Do neutrinos break the speed of light limit? Is Physics in Crisis?

Posted by P. LaViolette
(updated October 12, 2011)

On September 22nd scientists at CERN announced that they had clocked the speed of neutrinos over a 732 kilometer distance and found that surprisingly they travel at 0.0025% faster than the speed of light.  So whereas light and electromagnetic waves of all frequencies are measured to travel about 300,000 kilometers per second, these neutrinos were found to travel at 300,006 kilometers per second, arriving at their destination about 60 nanoseconds sooner than expected.

See the following news sources:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-cern-faster-than-light-particle.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/science-light-idUSL5E7KM4CW20110922
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Einstein+wrong+relatively+speaking/5453485/story.html

These results call in question the validity of the special theory of relativity which holds that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.  Since relativity is a mainstay in the standard physics paradigm, a pillar on which the framework of contemporary physics theory has been constructed, these results threaten its collapse and with it the construct of relativistic cosmology.

However, Carlo Contaldi questions the conclusions of the CERN-OPERA experiment in his preprint: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1109.6160.  He suggests that the researchers did not take into account various relativistic factors which could alter the timing of the GPS synchronized atomic clocks at each site and of the atomic clock that was moved from CERN to the Italian destination 732 km away to check their timing.  He notes that effects such as the Sagnac effect due to the Earth’s rotation, unaccounted for variations in gravity potential along the route taken by the calibration clock, relativistic effects to the calibration clock during acceleration and subsequent deceleration in the course of its transport, in total could have accounted for the 60 nanosecond time discrepancy that was observed.  We will have to wait and see what response their paper receives.

Regardless of whether or not neutrinos really do break the speed of light barrier, past experiments have shown that high voltage electric field shocks, variously termed Coulomb waves, Tesla waves, or scalar waves, do break the speed of light barrier.  These experiments support the subquantum kinetics physics methodology (SQK) which teaches that certain types of waves can travel faster than the speed of light.  Namely, it predicts that such longitudinal waves should travel at superluminal speeds since the shock that forms the wave’s leading edge propels the wave’s ether substrate forward in the direction of travel.  So now the wave velocity becomes v’ = c + vether , where vether = the forward velocity of the wave’s local ether matrix.  In particular, Nikola Tesla in the early part of the twentieth century Tesla had measured superluminal speeds of c × π/2 (or 1.57 c for the longitudinal waves he radiated around the world from his magnifying transmitter monopolar antenna towers.

In the past some have theorized that neutrinos may be longitudinal waves similar to Tesla’s waves.  In particular, like Tesla waves, they can pass freely through matter with little attenuation.  Nevertheless, there is one important difference. Unlike Tesla waves, neutrinos are particles with spin and mass, although their mass is extremely small.  But this makes the challenge for Einstein’s theory even more upsetting.  For, according to Einstein’s theory and laboratory observation, as a particle approaches increasingly close to the speed of light, its mass increases exponentially, an effect termed relativistic mass dilation.  Also in accordance with the law E = mc2, a particle’s energy should also increase exponentially.  Consequently, according to this formula not only should each neutrino have attained infinite mass and energy long ago in its acceleration history, but at superluminal velocities it should no longer exist in the physical world.

There are two ways out of this mess.  Either the CERN-OPERA experiment reached the wrong conclusion because factors affecting the timing of its atomic clocks were not taken account of, or if the conclusions are found to be correct, the neutrinos could have attained their superluminal speeds by surfing on an ether wind produced by the CERN accelerator beam.  This is further discussed below, but first let us review the history of superluminal measurements.  As mentioned above, this is not the first time that the c speed barrier has been broken.  There have been many demonstrations of energy waves traveling faster than the speed of light, although superluminal energy wave propagation is not nearly as shocking and destructive to physics as is superluminal particle propagation.  Below is a list of researchers who have shown definite evidence of superluminal wave propagation, but whose work unfortunately has received little or no media coverage.

A Brief History of Superluminal Wave Experiments

1) In 1988 researcher Alexi Guy Obolensky, working together with Prof. Panos Pappas, transmitted electric pulse shock waves at superluminal speed.  They published the results of their experiment in Electricity and Wireless World, December 1988, pp. 1162 – 1165.

page 1162,  page 1163,  page 1164,  page 1165

The above page links are provided on Dr. Pappas’ website.  Some of the images are marked with corrections that Dr. Pappas has made to correct mistakes made in the original published manuscript which was mistakenly not sent to A. G. Obolensky for his final review.

2) Also in 1988, Eric Dollard demonstrated an experiment in which he sent longitudinal waves through a coaxial cable at 1.26 c.  He discusses this in the following video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-721789270445596549#.  See especially the part 14 minutes into the video.

3) In 2005 – 2006 Alexi Guy Obolensky and myself transmitted high voltage Coulomb shock wave pulses across his laboratory at a speed averaging 1.26 c.  At 3.07 meters distance the pulse arrived 1.7 nanoseconds faster than luminal speed.  Our threshold resolution for distinguishing time delays was 125 picoseconds.  The rise time of our shock front was about 0.8 nanoseconds.  The speed declined inversely with increasing distance from the emitting electrode in accordance with the predictions of subquantum kinetics.  At a distance of 83 cm from the electrode the speed was clocked as high as 2.1 c with speeds as high as 8 c being projected at 65 cm distance!  Graphs of the data are published in my book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, p. 177 -185.  Other than this reporting, Obolensky and myself have not yet taken the time to write up the results for publication in a technical journal due to current demands on our time.  Nevertheless, as described in Verification Number 11, our experiment confirmed a key a priori prediction of subquantum kinetics.

4) Also around this time, Eugene Podkletnov and Modanese performed experiments with the Podkletnov gravity impulse beam generator in which they succeeded in sending gravity shock impulses over a distance of 1211 meters at a speed of 64 c.  They report their findings in a paper entitled “Study of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the Speed of Gravity Impulses” which is appearing this year (2011) in an edited book of papers.  E. Podkletnov has disclosed to me in personal communication that they have succeeded in measuring speeds of several thousand c in a higher power impulse beam generator.

5) Dr. Panos Pappas has recently continued experiments on superluminal pulse propagation in his own laboratory in Athens, Greece.  He reports the results of his work on his papimi.gr website.

In addition to the above there are various reports of superluminal signal propagation over very short distances such as the papers by Ishii and Giakos (1991) and Enders and Nimtz (1993).

Surfing the Beam

In subquantum kinetics, a superluminal wave gets its superluminal speed because it rides on an ether wind; recall v’ = c + vether .  So, the same may apply to neutrino particle propagation.  In the process of producing its neutrino beam, the CERN accelerator may also be producing a columnated ether wind traveling in the same direction as the neutrinos and, as a result, the neutrino velocity might become boosted by the added ether velocity, vether.  This calls to mind the columnated ether wind beam produced by Eugene Podkletnov’s beam generator.

 

A Celestial Explosion Warning Signal?

The question that arises is whether natural neutrino outbursts produced by stellar explosions and galactic core explosions would similarly have superluminal velocities.  Or would their velocities fall off as 1/r due to the natural outward dissipation of the ether wind.  If neutrinos do preserve an undiminished superluminal velocity even in natural explosions, this could be a valuable warning for the arrival of a harmful gamma ray burst or galactic superwave.  For example, if a neutrino burst were to arrive from the Galactic center approximately 23,000 light years away and were to have a velocity 0.0025% higher than c, as in the CERN experiment, then it would be arriving 7 months ahead of the initial gamma ray pulse and could give us some time to prepare.

Does antimatter fall up or down?

Scientists at CERN will be doing an experiment to see whether antimatter is attracted or repelled by the Earth’s gravitational field. They have succeeded in trapping 309 atoms of neutral entihydrogen for over 15 minutes and say this is long enough to test how antimatter responds to the Earth’s gravitational field. See May 2nd story at: http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/does-antimatter.php.

I have received inquiries as to what subquantum kinetics would predict as an outcome of this experiment.   The answer can be found on pages 115 and 116 of Subquantum Kinetics (3rd edition).  That is, subquantum kinetics predicts that gravitational fields produced by normal matter should attract antimatter, just in the same way that they do normal matter. So the neutral hydrogen antimatter trapped in the CERN experiment should be observed to fall rather than to rise.  This is not much different from what most physicists believe would be the outcome expected for standard physics.
However, subquantum kinetics further predicts that antimatter should generate a gravitationally repulsive field that would repell bodies regardless of whether they are composed of matter or of antimatter.   This prediction cannot be tested by CERN since the gravitational repulsive force produced by a few hundred antimatter particles would be far too weak to determine whether they would disperse from one another.   Shortrange attractive molecular forces would likely dominate and keep them clumped together.

But, this gravitational repulsive effect could be another reason why we do not observe antimatter galaxies in the universe. That is, if an antimatter body were to survive long enough to grow in size, say by a slow vapor deposition process on the body’s surface, eventually it would fragment due to the build up of gravitational forces which would eventually dominate molecular cohesion.

Any speculation that the CERN experiment could throw light on the belief that the expansion of the universe is speeding up, is entirely off the mark, for the simple reason that the universe is not expanding to begin with.   Unfortunately, the mainstream media writers and many astronomers have not caught on to the fact that the expanding universe theory was disproven at least 25 years ago; see our cosmology link.

Smallest Particles not Objects?

In retrospect considering SQK theory, it seems self-evident that the smallest (least massive, least charged) detectable particle in our universe cannot be a solid object.  Is it not logical that such an object must be linked somehow to even smaller objects which provide means to project a field or force that interacts with larger, more influential particles of our universe?  And thus, such an object cannot be the smallest which interacts with our universe.  Obviously, etherons fit the model of the even smaller objects.

Do conventional theories account for this idea?  (Upon presenting this concept to a nuclear physicist friend, my question is quickly discounted with a simple gesture.)  Can SQK shed further light on this simplistic notion?

Tesla’s Comments on Stellar Energy in Agreement with SQK

In 1934, on his 78th birthday, Nikola Tesla gave a press interview which the New York Herald Tribune reported on.  Besides disclosing for the first time about the force beam he planned to develop as a weapon for defense, the Tribune reported Tesla’s unconventional conclusion that all stars in the universe are growing both in mass and energy output and that they will ultimately end their life in explosion.  Below is an excerpt from this news story:

Dr. Tesla disclosed that he has lately perfected instruments which flatly disprove the present theory of the high physicists that the sun is destined to burn itself out until it is a cold cinder floating in space.  Dr. Tesla stated that he is able to show that all the suns in the universe are constantly growing in mass and heat, so that the ultimate fate of each is explosion…
He had, he said, detected “certain motions in the medium that fills space, and measured the effects of these motions.”  The results of the experiments had led him “inescapably” to the conclusion that such bodies as the sun are taking on mass much more rapidly than they are dissipating it by the dissipation of energy in heat and light.
He pointed out that his theory means a future for the earth as different from the general belief as the future of the sun.  It is generally held that life on the earth will cease when the sun grows so cold that the earth temperature drops to a point where life can no longer be supported.  Dr. Tesla prophesies that life on the earth will cease because the planet will grow too warm to support life, and he believes that life will then begin on outer planets now too cold.  He said that his discovery not only allowed him to predict a very different future for the heavenly bodies from that now generally expected for them, but also to calculate in a new way their age.

Joseph W. Alsop, New York Herald Tribune, July 11, 1934, pp. 1, 15.  reprint posted at: http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/Articles/jul_11_1934b.htm

I entirely agree with what Tesla said.  Tesla’s conclusions are entirely vindicated by the predictions of subquantum kinetics.  Subquantum kinetics predicts that all stars, including the Sun, are creating matter in their interiors as well as genic energy (energy produced by photon blueshifting).  As a result they are growing.  Unlike conventional theory which predicts that stars will eventually burn out, SQK predicts that stars will continue to grow in mass and energy output, either ending in a supernova explosion or continuing their evolution in the form of a stellar core mass that is subject to occasional explosive outbursts.  Tesla’s conclusions were controversial because they flew in the face of the law of energy conservation which physicists staunchly adhere to even today.

There have been several observational confirmations of the matter/energy creation predictions of SQK.  But it is interesting that Tesla claimed to have made observations prior to 1934 which led him to the same conclusion.  From his quote, one is led to conclude that he was somehow making measurements related to the ether.  What the instruments were and what the data was was never disclosed.  It possibly was confiscated along with much of his apparatus at the time of his death 9 years later.

There are other similarities between Tesla’s physics and subquantum kinetics.

a) Tesla believed in the existence of an ether that filled all space.  But this was an incompressible solid ether such as that proposed in the nineteenth century.  His consisted of “independent carriers immersed in an insulating fluid.”  This analogy comes very close to that of the subquantum kinetics ether which postulates a chemical-like medium consisting of reacting units (or etherons) that may independently diffuse through the medium or react with other etherons in the medium.

b) Tesla envisioned that the ether is acted upon by the “life-giving creative force.”  This comes very close to the animated ether of subquantum kinetics which continually engages in reaction processes proceeding forward as if animated by some Prime Mover.

c) Tesla believed that when the ether was thrown into infinitesimal whirls it formed ponderable matter.  In a similar fashion, the dissipative solitons that emerge from the Model G ether reaction system, which SQK postulates to be the analogs of subatomic particles, are predicted to contain ether vortices in their cores.

d) Tesla believed that when the creative force subsides and this motion ceases, matter disappears leaving only the ether.  This too parallels with SQK which notes that if the etheric reactive flux were to subside or change, matter would dematerialize. 

e) Tesla envisioned wave transmission as being analogous to sound waves traveling through a gaseous medium; i.e., alternate longitudinal compressions and rarifactions of a gas-like ether, and not transverse stresses in an incompressible fluid medium.  This accurately describes the subquantum kinetics wave model which envisions waves as high and low etheron concentrations propagating longitudinally from the wave’s source.

f) Tesla was against the general relativistic idea that matter could curve space.  Similarly, SQK does not ascribe to this either, but postulates that space remains Euclidean throughout.

P. LaViolette

SQK Simulations Question

Paul,
On page 79 of your new edition of SQK, regarding the simulated nucleation of a neutral particle, you state that no net decrease in G below the steady state value is seen. That is not quite apparent to me from the simulation. Although biased more toward neutral than in Figure 17, the area under the G curve still seems to be net negative. I suppose the curve is just narrow at the particle, and hence, the area is essentially zero. Perhaps that is the point? Perhaps the figures are not quite accurate? What am I missing?

Answer to your question: This simulation of a neutral particle (shown below) plots concentration vs. radial distance from the particle center.  But since volume increases as the cube of radius, the volume of the adjacent high-G shell will be found to be much greater than that of the low-G core region.  To sum up the total G-on discrepancy above and below the zero potential line we must multiply the concentration value by the volume increment that it resides in.  When we do this, it is found that the G-on excess in the shell approximately equals the G-on deficit in the core.  So both average out to zero.  The same should be found by analyzing successive cycles of the neutral particle’s Turing wave pattern.
Paul LaViolette,  Jan. 28, 2011