Einstein's relativity survives neutrino test

October 15, 2008

Physicists working to disprove "Lorentz invariance" -- Einstein's prediction that matter and massless particles will behave the same no matter how they're turned or how fast they go -- won't get that satisfaction from muon neutrinos, at least for the time being, says a consortium of scientists.

The test of Lorentz invariance, conducted by MINOS Experiment scientists and reported in the Oct. 10 issue of Physical Review Letters, started with a stream of muon neutrinos produced at Fermilab particle accelerator, near Chicago, and ended with a neutrino detector 750 meters away and 103 meters below ground. As the Earth does its daily rotation, the neutrino beam rotates too.

"If there's a field out there that can cause violations of Lorentz invariance, we should be able to see its effects as the beam rotates in space," said Indiana University Bloomington astrophysicist Stuart Mufson, a project leader. "But we did not. Einsteinian relativity lives to see another day."

Mufson is quick to point out that the Physical Review Letters report does not disprove the existence of a Lorentz-violating field. Despite the sophistication and power of MINOS's detector, "It may be that the field's effects are so exceedingly small that you'd need extraordinary tools to detect it," Mufson said.

Mufson is a member of the MINOS Experiment, an international consortium of physicists dedicated to studying the mysterious properties of neutrinos, particularly their wave-like oscillations. MINOS stands for Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search. MINOS scientists utilize the facilities at Fermilab to create a neutrino beam. The neutrinos are aimed at two detectors: one at Fermilab (the near detector) and another in the Soudan Mine in northern Minnesota (the far detector).

To produce the neutrinos, the MINOS scientists point a proton beam at a carbon target. The interaction causes a spray of pions (or pi mesons, a type of subatomic particle), some of which decay into muon neutrinos in the direction of the detector. Neutrinos travel at close to the speed of light, are unaffected by gravitational and magnetic fields, and because of their peculiar properties, can travel right through the crust of the Earth unaffected.

The notion of a Lorentz-violating field has become popular among theoretical physicists. Known physical rules do not do a very good job of explaining the cataclysmically chaotic moments immediately following the Big Bang, so some physicists are developing new theories to sort out the mess. The possibility that some of these new theories violate relativity was proposed by Mufson colleague Alan Kostelecky, distinguished professor of physics at IU Bloomington. Kostelecky provided some advice to MINOS scientists for the present report.

Kostelecky's "Standard-Model Extension" describes the most general possible Lorentz-violating fields that could arise in the universe's beginnings and also ties together Einstein's relativity rules and post-Einsteinian quantum mechanics.

One of the implications of Kostelecky's ideas is that the Lorentz-violating field could have been very strong during the mind-numbingly brief first moments of our universe. Now that the universe has expanded to considerable size, however, the strength of the Lorentz violating field may be severely reduced, making its existence hard to detect, if it is, indeed, actually there.

"Every experiment so far has not found violations of Lorentz invariance," Mufson said. "That doesn't mean we'll stop looking. We knew the MINOS Experiment presented a new way of seeking out violations, and in a difference place. We do things that are simple and look for something profound."

Source: Indiana University

4.4 /5 (53 votes)  

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

Alizee
Oct 15, 2008

Rank: 1.3 / 5 (12)
By AWT every gravitational lensing can be considered as a manifestation of Lorentz invariance violation, by the same way, like clouds of dark matter, polarization of light with quasars and black holes, etc. From the animation bellow follows, we can interpret every lensing as a direct evidence of Lorentz symmetry by the same way, like direct manifestation of its violation (every truth has at least two sides, here).

http://superstrun...vity.gif

If the light of speed in vacuum would be constant, we could never observe some refraction phenomena even at the presence of particles, because these particles are formed by vacuum as well and the radiation of constant speed always spreads along straight path through environment. It's evident, every observer inside of gravitational lens would perceive the deformation of light path as a deformation of space-time, while the experience of the outer observer will be exactly as opposite and these perspectives are mutually dual.

Therefore the quantum mechanics, which is used to describe the objects (space-time deformations) from their outer perspective can never be reconciled with general relativity, simply because it observers the same things from reciprocal perspective.

By AWT the concept of Lorentz invariance follows from trivial fact, we can never observe the motion/reference frame of inertial environment, which is serving for energy wave spreading by using of the same kind of waves, simply because no object can serve as a mean of its own observation and the inner and outer perspectives can never be considered at the same moment, or they would lead to quantum uncertainty. With respect to surface waves the water surface appears as a perfectly void and empty environment with no obstacles or motion by the very same way, like the vacuum.

Therefore the exceptional role of relativity in vacuum is simply given by the fact, we cannot observe the light spreading by another, even faster waves (if we neglect gravitational waves) - with contrary to classicall mechanics, which is dual by its very nature, as it enables to observe every wave spreading by another waves. It means, if we would observe the surface wave spreading by using of just surface waves and by using of time/space measures, derived from surface wave spreading exclusivelly, we would observe the relativistic phenomena even at the water surface. Therefore, no ad-hoced belief in Lorentz invariance postulate is required here, despite it agrees with many experiments well.

The whole difference of relativity from classical mechanics follows by the fact, in classical mechanics we are observing the water waves spreading by using of light waves, while in vacuum we are observing the light waves spreading just by light waves. This trivial inconsistency of experimental arrangement has lead into missunderstanding of the MM experimental results and the refusal of Aether concept as such.
Alizee
Oct 15, 2008

Rank: 1.3 / 5 (12)
The Kostelecky's theory has its direct analogy at the water surface. We are observing the chaotic Universe just by the waves, which can propagate it at the largest distance. There waves are moving most slowly at the same time in analogy to so called the capillary waves at the water surface. They've pronouncedly transversal character, by the same way, like the light waves.

http://hyperphysi...ngth.gif

From celerity curve of surface water waves follows, the speed of capillary waves increases toward both small, both large distance scale from outer perspective. The same is valid for light waves by AWT and it manifest by dispersion and causality violation (number of time arrows increases). We can observe it as a gravitational lensing, GZK limit and polarization of CMB by dark matter streaks at the cosmic scale (in the past of Universe) - while every quantum uncertainty phenomena can serve as a tangible evidence of Lorentz symmetry violation at the microscopic scale (the future with respect to Universe expansion). The MAGIC observation or GZK limit in particular can serve as a tangible evidence of Kostelecky and Aether theory - the only problem is, Mr. Kostelecky doesn't know about it...;-)

In general, the contemporary physicists are in schizophrenic situation, because they know, the QM can violate the relativity and Lorentz symmetry by many orders of magnitude - while they're still looking for another evidence of it just at the microscopic scale, as if the QM wouldn't exist at all, we use the proverb: "The darkest place is under the candlestick." for it. Such situation is the consequence of positivistic and formal thinking in mainstream science during the last one hundred years.
Alizee
Oct 15, 2008

Rank: 1.3 / 5 (12)
We know about the searched Lorentz violation field or so called "vector Aether" already, because it forms the well known fluctuations of cosmic microwave background (CMB). Technically speaking, everybody can detect it by using of his TV receiver and he can ask a Nobel price for it.

This is because the Lorentz symmetry and relativity requires the photons to be massless particles, which cannot interact mutually. Surprisingly enough, the GZK limit is explained just by dispersion of gamma ray photons by CMB photons without problem - while this mechanism isn't still considered as a direct manifestation of Lorentz symmetry violation due the strong intersubjective belief in it.

But we cannot have photon-photon interaction, materialization of light - and Lorentz symmetry valid at the same time. We should abandon some concept at least a bit for a moment because of omnidirectional Universe expansion. By AWT the photons are behaving like subtle blobs of vacuum density, so they exhibit the weak gravitational lensing and they disperge the another photons mutually. This dispersion is analogy of so called Rayleigh dispersion of UV radiation by Earth atmosphere and it protects the terresterial life agains deadly gamma ray flux from the most distant parts of our Universe.
jeffsaunders
Oct 15, 2008

Rank: 3.2 / 5 (12)
Alizee, I gave up reading all your contributions before you were called Alizee. It is not that I think your idea is completely without merit ,it is just that you do tend to lay on a fairly large dose of manure with each contribution.

And why do you have to lace your contributions with links to images you have made? The images seem to have absolutely no relevance to your point, and they tend (on the whole) to just be swirly globs that serve no discernable purpose.
NeilFarbstein
Oct 15, 2008

Rank: 2.8 / 5 (11)
I'm sick of your crap about aether wave theory. You guys are bunch of frauds and spineless geeks.
SmartK8
Oct 16, 2008

Rank: 3.5 / 5 (8)
Yeah.. When I see AWT I know two things about the post. First it'll contain some water analogy; second I'll stop reading there. *thumbs down*
frigatebird
Oct 16, 2008

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (4)
Hey! what's wrong with references to water?
Maybe AWT is an 'out there' concept, but it's pretty interesting nonetheless. All Alizee needs is an editor, and I got a mind to do it! hahahahaha!!! Wouldnt you hate that, you dour mcDoursons.

"OH! My name's Smarty McFarbistein, and look! I'm throwing clods of dirt at the outsider crackpot who dares to have something WEIRD to say! I'm defending SCIENCE." heh. I've seen some crazy shit, and one thing I am sure of, individuals like yourself don't have a clue as to WTF is going on. Of course, neither do I or ALIZEE with the crazy run-on sentences, but at least he's reaching? you dig?
D666
Oct 16, 2008

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
"OH! My name's Smarty McFarbistein, and look! I'm throwing clods of dirt at the outsider crackpot who dares to have something WEIRD to say! I'm defending SCIENCE."


If only there was a smiley for a Monty Python accent... :-)
axemaster
Oct 16, 2008

Rank: 3.5 / 5 (4)
AWT... boring...

"One of the implications of Kostelecky's ideas is that the Lorentz-violating field could have been very strong during the mind-numbingly brief first moments of our universe."

Consider my mind successfully numbed.
Alizee
Oct 16, 2008

Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
OK, guys - thank you a lot for your opinions :-) They've made a much easier to understand, why the acceptance of trivial ideas appears most difficult for many people.

Anyway - at the moment when we're paying scientists, who are looking for phenomena just because they're refuting to understand the explanations of subject - we should ask, if such ignorance is really the cheapest way of research.... Frankly, would you spend your private money for research of Lorentz invariance, if you would know, it's known in the form of CMB already?

Well, every ignorance comes with own price.
Alizee
Oct 16, 2008

Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
One of the implications of Kostelecky's ideas is that the Lorentz-violating field could have been very strong during the ...first moments of our universe.

Well, and the CMB fluctuation field is considered to be very strong at the Universe beginning as well...;-) But the main reason, the Kostelecky theory appears so attractive for you remains the fact, you've absolutelly no idea, how such theory should/could be working. This saturates your subconscious need of religion based belief, which has an evolutionary origin (the unbeliers were usually eaten by crocodilles hidden in the rivers first). For most people the modern science plays a role of religion: they're searching modern theories for their mysticism, not the explanations.
ofidiofile
Oct 16, 2008

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
One of the implications of Kostelecky's ideas is that the Lorentz-violating field could have been very strong during the ...first moments of our universe.


hey, nothing personal - but get a blog, why don'tcha?
twango
Oct 17, 2008

Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Alizee,

No offense intended, but ... there's no way to say it without risking offense ... your sentences are very poorly written. Because of that, whatever merit your ideas may have is lost in the difficulty of extracting what it is you are trying to say.

It has always been hard to get across new ideas, even with excellent communication skills. The history of technology is full of such stories. So it would behoove you to study proper English more.

One example: your last sentence above would look more like this:

For most people, modern science plays the role of a religion. So what they seek in modern theories are mystical revelations rather than explanatory power.

(I, like Feyerabend, agree.)
Alexa
Oct 17, 2008

Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Re Twango: Thank you for your correction - I'm expert in Aether, not English. Nevertheless, I can understand both sentences (both mine, both the correct version of yours) easily. The problem is somewhat different: it consist in fact, many people are refuting to think about new ideas purportedly in the hope, old ideas will explain the problem less or more lately by itself. So we can face a certain hysteresis in thinking, which has it's own analogies by AWT. For example, the merging of mercury droplets requires the creating a temporal creation of thin neck with negative curvature, which is source of strong repulsing force. Until this potential barrier isn't overcomed, the droplet merging will not occur. We should realize, this repulsive force manifests even at the cosmic scale, because gravitational field of every object appears as a less or more dense blob of vacuum density, i.e. like voluminous droplet.

Anyway, if somebody likes AWT concepts, it has no meaning to develop some theory by single person in poor English. The AWT is here for easier understanding of contemporary physics and optimization of further research, i.e. for money and energy saving for whole society. The common editation of Knol, Wikipedia articles about AWT is welcomed. Any new ideas about it will be welcomed as well (although I'd prefer to publish them individually first to avoid priority discussion for future). I looking for GPU programmers, willing to program particle vector simulations in many dimensions. And so on...

http://knol.googl...cale=en#

Internet enables to develop new ideas on Open Source basis. If Open Source community can develop it's own operating systems or processor designs - why not scientific theories?
Alizee
Oct 19, 2008

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
..get a blog, why don'tcha?
OK, done...
http://aetherwave...ion.html
Alizee
Nov 01, 2008

Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
http://www.newsci...ILC-hmts&nsref=top1_head_Why Einstein was wrong about relativity

By Aether Wave Theory the Lorentz symmetry is simple consequence of fact, we are observing light wave spreading by using of light, whereas in common life we are used to observe energy wave spreading by light waves, i.e. a TWO waves are involved in observations. The exceptional character of light is simply given by fact, it's the fastest interaction, which can be used for observations (if we neglect the gravitational waves).

http://aetherwave...nce.html

It means, Feigenbaum's insight is both correct, both wrong at the same moment. Lorentz invariance isn't really related just for light wave spreading. But the exceptional role of light for relativity isn't so unsubstantiated, because we can observe whole causual reality just by light waves, not by sound or whatever else ones.
Rank 4.4 /5 (53 votes)
Tags

Relevant PhysicsForums posts
  • How to calculate theoretical initial velocity?
    created57 minutes ago
  • Question about Gravity?
    created2 hours ago
  • Wearing black in a desert
    created3 hours ago
  • Did space exist before mass?
    created3 hours ago
  • How can E&M Waves be polarized?
    created3 hours ago
  • Does light travel for ever?
    created4 hours ago
  • More from Physics Forums - General Physics

More news stories

Putting the squeeze on planets outside our solar system

(PhysOrg.com) -- Using high-powered lasers, scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and collaborators discovered that molten magnesium silicate undergoes a phase change in the liquid state, abruptly ...

Physics / Condensed Matter

created 10 hours ago | popularity 4.2 / 5 (6) | comments 0 | with audio podcast

Hovering not hard if you're top-heavy, researchers find

Top-heavy structures are more likely to maintain their balance while hovering in the air than are those that bear a lower center of gravity, researchers at New York University's Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences ...

Physics / General Physics

created 11 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 1 | with audio podcast

SLAC, Stanford team focuses on high-energy electrons to treat cancer

Accelerator physicists at SLAC and cancer specialists from Stanford are working on a new technology that could dramatically reduce the time needed for cancer radiation treatments. The team ran an initial experiment ...

Physics / General Physics

created 14 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 0

Measurements from high-energy collisions lead to better understanding of why meson particles disappear

For several years, physicists at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), USA, have studied an unusual state of matter called the quark–gluon plasma, which they ...

Physics / General Physics

created 14 hours ago | popularity 4.5 / 5 (2) | comments 0

Explained: Sigma

It's a question that arises with virtually every major new finding in science or medicine: What makes a result reliable enough to be taken seriously? The answer has to do with statistical significance -- but ...

Physics / General Physics

created Feb 09, 2012 | popularity 5 / 5 (16) | comments 53


Anonymous knocks CIA website offline (Update)

The website of the Central Intelligence Agency was inaccessible on Friday after the hacker group Anonymous claimed to have knocked it offline.

Google users warned of threat to smartphone wallets

Users of Google smartphone wallets were being warned on Friday that there is a way to crack pass codes intended to thwart thieves from going on illicit shopping sprees.

New error-correcting codes guarantee the fastest possible rate of data transmission

Error-correcting codes are one of the triumphs of the digital age. They’re a way of encoding information so that it can be transmitted across a communication channel — such as an optical fiber o ...

Humans may have helped the decline of African rainforests 3000 years ago

(PhysOrg.com) -- Large areas of rainforests in Central Africa mysteriously disappeared over three thousand years ago, to be replaced by savannas. The prevailing theory has been that the cause was a change ...

Complex wiring of the nervous system may rely on a just a handful of genes and proteins

Researchers at the Salk Institute have discovered a startling feature of early brain development that helps to explain how complex neuron wiring patterns are programmed using just a handful of critical genes. ...

The power of estrogen -- male snakes attract other males

A new study has shown that boosting the estrogen levels of male garter snakes causes them to secrete the same pheromones that females use to attract suitors, and turned the males into just about the sexiest ...