LA BARBA DI DIOGENE, Dublin (EIRE) – 20 Years Online. Leggi l'ultimo pezzo pubblicato...

Anything but superluminal neutrinos and divine bosons…

by Leonardo Rubino. The absurdities on superluminal neutrinos and on Higgs boson are proved by the later denial of the news, for the formers and by the large number of questions (rather than answers) brought by the news, for the latter.


Today, after almost a year from that news on neutrinos, from CERN and OPERA, we can make some criticisms on it; drastic and severe ones, unfortunately. That news shouldn’t even have been given. Personally, I immediately attacked that news and some of the blogs below reported (in Various links) can prove that. And all the results which led them to give such a news weren’t even be worth being taken into consideration, as one who has well understood physics (and this has nothing to do, in general, with having a degree in physics or prestigious positions in the field of physics) should immediately think of measuring/evaluating errors. In 1919, some eminent scientists were joking (and not so much) on the fact that, in the whole world, just three persons could understand Relativity, in that period. Well, maybe things haven’t changed so much, since that time. Universities just confer degrees, but not the deep knowledge of the Universe; this one can be given only by the Creator; and, time by time, only to those he likes! And the official and prestigious scientific magazines can only claim academic endorsements, but those based on the brain can be given, once again, only by the Creator; and, once again, only to those he likes. Unfortunately, that news was published; moreover, time before, it seems that an eminent scientist (a whitehaired Italian scientist) already made the news leak out, so preparing, somehow, the publication on neutrinos faster than light. And after that, it seems he said: “One of the most important discoveries after those of Galilei”.

But everybody knows how all this ended up, months later: by a crushing denial on everything. And after that the news was published, even other eminent scientists, as, for instance, a famous Italian astrophysicist (she) and also a famous Italian mathematician (very known in TV) took sides, somehow, by supporting tachyon neutrinos; the former, by saying something like the news could be held as belonging to the progress of science which, after years of convinctions on facts as that of the light speed limit, was offering the revolution, the upheaval (all plausible) to men and ending by a sort of <Let’s see the progress of science>: “A clamorous discovery and totally unexpected which will open the doors to theoretical prospects completely new.” (etc…). But she didn’t notice that discovery would also open to the absurdity…from which you’d better keep those doors closed… The latter, still welcoming the news on superfast neutrinos, instead of keeping away from it, seems he stated:

“Einstein’s Relativity does not say at all that the speed of light cannot be exceeded! Everybody says that, but this doesn’t mean it’s true. What Relativity says is just that there must be a speed limit which cannot be exceeded. All experiments, so far, seemed to show that speed was that of light in vacuum, and maybe we will change statement: instead of saying the speed of light cannot be exceeded, one day we will rather say the speed of neutrinos cannot be exceeded.” Oh, no. The nature says, and how, that the speed limit must be c=299.792,458 km/s, or all the electromagnetism will fall down. But all the laws of the electromagnetism are a base for the working of the PC by which you are reading now and by which he has just given us his opinion about…

Moreover, the principle of the speed limit showed up, maybe, with Lorentz, before Einstein. And it did it in an electromagnetic context, through Lorentz transformations and before relativity, indeed; but, after that, the Theory of Relativity does say that the speed limit must be c and not another one. On this purpose, on page 3, in my treatise called “ON THE ILLUSORINESS OF THE MAGNETIC FORCE” I give a proof that the magnetic force has something illusory in itself, at least in its essence, as it was called, by the pioneers of the electromagnetism, a special name, that is “magnetic force” indeed, but so ignoring that it was exactly an electric Coulomb force, that is a simple “electric” attraction and/or repulsion among electric charges. In fact, it was given new and special lines of force (magnetic ones), different from the electric ones, of the electric field.

Ok, still with Maxwell we acknowledged that electricity and magnetism were deeply linked, as far as from one you could produce the other; electric moving charges show a magnetic field and a magnetic force (in the electric drill you have at home, for instance, in which the relativistic Lorentz contraction takes place, when you use it! And then they say that Relativity is far away from everyday’s life…); and a variable magnetic field can induce an electric current (in the alternator of your car, for instance).

But the secret of all was exactly there: in the movement. And why? Because, as we are going to see, by the movement we have the Lorentz relativistic contraction, so the change of the spacing among ELECTRIC charges and so a change in the ELECTRIC charge density and so a change in the ELECTRIC force and this delta of ELECTRIC force was originally given the name of MAGNETIC force. And what has all this to do with the value of the speed limit? A lot, as this equivalence between electric  and“magnetic” force can be crowned only after acknowledging that the speed limit is 0 0 c =1 e m (equation 6, below reported), so really the speed of light in vacuum c, not another one. If you suppose the existence of an object faster than c, you will also deny all the electromagnetic world, that is the whole world, in general. But all this is not so clear to some eminent scientists. In other words, if nature really puts in our hands an object which is faster than c, then we could use it as a special tool to carry out measurements on space and time on electric moving charges, so denying the existence of the Lorentz contraction (which is supported by the limit speed c, indeed, and which would be denied by that object) and the subsistence of the magnetic force, which is real, although it’s electric, in it’s real essence. Moreover, forget the recent news on the Higgs boson, finally found: first of all, the scientific environment from which that news comes from is the same one, again. Furthermore, this kind of announcements have got a behaviour in common: they all diverge, instead of converging to a point of common deep knowledge of the Universe. In fact, such a boson just apparently brings an answer to us (on what it would do), but, at the same time, it also brings another half a dozen of new questions (on what it really is and on how it would do what they say it does).

By summing it up a bit, Higgs boson would give a mass to other particles, through the friction among them and the Higgs field! It’s like if there is a guy, whose name is Anthony (and I don’t know him) and after researches and investigations I’m told that Anthony has been introduced to Jennifer by Josephine, through Michael. And so, now, I still don’t know Anthony, but not only: from now on, I do not know also Jennifer, Josephine and Michael…

In fact, the echo of the news on the Higgs’ boson has not yet faded out and there is already who has (re)started to hunt the superhiggs, in environments with 43 dimensions!

Let’s make short a long story: instead of all those implausibilities, I propose my more plausible Universe, shown, for instance, in the file at the link in point 4, in the bibliography below reported.


Keep reading the whole pdf essay by Leonardo Rubino: click on the following link

Anything but superluminal neutrinos and divine bosons by Leonardo Rubino.

2 Comments on Anything but superluminal neutrinos and divine bosons…

  1. Fine way of describing, and pleasant post to obtain data about my presentation subject matter,
    which i am going to deliver in school.


    (How particle physicists fooled the Nobel Committee)

    Does The 2013 Nobel Prize In Physics Make Einstein Turn In His Grave?



Comments are closed.