Ask a physicist anything. (7)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟28,653.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Q

Sticking to neutrinos...

Why does neutrino oscillation require them to have non-zero mass?
If they had the same mass (whether zero or not), then the relationship between frequency and wavelength of each neutrino flavor would be identical. In order to get oscillations, you need the relationship between frequency and wavelength to be different between the flavors. And that requires that the flavors have different masses (so at least two must be non-zero).
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟28,653.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Has anyone found a lower limit on neutrino mass yet?
I think our most accurate measurements are on the differences between the mass states, because oscillations only tell us those differences. From Wikipedia:
In 1998, research results at the Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector determined that neutrinos can oscillate from one flavor to another, which requires that they must have a nonzero mass.[36] While this shows that neutrinos have mass, the absolute neutrino mass scale is still not known. This is because neutrino oscillations are sensitive only to the difference in the squares of the masses.[37] The best estimate of the difference in the squares of the masses of mass eigenstates 1 and 2 was published by KamLAND in 2005: Δm[sup]2[/sup][sub]21[/sub] = 0.000079 eV[sup]2[/sup].[38] In 2006, the MINOS experiment measured oscillations from an intense muon neutrino beam, determining the difference in the squares of the masses between neutrino mass eigenstates 2 and 3. The initial results indicate |Δm[sup]2[/sup][sub]32[/sub]| = 0.0027 eV[sup]2[/sup], consistent with previous results from Super-Kamiokande.[39] Since |Δm[sup]2[/sup][sub]32[/sub]| is the difference of two squared masses, at least one of them has to have a value which is at least the square root of this value. Thus, there exists at least one neutrino mass eigenstate with a mass of at least 0.04 eV.[40]
Neutrino - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
  • Like
Reactions: chris4243
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So anyone taking bets on if this discovery will turn out to be validated?
Wasn't it already validated?

"We tried to find all possible explanations for this...We wanted to find a mistake - trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects - and we didn't." - Source

If an experiment is done and there was found no mistakes - no trivial mistakes, no complicated mistakes, or no nasty effects - doesn't that make the experiment valid?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟28,653.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Wasn't it already validated?

"We tried to find all possible explanations for this...We wanted to find a mistake - trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects - and we didn't." - Source
He means independently. Obviously the OPERA team has done a number of checks themselves. But the fact of the matter is that there can still be an undetected source of error that will not make itself known until a different experimental team with a different instrumental setup takes the case.

This claims is sufficiently fantastic that it demands very strong evidence to support it. One experimental team doing the checking doesn't cut it. No matter how careful they are, they're still human.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
He means independently. Obviously the OPERA team has done a number of checks themselves. But the fact of the matter is that there can still be an undetected source of error that will not make itself known until a different experimental team with a different instrumental setup takes the case.
Why change the instrumental setup if there were no mistakes found with the first setup?
This claims is sufficiently fantastic that it demands very strong evidence to support it. One experimental team doing the checking doesn't cut it. No matter how careful they are, they're still human.
So why don't a different experimental team simply use that same instrumental setup since there were no mistakes found with it?

Human error I can understand, but is there something wrong with the instrumental setup in which no mistakes were found?

Forgive my many questions, but I'm just trying to make sure you guys aren't preparing for a cover-up like the last time with the climate. :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟28,653.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Why change the instrumental setup if there were no mistakes found with the first setup?
Just because there were no mistakes found doesn't mean there are no mistakes there. Independent verification is one of the hallmarks of science, and is, in fact, the primary thing that separates science from non-science.

So why don't a different experimental team simply use that same instrumental setup since there were no mistakes found with it?
Because then they'd be relying on the same experimental setup which is prone to the same errors that the first time almost certainly failed to find. Maybe having some fresh eyes on the problem would find the error, maybe they wouldn't.

But making use of an entirely different experimental team solves this problem entirely because a different measurement apparatus located in a different place is just not going to have the same error. Even if they are off in the measurement by a similar amount, the second team is almost certainly going to be off in a different direction. So if a second team comes up with a consistent result, then we can say there's something going on here. Not until.

Human error I can understand, but is there something wrong with the instrumental setup in which no mistakes were found?
Once again: it was humans involved in detecting the error. Humans make mistakes. The most likely conclusion, at this point, is that the scientists at OPERA were insufficiently creative to discover the source of the error.

Forgive my many questions, but I'm just trying to make sure you guys aren't preparing for a cover-up like the last time with the climate. :)
With the climate? There is no cover-up with the climate. It's warming. Humans are causing it. Period.
 
Upvote 0

Tuddrussell

The Dreamer of the Darkness
Jun 28, 2011
614
15
33
Pacific Northwest
✟8,355.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Say I was the leader of an intergalactic trade caravan and I wanted to send one way radio transmissions to the other light speed spacecrafts in my fleet. (If there's an emergency or something.)

How far apart would they have to be spaced, and how much lag (The time between transmission and reception) would there be?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pgp_protector

Noted strange person
Dec 17, 2003
51,754
17,655
56
Earth For Now
Visit site
✟404,662.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Say I was the leader of an intergalactic trade caravan and I wanted to send one way radio transmissions to the other light speed space crafts in my fleet. (If there's an emergency or something.)

How far apart would they have to be spaced, and how much lag (The time between transmission and reception) would there be?

Just an FYI Radio Transmissions already travel at the speed of light :)
 
Upvote 0

Tuddrussell

The Dreamer of the Darkness
Jun 28, 2011
614
15
33
Pacific Northwest
✟8,355.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Just an FYI Radio Transmissions already travel at the speed of light :)

So a radio transmission from one ship travelling at light speed would be able to reach another ship also travelling at light speed instaneously and regardless of distance?

That doesn't seem like it would be the case.
 
Upvote 0

christianmomof3

pursuing Christ
Apr 12, 2005
12,798
1,229
60
in Christ
✟25,915.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So, if you combine quantum physics with religion, would you come up with
"God exists if you believe that He does and if you don't believe He exists, then He does not."?
Or would it be that "you can never really touch God, because once you locate Him, He moves"?
 
Upvote 0

pgp_protector

Noted strange person
Dec 17, 2003
51,754
17,655
56
Earth For Now
Visit site
✟404,662.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So a radio transmission from one ship travelling at light speed would be able to reach another ship also travelling at light speed instaneously and regardless of distance?

That doesn't seem like it would be the case.

Depends on the direction of travel.

If Direction of Travel is (Ship B) -----> (Ship A)---->
And Ship A Transmits to Ship B the radio signal would arrive at the 1/2 point of the distance between A & B when Ship B Reaches that same point.

But Ship B wouldn't be able to communicate with Ship A as Ship A Would always be ahead of ship's B signal.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟28,653.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
So a radio transmission from one ship travelling at light speed would be able to reach another ship also travelling at light speed instaneously and regardless of distance?

That doesn't seem like it would be the case.
Well, things get pretty messy here, because whose reference frame are you doing the measurement in?

But regardless, if we consider that all these spacecraft are traveling at the same speed, and we are going to use the spacecraft's reference frame to determine simultaneity, and that speed is very close to but not exactly the speed of light, then the answer is easy:

The ships are, relative to one another, stationary, so we can just send the signal as if they were all standing still, and everything will work as we expect. So the timing of the signal just depends upon how close to one another they are within their own reference frame.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.