On September 23 2011 19:35 sleepingdog wrote: bronze-league question - why don't they just re-do the experiment and see what happens? or is the whole set-up too costly/time-intensive to just go for it a 2nd time?
Their measurements were collected over several years, and they probably do more measurements as we speak. The measurement of individual neutrinos is much too difficult, they need a lot of statistics.
There were other experiments before that one, but they didn't have the necessary accuracy. I am pretty sure their counterparts in the US will try to get to the same accuracy in their already existing experiment now, but it will take years until they'll have new results.
And after all this hype I am sure there will be funding for new experiments with even higher accuracy, but once again it will take many years until results arrive.
edit: actually a new supernova in the galactic neighbourhood would be great, but unfortunately we can't initiate one yet
On September 23 2011 20:02 Maenander wrote: edit: actually a new supernova in the galactic neighbourhood would be great, but unfortunately we can't initiate one yet
If we could the first sun to blow up would be our own (yah I know its not heavy enough to actually go supernova but we'd find a way to work around that)
It's interesting news, I hope it doesn't end up as disappointing as the arsenic based life
While there is bad journalism at work here, you can't really blame them in this case as the major fault lies behind the scientists publicizing this. I don't know why the hell they would believe the data they got and not assume an error in their measurements, because that's what it probably is. Some kind of arrogance probably. Neutrinos going faster than light make absolutely no sense and one needs good measurements from several different detectors and ways of measuring before you can believe these numbers. Right now we have a single case of bad measurements.
And this gets thrusted into the major news. When media report on science they always have some sensationalist article. Most of the time we have a person that flunked high school physics write the article and get everything terribly wrong. But not it's the scientists themselves. This is why some people don't give science the respect they deserve. Media articles like 'Shocking new discovery, scientists back to the drawing board' and stupid stuff like that.
If neutrinos truly go faster than the speed of light then either photons have mass, or it's even crazier. How can the speed of light be absolute in all frames of references when neutrinos obviously cannot but go faster? Also, neutrinos have mass, so what's up with that?
Something is wrong with their setup or their assumptions about their setup. Probably GPS error which they can't find. When the same experiment is done by a different team, they will get exactly the correct result, within the range of uncertainty.
Supernovae happen all the time, btw. It won't take long until we can observe 1 every day.
On September 23 2011 20:31 Suisen wrote: While there is bad journalism at work here, you can't really blame them in this case as the major fault lies behind the scientists publicizing this. I don't know why the hell they would believe the data they got and not assume an error in their measurements, because that's what it probably is. Some kind of arrogance probably. Neutrinos going faster than light make absolutely no sense and one needs good measurements from several different detectors and ways of measuring before you can believe these numbers. Right now we have a single case of bad measurements.
And this gets thrusted into the major news. When media report on science they always have some sensationalist article. Most of the time we have a person that flunked high school physics write the article and get everything terribly wrong. But not it's the scientists themselves. This is why some people don't give science the respect they deserve. Media articles like 'Shocking new discovery, scientists back to the drawing board' and stupid stuff like that.
If neutrinos truly go faster than the speed of light then either photons have mass, or it's even crazier. How can the speed of light be absolute in all frames of references when neutrinos obviously cannot but go faster? Also, neutrinos have mass, so what's up with that?
Something is wrong with their setup or their assumptions about their setup. Probably GPS error which they can't find. When the same experiment is done by a different team, they will get exactly the correct result, within the range of uncertainty.
If you read the paper they published, you'll see that they really really really did try to find an error of some kind that would explain the discrepancy. They've rerun the experiment 15'000 times and haven't been able to find anything. The group has come forward with their results and are practically begging for other people to step in and prove they're wrong. The "omg relativity is proven to be wrong" statements don't come from the researchers themselves.
Dude, it's CERN. Not a place where a highschool physics students are working... If they say they did this thing, checked it from many angles and didn't find errors, why won't you believe them? That's exactly why they're publicizing it: If we can't find the error, perhaps someone else can? Please prove us wrong so we won't fuck up physics.
I didn't say they were lying. They put out a paper that almost suggests everything we know is wrong when instead they did an experiment, got questionable results but can't figure it out themselves. I don't know the answer either. But are you really suggesting they didn't make an error?
This is very embarrassing for them and somehow they got all over the media. Big mistake by them. I can't believe they would allow this to happen if they didn't themselves believe their own data. That's human arrogance you see all the time in science and science related disciplines. Scientists are still humans. What they should have done is have another team verify it with a different detector/detection method and keep quiet until them.
I don't know why you bring up high school physics. What is your point? Is the data most likely correct? Or did they indeed make a mistake? If you believe they made mistake and everyone on the world is talking about it, is that good or very bad?
People without degrees in physics really shouldn't comment about this.
On September 23 2011 20:31 Suisen wrote: While there is bad journalism at work here, you can't really blame them in this case as the major fault lies behind the scientists publicizing this. I don't know why the hell they would believe the data they got and not assume an error in their measurements, because that's what it probably is. Some kind of arrogance probably. Neutrinos going faster than light make absolutely no sense and one needs good measurements from several different detectors and ways of measuring before you can believe these numbers. Right now we have a single case of bad measurements.
And this gets thrusted into the major news. When media report on science they always have some sensationalist article. Most of the time we have a person that flunked high school physics write the article and get everything terribly wrong. But not it's the scientists themselves. This is why some people don't give science the respect they deserve. Media articles like 'Shocking new discovery, scientists back to the drawing board' and stupid stuff like that.
If neutrinos truly go faster than the speed of light then either photons have mass, or it's even crazier. How can the speed of light be absolute in all frames of references when neutrinos obviously cannot but go faster? Also, neutrinos have mass, so what's up with that?
Something is wrong with their setup or their assumptions about their setup. Probably GPS error which they can't find. When the same experiment is done by a different team, they will get exactly the correct result, within the range of uncertainty.
Supernovae happen all the time, btw. It won't take long until we can observe 1 every day.
On September 23 2011 20:44 Suisen wrote: I didn't say they were lying. They put out a paper that almost suggests everything we know is wrong when instead they did an experiment, got questionable results but can't figure it out themselves. I don't know the answer either. But are you really suggesting they didn't make an error?
Why would you hope for it? That's a really strange thing to say. I want to know the universe as she is. If neutrinos go faster than light and all current theories need heavy modification, so be it. It would be nice to find out. If they don't and everything is close how we imagine it all, that's very nice too.
But as it stands now it is pretty obvious what to believe. And what you believe has nothing to do with what you hope for in science.
Look, the scientists even admit that basically no one in the scientific community will believe their claims based on just this experiment. That's very true. Almost everyone at this point will think it will be shown to be a mistake. But that's the point. Why is something almost all the relevant people believe to me merely an embarrassing mistake all over the media? You can't blame the media because they didn't misrepresent anything, which they normally do.
I am not saying either that this should not be looked into. That's a different issue. But right now we have a double failure of science all over the media when we could have had a single triumph.
You lash out at the scientist despite them never having claimed what you elude them to claim. You say people without a degree in physics should not comment about this.... If you have a degree in physics I'm Einstein's long lost genius son.
I'm a nerd that likes the idea of faster than light travel and what not. And I hope that our current stage of knowledge is wrong because it would open many new possibilities. That's how the science works, doesn't it?
On September 23 2011 20:52 nihlon wrote: You lash out at the scientist despite them never having claimed what you elude them to claim. You say people without a degree in physics should not comment about this.... If you have a degree in physics I'm Einstein's long lost genius son.
Then you are a troll. What is your point? Scientists aren't responsible for their actions? Their research is all over the media but they had no part in that at all? They don't have a responsibility for their own experimental data? They should have kept it silent until they found the error.
On September 23 2011 20:52 nihlon wrote: You lash out at the scientist despite them never having claimed what you elude them to claim. You say people without a degree in physics should not comment about this.... If you have a degree in physics I'm Einstein's long lost genius son.
Then you are a troll. What is your point? Scientists aren't responsible for their actions? Their research is all over the media but they had no part in that at all? They don't have a responsibility for their own experimental data? They should have kept it silent until they found the error.
I thought the whole point was to get academia from all over the world to try to prove them wrong? As much as they would like to prove themselves wrong, they probably don't know where else to look.
On September 23 2011 20:52 nihlon wrote: You lash out at the scientist despite them never having claimed what you elude them to claim. You say people without a degree in physics should not comment about this.... If you have a degree in physics I'm Einstein's long lost genius son.
Then you are a troll. What is your point? Scientists aren't responsible for their actions? Their research is all over the media but they had no part in that at all? They don't have a responsibility for their own experimental data? They should have kept it silent until they found the error.
What a load of nonsense. I know, everybody is entitled to his opinion, but you are really pushing it. They EXPLICITELY stated SEVERAL times that they encourage everyone to look for their errors; exactly because they couldn't find it. That's exactly what good scientists do: question their results, look for every possible mistake imaginable, and when they can't find one, put it up for falsification by the general scientific community.
If you think it's so easy to find the error, fly to Switzerland and prove them wrong.
On September 23 2011 20:52 nihlon wrote: You lash out at the scientist despite them never having claimed what you elude them to claim. You say people without a degree in physics should not comment about this.... If you have a degree in physics I'm Einstein's long lost genius son.
Then you are a troll. What is your point? Scientists aren't responsible for their actions? Their research is all over the media but they had no part in that at all? They don't have a responsibility for their own experimental data? They should have kept it silent until they found the error.
There talking so people can find an error. That's the whole point. It's not like scientist knows everyone e-mail and just sends a letter saying hey guys can one of you guys find out what we did wrong.
I never suggested they didn't make an error, I'm saying that they came forward with their research data not because they had enough faith in their experiment for it to invalidate Einstein, but rather as a way of sharing their data with the rest of the world. It's a fairly common practice to publish research papers (on the arXiv) of preliminary data, it's a prime way to communicate ideas and collaborate in the scientific world. It allows other people to step in at this point and try to help them out.
I wouldn't say it's embarrassing to have this over the media, it happens practically every time something science-related occurs. These preliminary results aren't about to start a major war, I think you're making too big of a fuss out of this.
There's a lot to be said for transparency in science: being open with the data fosters collaboration, while keeping the issue silent and doing the experiments behind closed doors will only impede the rate of progress. The researchers did all they could to find a problem with their data, couldn't find one and now they've put their results up for grabs and are asking the community to prove them wrong.
On September 23 2011 20:31 Suisen wrote: While there is bad journalism at work here, you can't really blame them in this case as the major fault lies behind the scientists publicizing this. I don't know why the hell they would believe the data they got and not assume an error in their measurements, because that's what it probably is. Some kind of arrogance probably. Neutrinos going faster than light make absolutely no sense and one needs good measurements from several different detectors and ways of measuring before you can believe these numbers. Right now we have a single case of bad measurements.
And this gets thrusted into the major news. When media report on science they always have some sensationalist article. Most of the time we have a person that flunked high school physics write the article and get everything terribly wrong. But not it's the scientists themselves. This is why some people don't give science the respect they deserve. Media articles like 'Shocking new discovery, scientists back to the drawing board' and stupid stuff like that.
If neutrinos truly go faster than the speed of light then either photons have mass, or it's even crazier. How can the speed of light be absolute in all frames of references when neutrinos obviously cannot but go faster? Also, neutrinos have mass, so what's up with that?
Something is wrong with their setup or their assumptions about their setup. Probably GPS error which they can't find. When the same experiment is done by a different team, they will get exactly the correct result, within the range of uncertainty.
If you read the paper they published, you'll see that they really really really did try to find an error of some kind that would explain the discrepancy. They've rerun the experiment 15'000 times and haven't been able to find anything. The group has come forward with their results and are practically begging for other people to step in and prove they're wrong. The "omg relativity is proven to be wrong" statements don't come from the researchers themselves.
On September 23 2011 20:31 Suisen wrote: While there is bad journalism at work here, you can't really blame them in this case as the major fault lies behind the scientists publicizing this. I don't know why the hell they would believe the data they got and not assume an error in their measurements, because that's what it probably is. Some kind of arrogance probably. Neutrinos going faster than light make absolutely no sense and one needs good measurements from several different detectors and ways of measuring before you can believe these numbers. Right now we have a single case of bad measurements.
And this gets thrusted into the major news. When media report on science they always have some sensationalist article. Most of the time we have a person that flunked high school physics write the article and get everything terribly wrong. But not it's the scientists themselves. This is why some people don't give science the respect they deserve. Media articles like 'Shocking new discovery, scientists back to the drawing board' and stupid stuff like that.
If neutrinos truly go faster than the speed of light then either photons have mass, or it's even crazier. How can the speed of light be absolute in all frames of references when neutrinos obviously cannot but go faster? Also, neutrinos have mass, so what's up with that?
Something is wrong with their setup or their assumptions about their setup. Probably GPS error which they can't find. When the same experiment is done by a different team, they will get exactly the correct result, within the range of uncertainty.
If you read the paper they published, you'll see that they really really really did try to find an error of some kind that would explain the discrepancy. They've rerun the experiment 15'000 times and haven't been able to find anything. The group has come forward with their results and are practically begging for other people to step in and prove they're wrong. The "omg relativity is proven to be wrong" statements don't come from the researchers themselves.
EPT
