|
United States5162 Posts
On September 25 2011 10:09 Eishi_Ki wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2011 10:02 Myles wrote:On September 25 2011 09:59 Eishi_Ki wrote:
What's crazy is that only one and a half years ago, we didn't even know neutrinos had mass which would have made this discovery entirely redundant. CERN has done SO much for our understanding of physics, its ridiculous. Really? I thought it was always theorized that neutrinos had an incredibly small mass, but not completely massless. I dont know shit about this, I'm just reading about it hah. Apparently a supernova observed in the 80s had the neutrinos arriving at Earth at the speed of light leading to assumptions that neutrinos were massless (apparently everything massless travels at c according to that bloke Einstein before he was abducted by the Soviets)
I heard about that. The way I understood it was that the neutrinos were ejected before the light photons causing them to arrive 4 hours earlier then the light. From what I've read about CERNs experiment, if the neutrinos moved as fast they did in that experiment then they would have arrived 4 years earlier in the 1980's supernova. Trying to reconcile these differences is one of the major problems, though some people have said that the neutrinos had different energy levels that might explain the different velocities.
|
On September 25 2011 09:48 xxpack09 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2011 05:51 Warlike Prince wrote:
Brooklyn Eagle
July 10, 1932
Exceed Velocity of Light
“All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light.
Nikola Tesla This is completely irrelevant and to use this quote to apply to this situation only serves to mislead people--neutrinos hadn't even been experimentally discovered (1956) until after Tesla's death (1943). Tesla was talking about neutrons, which were experimentally discovered in 1932 by Chadwick.
They were postulated in 1930 so we can pretend that Tesla was as awesome as he actually was.
|
On September 25 2011 10:09 Eishi_Ki wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2011 10:02 Myles wrote:On September 25 2011 09:59 Eishi_Ki wrote:
What's crazy is that only one and a half years ago, we didn't even know neutrinos had mass which would have made this discovery entirely redundant. CERN has done SO much for our understanding of physics, its ridiculous. Really? I thought it was always theorized that neutrinos had an incredibly small mass, but not completely massless. I dont know shit about this, I'm just reading about it hah. Apparently a supernova observed in the 80s had the neutrinos arriving at Earth at the speed of light leading to assumptions that neutrinos were massless (apparently everything massless travels at c according to that bloke Einstein before he was abducted by the Soviets)
Dammit lol I was gonna use this story.
But yea, we had a professor who told us about this (back in the 80's with the supernova and all) and from the measurements it showed that the neutrinos didn't really break the speed of light. As a result, a lot of people are still skeptical about this speed of light being broken.
of course if the speed of light was broken we have a lot of things to look forward to...
|
When I found out about these discoveries I was just so amazed. It seems that the most famous formula on earth, E=mc2, is not accurate. I do not have any knowledge what so ever in physics, but even I can understand the giant proportions something like this should get. I would really love to see what this actually mess up and what it doesn't mess up...
|
Is this the choice of Steins gate?
|
Jesus christ WHEN WILL WE KNOW THE ANSWER!!
I am like a nervous wreck right now lol.
|
E = mc^2 ... E ~ mc^2 fixed!
Seriously tho, maybe neutrinoes are tachyones, then it wouldn't be so bad. I'm just as amazed as the rest of you!
|
On September 26 2011 13:31 heroyi wrote:
Jesus christ WHEN WILL WE KNOW THE ANSWER!!
I am like a nervous wreck right now lol.
ditto
How long does this peer review process take?
|
When I found out about these discoveries I was just so amazed. It seems that the most famous formula on earth, E=mc2, is not accurate. I do not have any knowledge what so ever in physics, but even I can understand the giant proportions something like this should get. I would really love to see what this actually mess up and what it doesn't mess up...
What? This has absolutely *nothing* to do with E = mc^2. The fact that the speed of light is the maximum speed does not follow from that equation and it does not have to be maximum for that equation to be valid. This equation has been verified beyond all reasonable doubt. All of you need to stop pretending to be amazed when you just found out that the speed of light was supposed to be the maximum speed three days ago.
|
On September 26 2011 20:26 Ian Ian Ian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2011 13:31 heroyi wrote:
Jesus christ WHEN WILL WE KNOW THE ANSWER!!
I am like a nervous wreck right now lol. ditto How long does this peer review process take?
It's not really a peer review as that suggest they actually presented something to review. We won't get any answers until a) someone find what they did wrong or b) the results can be replicated by a second party. If it's a) we can get an answer today or never, and if it's b) it could take months or longer. It's not like you can run these experiements everywhere and even if you could there are no guarantees that they'd get the same results.
Bottom line, I wouldn't hold my breath for answers if I were you.
|
If this turns out to be completely accurate then I can't wait for the episode of The Big Bang Theory about it :D
|
Is a measurement mistake ruled out yet?
|
On September 26 2011 20:48 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2011 20:26 Ian Ian Ian wrote:On September 26 2011 13:31 heroyi wrote:
Jesus christ WHEN WILL WE KNOW THE ANSWER!!
I am like a nervous wreck right now lol. ditto How long does this peer review process take? It's not really a peer review as that suggest they actually presented something to review. We won't get any answers until a) someone find what they did wrong or b) the results can be replicated by a second party. If it's a) we can get an answer today or never, and if it's b) it could take months or longer. It's not like you can run these experiements everywhere and even if you could there are no guarantees that they'd get the same results. Bottom line, I wouldn't hold my breath for answers if I were you.
The experiment was run during 3 years so with a brand new facility the minimum time is 3.5 years (3 years of experiment, 6 months compiling data + writing).
Given that there are very limited places where this can be done I would hope that it can be reproduced in ~15 years.
Unless they found that something is wrong with their estimates.
|
On September 26 2011 22:14 blowfish wrote:
Is a measurement mistake ruled out yet? They can't rule one out unless another experiment confirms their results.
|
On September 26 2011 14:27 linuxfag wrote:
E = mc^2 ... E ~ mc^2 fixed!
Seriously tho, maybe neutrinoes are tachyones, then it wouldn't be so bad. I'm just as amazed as the rest of you!
If they were tachyons they would be travelling backwards in time, according to special relativity.
|
On September 26 2011 20:48 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2011 20:26 Ian Ian Ian wrote:On September 26 2011 13:31 heroyi wrote:
Jesus christ WHEN WILL WE KNOW THE ANSWER!!
I am like a nervous wreck right now lol. ditto How long does this peer review process take? It's not really a peer review as that suggest they actually presented something to review. We won't get any answers until a) someone find what they did wrong or b) the results can be replicated by a second party. If it's a) we can get an answer today or never, and if it's b) it could take months or longer. It's not like you can run these experiements everywhere and even if you could there are no guarantees that they'd get the same results. Bottom line, I wouldn't hold my breath for answers if I were you.
My guess is that this will show that there was a 0.0025% error in previous attempts to measure the velocity of light. As an engineer i don't really see why such a small deviation should cause such a hype ;-)
|
My guess is that this will show that there was a 0.0025% error in previous attempts to measure the velocity of light. As an engineer i don't really see why such a small deviation should cause such a hype ;-)
It's significant to six standard deviations.
|
On September 26 2011 22:44 Soleron wrote:Show nested quote +
My guess is that this will show that there was a 0.0025% error in previous attempts to measure the velocity of light. As an engineer i don't really see why such a small deviation should cause such a hype ;-)
It's significant to six standard deviations.
I'm talking about a minute flaw in previous measurements that lead to the current accepted value of c - not about reproducibility of the cern measurements. But then again, i'm not a theoretical physicist, so it's just a guess...
|
On September 26 2011 22:56 Blix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2011 22:44 Soleron wrote:
My guess is that this will show that there was a 0.0025% error in previous attempts to measure the velocity of light. As an engineer i don't really see why such a small deviation should cause such a hype ;-)
It's significant to six standard deviations. I'm talking about a minute flaw in previous measurements that lead to the current accepted value of c - not about reproducibility of the cern measurements. But then again, i'm not a theoretical physicist, so it's just a guess...
What are you talking about? "the current[ly] accepted value of c"? c is DEFINED to be EXACTLY 299792458,0000000000000000000000 m/s, just like meters and seconds are defined from this figure. And btw, why are so many people clueless about how science works? You think they'd publish this extremely controversial and groundbreaking data without checking, rechecking, and pulling out their hair rechecking again? Come on, guys.
-Physics student
|
On September 26 2011 14:27 linuxfag wrote:
E = mc^2 ... E ~ mc^2 fixed!
Seriously tho, maybe neutrinoes are tachyones, then it wouldn't be so bad. I'm just as amazed as the rest of you!
It is actually:
E = sqrt((mc^2)^2-(pc)^2) in the general case where p is I believe momentum of an object. And its unlikely that it is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
