sacex250 0 #51 September 24, 2011 QuoteQuote !onirtueN ?ereht s'ohw kconk kconK Just a question - Is it the claim that the neutrinos exceeded the vacuum speed of light, c? Or did they exceed the speed of light through air or some other medium that would have slowed "light" but would have had no effect on the speed of the neutrinos? I would think that the "precise" measurement of the distance between emitter and detector would have had to have used some process that involved radio or other "photon-based" devices, including GPS, etc. How about local gravitational fields that might have more interaction with light than it does with neutrinos? My point is that there are a lot of things to take into consideration, given the 730 km distance. Any mistake or omission in the distance measurement could account for the "observed" speed. This experiment definitely needs to be reproduced by an independent team at a different location. Yes, the claim is that the neutrinos are faster than the vacuum speed of light. There are already particles that are faster than light when light is slowed down by a medium. I don't think they were having a race at the time.It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #52 September 24, 2011 Quote..... Neutrinos are the Honey Badger of sub-atomic particles; vacuum, solid granite, they don't give a shit...... Yeah, but light does give a shit. That's why I was asking. As I stated higher up in the thread, my guess is that when push comes to shove we're going to find out some cable length hasn't been accounted for properly. Just 11 inches of cable is one nano second, which is practically an eternity at the sub-atomic level. I'm betting this is likely the case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #53 September 24, 2011 Quote....... Yes, the claim is that the neutrinos are faster than the vacuum speed of light. There are already particles that are faster than light when light is slowed down by a medium. Thanks, that answers the first part of my question. I don't think they were having a race at the time. Didn't think so. But all of the distance measurements were done using photons at various slower-than-c speeds ...even if they used a ruler. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #54 September 25, 2011 QuotePäs, Pakvasa and Weiler consider a space-time where our universe is a flat brane that is immersed in a bulk whose own dimensions are seriously warped. Because the brane is flat, special relativity still applies there. Yet in the bulk, Päs, Pakvasa and Weiler have found that the large dimensions can be distorted in such a way that special relativity does not apply within them. This means that anything moving through the fifth dimension can break one of the founding principles of special relativity: it can travel faster than the speed of light as we know it. This has dramatic consequences for inhabitants stuck on the brane. To them, any entity that takes a short cut through the bulk appears to vanish and then pops up again at some point on the brane far sooner than it could have had it kept to the brane. For some inhabitants of the brane world, the entity appears to have travelled faster than the speed of light. Weirder still, to others it has also travelled backwards in time. That's because special relativity says that from certain frames of reference, faster-than-light travel is equivalent to travelling backwards in time. "Such off-brane short cuts can appear as 'closed timelike curves'," says Päs - again, that's code for time machines. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025521.600-at-last-a-way-to-test-time-travel.html?full=truestay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobMoore 0 #55 September 25, 2011 QuoteJust a question - Is it the claim that the neutrinos exceeded the vacuum speed of light, c? Or did they exceed the speed of light through air or some other medium that would have slowed "light" but would have had no effect on the speed of the neutrinos? I would think that the "precise" measurement of the distance between emitter and detector would have had to have used some process that involved radio or other "photon-based" devices, including GPS, etc. How about local gravitational fields that might have more interaction with light than it does with neutrinos? My point is that there are a lot of things to take into consideration, given the 730 km distance. Any mistake or omission in the distance measurement could account for the "observed" speed. This experiment definitely needs to be reproduced by an independent team at a different location. Maybe Pons and Fleischmann can verify the claim?"For you see, an airplane is an airplane. A landing area is a landing area. But a dropzone... a dropzone is the people." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #56 September 25, 2011 Quote.... Maybe Pons and Fleischmann can verify the claim? That thought did cross my mind when I first read about the neutrino experiment. But we are talking about CERN here ...not some kitchen table lab. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacex250 0 #57 November 21, 2011 QuoteIt's premature to make that statement. Much more work would need to be done to confirm that. After further review.It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyper 0 #58 November 21, 2011 imho this story is not about neutrino and even less about physics. It is about an image of "great mind" named Albert Einstein and "honorable prize" named Nobel Prize :D Those two myths will be busted if neutrino is prooved to be traveled faster than light and we'll get a lot of political discussons :) It's interesting that a lot of so called scientists questioned the results of CERN experiment even before the official results were published. p.s. oops CERN did it again :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #59 November 21, 2011 Quoteimho this story is not about neutrino and even less about physics. It is about an image of "great mind" named Albert Einstein and even prize named Nobel Prize :D Those two myths will be busted if neutrino is prooved to be traveled faster than light and we'll get a lot of political discussons :) It's interesting that a lot of so called scientists questioned the results of CERN experiment even before the official results were published. You should pay more attention to the process. CERN/OPERA *invited* questions and comments.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #60 November 21, 2011 John, Help me out with this... In the article cited by spacex... "It says, he wrote, "that the difference between the speed of neutrinos and the speed of light cannot be as large as that seen by OPERA, and is certainly smaller than that by three orders of magnitude, and compatible with zero." Under Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity, nothing can travel faster than light. " Diminish the value by 3 orders of magnitude and you still have a discrepancy that says "faster" that is NOT really "compatible with zero". It appears to me that they are saying. "Well, the difference is so small that we can effectively disregard it so that Einstein remains correct."My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #61 November 21, 2011 QuoteJohn, Help me out with this... In the article cited by spacex... "It says, he wrote, "that the difference between the speed of neutrinos and the speed of light cannot be as large as that seen by OPERA, and is certainly smaller than that by three orders of magnitude, and compatible with zero." Under Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity, nothing can travel faster than light. " Diminish the value by 3 orders of magnitude and you still have a discrepancy that says "faster" that is NOT really "compatible with zero". It appears to me that they are saying. "Well, the difference is so small that we can effectively disregard it so that Einstein remains correct." If the difference is smaller than the uncertainty in the accuracy of the experiment then you can't draw any conclusions. The entire discussion is about sources of error. The most likely explanation I've seen is that the OPERA team hasn't properly accounted for the speed of the GPS satellite (which is fast enough to need a relativistic correction).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyper 0 #62 November 21, 2011 Quote Diminish the value by 3 orders of magnitude and you still have a discrepancy that says "faster" that is NOT really "compatible with zero". It appears to me that they are saying. "Well, the difference is so small that we can effectively disregard it so that Einstein remains correct." Pops, in the case the speed difference is declared "comparable to zero" means that any deviation (difference from zero) can be clarified as measurement error and thus practically "equal to zero". The first attempts to diminish the results of first experiement were focused on that - "clock differences" between departure and arrival point. This repeated experiment tried to prevent that possiblity and obviosly they succeeded. But we'll see. There's a long way to go and experiement must be repeated in some other environment by some other ppl to be proven. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
verbil 0 #63 November 21, 2011 Not being a physicist or scientist for that matter, I have to ask: What practical applications could this knowledge have? Is it pure research (read: No useful ends)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyper 0 #64 November 21, 2011 QuoteNot being a physicist or scientist for that matter, I have to ask: What practical applications could this knowledge have? Is it pure research (read: No useful ends)? the most appealing practical consequence might be a possibility of time travel Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #65 November 21, 2011 Thanks, guys. I see that now. I need to get away from the absolutist thinking.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #66 November 21, 2011 QuoteNot being a physicist or scientist for that matter, I have to ask: What practical applications could this knowledge have? Is it pure research (read: No useful ends)? Pure research led to radio and TV. Pure research led to transistors. Pure research led to lasers. Pure research led to GPS. Pure research led to jet engines. Pure research led to MRI machines. Pure research led to CAT scanners. Pure research led to increased crop yields. The thing about pure research is not that it has "no useful ends", but that the useful ends are not obvious at the time the research is being done.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #67 November 21, 2011 QuoteWhat practical applications could this knowledge have? The FutureCam. I rest my case.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mpohl 1 #68 November 21, 2011 And THAT'S exactly your problem. You don't understand, you don't even have the mental tools to begin to understand...and therefore you will never understand that PURE research, as you name it, had and has very important practical outcomes! QuoteNot being a physicist or scientist for that matter, I have to ask: What practical applications could this knowledge have? Is it pure research (read: No useful ends)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
verbil 0 #69 November 21, 2011 Quote QuoteNot being a physicist or scientist for that matter, I have to ask: What practical applications could this knowledge have? Is it pure research (read: No useful ends)? And THAT'S exactly your problem. You don't understand, you don't even have the mental tools to begin to understand...and therefore you will never understand that PURE research, as you name it, had and has very important practical outcomes! Hey, Buzz Lightweight--take your attitude and shove it up your sanctimonious arse. It was a legitimate question. Sorry if it put a nick in your slide rule, egghead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mpohl 1 #70 November 21, 2011 The Micky Mouse-ation of science. The abdication of understanding. Here is the actual article, http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf. Relying on CNN, Fox, or other crap sources for science information, will just get you pepper-strayed mentally. If this is over your head, so are the workings of Congress and our society. Just stop voting and procreating! QuoteQuoteIt's premature to make that statement. Much more work would need to be done to confirm that. After further review. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #71 November 21, 2011 Both of you cut it out. Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bertt 0 #72 November 21, 2011 This is a good question. Of course, the experimenters might determine that the neutrinos didn't exceed the speed of light, but this is an important consideration for practical and theoretic reasons. For example, current computer chip designs have electronic components working so fast that the time it takes electrons to traverse a couple of inches of wire is important. If that time is not limited by the speed of light, there could be some exciting computer designs in our future.You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mpohl 1 #73 November 21, 2011 Also, think about the repercussions for future AAD design. Cypres V, anyone? :) QuoteThis is a good question. Of course, the experimenters might determine that the neutrinos didn't exceed the speed of light, but this is an important consideration for practical and theoretic reasons. For example, current computer chip designs have electronic components working so fast that the time it takes electrons to traverse a couple of inches of wire is important. If that time is not limited by the speed of light, there could be some exciting computer designs in our future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #74 November 22, 2011 Would you please do some research on my bank account? It sure could use a novel idea that would lead it to increase itself.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #75 November 22, 2011 Quote And THAT'S exactly your problem. You don't understand, you don't even have the mental tools to begin to understand... Nice. Do you research to find the most arrogant replies you can come up with or do they just pop into existence out of the blue? Got anything to ADD to the conversation?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
