Decoding cosmological data could shed light on neutrinos, modified gravity

Jan 17, 2012 by Lisa Zyga feature
This Hubble Ultra-Deep Field image of the distant universe contains approximately 10,000 galaxies. Image credit: NASA and the ESA

(PhysOrg.com) -- Today’s most powerful telescopes collect huge amounts of data from the most distant locations of the universe – yet much of the information is simply discarded because it involves small length scales that are difficult to model. In an effort to waste less data from cosmological surveys, a team of scientists has developed a new technique that allows researchers to use otherwise unusable data by "clipping" some of the highest density peaks, which present the greatest challenge to models. This data could provide a way to address some unsolved problems in physics, including estimating the neutrino mass and investigating theories of modified gravity.

The scientists, Fergus Simpson, Alan Heavens, and Catherine Heymans from the University of Edinburgh, and J. Berian James from the Dark Cosmology Centre in Copenhagen, Denmark, and the University of California, Berkeley, have published their study in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters.

“The pattern formed by galaxies in our is often referred to as the cosmic web, as it bears some resemblance to the structures seen in an intricate spider web,” Simpson told PhysOrg.com. “Within the detailed nature of this pattern is encoded various pieces of information regarding the composition of the Universe, the conditions in the early Universe, and the laws of gravity. However, when we try to study the fine detail on ‘small’ scales (around 100 million light years or less), it appears to be very unpredictable since the Universe is particularly lumpy on these scales, so the physics becomes very complex and nonlinear. In other words, we don't know how to decode that information, and it's particularly frustrating since most of the useful information is buried in these smaller scales.”

In an attempt to decode this small-scale data, the researchers developed the density “clipping” technique, which makes the data accessible to modeling.

“By applying a simple correction to the very densest regions of a simulated patch of the Universe, just 0.1% of the volume, we found that this removes most of this unpredictable behavior,” Simpson said. “We have now demonstrated that a great deal of information from these smaller scales can be successfully extracted.”

He explained that this extra data could prove useful for scientists studying a wide range of areas, such as calculating a better estimate of the neutrino mass.

“It is these ‘small’ cosmological scales that neutrinos are thought to have influenced in the early Universe, at a time when they were travelling very close to the speed of light,” he said. “The extent of their influence depends on how much time they spent at these very high speeds, which in turn is determined by their mass. So it's possible that our technique will allow the neutrino masses to be determined from the distribution of galaxies.

“Neutrinos can tell us about fundamental physics as well as cosmology. In the Standard Model of particle physics, do not have mass, so neutrino masses tell us about extensions of the Standard Model. In principle, measurements from cosmology can be significantly more precise than laboratory experiments.”

In addition, the small-scale data enables researchers to better understand the relationship between galaxies and , which could potential lead to methods for investigating theories of modified gravity with observations.

“The discovery that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating has led many cosmologists to wonder if this is an indication that the laws of gravity need to be modified,” Simpson said. “If there is some new gravitational physics, it is expected to change the rate at which dark matter clusters together. A major difficulty in measuring the dark matter's behavior is that we don't know how the distribution of galaxies (which is what we can measure directly) relates to the distribution of dark matter. In our study we demonstrated that our technique allows the relationship between galaxies and dark matter (‘galaxy bias’) to be determined with much greater accuracy. Once the galaxy bias is known, we can determine how fast the dark matter has been clustering, and see whether that matches our expectation from Einstein's laws of gravity.”

Explore further: Thermoelectric power plants could offer economically competitive renewable energy

More information: Fergus Simpson, et al. “Clipping the Cosmos: The Bias and Bispectrum of Large Scale Structure.” Physical Review Letters 107, 271301 (2011). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.271301

Journal reference: Physical Review Letters search and more info website

4.8 /5 (13 votes)

Related Stories

Mapping dark matter from galactic ripples

Jan 09, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Sukanya Chakrabarti, Ph.D., an assistant professor of physics for the Charles E. Schmidt College of Science at Florida Atlantic University, has developed a way to discover and map dark matter in galaxies. ...

Could primordial black holes be dark matter?

Sep 21, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- “We know that about 25% of the matter in the universe is dark matter, but we don’t know what it is,” Michael Kesden tells PhysOrg.com. “There are a number of different theories about what da ...

Light from galaxy clusters confirms theory of relativity

Sep 28, 2011

All observations in astronomy are based on light emitted from stars and galaxies and, according to the general theory of relativity, the light will be affected by gravity. At the same time all interpretations ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 104

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Callippo
1.8 / 5 (11) Jan 17, 2012
neutrinos do not have mass, so neutrino masses tell us about extensions of the Standard Model
Such interpretation may become confusing, because by recent observations the rest mass of neutrinos could negative or even imaginary due the superluminal speed of neutrinos from relativistic perspective. Because we know, the neutrinos must have nonzero rest mass for being able to oscillate because of quantum mechanics, we could derive two different, if not dual interpretations of the same observations depending on the ratio of relativity and quantum mechanics postulates used in its derivation. It's similar experience like the so-called complementarity of black holes. If we would average both these approaches, the Standard model could even remain unchanged and remain fuzzy regarding these extrapolations in similar way, like it's fuzzy already with respect to predictions of Higgs boson mass.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2012
Sub: Cosmological Index
Search origins- Cosmology Vedas Interlinks.
Cosmic Function within the Universe - helps Astronomy to catch-up with Cosmology- East West perception to Space Vision
Knowledge Base enlightens to Knowledge - expansion.
Cosmic Consciousness helps present day Cosmology to Revise - in time.
http://vidyardhic...spot.com
brt
1.9 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2012
Please allow me to make an analogy.

In acoustics, you call clipping the wave of information: distortion. and before some loser flies in to pull out a self-esteem boosting "but acoustics has different physical properties"; shut up. shut your stupid mouth. you know very well what i mean. Wave mechanics are wave mechanics. so, in acoustics, you distort the sound wave by clipping the GLB trough(sp) and LUB peak. Everything should ideally look like elliptical funtions. Sound carries information as does anything which carries energy; when you intentionally leave out information in order to have what you observe match what you predicted, we call that distorting reality. Lucky for us, reality and information are the same thing so you'll understand me when I thank these 4 physicists for standing up to the bat$!*t crazy methodology of their peers' arrogant psyche.

happy new year
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2012
Could you please tell us what you really think?

It was your first post after all.

Ethelred
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2012
The more I study neutrinos, the more it appears that while apparently having no "rest mass" & traveling at lightspeed, they are really "low frequency" photons.

I suggest they are low frequency photons because their apparent energy level is so low that they can be detected as particles (photons) rather than detected withinin a specific wavelength of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Possibly if the frequency were just a little lower they would transform back into matter.
Graeme
5 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2012
well having no rest mass is not very compatible with neutrino oscillations. Unless oscillations can only occur as neutrinos propagate though matter. Perhaps analogous to polarization of light rotating as it goes though some asymmetric materials like quartz.

This would be testable by seeing if the length for oscillation depended on the material, eg water or rock.
Benni
1.2 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2012
well having no rest mass is not very compatible with neutrino oscillations. Unless oscillations can only occur as neutrinos propagate though matter. Perhaps analogous to polarization of light rotating as it goes though some asymmetric materials like quartz.

This would be testable by seeing if the length for oscillation depended on the material, eg water or rock.


Problem here is that "neutrino oscillation" is completely dependent on the speculation that neutrinos have "rest mass". It is not possible for neutrinos of any flavor to have "rest mass" if they travel at lightspeed.

Anything I know about neutrinos from a course in basic nuclear reactor design, is they travel at lightspeed & from that I conclude neutrinos are energy. Do you have knowledge neutrinos travel at less than lightspeed? We didn't get into a real in depth discussion of particle physics in that course, so I'll accede to your apparent greater knowledge in this area.
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2012
There are several experiments that show that neutrinos oscillate. The 1987A supernova neutrino detections strongly implied that they move at little below light speed. Not much, just a little.

More experiments are being done but at present the idea that neutrinos have no mass simply isn't a good fit with the evidence.

Neutrinos are energy of course but they seem to have an actual rest mass but it is so tiny and they are so bloody hard to detect in the first place it will be a while before we have any resembling a definite answer.

Sometimes the right answer is we don't know. Sometimes it is we are not sure but it looks this way for now. Occasionally it is YES THAT IS IT, within the limits of observation and peanuts may have been processed on the same equipment.

Ethelred
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2012
Neutrinos are energy of course but they seem to have an actual rest mass ........Ethelred


Not possible, "rest mass" cannot exist at lightspeed. Just because energy has a gravity field, this is not evidence energy of any frequency has "rest mass", only that energy has mass at lightspeed but is never classified as "rest mass".
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2012
Not possible, "rest mass" cannot exist at lightspeed.
Since they don't seem to reach light speed that isn't a problem.

You seem to have misunderstood something else. MATTER/ENERGY ENERGY/MATTER either way. Photons are not the only thing that is energy. ALL matter is energy. They are equivalent.

And low frequency photons can't penetrate the Earth. Neutrinos can and do. Photons are electromagnetic and WILL interact with charged particles such as protons and electrons. So neutrinos cannot be photons. Sorry but you were just wrong that.

Neutrinos may be massless BUT the evidence is that they have mass.

Particles with rest mass cannot REACH light speed. Neutrinos don't seem to.

http://en.wikiped...ervatory

http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/

And I could post links to SuperKamiokande but you could do that yourself.

Ethelred
Ianerino
2.3 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2012
Ok, so I've been reading Physorg or quite some time and have just decided to register and start posting comments here so please go easy on me if I am missing knowledge that would help my understanding. With regards the above comments;
1. Does the fact that light can be bent by gravity (black hole and galaxy lensing) mean that it must have some negligable mass? as I understand it, photons are somewhere between a particle and a wave? and particles usually have mass?
2. The recent experiments that seem to show neutrinos moving faster than light, could this be because neutrinos actually have even less mass than photons and do not like to interact with mass and therfore also gravity? i.e. do neutrinos get "lensed" by black holes and galaxies?
3. Could Einstein have been wrong in suggesting light is the fastest thing in the universe? perhaps neutrinos are?
That should do for starters, I hope you can follow my thinking there.

E.
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2012
Does the fact that light can be bent by gravity (black hole and galaxy lensing) mean that it must have some negligable mass?
Yes, this is correct insight. In AWT (aether wave theory based on dense aether model) the photons are massive, until they're of wavelength shorter, than the wavelength of CMBR.
and particles usually have mass?
Yes, special relativity is valid only for "pure" waves, which actually don't exist at nature. In AWT the microwave light is a mixture of photons with positive and negative mass, so its behavior is rather close to the pure wave.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2012
could this be because neutrinos actually have even less mass than photons and do not like to interact with mass and therefore also gravity
In AWT the neutrinos are solitons of longitudinal waves of vacuum (gravitational waves), whereas photons are solitons of transverse waves. Most of photons dependencies are just as reversed for neutrinos. Neutrinos interact with mass and gravity, but very slightly and they're supposed to being rather attracted to places with negative curvature of space-time (i.e. Lagrangian points), rather than to massive bodies. The mass of neutrinos is slightly positive for low energy neutrinos over slightly negative for middle energy neutrinos (more energetic than CMBR photons) to positive again for high energy neutrinos. I.e. I presume the superluminal behavior of neutrinos is constrained to certain range of neutrino energies only.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2012
Could Einstein have been wrong in suggesting light is the fastest thing in the universe? perhaps neutrinos are?
In AWT the gravitational waves are definitely way faster than the neutrinos, at least 10.000x faster than the light. They're spreading in extradimensions of vacuum i.e. in analogous way, like the sound waves of underwater ignore the water surface. They manifest itself with changes of CMBR noise intensity and with their long distance shielding effects around massive bodies. But gravitational waves aren't real observable waves in AWT, as they manifest with CMBR noise only, i.e. in indeterministic way (we cannot locate their source, for example). In this sense, the neutrinos of medium energy range still remain the fastest observable objects of deterministic nature (i.e. localizable particles of defined center of mass and finite curvature of surface).
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2012
neutrinos actually have even less mass than photons
For lightweight particles, like the photons and neutrinos in particular the concept of mass is blurred due the violation of equivalence principle - ever the particles of positive inertia can have negative gravitational mass and vice versa here. It's because the space-time is not completely flat, so even the pure harmonic transverse wave has a certain gravitational mass and vice-versa: even the well balanced mixture of particles and antiparticles of zero gravity is propagating slower, than the pure wave through it and it exhibits a positive inertia. We can see the analogy of this violation at the Alexander's dark band between primary and secondary rainbows at the rainy sky: the light is not dispersed toward lower or higher wavelengths, nevertheless it's still dispersed from there, so that this band appears darker. http://en.wikiped...r's_band
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2012
And low frequency photons can't penetrate the Earth.

Ethelred


How low in frequency would you care me to go to disqualify this statement?

Let's count a few photon frequencies that do just what you state photons cannot do:

1. Infrared frequency (heat) photons radiate from Earth's core all the way to the surface, a distance of 10-12000 miles.

2. Ground penetrating radar photons are used by archaeologists & the military to locate objects buried up to several hundred feet beneath the Earth's surface. Radio waves (photons) are similar.

3. The magnetic flux field generated by Earth's rotating iron core must travel the distance from the core to emerge from the surface, wrap itself around the surface & re-enter it back to the core again forming N-S poles. Those electro-magnetic lines(photons) are about the lowest frequency electro-magnetic waves (photons) we know of.

Want to change your mind?
Benni
2.2 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2012
In AWT the gravitational waves are definitely way faster than the neutrinos, at least 10.000x faster than the light.

How do you surmise this? What is your empirical evidence?

The fact that Earth's orbital trajectory follows the true position of the sun as opposed to the 8.3 light minute retarded image of the sun is proof only of "conservation of momentum", not speed of so-called gravity waves which can't be proven to exist. How did you locate that "gravity wave" & measure it's speed?
Cave_Man
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2012
OMFG GET IT, BEFORE IT GETS YOU!
rawa1
1.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2012
How do you surmise this? What is your empirical evidence?
It's explained here http://aetherwave...ves.html In AWT vacuum is particle environment and inside of every particle environment the energy is spreading in two kinds of waves: transverse and longitudinal. Light waves are transverse, so that gravitational waves are longitudinal, analogous to sound waves, which are spreading beneath the water surface. Sound waves manifest with indeterministic noise at the water surface only, analogous to CMBR noise in vacuum. So that the CMBR noise can serve as an experimental evidence of gravitational waves. The changes of its intensity would serve as an evidence of the passage of gravitational waves from explosions of distant black holes, eclipses of remote galaxies etc. Gravitational waves could be located only if we would detect the changes in radiation of remote objects, like the distant pulsars which will change speed of rotation.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2012
And low frequency photons can't penetrate the Earth.
The very low frequency radiowaves tend to behave like the gravitational waves - actually the more, the lower their wavelength is. As such they should propagate faster than the visible light and they should be quite penetrative. In AWT the Universe should appear collapsing instead of expanding when being observed in radiowaves. Radiowaves should exhibit some anomalous behaviour too, for example negative pressure of radiation. Such behaviour would serve as a confirmation of AWT. Because of long-wavelength photons are dispersed with CMBR radiation fast, they're unstable and we should consider them as a tachyons.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (23) Jan 20, 2012
but they seem to have an actual rest mass
- Ethelred

How so?

Playstation physics models don't count as evidence and you should know better than to use Wikipedia as a reference.

rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2012
Neutrinos are energy of course but they seem to have an actual rest mass
The non-zero rest mass of neutrinos manifests with many ways, for example with the fact, they can transfer the momentum during nuclear reactions and they're undergo neutrino oscillations. Dense aether model has no problem with massive tachyons, which could be modelled like so-called Falaco solitons at the water surface.
http://www.youtub...wZ39EDmw
These solitons deform the water surface, so they appear massive, but most of their energy resides in extradimensions of water surface (i.e. in underwater), so they behave like particles of imaginary rest mass, i.e. the tachyons. Note that the Falaco solitons are always moving faster than the surface waves, whereas the normal Russell's solitons (which correspond the normal photons) are always move somewhat slower, than the surface waves. You can even observe a sign of Falaco solitons oscillation in the above video, analogous to neutron oscillation.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2012
In brief, every artifact, which we can observe at the water surface is possible in AWT too. Real vacuum is indeed a much more richer (we could model it with surface of condensing supercritical fluid, which has a character of nested particle fluctuations) - but these low dimensional analogies should work reliably. http://www.aether...cal2.gif
Mainstream theories have problem with description of these phenomena, because they're - illustratively speaking - using to describe the space-time (water surface) from perspective of underwater waves (quantum mechanics) or strictly surface waves (general relativity). These two approaches cannot be mixed mutually. Now the mainstream physicists are living in certain schizophrenia: they're expecting the existence of extra-dimensions, but they don't want to change/adopt the existing theories with respect to these extradimensions. It indeed introduces a fuzziness into whole contemporary physics.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2012
1. Does the fact that light can be bent by gravity (black hole and galaxy lensing) mean that it must have some negligable mass?
No. though it does have mass in the form of energy as energy and mass are equivalent. Light isn't actually bent, it is following the curvature of space-time. At least that is according to General Relativity and that is very solid theory of gravity.

as I understand it, photons are somewhere between a particle and a wave? and particles usually have mass?
It wouldn't be much of a particle without mass. Photons can be looked at as either a particle or a wave depending on what you are testing for. However the actual math in most cases with photons is wave based.

2. The recent experiments that seem to show neutrinos moving faster than light
Interesting but doubtful at present. REALLY interesting if true.>>
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2012
Somewhat paradoxial fact is, just the string theorists, who are promoting extradimensions are most dismissive regarding the their applications into existing theories. It's because the (derivations of) string theories are itself based on relativity and quantum theories - so they need to maintain these theories unchanged as long, as possible. In this sense, just the young physicists, who are waiting for confirmation of their theories developed at the end of 80's of the last century are most conservative with respect the modifications of QM and GR. Whereas elderly physicists (like the Weinberg or Penrose) are more opened to change of the fundamental theories, because they know, they cannot derive substantial from these modifications anyway. We are facing a sorta generation inversion here: the older physicists are more radical, then these younger ones.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2012
could this be because neutrinos actually have even less mass than photons and do not like to interact with mass and therfore also gravity?
Neutrinos definitely don't interact with much. There is no reason to think they are affected by gravity since gravity is the curvature of space and really isn't a force in the same sense as electro-magnetism. We know they have SOMETHING like mass because they oscillate and they could not do that if they move at the speed of light. IF some neutrinos actually move faster than C I can see at least one way of looking at them. There is a theoretical particle, the tachyon, that can only move FASTER than C. If anything can tunnel through the limit of C then a neutrino would be an ideal candidate as its rest mass seems to be exceeding close to zero but not quite zero. We know it oscillates flavor. Its mass is so low it MUST be Uncertain with a capital U.

It is likely the superluminal evidence is a mistake but we will see what comes out in the future>
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2012
Light isn't actually bent, it is following the curvature of space-time.
This is a stance of general relativity, which considers, observer always resides INSIDE of gravitational lens, so he is deformed with the space-time together with his time and space measures. Unfortunately every observer at the sufficient distance from gravity lens applies rather the perspective of quantum mechanics, which neglects the gravity and it describes the space-time deformations from OUTSIDE. Everyone can see, it's the path of light, which is bending under such an situation, not the space-time which remains flat at the place of observer. If we would travel into gravity lens to make sure about your perspective, the gravitational lensing would actually disappear there. So we can see, the relativity and gravitational lensing are actually mutually exclusive phenomena at the logical level - although just the relativity is the theory, which enables to describe lensing deterministically.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2012
In AWT there is a general duality between logical and formal approach, because formal approach is always based on the assumption of many logical theorems, so that N-1/N duality applies here. It just means, if we deduce some theorem with using of more than single logical assumptions, then this theorem becomes violate each of these assumptions at its logical level soon or later. It's because every theorem contradicts the other theorems in less or more distant perspective - if it wouldn't, we could substitute and replace them both with single theorem. In this way every formal theory becomes fundamentally wrong at its logical level, because it's based on postulates, which are inconsistent mutually. If they wouldn't, we couldn't derive anything from such a theory, or it would change into tautology. I'm explaining it here http://aetherwave...eas.html
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2012
i.e. do neutrinos get "lensed" by black holes and galaxies?
They should be. They are so bloody hard to detect it will require a lot of luck to find out. One way would for a really big supernova to go off behind a super cluster of galaxies in such a way that neutrinos passing to one side would be delayed in comparison to those going to the other side. Catch is I am pretty sure there is only case of neutrinos being associated with a supernova and that is 1987A which was quite close.

Link to page on neutrinos detected from 1987A
http://www.astrop...87a.html

It may not be possible to detect neutrinos from the other side of a supercluster of galaxies. Just too far away.

http://arxiv.org/...81v1.pdf

Even proposed detectors won't be good enough for gravitation lensing. The best will still be limited to our own galaxy which leaves out gravitational lenses large enough to matter.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2012
This has been updated recently, two days ago, and has rather interesting stuff related your question. Interesting to me anyway.
http://en.wikiped...illation

3. Could Einstein have been wrong in suggesting light is the fastest thing in the universe?
Yes. But since I hope he was wrong I have to take my preferences into account. So far no one has transmitted a single bit faster then C and neutrinos are a VERY lousy candidate for data transmission at any speed.

Zephir, have you figured out why you can't have fluctuations in density if you insist you have infinite density? If not then you might as well ignore my posts because you are still full of crap until then. Go Crank at someone else. You cannot have 'predicates logics' if you have so little logic you can't see the problem with your two main postulates both of which are utter crap.

Ethelred
rawa1
1 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2012
So far no one has transmitted a single bit faster then C
It's not true, for example Gunter Nimtz transfered the 40th symphony of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart 4.7 times faster than light due to the effect of quantum tunneling. Later some superluminal transfer of information at distance has been reported in Nature.
http://www.physor...675.html
have you figured out why you can't have fluctuations in density if you insist you have infinite density
I explained it already here in many ways, but you're unable to absorb any new information. Your ignorance of all faster-than-light experiments just illustrates it, because they were published in reviewed journals and every physicists should know about it. Fractal curve has no distance/scale limit, albeit it contains density fluctuations at each level. The system of nested black holes has an infinite density, but at each level remains finite. And so on.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2012
Playstation physics models don't count as evidence and you should know better than to use Wikipedia as a reference
I have no idea where you got Playstation shit from. Neutrinos oscillate therefor they MUST have mass

IF they had no mass they would only exist at the speed of light, just as photons do. At that speed photons, and anything else at that speed, do not experience time and thus cannot oscillate.

And your thinking on Wikipedia is silly. Almost as silly as thinking I rely on it. I USE it as it is often correct. Far more often, for instance, than dictionaries are with technical definitions

Wikipedia sucks at some things. It has some problems in physics and hardly any in math. If politics or religion are involved then it can be just as iffy as anything else where idiots can get their mits on it. Try reading the discussions of the physics wikis. I learned a lot about neutrinos that way. Well, a lot considering how little about them is solid and I can't do the math

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2012
Just as idiotic as ever.

http://www.physor...675.html

Not one bit of information was transmitted at greater than C. You can't learn anything when your brain is full of shit like fluctuations in the density of things that are infinitely dense.

I only know one thing that is remotely close to infinite density and that is Zephir. Well Oliver is equally dense but I haven't seen him here lately.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2012
How low in frequency would you care me to go to disqualify this statement?
You can go as low as you like. If you have a wavelength longer than the Earth THEN it could go AROUND the Earth but not through it. To much EM going on in the core.

1. Infrared frequency (heat) photons radiate from Earth's core all the way to the surface, a distance of 10-12000 miles.
No they don't. That is convection and conduction.

2. Ground penetrating radar photons are used by archaeologists & the military to locate objects buried up to several hundred feet beneath the Earth's surface. Radio waves (photons) are similar.
That is strangely put for an engineer. Ground penetrating radar IS radio. They attenuate rapidly in the ground. Quite unlike what neutrinos do, travelling from the core of the Sun through the Earth and then, rather rarely as a percentage, get detected.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2012
3. The magnetic flux field generated by Earth's rotating iron core must travel the distance from the core to emerge from the surface,
Its a field not a wave.

Want to change your mind?
Not from anything you just wrote. I was aware of the second and the first and third are both wrong.

You missed one. We send radio waves to subs. They still attenuate and still don't behave like neutrinos. They can be be redirected along conductors and effected by magnetic fields. Neutrinos don't care about EM at all.

Read the links I posted for Ianerino on neutrinos and especially the page on 1987A. They just aren't photons. They are fermions, photons are bosons.

http://en.wikiped.../Fermion

http://en.wikiped...ki/Boson

Ethelred
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2012
Its a field not a wave.

Ethelred

Just this quote from you convinces me how little you really understand electricity & magnetism. I learned the subject matter from many semesters of physics, thermodynamics, electricity & magnetism, electronics circuit design, chemistry, and more. The rest of the world is beyond the days of your sliderule & outside the walls of your retirement enclave.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2012
Just this quote from you convinces me how little you really understand electricity & magnetism.
Thats OK Benni. I know you have some odd problem with me that isn't based anything rational. This is just one more indicator.

I learned the subject matter from many semesters of physics, thermodynamics, electricity & magnetism, electronics circuit design, chemistry, and more.
Then why didn't you notice that ground penetrating radar IS radio? You don't seem to have any of the training you claim.

The rest of the world is beyond the days of your sliderule & outside the walls of your retirement enclave.
You really have a problem that is completely irrational.

I have been using computers for longer than you have been alive. I am not retired and you continuing to make that false claim after I told you were wrong about that makes you just another liar on the site.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2012
You need to take a good look at just what the hell you are thinking of every time you see my posts. You go completely irrational. Assuming you aren't that way all the time.

I have yet to see anything from you that doesn't look like a sullen kid that hasn't had a single physics class and is pissed that he has been found out. If you can't stand my knowing that about you then it might be best for you to ignore me. Like I mostly ignore Zephir. Mostly.

Now read the links and get a clue about neutrinos.

Ethelred
bluehigh
1 / 5 (24) Jan 20, 2012
@Ethelred

Okay. Motor mouth. Clearly your brain is not in gear. The only shit spraying here is you relying on Wikipedia to support a weak argument. I am surprised that you don't have a background in Physics and rely on bluster to support your specious nonsense.

No proof exist that Neutrinos have any rest mass. If Ethelred, you disagree then you should provide a reference rather than a second hand opinion. Playstation physics is when you use math models to validate speculation in the absence of empirical evidence. You disappoint me, I thought you more capable but now I know you have no math education and rely on wikis for your knowledge of physics. You it seems are just another sad buffoon, who at best is an uneducated pretender.

Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2012
Okay. Motor mouth.
Fingers. Fingers not mouth. I am thinking about buying Dragon Naturally but, at present, I still use ten fingers.

The only shit spraying here is you relying on Wikipedia to support a weak argument.
Show where I had a weak argument. I am always amazed at the way people think that all they have to do is CLAIM an argument is weak without actually showing what was wrong. You never seem to learn better. You have done this before. Try learning this time.

I am surprised that you don't have a background in Physics and rely on bluster to support your specious nonsense.
Speaking of bluster I think you just hit a high mark. I have background in physics. I don't have a degree and I suck at the math. I have never claimed otherwise.

No proof exist that Neutrinos have any rest mass.
Very few physicists are going to agree with you on that. They oscillate.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2012
If Ethelred, you disagree then you should provide a reference rather than a second hand opinion.
I did. I did NOT just post a link to Wikipedia.

Playstation physics is when you use math models to validate speculation in the absence of empirical evidence.
You haven't even done that. Do read the links.

You disappoint me,
You are disappointing me. I expected an unsupported rant and that is what you are doing, I hoped for the best but you did the worst. SOMETIMES you make good posts. This not one of them. Kind of like ModernMystic that way only you keep your temper better.

I thought you more capable but now I know you have no math education
False. I have some. Just not enough for physics. Maybe after I turn 70 and don't have to work. Or maybe that will be at 80.

and rely on wikis for your knowledge of physics.
I don't. I am presently reading A Universe From Nothing. I read about one science book a month. Maybe closer to every three weeks.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2012
You it seems are just another sad buffoon, who at best is an uneducated pretender.
My that was a hypocritical rant.

Where was the stunning evidence that supports you?
The brilliant reasoning?
The beautiful math?
Or at least a single link to a physics site.

Like this one that I posted despite your LIE that it was all second hand.
http://www.astrop...87a.html

I am sorry that you don't understand what neutrino oscillation means in regards to their mass but even Oliver K. Manuel understands that. That is why he goes ballistic anytime he sees the word oscillate.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2012
Not one bit of information was transmitted at greater than C
Here we can read "Physicists spooked by faster-than-light information transfer". The source is Nature News, the most throughly reviewed journal at the world. So please, stop BS'ing me and another readers here. The people like you cannot convince me at all.

http://www.nature...038.html

Like I mostly ignore Zephir. Mostly.
The parroting of forty years old textbooks cannot impress anyone here. What I could learn from you? Your thinking already belongs into last century. Not only you missed the AWT completely - but you're even openly denying the experimental results of mainstream physics. This is what the religious conservatism is called.
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2012
@Callippo - you missed the word 'if' in the article:
"the team concluded that IF the photons had communicated, they must have done so at least 100,000 times faster than the speed of light".
"Spooky action at a distance" (quantum entanglement) has never been shown to transmit information at faster than the speed of light.

@Bluehigh - there is no DIRECT experimental evidence that neutrinos have rest mass, but oscillation is indirect evidence as follows:
IF relativity holds true (and it seems to be doing well so far) and IF the neutrino oscillation is a change to the neutrino itself (and I haven't yet seen anything else proposed), then Ethelred is correct that oscillation implies mass because otherwise neutrinos wouldn't experience time and thus could not change.
(While it is evidence I would agree that it is not proof - I can imagine other explanations for oscillation of the flavor detected that do not involve the neutrino itself changing).
bluehigh
1 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2012
@RealScience

Indeed and its good that you outlined the reasoning for speculation that Neutrinos have 'rest mass'. Do consider they do not actually exist 'at rest'. Just a math abstraction. Nothing more. The only mass Neutrinos are known to have in reality is the energy associated with velocity.

bluehigh
1 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2012
@Ethelred

You must know that the concept of Photons and Neutrinos have 'rest mass' is a mathematical derivation. Neither of these 'wave packets' actually exist 'at rest'.

For you to say to someone 'you are still full of crap ' invites my criticism of your comments as 'spraying shit' because its clear, in this case, that you are just guessing. Reading a bit of second hand info on Wikipedia does not constitute being informed.

Its likely that as you get older your flexibility in evaluating new concepts is diminished. With so much intellectual investment over years of reading Wikipedia and Physics for Dummies books, you are reluctant to accept change. Perhaps you are what is commonly called 'narrow minded'.

Sometimes you too have something worthwhile to contribute, however you might want to try remain teachable, especially when out of your depth. The thousand word limit and flood control it seems are not so effective in moderating 'motor fingers'.

Yawn, your turn ...
RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2012
@bluehigh - for photons you are correct that they don't actually exist at rest, but I haven't seen any modern physicist suggest that they do.

For neutrinos it is NOT YET KNOWN whether they can exist at rest. Previous to the Cern-to-Gran-Sasso experiment the only evidence, oscillation, suggested that they do have rest mass and thus should be able to exist at rest.
But again, there could be other explanations for oscillation, and based on Gran Sasso neutrinos could conceivably be tachyons that would have the INVERSE of rest mass, which would raise the question of what means by 'rest' mass as inverse-rest-mass would behave similarly but the particle could never be at rest.

In any case, until Gran Sasso is explained there is no evidence that neutrinos do NOT exist at rest, either.
Fortunately these are exciting times for understanding neutrinos - in a few years we may actually have strong evidence one way or another!
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2012
Few another links: NASA's faster than light communication system:

http://www.univer...an-light]http://www.univer...an-light[/url] http://www.wired....08/niac/

Device Makes Radio Waves Travel Faster Than Light:

http://www.univer...an-light]http://www.univer...an-light[/url]

Why the people here are BS'ing and downvoting the things, which can be found in few minutes of Goggling at the sites of peer-reviewed respectable journals? This is what intrigues me.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2012
"Spooky action at a distance" (quantum entanglement) has never been shown to transmit information at faster than the speed of light.
Never say never... Experiments done with single photons in the early 1990s showed that single photons pass through a photonic tunnel barrier with a group velocity faster than the vacuum speed of light. Another paradoxical result, known as the Hartman effect, is that the tunneling time of the photons becomes independent of barrier length in the limit of opaque barriers. In these experiments the photons were observed to tunnel faster than light and the whole 40th symphony of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart has been transferred 4.7 times faster than light http://arxiv.org/...08.0681.

You apparently missed the last forty years of physics.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2012
What Happened Before the Big Bang? The New Philosophy of Cosmology http://www.theatl.../251608/

In Aether Wave Theory based on dense aether model the Hubble red shift and notion of Big Bang arises from dispersion of light with tiny density fluctuations of vacuum and the Universe is essentially eternal. http://aetherwave...ory.html
RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2012
@Callippo - Thank you for sending links.
Neither paper uses entanglement, which my comment was specific to (I think that I understand entanglement as well as anyone, but I am not active in tunneling research).

Regardless, according to the Nimtz link, no information arrived at the receiver SOONER than information taking a LIGHT-SPEED route that did not go across the gap. The Singleton link also does NOT say that information HAS BEEN transmitted faster than light (although the author clearly thinks that the device will lead to that).

But I should be more precise:
I have read the results of many evanescent wave and tunneling experiments as well as many entanglement experiments, and I have NOT YET seen one where information arrives at the receiver sooner than the shortest at-light-speed-in-a-vacuum path from transmitter to receiver.
(And I am not saying that there never will be such a result, either. Gran Sasso's neutrinos could turn into one.)

Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2012
Neither paper uses entanglement, which my comment was specific to
How can you explain, after then, the same article is discussed with Scientific American as a "Entanglement clocks in at 10,000 times faster than light"? You not only have NO IDEA, what happens in contemporary physics - but you're not even able to recognize it, when you get a direct link. It's difficult to discuss such a findings with people like you after then.
..no information arrived at the receiver SOONER than information taking a LIGHT-SPEED route that did not go across the gap..
It's the same situation - the whole article is labeled here so http://www.aei.mp...ftl.html - but you "cannot recognize" it. It's not my problem - I'm giving you sources for my opinion, you provided none. Why the opinion of some anonymous trolls on the web should be favored over well referenced informations of peer-reviewed journals? Such stance would have no meaning for me.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2012
Another question is, if you understand dense aether model and if you can understand, it allows the exchange of information with superluminal speed. For example, in AWT the space-time can be modelled with 2D water surface and the energy/information is mediated there with two kinds of waves: the transverse waves, which correspond the light waves in vacuum - and the underwater longitudinal ones, which correspond the gravitational waves in vacuum and which always spread a way faster. Do you understand this analogy? It's a physics of Victorian era.
RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2012
@Callippo - Please CAREFULLY read what both I and the papers say, and use what the papers say to argue with what I say rather than using something else in a paper to argue with something other than what I said.

Nimtz says that information arrived at the receiver AT THE SAME TIME as information sent on the route that did not bridge the gap (a light-speed route). Singleton did not send information.

Although the effect of measuring one parameter of one particle of an entangled pair means that the other entangled particle's equivalent parameter is no longer undetermined faster than light could pass between them, no paper that I have read has used this to transmit information between a transmitter and a receiver faster than light could pass between them.
Nor is the 'spooky action at a distance' proof that this could be done.
Even if upcoming experiments actually rule out hidden variables (as I expect), that is not the only explanation without faster-than-light communication.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2012
Nimtz says that information arrived at the receiver AT THE SAME TIME
I know, what Nimtz says. http://www.psiqua...tz03.pdf Actually, Nimtz and coworkers observed that the measured tunneling time is spent at the barrier front, whereas inside the barrier zero time is spent. This result was observed in several tunneling barriers. Zero time tunneling was predicted by Low and Mende in 1991 already. In AWT it's modeled in the following way: http://www.aether...wave.gif You can imagine it easily, if you place a board across water surface at the pool. The surface ripples don't stop at the board, because the water is compressible and the energy of ripples is mediated with speed of sound through underwater. The constructive interference of sound waves from underwater will restore the surface wave behind the board under partial lost of information about location of their original source at the price.
RealScience
not rated yet Jan 21, 2012
I'm giving you sources for my opinion, you provided none.


And how do you expect me to provide a source for "having not yet seen" any paper...?

For sources on the specific papers you referred to, there is no need for additional sources - I'm pointing out what YOUR sources actually said (Nimtz) or didn't say (Singleton) in those papers.

As for AWT, I have not studied it (other than reading postings on this board until they got repetitive). But I understand that analogy well - from my own work I happen to prefer a multi-wave analogy for gravity to the classic rubber-sheet analogy because more of relativity becomes intuitive.
However so far I haven't found any case where the math predicts different results from classical relativity, and until then it is not testable and thus just a personal preference in visualization.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2012
However so far I haven't found any case where the math predicts different results from classical relativity.
Well, this is a problem of math - but not the water surface model, isn't it? At the water surface such situation is clearly possible. The only problem is, the existing models are based on abstract idealized model of general relativity, where the only ripples existing in the vacuum are just these transverse ones - no interference of light waves with their environment is allowed in relativity. It's not so strange after then, such an idealized model produces idealized predictions only and we just need more realistic description of reality. This is just what the realistic models (like the AWT) are developed for. With math or without it.
RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2012
Your compressional wave fits with the way I visualize gravity, but unless the speed of the compressional wave is essentially infinite it will not explain either the tunneling or the entanglement results of essentially zero time.
Until something is used to send information from a transmitter to a receiver where the information arrives sooner than light in a vacuum would, it won't violate causality. I have not seen this, and so far none of the references you have sent show this either.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2012
Your compressional wave fits with the way I visualize gravity
Where are you visualizing it? I didn't see anything from you, with exception of the ignorant defense of obsolete concepts of mainstream physics. Now you're suddenly becoming a revolutionist - or what?
but unless the speed of the compressional wave is essentially infinite it will not explain either the tunneling or the entanglement results of essentially zero time
Why just infinite? Even 10-times of speed of light would be enough for heavy violation of causality during entanglement or quantum tunneling.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2012
However so far I haven't found any case where the math predicts different results from classical relativity.
Well, this is a problem of math - but not the water surface model, isn't it? ...


Regarding the water surface model: beats me - the water surface model is your model, not mine.

Regarding the math in my visualization not saying anything different from math in the classical model: It might indeed be the fault of not having dug deep enough into the math. But it also might be that the two models are on a deeper level equivalent - that happens a lot in physics!
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2012
Regarding the math in my visualization
Visualization or vision? I still cannot see anything from you.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2012
As far as has been seen in at least the entanglement experiments, if FTL communication is the explanation than it must be at least 10,000x the speed of light, and there is no reason in quantum mechanics to expect any value between 10,000x and instantaneous. Many of the tunneling experiments imply zero time for the tunneling, and dividing a finite distance by zero yields infinity.

Regarding 10X, yes, that would also violate causality. But 10x that would not be sufficient to account for the observed results (you yourself cite 10,000x in the Scientific American article) if that were the proven to be the sole explanation for the results.
So even if FTL information were the sole explanation, unless your model predicts >10,0000x the speed of light then entanglement and tunneling speed would not support your model.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2012
But 10x that would not be sufficient to account for the observed results
You're trying to idealize the reality at both sides of of it: speed or light or infinite - nothing inbetween. It's evident, the people like you will always think in schematic way, even in context of dense aether model. But from surface water model doesn't follow, the speed of underwater waves must be infinite, or the water surface analogies of entanglement or quantum tunneling will not work. You shouldn't forget, these estimations were made with quantum mechanics, which is based on perspective of longitudinal waves and it doesn't allows nothing, than just pure transverse waves. Which indeed violates the reality again - just in the opposite way, than the general relativity. In AWT the scope of indeterminism is distance scale dependent and the subtle violations of causality (like the Casimir force) can be mediated with waves, the speed of which is only slightly higher, than the speed of light.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2012
Visualization or vision? I still cannot see anything from you.


I'm not in the habit of publishing ideas until they are worked out enough to at least be called hypotheses. I only mentioned that because you asked if I understood your analogy.

A revolutionist? Thank you.

Certainly there are times when I think that mainstream concepts or interpretations are wrong, or, more often, incomplete. There are more thing in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in mainstream philosophy.

If you carefully read my postings on various threads, you'll find that my answers are generally worded to address precisely what was stated or asked and to leave the door open to radically new technologies or knowledge. Sometimes this is even explicit.

I don't state that the mainstream thinking is WRONG unless I have solid evidence. But I do often challenge those who claim that the mainstream interpretation is proven. (And I try to keep the discussion civil while doing so.)


Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2012
And I try to keep the discussion civil while doing so
Look, the world is full of "civil people", who just defend their ignorant stance in such a way, they become serious obstacle for people, who really thinking out of box - not just twaddling about it. Just remember, how much of my time it required to convince you about existence of superluminal information exchange, which has been presented at Nature and Scientific American articles. The fact you're not rude doesn't change the fact, you're a deep ignorant, because the consequences are the very same. Don't forget, just the millions of civil Germans enabled the Hitler to build the Nazi Germany. The contemporary mainstream science is full of kind and civil people, who just "defend" their stance, jobs and professional carriers in such a way, it effectively stopped the cold fusion research for twenty years, so we are facing new global war for fossil sources again. All these "civil people" are responsible for it with no exception.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2012
You're trying to idealize the reality at both sides of of it: speed or light or infinite - nothing inbetween.


No, I'm not. 10,000x C came and the effectively zero time for tunneling both came from YOU and articles that YOU referred to.

I don't happen to think that 'spooky action at a distance' transmits any information. Nor do I think that it is hidden variables. (I have a non-mainstream view that I will write up carefully before publishing).

But since YOU said that waves in AWT explain information traveling faster than light via entanglement and tunneling, I pointed out that those waves would have to travel at essentially infinite speeds (at least 10,000 C even with current measurements) to explain the current research results (again IF information is transmitted FTL).
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2012
10,000x C came and the effectively zero time for tunneling both came from YOU and articles that YOU referred to.
Just before hour you claimed, the information cannot spread faster before another articles said so...;-) Now you read few new articles, I linked here before twenty minutes and you're doing the same thing again. DON'T spread BS, which you don't understand. These articles are based on quantum mechanics, which is as biased and schematic description of reality, like the general relativity - just in dual, i.e opposite way.
Nor do I think that it is hidden variables
Who cares, what you "think"? The "thinking" is the stance of dull religious people - but rationally thinking people always use an ARGUMENTS. I don't want to hear about your thinking, visions and whatever else BS anymore from you here - such a comments will be just plain ignored for future. I do want to discuss with mature people with mature stances supported with arguments only. Do you understand?
RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2012
Just remember, how much of my time it required to convince you about existence of superluminal information exchange, which has been presented at Nature and Scientific American articles.

Nothing requires you to try to convince me. And so far you have not sent me a link that shows information being sent from a transmitter to a receiver being received sooner than it would have been by the shortest path at the speed of light.

But you are right that time is a wasting.
Let's continue this discussion AFTER you find an article that shows information being sent from a transmitter to a receiver being received sooner than it would have been by the shortest path at the speed of light.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2012
And so far you have not sent me a link that shows information being sent from a transmitter to a receiver being received sooner than it would have been by the shortest path at the speed of light

So why you're arguing with article, which claims, such speed must be at least 10.000x higher than the speed of light? You're deeply confused so please, just read a few things about it first to orient yourself in situation. From your comments it's apparent, you're not experienced in this topic at all, because you never heard of any fundamental experiments in this area - so you cannot argue with me at all. Anyway, if you understand the AWT model, it should be clear for you, such superluminal information transfer is indeed possible - but it doesn't require the 10.000x higher speed of light, infinite the less. It's just perspective of schematic abstract theories, which are requiring it for their proper function - but definitely not the physical model of AWT.
RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2012
No point in my re-typing - please try reading carefully this time:
10,000x C and the effectively zero time for tunneling both came from YOU and articles that YOU referred to.

I don't happen to think that 'spooky action at a distance' transmits any information. Nor do I think that it is hidden variables. (I have a non-mainstream view that I will write up carefully before publishing).

But since YOU said that waves in AWT explain information traveling faster than light via entanglement and tunneling, I pointed out that those waves would have to travel at essentially infinite speeds (at least 10,000 C even with current measurements) to explain the current research results (again IF information is transmitted FTL).

typicalguy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2012
Calliope, you are an idiot that champions a model based on no math and with no testable predictions yet you expect people to give a shat about your opinions? In dense dog brain theory, you can easily imagine quantum tunneling at the speed of a hungry dog smellin food. See what I did there? I came up with a completely useless statement but at least it's short enough that people will read it instead of simply skipping it. I'm sure no one bothers reading your posts so stop spamming the forum with your crackpottery. You can come back when you come up with a testable theory based in math and not thought experiments that you pulled out of your butt. Please enlighten us with the breakdown of how dense eather theory predicts the rest mass of a neutrino and how/why they oscillate. Please do give us a threory based on a formula that we can use to test it. Until you start coming up with real tests and not bullshat thought experiments, your theory is no better than dense pea soup theory.
jsa09
not rated yet Jan 22, 2012
could this be because neutrinos actually have even less mass than photons and do not like to interact with mass and therfore also gravity?
Neutrinos definitely don't interact with much. There is no reason to think they are affected by gravity since gravity is the curvature of space and really isn't a force in the same sense as electro-magnetism. ...

Ethelred

Reading your comment highlights a conundrum. If Gravity is curvature of space and neutrinos travel through space then they would HAVE to be bent just like light - only more so - if they were slower than light.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2012
You must know that the concept of Photons and Neutrinos have 'rest mass' is a mathematical derivation. Neither of these 'wave packets' actually exist 'at rest'.
You just conflated two different things. You are right on photons. Neutrinos aren't photons and there is no reason they cannot have rest mass.

For you to say to someone 'you are still full of crap ' invites my criticism of your comments as 'spraying shit'
You just crapped on yourself in you first reply. I really don't care if you don't like the word. I get tired of using the word 'nonsense' especially when it isn't even nonsense.

in this case, that you are just guessing.
Nonsense. Most physicists think neutrinos have mass. They oscillate. They can't do that unless they have mass unless GR is CRAP and it does awfully well for crap.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2012
Reading a bit of second hand info on Wikipedia does not constitute being informed.
Bullshit. You really should quite making up crap about me. And that is the second time you told that lie. This time after I reposted the first hand link which is hardly the only I have read. Just because you don't read much does not mean I only read wikis.

For neutrinos it is NOT YET KNOWN whether they can exist at rest.
It is known that they oscillate and that means they exist at something other than the speed of light. Thus they must have mass.

only evidence, oscillation, suggested that they do have rest mass and thus should be able to exist at rest.
No. Not merely suggest. REQUIRE.

But again, there could be other explanations for oscillation,
All require the neutrinos to experience time and thus have rest mass.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2012
and based on Gran Sasso neutrinos could conceivably be tachyons that would have the INVERSE of rest mass,
Rest mass. Period. As long as they exist at non-light speed then thy must have rest mass. If they do not travel at the speed of light they must experience time, whether it be forwards or backwards they must experience time. If they do they are at rest in their own frame of reference. This is true for all particles with rest mass.

'rest' mass as inverse-rest-mass would behave similarly but the particle could never be at rest.
Only to the observer. Not to the particle. You really need to read something other than Wikis.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2012
In any case, until Gran Sasso is explained there is no evidence that neutrinos do NOT exist at rest, either.
Wrong. Oscillation is enough to know they experience time and thus have rest mass. They may oscillate between a state that is faster than light, which means they travel backwards through time but still experience time, and a more conventional state going forward in time.

A particle traveling faster than the speed of light looks exactly like its anti-particle traveling backwards in time. Dr. Feynman explored this with electrons and positrons.

n a few years we may actually have strong evidence one way or another!
We have strong evidence that they have rest mass. The question is are they limited to above and below C or just below C. We have ample evidence they cannot travel at C. Again, unless GR has a major flaw.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2012
We have strong evidence that they have rest mass.
Nope, we have evidence, they have mass. The presence of oscillations requires the existence of mass, not rest mass. After all, the photons do oscillate too.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2012
Reading your comment highlights a conundrum. If Gravity is curvature of space and neutrinos travel through space then they would HAVE to be bent just like light - only more so - if they were slower than light.
Yes. Where is the conundrum?

Except they aren't actually bent. They are traveling in as straight a line as exists in curved space-time. The key there is that is space-time not just space. That is why something that moves slower than light travels a different path in SPACE than light does. They are both traveling as straight a path as possible in space-time only light isn't experiencing time and the neutrinos do so they would curve more in space. I guess that means they curve less in time.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2012
Except they aren't actually bent. They are traveling in as straight a line as exists in curved space-time.
So their path is curved, when they're traveling through curved space-time and this curvature is observed outside of gravity lens. The inability of people to understand, how the trivial gravitational lensing works is striking.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2012
You just get tired Ethelred and not just of the words you choose. Your confusion reminds me of my Grandmother before she passed away. Unable to keep track of time and blurring together one part of a conversation with another unrelated comment, so to arrive at illogical assumptions. In the end she did not know who she was or what was real. Sadly it seems you are degenerating in a similar fashion.

So lets keep it simple okay.

'Neutrinos aren't photons'. That much you understand.

'and there is no reason they cannot have rest mass'.

There you go astray and speculate. Crikey mate, next you will be asserting that there is no reason that God cannot exist!

Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2012
The funny part of all relativity dummies, who are claiming, it's not light but the space-time which is actually curving is the first evidence of relativity provided with solar eclipse in 1919, during which it had been observed, the Sun was bending the path of light of stars - not the space-time.

http://www.aether...bend.gif

If these relativity dummies would be right, then we could never observe the curvature of space-time with deformation of path of light. http://aetherwave...tum.html
RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2012
@Ethelred - it is not often that I disagree with you. When I do it is typically either semantics or the degree of certainty ascribed to the mainstream interpretation.

But to imply that my knowledge just comes from wikis? I have a degree in physics, I work in the physical sciences, and have chaired science committees where typical members are department chairs in physics and engineering.

While I agree that the mainstream interpretation of oscillation meaning that neutrinos have rest mass is HIGHLY PROBABLY correct, it is NOT the only possible or even plausible interpretation.

Neutrinos could plausibly be tachyons which cannot be at rest in our reference frame. Their 'rest' frame would be moving infinitely fast relative to us, and GR tends to breaks down at infinity (and QM implies that it breaks down before infinity).
Therefore what a tachyon would have to be 'mass at almost infinite speed', which I consider semantically the inverse of rest mass.

-continued-
RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2012
In terms of oscillation it would according to GR serve the same purpose as 'rest mass', as it would in terms of carrying energy. My bet is that GR is right on this, and that even if tachyons do exist that their 'infinite speed mass' would behave the same gravitationally as rest mass, but we currently have no evidence one way or another so I consider it far from proven.

I'd also be that neutrinos are not tachyons, Gran Sasso not withstanding.

And as I said, if the oscillation detected is from changes in the neutrinos themselves it is evidence of rest mass or a tachyon equivalent. But while I consider that highly likely, it is not PROVEN that the oscillation is in the neutrinos changing rather than some property of the space they travel such as the distance that they travel regardless of their speed. Although I find that barely implausible, I keep my mind OPEN to it, and to things that I haven't thought of as well.
jsa09
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2012
ethelread
...Neutrinos definitely don't interact with much. There is no reason to think they are affected by gravity since gravity is the curvature of space and really isn't a force in the same sense as electro-magnetism. We know they have SOMETHING like mass because they oscillate and they could not do that if they move at the speed of light...


My earlier comment was highlighting a contradiction in your statements. Everything must by definition be affected by gravity. Only if the definition is wrong can anything that travels through space-time not be affected by gravity.

Regards
jsa09
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2012
So if as you stated earlier, neutrinos do not follow the curvature of space-time, then it would not be the neutrinos but the actual curvature itself that would have to be questioned.

I suppose one of your comments alludes to the possibility of FTL travel as in tachyons, then I would have to recalculate the effect of curvature of space-time on such an object. Perhaps oscillating between tachyon and slower than light travel there could be a sum of curvature different that what would be expected for anything affected by space or time or both in only one direction.
RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2012
@jsa09 - probably a typing error and Ethelred meant that there is no reason to think that neutrinos are NOT affected by gravity.

They happen all the time, even when one is being careful.

For example, I can see two typing errors in my last post, the missing 't' in "I'd also beT that neutrinos...", and "barely implausible" was a mistake in changing "implausible" to "barely plausible".
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2012
Your confusion reminds me of my Grandmother before she passed away.
Your ad hominems remind me that you don't have anything real to say.

'Neutrinos aren't photons'. That much you understand.
You don't seem to.

'and there is no reason they cannot have rest mass'.
Do you have a point?

Just like your first reply. Not point, nothing of meaning. Just ad hominems.

There you go astray and speculate.
I didn't speculate. They oscillate, therefor they have mass.

Crikey mate, next you will be asserting that there is no reason that God cannot exist!
I don't speculate on that. I say it. I also say the god of Genesis cannot exist.

"Sad"

That seems to be all you can manage.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2012
But to imply that my knowledge just comes from wikis?
Terribly sorry. I was thinking of Bluehigh. Maybe because you lead off with his name? I really don't know why I was thinking of him at that point.

and have chaired science committees where typical members are department chairs in physics and engineering.
While I am willing to believe that, you do understand its just your word.

it is NOT the only possible or even plausible interpretation.
Only possible maybe. Don't think so for plausible but then a lot of physics, at that level seems implausible at times.

Neutrinos could plausibly be tachyons which cannot be at rest in our reference frame.
I don't think so because tachyons, as originally proposed, can't exist below the speed of light. At least that is the way I remember it.

GR tends to breaks down at infinity
I suspect that tachyon theory would break down at infinity as well. The math gets a bit odd there.>>
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2012
which I consider semantically the inverse of rest mass.
And don't think you can really justify a tachyon being a neutrino as opposed to a neutrino having some tachyon like properties. I didn't see a need to go there in any case. Still don't. It has to do with that exceeding small mass that neutrinos seem to be limited to at a maximum.

I'd also be that neutrinos are not tachyons, Gran Sasso not withstanding.
My thinking on this is that either the results are flawed OR Uncertainty and tunneling may allow neutrinos to exist above the speed of light since Uncertainty increases as the mass decreases.

Although I find that barely implausible, I keep my mind OPEN to it, and to things that I haven't thought of as well.
There is a concept that people forget:

Within the limits of present experimental observation.>>
bluehigh
1 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2012
They oscillate, therefor they have mass.


As has been pointed out to you by others and the point that you seem to intentionally avoid is that ... your statement is just speculation.

Neutrinos have no rest mass. What is it that you don't understand about that statement?

Further more (as RealScience correctly pointed out to you -
it is not PROVEN that the oscillation is in the neutrinos


As I said previously, if you disagree then provide proof. Ahh ... you can't and just want to try force your opinion by bluster (not a particularly personal attack, rather as evidenced).

With respect Ethelred, you are mistaken in your assumptions on this occasion. RealScience is mostly correct in his assessment.
bluehigh
1.1 / 5 (13) Jan 23, 2012
How do I know this? Because people like RealScience and me don't need to check on Wikipedia or Google all our Physics knowledge. We studied, committed the information to memory and how it is derived then earned our degrees.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2012
I always think that way. Its bloody damn awkward to tag it on to every bloody post even if there wasn't that annoying character limit. However since several people seem to be having difficulty remembering that it de rigeur in science

Within the Limits Of Present Experimental Evidence neutrinos have rest mass. The Present Experimental Evidence shows that they oscillate. Thus according the Present Standard Theory That Works Pretty Well they must experience time which According To The Present Standard Model means they must have rest mass. Present Experimental Evidence Shows that IF neutrinos have rest mass it is very tiny. So tiny that According To Present Ideas Of Uncertainty that mass not only could but would vary between negative and positive mass. This would show in, If I Have A Clue, in a Feynman diagram as a particle that oscillates between being a particle and an antiparticle. In which case the neutrino, when in the antiparticle state, can be considered as a particle traveling FTL
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2012
Was that pedantic enough for everyone?

At least I think that last part might be right. Would explain the Gran Sasso results but I suspect experimental error is much more likely.

Ethelred
bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2012
@Ethelred

My apologies if I was insulting. Even you get cranky at times. I'm going to watch some mindless TV for a while and sleep - its been a busy day.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2012
In which case the neutrino, when in the antiparticle state, can be considered as a particle traveling FTL
The situation is slightly different, as both particles, both antiparticles have positive rest mass - so there is no reason to consider the neutrino as FTL particle. The FTL speed of neutrino arises just from the brief moments of its switching from particle into antiparticle state, where it's behaving like so-called sterile neutrino i.e. Majorana particle (i.e. Goldstone boson without charge). Such a chargeless neutrino is behaving like simple density wave in this moment, i.e. like the gravitational wave - and the gravitational waves are superluminal in AWT, as you probably remember. So that the neutrino will make a brief jump through space-time, which will help it to move in superluminal speed.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2012
Everything must by definition be affected by gravity.


@jsa09 - probably a typing error and Ethelred meant that there is no reason to think that neutrinos are NOT affected by gravity.
Yes. I have this problem. NOT seems to NOT reach my fingers sometimes. Since it is still in my head when I proof my posts I tend to miss it then as well. This goes for No, nothing, and pretty much any word at any given time.

It sticks out the next day.

It is REALLY annoying.

hen it would not be the neutrinos but the actual curvature itself that would have to be questioned.
Or more likely my typing needs to be questioned. If I had money to burn I would try Dragon and see if that helped. More sleep would help but I have tended to avoid sleep since I was a kid. Like I am doing right now.

Ethelred
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2012
The whole neutrino stuff is actually quite complex, because its behaviour depends on its speed in nontrivial way (only neutrinos of average energy density are behaving in the way above described), and the anti-neutrinos are more lightweight and they tend to remain in boson state somewhat longer due the CP-violation. I presume, the development of exact theory of neutrino will occupy at least one generation of physicists (and some Nobel prizes) - but the main aspects of its behaviour can be understood even without math.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2012
seem to intentionally avoid is that ... your statement is just speculation.
It is experimentally based and thus not mere speculation. You are avoiding that.

Neutrinos have no rest mass. What is it that you don't understand about that statement?
Its wrong according more than one experiment in more than one device. What is it you don't understand about experimental evidence?

Further more (as RealScience correctly pointed out to you -

it is not PROVEN that the oscillation is in the neutrinos
What is it that you don't understand about science not actually having proof just experimental evidence?

As I said previously, if you disagree then provide proof.
I did.

Ahh ... you can't and just want to try force your opinion by bluster (not a particularly personal attack, rather as evidenced).
False.>>
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2012
Neutrinos have no rest mass. What is it that you don't understand about that statement? Its wrong according more than one experiment in more than one device.
The presence of neutrino oscillations indicates, the neutrino have mass, not rest mass. It still doesn't say about the dependence of that mass on neutrino speed. Such mass can converge to zero with decreasing speed in the same way, like the mass of photons. Analogously the Falaco solitons at the water surface deform the water surface, so they have mass, but if you would try to stop them, they will desintegrate. Their rest mass is simply not defined in similar way, like the rest mass of photons.

http://www.youtub...wZ39EDmw

IMO this behavior cannot be applied to low energy neutrinos in full extent, but the RealScience & bluehigh opinion is essentially correct in this point.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2012
With respect Ethelred, you are mistaken in your assumptions on this occasion. RealScience is mostly correct in his assessment.
He is correct in everything EXCEPT thinking I am not aware of it.

How do I know this?
The same way you know a lot things. Not as well as you think.

Because people like RealScience and me don't need to check on Wikipedia or Google all our Physics knowledge.
You need to start doing that. You seem to have missed the evidence for oscillation.

We studied, committed the information to memory and how it is derived then earned our degrees.
I did the same except for the degree part. Oh and I learned something you seem to have forgotten. Memory is unreliable. Start looking things up.

Ethelred
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2012
In AWT the neutrinos are serving as a supersymmetric particle for photons. Their behaviour and energy dependence is symmetrical to those of photons. So that the photons of wavelength shorter than the CMBR radiation are behaving like the particles of slightly positive mass (i.e. subluminal objects) and the neutrinos are behaving like the particles of slightly negative mass (imaginary mass, i.e. the superluminal objects). At the energy of CMBR photons the difference between photons and neutrinos will essentially disappear. Bellow this energy density range the neutrinos will behave like very lightweight particles, but with positive rest mass and the photons will move in superluminal way. So that the extrapolation of rest mass of neutrino from curve at higher energy density range will converge to the zero rest mass and BlueHigh and RealScience are correct. But the curve for neutrinos at very low density will converge to slightly positive rest mass and Ethelred is correct.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2012
One testable consequence of this behaviour can be the power spectrum of neutrinos, which are leaving black holes. From the above follows, very low energy neutrinos cannot escape the black hole, but the photons can (Hawking radiation). The neutrinos of higher energies could pass the event horizon freely, but the photons cannot (black event horizon). The very energetic neutrinos will be probably blocked with event horizon again in the same way, like the photons. My ideas are somewhat fuzzy in this point, because jets of black holes can be understood as a gate for these high energetic photons and neutrinos and it depends on the observational perspective, if we would consider them a part of event horizon or not. Anyway, it seems the very high energy photons tend to violate the violation of Lorentz symmetry and the very high energy neutrinos will behave in the same way. The theory becomes complex here even at the simple level of conceptual logics.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2012
In this recent article even the neutrons may escape the Universe. I dunno, what I should think about it. It seems as a pretty BS for me. The neutrons cannot pass trough event horizon of black hole, they would decompose and evaporate into quarks during it... How they could pass through multiverse brane, after then? http://www.techno...v/27517/
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2012
In this recent article even the neutrons may escape the Universe. I dunno, what I should think about it. It seems as a pretty BS for me. The neutrons cannot pass trough event horizon of black hole, they would decompose and evaporate into quarks during it... How they could pass through multiverse brane, after then? http://www.techno...v/27517/

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.