| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On September 23 2011 20:31 Suisen wrote: Supernovae happen all the time, btw. It won't take long until we can observe 1 every day. Detecting Supernovae on a daily basis is comparably easy, detecting the corresponding neutrinos in significant numbers not so much. (for now) | ||
|
shammythefox
United Kingdom286 Posts
On September 23 2011 21:31 Nawyria wrote: You'd think that, but apparently they've got their error bars down rather tightly: We'd need an uncertainty of as much as 20 meters for the result to be invalidated. Still, it's possible that someone might not've been using proper SI units and measured stuff in yards instead.  Edit: Now you're just trolling... shoo. I'm aware of that, all i'm saying is its more likely their error bars are wrong than that relativity is wrong. Still, all possibilities should be accounted | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17384 Posts
On September 23 2011 21:39 Suisen wrote: I do think it's a fair criticism to how media report on economics. It's either so politically loaded or they haven't found enough laws and truisms that it is so much a matter of opinion of ideology you can't fault others for having a different point of view. If that's 'trolling' then is Feynman trolling too? Do sociology, psychology, etc deserve the same respect as physics? Dude, chill. | ||
|
forgehammer
United States79 Posts
| ||
|
shammythefox
United Kingdom286 Posts
On September 23 2011 21:53 forgehammer wrote: Any chance of some LR of the conference for those of us who can't watch the stream? WHeres the stream? o.o | ||
|
Nawyria
Netherlands140 Posts
On September 23 2011 21:39 Suisen wrote: I do think it's a fair criticism to how media report on economics. It's either so politically loaded or they haven't found enough laws and truisms that it is so much a matter of opinion of ideology you can't fault others for having a different point of view. If that's 'trolling' then is Feynman trolling too? Do sociology, psychology, etc deserve the same respect as physics? You're insulting sleepingdog in an attempt to invalidate his arguments because you cannot find fault with the arguments themselves. That is no way to have a discussion, regardless of whether your discussion partner is a physicist, economist, or zoo-keeper for that matter. So yes, I do think you're trolling and it's a straw man to say that by claiming this, I claim Feynmann is trolling as well. It's also not fair to discredit people in the field of economy, sociology and psychology for that matter. Physicists and other exact scientists are the lucky ones in some respect, as their work carries a relatively low amount of political baggage (unless we're talking about (eu)genetics or sustainable energy) and can be tested repeatedly in a controlled environment. Researchers in the social sciences often have to worry about the political load of their work, conflicts with current ideology and rarely have a controlled environment with a large sample size where they can test a hypothesis repeatedly. Returning back to your original contention, you can't expect scientists to keep their work hidden for fear the media will catch wind of it and somehow spread the story of unfinished research projects (what is wrong with letting people know how things are going work-in-progess really?). It would only serve to hinder the collaboration effort that is so important in particle physics nowadays and reduce scientific awareness among the public. Besides, instead of a headline like: Shock as Einstein 'may have been wrong' Scientists think an experiment may have shattered physics' pillar by proving the theory of relativity wrong. (Yahoo News UK) blatantly misrepresenting the state of affairs, we'd have headlines like: The secret that physicists don't want you to know An anonymous tip from an insider at CERN tells us the scientific community is holding back knowledge that may one day build a time machine. Link is here: http://webcast.web.cern.ch/webcast/ Neutrino results starts at 16:00 CEST. VoDs will be available later. | ||
|
CptCutter
United Kingdom370 Posts
On September 23 2011 04:49 ChiffonAngel wrote: Time travel incoming. not quite. i dont understand why anyone thinks that travelling faster than the speed of light would mean going backwards in time -.- there probably will be a mistake with this, but i sure hope that this experiment was correct. | ||
|
Nesto
Switzerland1318 Posts
On September 23 2011 22:04 CptCutter wrote: not quite. i dont understand why anyone thinks that travelling faster than the speed of light would mean going backwards in time -.- never watched the superman movies, did you? | ||
|
Vorenius
Denmark1979 Posts
On September 23 2011 21:44 shammythefox wrote: I'm aware of that, all i'm saying is its more likely their error bars are wrong than that relativity is wrong. Still, all possibilities should be accounted I'm not a physics major so this might be a noob questions but, How much is actually known about Neutrinos? Even if they do travel faster than speed of light would that really by itself invalidate the theory of relativity only given what we know of Neutrinos? As far as I could read going though a few sites, it's not even known if neutrinos have mass or not. Wouldn't that be required for it to invalidate Einsteins theories? | ||
|
Vegard90
Norway3 Posts
 | ||
|
Suisen
256 Posts
Neutrinos as so light and go so fast they are very hard to detect period. So not too much is known about it. Some here have talked about 'neutrino telescopes' by comparing them to photons, but that's really far off in the future. | ||
|
Shagg
Finland825 Posts
| ||
|
Otori
Sweden164 Posts
Here's a link I found on another forum, dunno if it has been posted yet or if it's any valid at all, but a guy stating that there are miscalculations basically: http://johncostella.webs.com/neutrino-blunder.pdf | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On September 23 2011 22:00 Nawyria wrote: It's also not fair to discredit people in the field of economy, sociology and psychology for that matter. Physicists and other exact scientists are the lucky ones in some respect, as their work carries a relatively low amount of political baggage (unless we're talking about (eu)genetics or sustainable energy) and can be tested repeatedly in a controlled environment. Researchers in the social sciences often have to worry about the political load of their work, conflicts with current ideology and rarely have a controlled environment with a large sample size where they can test a hypothesis repeatedly. Thank you. Even though this is unfortunately developing quite off topic, I really feel like I have to say this now instead of later. I believe(d) we are past the point where only the "exact, falsifie-able" subjects are considered "real" sciences. Science is - or at the very least this is what it should be - everything where mankind strives to higher knowledge by investigating something using methods that have been accepted/developed within the respective field of study. Because the without a doubt "highest" science, where everything has started and where everything, in the end, goes back to, is philosophy. And most of the philosophical theories can not be falsified. The classic university consisted "only" of four subjects - theology, law, philosophy and medicine. Hard to claim that, with the exception of medicine, this shouldn't have been "science". To bring this back to physics - one of the main criticisms about the string-theory is that it doesn't consist of (enough) theories that can be falsified. What now, is the string-theory no science anymore? Does it even belong in physics then? (small paper on that: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/strings.pdf ) [/offtopic] | ||
|
shammythefox
United Kingdom286 Posts
On September 23 2011 22:21 sleepingdog wrote: Thank you. Even though this is unfortunately developing quite off topic, I really feel like I have to say this now instead of later. I believe(d) we are past the point where only the "exact, falsifie-able" subjects are considered "real" sciences. Science is - or at the very least this is what it should be - everything where mankind strives to higher knowledge by investigating something using methods that have been accepted/developed within the respective field of study. Because the without a doubt "highest" science, where everything has started and where everything, in the end, goes back to, is philosophy. And most of the philosophical theories can not be falsified. The classic university consisted "only" of four subjects - theology, law, philosophy and medicine. Hard to claim that, with the exception of medicine, this shouldn't have been "science". To bring this back to physics - one of the main criticisms about the string-theory is that it doesn't consist of (enough) theories that can be falsified. What now, is the string-theory no science anymore? Does it even belong in physics then? (small paper on that: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/strings.pdf ) [/offtopic] The point of the higher sciences is to find falsifiable answers to philosophical questions, something that philosophy itself failed to do. Hence falsifiable and hence science | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On September 23 2011 22:25 shammythefox wrote: The point of the higher sciences is to find falsifiable answers to philosophical questions, something that philosophy itself failed to do. Hence falsifiable and hence science lol try finding falsifiable answers to metaphysical questions, I wish you good luck with that anywho, I won't continue this discussion on that matter as it belongs in another topic of its own; don't feel like I'm avoiding the discussion itself though | ||
|
Piste
6179 Posts
On September 23 2011 07:58 Soleron wrote: Well the formula doesn't even apply to photons. photons have no mass. neutrinos do. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On September 23 2011 04:43 gurrpp wrote: I'm pretty sure they've rechecked their calculations many times. Still, sometimes many times isn't enough. We'll see if independent parties can replicate their results, then we can freak out about fundamental laws of physics. Unless those parties also have huge underground experimental machines that cost hundreds of milions of $ I don't think they can replicate those results as easily :D | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On September 23 2011 22:16 Otori wrote: Not that I understand much about the details since i'm terrible/dumb at these sort of things, (the fact itself is pretty amazing and cool if it was to be true though) Here's a link I found on another forum, dunno if it has been posted yet or if it's any valid at all, but a guy stating that there are miscalculations basically: http://johncostella.webs.com/neutrino-blunder.pdf Well, he basically is calling them idiots. Of course they could have made such a mistake but I'd think they aren't totally stupid when calculating the statistical uncertainty, especially considering the result. We'll see though, bigger mistakes have been done. | ||
|
Suvorov
294 Posts
On September 23 2011 04:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Perhaps they are mistaking the distance between the source and the detection. You really think these top class scientists would fuck up like that? Specially after they said they searched for errors? | ||
| ||
|
|
Safe House 2
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Safe House 2
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
WardiTV Invitational
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
