|
On September 23 2011 06:11 Treemonkeys wrote: If you actually read Einstein you would know that he wasn't conclusive or completely sure of his theories. He knew the limits of what he knew and didn't know.
As how every scientist should be. One of the founding principles of science, is that you never "prove" something, you just mount evidence that shows no opposition at the time, but accept that it might change later.
|
On September 23 2011 05:26 gullberg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 05:22 j0k3r wrote: 60 nanoseconds is a tremendously significant figure. This could reshape modern physics. I'm by no means a qualified physicist but wouldn't this mean that a neutrino is about 1.000024001 times faster than the speed of light? What's so significant?
Let me explain.
First, an example of what this is NOT:
Say some athlete breaks a previous record for the 100 meter sprint. Some people will be unimpressed; some people will say it's the most significant achievement ever.
Another example of what this is NOT:
Say you formulate a Starcraft 2 strategy based on the assumption that no units can travel faster than Zerglings on creep. Suppose tomorrow Blizzard comes in and patches the game so that Zealots using charge are SLIGHTLY faster than Zerglings. Since Zealots using charge were almost as fast as Zerglings on creep to begin with, your strategy is still fine.
An example of what this COULD BE:
Say you formulate a strategy based on the assumption that there are three races. Now, suddenly, Blizzard adds in a fourth. Game changing.
The entire theory of science for the better half of the century rests on the principle (among other principles) that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. This discovery, if true, would be game-changing.
|
even though its faster than light it doesnt change anything in our real life for now.
|
On September 23 2011 04:43 Ramong wrote: SERN wants to take over the world with their new time machine! I see what you did there!!
|
So now we can travel in time. Awesome.
|
If the Sun disappeared instantaneously, it would take ~8 minutes until we see it vanish, of course due to the speed of light. So if information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, would the Earth continue in circular motion about the Sun for 8 minutes, or fly away at a tangent immediately?
Just a cool idea while we're on the subject :D
|
On September 23 2011 06:17 LayZRR wrote: even though its faster than light it doesnt change anything in our real life for now.
That really doesn't make it any less significant, if it's true.
|
On September 23 2011 05:26 gullberg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 05:22 j0k3r wrote: 60 nanoseconds is a tremendously significant figure. This could reshape modern physics. I'm by no means a qualified physicist but wouldn't this mean that a neutrino is about 1.000024001 times faster than the speed of light? What's so significant? The thing is: If one thing can be faster than light, there might be other things!! (Lightspeed would no longer be the limiting factor)
|
United States7483 Posts
I'm sure there's a mistake somewhere, there are also various other things it could be.
Perhaps the neutrinos are taking a shorter path than the light and thus arrive there faster, despite moving slower.
|
On September 23 2011 06:23 Tiberius1992 wrote: If the Sun disappeared instantaneously, it would take ~8 minutes until we see it vanish, of course due to the speed of light. So if information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, would the Earth continue in circular motion about the Sun for 8 minutes, or fly away at a tangent immediately?
Just a cool idea while we're on the subject :D
The first option!
|
*shrug* Newton was wrong. Doesn't mean he wasn't a genius who drove scientific discovery for years. Einstein was the same, even though his own theories will likely have to be changed.
Interesting post by Radiatoren, but am I right in thinking your source is saying that the measurements they took at the time weren't accurate enough to be able to say if neutrinos could move faster than light or not?
These results have been checked many thousands of times by the lab that found them, because the scientists who have found this know it's a huge shift in current theories of relativity. Even then, they are coming forward with what they found and basicaly asking others to try the same experiment to see if there was something they haven't seen, or some kind of mistake in the measuring. I'm very interested to see if this can be duplicated, and what it means for the Standard Model.
Course, as the OP points out it seems to be coming from one man's blog. Let's see if the world media has just been trolled.
|
Nothing can travel faster than light. NOTHING. It has to be an error.
|
On September 23 2011 06:25 Sanctimonius wrote: *shrug* Newton was wrong. Doesn't mean he wasn't a genius who drove scientific discovery for years. Einstein was the same, even though his own theories will likely have to be changed.
Interesting post by Radiatoren, but am I right in thinking your source is saying that the measurements they took at the time weren't accurate enough to be able to say if neutrinos could move faster than light or not?
These results have been checked many thousands of times by the lab that found them, because the scientists who have found this know it's a huge shift in current theories of relativity. Even then, they are coming forward with what they found and basicaly asking others to try the same experiment to see if there was something they haven't seen, or some kind of mistake in the measuring. I'm very interested to see if this can be duplicated, and what it means for the Standard Model.
Course, as the OP points out it seems to be coming from one man's blog. Let's see if the world media has just been trolled. Nah, this guy's blog is well known among the science-bloggers, I doubt it's a troll. One experiment will change nothing though, extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. As you said, follow-up experiments would be in order.
|
On September 23 2011 06:26 Cain0 wrote: Nothing can travel faster than light. NOTHING. It has to be an error. I wonder if the position of the moon could account for such an error.
|
let the games begin!
this is why science is great, we scrutinize everything and if something new is indeed shown we will upend everything we believe based on the new evidence. <3<3<3 I can't wait to see the end result.
|
I highly doubt this is true, but it's really nice to see science at work! Break it boys, do it!
|
Well, if this is true, the problematic thing about our current theories is the assumption that "massless things like photons must travel at the speed of light".
Either someone would have to either explain how massless things can vary in speed, or how neutrinos can have negative mass in relation to photons.
|
Why do people assume they've made mistake. This is not just some half-assed science. This is the fucking CERN. Besides, Fermilab got the same result prior to this experiment, but their uncertainty was too great for them to find anything conclusive.
|
I think the science magazine article is better than the BBC one: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/09/neutrinos-travel-faster-than-lig.html?ref=hp
This is very interesting indeed. I think the article by OPERA will be on arxiv tomorrow for all to read so questions will be answered soon enough. I'm not really sure how they're measuring the speed of the neutrinos, but to have a 10 nanosecond uncertainty is almost unbelievable.
Just a smidgen of background for those who are wondering: typically neutrino beams (like the one from CERN and Fermilab) are created by colliding a proton beam with some target (made of carbon usually) and allowing the beam to decay into neutrinos. These experiments then have 2 detectors: one near the beam source (called the near detector) and one usually optimally placed far away in order to maximize the probability of finding neutrinos that have changed flavor (called the far detector). Combining these two detectors, they can measure the change in beam intensity (which in turn will give some information on neutrino oscillation).
Usually the protons that create the beam are fired off in bunches. My guess is the luminosity of the beam is high enough such that neutrinos created from a particular bunch can be detected at the near and far detectors (which explains why MINOS or other neutrino oscillation experiments haven't been able to see this effect yet, because their beam luminosity isn't high enough).
Edit: btw this isn't CERN claiming the result, it is OPERA. CERN just a lab that provides the neutrino beam for the OPERA experiment.
|
On September 23 2011 06:31 SpiffD wrote: Why do people assume they've made mistake. This is not just some half-assed science. This is the fucking CERN. Besides, Fermilab got the same result prior to this experiment, but their uncertainty was too great for them to find anything conclusive. A non-conclusive result means nothing. Large experiments have been wrong before, there is a reason scientific results should usually be confirmed independently.
|
|
|
|