|
On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... its slower when travelling through water etc and it is this way because it interacts via the electro-magnetic force. Neutrinos don't. I wasn't saying that photons dont travel at the speed of light, i was saying that the speed of light as a barrier doesn't apply to massless particles... Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 01:42 Oktyabr wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. His second line says "it has been thought for a long time that particles without mass see the speed of light as a lower limit, not an upper one." thanks for the help lol
The speed of light in a vacuum is the maximum speed attainable by massless particles... such as photons.
|
Nobody in this thread has even a hint of a clue as to what they are talking about. Stop posting ideas you have based on something you extrapolated from half an article in a Discover magazine you read while waiting at the dentist's office. If you're wondering about what might change if the research turns out to be correct, just look at what changed after relativistic replaced classical, i.e. not much unless you're a physicist for the first fifty years, and then maybe you get a working GPS.
If you want to read the paper, go here. You'd be surprised at how much you can get out of it if you have a bit of background in stats or lab science.
|
On September 24 2011 01:49 nemo14 wrote:Nobody in this thread has even a hint of a clue as to what they are talking about. Stop posting ideas you have based on something you extrapolated from half an article in a Discover magazine you read while waiting at the dentist's office. If you're wondering about what might change if the research turns out to be correct, just look at what changed after relativistic replaced classical, i.e. not much unless you're a physicist for the first fifty years, and then maybe you get a working GPS. If you want to read the paper, go here. You'd be surprised at how much you can get out of it if you have a bit of background in stats or lab science.
Japan disagrees
|
On September 24 2011 01:45 starfries wrote:
I'm pretty sure there's going to be an embarrassed cough from CERN in a month or so saying it was experimental error. But I'd really like for it to be true, I've been reading too much science fiction not to want it.
edit: massless particles travel at c. for faster than light travel, you need particles with imaginary masses.
It's not embarrassing. This is a crazy hard experiment and they didn't claim they are absolutely confident in the results. They took data, scrutinized it as best as possible, could not find other possible error sources, and asked for peer review. Aka science.
@nemo14: Good read, thanks. I recognize some of the images from the talk. Also, either don't be so angry about people having fun speculating or don't read a thread like this on a gaming forum. 
|
On September 24 2011 01:49 nemo14 wrote:Nobody in this thread has even a hint of a clue as to what they are talking about. Stop posting ideas you have based on something you extrapolated from half an article in a Discover magazine you read while waiting at the dentist's office. If you're wondering about what might change if the research turns out to be correct, just look at what changed after relativistic replaced classical, i.e. not much unless you're a physicist for the first fifty years, and then maybe you get a working GPS. If you want to read the paper, go here. You'd be surprised at how much you can get out of it if you have a bit of background in stats or lab science.
I think you are too confined in practical physics to see the effects. They are small from this experiment in itself, but the discovery of something faster than light is huge. It opens up for quite a lot more possibilities in the realm of physics and who knows. Even data-transmission, nuclear-reactor-design and a lot of other areas can benifit from it.
|
On September 24 2011 01:54 Soot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 01:45 starfries wrote:
I'm pretty sure there's going to be an embarrassed cough from CERN in a month or so saying it was experimental error. But I'd really like for it to be true, I've been reading too much science fiction not to want it.
edit: massless particles travel at c. for faster than light travel, you need particles with imaginary masses. It's not embarrassing. This is a crazy hard experiment and they didn't claim they are absolutely confident in the results. They took data, scrutinized it as best as possible, could not find other possible error sources, and asked for peer review. Aka science.
I didn't say it was bad science. It would be embarrassing because of the big deal the media has made it into. It's never fun having to say in a press conference it was experimental error (which is different from "mistake" but a lot of the public equate the two).
Also, as for anyone wondering how to violate causality with ftl, this is one way to do it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone
|
I'm not a excellent physicist but still have a decent knowledge about physics.What bugs me about this is if this would end up to be true,how come when a supernova happens(and CERN basically emulates a similar environment),what we detect first is the light particles and not neutrinos which,according to this,would come several years before before to our detectors(based on the distance).
|
What media made a big deal out of it? If they did based on what was released, it's embarrassing for them, not CERN/OPERA.
|
On September 24 2011 02:03 TheKefka wrote:
I'm not a excellent physicist but still have a decent knowledge about physics.What bugs me about this is if this would end up to be true,how come when a supernova happens(and CERN basically emulates a similar environment),what we detect first is the light particles and not neutrinos which,according to this,would come several years before before to our detectors(based on the distance).
Neutrinos are detected before photons. In 1987 it was something like 3 hours if I remember correctly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A
|
On September 24 2011 02:05 Soot wrote:
What media made a big deal out of it? If they did based on what was released, it's embarrassing for them, not CERN/OPERA.
This media.
|
OMG, they are really going to do it!They will build a time machine to alter the past and rule the world.
Evil Corp Inc. ( Just my usual Steins;Gate rant, watch the show if you're into this kind of stuff.)
Where is the Maddo Scientisto Hououin Kyoma when we need him?
|
On September 24 2011 02:07 Soot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 02:03 TheKefka wrote:
I'm not a excellent physicist but still have a decent knowledge about physics.What bugs me about this is if this would end up to be true,how come when a supernova happens(and CERN basically emulates a similar environment),what we detect first is the light particles and not neutrinos which,according to this,would come several years before before to our detectors(based on the distance). Neutrinos are detected before photons. In 1987 it was something like 3 hours if I remember correctly.
Hmm,cool,I didn't actually know this.
|
|
|
On September 24 2011 02:09 TheKefka wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 02:07 Soot wrote:On September 24 2011 02:03 TheKefka wrote:
I'm not a excellent physicist but still have a decent knowledge about physics.What bugs me about this is if this would end up to be true,how come when a supernova happens(and CERN basically emulates a similar environment),what we detect first is the light particles and not neutrinos which,according to this,would come several years before before to our detectors(based on the distance). Neutrinos are detected before photons. In 1987 it was something like 3 hours if I remember correctly. Hmm,cool,I didn't actually know this.
This is actually because the photons leave the star later than the neutrinos. The pulse of photons comes from the shock wave which takes a while to reach the surface of the star, while the pulse of neutrinos is created in the initial collapse and streams straight out (since it hardly interacts with matter). Photons (well the energy, it's re-emitted many times) normally take years to break out of the photosphere after leaving the core.
|
Sounds like "light" move speed will need to be buffed in upcoming patches.
That or "neutrino" speed will need to be nerfed.
|
The truth is that it just confirms the existence of the "tachyon neutrino" which was predicted by the standard theory. Journalists do not have a PhD so they are confused ...
|
On September 23 2011 19:29 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 17:59 hegeo wrote:
Reading the paper it's so interesting to see how they are practically begging for someone to find an error ;-) In the end, this is really good scientific behaviour. Nevertheless, it will be nice to see what the error is (assuming there is one). The difference of 60ns equals 18m roughly (if my quick math is correct here), so false measurements of distance shouldn't be the reason. And their level of statistical significance is 6 sigma, meaning it is like what, 99,999999999998% sure?
They surely already spent hundreds of hours recalculating and remeasuring everything. Poor guys ;-)
But the valid question still remains: Why do supernova-neutrinos then don't hit us way before photons? I'm too lazy to do the math now, but somebody here said it must be a time difference of years (even if they have negative mass and are "heavier" than the CERN neutrinos, the difference should add up after billions of lightyears). Well it was hypothesized even before this experiment that such an effect could strongly depend on the energy of the neutrino. The neutrinos that came from the supernova had energies of several MeV, while the ones from this experiment have energies in the range of several dozen GeV. They tried to measure the effect as a function of the energy in their sample, but the data are not yet of sufficient quality to come to any conclusions in this regard.
Actually, after looking at the neutrino data from Supernova1987A I take that back.
18 events with energies ranging from 7.5 to 38 MeV were detected over a time span of only14(!)seconds. If there was any significant energy dependence such a sharp time distribution would never be possible.
Reconciling these two results seems very difficult.
|
On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:
Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum......
Just a minor gripe, but we're talking about physics here. Could you at least have the courtesy to give your numbers in international units? (apart from the fact that miles per second is simply a ghastly juxtaposition in its own right)
|
On September 24 2011 02:30 PhloW wrote:
The truth is that it just confirm the existence of the "tachyon neutrino" which was predicted by the standard theory. Journalists do not have a PhD so they are confused ...
Some with an alleged degree in physics in this thread must also be confused in that case.
|
On September 24 2011 02:31 scFoX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:
Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... Just a minor gripe, but we're talking about physics here. Could you at least have the courtesy to give your numbers in international units? (apart from the fact that miles per second is simply a ghastly juxtaposition in its own right)
Which is also easier, 300,000 km/sec
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
