|
On September 23 2011 20:31 Suisen wrote: Supernovae happen all the time, btw. It won't take long until we can observe 1 every day. Detecting Supernovae on a daily basis is comparably easy, detecting the corresponding neutrinos in significant numbers not so much. (for now)
|
On September 23 2011 21:31 Nawyria wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 21:23 shammythefox wrote:On September 23 2011 04:44 Warlike Prince wrote: my guess, the curvature of the earth is to blame. 700km is enough distance on land that if it went right through the ground it would not have to travel quite than far. All these facilities are curvature adjusted (gives an interesting feel that the entirely straight 732KM tube would be at an incline in austria and at a different incline in CERN) However obviously the still most likely port of call to explain this is an error in distance measurement. You'd think that, but apparently they've got their error bars down rather tightly: Show nested quote +In this paper we report on the precision determination of the neutrino velocity, defined as the ratio of the precisely measured distance from CERN to OPERA to the time of flight of neutrinos travelling through the Earth’s crust. We used the high-statistics data taken by OPERA in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Dedicated upgrades of the timing systems for the time tagging of the CNGS beam at CERN and of the OPERA detector at LNGS resulted in a reduction of the systematic uncertainties down to the level of the statistical error. The measurement also relies on a high-accuracy geodesy campaign that allowed measuring the 730 km CNGS baseline with a precision of 20 cm. We'd need an uncertainty of as much as 20 meters for the result to be invalidated. Still, it's possible that someone might not've been using proper SI units and measured stuff in yards instead. Edit: Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 21:28 Suisen wrote: Well economists themselves can't agree on anything so you can't really compare it to science. Now you're just trolling... shoo.
I'm aware of that, all i'm saying is its more likely their error bars are wrong than that relativity is wrong. Still, all possibilities should be accounted
|
On September 23 2011 21:39 Suisen wrote: I do think it's a fair criticism to how media report on economics. It's either so politically loaded or they haven't found enough laws and truisms that it is so much a matter of opinion of ideology you can't fault others for having a different point of view.
If that's 'trolling' then is Feynman trolling too? Do sociology, psychology, etc deserve the same respect as physics?
Dude, chill.
|
Any chance of some LR of the conference for those of us who can't watch the stream?
|
On September 23 2011 21:53 forgehammer wrote: Any chance of some LR of the conference for those of us who can't watch the stream? WHeres the stream? o.o
|
On September 23 2011 21:39 Suisen wrote: I do think it's a fair criticism to how media report on economics. It's either so politically loaded or they haven't found enough laws and truisms that it is so much a matter of opinion of ideology you can't fault others for having a different point of view.
If that's 'trolling' then is Feynman trolling too? Do sociology, psychology, etc deserve the same respect as physics? You're insulting sleepingdog in an attempt to invalidate his arguments because you cannot find fault with the arguments themselves. That is no way to have a discussion, regardless of whether your discussion partner is a physicist, economist, or zoo-keeper for that matter. So yes, I do think you're trolling and it's a straw man to say that by claiming this, I claim Feynmann is trolling as well.
It's also not fair to discredit people in the field of economy, sociology and psychology for that matter. Physicists and other exact scientists are the lucky ones in some respect, as their work carries a relatively low amount of political baggage (unless we're talking about (eu)genetics or sustainable energy) and can be tested repeatedly in a controlled environment. Researchers in the social sciences often have to worry about the political load of their work, conflicts with current ideology and rarely have a controlled environment with a large sample size where they can test a hypothesis repeatedly.
Returning back to your original contention, you can't expect scientists to keep their work hidden for fear the media will catch wind of it and somehow spread the story of unfinished research projects (what is wrong with letting people know how things are going work-in-progess really?). It would only serve to hinder the collaboration effort that is so important in particle physics nowadays and reduce scientific awareness among the public.
Besides, instead of a headline like:
Shock as Einstein 'may have been wrong'
Scientists think an experiment may have shattered physics' pillar by proving the theory of relativity wrong. (Yahoo News UK) blatantly misrepresenting the state of affairs, we'd have headlines like:
The secret that physicists don't want you to know
An anonymous tip from an insider at CERN tells us the scientific community is holding back knowledge that may one day build a time machine.
On September 23 2011 21:57 shammythefox wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 21:53 forgehammer wrote: Any chance of some LR of the conference for those of us who can't watch the stream? WHeres the stream? o.o
Link is here: http://webcast.web.cern.ch/webcast/
Neutrino results starts at 16:00 CEST. VoDs will be available later.
|
On September 23 2011 04:49 ChiffonAngel wrote: Time travel incoming. not quite. i dont understand why anyone thinks that travelling faster than the speed of light would mean going backwards in time -.-
there probably will be a mistake with this, but i sure hope that this experiment was correct.
|
On September 23 2011 22:04 CptCutter wrote:not quite. i dont understand why anyone thinks that travelling faster than the speed of light would mean going backwards in time -.-
never watched the superman movies, did you?
|
On September 23 2011 21:44 shammythefox wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 21:31 Nawyria wrote:On September 23 2011 21:23 shammythefox wrote:On September 23 2011 04:44 Warlike Prince wrote: my guess, the curvature of the earth is to blame. 700km is enough distance on land that if it went right through the ground it would not have to travel quite than far. All these facilities are curvature adjusted (gives an interesting feel that the entirely straight 732KM tube would be at an incline in austria and at a different incline in CERN) However obviously the still most likely port of call to explain this is an error in distance measurement. You'd think that, but apparently they've got their error bars down rather tightly: In this paper we report on the precision determination of the neutrino velocity, defined as the ratio of the precisely measured distance from CERN to OPERA to the time of flight of neutrinos travelling through the Earth’s crust. We used the high-statistics data taken by OPERA in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Dedicated upgrades of the timing systems for the time tagging of the CNGS beam at CERN and of the OPERA detector at LNGS resulted in a reduction of the systematic uncertainties down to the level of the statistical error. The measurement also relies on a high-accuracy geodesy campaign that allowed measuring the 730 km CNGS baseline with a precision of 20 cm. We'd need an uncertainty of as much as 20 meters for the result to be invalidated. Still, it's possible that someone might not've been using proper SI units and measured stuff in yards instead. Edit: On September 23 2011 21:28 Suisen wrote: Well economists themselves can't agree on anything so you can't really compare it to science. Now you're just trolling... shoo. I'm aware of that, all i'm saying is its more likely their error bars are wrong than that relativity is wrong. Still, all possibilities should be accounted
I'm not a physics major so this might be a noob questions but,
How much is actually known about Neutrinos? Even if they do travel faster than speed of light would that really by itself invalidate the theory of relativity only given what we know of Neutrinos? As far as I could read going though a few sites, it's not even known if neutrinos have mass or not. Wouldn't that be required for it to invalidate Einsteins theories?
|
Well this is interesting to say the least, I can hardly w8 for the final conclusion on this!
|
Nawyria, don't be a liar purely to get others to fight.
Neutrinos as so light and go so fast they are very hard to detect period. So not too much is known about it. Some here have talked about 'neutrino telescopes' by comparing them to photons, but that's really far off in the future.
|
|
Not that I understand much about the details since i'm terrible/dumb at these sort of things, (the fact itself is pretty amazing and cool if it was to be true though)
Here's a link I found on another forum, dunno if it has been posted yet or if it's any valid at all, but a guy stating that there are miscalculations basically:
http://johncostella.webs.com/neutrino-blunder.pdf
|
On September 23 2011 22:00 Nawyria wrote: It's also not fair to discredit people in the field of economy, sociology and psychology for that matter. Physicists and other exact scientists are the lucky ones in some respect, as their work carries a relatively low amount of political baggage (unless we're talking about (eu)genetics or sustainable energy) and can be tested repeatedly in a controlled environment. Researchers in the social sciences often have to worry about the political load of their work, conflicts with current ideology and rarely have a controlled environment with a large sample size where they can test a hypothesis repeatedly.
Thank you. Even though this is unfortunately developing quite off topic, I really feel like I have to say this now instead of later.
I believe(d) we are past the point where only the "exact, falsifie-able" subjects are considered "real" sciences. Science is - or at the very least this is what it should be - everything where mankind strives to higher knowledge by investigating something using methods that have been accepted/developed within the respective field of study. Because the without a doubt "highest" science, where everything has started and where everything, in the end, goes back to, is philosophy. And most of the philosophical theories can not be falsified. The classic university consisted "only" of four subjects - theology, law, philosophy and medicine. Hard to claim that, with the exception of medicine, this shouldn't have been "science".
To bring this back to physics - one of the main criticisms about the string-theory is that it doesn't consist of (enough) theories that can be falsified. What now, is the string-theory no science anymore? Does it even belong in physics then? (small paper on that: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/strings.pdf )
[/offtopic]
|
On September 23 2011 22:21 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 22:00 Nawyria wrote: It's also not fair to discredit people in the field of economy, sociology and psychology for that matter. Physicists and other exact scientists are the lucky ones in some respect, as their work carries a relatively low amount of political baggage (unless we're talking about (eu)genetics or sustainable energy) and can be tested repeatedly in a controlled environment. Researchers in the social sciences often have to worry about the political load of their work, conflicts with current ideology and rarely have a controlled environment with a large sample size where they can test a hypothesis repeatedly.
Thank you. Even though this is unfortunately developing quite off topic, I really feel like I have to say this now instead of later. I believe(d) we are past the point where only the "exact, falsifie-able" subjects are considered "real" sciences. Science is - or at the very least this is what it should be - everything where mankind strives to higher knowledge by investigating something using methods that have been accepted/developed within the respective field of study. Because the without a doubt "highest" science, where everything has started and where everything, in the end, goes back to, is philosophy. And most of the philosophical theories can not be falsified. The classic university consisted "only" of four subjects - theology, law, philosophy and medicine. Hard to claim that, with the exception of medicine, this shouldn't have been "science". To bring this back to physics - one of the main criticisms about the string-theory is that it doesn't consist of (enough) theories that can be falsified. What now, is the string-theory no science anymore? Does it even belong in physics then? (small paper on that: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/strings.pdf ) [/offtopic]
The point of the higher sciences is to find falsifiable answers to philosophical questions, something that philosophy itself failed to do. Hence falsifiable and hence science
|
On September 23 2011 22:25 shammythefox wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 22:21 sleepingdog wrote:On September 23 2011 22:00 Nawyria wrote: It's also not fair to discredit people in the field of economy, sociology and psychology for that matter. Physicists and other exact scientists are the lucky ones in some respect, as their work carries a relatively low amount of political baggage (unless we're talking about (eu)genetics or sustainable energy) and can be tested repeatedly in a controlled environment. Researchers in the social sciences often have to worry about the political load of their work, conflicts with current ideology and rarely have a controlled environment with a large sample size where they can test a hypothesis repeatedly.
Thank you. Even though this is unfortunately developing quite off topic, I really feel like I have to say this now instead of later. I believe(d) we are past the point where only the "exact, falsifie-able" subjects are considered "real" sciences. Science is - or at the very least this is what it should be - everything where mankind strives to higher knowledge by investigating something using methods that have been accepted/developed within the respective field of study. Because the without a doubt "highest" science, where everything has started and where everything, in the end, goes back to, is philosophy. And most of the philosophical theories can not be falsified. The classic university consisted "only" of four subjects - theology, law, philosophy and medicine. Hard to claim that, with the exception of medicine, this shouldn't have been "science". To bring this back to physics - one of the main criticisms about the string-theory is that it doesn't consist of (enough) theories that can be falsified. What now, is the string-theory no science anymore? Does it even belong in physics then? (small paper on that: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/strings.pdf ) [/offtopic] The point of the higher sciences is to find falsifiable answers to philosophical questions, something that philosophy itself failed to do. Hence falsifiable and hence science
lol try finding falsifiable answers to metaphysical questions, I wish you good luck with that
anywho, I won't continue this discussion on that matter as it belongs in another topic of its own; don't feel like I'm avoiding the discussion itself though
|
On September 23 2011 07:58 Soleron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 07:56 rubio91 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +hmm let me get this straight, so as v approaches c or is equal to c, it becomes 1/(1-1) which is 1/0 which is "infinite". but having something faster than c just changes all that? thank you for answering my question If something travels faster than c, it must be accelerated to a speed faster than c, thus requiring infinite energy according to that law (which is not possible). So either the formula or the measurements are wrong. (this is a very simplified view of the question) Well the formula doesn't even apply to photons. photons have no mass. neutrinos do.
|
On September 23 2011 04:43 gurrpp wrote: I'm pretty sure they've rechecked their calculations many times. Still, sometimes many times isn't enough. We'll see if independent parties can replicate their results, then we can freak out about fundamental laws of physics. Unless those parties also have huge underground experimental machines that cost hundreds of milions of $ I don't think they can replicate those results as easily :D
|
On September 23 2011 22:16 Otori wrote:Not that I understand much about the details since i'm terrible/dumb at these sort of things, (the fact itself is pretty amazing and cool if it was to be true though) Here's a link I found on another forum, dunno if it has been posted yet or if it's any valid at all, but a guy stating that there are miscalculations basically: http://johncostella.webs.com/neutrino-blunder.pdf
Well, he basically is calling them idiots. Of course they could have made such a mistake but I'd think they aren't totally stupid when calculating the statistical uncertainty, especially considering the result. We'll see though, bigger mistakes have been done.
|
On September 23 2011 04:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Perhaps they are mistaking the distance between the source and the detection.
You really think these top class scientists would fuck up like that? Specially after they said they searched for errors?
|
|
|
|