We Interupt The Usual Sturm Und Drang: EINSTEIN WRONG!?!?

[elder999]

God Hates Engineers

Au contraire, ma soeur.

God is the master engineer. She told me so Herself....:lfao:

 

[billc]

One last thing Sukerkin, people believe in global warming. I live right where a mile high glacier used to cover the earth and melted without the help of man made industry. The planet cools and warms in cycles all on its own. You say it is getting warmer but that assumption is based on data that very well could be made up, see the climategate scandal to see this, wrong, look at how the computer models have been wrong, or driven by agenda based scientists. So your claim that it is getting warmer needs the same type of scrutiny as any other scientific claim. The "consensus" as we see in this post, is not always true or close to being true. Only diligent scientific investigation, over time will tell.

 

[cdunn]

Could the implications be tempered somewhat because neutrinos are mass-less particles? It seems like that should make a difference, since they are already a special case.

It is expected that all massless particles should propagate at (local) c. However, the neutrino is not, strictly, massless, which is the doubly startling effect of the observation. Relativity predicts that they must have a mass that contains a component of i to have a real energy and velocity at that kind of speed, via E=mc[SUP]2[/SUP] + sqrt(1-(v[SUP]2[/SUP]/c[SUP]2[/SUP])).

I really expect this to vaporize on further analysis, but we'll see.

Edit: It would be really nice if this turns out to be part of the key that unifies relativity and QM. We've known they have to be wrong at some level for a very long time.

 

[Sukerkin]

The planet cools and warms in cycles all on its own.

Have never said otherwise.

You say it is getting warmer

Well, it's more the case that the global thermometer says that. I personally fear that we'll enter a tipping point and dip back into Ice Age but for now things are warming up.

but that assumption

It's not an assumption, it's an observation.

is based on data

Yes, indeed it is.

look at how the computer models have been wrong

Yes they have been and are.

So your claim that

Not my claim.

it is getting warmer needs the same type of scrutiny as any other scientific claim ... Only diligent scientific investigation, over time will tell.

Never said that that isn't true.

Now, fascinating as it is {really need a sarcasm smiley} to rake over these coals yet again, we should at least try and stick to topic - tho' I do think there is some wiggle-room for the discussion of the scientific method in general terms when it comes to how well the team in the OP are following it.

 

[Empty Hands]

One difference between these scientists and the generally not-in-the-field skeptics you like to point to Bill is that these scientists published their findings after peer review and invite other scientists to criticize or replicate their results. You know, how science actually works. When it isn't being funded by Exxon-Mobil. They publish in Science and Nature, not the National Review or Washington Post.

 

[billc]

Oh, they were allowed to publish in the peer reviewed journals and didn't have their efforts blocked by the opponents of their work...I see...so perhaps the scientists who believe in man made global warming should allow those with different theories publish their work as well, and not threaten to get editors fired and withhold work from those journals who publish the other points of view. You can see all of the open and honest work in the reporting on the Climategate scandal. Oh...and it might be helpful if the scientists who believe in man made global warming didn't destroy their data to keep it from being examined by other scientists. That might be another step in the direction of good science. Once again you can read about the destruction of data in the climategate scandal.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Awesome news. I really don't know the first thing about physics, so how staggering this discovery could be is something I really can't comment on. I'm sure Einstein would be quite proud!

As for the whole global warming comparison, I will only comment that the way this discovery is being handled...checking data, reviewing and re-testing, inviting independent researchers to test the results, is how the whole global warming theory should have been addressed. Not by politicians or talking heads, but by scientists. To that extent, Empty Hands pretty much already covered it.

Regardless of that sidetrack, looking forward to reading more and thanks for posting!

 

[Blindside]

Could the implications be tempered somewhat because neutrinos are mass-less particles? It seems like that should make a difference, since they are already a special case.

I thought that there was a finding a couple of years ago that had found that neutrinos had a mass but they couldn't further study was needed to determine what the actual mass was.

edit: googled it, found a good link:
http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/neutrino/PhysicsWorld.pdf

 

[elder999]

I thought that there was a finding a couple of years ago that had found that neutrinos had a mass but they couldn't further study was needed to determine what the actual mass was.

edit: googled it, found a good link:
http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/neutrino/PhysicsWorld.pdf

If the neutrino has mass (Standard Model says they don't, current theory says "small but not zero":0.28-1.5 eV, something like 2.450649299e-17 gram-force meters)-then that mass would increase at the speed of light-almost infinitely. We see these kinds of relativistic effects in accelerators: at LANSCE, we accelerated protons to 84.5% of c, and when we calculate energy, we find that the proton's mass has "increased." One would expect a neutrino traveling at greater than the speed of light to have passed the point of having infinite mass-it also would have to have had an infinite amount of energy expended upon it, which we can be fairly certain isn't the case..

Infinite mass.Infinite energy. Unless special relativity does not apply-well, it's pretty clear that if the fellows at CERN are right it doesn't. :lfao:

On the other hand, the same rules should apply to the photon-thus the insistence-for years-that it truly has zero mass (though what's really been done is a constant recalculating: lowering of the photon mass calculation's upper limit). This explains a bunch of stuff-or, at least, makes some calculations possible-like light having momentum, etc. (Interestingly, laser's have measurable "recoi"l when fired) Thus the insistence of some (myself included) that the photon has mass. If a mass even as small as the neutrino can travel at greater than (or even at) the speed of light,and clearly without an infinite energy input and without an infinite mass increase, then the photon can have mass, and something is (as many have said) wrong with special relativity.

I really expect this to vaporize on further analysis, but we'll see.

Not vaporize, necessarily-there are a lot of things that aren't being discussed here, Of course, their calculations could be in error-but that's part of why they recalculated them for six months, and part of why they went public. There could also be a number factors that make this a "special case," though, not the least of which is neutrinos themselves.

Naturaly,, there's a physicist or a hundred somewhere who are already applying what I'll call, appropriately enough, the "climate denier" method to this, and refusing to look at the science-just looking for ways to disprove it.

 

[cdunn]

Not vaporize, necessarily-there are a lot of things that aren't being discussed here, Of course, their calculations could be in error-but that's part of why they recalculated them for six months, and part of why they went public. There could also be a number factors that make this a "special case," though, not the least of which is neutrinos themselves.

Naturaly,, there's a physicist or a hundred somewhere who are already applying what I'll call, appropriately enough, the "climate denier" method to this, and refusing to look at the science-just looking for ways to disprove it.

Like I said, we'll see. I -want- this to be real, mind you, I just don't have a lot of hope.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am interested in whether or not the neutrinos might be passing through other dimensions in order to appear to be moving faster than the speed of light. From my extremely limited understanding, if the multiverse concept has any validity, then there are other ways to move than the 3 dimensions we know and the 4th, which is space/time. In the example of a paper napkin folded in half, if a particle moves through the napkin at the fold, it will appear to beings living on the napkin as if it had simply disappeared from one location and appeared again at another, faster than the speed of light. It really never exceeded that speed, it just moved through another dimension to get from one point to another.

 

[cdunn]

It is possible. There are several other possible explanations, plus entirely New Physics possibilities. However, despite the rigorousness of the statistics, we need to make sure our ruler wasn't miscalibrated. Of the smallest case scenario of an arrival 0.00000005 seconds early, it may also be a geographical surveying error of 50 feet.... which is the average accuracy of a civilian GPS unit without ground based correction.

It is a very extraordinary claim. Extraordinary skepticism is warranted, along with the admission that it may be true. And we need to find out.

 

[elder999]

It is possible. There are several other possible explanations, plus entirely New Physics possibilities. However, despite the rigorousness of the statistics, we need to make sure our ruler wasn't miscalibrated. Of the smallest case scenario of an arrival 0.00000005 seconds early, it may also be a geographical surveying error of 50 feet.... which is the average accuracy of a civilian GPS unit without ground based correction.

This is the first and most obvious possibility-and probably just one of the the things several people have examined over the last 6 months before making this announcement. While it may be something like this, in the end, it probably won't be that obvious and embarassing.

As for the entire interdimensional travel premise, while it's another possibility, I'm willing to bet that it's just some bit of oddness-some sort of interaction with the material they were passing through, or some sort of quantum entanglement-neutrinos leave point A, and other neutrinos on their path arrive at the detector at point B ahead of them displaying the same energy and spin.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more that that's what I'm betting......equally embarassing, perhaps, but understandable:

These are not the neutrinos you're looking for. Move along, move along.... :lfao:

 

[cdunn]

http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf - The paper. I would like to retract my statement about it possibly being a GPS error, if they really can use their system to watch the continental drift.

 

[ATACX GYM]

I'm just wow'ed by all of this.

I love that we can perform experiments such as beaming neutrinos for hundreds of miles through the earth's crust.

I'm thrilled that we have the means to measure this precisely enough to account for a small change.

And I am amazed that this is the result! Damn...I want to learn more!

What the purrty lady up here said^^^!!

 

[ATACX GYM]

This is the first and most obvious possibility-and probably just one of the the things several people have examined over the last 6 months before making this announcement. While it may be something like this, in the end, it probably won't be that obvious and embarassing.

As for the entire interdimensional travel premise, while it's another possibility, I'm willing to bet that it's just some bit of oddness-some sort of interaction with the material they were passing through, or some sort of quantum entanglement-neutrinos leave point A, and other neutrinos on their path arrive at the detector at point B ahead of them displaying the same energy and spin.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more that that's what I'm betting......equally embarassing, perhaps, but understandable:

These are not the neutrinos you're looking for. Move along, move along.... :lfao:

Now THAT mess is funny!

 

[elder999]

Now THAT mess is funny!

Yeah, except I was being serious-in my usual "don't take it seriously, it's only the internet" way.:lfao:

Quantum entanglement.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And apparently, the neutrinos stubbornly resist following the speed of light. Scofflaws!


http://www.nature.com/news/neutrino-experiment-replicates-faster-than-light-finding-1.9393

Neutrino experiment replicates faster-than-light finding

Latest data show the subatomic particles continue to break the speed limit.

Eugenie Samuel Reich

18 November 2011
Physicists have replicated the finding that the subatomic particles called neutrinos seem to travel faster than light. It is a remarkable confirmation of a stunning result, yet most in the field remain sceptical that the ultimate cosmic speed limit has truly been broken.

The collaboration behind the experiment, called OPERA (Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tracking Apparatus), made headlines in September with its claim that a beam of neutrinos made the 730-kilometre journey from CERN, Europe's particle-physics lab near Geneva in Switzerland, to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory near L'Aquila, Italy, faster than the speed of light. The result defies Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which states that this cannot happen.

 

[ballen0351]

Wow I just read this whole thread and there are some smart people on this board. I have no clue what any of this crap means.

 

[JohnEdward]

And apparently, the neutrinos stubbornly resist following the speed of light. Scofflaws!


http://www.nature.com/news/neutrino-experiment-replicates-faster-than-light-finding-1.9393

Well give this theory a few more years, and some will break down neutrinos and see those particles not obeying the laws of gravity or light as we know them. Possibly having us rethink an expanding universe and what dark matter is or isn't. The way science constructs popular theories are locked in relationship in a ying and yang (polar opposites) format and cycle. One theory proves the opposite of the other. Like, the universe is shrinking by one theory, then comes along another to say it is expanding. Another thing like this is theories on Black Holes. I see these theories as 2-D, but is there a possibility for another theory that is 3-D aside from the polar opposite theory dance science does? Do neutrinos absorb space and or light (what ever you define space being nothingness or something - there is that polarity again) for example, and in fact are doing something we can't comprehend within the familiar way we see things in a bi-polarilty, i.e. action and non-action. Maybe we will just never be able to completely comprehend the universe. That, that knowledge is outside our grasp. And no I am not trying to prove the existence of God. Though our great desire to know something we can't possibly know, does satisfies some with an answer that God does exist and does understand it, i.e. as he made it. Therefore, it is knowable and comprehendible, no longer an unsolvable mystery. We humans have a hard time doing the zen thing.

I know allot of people are excited that they have found particles that travel faster then the speed of light. Because that means it shuts up all the doubting Trekkies who say warp light speed isn't possible.