Neutrino, Neutrino, Where Art Thou?
If, as explained in my "Einstein May be Wrong" blog, the neutrino may have exceeded the speed of light, we now ask what is the nature of this now famous particle?
Below I give the two citations which help to explain its nature for those whose eyes have not yet glazed over containing some background information on the mysterious neutrino. (Note neutrinos are used to smash atoms.)
In this blog I will explain some aspect of this Einstein- Neutrino, Speed of Light controversy which is not readily apparent and wasn't covered in the Einstein speed of light blog.
First read the following BBC article on the neutrino which suggests neutrinos can change their nature in flight so to speak and morph into now at least three flavors. How is this possible you ask. Read on.
The various varieties of Neutrinos:
The on-going debate on the faster than light experiment. Physics' ox begins to roar.
Now in my "Einstein May Be Wrong" blog, I pointed out that the press is ignoring a signficant aspect of the controversy which is that if E-MC2 is wrong then an uncontrollable chain reaction from smashing atoms is possible.
This idea coupled with black body radiation experimental results now make such a possiblity more possible.
But the science-military establishment does not want to talk about this since it would "alarm" the public and call the CERN project itself into question.
In short the controversy would highlight the common sense feeling that smashing atoms is dangerous and could destroy the planet if these explosions get out of control.
Secondly, the neutrino is all of this and its ability morph into different "flavors" (see the above article on this) means that physicists have not really understood the nature of space itself while wasting time and money on particle research. See my article "The Nature of Space" on this site for more detail.
Finally we will need to clarify another aspect of this "Einstein May Be Wrong" controvery which is that Einstein said that this speed limit applied only to light.
We know now that no such speed limit applies to the expansion of space itself or for that matter to galaxies which are routinely shown to be traveling away from us at speeds exceeding the speed of light.
Yes, galaxies exceed the speed of light dragged there by expanding space and the expanding universe itself. See videos below:
Therefore, if certain mass, particles and the universe itself is moving faster than light you will not be able to observe it. In the example of galaxies, those galaxies moving faster that the speed of light will gradually fade from our view never to be seen again, ever.
More over, if as some have suggested that if space itself is moving at some points faster than light, it also means that we only see the slow particles around us and not perhaps "dark matter" which is matter which is perhaps moving faster than light, beyond our ability to see it. (Gulp)
Wow you said. (I heard you.)
We want take all of these threads and weave them together bringing into the process quantum magnetics and superconductivity.
Finally before all of this is over I want to revisit black body radiation results and how all of this relates to gravity.
I may be an old man by then but we forge on nonetheless don't we?
How Magnetic Fields or Plasma Fields Explain the Universe
See articles which support the dynamo theories of the universe:
Lightening Strikes and Cosmic Rays
Questions about the existence of Dark Matter
Black holes and Gas
Gas and Black Holes
Quantum commuication and "spooky action at a distance"
Magnetic Force at Center of Galaxy ten times stronger
Detection of Magnetic Field Millions of Years Ago
Primordial Magnetic Fields
The speed of light controvery has just been complicated by the fact the head of the CERN group looking for the Higgs particle announced that there may be at least five Higgs partices-to the consternation of many- he goes on to say that this project can keep physicists busy for years.
And that friends may have let the cat out of the bag.
Physicists as with many professions simply invents ways to keep their jobs.
So if there may be "at least" five Higgs particles we ask what is the evidence for this and doesn't this mean that little is actually known about Higgs particles? What about the big announcement that was coming next year. All up on the air is my guess.
But, as important, is the idea that the Higgs field may be as important to investigate as the HIggs particles. A Higgs field makes more sense in terms of plasma theory, quantum theory, relativity, string theory, elementary wave, pilot wave theory and we see particle physics dominating a lot of the grant money and thereby preventing such alternative investigations. (And I am sure that the military arms of the governments which fund CERN are in the background whispering "We want a super-duper weapon out of this."
I am not a fan of particle physics, as you can see, for just the above reasons--they invent a new speculative particle or particles just to keep the money coming in.
Now another reason that the physicists push particle physics is that none want to embrase the pre-Einstein Ether theories. (See my blog on this on this site) If they even used the word the would be ridiculed as "crack-pots.
I am of the view that Einstein's views put a fork in the history of physics and led physics down the wrong road. Who better than Einstein you say, I say Nicolas Tesla was correct; and Einstein was wrong. I say Alfven was correct and Einstein was wrong.
This is the physicist's current stew about to boil over into the crackpot.
Meantime see the articles below:
How can hints at Sigma 2 or 3 qualify as a "discovery" It does not.
Secondly see the particle physics bias in this report.
In the coming days I will have a look at Tesla's Ideas vs. Those of Einstein
For background on Tesla see the following six videos.
For information about how Einstein may have been wrong in his black hole calculations see the video below. Then we talk some more.
For a terrifying discussion of CERN's danger to the planet. Go to the end of this video discussion on quantum theory.
Weighing in on CERN's safety are scholars from Oxford. See link below and then we discuss. See what you think.
Click on the author's name(Toby Ord) in blue in the article to get a PDF of the article.
A quote from the above paper after examining CERN's analysis of the safety of the project the authors go on to say:
"While the arguments for the safety of the LHC are commendable for their thoroughness, they are not infallible. Although the report considered several possible physical theories, it is eminently possible that these are all inadequate representations of the underlying physical reality. It is also possible that the models of processes in the LHC or the astronomical processes appealed to in the cosmic ray argument are flawed in an
important way. Finally, it is possible that there is a calculation error in the report."
"However, our analysis implies that the current safety report should not be the final word in the safety assessment of the LHC."
"To proceed with the LHC on the arguments of the most recent safety report alone, we would require further work on estimating P(¬A), P(X|¬A), the acceptable expected death toll, and the value of 15 future generations and other life on earth. Such work would require expertise beyond theoretical physics, and an interdisciplinary group would be essential. If the stakes were lower, then it might make sense for pragmatic concerns to sweep aside this extra level of risk analysis, but the stakes are astronomically large, and so further analysis is critical."
Is the Universe expanding faster than the speed of light? What is the actual data?
The legacy of Maxwell, unifying magnetism, electricity, and light.
The Higgs field sounds just like Aeather?
"The particle is named for the University of Edinburgh scientist Peter Higgs, who was one of six physicists who suggested that a sort of cosmic molasses pervading space is what gives particles their heft. Particles trying to wade through it gather mass the way a bill moving though Congress gains riders and amendments, becoming more and more ponderous.
It was Dr. Higgs who pointed out that this cosmic molasses, normally invisible and, of course, odorless, would produce its own quantum particle if hit hard enough, by the right amount of energy, and so the branding rights went to him"
Six videos on the up-coming Higgs announcement at CERN.
The Higgs Field and the Magnetic Plasma Universe- We explore how these related. First the magnetism issues
Asteroid to near miss earth this month?