1. Join Now

    AVForums.com 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' started by simon ess, Sep 22, 2011.

  1. simon ess

    simon ess Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,128
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    up 'Castle duck.
    Ratings:
    +594
  2. IronGiant

    IronGiant Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    49,500
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Oxford UK
    Ratings:
    +25,032
    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 Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,128
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    up 'Castle duck.
    Ratings:
    +594
    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 Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    12,230
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +2,488
    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:
    49,500
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Oxford UK
    Ratings:
    +25,032
    Like cold fusion...

    :D
     
  6. Phil57

    Phil57 Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,886
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    The Vale of Evesham
    Ratings:
    +623
    Where's Pincho Paxton when he's wanted?:devil:
     
  7. IronGiant

    IronGiant Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    49,500
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Oxford UK
    Ratings:
    +25,032
    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 Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    37,223
    User Reviews:
    1
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    167
    Location:
    Romford-ish
    Ratings:
    +15,527
    My money is on rounding error or someone didn't set their clock right :)
     
  9. simon ess

    simon ess Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,128
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    up 'Castle duck.
    Ratings:
    +594

    :laugh:

    It's probably something to do with bubbles.
     
  10. simon ess

    simon ess Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,128
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    up 'Castle duck.
    Ratings:
    +594
    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.
     
  11. IronGiant

    IronGiant Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    49,500
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Oxford UK
    Ratings:
    +25,032
    :nono: re: PP

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

    simon ess Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,128
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    up 'Castle duck.
    Ratings:
    +594
    Oops... no I didn't...sorry.
     
  13. IronGiant

    IronGiant Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Messages:
    49,500
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Oxford UK
    Ratings:
    +25,032
    It would be amazing if true :thumbsup:
     
  14. GaryB

    GaryB Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2002
    Messages:
    5,333
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    St Albans
    Ratings:
    +1,262
  15. dc8900

    dc8900 Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    12,230
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +2,488
  16. GaryB

    GaryB Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2002
    Messages:
    5,333
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    St Albans
    Ratings:
    +1,262
    I even did a couple of searches before posting. That cryptic thread title beat me.
     
  17. simon ess

    simon ess Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,128
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    up 'Castle duck.
    Ratings:
    +594
    Yeah - I've learned it's best to be more obvious in thread titles.

    Interesting isn't it.
     
  18. Member 55145

    Member 55145 Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    12,063
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,487
    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:
    49,500
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Oxford UK
    Ratings:
    +25,032
    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 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    366
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59
    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
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2011
  21. Begonia

    Begonia Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,084
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Northampton
    Ratings:
    +650
  22. nheather

    nheather Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    14,505
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Horsham, West Sussex
    Ratings:
    +3,840
    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 Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    5,642
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Burnham, Bucks
    Ratings:
    +1,276
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,285
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +403
    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:
    5,384
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Bristol
    Ratings:
    +757
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,084
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Northampton
    Ratings:
    +650
    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 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,285
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    liverpool
    Ratings:
    +192
    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 Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    5,642
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Burnham, Bucks
    Ratings:
    +1,276
    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 Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    5,642
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Burnham, Bucks
    Ratings:
    +1,276
    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 Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,361
    User Reviews:
    0
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    France
    Ratings:
    +2,812
    I look forward to her coming up with a ground breaking theory that dominates science for the next century. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page

Loading...