CERN confirms neutrinos don't break light speed
Neutrinos are most definitely not faster than light after all, says CERN. The laws of physics got the good news last Friday at the 25th International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics in Kyoto, in a talk titled “The neutrino velocity measurement by OPERA experiment”. Slides (PDF) accompanying the talk say the …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: eh?
"he might end up getting the hangover the day before, which wouldn't be pleasant."
At least he'd have an rough idea of how much he ought to drink.
Re: eh?
'If you're driving to the pub what non beer drinking activity are you in such a hurry to do?'
You've never left your car at a pub and walked or got a taxi home? That's valuable drinking time you're wasting waiting for transport to the pub.
"it is what we all expected deep down"
Doesn't sound very scientific to me :-)
The explanation about the clock being out makes sense but a possible problem with a connection sounds a lot like guessing and not so much like science either!
Re: "it is what we all expected deep down"
I think they're going about this all wrong: As one approaches the speed of light all energy is converted to mass and time dilates relative to your speed.
So what if scientists stopped working on going fast and started working on going slow?
If the inverse was to occur as an object approaches the direct opposite of the speed of light i.e. all mass would be converted to energy.
Relativity says it is impossible for an object with mass to travel faster than light. What if by slowing to a stationary speed ones mass becomes energy. One could then, in a state of pure energy without mass, travel at the speed of light or faster.
Re: "it is what we all expected deep down"
Doesn't sound scientific? It does to me, but I've always been rather impressed with Einsteins' general relativity. There's enough random stuff entering physics that brings not answers, but just more questions. So I think this is good news because it means we (still) can be fairly confident we understand one aspect of how the universe works.
Re: "it is what we all expected deep down"
WTF?
No, chap.
Firstly, because we've been working on 'going slow' for quite a while. The direct opposite of the speed of light is not moving at all. You do this by freezing things lots, as any GCSE chemistry student or physics student will tell you. This reduces their entropy to zero: They go *nowhere*. (it's also fairly fatal...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero
Re: "it is what we all expected deep down"
tish and pshwar!
i have a strong suspicion, and some anecdotal evidence that i am approxiamtely 6 feet tall.
if i was to measure myself and find i was 1.25m tall, i would immediately suspect;
a) my sums were not all they should be
b) there was something wrong with the ruler
case of a - i'd have someone good at sums check my workings
case of b - i'd use a different ruler
thats the scientific method
(whereas engineers would just turn it off and on again)
Science works, who'd of thunk it
If I remember correctly the head of the lab had to resign over this. Not because he'd done anything wrong but because of all the media hype surrouding it. Pity. I'd've liked to have seen more comments supprting the work of the scientists than rehashing an old, sterile arguement.
So why did we hear about it in the first place?
Modern Science seems to be too busy playing the PR game to do any real Science. If your job is to relay information to the wider public, you need to check that the information you release is accurate, or at least has reasonable backing.
The fact that this could have been double checked behind closed doors before any front-page tabloid claims were made makes me ignore scientific claims a little more each and every day.
Paris, because I'd much rather see her on our front-pages than the latest half arsed Cancer/Health/Science/Environmental story that will be contradicted in a few months.
Re: So why did we hear about it in the first place?
Why should publically funded science go on behind closed doors?
This was not a trivial problem to solve, hence the length of time it took. Many people were involved, so it would have been tricky to keep it all hush-hush... and what on earth would be the point?
Re: So why did we hear about it in the first place?
It was double and triple checked behind closed doors.
The original announcement was made in a 'We can't see a problem - can you?'
So both theory and practice were checked independently.
Independent checking is vital to good science. So I'm not seeing a problem here.
Re: So why did we hear about it in the first place?
"If your job is to relay information to the wider public, you need to check that the information you release is accurate, or at least has reasonable backing."
Clearly, you don't understand peer review very well. Or scientific method. Or are just trolling.
The whole point of our scientific method is that experiments should be repeatable. Also that -assuming you have used a respectable amount of rigour- you should publish regardless of if the results are what you quietly expect or not, without bias. The whole *point* of releasing the results to a wider audience was to find fault (or not).
Scientific papers are published in the open. If a journalist wants to seize upon something an print it in a non-scientific journal, how do you propose we stop it?
a) Scrap the concept of peer review, and go back to the Dark Ages.
b) Control the mainstream media and get rid of the Free Press.
c) Carry out science in secret, and only secret-special-science-minds are allowed to read scientific papers, providing they sign an NDA.
Re: So why did we hear about it in the first place?
"c) Carry out science in secret, and only secret-special-science-minds are allowed to read scientific papers, providing they sign an NDA."
Not so much secret, but on a time delay. Allow the peer review to occur without the glaring eye of a misinterpreting mass media. Make a time-limited NDA, say 6-12 months so as to allow the scientific community time to double-check the findings, then when the term expires, publish all the findings at once so that you can say, "We found some weird stuff, but then these guys found something we had to double-check." If your findings are supported, then you can go public with better confidence because you can say, "We definitely found something strange, as an independent firm managed to come to the same conclusion."
Re: So why did we hear about it in the first place?
Doesn't work, though. The 'scientific community' is huge, when you consider the number of research students who rightfully deserve access to the latest papers. Who gets in, who doesn't? Bias and agendas will creep in and the system would be corrupt, fallible, and doubtless as leaky as a leaky thing.
I really don't like the idea of science being carried out in secret (as regards non-defence related stuff). It undermines trust in logic and reason, and seems a huge step backwards. Your solution re-invents a cabal-like 'priesthood'.
Re: So why did we hear about it in the first place?
So you're saying there are science firms, media firms, AND media science firms, an area where the two are inextricably mixed?
great
but i still don't believe the speed of light is fixed and that it cannot travel beyond 300000 Km/sec.
For some odd reason researchers seem to believe that if you suck all the molecules out of a container, you have a vacuum, a container filled with nothing.
I see things a bit differently, as i see a container without molecules definately not containing "nothing". That we lack the understanding of what's left, doesn't mean you can call it "nothing", it's something, we just don't understand what it is.
continuing from that, i most certainly do believe that light traveling through space has a speed limit of the aforementioned 300000 Km/s, but i also believe that if you where able to let light move "beyond" (for lack of a better word) space, it's speed would become nearly limitless.
i know, very theoretical stuff, but a limit for the speed of light doesn't really work for me and it doesn't explain some of the weirder things in the universe (like how the farthest galaxies seem to be moving away from us the fastest).
The fun thing about any theory obviously being that there's very little rules, if you can think of it, it's a valid theory, untill someone comes up with hard proof to the contrary.
Re: great
"The fun thing about any theory obviously being that there's very little rules, if you can think of it, it's a valid theory, untill someone comes up with hard proof to the contrary"
Your lack of understanding of basic physics doesn't make a "theory". And there are more rules than "if you can think of it" and what you believe.
Researchers also don't think if you suck the molecules out of a space you have a vacuum. They understand already that vacuums can't be created experimentally.
Re: great
Very impressive, apart from the bit where you confuse belief with theory based on evidence. Your talents are obviously wasted posting here, why aren't you working at CERN?
Re: great
You do realise that 'theory' has two discrete meaning, right? It doesn't mean in lay-terms what it means in science. Here: Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Secondly, vacuum != 'space'. Space has stuff in it. That's how stars form, after all.
Next up; your armchair physics are way beyond the times. We already know that 'nothing' isn't really 'nothing', and understand it theoretically and experimentally, to a reasonable level (certainly way beyond merely making simplistic predictions).
Quantum Theory (which might be 'just a theory', but despite that is the reason that I'm sitting using a functioning computer...!) dictates that even in a vacuum, 'stuff' pops into existence and pops back out again all the time. There is no such thing as an empty space. The Casimir Effect demonstrates this, and has been demonstrated experimentally.
So, what you're saying isn't very theoretical stuff in real terms. It's a massive over-simplification of the science of 15 years ago. It doesn't matter if Relativity 'works' for you, ultimately: It works for the physical laws of our universe in every tested and observed way. On a mathematical basis, it 'works' for people with IQs of 180 who have spent 50 years studying it.
I learned a long time ago not to start second guessing the universe.
Re: great
You also spell "definitely" with an "a", so that sort of gives an idea that this applies to anything you say:
Competence level: ignore.
Warp drives
The theory of warp drives goes back to (at least) Einstein, making the assumption that nothing can travel faster than light would normally mean that you can't go from A to B faster than light could travel that distance, so the solution is to make the distance between A and B shorter, i.e. you "warp" space, if you could compress space in front of a spacecraft (and expand behind) then the distance is less, you'd appear to travel faster than light.
Of course, the biggest issue is that the only space warps we have ever observed are gravity wells of large celestial objects, black holes being the most powerful and bending a bit of light is a light year away from building a machine that could control such a phenomena, perhaps if we discover the Higgs boson, and then learn how to manufacture it, it could be the fuel for such a device (i.e. the warp core creates Higgs).
Todays science fiction is tomorrows science fact, e.g. a 4 qbit quantum computer today will (in the future) look like valve technology does to us today.
Technical details?
Come on el reg, how about some of the technical details of how a partially unscrewed fibre can cause a perceived timing difference?
It's explained quite clearly here:
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/neutrinos/neutrinos-faster-than-light/opera-what-went-wrong/
Actually
I've always thought that the speed of light was rather low, comparatively speaking. Perhaps there's other stuff that goes faster, that we just haven't discovered yet.
Re: Actually
Tachyons are theoretical "particles" that always travel faster than light, then there's "information" which (at least theoritically) can instantaneously be transmitted over limitless distances (by using entangled particles), but "stuff", matter or energy? who knows, but not without new laws of physics,
No, Information cannot be instantaneously transmitted!
"then there's "information" which (at least theoritically) can instantaneously be transmitted over limitless distances (by using entangled particles)"
According to the established laws of physics, information cannot be transmitted faster than light. Fullstop. No, and don't start discussing about it.
If you can demonstrate a single experiment that transmits information faster than light, not only will you win the Nobel price, you'll become the most famous scientist since Einstein. The entanglement experiments do not transmit information from one receiver to the other (i.e., Alice / Bob), because if they did, they would violate causality as we know it. Information only flows once Alice and Bob compare their measurements (e.g. by sharing another particle via a slow speed-of-light transfer).
Don't let the headlines mess with your world-view. Read the science and you'll see that the scientists tread very carefully to imply entanglement magic and teleportation without ever saying that information has been transferred.
Please re-post this whenever you read about FTL information transfer!
eggsplayn me this please
if the science world knows that 'nothing' doesnt exist, ie a vacuum in a container still contains 'something', then what exists between the nucleus of an atom and its electrons whizzing around it?
Re: eggsplayn me this please
>>what exists between the nucleus of an atom and its electrons whizzing around it?
The electron doesn't really "whizz around" a nucleus, it exists as a probablity function of it's energy level, if you like a "cloud of possibilities", so to answer your question, "the probability of a particle".
Empty space (i.e. spacetime with no particles) has a vacuum energy which means there's also "the probability of a particle" which sometimes clusters enough (often described as a foam) to create a particle and anti particle which anhililate (usually completely, but can produce persistent particles, see the casimir effect for more info).
I have a theory of spacetime density, (assuming) vacuum energy being a constant, as spacetime expands the vacuum energy density also lessens until the spacetime collapses creating dark matter which can only exist in the absence of vacuum energy, it explains both inflation and an (apparently) accelerating universe (and acccounts for the lack of matter), along with the potential for a future deceleration and implosion.
Re: eggsplayn me this please
I hate to break this to you: Your teacher lied to you. :o(
Just like the one in primary school who told you that atoms were the smallest things. Just like the one after the 'wizzy around the nucleus' teacher lied to you when he taught you about electron shells.
Sorry. What they should have said first was "It's *like* a..."
They are convenient analogies at the time, but aren't actually true.
Electrons might still not really be what we *think* they are. Because we can't observe it directly, our entire quantum physics model is an analogy that [this is the important bit:] fits our observations and allows us to accurately predict quantum behaviour and the way that the universe works. If fact the whole idea of string theory is basically "Nah, Stuff isn't really like that, it's like this".
Buuuut... anyway... back to the subject at hand: Just because an area of space cannot be a true vacuum because it's fizzing and popping with stuff appearing and disappearing, it also doesn't mean that it's jammed solid with stuff all the time either. Most of it is indeed empty space. Indeed: Most of everything is empty space. 99.999%+ of the desk I'm leaning on is empty space. But at any particular time a region of empty space *can* possibly have 'stuff' turn up in it, due to effects of th Uncertainty Principle (because if you don't know where something is... it could be anywhere). If you get a bit of space, suck everything out and seal it... stuff still turns up there, parties for a bit, and then buggers off again.
Helpful?
just like Waynette said...
'My brayne 'urts!!'
and if, like Deepak says, 'We are not who we think we are' then surely what we think we know is also not the case.
(there, that should close the discussion)
'We are not who we think we are' then surely what we think we know is also not the case."
'Then how much time should we spend trying to convince others of what we think we know?
(there, that should close the discussion)
No, this closes the discussion:
The Dingo DID eat the baby
science vs religion
science can (attempt to) tell us how, religion and philosophy can (theorise) why - unfortunately there are many people who extend the remit both ways.
>> 'science' never claimed to have 'power' in dealing with moral and existential questions; <<
and 'religion' never claimed to have the power over facts - plenty of religious people do claim that but plenty of scientific people (scientists? prob not!) claim the right to answer existential questions.
The clots who said the earth is the centre of the universe because there is a god are only marginally worse than the idiots who say there is no god because we live in some out of the way corner of a not very interesting galaxy.
This topic is closed for new posts.
