CERN finds neutrinos faster than light - Page 47
Forum Index > General Forum |
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
Condor
Netherlands188 Posts
On February 23 2012 22:32 Miyoshino wrote: They kept their resullts secret and didn't contact other neutrino experts. Contacting meteorlogical institutes doesn't even come near what they actually should have done. Who is best qualified to verify GPS data? Where was the error in the end? On February 23 2012 22:32 Miyoshino wrote: Of course they didn't say they believed their results. That would have made them look incredibly foolish. But if they really believed that they would have given up on the experiment and discarded the results. They obviously thought they were onto something. If you discard something you do not believe, you fail at being a scientist. If you believe everything you see, you fail as well. On February 23 2012 22:32 Miyoshino wrote: I have very little evidence? You yourself are evidence. You defended their experiment and now you even go as far as defend it after it turned out to be the embarrassment it was predicted to be. Why? Bias. Scientists are just as biased if not more biased than normal people. I came into this thread to defend their policy and time of reporting, I still stand by that. You say I defend their experiment, I did not say that. Their experiment is not an embarrassment. Making a mistake is embarrassing. I would also defend their experiment, because the time when it was conceived, tau-neutrinos where very poorly understood. However, lack of funding and delays made their experiment less relevant when it finally started running. On February 23 2012 22:32 Miyoshino wrote: Look at how big discoveries work. Look at who win Nobel prices and who don't. Talk to a top scientists about how they interact with competitors and about how to treat secrecy. Then it will become obvious. Exactly what makes you think that I do not do this? What do you think my daytime job actually is? On February 23 2012 22:32 Miyoshino wrote: Go explain to me that why everyone in the first week predicted this was going to be a huge embarrassment if there was no other way to do it? The fact that so many people said this should have told you that normally there are other ways to deal with this. Yes, even just giving up and ignoring the results would have been better. Everyone and their dog said that this had to be wrong because it contradicted everything they knew about general relativity. That included all the people of the experiment. That is why they did not publish their results for a VERY long time. Then, they could not find a mistake, so at some point you have to publish what you have. Giving up and ignoring is so wrong I do not know where to begin arguing against it. On February 23 2012 22:32 Miyoshino wrote: I don't think they could have find a neutrino expert anywhere in the world that would not have told them to not go public. They all shook their heads when it happened. I think there is a distinction you are continuously missing. This is the last time I will repeat it in this thread. And to make it as clear as possible, I will only speak for myself. I have never "believed" their results to be true. In all the talks/presentations I have given about this topic, to physics students, to particle physicists and other experts, I have never ever defended the result as hailing a new post-Einsteinian era. I have treated it with a serious dose of scepticism. Saying usually that until this is confirmed by the MINOS experiment, I would not believe it. However, I will always defend scientists who have measured something they do not trust or believe, publishing their results after checking them carefully. Two points remain after what I say: - How they published their results, too much media? - Did they check carefully enough. For the first of these, I have no idea whether it is all within their control or done right. I have too much of an inside perspective to know about that. For the second, if the flaw was so obvious, why did it take half a year to find it? Still, unless you have access to their internal memo's/communication, that is impossible for me to assess. On February 23 2012 22:32 Miyoshino wrote: Yet on all forums and internet communities where physics was discussed last year, the main thing we talked about was this experiment. Yes, because it is highly understandable and has massive implications if true. Are you saying they should not have published because of the impact it would have on the public? What do you think that we do to trust? There are topics like this every year, remember Entropic Gravity? I don't want to continue a heated debate about this here in this forum, as I am not sure this helps the thread, so I will try to only reply more if it adds relevant information to the thread. | ||
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On February 23 2012 23:05 Sated wrote: The media have never known how to report science stories, because the media only care about reader numbers and so sensationalise (or flat out lie about) new findings. This needs to be in a white box at the top of any thread even vaguely related to science. | ||
Timestreamer
Israel157 Posts
The ability to say something along the lines of "We don't believe these results to be true, but it's our obligation not to sweep this under the rug/ignore it for the foreseeable future", is what makes science so great next to religion. | ||
MepHiii
Poland191 Posts
On February 23 2012 10:35 ShangMing wrote: "Unfortunately"? "Unfortunately, everything we know about physics up to this point is still (experimentally) correct."? I don't even... of course it's unfortunate. as it stands the only way for mankind to travel through the universe with the given limitations, is to dedicate lifespans to travelling. kids would be born on spaceships and would die on spaceships without reaching their destination. it would mean that in future the spread of mankind in the universe would be riddiculously small except from some isolated groups which will have no contact to mankind anyway so those don't really matter. the possibility of things travelling faster than the speed of light is/was a point of hope that mankind is able to travel the galaxy in an appropriate speed (if you know what i mean) and by that kinda also that mankind finds other liffeforms at least that's my very layman opinion on this matter | ||
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
| ||
Mythal
Spain108 Posts
And yes, if particles can travel faster than the speed of light, it does violate everything. If it were true causality or conservation of energy would have to be wrong. So yes, QM would be wrong. We aren't talking about a modification here. Without causality or conservation of energy, Newtonian mechanics cannot work in principle. Of course reality will still behave like if it does, but that's merely coincidence. I'm not too much into relativity and such fields of physics, but as a physicist myself, I can tell you that what you are saying here is false, or at least sensationalistic. With this criteria, Newton laws are false for you, I guess... and this is simply because they don't apply in micro-nanometric systems, or high-speed systems. Newton laws are true on their correct domain of application, stating otherwise is being a douche that wants some self attention. QM would not be completely wrong, simply put, it wouldn't apply to neutrinos and some specific systems of high-energy particles. About causality, although it's true that it can be violated, it's is necessary to see what effects/information can carry this neutrinos, to fully understand to which degree causality is violated. So, no, it's not a catastrophe, don't try to make people think that all that has worked for more than 100 years it's a mere coincidence. Genious such as Dirac, Fermi, Schrodinger, Einstein could be wrong... but they didn't discover QM and relativity by coincidence... and the results that they demonstrated and science used, weren't a coincidence, neither. | ||
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On February 23 2012 20:16 Miyoshino wrote: If someone like f=ma is wrong, then every experiment done the last 100 years is wrong because they all assumed f=ma . f=ma is wrong though. It is good enough in most cases which is why it is still used, but it isn't true. Also the reason quantum and relativity was discovered was due to experiments disproving newtonian physics, if newtonian physics wasn't disproven people would never have gotten into the much more unintuitive models of relativity and quantum. The experiment was most likely false, not because neutrinos going faster than light would break all of the world but because errors are much more common than scientific revolutions. | ||
Abraxas514
Canada475 Posts
Personally, I believe the entire special relativity concept, especially the whole lorentz transformation when measuring size or speed, is something born out of observation and not really there. In mechanical engineering, it is shown that the total force minus the "intertial force" acting on an object equals zero. This means as it accelerates forward, it's mass*acceleration = the force applied. In order for this object to not accelerate at this rate, something must be preventing it's motion. Special relativity predicts temporal phenomena affecting objects travelling near c, and this has been shown (short lived particles in accelerators existing orders of magnitude of time longer than when they are at lower velocities) but only for certain particles. The biggest problems I see with the theory are: - What is physically slowing the acceleration of matter as it approaches c? - Where is the absolute frame of reference at rest? And one that really bothers me: - Why is the density of a neutron star so high that sound travels faster than light? All measurements show special relativity to be correct... but if you've only got a meter stick you can't prove the earth is round with it either. | ||
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
On February 24 2012 01:15 Klockan3 wrote: f=ma is wrong though. It is good enough in most cases which is why it is still used, but it isn't true. Also the reason quantum and relativity was discovered was due to experiments disproving newtonian physics, if newtonian physics wasn't disproven people would never have gotten into the much more unintuitive models of relativity and quantum. The experiment was most likely false, not because neutrinos going faster than light would break all of the world but because errors are much more common than scientific revolutions. Look on the bright side, if they get a good result out of this it'll show that it is feasible to use an over elaborate GPS system to time things over extremely large distances. | ||
skeldark
Germany2223 Posts
Than they found out that all aliens communicate over neutrinos with each other. To hide this, they come up with this "loose cable" shit. Pretty obvious imo. | ||
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On February 24 2012 01:27 Abraxas514 wrote: (this post is about special relativity, which relates entirely to the experiment in the OP) Personally, I believe the entire special relativity concept, especially the whole lorentz transformation when measuring size or speed, is something born out of observation and not really there. In mechanical engineering, it is shown that the total force minus the "intertial force" acting on an object equals zero. This means as it accelerates forward, it's mass*acceleration = the force applied. In order for this object to not accelerate at this rate, something must be preventing it's motion. Special relativity predicts temporal phenomena affecting objects travelling near c, and this has been shown (short lived particles in accelerators existing orders of magnitude of time longer than when they are at lower velocities) but only for certain particles. The biggest problems I see with the theory are: - What is physically slowing the acceleration of matter as it approaches c? - Where is the absolute frame of reference at rest? And one that really bothers me: - Why is the density of a neutron star so high that sound travels faster than light? All measurements show special relativity to be correct... but if you've only got a meter stick you can't prove the earth is round with it either. As I said in the post above yours, f is not equal to ma. | ||
Abraxas514
Canada475 Posts
On February 24 2012 01:40 Klockan3 wrote: As I said in the post above yours, f is not equal to ma. And as I said in my post, I'm asking for proof of this. Not just observations of a few muons, but proof for stable matter. | ||
L3gendary
Canada1469 Posts
On February 24 2012 01:46 Abraxas514 wrote: And as I said in my post, I'm asking for proof of this. Not just observations of a few muons, but proof for stable matter. It's a mathematical proof. There's no such thing as a "rest" frame. And there's no "thing" slowing matter from accelerating it's just your flawed assumption that it should accelerate linearly. edit: technically the mass of the object increases as it's speed increases so additional energy is converted by E=mc^2 and that's why the energy input isn't equal to kinetic only. | ||
oGoZenob
France1503 Posts
On February 24 2012 01:27 Abraxas514 wrote: (this post is about special relativity, which relates entirely to the experiment in the OP) Personally, I believe the entire special relativity concept, especially the whole lorentz transformation when measuring size or speed, is something born out of observation and not really there. In mechanical engineering, it is shown that the total force minus the "intertial force" acting on an object equals zero. This means as it accelerates forward, it's mass*acceleration = the force applied. In order for this object to not accelerate at this rate, something must be preventing it's motion. Special relativity predicts temporal phenomena affecting objects travelling near c, and this has been shown (short lived particles in accelerators existing orders of magnitude of time longer than when they are at lower velocities) but only for certain particles. The biggest problems I see with the theory are: - What is physically slowing the acceleration of matter as it approaches c? - Where is the absolute frame of reference at rest? And one that really bothers me: - Why is the density of a neutron star so high that sound travels faster than light? All measurements show special relativity to be correct... but if you've only got a meter stick you can't prove the earth is round with it either. "- What is physically slowing the acceleration of matter as it approaches c?" accelerating matter to c requires an infinite amount of energy. It's not a figure of speech, it's an actual infinite amount. the thing that slow down acceleration as it approach c is just the amount of energy available. Even if you could use all the energy available in the universe, you couldn't accelerate anything to c "- Where is the absolute frame of reference at rest?" There is no absolute reference, Theory of relativity explain that every system could be used as an absolute reference. "- Why is the density of a neutron star so high that sound travels faster than light?" Nothing with a mass goes as fast as light. Going even faster is not possible. sound is a mechanic wave and need a physical support to propagate. There is no such thing in space, and even if it was no material can propagate that fast. Just look at the speed of sound in air. even in metal it is not more than 5000m/s | ||
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On February 24 2012 01:27 Abraxas514 wrote: (this post is about special relativity, which relates entirely to the experiment in the OP) Personally, I believe the entire special relativity concept, especially the whole lorentz transformation when measuring size or speed, is something born out of observation and not really there. In mechanical engineering, it is shown that the total force minus the "intertial force" acting on an object equals zero. This means as it accelerates forward, it's mass*acceleration = the force applied. In order for this object to not accelerate at this rate, something must be preventing it's motion. Special relativity predicts temporal phenomena affecting objects travelling near c, and this has been shown (short lived particles in accelerators existing orders of magnitude of time longer than when they are at lower velocities) but only for certain particles. The biggest problems I see with the theory are: - What is physically slowing the acceleration of matter as it approaches c? - Where is the absolute frame of reference at rest? And one that really bothers me: - Why is the density of a neutron star so high that sound travels faster than light? All measurements show special relativity to be correct... but if you've only got a meter stick you can't prove the earth is round with it either. 1) Maybe you will find this interpretation of SR helpful: Mass is just another kind of energy. So that the energy of each kg of mass corresponds to a certain number of J. Let's call this proportionality constant c^2, so that E = mc^2. That means that "a force it takes to accelerate inert mass" should be reintrepreted as "a force is needed to accelerate intert energy" in some sense. c^2 is a pretty large number, which means that the energy of most things we see are dominated by the mass type of energy. (their rest mass m_0) This is the cause that f=ma with the "usual" heavy mass rather than the "inert energy" works in everyday life (like engineering). However, when you start looking at things at very high energy, such that their kinetic energy becomes almost as large as their mass energy, then you need to take into account that you have to accelerate not only the mass, but also the kinetic energy that is carried by the object. That is a way of understanding how f=ma is changed, through a generalisation of the "m" in the formula. Not sure if it helps you... Then the lorentz transform follows from requiring that things should work the same on a train as standing still, and as on the moon, but that you know maybe? So the answer to the first question is: "the kinetic energy is slowing down the acceleration". 2) The absolute frame of reference? Entire point of SR is that there isn't one. You have observers, and if that observer is not accelerating, she describes a rest frame that she can measure stuff in, and calculate things. Another observer also not accelerating, but potentially moving at another velocity, can do the same, and both observers should be able to use the same physics in their calculations. There is no preferred observer. There is however a different from accelerating and non-accelerating observers, but that is another story. Did I answer the question? Not so sure I did. :/ 3) Not really sure what that refers to, but for sure is that the sound does not move faster than the speed of light in vacuum. Maybe it moves faster than the speed of light in that medium, which can be significantly slower than in vacuum. In water for example it is already 30% slower (one over the refractive index). in the end all physics has to be based on observations. If we can find an intuitive interpretations of what is going on, that is good, but we must accept that physics in extreme conditions (close to light speed, QM scale, black holes) can behave much different than what we find intuitive from our (non-relativistic, non-QM) experiences in real life. | ||
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
who zipped around faster than light. He set out one day, in a relative way, and returned on the previous night. | ||
ElectricWizard
Norway200 Posts
On February 24 2012 06:12 caradoc wrote: There was a neutrino named Wright, who zipped around faster than light. He set out one day, in a relative way, and returned on the previous night. Now that's fucking great. | ||
ProBot
Canada170 Posts
| ||
ProBot
Canada170 Posts
| ||
| ||