|
On September 23 2011 10:45 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 10:43 PepperoniPiZZa wrote:
What I don't understand is, how do they detect something that's faster than the speed of flight? Isn't it too fast to interact with everything else?
Can somebody explain? Neutrinos are fucking weird. There's your explanation. Seriously we don't have any good idea what they do or are.
You generate so many of them that the tiny fraction that interacts with matter is enough to be detectable. I don't think speed is the issue when it comes to neutrino/matter interactions but I got bored of reading about neutrinos.
|
The best thing about this thread is hands down that people in this world (as skewed as a starcraft forum's cross section probably is) are actually interested in topics like this. <3 <3 <3 ;_;
|
On September 23 2011 10:24 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 10:20 Holykitty wrote:
i dont see why you're all poking around with the idea that this is all about light having mass or not being the issue. neutrinos have mass and it was one of them causing the controversy. C's speed is nothing to do with its mass or lack thereof It has everything to do with its mass.
its lack of mass is why it moves at C, the speed of C is nothing to do with mass
|
Futurama had it right all along!
+ Show Spoiler +
User was warned for this post
User was warned for this post
|
On September 23 2011 04:46 hifriend wrote:
Doubt it tbh, it would mean much of what we understand has been false. We'll see.
It wouldn't be the first time the human population discovered something that proved what they thought was correct false.
|
Hm maybe in half a year when this is tested and proven i will then be truly blown away. If theres anything i've learned about "breaking science news" its usually to good to be true and your better off being more cautious than getting on the band wagon
|
I remember a conversation with a theoretical physicist about turning up the LHC - he said that when they test for something, the most boring outcome is 'they find what's expected and nothing else'.
It's only when something comes by and defies expectations that theoretical science actually moves forward and has new information to deal with.
This obviously wouldn't be the first time we find something that works contrary to the way we have previously understood it. Its implications are completely mysterious. It's like we just found a new detour on our road.
It might be a dead-end immediately, and it might lead to a whole new area. What we do next is explore it and find out.
|
Hey, it's science. We have to wait until it has been confirmed and published by at least three independent laboratories before we even bother to read about it. Until then, it could be a statistical or equipment error.
|
Every second, in the region of the Earth, about 65 billion (6.5×1010) solar neutrinos pass through every square centimeter perpendicular to the direction of the sun.
Fluxation without representation!!
|
On September 23 2011 04:46 hifriend wrote:
Doubt it tbh, it would mean much of what we understand has been false. We'll see.
It wasn't that long ago when people thought that earth was flat and the sun orbited earth.
Human mind is a funny thing.
|
On September 23 2011 10:00 Antisocialmunky wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 10:00 JamesJohansen wrote:On September 23 2011 09:57 jbee wrote:
A lot of things move faster than light. For example: light on a speeding train. Look up relativity on wikipedia That's kinda adorable.
Oh fuck off, its a good general summary
|
Has to be either an error, or a questionable (wrong) interpretation of what velocity is and how you're viewing this neutrino's existence in those terms.
It's not like this just some small claim like "hey we made this thing go fast." This would be an extreme discovery that would change how we view the world.
This seems very unlikely and unless they can find much much more evidence of this, I don't really see any reason to think much of it.
Edit: Speed of light isn't really a "speed" like traditional distance over time speeds. I think some people get the idea it is like that so they figure well if you got something going 99.999% of light speed, why can't you just go 99.999% of the speed of light on something traveling 99% the speed of light and add the two velocities, now you're going faster than it.
The key thing to understand with the "speed" of light is that it is the same from any frame of reference. If I'm standing on the ground and look above me at a beam of light going by, I see it as going 300,000,000 m/s. Some guy could come flying by in a ship which I'd measure at 200,000,000 m/s as the speed. So logically, you'd think the ship would see the light beam going at 100,000,000 m/s, but it doesn't. The ship sees it going at the exact same speed that you see it as.
No matter how fast two people are moving or in what different directions, they'll always measure the light as moving the same speed. So you might question 'then well how could you go faster than the speed of light, if the speed of light always looks the same to you?' You can't, the idea of moving faster than light doesn't make sense. We define the world in such a way that it can't make sense for something to exceed the speed of light.
I don't know if that helps, but figured I'd throw in some basic ideas of relativity because I know it can be confusing to see the significance of such a claim (or the complete nonsensicalness in my opinion) without some basic info.
|
By about 70 pages in to the pre-release, any idea I might had on where they could have gone wrong has been put to rest. I only have a backgroudn in the mathematical side of things but they seem to have covered themselves remarkably well on the experimental error side. Whether or not this 'redefines physics' (and I think a healthy does of skepticism is in order until the results are reproduced), where they went wrong can be just as interesting...
|
This can not be!!
Why, god WHY!?
|
Probably just an error in detection or something. I don't believe that things can move faster than light. But I'm not a theoretical physicist, so what am I talking about. With such topics it's always a problem that people claim to know something about it, but really just know shit.
I'm eager to read about it from the CERN physicists themselves, because i believe they are amongst the best in their job.
Also I'm a little bit proud to have the CERN here in Switzerland, I would love to visit it one day.
|
This is kind of old news though. We know already that certain things can travel faster than light, specifically quantum information due to entanglement.
It's pretty much accepted in physics that the elements of the laws of classical mechanics and relativity do not apply at the subatomic level
This is thus fascinating, but not "OH MY GOD THE WORLD NO LONGER MAKES SENSE" level science
|
oh my god a scientific theory might have to be modified
STOP THE PRESSES
this never happened before
|
I was always under the impression that physics have not been worked out on the quantum level yet.
|
On September 23 2011 13:39 Conquerer67 wrote:
Hey, it's science. We have to wait until it has been confirmed and published by at least three independent laboratories ...
Is there even a 3rd lab that can match the 300GeV of the SPS? I know the tevatron could, but it too is to be shut down after next month due to funding problems, no? Maybe this all is just a ruse to re-fund the tevatron. That would be really funny 
On September 23 2011 14:33 Azzur wrote:
I was always under the impression that physics have not been worked out on the quantum level yet.
Quantum physics is very well worked out. 3 of the 4 major forces can be modeled within it. Only gravity doesn't "fit in". Since gravity has a real small impact on most quantum effects, it's not that much of a deal in most of the situations.
On September 23 2011 14:29 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
This is kind of old news though. We know already that certain things can travel faster than light, specifically quantum information due to entanglement.
Entanglement does not transmit information. There is no faster than light effect about entanglement. Currently most people just view entangled particles as one particles with just some special properties like independent states depending on setup.
|
Neutrinos have mass, and therefore cannot move faster than the speed of light at normal speed.
Perhaps they just slowed light down (which is possible), and then made neutrinos go faster than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QjJyM.jpg)
