Merged Puzzling results from CERN

Oscillation

I've been puzzling over the CERN neutrino results, and I have one idea that I have not found addressed;

It is well known that neutrinos most likely oscillate between flavors, and it occurs to me that if one of the neutrino flavors were a tachyon, you might observe this at particular fixed distances from the source, but that at any random distance you will observe an averaged result as the velocity would oscillate around c.

So, neutrino signals from a supernova will not be separated from the optical signal by years and years, the net effect is zero.
 
BenBurch said:
I've been puzzling over the CERN neutrino results, and I have one idea that I have not found addressed;

It is well known that neutrinos most likely oscillate between flavors, and it occurs to me that if one of the neutrino flavors were a tachyon, you might observe this at particular fixed distances from the source, but that at any random distance you will observe an averaged result as the velocity would oscillate around c.

So, neutrino signals from a supernova will not be separated from the optical signal by years and years, the net effect is zero.
Click to expand...

Answers from standard neutrino physics, which may of course be wrong:

a) Neutrinos don't simply oscillate for their whole lives; they suffer "decoherence" when the different-mass components of the wavepacket get separated from one another.

b) It'd be very weird, perhaps nonsensical, for a *flavor* state to have different kinematics. "flavor" is just a quantum phase relevant to your coupling to the weak interaction. The mass states don't oscillate; they just fly along.

c) OPERA is looking at several flavor states, generally over a fraction of an oscillation length. If these states had different speeds, OPERA could see them separately. (Need to think about the stats though.)

d) The claimed effect is so huge, it implies a very *large* imaginary mass; it's hard to imagine why oscillation experiments have been consistent with a very small (real) mass. If the oscillation scale isn't due to a small real mass, what sets that scale?
 
BenBurch said:
I've been puzzling over the CERN neutrino results, and I have one idea that I have not found addressed;

It is well known that neutrinos most likely oscillate between flavors, and it occurs to me that if one of the neutrino flavors were a tachyon, you might observe this at particular fixed distances from the source, but that at any random distance you will observe an averaged result as the velocity would oscillate around c.

So, neutrino signals from a supernova will not be separated from the optical signal by years and years, the net effect is zero.
Click to expand...

Another criticism of this interpretation would involve the Cohen-Glashow effect, because if you have this hypothetical oscillation of neutrinos into a "tachyonic" state in a periodic manner, then wouldn't you also expect to see a periodic set of pulses of Cherenkov radiation along with the observation of the neutrino beam that coincides with the oscillation into and out of the "tachyonic" state?

And, to my knowledge, no such Cherenkov radiation exists, either in the OPERA experiments or in any observation of naturally-occurring neutrino events (such as SN1987A).
 
MattusMaximus said:
Photons don't travel any slower in the Earth's gravitational field, they merely shift their frequency. This is an effect called gravitational redshifting.
Click to expand...

Actually, photons passing through a gravitational field do slow down, in the sense that passing through a region containing a non-zero gravity field takes longer than passing through a region (of the same size) that doesn't.

The extreme case is a black hole, where the photon never comes out the other side.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Another criticism of this interpretation would involve the Cohen-Glashow effect, because if you have this hypothetical oscillation of neutrinos into a "tachyonic" state in a periodic manner, then wouldn't you also expect to see a periodic set of pulses of Cherenkov radiation along with the observation of the neutrino beam that coincides with the oscillation into and out of the "tachyonic" state?

And, to my knowledge, no such Cherenkov radiation exists, either in the OPERA experiments or in any observation of naturally-occurring neutrino events (such as SN1987A).
Click to expand...

Correct. And I have pointed that out. Perhaps Tachyons do not produce Cherenkov radiation as predicted; We of course have never observed any.
 
Given the number of neutinos in each detected pulse it's unlikely that, even if such detectors were in place (which is unlikely), that we would be able to observe anything. I've generally found that folk install detectors to find the things that they expect, not the things that they don't. ;)
 
sol invictus said:
Actually, photons passing through a gravitational field do slow down, in the sense that passing through a region containing a non-zero gravity field takes longer than passing through a region (of the same size) that doesn't.

The extreme case is a black hole, where the photon never comes out the other side.
Click to expand...

Ah, my bad. I should have clarified that I meant that light doesn't slow down as observed from a localized reference frame. Within a given frame, it's speed will be measured as c.

Thanks for the catch, Sol.
 
The ICARUS team have released a paper on arxiv, 'A search for the analogue to Cherenkov radiation by high energy neutrinos at superluminal speeds in ICARUS', stating that the supposed superluminal neutrinos cannot exist based on their analysis of the energy spectrum.
 
The "Cerenkhov analogue" argument is interesting, and a valid addition to the discussion, but it's a bit of a reach. We'd have to know what the speed of weak force interactions was in the region, and that's not been timed. We coudl suppose that those interactions travel at the same speed as light, but (if their arguments are valid) we know that they don't travel at the same speed as light in rock, or else neutrinos traveling at less than cVacuum but more than cRock would be showing the effect that they haven't seen. If cWeak is essentially always the same as cLightVacuum, then we're basing an argument on an effect that can't really happen under current theory, and if the effect can't detectably exist under current theory, it's a bit cheeky to say that we're so confident about the effect's legitimacy to say that it has to exist under other (unspecified) theories, and that therefore, if we don't detect it, those theories must be wrong about a hypothetical class of motion that /also/ can't be modeled properly in out theory.

OTOH, if the weak force /doesn't/ necessarily have the same speed as cVacuum, because it /is/ appreciably affected by the presence of matter, we don't know for sure that our local speed of light isn't significantly slowed due to the presence of the earth and solar system and surrounding galaxy, compared to the speed of light in an intergalactic void, and if cWeak is closer to the "void speed", then you wouldn't see the Cerenkhov analogue anyway. We normally assume a flat lightspeed background rather than a nonlinear one, but this might be why our galaxy rotation curve predictions were off, so it might not be a safe assumption.

Another couple of potential problems: if superluminal neutrinos are moving at more than cBackground, and radiating, then the radiant energy needs to either reduce their mass, or reduce their speed. If it reduces their speed, then they might only be travelling at more than cBackground for quite a short section of their journey. They could "speed" for long enough to overtake a hypothetical unaffected lightsignal, and then brake to extremely close to the speed of light, so that they still end up arriving ahead of time, even though their speed for most of the journey is subluminal. That would mean that we couldn't calculate the energy losses by assuming superfast travel over the entire 730 km. Any braking radiation might only really be happening at the CERN end.

The "braking" argument also undermines another disproof of superfast neutrinos based on supernova observations, given that neutrino bursts seem to happen only slightly earlier than the optical signal. There've been people arguing that this proves that the supernova neutrinos can't have been be superluminal, because otherwise the offset between the two signal pulses would scale linearly with distance.
But if there's a braking effect (which a general Cerenkhov effect would suggest), then the supernova neutrinos might have initially been travelling at more than cVacuum, radiated and braked, and then carried on for the rest of the distance at fractionally less than cVacuum, but been still sufficiently far ahead of the lightsignal for it not to quite catch up during the journey.

OTO,OH, if there's no significant braking effect, and no significant weak-force Cerenkhov analogue, then some of those earlier arguments might become valid, but the ICARUS team's argument would be wrong.

Things are still interesting.
 
Is there anyone here that can give a summation update understandable to the general public, or a site ? Is this still considered a mystery or a major discovery?
 
chuck4842 said:
Is there anyone here that can give a summation update understandable to the general public, or a site ? Is this still considered a mystery or a major discovery?
Click to expand...

A multinational European enterprise has created a device, using bits made in Britain (measured in feet) and metric tools. They have buried it in a hole under some mountains. Using this device, some Italians have produced some measurements that differ from what was expected.

For some reason, scientists are surprised by this.
 
Soapy Sam said:
A multinational European enterprise has created a device, using bits made in Britain (measured in feet) and metric tools. They have buried it in a hole under some mountains. Using this device, some Italians have produced some measurements that differ from what was expected.

For some reason, scientists are surprised by this.
Click to expand...

Bits made by Brits using metrics? I usually only trust the metrics in the hands of the Japanese. The bits are received by the Italians. The results are translated by the lot?
 
Chuck, maybe I'm missing something, but I think Soapy Sam is kidding entirely.

A major Swiss experiment launched neutrinos towards Italy. The Swiss computer says the launch happened at time T1. The Italian computer says the neutrinos arrived at time T2. You can calculate their velocities by doing V = (T1-T2)/D, where D is the Italy-Switzerland distance.

Well, except that you need both computer clocks set precisely. (If I take a cup of tea out of my microwave, whose clock says 12:30, and walk it over to the living room, where the VCR says it's 12:25, does that mean I went back in time? No, it means the clocks are wrong.) Unfortunately, the clocks are very far apart---in fact the Italian one is down a mine, with several kilometers of cable between it (and a bunch of intervening computers) and the nearest GPS antenna.

Then you need to know the distance accurately. That's done with GPS, supposedly very accurately.

Anyway, the OPERA folks did this calculation as best they could, and the calculated speed tells them that the neutrinos were going faster than light. They arrived "early", according to the Italian clocks, by a few tens of nanoseconds. Most people think that there was a clock-sync mistake, or perhaps a distance-measurement mistake. It could be something very simple, but that doesn't mean it's easy to figure out.
 
ben m said:
Chuck, maybe I'm missing something, but I think Soapy Sam is kidding entirely.

A major Swiss CERN experiment launched neutrinos towards Italy. The Swiss computer says the launch happened at time T1. The Italian computer says the neutrinos arrived at time T2. You can calculate their velocities by doing V = (T1-T2)/D, where D is the Italy-Switzerland distance.

Well, except that you need both computer clocks set precisely. (If I take a cup of tea out of my microwave, whose clock says 12:30, and walk it over to the living room, where the VCR says it's 12:25, does that mean I went back in time? No, it means the clocks are wrong.) Unfortunately, the clocks are very far apart---in fact the Italian one is down a mine, with several kilometers of cable between it (and a bunch of intervening computers) and the nearest GPS antenna.

Then you need to know the distance accurately. That's done with GPS, supposedly very accurately.

Anyway, the OPERA folks did this calculation as best they could, and the calculated speed tells them that the neutrinos were going faster than light. They arrived "early", according to the Italian clocks, by a few tens of nanoseconds. Most people think that there was a clock-sync mistake, or perhaps a distance-measurement mistake. It could be something very simple, but that doesn't mean it's easy to figure out.
Click to expand...

;)
 
ben m said:
Chuck, maybe I'm missing something, but I think Soapy Sam is kidding entirely.

A major Swiss experiment launched neutrinos towards Italy. The Swiss computer says the launch happened at time T1. The Italian computer says the neutrinos arrived at time T2. You can calculate their velocities by doing V = (T1-T2)/D, where D is the Italy-Switzerland distance.

Well, except that you need both computer clocks set precisely. (If I take a cup of tea out of my microwave, whose clock says 12:30, and walk it over to the living room, where the VCR says it's 12:25, does that mean I went back in time? No, it means the clocks are wrong.) Unfortunately, the clocks are very far apart---in fact the Italian one is down a mine, with several kilometers of cable between it (and a bunch of intervening computers) and the nearest GPS antenna.

Then you need to know the distance accurately. That's done with GPS, supposedly very accurately.

Anyway, the OPERA folks did this calculation as best they could, and the calculated speed tells them that the neutrinos were going faster than light. They arrived "early", according to the Italian clocks, by a few tens of nanoseconds. Most people think that there was a clock-sync mistake, or perhaps a distance-measurement mistake. It could be something very simple, but that doesn't mean it's easy to figure out.
Click to expand...

Does this qualify for the MDC? It's at least AMAZING that the greatest scientists on earth weren't prepared for the results of their own test. If JR gave'em his award, they could all retire. (yes I'm joking.)
 
Last edited:
Sciencedaily has this
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111223114121.htm

""We've shown in this paper that if the neutrino that comes out of a pion decay were going faster than the speed of light, the pion lifetime would get longer, and the neutrino would carry a smaller fraction of the energy shared by the neutrino and the muon," Cowsik says.
"What's more," he says, "these difficulties would only increase as the pion energy increases.
"So we are saying that in the present framework of physics, superluminal neutrinos would be difficult to produce," Cowsik explains."
 
ben m said:
ties by doing V = (T1-T2)/D, where D is the Italy-Switzerland distance.

Well, except that you need both computer clocks set precisely. (If I take a cup of tea out of my microwave, whose clock says 12:30, and walk it over to the living room, where the VCR says it's 12:25, does that mean I went back in time? No, it means the clocks are wrong.)
Click to expand...

You still have a VCR? :p Probably requires some explaination for the younger folks on this forum what those are ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VCR
 
Originally Posted by ben m
ties by doing V = (T1-T2)/D, where D is the Italy-Switzerland distance.

Well, except that you need both computer clocks set precisely. (If I take a cup of tea out of my microwave, whose clock says 12:30, and walk it over to the living room, where the VCR says it's 12:25, does that mean I went back in time? No, it means the clocks are wrong.)
Click to expand...
DSo said:
You still have a VCR? :p Probably requires some explaination for the younger folks on this forum what those are ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VCR
Click to expand...

It may well mean that you went back in time if you walked into your living room and there was a VCR, it may even be possible to pinpoint how far back you travelled, was it a top loader?
 
The experiment is correct!

The common misinterpretation of the results says that the neutrinos went faster than liight.

It is a great discovery. One that could have been made earlier except that people thought they were screwing up some stupid part of their experimental setup and wouldn't publish their results. The paper had half a page of author names to keep themselves honest.

Clue #1 The anomalous galactic velocity curves. The evidence for it started coming out in the 1930's. Brilliant monkey solution "Dark Matter".

Clue #2 The jets from Herbig-Haro objects. The orthodoxy said it was a Magneto-hydrodynamic MHD effect. This despite evidence that the jets were only 10% ionized. You CAN drive a 10% ionized jet with MHD, but not a tightly collimated jet. The non ionized particles will be randomly ejected from the jet very quickly. The better explanation: The jets are gravity driven. But we don't know of any form of gravity that acts this way. The universe can't read your equations.

Clue #3 This the CERN experiment.
1.The neutrinos were not going faster than light. You make an uncorroborated assumption that the time of the neutrino path was the same as the time experienced by the systems outside of the path.

2. I have never successfully challenged the speed of light, so your real problem is that you do not understand the framework of your own experiment.

3. The results were a complete, and very interesting surprise.

4. The voices in my head suggest this is a very fundamental property of gravity, that boggled the minds of everyone who encountered it. Too many honest people were witnessing it at the same time to blow it off. You primates really hate learning something new.

The answer: your theories of gravity and time have an error. And just like badly designed robots your head explodes trying to deal with this thought.

Admit it, the universe is telling you that you are wrong! The experiment always trumps the theory. Isn't that the bedrock of science.

Law nothing can go faster than the speed of light. True, I don't know of any exceptions, and I have looked.

Experiment correct, your assumptions (equations) have an error.

This only happens once or twice in a century, enjoy it.
 
Re: Fermilab
MattusMaximus said:
If the results are within the margin of error, then they are not statistically significant. Meh.
Click to expand...

That depends on how they originally came up with their official error-margin figures. :)

It's not unknown for error margins to be "tweaked" with the benefit of hindsight, after the data's come in and the experimenters know the extent to which their test missed the assumed "perfect" target value. If you miss the value by too much, there's a tendency to reassess the presumed accuracy of your hardware, and assign a more pessimistic error margin.

To some extent this can //sometimes// be a kinda reasonable thing to do ... if you're allowed some latitude to decide what the bars should be, based on your skill and experience and reputation as an experimenter, it might be that your expert opinion on how well a set of hardware should perform (while the design is still on the drawing-board), may change after you've actually built it and spent some time using it.

Sometimes an experiment produces inexplicable results, and the experimenters sigh, say "Ah crap, must be a damned hardware error", and write in an enlarged hardware error-margin that's sufficient to cover the annoying distance between the figures that they expected, and the ones that they actually got.


I'm not suggesting that that's what happened in the Fermilab case, but if =I= was Fermilab, I would want someone to be assigned to go back to take another look at the data and see whether they can decipher exactly how the error margins were calculated, to be absolutely sure that there wasn't a statistically-significant result there that got downgraded though the operator's expectation bias. Just as a purely precautionary measure. And I'd guess that that's probably what they're doing right now.
 
Einstein got it half right.

The CERN Neutrino Results

The neutrinos are NOT moving faster than light through the rock. If light could travel through the rock it would have beaten the neutrinos slightly.

The DeathDart Equation for determining the flow of Time= 1+(SQRT(gt2/g)= Time Flow

This is where Einstein got it wrong (for gravitational fields that won't rip you to pieces the DeathDart equation works correctly.)

The universe is bipolar with two different structures, although the rules are mostly the same.

gt2 = 6.674E-11 m^2 sec-1 The gravitational field strength where the flow of time (In Space) equals 2.
g=9.81ms^2 sec Earth surface gravitational field.
The time flow in a 9.81m^2 field is 1+SQRT(gt2/g)= 1.0000026
The neutrinos were apparently going (v-c)/c = (2.37 ± 0.32 (stat.)(sys.)) ×10-5 faster than light.
1+2.37e-5 (c)

We treat this as a problem in time. Add the time flow at 9.81m^2 1.0000026 to the apparently the higher velocity 2.37E-5.

This leads to a velocity for C of 1+ 2.632798E-5. Because a neutrino has mass, and time divides into the mass and not the velocity, we have to square this time flow to get the proper velocity.
(1+ 2.632E-5)^2 = 1.000053

Reverse the DeathDart equation to get the equivalent gravitational field for that value of time flow.
g=gt2/((1.000053-1)^2)

gt2=(6.674e-11)/(2.7727e-9)

g=2.407e-2 m^2 sec

It would appear that the neutrinos were traveling through space where the gravitational field strength was g = 2.407e-2 m^2 sec. This is absurd. This was my first reaction, but I humored myself.

CERN neutrino source located approximately 46.235N 6.043E
The Italian Mountain with the neutrino detector 42.429N 13.687E

Centrifugal force at CERN
46.235 To Radians 8.069542E-01
Cosine (8.069542E-01) = 6.917012E-01
Cosine times Meridian radius 6.917012E-01 * 6.367449E+03 = 404372E+06 m
404372E+06 m * 2*Pi() =2.767349E+07
2.767349E+07 /60 sec/60 min/ 24hrs = 3.202950E+02 m
MV^2/ r ((3.202950E+02)^2)/ 404372E+06 = 2.329251E-02 g

Centrifugal force at Italian Mountain
42.429 To Radians 7.405175E-01
Cosine (7.405175E-01) = 7.381195E-01
Cosine times Meridian radius 7.381195E-01 * 6.367449E+03 = 4.699938E+06 m
4.699938E+06 m * 2*Pi() =2.953058E+07
2.953058E+07 /60 sec/60 min/ 24hrs = 3.417892E+02 m
MV^2/ r ((3.417892E+02)^2)/ 4.699938E+06 = 2.485561E-02 g

Average centrifugal force gravitational field equivalent
(2.329251E-02 g +2.485561E-02 g)/2 = 2.407406E-02

I will (tentatively) call this (motion) g(k) value the Gravitational Induction tensor (thingamajig, whatever) to differentiate it from (Newtonian) g(N).

Gravitational Induction tensor = 2.407406E-02 m^2 sec

Equivalent Gravitational space = 2.407406E-02 m^2 sec

It appears that they have found a second component of gravity at CERN.

The neutrinos were traveling through a gravitational field strength of 2.407406E-02 m^2 sec, that is why they arrived early. Experiment correct, your equations have an error.

But surface gravity is 9.81m^2 sec-1.

Simple explanation for the results. The(Newtonian) g(N) gravitational field is not present within the mass. The underground path of the neutrinos did not encounter the surface gravitational field or they would have been traveling slower. Newtonian gravity g(N) is external to the mass. Voids can be treated as external area of the field. Atomic clocks in mines run slower.

The equivalent gravitational field due to the (kinetic) g(k) motion of the mass is present. The flow of time was equal to the g(k) field and not the g(N) field.

The Herbig-Haro and Black hole jets possibly are an example of the massive effects of large accretion masses rapidly rotating. Gravitational induction as a separate gravitational entity appears to exist and the CERN experiment found it.
 
All maths is gibberish to me, but even I'd expect the number of right and left brackets to match.
 
Reality Check said:
Gibberish.
Click to expand...

Actually the brackets don't match in the CERN paper. I just cut and pasted it.

The DeathDart Equation for determining the flow of Time= 1+(SQRT(gt2/g))= Time Flow gt2 = 6.674E-11 m^2 sec-1

The relativistic time equation SQRT( 1-((c^2)/(v^2))) assumes that time flow is limited to one. It is worthless in weak gravity fields. That is why the galactic velocity curves don't match your calculations.

Time can go from 0 to infinity. Time does not stop at one, just because your equations say it should.

As time decreases (as at relativistic velocities) mass increases. When time increases past 1, mass decreases. This is how the universe works.

By the way has anyone seen any closeups of SNR 1987a? Because of frame invariance the blue shift from the expanding debris may actually be going down, but its proper motion may be increasing.

The CERN people had the scientific integrity to say they didn't know what was going on, but they published.

Has the proper motion of the 1987a debris increased?

Einstein got a lot right, but since he formulated it , GR has not been that useful. Because it couldn't predict the velocity curves of observed velocities in galaxies we got the religion of "Dark Matter". No proof is the proof! Science based on belief.

As crude as my equations seem, they do work. What is illogical about the flow of time going from 0 to infinity? You had no problem (Ok, you had some problems) with it changing from 1 to near zero with increasing velocity.

So now you have been doing the same thing over and over again (for over the last 80 years) expecting the results to change. They have a name for that.

If Newton was still around he would of opened up a big can of ********** and straightened this mess out within ten years of the problem appearing.
 
Last edited:
DeathDart said:
Actually the brackets don't match in the CERN paper. I just cut and pasted it.
....
Click to expand...
Actually I never mentioned the brackets.
The rest of your post is just a repeat of your gibberish and a bit of ignorance.
For example GR was never used to predict the velocity curves in galaxies or even the motion of galaxies of clusters. It was Newtonian gravity.
 
Last edited:
So GR was never meant to describe gravity, I get it.

What doesn't GR describe?

1. Velocities of stars orbiting galaxies. When the equations hit that time limit of one, the stars blow off your equations and just keep going.

2. How about super nova remnant velocities? Velocity increasing with radius. Sounds like time is speeding up with weaker gravity. (Energy is still conserved) Faster time equals less inertial mass. So what is 1987a doing? I will bet that at least portions of it are speeding up. It is also likely that the increase in velocity does not show up as a blue shift (frame invariance).

3.Newton or GR cannot explain Herbig-Haro objects jets or Black Hole Jets.
MHD doesn't work on non-ionized particles. The jet effect is gravitationally based. Gravitational induction does not exist in your calculations.

For relativity to work, you accept that time is dependent on gravity .

You then go wrong by giving time an artificial limit of 1. But it does let you stay in your comfort zone. Again the universe ignores you.

By allowing time to be both gravitationally dependent AND to exceed 1, the equations become relevant again.

Gravitationally Dependent Time GDT.

The GDT Equation for determining the flow of Time= 1+(SQRT(gt2/g))= Time Flow. Until someone comes up with a number (or equation) that works better than this, I am sticking with it.
gt2 = 6.674E-11 m^2 sec-1

Time flow affects the mass, but in not in the way that increasing velocity does.

The difference is that space changes, not the object that is traveling through it.

If you argue that space is the origin of inertia, why can't rockets move by throwing space. Inertia is a property of matter. In space, without matter or gravity, there isn't any inertia.

Matter exists in space as a gravitational field. Without a gravitational field time is moving at infinite speed. Space doesn't have inertia, but space does have time.
 
DeathDart said:
So GR was never meant to describe gravity, I get it ...gibberish and repeated ignorance snipped...
Click to expand...
It is rather dumb to think that my post stated that GR was never meant to describe gravity. Read what I said:
Reality Check said:
Actually I never mentioned the brackets.
The rest of your post is just a repeat of your gibberish and a bit of ignorance.
For example GR was never used to predict the velocity curves in galaxies or even the motion of galaxies of clusters. It was Newtonian gravity.
Click to expand...
The calculations were done using Newtonian gravity, not using GR.

It was the fact that velocity curves in galaxies did not obey Newtonian gravity given the visible matter that confirmed there was dark matter as already suggested by the motion of galaxies of clusters not obeying Newtonian mechanics.
 
Gravitational lensing is one of the reasons that dark matter is considered to exist.

Can gravitational lensing cause chromatic aberration? In the images I have seen, either there was massive chromatic aberration, or the picture was monochromatic (filtered). Gravity is not physical, so it does not have any properties to affect wavelengths differently.

If you try to use the momentum argument, how does the path of a baseball and a bowling ball differ when moving at the same velocity, in the same gravitational field? They follow the same path.

Gravity should not cause chromatic aberration.

Can hot pavement, or hot plasma cause aberration?

You scan the universe for these few examples. You are using Hubble to find bugs on the windshield. All your examples are at the edge of space, so they had to travel through all the possible conditions that the universe can do to affect a beam of light. You point at a bug on the windshield and then call it the proof for "Dark Matter".

Your model of gravity does not match reality, so you create undetectable matter. Change the model, that is the message of the CERN experiment.
 
DeathDart said:
In the images I have seen, either there was massive chromatic aberration, or the picture was monochromatic (filtered)
Click to expand...

... or you looked at a press-release photo whose false color scheme you didn't understand?

What, you think you see the lenses in blue and the foreground in red or vice-versa? Sure, they're usually different types of galaxies and always at different redshifts. "This galaxy is red and that one is blue" is not evidence for an aberration, any more than there is chromatic aberration in a photo showing a red flower and a blue one.

Gravitational lensing does NOT cause chromatic aberration. This has been the subject of specific, detailed physics studies and the evidence is that there is no chromatic aberration observed. http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1832
 
DeathDart said:
Gravitational lensing is one of the reasons that dark matter is considered to exist.
...
Your model of gravity does not match reality, so you create undetectable matter. Change the model, that is the message of the CERN experiment.
Click to expand...
Dark matter exists because many observations give evidence that it exists:
3 Observational evidence
Click to expand...
If we throw away gravitational lensing then we still have 7 more bots of evidence.

The CERN experiment does means that there is a slight chance that we may have to change GR. Asserting that this will account for dark matter is dumb since
  1. There is the other evidence and
  2. You have no idea how GR will change. It may produce better evidence for dark matter :jaw-dropp!
Any change to GR will probably just change the measured distribution of dark matter.
 
ErkDemon said:
Re: Fermilab


That depends on how they originally came up with their official error-margin figures. :)

It's not unknown for error margins to be "tweaked" with the benefit of hindsight ...
Click to expand...

And this is not unknown to you from what evidence? Any evidence you do have means that the tweakers were found out.

In fact the statistical methods to be applied (from which the error-margins emerge) are defined before any data is collected. It's part of the experimental design.

... after the data's come in and the experimenters know the extent to which their test missed the assumed "perfect" target value. If you miss the value by too much, there's a tendency to reassess the presumed accuracy of your hardware, and assign a more pessimistic error margin.
Click to expand...

Checking the experimental design and implementation is the first thing you do, but that will not include the statistical methods applied. If they're changed openly it reveals that you didn't understand what you were doing in the first place, and if it's concealed you will be found out. Either way credibility is lost.

To some extent this can //sometimes// be a kinda reasonable thing to do ... if you're allowed some latitude to decide what the bars should be, based on your skill and experience and reputation as an experimenter ...
Click to expand...

Like that's gonna work. The more experience you have the more younger people there are looking to knock you off your perch.

... it might be that your expert opinion on how well a set of hardware should perform (while the design is still on the drawing-board), may change after you've actually built it and spent some time using it.
Click to expand...

That's the engineers' fault.

Sometimes an experiment produces inexplicable results, and the experimenters sigh, say "Ah crap, must be a damned hardware error", and write in an enlarged hardware error-margin that's sufficient to cover the annoying distance between the figures that they expected, and the ones that they actually got.
Click to expand...

Never happens. No future in it.


I'm not suggesting that that's what happened in the Fermilab case, but if =I= was Fermilab, I would want someone to be assigned to go back to take another look at the data and see whether they can decipher exactly how the error margins were calculated, to be absolutely sure that there wasn't a statistically-significant result there that got downgraded though the operator's expectation bias. Just as a purely precautionary measure. And I'd guess that that's probably what they're doing right now.
Click to expand...

Have you never worked under supervision? High-priced science is the most supervised profession in the world. It's not done by "some operator", it's done by teams of scientists, most of them younger and hungrier than the lead authors on any paper and on short contracts. That's supervision.
 
DeathDart said:
Gravitational lensing is one of the reasons that dark matter is considered to exist.

[snip]

You point at a bug on the windshield and then call it the proof for "Dark Matter".
Click to expand...

So from an acknowledged "one of the reasons [plural]" you leap to accusing people of "calling it [singular] the proof". Not the sharpest tool in the box, are you?

Take on the others, where your impressions of chromatic aberration from pictures you loooked at count for nothing. As they do in this case.

Your model of gravity does not match reality, so you create undetectable matter. Change the model, that is the message of the CERN experiment.
Click to expand...

We'll be sure to tell everybody concerned.
 
http://www.outerspaceuniverse.org/gravitational-lens-effect-bending-light.html

Near total internal reflection at the edges. The gravitational field is the weakest there, it should bend light slightly, not reflect it. This is an abrupt dielectric boundary effect caused by either matter or a gravitational flux field (not a static gravitational field). Without an abrupt change in gravitational space the observed effect is not possible for gravity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom