Jump to content

Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)


Kraven Kor

Recommended Posts

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

And that the postwar global cooling ended at the same time the Partial Test Ban Treaty went int effect just a coincidence. You may be right. That one is testable. Set off a Bikini-class H-Bomb and let's see what happens. My back-of-the-envelope calculations say 1 Celsius degree cooler than the 30-year average proceeding it for two to three years.

 

It seems that we've been misunderstanding each other, you are talking about whether or not setting off nukes can affect global temps in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do (Something which I don't think anyone can reasonably despute.), I'm talking about the hype which claimed mankind was spewing enough junk into the air simply by living our First World lifestyles that we were going to end life as we know it and usher in a new ice age.

 

It didn't' date=' it was a local phenomena. As was the Little Ice Age, which hit North America and Europe in different centuries.[/quote']

 

Perhaps, last time I checked the offical word was that there wasn't enough data to make the determination one way or other.

 

What theory? Milankovitch Cycles are as observable as the phases of the moon. That they are' date=' or were, the primary driver of climate change? What are the competing hypotheses?[/quote']

 

Uh-huh, yet less than five minutes of quick and dirty research shows several unanswered questions, such as why everything seems to have changed around a million years ago? Also I'm kindof curious when the Ice Age predictions based off of the cycles have a spread of almost five-hundred-thousand years. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the cycles don't exist, I'm questioning our full understanding of said cycles.

 

Yep, we will. Difference is if you are right, no harm done. If we are right, millions, or tens or millions, or hundreds of millions, or even billions dead. (Not to mention the collateral damage of extinction of non-human species.)

 

While I'm all in favor of a smaller population, I would think that an allegedly intelligent species could bring it about through some mechanism other than letting the Horsemen ride. The idea of being an Accessory Before the Fact in a billion counts of negligent homicide bothers me. I'm funny that way.

 

No harm done? I think you need to sit down and think about what the limitations the warmists wish to impose upon us will actually mean for humanity. But as much as I hate doing it, I'll predict this, if the watermelons in the enviromental movement ever do suceed in strangling the modern world, your dream of a smaller population will come true, and the deaths will be on your head.

Yeah, I know it's way over the top, but hell, worst case seems to be the language of the Climate Change debate so why not?

 

 

 

As an aside, I find it really ironic that we're going round and round about global warming on a day where I had to wear gloves to prevent my fingers from going numb. :smoke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

I remember something vaguely like this 10-15 years ago, when someone in the physics community went to people in the field asking about some important, interesting theoretical (but testable) idea in particle theory (IIRC); it was a poll where respondents were asked two questions: (1) was about the theory idea itself, whether it was right or not; (2) was whether such a poll was useful.

 

The combined results to (1) were all over the map. There was a nearly unanimous response of no to the second.

 

That's not what I was asking for. All I wanted was to see which "side" if the issue a person comes down on, and some way (their qualifications) to distinguish people who actually *know* something, and the talking heads who only have opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Remember: 1 nano light second is very close to one foot.

Useful to know. At our current level of technology, am I correct in believing we can't build a neutrino detector with only 20 feet of shielding? One in the hypothetical "skip zone" not currently possible? Not just hideously expensive but flat out not currently possible?

 

On the up side' date=' there are a few other neutrino oscillation experiments in the mill, and it will be interesting to see if those reproduce the result (especially if they can spruce up their methods/hardware to nail down the time of flight). [i']Everyone[/i] in the physics community now is waiting to see if the FTL result is reproduced.

How many neutrino detectors are there currently on Earth? Seem to recall one in Siberia, can it "look" the right direction? Any in North America and if so same question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Useful to know. At our current level of technology' date=' am I correct in believing we can't build a neutrino detector with only 20 feet of shielding? One in the hypothetical "skip zone" not currently possible? Not just hideously expensive but flat out not currently possible?[/quote']

 

I think this can be built, but if unshielded it will detect neutrinos (and other particles) from anywhere, introducing a lot of noise into the data.

 

 

How many neutrino detectors are there currently on Earth? Seem to recall one in Siberia, can it "look" the right direction? Any in North America and if so same question?

 

The neutrinos in question seem to be coming out linearly from the collider parallel to the path of the initial particle beam. So in order to catch the neutrinos the detector has to be directly downstream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

There isn't much shielding you can really do. I believe neutrinos only interact through the weak nuclear force, so you can't do anything electromagnetic to stop them. But you can shield against other types of particles, if only by putting them behind lots and lots of matter, so that your neutrino detector detects only neutrinos and not stray protons or alpha particles or whatever. And then you pretty much look for a spike in the data at around the expected time. This is why neutrino detectors are usually built underground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

While we're on the subject' date=' and I fully admit that this probably is a very stupid question, but even if the detector was shielded and aimed correctly, how much noise would there be regardless?[/quote']

 

That's not a stupid question.

 

Also, how *does* one shield against neutrinos?

 

There isn't much shielding you can really do. I believe neutrinos only interact through the weak nuclear force' date=' so you can't do anything electromagnetic to stop them. But you can shield against other types of particles, if only by putting them behind lots and lots of matter, so that your neutrino detector detects [i']only[/i] neutrinos and not stray protons or alpha particles or whatever. And then you pretty much look for a spike in the data at around the expected time. This is why neutrino detectors are usually built underground.

What Old Man said. You don't shield against the neutrinos, you shield against Everything Else so any hits you do get will be neutrinos or spontaneous proton decay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

So then Neutrino weapons = bypass any EM shielding? Is it theoretically plausible to build a Neutrino weapon? Or is the fact they pass through most / all matter mean they aren't viable as a weapon?

It think the worst that will happens is that some atoms catch a neutron and thus become an unstable isotope (that is how things can "get" radioactive*). Unless you can create a lot of short-lived isotopes where their decay hurst, this won't help you much. And anything used as moderator/neutrino catcher in nuclear reactors could be a good defense against it.

 

Example:

If standart hydrogen (h1 or Protenium Isotope) catches is Neutron it becomes the Deuterium isotope wich is still stable isotope.

But when deuterium catches an neutron, it becomes the unstable "Tritium".

 

Afaik every chemical "Noble Metal" has only one stable isotope (the one we know), so they are prone to get radioactive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

So then Neutrino weapons = bypass any EM shielding? Is it theoretically plausible to build a Neutrino weapon? Or is the fact they pass through most / all matter mean they aren't viable as a weapon?

Yep, it will bypasss all defenses, matter or EM. No armor or shielding can stop a neutrino weapon short of hiding behind a black hole.

 

It will also bypass flesh and bone and electronics and harmlessly pass through your target.

 

"Excuse me, is something supposed to be happening? I don't feel anything. Are you sure it's turned on?"

 

It think the worst that will happens is that some atoms catch a neutron and thus become an unstable isotope (that is how things can "get" radioactive*). Unless you can create a lot of short-lived isotopes where their decay hurst, this won't help you much. And anything used as moderator/neutrino catcher in nuclear reactors could be a good defense against it.

 

Example:

If standart hydrogen (h1 or Protenium Isotope) catches is Neutron it becomes the Deuterium isotope wich is still stable isotope.

But when deuterium catches an neutron, it becomes the unstable "Tritium".

 

Afaik every chemical "Noble Metal" has only one stable isotope (the one we know), so they are prone to get radioactive.

Neutron <> neutrino. Both are uncharged particles, there the resembalance ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

So then Neutrino weapons = bypass any EM shielding? Is it theoretically plausible to build a Neutrino weapon? Or is the fact they pass through most / all matter mean they aren't viable as a weapon?

 

Pretty much the latter.

 

Many Years Ago, strictly for laughs, we estimated the lethal radius for the neutrino burst coming out of a core collapse (Type II) supernova. That neutrino burst precedes by some time (of order an hour, IIRC) the arrival of the shock wave at the surface of the star that blows it all to smithereens. With our assumptions, the lethal radius of the neutrino burst was about 5 AU (the size of Jupiter's orbit, and only about 5 times the radius of the exploding supergiant star itself).

 

We had two reactions to that: (1) When the weak force kills you, you are in a very bad place. (2) This isn't a particularly effective weapons technology.

 

BTW, there would still be a safe place to hide from the neutrinos! The core of a Jupiter mass planet is at least partly electron degenerate, so it would block the neutrino flux. The trick is, of course, to be hiding immediately behind the planetary core for the few seconds the neutrino flux is high enough to be dangerous ... and then have the sense to spend the next hour getting out of the star system before the blast wave hit the surface and all hell broke loose in a more conventional sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Ummm, assuming (correctly) that everything BUT the neutrinos (about which we are now uncertain...) is traveling less than the speed of light, you'd have "the time it takes the Sun's light to reach Jupiter" to leave the vicinity, and travel at c far enough to get out of the EM danger radius. "An hour" is probably inaccurate, either because you'd have more time than that, or wouldn't have to travel that far to effectively escape.

 

Edit: Then again, since your ability to even tell what the Sun's doing likely relies on input that travels at the speed of light... you might be hosed, regardless. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Not all Jupiter-sized masses in other systems are also a similar Jupiter-distance away from their star(s).

 

I'd say, presuming you only have access to sub-luminal propulsion, but that it can reach its top speed (say, .9 C) very quickly, and an hour's head start from a Jupiter's orbit distance from the supernova, you're still toast. But I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Not all Jupiter-sized masses in other systems are also a similar Jupiter-distance away from their star(s).

 

I'd say, presuming you only have access to sub-luminal propulsion, but that it can reach its top speed (say, .9 C) very quickly, and an hour's head start from a Jupiter's orbit distance from the supernova, you're still toast. But I could be wrong.

"I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you." If you're hiding behind the neutronium-core of a Jupiter-type planet (and if some one would please I'd love to see the math for both Jupiter mass being sufficient to produce at least partly electron degenerate matter and that being effective as neutrino shielding), may as well stay there until after the gamma flash. Shock wave is subluminal, so as long as your ship is going faster than the shock wave you're good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

"I don't have to outrun the bear' date=' I just have to outrun you." If you're hiding behind the neutronium-core of a Jupiter-type planet (and if some one would please I'd love to see the math for both Jupiter mass being sufficient to produce at least partly electron degenerate matter and that being effective as neutrino shielding), may as well stay there until after the gamma flash. Shock wave is subluminal, so as long as your ship is going faster than the shock wave you're good.[/quote']

 

However, the range of the ship at top speed is also a factor. Tortoise and the Hare problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

However' date=' the range of the ship at top speed is also a factor. Tortoise and the Hare problem.[/quote']

Range at any speed is a factor. Everything in that solar system is going away, unless you can make it to at least the next star over you're just delaying the inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Failure to account for relativistic effects on the clocks used in the experiment? http://nbcu.mo2do.net/s/18488/29?itemId=tag:dvice.com' date='2011://3.83661&fullPageURL=/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php[/quote']

They have Neutrino detectors and a particle accelerator, but they us GPS satelites as their stopwatch? *facepalm*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Interesting but the question that pops to mind is that if the linked article is correct then why hasn't this issue already been settled? Hell, the way it's explained anything that is shot through the accelerator should register as traveling faster then it "really" is.

 

Of course, could be that this is the first time they've bothered to time things using this system I supose ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Failure to account for relativistic effects on the clocks used in the experiment? http://nbcu.mo2do.net/s/18488/29?itemId=tag:dvice.com' date='2011://3.83661&fullPageURL=/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php[/quote']

Um, I don't think so. Don't think reference frame can be multiple choice like that.

 

If I understand this correctly it sounds like they factored in the rotational speed of the Earth, assuming the original experimenters didn't do that, found out that was enough to take care of half the abnomility, so applied it on each end.

 

Don't think you can do that. Cancer? You're the pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

That's not what I was asking for. All I wanted was to see which "side" if the issue a person comes down on...

 

I'm not sure why most people would come down on a side at all. There are very few people with the requisite advanced scientific education and training to evaluate this data in the world to begin with, let alone full access to the the research data for consideration. I know in the mass media information age of Internet culture we are all expected to have an informed opinion on everything. But it that realistic? Very few people have sufficient talent, training, and education to be polymaths. And considering the great refinement and advances in most academic fields, many of our legendary renaissance men who mastered many then nascent studies probably wouldn't be masters of so much today. If you have a serious, difficult question that requires training and expertise to answer you poll the experts who have that training and expertise, not the man on the street - or a message board. This is one of those questions. I am content to say "I have no clue" and wait for the experts to draw conclusions. I'm certainly not, barring a poster on the boards being a physics PHD with access to the data and bona fides, going to take anything I read here seriously. Maybe that's bad for internet culture, but its saves time - and chaff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...