Home Entertainment & Technology Resource

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is this mind blowingly significant - or not?

Discussion in 'General Chat Forum' started by simon ess, Sep 22, 2011.

  1. simon ess

    simon ess Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,127
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +585
  2. IronGiant

    IronGiant Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    35,673
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +12,390
    The need for a peer reviewed paper? :D


    Scientific Breakthroughs announced by Media is always rather worrying and it seems to be getting more common.

    "We know there will probably be a rational explanation, but we thought we'd throw our anomalous result at at the media to get 15 minutes of fame before someone pointed out our error and we vanished into obscurity."
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2011
  3. simon ess

    simon ess Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,127
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +585
    Absolutely! That appears to be the next step.

    A report will soon be online to draw closer scrutiny to a result that, if true, would upend a century of physics.

    In the meantime, the group says it is being very cautious about its claims.

    "We tried to find all possible explanations for this," said report author Antonio Ereditato of the Opera collaboration.

    "We wanted to find a mistake - trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects - and we didn't," he told BBC News.

    "When you don't find anything, then you say 'Well, now I'm forced to go out and ask the community to scrutinise this.'"
  4. dc8900

    dc8900 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    12,306
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,469
    From that article:

    I wouldn't go burning the physics books just yet but anyway, would be interesting if this result could ever be replicated
  5. IronGiant

    IronGiant Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    35,673
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +12,390
    Like cold fusion...

    :D
  6. Phil57

    Phil57 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,680
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +516
    Where's Pincho Paxton when he's wanted?:devil:
  7. IronGiant

    IronGiant Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    35,673
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +12,390
    If correct it will be very interesting. My apologies for being so cynical until it is proven :D

    @ Phil57, let's not go there please.
  8. imightbewrong

    imightbewrong Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    22,266
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,230
    My money is on rounding error or someone didn't set their clock right :)
  9. simon ess

    simon ess Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,127
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +585

    :laugh:

    It's probably something to do with bubbles.
  10. IronGiant

    IronGiant Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    35,673
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +12,390
    :nono: re: PP

    I realise you probably didn't see my post @Phil
  11. simon ess

    simon ess Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,127
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +585
    This links to at least 2 current threads :D

    I believe in the scientific process.

    A few scientific breakthroughs and we'll be able to contact alien species.
  12. simon ess

    simon ess Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,127
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +585
    Oops... no I didn't...sorry.
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  13. IronGiant

    IronGiant Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    35,673
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +12,390
    It would be amazing if true :thumbsup:
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  14. GaryB

    GaryB Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2002
    Messages:
    5,062
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,118
  15. dc8900

    dc8900 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    12,306
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,469
  16. GaryB

    GaryB Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2002
    Messages:
    5,062
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,118
    I even did a couple of searches before posting. That cryptic thread title beat me.
  17. simon ess

    simon ess Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,127
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +585
    Yeah - I've learned it's best to be more obvious in thread titles.

    Interesting isn't it.
  18. JagoUK

    JagoUK Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    7,044
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +589
    bet its something stupid like they forgot the earth is spinning :suicide:

    however, i still think Einstein was wrong anyway
  19. IronGiant

    IronGiant Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    35,673
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +12,390
    Scientists are always wrong in the long term :thumbsup:. Best we can hope for is the theory is the best fit for the current data. Like an athlete holding a World Record. It only lasts until someone breaks it.
  20. Mr_Ceee

    Mr_Ceee Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    365
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +57
    Assuming this has been found whilst looking for Higgs Bosson a bug in one of the 50 million lines of code probably got it's sums wrong.

    cerns code bugs
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2011
  21. Begonia

    Begonia Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,823
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +572
  22. nheather

    nheather Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    12,214
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,204
    I like how the media potrays it - Einstein got it wrong, this has turned science on his head.

    They seem to forget that we are continually discovering new things in science, but usually they apply in a specific context which doesn't mean that everything to date is turned on it's head.

    Deisgns and discovered based on Newtonian physics still work - bridges didn't fall down when Eisteinian Phyics was 'discovered'.

    Likewise all the discoveries and designs made using Einseinian Physics still apply.

    This is just a new physics (if it is found to be correct) which will apply in different contexts.

    Cheers,

    Nigel
  23. DPinBucks

    DPinBucks Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    5,122
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +961
    Well, they've tried it 15,000 times, but all at CERN, with the same result every time. So the obvious first step is to check it at another facility, if there is such a one, to eliminate local systematic errors. If there isn't another facility, they are going to have pull their experiment apart bit by bit to see if they can find out what if anything has caused it.

    What the article doesn't say is by how much the neutrinos exceed c. A few billionths of a second doesn't sound like very much, but I don't really know.

    One intriguing possibility is that the neutrinos are right and light is wrong. c is one of those constants like G (the gravitational constant) whose actual value has no theoretical basis: it has to be measured. Maybe the light we've been measuring actually goes slower than c. We know it slows down in a non-vacuum. Just a thought. :)
  24. hopeless

    hopeless Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,175
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +345
    My friend told me that neutrinos travelled faster than light 15 years ago. And there other particles that travel much faster than neutrinos.*

    Not sure what they were teaching him at Salford Uni but it appears to be better than CERN :D

    * I assume it was just theory back then
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2011
  25. GasDad

    GasDad Remembered (1964-2012)

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,392
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +766
    Fun though.:)

    The Register in a surprisingly good article - states 60ns faster over 760km - from which I make* 0.0024%

    Surely if that were the case we would measure the speed of light (not 'c') differently for moving objects - given that we don't (think red-shift etc) c must equal the speed of light.

    Or are you suggesting that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is slower than it should be because of the quantum 'soup' through which it has to travel, and neutrino's have no such 'brake' on their travel.


    * 760 / 300,000 = 0.0025, thus 60x10^9 / 0.0025 = 0.000024
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2011
  26. Begonia

    Begonia Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,823
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +572
    Explanation: Victoria Cowie is supposed to be cleverer than Einstein because she has a higher IQ than Einstein had.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 23, 2011
  27. metropolis

    metropolis Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,273
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +173
    having looked at unreliable sources on the internet i think i can account for the extra speed,not sure if i should contact cern first or give av forums a scoop
  28. DPinBucks

    DPinBucks Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    5,122
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +961
    You're probably thinking of tachyons, not neutrinos. Nobody (until today) has ever suggested that neutrinos go at c+; it's always been simply c.

    The idea of tachyons came about because looked at simply, Relativity says that you can't accelerate an object up to c, because its mass becomes infinite. But some hypotheses of the day speculated that it might be possible to create particles which were already travelling at c+ at the instant of creation. Relativity then says that such a particle would decrease in mass the faster it went, and it would also travel backwards in time. To the best of my knowledge, the idea has lapsed because there turned out to be no theoretical basis for the creation of c+ particles.
  29. DPinBucks

    DPinBucks Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    5,122
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +961
    Amen to that :smashin:
    You're right, it is a good article (btw, they quote 730km, not 760, but who's counting? :) It makes no real difference to your calculation). I make it that the neutrino speed was about 300,007km/s.
    The latter. Doppler redshift doesn't give any indication of the speed of light; merely the speed of the object. I'm only thinking aloud, note, not proposing a new paradigm.
  30. johntheexpat

    johntheexpat Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    7,049
    Media:
    8
    Albums:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,412
    I look forward to her coming up with a ground breaking theory that dominates science for the next century. :rolleyes:

Share This Page