EPTHistory repeats itself. Nothing is supposed to break light... That's why it's the coolest.
CERN finds neutrinos faster than light - Page 52
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
rel
Guam3521 Posts
History repeats itself. Nothing is supposed to break light... That's why it's the coolest. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1065 Posts
Sometimes scientists can be very narrow minded parrots. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On March 24 2012 00:42 Cascade wrote: Ah ok, so you say that scientists should be a bit more open to deviations from/corrections to the standard model? Did I understand that correctly? I agree in general, but don't think it applies to this specific case of the neutrinos. Working in the field (phenomenology), I can say that most people would be very happy to see some real experimental signals of non-standard model physics (Beyond standard model - BSM). Which is why we have been building larger and larger accelerators (and other experiments) to look at higher energies, but for some decades now there has been nothing (or very little) unexpected, and in many cases there has been a VERY accurate agreement with standard model. However there has been plenty of false alarms, due to experimental errors, bad analysis, etc. And the last things you could argue being "new" would be the bottom quark (I wont even count the top), or the W and Z, which were both very expected and natural extensions of the standard model. As is the Higgs if it turns out to be there. There are currently a huge set of ideas on how the standard model can be extended, and none of them (at least none of the serious ones) predicted anything like a neutrino suddenly turning superluminal at a certain energy. So the fact that the result didn't make any sense from a theory point of view, together with a history of many more false signals than real surprises (last discovery of this magnitude would be quantum mechanics I guess...), made almost all scientists believe that it was a false signal. I think you can understand that sentiment, maybe even find it reasonable. Notice that I say BELIEVE, because we cannot be sure, so the entire community tried to check if this was a real signal or not empirically, by looking through everything at OPERA an N:th time, and by trying to repeat the measurement at other locations. In the end I think the reaction of scientific community was the correct one. Essentially "ok, this is probably an error, but let's make sure." (While popular science as usual goes "EINSTEIN PROVEN WRONG!!!"... defaq does einstein have to do with this?) If scientists would just ignore the measurement on theoretical ground, I would agree with you, but that is not what happened. And I don't think this will make anyone more open for controversial physics. Rather the opposite, it will be another in the line of false signals (if that is what comes out in the end) that will make it even more motivated to be sceptical next time. As a sidenote, there is a reason that there are two general purpose detectors at LHC (looking for new physics) that are designed kindof differently, or as different as is reasonable while looking for the same thing. If there would be only one, and it would find a signal, could you trust it? Could you be sure that it was not a loose cable somewhere? But if you have two experiments showing the same thing (as is what is happening now with the higgs, although a very weak signal) it is much more reliable. That is, the OPERA signal was a very strong signal (6 sigma?), but from a single experiment, and a result that didn't make any sense. The higgs signal is MUCH weaker (2-3 sigma, depending how you count) but a very predicted signal, and seen in two different experiments. Which is why I am very excited about the higgs signal, but never were excited about the neutrino.  Sorry for the wall of text. :o) Very good post indeed. I agree completely, that the higgs experiments are very interesting to follow since it is such an interesting fella! Wonder what happens with all the "false" energy-levels of the higgs. They become so much more valueable when the energy-level is settled. I do think we have to stay positive about bringing results to the public and I see it as important for everyone to have openness beyond a specific field of scientists. That also takes some learning of how to deal with the media. I guess the biggest problem I had was the way almost all of the media has poisoned the way the results were recieved. The fringe elements were coming out to play in the media since you have to represent each side fair and balanced (excuse the pun americans). By focusing on defending the standard model and how the results must be wrong, I think a lot of useful debate about the actual results was completely lost. It would in my opinion have been better to tackle the elements of the experiment in a much deeper fascion and look at how things work, what faults can be made and so on since it moves the experimental science so much more foreward than ramblings about theories.(bring in an electrician to explain about the possible flaws in the wiring setup, bring in a satelite expert to talk about the use of salelites and the possible errors on that and so on), It is a question of the field having too little emphasis on gathering experiences with admittedly very difficult experimental setups and too much on models and theories! Yes, the media has a lot of control over where the discussion will go, but I think it is necessary for scientists in the field to understand how they can help push the discussion in the right direction. | ||
|
theacox
United States38 Posts
The question should be is this bad for science ? I found the argument that airing the peer review process on a world stage was a huge benefit. Lots of laypeople were interested and engaged by the investigation. Ultimately if we want more notable discoveries we need to entice people to go into science as opposed to banking and the best way to do that is to increase funding. If science becomes more nationally and personally prestigious you will immediately see the a boost in scientific progress from the united states. People want notoriety. And the lack of flagship science projects in the us is why we don't see as much interest in science as we used to. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On March 23 2012 23:20 EtherealDeath wrote: Actually if Relativity is wrong you could disprove it using Relativity, similar to how classical physics can be shown to be fucked up by using classical physics! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe I said difficult, not impossible =p. | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
The head of an experiment that appeared to show subatomic particles travelling faster than the speed of light has resigned from his post. Prof Antonio Ereditato oversaw results that appeared to challenge Einstein's theory that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Reports said some members of his group, called Opera, had wanted him to resign. Earlier in March, a repeat experiment found that the particles, known as neutrinos, did not exceed light speed. Speaking at the time, Professor Ereditato added "words of caution" because of the "potentially great impact on physics" of the result. "We tried to find all possible explanations for this," he said. "We wanted to find a mistake - trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects - and we didn't. "When you don't find anything, then you say 'well, now I'm forced to go out and ask the community to scrutinise this'." Despite the call for caution, the results caused controversy within the world of physics. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17560379 | ||
|
Pleiades
United States472 Posts
| ||
|
Abraxas514
Canada475 Posts
On March 31 2012 11:05 Pleiades wrote: I don't get why really scientists or people in general apply light as the fastest thing in the universe. I do get why it is the most well-known fastest observed speed in the physical universe, but I always thought there can always be something faster. Countless experiments have proven this to hold true. That is why? | ||
|
Spieltor
327 Posts
On March 31 2012 11:08 Abraxas514 wrote: Countless experiments have proven this to hold true. That is why? wasn't the beginning moments of the big bang faster than the speed of light? Also, there is one thing faster tahn the speed of light, love. | ||
|
barbsq
United States5348 Posts
On March 31 2012 11:05 Pleiades wrote: I don't get why really scientists or people in general apply light as the fastest thing in the universe. I do get why it is the most well-known fastest observed speed in the physical universe, but I always thought there can always be something faster. if you're just assuming that something 'out there' must be faster than light, with no observations or even the slightest indications to back you up, then you're doing philosophy, not science. For most things physics-related, human intuition really sucks. | ||
|
Grohg
United States243 Posts
On March 31 2012 11:05 Pleiades wrote: I don't get why really scientists or people in general apply light as the fastest thing in the universe. I do get why it is the most well-known fastest observed speed in the physical universe, but I always thought there can always be something faster. When you reach a limit, you start to refine a hypothesis. The speed of light is a limit as far as we know and data has supported experimental hypotheses enough that the theory of relativity has been shown to be progressively more valid. This is not to say that there isn't a case when the null hypothesis is true and something travels faster than light...it simply means that we haven't found that exception yet and current theoretical physics are the best model we have concerning light speed limitations. I would love to read some day that a true ftl particle was discovered...if it exists, it's out there right now waiting to be found so we continue to strain current theory until we reach a point where it breaks. Once we break it, we can then begin to patch and narrow down our understanding of any given phenomenon. | ||
|
Abraxas514
Canada475 Posts
On March 31 2012 11:14 Grohg wrote: When you reach a limit, you start to refine a hypothesis. The speed of light is a limit as far as we know and data has supported experimental hypotheses enough that the theory of relativity has been shown to be progressively more valid. This is not to say that there isn't a case when the null hypothesis is true and something travels faster than light...it simply means that we haven't found that exception yet and current theoretical physics are the best model we have concerning light speed limitations. I would love to read some day that a true ftl particle was discovered...if it exists, it's out there right now waiting to be found so we continue to strain current theory until we reach a point where it breaks. Once we break it, we can then begin to patch and narrow down our understanding of any given phenomenon. You can look up tachyons, but of course it is just a theoretical particle at the moment. | ||
|
Pleiades
United States472 Posts
On March 31 2012 11:08 Abraxas514 wrote: Countless experiments have proven this to hold true. That is why? Experiments done based on our limitations so far. I'm not trying to say that the theory of relativity is false, or that light is absolutely not the fastest thing. On March 31 2012 11:13 barbsq wrote: if you're just assuming that something 'out there' must be faster than light, with no observations or even the slightest indications to back you up, then you're doing philosophy, not science. For most things physics-related, human intuition really sucks. Well, our current understanding of the concepts in science began with theory and philosophy. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 31 2012 11:23 Pleiades wrote: Experiments done based on our limitations so far. I'm not trying to say that the theory of relativity is false, or that light is absolutely not the fastest thing. Yes, and that's what makes it proper science. If it hasn't been observed, or a contradiction hasn't been created by experimentation, then you can't start randomly assuming things. | ||
|
NPF
Canada1635 Posts
On March 31 2012 11:11 Spieltor wrote: wasn't the beginning moments of the big bang faster than the speed of light? Also, there is one thing faster tahn the speed of light, love. No particle can go faster than light, however nothing says the universe can't expand as well. You can maybe think of it as say you can throw a rubber band only at one speed. Say 1 m/s in the x direction. So you would think if you threw it and 10 seconds would pass it would be at 10 m. However now consider that while it was in the air you could strech the rubber band out. Even if you could only strech it 1 cm. You would then be able to find the rubber band at 10,01 m. That's what the universe does it expands at a certain rate given over a certain distance. It's not really the most formal explanation. I haven't had an astronomy course myself even if I'm a physics student and some of the questions raised in this thread is pass my level of comfortable explanation (that is to say I know the anwser sometimes, but not the proof to the anwser). edit: Clarification the Hubble constant (which I edited out) is a change in frequency in an observed wavelength due to the distance of an object. I do believe it is a consequence of the expansion of space. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On March 23 2012 20:06 drbrown wrote: Just thought i should bump this, seeing as they've done a second test and found out that the first test was incorrect. http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57398740-264/not-so-fast-neutrinos-cern-says-lights-speedier-still/ Dayum shame, i was preparing for time travel. Why? You just travel an hour back in time, prepare, then head wherever (or whenever) you were going to in the first place. | ||
|
dmfg
United Kingdom591 Posts
On March 31 2012 11:05 Pleiades wrote: I don't get why really scientists or people in general apply light as the fastest thing in the universe. I do get why it is the most well-known fastest observed speed in the physical universe, but I always thought there can always be something faster. Well the big thing is that if anything can travel faster than light, it implies that information (carried by that something) can travel faster than light. Now normally we think the universe has a fundamental "causality" - i.e., if event A causes event B, then event A must occur before event B. As soon as you have anything travelling faster than light, you can look at the universe from a particular point of view and get: - Event A causes event B - but from this point of view, event B occurred before event A So either you have violated causality (which we believe to be absolutely fundamental), or you have invented time travel (which we believe to be impossible because it violates causality). | ||
|
Dislexic
United Kingdom37 Posts
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21899-neutrinos-dont-outpace-light-but-they-do-shapeshift.html | ||
|
SiroKO
France721 Posts
On March 31 2012 11:05 Pleiades wrote: I don't get why really scientists or people in general apply light as the fastest thing in the universe. I do get why it is the most well-known fastest observed speed in the physical universe, but I always thought there can always be something faster. The speed of light is the limit of an equation. It is a practical aberation since you need an infinite energy to reach this exact speed. | ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
speed has unit of distance light travels a year per second. Which makes a vast distance for 0.5 nanoseconds traveling in speed of light. On top of that the uncertainty is 8 nanoseconds? which can be both over and under that 0.5 nanoseconds of the speed of light measured. How do you make senses of this? wouldn't the error too large for this to be conclusive? | ||
| ||
