/dev/null Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 They might have broken the speed limit http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 They might have broken the speed limit http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484 Do these propeller heads have a googlebot? Because if they did they would know the answer already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 the timing of this really sucks....up to this point there has only been one being/entity/person that was able to go beyond what was perceived at that point to be the limit...and we are getting ready to celebrate him in all his glory in a couple weeks. Mr. Nigel Tufnel....he went to 11 when it was believed that 10 was the limit...now these f***ing Jimmy Neutrinos decide they are also gonna go to 11??????? Damn them!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 And REAL space travel finally begins... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Just because some neutro-thingys went back in time does not mean much. It only took 88.8 for Michael J Fox to go back in time, and he's a lot bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 They might have broken the speed limit http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484 Scientific discoveries are rarely heralded with "Eureka!" More often, they're announced with "Hmmm...that's weird..." Good example of how science is properly done, though...get an anomalous result, run it enough times to make sure it's statistically significant and not background noise, then publish it to let others try to duplicate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Scientific discoveries are rarely heralded with "Eureka!" More often, they're announced with "Hmmm...that's weird..." Good example of how science is properly done, though...get an anomalous result, run it enough times to make sure it's statistically significant and not background noise, then publish it to let others try to duplicate it. DC Tom, As TBD's resident physics expert, do you think there is much to this potential discovery? Or is this more likely a result of systemic experimental error (for example, they are not correctly measuring the distance the neutrinos are traveling)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Scientific discoveries are rarely heralded with "Eureka!" More often, they're announced with "Hmmm...that's weird..." Of course they are greeted with "Hmmm...that's weird..." why would they be greeted with a vacuum cleaner anyway? How would anyone even know if the neutrinos got sucked into the Eureka? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 DC Tom, As TBD's resident physics expert, do you think there is much to this potential discovery? Or is this more likely a result of systemic experimental error (for example, they are not correctly measuring the distance the neutrinos are traveling)? There have been conjectures and theories out there that would and/or do allow for certain particles to travel faster than the speed of light. So there is the possibility that what they observed could actually be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) Do these propeller heads have a googlebot? Because if they did they would know the answer already. Looks like it was their googlebot that got pulled over and cited. Edited September 23, 2011 by Nanker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) DC Tom, As TBD's resident physics expert, do you think there is much to this potential discovery? Or is this more likely a result of systemic experimental error (for example, they are not correctly measuring the distance the neutrinos are traveling)? I have to read the paper first (which I fully intend to do, as soon as I get my hands on it). But from what I've heard their data collection and analysis seems pretty solid - they've got a large sample set of events much greater than their estimated systemic error (apparently 60 nanosecond deviations, when their margin of error is only 10), and are being responsible enough to say "We don't know what the hell we have, here's what we're seeing, can anyone double-check this?" But I can think of a couple of ways this could be happening under known theory (e.g. some sort of "quantum entanglement" - Relativity and quantum mechanics don't coexist well, so there's a gray area where events can happen that neither theory can adequately describe) that could cause this. And there's an outside chance that there's a problem with the experiment they didn't catch (though they've been extremely diligent, it seems. But they're probably sweating the possibility of someone coming back and saying "you forgot to carry the two"). Most likely: they discovered something novel that ultimately doesn't violate Relativity. Far less likely that they have some experimental flaw. Less likely than that, that they discovered that General Relativity's wrong. I want to note, too, that this is how science is properly done. If this were done the same way global warming research is, everyone would dismiss this "because Relativity's right, because there's consensus!" Which I point out NOT to turn this into a global warming debate, but just because it's a perfect illustration of why I complain that global warming isn't science. EDIT: reading the paper now. Their work is [/i]excellent - most of the paper is about eliminating sources of error in their results, which they went to amazing lengths to do (distance measurements accurate to one part in 35 billion, time measurements made with matching cesium clocks synchronized three different ways, neutrino pulses matched to their creating proton pulses by direct waveform comparisons rather than assumptions on arrival times). I can't find a single source of error large enough to account for their result that they haven't already considered (which doesn't mean there isn't one...but I'm pretty damn good at identifying systemic sources of error). They even managed to demonstrate some energy dependence (more energetic neutrinos are faster - which is not necessarily so in particle physics) which is just damned spooky. I don't think they're violating Relativity...but it looks like they discovered something. My best guess right now is that there's something wacky going on in the waveform they're comparing that's impacting the measurements...which even itself would be an important discovery. Edited September 23, 2011 by DC Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repulsif Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I've read the pdf too -- grossly skipped the technical parts that were too hard for me. Tom, the 1st thing I thought after that was SN 1987. Could it be the same "thing" ? Did the maths (hard to do in the morning) and there was a differance by 105 (10 power 5) ; so that don't match. What do you think of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Well, there is this: "All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light." Nikola Tesla, July 10, 1932 And there is this man that explains the reasons for his doubt: This extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 I've read the pdf too -- grossly skipped the technical parts that were too hard for me. Tom, the 1st thing I thought after that was SN 1987. Could it be the same "thing" ? Did the maths (hard to do in the morning) and there was a differance by 105 (10 power 5) ; so that don't match. What do you think of that? See Terry Tate's link. Supernova neutrinos arriving earlier than light is because of the dynamics of supernovae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 And there is this man that explains the reasons for his doubt: This extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence! The evidence is already pretty extraordinary...but no one's arguing the claim should be taken at face value. Hell, the researchers at CERN aren't even making the claim - they're pretty clearly saying "We've got weird results, we've checked these backwards and forwards about thirteen thousand different ways, we can't make sense of them. Here's what they look like. Can anyone confirm?" Very responsible science, and the researchers were as thorough as anything I've ever seen. (The blogger says he's suspicious of the accuracy...so was I, until I read the paper. They had everything checked by two different independent organizations, their distance baseline has twice checked out accurate to one part in ten million, their time baseline checks out accurate to one part in ten trillion.) I'm anxious to see what Fermilabs comes up with - which is not going to happen soon (this time next year they might have results). I can't imagine they confirm...but I can't see where the CERN team could have made an error, unless it's in the detector itself (which, again, they were extremely thorough in checking out.) Right now, it's just weird is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 So does this all mean FTL drives are a possibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 I've oft posed the question, 'If you're driving in your car at the speed of light, what happens when you turn on your headlights?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 I've oft posed the question, 'If you're driving in your car at the speed of light, what happens when you turn on your headlights?' You will overdrive them for sure. Heck, one can overdrive the headlights at normal to fast speeds now. The lights only shine a few hundred feet or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I don't know much about, or the validity of, the host site, but here's an article on a potential error in measuring the speed of the neutrinos. http://www.livescience.com/16506-einstein-theory-put-brakes-faster-light-neutrinos.html If you don't want to read the article, it says a potential source of error is that minor gravity differences affect time measurements in different locations. If the differences weren't properly accounted for, the time error may be the reason why the neutrinos appeared to travel faster than light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I don't know much about, or the validity of, the host site, but here's an article on a potential error in measuring the speed of the neutrinos. http://www.livescience.com/16506-einstein-theory-put-brakes-faster-light-neutrinos.html If you don't want to read the article, it says a potential source of error is that minor gravity differences affect time measurements in different locations. If the differences weren't properly accounted for, the time error may be the reason why the neutrinos appeared to travel faster than light. Have to read the paper first...but it was accounted for in the original paper pretty well. The article mentions two different possibilities: an overestimation of the GPS synchronization, and gravitational time dilation throwing the clocks off. The first was pretty well accounted for (if only by the sheer volume of incidents - normal-distributed error of that magnitude in 10000 incidents should be bloody well obvious, and it's not. And to miss it would require three independent organizations to be royally stupid several times over.) Gravitational time dilation was one of the first things that occurred to me, but when I did the math the effect wasn't even close to accounting for the measurement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts