|
On October 20 2011 06:53 Selkie wrote:
In addition, the time different found is only a few meters difference- it's quite possible that a tiny, tiny earthquake, one of the ones that's always occuring, could have shifted the two far enough apart.
I'm not so sure. My impression was that they were continually monitoring their position via GPS. They could actually detect movements of the earth like that using their equipment, and were continually adjusting for it.
|
Outlook for scientists' reputation: grim
|
|
|
amazing, science admits when they made a mistake?
that's why i love it and not you know what...
|
Pretty amateur mistake. I would have imagined relativity to be the first point of call.
|
For all the splash that paper made, its still in pre-pub and not necessarily the silver bullet for all this. Otherwise, they wouldn't be redoing this test.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21064-neutrino-watch-speed-claim-baffles-cern-theoryfest.html
I frankly think its not quite right. He's arguing about motions of the satellite causing issues but they had several readings taken by specialized GPS instruments and a company that does this stuff for a living. I would imagine the GPS guys would have gotten the bugs out of the system. I mean, GPS has been around for a very long time that these things should be detectable. They even ran into this problem early on in the program when GPS wasn't working right because they didn't compensate for SR. They found it and fixed it.
Another issue is that you need atleast 4 GPS satellites for a reading and more for a more precise reading so I find it difficult to take his argument seriously because he's blaming it all on one satellite. So now you're talking about the motions of 4+ satellites all in different orbits, all with different relative motions to the sender and receiver at different times.
Better explanation:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44968467/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.Tp-Ye7KSfag
Lol @ last 3 letters of url.
This paper may be a lot like P != NP paper which was vetted and problems were pointed out with it. We'll have to wait and see. In the mean time, try to wear your critical thinking hats harder.
|
On October 20 2011 12:23 Silidons wrote:amazing, science admits when they made a mistake? that's why i love it and not you know what...
Don't turn this into a you know what... debate thread
|
On October 20 2011 06:56 acgFork wrote:
Outlook for scientists' reputation: grim
I doubt their reputation will take much of a hit dude. It's not like they were trying to deceive people.
|
NOOOOOOOOOO, I so wanted this to be true.
|
On October 20 2011 13:13 SpoR wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 12:23 Silidons wrote:amazing, science admits when they made a mistake? that's why i love it and not you know what... Don't turn this into a you know what... debate thread
eh, it won't turn into it, i'm sure of that. i won't be saying anything else about it personally
|
The debunking isn't ncessarily correct, its entirely speculating that the original scientists didn't take into account GPS relative motion...
|
On October 20 2011 13:17 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 06:56 acgFork wrote:
Outlook for scientists' reputation: grim I doubt their reputation will take much of a hit dude. It's not like they were trying to deceive people.
Agreed with this statement. They were EXTREMELY open with their findings, and provided complete transparency on all of their data to the public for the exact purpose of "someone help us prove this wrong".
That's like a chef saying "everyone come critique this dish". If it isn't perfect, his reputation isn't going to suffer.
|
this doesn't make any sense, the conclusion that is.
relatively the neutrinos were moving faster than light. this was taken from an inertial reference frame. but throwing a basketball from something moving faster than the speed of light shouldn't actually ever have it measured as faster than the speed of light.
what?
|
On October 20 2011 15:33 mikell wrote:
this doesn't make any sense, the conclusion that is.
relatively the neutrinos were moving faster than light.
No, they weren't. Neither inertial frame of reference 'saw' the neutrinos cover a distance faster than light would have. The mistake the scientists made was to take the time of the journey from one inertial frame and the distance from another inertial frame when calculating the velocity.
|
Is this the official stance of the scientific community/CERN/whoever did the experiment?
|
On October 20 2011 15:33 mikell wrote:
this doesn't make any sense, the conclusion that is.
relatively the neutrinos were moving faster than light. this was taken from an inertial reference frame. but throwing a basketball from something moving faster than the speed of light shouldn't actually ever have it measured as faster than the speed of light.
what?
Relativity doesn't make any sense, if you're normal. But it seems reasonable. Has the stuff in the escapist article actually been published yet?
EDIT: it's this guy, and this article, and it doesn't seem like the CERN scientists have confirmed or even responded to what he said. At this stage the 'explanation' is just him going: "Did ya remember to correct for this?"
The escapist guys are overreacting to consider it debunked, unless they know something I don't.
|
From what i understand special relativity is a known issue for GPS tracking and always accounted for in any high speed readings. But then again i could be wrong
|
On October 20 2011 17:04 Belisarius wrote:EDIT: it's this guy, and this article, and it doesn't seem like the CERN scientists have confirmed or even responded to what he said. At this stage the 'explanation' is just him going: "Did ya remember to correct for this?"
No: he's actually quoting their paper and pointing out that they aren't correcting for it:
The authors of the OPERA paper [5] seem to include a correction for the Lorentz transformations,
but they do not explicitly correct for detector movement in the satellite refrence frame. As they
project the time provided by the satellite’s clock back to the baseline, they seem to assume incorrectly that the outcome of their experiment should be equivalent to the time of flight τb using a
clock in the baseline reference system:
<equation quoted from original paper>
In fact, however, they should observe the Lorentz transformation-corrected time of flight as measured in the satellite reference system, i.e.:
<corrected equation>
Edit: On the other hand the second correction he applies does assume something not explicitly presented in the original paper - sorry about that.
|
On October 20 2011 16:45 JamesJohansen wrote:
Is this the official stance of the scientific community/CERN/whoever did the experiment?
There can not be an official stance on the subject since the results has not been replicated. And concerning the possible relativistic mistake it is not absolutely clear yet if they took it into account (correclty).
|
On October 20 2011 16:45 JamesJohansen wrote:
Is this the official stance of the scientific community/CERN/whoever did the experiment?
Not according to the commens underneath the article. Someone claimed that this effect had already been accounted for in the experiment. I'd wait for official confirmation before buying these "explanations." (This haven't been the first.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
