Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's always annoyed me when people who, after discovering something new, say that their predecessor was wrong as opposed to just saying that they piloted a new scientific breakthrough.

Just you wait and see what Origami is like in 400 years. We'll have powerfists of paper.

And when it's "quite a few scientists" stating it, and not "one guy who the rest of the science people call a nut", as Melissa said, more credence.

Melissia wrote:Perhaps, but if they reproduce the experiment, it still lends FAR more credence than a single experiment.

Oh I agree there, Im just saying, theres at least 1 guy Ive personally heard of that says things go faster then light. I know if I personally shove a skewer through my arm itll hurt and bleed, I could do it 100 times and itll still hurt and bleed, but you can see freak shows where some odd fella does the same thing every single night and it neither bleeds nor hurts him. Just saying, it could be true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrDwhitey wrote:Just you wait and see what Origami is like in 400 years. We'll have powerfists of paper.

And when it's "quite a few scientists" stating it, and not "one guy who the rest of the science people call a nut", as Melissa said, more credence.

Itll all be started by this guy *cookie to whoever knows where its from*

Melissia wrote:Perhaps, but if they reproduce the experiment, it still lends FAR more credence than a single experiment.

They repeated the experiment several times to check whether it was a statistical anomaly, it wasn't.

Huh.

Perhaps they're right then. Still would like to see a different study corroborate, but it's much better than one fluke.

Yeah they released the findings purely to attract peer study as they don't believe the results themselves.

Also I would like to try and clear up a misconception that has been flying around, the revelation is NOT that "neutrinos move faster than light" rather it is that neutrinos are capable of moving faster than light. Unlike light and related bosons neutrinos do not have a fixed speed, this is because they have a mass and thus require energy to move so when energy is increased the speed at which the energised neutrino moves is also increased. There is no new "speed of neutrinos" constant that will act as a limit to replace the speed of light, instead we have simply found that the speed of light is not a limit at all.

corpsesarefun wrote:

They repeated the experiment several times to check whether it was a statistical anomaly, it wasn't.

The problem is that it is the same group of people repeating the experiments..... If they made any mistakes in the first experiment, there is a good chance they repeated those mistakes in subsequent testing.

I'm glad this has been put out for peer review; although i think the most likely outcome is that there will be some kind of modifier applied to 'lightspeed' under cetain conditions and for certain particles. It's a good step forward for physics, but not a huge one.

Light speed hasn't changed, it is still exactly the same observed speed.

We just need a new name for the limit if there is one.

Well lets just get a group of their peers to reproduce the experiments on their LHC .... oh wait...

Phototoxin wrote:Well lets just get a group of their peers to reproduce the experiments on their LHC .... oh wait...

Just get the guy who was conducting "nuclear experiments" in his kitchen to make an LHC in his backyard.

Easy, right?

J.Black wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

They repeated the experiment several times to check whether it was a statistical anomaly, it wasn't.

The problem is that it is the same group of people repeating the experiments..... If they made any mistakes in the first experiment, there is a good chance they repeated those mistakes in subsequent testing.

I'm glad this has been put out for peer review; although i think the most likely outcome is that there will be some kind of modifier applied to 'lightspeed' under cetain conditions and for certain particles. It's a good step forward for physics, but not a huge one.

The real problem is the possiblity of a systematic error in the actual system, in the machine. Two particles, the photon and neutrino, cannot be released exactly at the same time no matter what you do. This will always slightly skew the results, even more so for such a tiny time interval as 60ns.

The barman says “Sorry, we don’t serve sub-atomic particles here.” A neutrino walks into a bar.

Hooray it even spawned a new joke.

Nerivant wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Well lets just get a group of their peers to reproduce the experiments on their LHC .... oh wait...

Just get the guy who was conducting "nuclear experiments" in his kitchen to make an LHC in his backyard.

Easy, right?

Hey those Russians did that stuff in their backyards so why not

cygnnus wrote:
'course I'm also not a physicist...

Valete,

Obviously, as a physicist you would know that Greek is used most commonly in Mathematics and other Mathematical Sciences while Latin is used for Medical Science, its why we have hexagons instead of sexagons.

Just as an aside on this matter to any creationists thinking that this is ammo to discredit science in general: science is self-correcting, this is the process you are observing in progress...you are still wrong and a moron.

Carmine the Wolf wrote:Just as an aside on this matter to any creationists thinking that this is ammo to discredit science in general: science is self-correcting, this is the process you are observing in progress...you are still wrong and a moron.

Even though this thread has fallen to the side, can we not take it there?

Thanks.

Lord Rogukiel wrote:

J.Black wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

They repeated the experiment several times to check whether it was a statistical anomaly, it wasn't.

The problem is that it is the same group of people repeating the experiments..... If they made any mistakes in the first experiment, there is a good chance they repeated those mistakes in subsequent testing.

I'm glad this has been put out for peer review; although i think the most likely outcome is that there will be some kind of modifier applied to 'lightspeed' under cetain conditions and for certain particles. It's a good step forward for physics, but not a huge one.

The real problem is the possiblity of a systematic error in the actual system, in the machine. Two particles, the photon and neutrino, cannot be released exactly at the same time no matter what you do. This will always slightly skew the results, even more so for such a tiny time interval as 60ns.

They actually can calculate this. The "exact time" the particles should have arrived is calculated as a range based on uncertainty calculations. There is a tolerance built into their calculations because of just this... being released early.

The problem is that the time they ACTUALLY arrived is outside their expected varience...

My example I gave my students is... I left my house around 3pm+/-5 minutres, I will arrive at the mall around 4pm+/-5 minutres since its an hour away from me... BUT i actually arrived sometime around 3:30PM+/-5 minutres.... which means i was speeding to get there...

I know the best explanation, Its magic

WARORK93 wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:Parsec is a unit of distance, WARORK. Thus, we can assume that the Kessel run is >12 Parsecs, meaning that we will never have an answer on why the feth women hate me.

Yes Chowder but when talking about faster than light travel for something as big as a ship we're talking about wormholes...given the relationship between time and space and the statement implies that the Kessel run is more than twelve parsecs, if one were to take a shortcut through time and space like Solo did they would not only cover less distance it would go faster..

The idea actually is that the Kessel Run takes one past a black hole (warmhole != blackhole), and that certain ships can make the trip through a shorter distance with faster engines. Yes. Lucas' science sucks, but apparently a travel distance of twelve parsecs through said run makes it impressive

"I would say that you misread Einstein. You see, what Einstein actually said was that nothing can accelerate to the speed of light because its mass would become infinite. Einstein said nothing about entities already traveling at the speed of light or faster." - Prot

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:"I would say that you misread Einstein. You see, what Einstein actually said was that nothing can accelerate to the speed of light because its mass would become infinite. Einstein said nothing about entities already traveling at the speed of light or faster." - Prot

And due to mass energy equivalence a massive particle accelerating to C would require infinite energy if it were to acquire infinite mass, unless the chaps at CERN accidentally gave a particle infinite energy this finding still contradicts Einstein.

That is ignoring that the quote is horribly flawed, the entirety of special relativity came about from the notion that nothing can move faster than light and so spacetime must warp to conserve standard relativistic effects (for example when a train pulls out of a station next to another train you cannot tell which is moving).

E=mc2



=

Nerivant wrote:

Carmine the Wolf wrote:Just as an aside on this matter to any creationists thinking that this is ammo to discredit science in general: science is self-correcting, this is the process you are observing in progress...you are still wrong and a moron.

Even though this thread has fallen to the side, can we not take it there?

Thanks.

I agree, lets not start that crap.

KingCracker wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Carmine the Wolf wrote:Just as an aside on this matter to any creationists thinking that this is ammo to discredit science in general: science is self-correcting, this is the process you are observing in progress...you are still wrong and a moron.

Even though this thread has fallen to the side, can we not take it there?

Thanks.

I agree, lets not start that crap.

I smell troll...:/

but yeah...

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Don't get too excited though. We are talking "a few billionths of second faster".....

We can make that "a few hundredths of second" if we painted them red....da red 'unz always go fastaa

WARORK93 wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Carmine the Wolf wrote:Just as an aside on this matter to any creationists thinking that this is ammo to discredit science in general: science is self-correcting, this is the process you are observing in progress...you are still wrong and a moron.

Even though this thread has fallen to the side, can we not take it there?

Thanks.

I agree, lets not start that crap.

I smell troll...:/

but yeah...

Just for the record, I was not trying to troll at all.

I'm simply aware of the tendency for advancements in science to be used as ammo against it by creationists and their ilk and wanting to make the point that this is simply an example of a discovery that may result in a change in accepted scientific knowledge.

Azure wrote:I know that this would be groundbreaking in the world of Physics, but will this affect my day to day life at all? Serious question mind you, every time they find out something crazy radical like this the whole world seems to get flipped upside down for abit. Personally I'm hoping for time travel or space colonies currently

Might take a while for it to be useful

When a scientist discovered Electromagnetism, a woman asked him if it would be useful

He replied "Ma'am, what use is a baby?"

Without electromagnetism btw, we would not have a lot of our modern tech like television!

Carmine the Wolf wrote:
I'm simply aware of the tendency for advancements in science to be used as ammo against it by creationists and their ilk and wanting to make the point that this is simply an example of a discovery that may result in a change in accepted scientific knowledge.

Despite the fact that nobody in the thread had even hinted as such?

Your comment was unnecessary and inflammatory; precisely the thing I would like to keep out of my threads.

And once more, I agree with the above. Carmine saying things like that, specially when not even warranted, is what gets you on peoples ignore lists, and you being reported.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Lord Rogukiel wrote:

J.Black wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

They repeated the experiment several times to check whether it was a statistical anomaly, it wasn't.

The problem is that it is the same group of people repeating the experiments..... If they made any mistakes in the first experiment, there is a good chance they repeated those mistakes in subsequent testing.

I'm glad this has been put out for peer review; although i think the most likely outcome is that there will be some kind of modifier applied to 'lightspeed' under cetain conditions and for certain particles. It's a good step forward for physics, but not a huge one.

The real problem is the possiblity of a systematic error in the actual system, in the machine. Two particles, the photon and neutrino, cannot be released exactly at the same time no matter what you do. This will always slightly skew the results, even more so for such a tiny time interval as 60ns.

They actually can calculate this. The "exact time" the particles should have arrived is calculated as a range based on uncertainty calculations. There is a tolerance built into their calculations because of just this... being released early.

The problem is that the time they ACTUALLY arrived is outside their expected varience...

My example I gave my students is... I left my house around 3pm+/-5 minutres, I will arrive at the mall around 4pm+/-5 minutres since its an hour away from me... BUT i actually arrived sometime around 3:30PM+/-5 minutres.... which means i was speeding to get there...

Yes yes, I know. I study physics at an IB level. In fact I'm calculating the uncertainty on the power output from a solar panel in an experiment we did today as we speak (type) right now!

As others have said above, this discovery might not be useful now, but it would change a lot about our perception and understanding on the universe, and that will come into play eventually...