EPTCERN finds neutrinos faster than light - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
tso
United States132 Posts
| ||
|
j0k3r
United States577 Posts
On September 23 2011 05:26 gullberg wrote: I'm by no means a qualified physicist but wouldn't this mean that a neutrino is about 1.000024001 times faster than the speed of light? What's so significant? Theoretically nothing is faster than the speed of light. When something like 60 nanoseconds error occurs it's different from let's say .0001 nanosecond error by many measures. It's either a huge mistake in the equipment or something is going on which we don't understand, hoping for the latter. | ||
|
scFoX
France454 Posts
On September 23 2011 05:42 gurrpp wrote: My bad, its been quite a few years since That's purely from an engineering perspective. I'm sure if you're a physicist this would be huge, however. No one accepts that newtonian mechanics are true. However, they still do approximate things quite well. Still, there is some engineering which relies on our current ideas of quantum physics. Off the top of my head I can only think of quantum computing, however unfruitful that has been. Again, I'm not a physicist, just an engineer who's mildly interested. To me physics is the most settled of the sciences. Its kind of exciting to think that a century of scientific progress hinges on 60 nanoseconds. Rarely is a scientific field in a position where the validity of one result can completely change the paradigm for the field. Usually you have a lot of data over a period of time accumulates until there is a new paradigm that the scientific community accepts. Well, all depends on the scale at which the physicist observes the world. Newtonian physics are very good at modelling everyday speeds and distances. For the infinitely small, quantum physics need to be taken into account (and mind you, they are used far more than simple quantum computers. Most computer chips now have near atom-wide transistors inside). Likewise, for large distances gravity tends to have a big role and general relativity is the name of the game. Bottom line is, everywhere approximations have to be made. You don't take general relativity into account at small levels because elementary particles weigh next to nothing. You don't take quantum physics into account at large distances because all "wave-like" behaviour of matter tends to degenerate. That's why you'll never be able to use tunnel effect to go through a wall. The important thing is to try and find a theory that narrows down to the right results everywhere, and gives experiments that show this. In the meantime, we use good approximations that work very well at what they do and there's nothing wrong with that. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4732 Posts
To be more specific, this discovery (if it is not mistake), is realy groundbreaking, but its not like noone thought and theorycize on it before. Phycists are working on many strange, and sometimes borderline insane theories. Its very interesting nontheless. | ||
|
Alpino
Brazil4390 Posts
| ||
|
carloselcoco
United States2302 Posts
On September 23 2011 05:56 tso wrote: well i guess tesla was right to distrust einstein Tesla was by far smarter than Einstein. | ||
|
tso
United States132 Posts
On September 23 2011 05:59 carloselcoco wrote: Tesla was by far smarter than Einstein. cheers to that man | ||
|
rubio91
Italy111 Posts
On September 23 2011 04:41 Mowr wrote: "CERN CAN CREATE BLACK HOLES!" Oh, that wasn't really true. It actually might create black holes, but they should "evaporate" in so little time that they can't cause any damage. On September 23 2011 04:41 Mowr wrote:"CERN FINDS DARK MATTER PARTICLES!" Oh, that was one of the regular statistical anomalies. Did you mean the Higgs Boson? It hasn't anything to do with dark matter. On September 23 2011 04:41 Mowr wrote:"CERN FINDS COSMIC PARTICLES GOVERN CLOUD FORMATION!" Oh, they just found the opposite. what?? | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
Things are allowed to go faster than light in some specific quantum theories. There just had been no evidence before now. so this doesn't exactly ruin modern physics. quantum physics is a very new science with a lot of unknowns about it. in terms of modern physics this has relatively no impact. in terms of quantum theory it helps add information and support some specific theories and disprove others. quantum theory is basically "I don't understand this, but its possible that it could be caused by this even though there's no evidence of that thing" only with a lot more math. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On September 23 2011 05:30 Marsupian wrote: The idea that these proffesional scientists would make a mistake in tube length or forget to account for the rotation/arc (as mentioned in an earlier post) is quite ignorant. These guys are at the very top of scientific research and have stated they tried to find errors in their research. I HIGHLY doubt someone on this forum can just walk in and guess what they forgot to take into account and check when searching for an error. I would not say it is impossible. However it is very unlikely that they would make an obvious mistake given that it has been published! Most likely the difference is caused by a small error in methods of measurement. They are implying that the results from measuring space-particles is not consistant with these experiments. I don't know much of neutrinos, but on Wikipedia it says: "In the early 1980s, first measurements of neutrino speed were done using pulsed pion beams (produced by pulsed proton beams hitting a target). The pions decayed producing neutrinos, and the neutrino interactions observed within a time window in a detector at a distance were consistent with the speed of light. This measurement has been repeated using the MINOS detectors, which found the speed of 3 GeV neutrinos to be 1.000051(29) c. While the central value is higher than the speed of light, the uncertainty is great enough that it is very likely that the true velocity is not greater than the speed of light. This measurement set an upper bound on the mass of the muon neutrino of 50 MeV at 99% confidence. The same observation was made, on a somewhat larger scale, with supernova 1987a. The neutrinos from the supernova were detected within a time window that was consistent with a speed of light for the neutrinos. So far, the question of neutrino masses cannot be decided based on measurements of the neutrino speed. Even though supernova observations indicate that neutrinos propagate at the speed of light, it is not clear whether this result holds at higher energies. In particular, in the context of the Standard-Model Extension, a realistic effective theory that includes Lorentz invariance violations, neutrinos experience Lorentz-violating oscillations and can travel faster than light at high energies." While wikipedia is a bad source it hints that the results are not completely unprecedented or completely incompatible with the standard model, though it might change it some. Conclusion: Interresting. | ||
|
FIStarcraft
United States154 Posts
| ||
|
FecalFrown
215 Posts
| ||
|
gullberg
Sweden1301 Posts
On September 23 2011 06:06 FecalFrown wrote: Why is this thread still open? According to the most recent edit of the OP, all the information came from a blog post, which has since been taken down. ie Its all obviously false. http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=155620 CERN will probably release the papers after this. | ||
|
Robstickle
Great Britain406 Posts
On September 23 2011 05:56 tso wrote: well i guess tesla was right to distrust einstein A single experiment result appears to disagree with relativity and you're saying that Einstein was wrong all along? ... | ||
|
Draconicfire
Canada2562 Posts
| ||
|
Corrosive
Canada3741 Posts
On September 23 2011 04:41 Mowr wrote: "CERN CAN CREATE BLACK HOLES!" Oh, that wasn't really true. "CERN FINDS DARK MATTER PARTICLES!" Oh, that was one of the regular statistical anomalies. "CERN FINDS COSMIC PARTICLES GOVERN CLOUD FORMATION!" Oh, they just found the opposite. News media simply cannot report about science since they do not care at all about the scientific process. Never trust any headlines. Ever. Obviously you don't understand what you are talking about at all. | ||
|
BobMcJohnson
France2916 Posts
| ||
|
tso
United States132 Posts
On September 23 2011 06:08 Robstickle wrote: A single experiment result appears to disagree with relativity and you're saying that Einstein was wrong all along? ... shhh.. conspiracy is fun regardless of truth | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4732 Posts
| ||
| ||
