An article - " 'Light-speed' neutrinos point to new physical reality"

This thread is to feed my ego.

I made the same assertion on last Saturday's ATS Live! show. Less intelligently, no doubt, but I did. So as I sit here basking in self-gratified ego stew, I thought I would share what some scientists have said that has tickled me pink!

SUBATOMIC particles have broken the universe's fundamental speed limit, or so it was reported last week. The speed of light is the ultimate limit on travel in the universe, and the basis for Einstein's special theory of relativity, so if the finding stands up to scrutiny, does it spell the end for physics as we know it? The reality is less simplistic and far more interesting.

"People were saying this means Einstein is wrong," says physicist Heinrich of the Technical University of Dortmund in Germany. "But that's not really correct."

Instead, the result could be the first evidence for a reality built out of extra dimensions. Future historians of science may regard it not as the moment we abandoned Einstein and broke physics, but rather as the point at which our view of space vastly expanded, from three dimensions to four, or more.

I like this Päs guy.

On a serious note; it occurs to me that if this theory turns out to have merit; we may see an entire shift the ideas regarding UFO's and other phenomenon that defy our comfortable sense of reality.

It makes perfect sense that creatures such as ourselves, seemingly trapped in a three-dimensional framework of perception would be unable to synthesize an answer to phenomenon that may have, at least in part, aspects of extra-dimensional physics for which we have never made an accounting.

The trick is to send neutrinos on a shortcut through a fourth, thus-far-unobserved dimension of space, reducing the distance they have to travel. Then the neutrinos wouldn't have to outstrip light to reach their destination in the observed time.

In such a universe, the particles and forces we are familiar with are anchored to a four-dimensional membrane, or "brane", with three dimensions of space and one of time. Crucially, the brane floats in a higher dimensional space-time called the bulk, which we are normally completely oblivious to.

Neutrinos may in fact be the answer to many questions....

With a neutral charge and nearly zero mass, neutrinos are the shadiest of particles, rarely interacting with ordinary matter and slipping through our bodies, buildings and the Earth at a rate of trillions per second. Every so often, they crash into an atom to produce a signal that allows us to detect them.

Their stealth, however, belies their potential importance.

Take extra dimensions. Most particles come in two varieties: ones that spin clockwise and ones that spin anticlockwise. Neutrinos are the only ones that seem to just spin anticlockwise. Some theorists say this is evidence for extra dimensions, which could host the "missing", right-handed neutrinos.

Unseen right-handed neutrinos may also account for dark matter - the 80 per cent of all matter needed to stop galaxies from flying apart. The idea is that this variety is much heavier than the other, so could provide the requisite gravity.

Gotta love it!

If we can't yet detect right-hand spin neutrino's for some unspecified reason, they may be the "dark matter' we have been missing. That spin of theirs may make them physically manifest only outside the three dimensional framework we can perceive... for now.



Ooops! Article link: www.newscientist.com...

Wait so you're saying I have trillions of these guys beaming through my body every second? Amazing! And if they pass though the 4th dimension then basically there are objects moving around in another dimension inside my body?! Amazing!

Where's the link

reply to post by mrjones7885
Why do people always have to link to an outside source to validate what they are saying?
2nd line

neutrinos, imagine a MASS transport made of them it would go right thru planets and stars collecting certain energies that need temp.guided

Originally posted by mrjones7885
Where's the link

www.newscientist.com...

Thanks for reminding me...

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by mrjones7885

 

Why do people always have to link to an outside source to validate what they are saying?
2nd line

Perhaps in case I am lying.

reply to post by Maxmars


Now make an educated guess... What's the purpose and shape of the 4th dimension?

reply to post by Atzil321


Why do food products have to list the ingredients that are in them?

reply to post by Maxmars


Interesting ideas but I need to register on New Scientist to read the entire article.

These extra dimensional neutrinos they’re speaking of could be the catalyst to the evolutionary jump that so many people have been babbling about as of late, or at the very least a technological leap beyond our wildest dreams. This could lend some merit to the idea of 2012 truly being a time of change. We shall see.

reply to post by Americanist


In the shape of a figure 8 on its side Perhaps it doesn't have a shape I think its empty and made of nothing

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Maxmars

 

Now make an educated guess... What's the purpose and shape of the 4th dimension?

Hmm... the educated part is difficult.. but:

Perhaps it accommodates the range of the infinitesimal to the infinite without three dimensional constraints, rendering a solid object from our perspective to be in constant infinite motion. Or to occupy the totality of space-time as a framework of reality.... "...always in motion, the future is..." "... the capacity to fold space..." "...the avalanche has begun, it is too late for the pebbles to vote...."

Or perhaps....,

Missing left socks?


Not being a theoretical mathematician, physicist, or cosmologist; I am at a distinct disadvantage to answer such a question meaningfully. Sorry to disappoint.

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by Maxmars

 

Interesting ideas but I need to register on New Scientist to read the entire article.

I apologize for that. I often forget that I registered long ago (it was free then, I don't know if it is now.) But it would be wrong of me to copy and past the entire article. As it is I only get access for a few days before I get the "subscribe to our magazine to read this archived article" message. I suppose I will have to refrain from using this source in the future. Pity that.

I think the cart is a bit in front of the horse on this one … lets wait for some verification of the results before we proclaim relativity dead. If I had to guess, I would say we are dealing with an instrument error rather than a rewriting of the known physical laws of the universe.

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by Maxmars

 

Interesting ideas but I need to register on New Scientist to read the entire article.

I googled the first paragraph of the OP and found the entire article here:

Article

I'm assuming it's the entire article.

reply to post by Aggie Man


That's it!... Thanks.

OK just finish reading this about white gold
www.viewzone2.com...
few thing fit in real good

Originally posted by SirMike
I think the cart is a bit in front of the horse on this one … lets wait for some verification of the results before we proclaim relativity dead. If I had to guess, I would say we are dealing with an instrument error rather than a rewriting of the known physical laws of the universe.

We have heard scientists say they are willing to bet their house it's an error and they have good reason to say that.

We observed a supernova in 1987. The neutrinos would have arrived 4 years ahead of the light, if the CERN results were not in error.

But the neutrinos from SN1987A did NOT arrive 4 years ahead of the light. So we already have observations from 1987 which clearly demonstrate, to me and to numerous scientists, that the CERN results are not consistent with other observations:

Faster Than Light Neutrinos? Don't Bet On It.

The neutrinos from SN1987A traveled so far that had they been moving that much faster than light, they would’ve arrived here almost four years before the light did. However, we saw the light from the supernova at roughly the same time as the neutrinos (actually the light did get here later, but it takes a little while for the explosion to eat its way out of the star’s core to its surface, and that delay completely accounts for the lag seen).

So I agree SirMike, they are putting the cart in front of the horse by trying to explain the anomaly, the efforts would be better spent finding the source of the measurement error IMO.

reply to post by Maxmars


My opinion: If there proves to be no error in the interpretation of the data, and the experiment can be replicated time and again with the same result, then I think we'll be looking at something akin to SR in relation to classical mechanics. That is, SR will be true, but it may not be fundamental in the sense that classical mechanics is approximately true in most cases, but not fundamental.

But what do I know? I'm just an undegrad