| rEpulse United States. November 21 2011 20:47. Posts 76 | Profile # |
| I'm pretty sure someone is going to come along, and debunk it, but at the same time if its true it doesn't shock me that much. Physics has been trying for last 100 years or more to fit the big, and small together, and they've been unable to do it, so maybe its time that we have to write a new chapter in physics. Last edit: 2011-11-21 20:47:51 |
| | “Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.” - Robert Frost |
|
|
| Cascade Australia. November 21 2011 21:35. Posts 2186 | Profile Blog # |
It's good that they repeated the experiment getting rid of a few of the systematic error sources. But as I understand many of the systematic error sources are still there untouched. For example the GPS accuracy is one of the most popular suspects it seems, as it hasn't really been used for this kind of measurements before.
I just hope that MINOS, an experiment that will repeat this measurement, doesn't share the same systemic error sources. :/ For example, if they also rely on GPS in the same way as OPERA, it could give a similar false signal.
Personally I would be very surprised if the neutrinos actually turn out to travel faster than light, would make so little sense for me from a theory point of view, but we will see. Would be cool if true though!  |
|
|
| gruff Sweden. November 21 2011 21:45. Posts 1961 | Profile # |
| If there was some systematic error with the gps, wouldn't you be able to reproduce the error in all measuements, not just for neutrinos? |
|
|
| Steel Canada. November 21 2011 21:50. Posts 2065 | Profile Blog # |
On November 21 2011 21:45 gruff wrote:
If there was some systematic error with the gps, wouldn't you be able to reproduce the error in all measuements, not just for neutrinos?
The problem is that nothing goes from one point (source of neutrino) to another (detector) without interacting with matter like neutrinos. We can't really repeat the experiment say for electrons or photons. |
| | Try another route paperboy. |
|
|
| Cascade Australia. November 21 2011 23:49. Posts 2186 | Profile Blog # |
Yeah, apart from being crazy hard to catch, thus giving very low statistics, the detection method is completely different from anything else making it harder to tune the systematics as well. :/ Elusive neutrinos.
If we ask nicely, do you think EU will fund a 732km vacuum pumped tunnel so we can shoot electrons alongside the neutrinos? That should help systematics a lot.  |
|
|
| MrLion India. November 22 2011 00:24. Posts 85 | Profile # |
| It's true. I've seen it with my own eyes. |
|
|
| AxelTVx Canada. February 23 2012 10:16. Posts 898 | Profile # | |
| |
|
| ShangMing Canada. February 23 2012 10:35. Posts 83 | Profile # |
"Unfortunately"?
"Unfortunately, everything we know about physics up to this point is still (experimentally) correct."?
I don't even... |
|
|
| radiatoren Denmark. February 23 2012 10:36. Posts 1232 | Profile # |
They are still not sure enough about it to take it serious. It is being investigated, which is needed to say something conclusively. The update says that there are 2 opposite effecting potential problems they are trying to eliminate in new experiments. |
| | fast cheese is wrong. It should always be aged to gain some taste | |
|
|
| Integra Sweden. February 23 2012 10:53. Posts 4915 | Profile Blog # |
On February 23 2012 10:36 radiatoren wrote:They are still not sure enough about it to take it serious. It is being investigated, which is needed to say something conclusively. The update says that there are 2 opposite effecting potential problems they are trying to eliminate in new experiments.
And to add to that; Even if this is true the strange thing is that they measured particles that goes just as fast as speed of light as well, now IF this equipment DID a systematic error it should had been consisted for every attempt and not register different speeds. as above poster pointed out, they don't know yet and need to make adjustments to the equipment before they can say something for certain. |
| |
|
| Kolvacs Canada. February 23 2012 10:57. Posts 1198 | Profile Blog # |
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...
Are you 100% fucking retarded? How is changing everything we know about something we actually don't know much about bad? It's amazing! It will be so awesome to actually be able to figure out physics properly, or to just finally have confirmation that what we know is right!
User was warned for this post |
| | EGHuK | EGIdrA | EGMachine | EGPuma | EGiNcontroL | EGDeMusliM | VvVRocker | WinD | Fighting~ |
|
|
| ShangMing Canada. February 23 2012 11:06. Posts 83 | Profile # |
On February 23 2012 10:57 Kolvacs wrote:
Show nested quote +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...
Are you 100% fucking retarded? How is changing everything we know about something we actually don't know much about bad? It's amazing! It will be so awesome to actually be able to figure out physics properly, or to just finally have confirmation that what we know is right!
"Someone doesn't have the same worldview as me, better call him 100% fucking retarded!"
By the way, there is plenty of confirmation that Einstein's relativity is correct, beginning with the solar eclipse back in 1919. |
|
|
| GGTeMpLaR United States. February 23 2012 11:16. Posts 3833 | Profile Blog # |
Science is more about falsifications than confirmations, just saying.
Also, you should do some research about the experiments in 1919 because they did not confirm Einstein's general relativity at all, the data from those experiments was entirely inconclusive. Eddington even threw out 18 of the 28 plates which had a mean closer to what Newtonian theory predicted.
Check out The Golem by Collins and Pinch, they go through a series of interesting experiments like this.Last edit: 2012-02-23 11:25:55 |
| | “Although our intellect always longs for clarity and certainty, our nature often finds uncertainty fascinating.” ~Karl Von Clausewitz~ |
|
|
| GoTuNk! Chile. February 23 2012 11:17. Posts 2219 | Profile Blog # |
On February 23 2012 11:06 ShangMing wrote:
Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 10:57 Kolvacs wrote:
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...
Are you 100% fucking retarded? How is changing everything we know about something we actually don't know much about bad? It's amazing! It will be so awesome to actually be able to figure out physics properly, or to just finally have confirmation that what we know is right!
"Someone doesn't have the same worldview as me, better call him 100% fucking retarded!" By the way, there is plenty of confirmation that Einstein's relativity is correct, beginning with the solar eclipse back in 1919.
I think he meant unfortunately because if matter can travel faster than light its blimp of hope we can someday explore the stars
|
|
|
| FragKrag United States. February 23 2012 11:17. Posts 11068 | Profile Blog # |
| I personally would liked to have neutrinos faster than light Last edit: 2012-02-23 11:17:33 |
| | *TL CJ Entusman #40* "like scissors does anything to paper except MAKE IT MORE NUMEROUS" -paper | |
|
|
| Saaph February 23 2012 11:24. Posts 34 | Profile # |
On February 23 2012 11:06 ShangMing wrote:
Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 10:57 Kolvacs wrote:
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...
Are you 100% fucking retarded? How is changing everything we know about something we actually don't know much about bad? It's amazing! It will be so awesome to actually be able to figure out physics properly, or to just finally have confirmation that what we know is right!
"Someone doesn't have the same worldview as me, better call him 100% fucking retarded!" By the way, there is plenty of confirmation that Einstein's relativity is correct, beginning with the solar eclipse back in 1919.
The only thing we can say is that, Einstein's relativity was backed up by all the observations we've made so far. But who knows, we may observe in the future phenomenons that relativity fails to explain. I think it'd be very exciting to observe such thing, and that's why i'd be disappointed if the FTL neutrino thing ends up being a mistake (though it will probably end up like this).
Einstein's theory could very well be what Newtonian mechanic is nowadays: a good approximation of a broader theory, under certain constraints. Maybe that's what you meant when saying relativity is correct, sorry if this was the case. |
|
|
| L3gendary Canada. February 23 2012 11:24. Posts 1201 | Profile # |
More to the point the experiment from 1919 has nothing to do with whether or not something can travel faster than light. It was a confirmation of general relatively predicting that light will bend in a gravitational field.
|
| | Watching Jaedong play purifies my eyes. -Coach Ju Hoon | |
|
|
| `Zapdos United States. February 23 2012 11:25. Posts 934 | Profile Blog # |
| Why bump, they knew it was false after testing several months ago o_O |
| | www.twitch.tv/thezapdos come watch me :] |
|
|
| Medrea February 23 2012 11:27. Posts 9999 | Profile # |
On February 23 2012 10:57 Kolvacs wrote:
Show nested quote +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...
Are you 100% fucking retarded? How is changing everything we know about something we actually don't know much about bad? It's amazing! It will be so awesome to actually be able to figure out physics properly, or to just finally have confirmation that what we know is right!
ಠ_ಠ
Come on man we dont need that here.
Science can be fun! Finding something traveling faster than the speed of light offers a lot of insight on how possibly we too might move faster than the speed of light.
Now lets all kiss and make up. |
| |
|
| Uncultured United States. February 23 2012 11:30. Posts 1222 | Profile # |
On February 23 2012 11:25 `Zapdos wrote:
Why bump, they knew it was false after testing several months ago o_O
You have no idea what you're talking about. |
| | Don't you rage when you lose too? -FruitDealer |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Next |
|
Store
