mass despite all the differences. This and that is a mass and both are strange, so this also requires thought from me.
That is why it is desirable that we act with more thought and caution in our determinations.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yosef and Roni Do share the same IP address
Yaron:
Thanks for writing! your opinion is important to us! We will return and read them when there will no longer be material written by people who understand the subject.
Hanan:
Your accusations are false accusations whose entire purpose is to further your alien agenda.
There is no connection here. The whole point is the nature of the measurements and the results.
Of course, it is very likely that there is also a mistake here.
I would like to remind you of what your words are trying to make their readers forget:
The overwhelming majority of the things that the scientists rejected (and the current finding is not rejected for the time being) were really worthy of rejection.
I notice an interesting phenomenon -
Dr. Weinstein presents the fact that there are some researchers who do not accept the results and claim that there may be a mistake or that the experiment is flawed.
The argument that there are particles moving at a speed faster than the speed of light was already raised a few years ago in the research of Prof. Chiao from Berkeley, but he does not have connections and funding like Bezern, so his experiments were pushed back and no one mentioned them.
In the above case, politics is at play and now all the credits are given to the current laboratories.
Institutionalized science and mainstream science find it difficult to accept new theories or arguments that contradict their established world picture. There is no issue here of scientific truth and the freedom of science, but ego games, money, prestige and politics.
What is happening these days is a wonderful example of the way in which revolutionary and unusual information is accepted in the mainstream of science. Although the current experiments are just beginning (if we continue to ignore Prof. Chiao and other research laboratories who have been claiming this for almost a decade), here is a summary of the steps on the way to receiving the new argument:
1. The denial stage - the basic research is denied, they try to find flaws in it at all costs, sometimes they pour fire and brimstone on the researchers and of course some accuse the researchers of frivolity, mistakes, lack of knowledge, ignorance and even forgeries.
2. The stage of trying to prove the mistake - after a while, when the initial information is confirmed again and again, some of the deniers of the argument stand up and agree to examine it themselves, or at least to examine the experiment, if only to disprove its results, so that it does not disrupt their worldview.
3. The credit phase - Finally, when it turns out that the new theory is correct, everyone jumps in as one man and everyone tries to take the credit for himself, arguing that he was the first to claim in the first place that the experiments are correct and the theory is correct.
Expected, familiar and repeated, every time mainstream science was faced with a revolutionary breakthrough or discovery...
Hanan Sabat
The explanation is that time is compressed in low length scales and therefore the oil is a lattice and therefore the group speed of the neutrino wave can be faster than the speed of light.
Even if this turns out to be true, this does not undermine general relativity and the Big Bang, but rather seek a more complete theory. The principles of general relativity:
The curvature of space-time, the drift of space-time with the masses, invariance between accelerated motion and "slow" rotational motion - all this will not change. What will change? The dark matter thing, which I don't think exists, the modified gravity thing, which I think an explanation will be found for, and more.
It can be described that among the signatories there are researchers who objected to the results, but who would prevent themselves from being a signatory to a historical document (even if there is only a 10% chance that it will turn out in the end that this is indeed a historical document, it is still worth signing).
I disagree with Yosef. stories do you want? Read Harry Potter.
An interesting and good article on a difficult topic.
Thanks Glee.
Yosferoni (who responds to all your articles) generally wants to tell you how much he loves you, but he doesn't know how.
15 researchers out of 180 are not satisfied... (a little more than 8%).
margin of error much smaller and better than 10 nano out of 60. (almost 17%)
To Danny
About the same as the probability that they will find out in the end that the "unruly neutrinos" are not faster than light,
That is, very high.
There is an interval of 90 seconds between Yosef and Roni Sugarman, at 2 o'clock in the morning.
What is the probability that Yosef is also Roni?
To Yosef and Roni
There are many literary sites where you can read beautiful literature.
But here it is a scientific site and Gali does a faithful job.
Meanwhile what is important is what about the results of the experiment.
And for you I will quote what I think the well-known English writer William Shakespeare would have said about the experiment in captain:
Tu C Or Not Tu C, that's the question!
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I agree with Joseph. There is no lack of writers!
Your writing, Gali Weinstein, is terribly boring and uninformative.
My apologies: things can be described in a much more narrative, pictorial and interesting way. For some reason you choose to flatten the facts you focus on in a dry and boring way. Every little one knows how to do that. You chose to write about science, right? If you don't do research - at least write about research in an interesting way and not like a stock market survey.