|
On September 23 2011 04:43 askTeivospy wrote:
i'll wait until scientists scrutinize it.
if its said to be on the level then i'll wait until other papers come out and support the claim
exacly
you need to wait quet some time for this to be certain, there are plenty of examples how discussing new discovery can be invalid (unless your trying to figure it out ofcourse, but i dont think people here are qualified for that)..
example : scientists found a bacteria who survived on arsen, but later it was found out that it was just laboratory cockup.
or how they discovered animals who lived in anaerobic region of Mediterian sea, now its turning out it might be a larve of insects, who spend most of their life in aerobic zones.
|
On September 25 2011 10:15 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2011 10:09 Eishi_Ki wrote: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.
I don't know how much we know about travel of light vs neutrinoes, but to me it sounds weak to compare velocities of light vs neutrinoes in open space and light vs neutrinoes in the crust of earth. There is bound to be differences in the way the surroundings reacts on the light and neutrinoes. The geology might have a more significant role in this result than the theoreticists think.
|
If this were actually true, then special relative physics would be null and void.
My physics teacher explained it to me as such-
"When you get particles that near the speed of light, especially particles of the same size and nature of Neutrinos, there is a chance that the particle can undergo quantum tunneling- essentially not existing for a certain distance, then reappear a certain distance later. This would, on paper, make the particle faster than the speed of light, when in reality it's just cheating, and jumping a certain distance."
|
On September 26 2011 23:03 Tachyon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2011 22:56 Blix wrote: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
I feel you're splitting hairs - and unnecessarily calling people clueless. I don't see how "defined" is significantly different than "accepted". It also doesn't really matter imho if the speed of light is slightly bigger or the meter is slightly shorter.
|
[
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.[/QUOTE]
long time ago i read 1997 year book (my own language so pointless to name) wich wrote that some (electron muon or tau) neutrinos probably have a mass, but that time tehnology did not allow to confirm that or something.
|
The thing is that neutrinos don't interact with matter as they have no charge and are very small. Since most matter is actually empty space, they pass through with no effect. This is unlike photons which are influenced by electromagnetic forces.
Geology would also only slow it down.
|
Now I need to buy new textbooks next year :/
|
On September 26 2011 23:04 Antisocialmunky wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Not quite. The correct formula is
E = sqrt((mc^2)^2+(pc)^2)
or
E = gamma m c^2
where gamma = sqrt(1+p^2/(mc)^2) is the Lorentz factor. Note that gamma can also be written as
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), using the velocity v = p / (m gamma)
For massless particles (like photons), m=0, so we simply have E = pc.
Edit: the formula E = mc^2 is correct though if the particle is at rest, or if m is the Lorentz mass, which is the rest mass times the Lorentz factor.
|
On September 26 2011 23:14 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2011 10:15 Myles wrote:On September 25 2011 10:09 Eishi_Ki wrote: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. I don't know how much we know about travel of light vs neutrinoes, but to me it sounds weak to compare velocities of light vs neutrinoes in open space and light vs neutrinoes in the crust of earth. There is bound to be differences in the way the surroundings reacts on the light and neutrinoes. The geology might have a more significant role in this result than the theoreticists think.
The thing about neutrinos is that they rarely interact with anything at all. They can pass through billions of kilometers of solid lead without interacting with any of the atoms.
Neutrinos are extremely common particles but neutrino detectors need to be huge to pick up the rare event when they actually interact with normal matter.
A big problem with these detectors is to distinguish between events that are caused by neutrinos and those caused by atmospheric muons (a heavier cousin of the electron). One of the tricks scientists use is to only look at events that are comming from the ground up. Of course muons can't cross the entire length of the Earth. But the neutrinos just don't care, for them it might as well be empty space.
So, most of the detected neutrinos already pass through not just the crust but the entire lenght of the Earth.
|
On September 27 2011 03:05 scFoX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2011 23:04 Antisocialmunky wrote: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. Not quite. The correct formula is E = sqrt((mc^2)^2+(pc)^2) or E = gamma m c^2 where gamma = sqrt(1+p^2/(mc)^2) is the Lorentz factor. Note that gamma can also be written as gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), using the velocity v = p / (m gamma) For massless particles (like photons), m=0, so we simply have E = pc. Edit: the formula E = mc^2 is correct though if the particle is at rest, or if m is the Lorentz mass, which is the rest mass times the Lorentz factor.
How exactly does that work in reference frames since p=mv?
|
On September 27 2011 03:13 Antisocialmunky wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 03:05 scFoX wrote:On September 26 2011 23:04 Antisocialmunky wrote: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. Not quite. The correct formula is E = sqrt((mc^2)^2+(pc)^2) or E = gamma m c^2 where gamma = sqrt(1+p^2/(mc)^2) is the Lorentz factor. Note that gamma can also be written as gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), using the velocity v = p / (m gamma) For massless particles (like photons), m=0, so we simply have E = pc. Edit: the formula E = mc^2 is correct though if the particle is at rest, or if m is the Lorentz mass, which is the rest mass times the Lorentz factor. How exactly does that work in reference frames since p=mv?
The momentum p is not equal to mv in special relativity. It is equal to gamma mv, with the Lorentz factor previously defined.
|
That's interesting 
|
As another note, this is why photons can have a momentum; if we had p = mv, the momentum of a massless particle would be zero. Additionally, p can be greater than mc, whereas v must not exceed c -- at least, according to relativity, which is precise to 10^-15 in c (something people tend to forget when they try to reinvent physics in this thread.  ).
|
So after half-reading their manuscript, where they choose not to make any groundbreaking claim, and learning about the supernova neutrinos back in the 80s and all other previous speed measurements, I think what is more likely to happen is that they are simply missing a source of uncertainty. Some people already proposed that GPS is not a good system to measure distances to the nanometre, for instance.
However, if it turns out the neutrino velocity does change as a function of its energy (since all other ~c speed measurements were supposedly done with way lower energy neutrinos), I don't think this means the end of the special/general relativity, as some of you are claiming. The theory works flawlessly for a very wide range of energies and distances, regarding gravity and light. It could turn out that the neutrio has an undiscovered flavor that is somehow tachyonic and only revealed at high energies; but this would not invalidate the relativity theory as long as you can not use it to transmit superluminical information and break causality (and Hitler was never killed by a time-traveler).
You have to understand that, while we know that the mass of the neutrino has to be different than zero (due to the flavor oscillation effect), much of its nature remains to be understood. The current Standard Model assumes only 3 neutrino flavors, but it is unable to explain the missing dark matter and energy, so this effect could provide an explanation.
Guess we'll just wait and see.
|
I really don't understand people saying Einstein was wrong. Just like Newtonian physics is still valid as long as you're not dealing with relativistic speeds/masses, relativity will still be valid even if this experiment proves to be correct, all it will do is spawn new theories that fill in the gaps relativity didn't cover.
|
On September 27 2011 03:54 m00nchile wrote:
I really don't understand people saying Einstein was wrong. Just like Newtonian physics is still valid as long as you're not dealing with relativistic speeds/masses, relativity will still be valid even if this experiment proves to be correct, all it will do is spawn new theories that fill in the gaps relativity didn't cover.
What's sensational about that though?
|
So does this mean they found the stuff superman is made of? Since he is faster than light right?
|
I like how everyone puts this down almost immediately.
You know how people reacted when Copernicus said the we're heliocentric? The church put him down.
Scientists have been put down since the start of history since they discern change as negative.
We should be critical, not skeptical about this.
|
On September 27 2011 05:15 ChoiBoi wrote:
I like how everyone puts this down almost immediately.
You know how people reacted when Copernicus said the we're heliocentric? The church put him down.
Scientists have been put down since the start of history since they discern change as negative.
We should be critical, not skeptical about this.
It's not about putting it down -- people are just making unreasonable claims about how all physics are suddenly bunk because of one experiment. Are physics going to change? Maybe, if the results are confirmed. As was previously said, any discoveries are there to explain the holes left by current physics models. Quantum physics still work at small scales, Newtonian physics still work at low speeds and relativity will still work as well.
Also, the Church didn't "put down" Copernicus. His work was shown to Clement VII and two of his cardinals; they showed great interest in his theory. Copernic was never persecuted for his views. However, I don't want to derail the thread, so let's leave it at that on this subject.
|
Apparently we need to ask the Protoss.
I love science. It keeps improving and improving on itself through our discoveries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
