I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

A Faster-Than-Light Particle Discovered?

Hits: 12214 | Rating: (3.4) | Category: Science | Added by: canusuck
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Thonious
Male, 40-49, Western US
 950 Posts
Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:48:55 AM
It took me a long time to get my copy of the Fleismhmann-Pons paper on cold fusion in 1989 and when I did, it had been copied and faxed so may times it was almost unreadable. They published in an obscure Swedish journal.

The actual CERN Neutrino paper can be read at:
Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam

Crizzy777
Male, 18-29, Europe
 111 Posts
Monday, September 26, 2011 11:14:59 AM
Damn! So the flash soon calls his super-speed high-five just the "neutrino-five"... How lame -_-'

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11420 Posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011 11:33:46 PM
Also, if they had mistakenly somehow used the distance on the surface of the Earth (how?), the figures would be out by a huge amount, far more than 60ns.

There are some possible mistakes, e.g. flawed statistical analysis of the results.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11420 Posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011 11:24:30 PM
I think the most sensible thing to do is speculate on how they might have screwed this up.


Which they've been doing for a while. They didn't find anything. Now it's open for anyone to test. Nobody else has good enough equipment yet, but they will soon.

Maybe that 454 mile figure they used was the distance along the surface of the planet, not the point to point distance between the two locations


They measured the distance to an accuracy of +- 10cm. It took months. They were able to measure the movement of tectonic plates. They couldn't have made such an obvious mistake without even noticing when checking the results for months on end.

maybe [..] previous experiments had the neutrinos traveling ever so slightly slower than the speed of light


It was a shorter time than would be taken by an object travelling at c, not a shorter time than some other neutrinos.

intrigid
Male, 18-29, Canada
 916 Posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011 6:40:16 PM
Before everyone cums in their pants over this, I think the most sensible thing to do is speculate on how they might have screwed this up. Maybe that 454 mile figure they used was the distance along the surface of the planet, not the point to point distance between the two locations which would obviously be slightly less. And maybe the reason it took 60 nanoseconds less than they expected was that previous experiments had the neutrinos traveling ever so slightly slower than the speed of light because of Earth's conditions between the two points or the way the neutrinos were fired.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11420 Posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011 3:16:52 PM
I was reading an article about how some scientists are preparing a paper on how neutrinos 'can' travel on a 2D plane if the results of this are true. They'd rather throw a completely idiotic notion into the mix of which they have absolutely no proof of instead of just going with the simplest solution to which they have no proof the opposite is true.


Neutrinos travelling through different dimensional setups is a *simpler* solution than c being wrong.

You're not understanding the relevance of c, are you?

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11420 Posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011 3:12:11 PM
GPS doesn't demonstrate c at all.


Since nobody has claimed that it does, what are you talking about?

You are still doing what everyone does, throwing out random info with no proof, saying it's there somewhere but not able to identify it.


You aren't even reading the posts you're replying to. No wonder you're so confused.

You're doing OK as a troll. If that's your intention, well done. If it isn't, oh dear. How can you know enough to be able to correctly use terms such as "reference frame" and yet know so little that you think c is just an assumption based solely on the limits of experimentation?

Klamz
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 693 Posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011 1:46:12 PM
GPS doesn't demonstrate c at all. And I'm not spending hours watching a television program not knowing which episode to watch.

You are still doing what everyone does, throwing out random info with no proof, saying it's there somewhere but not able to identify it.

You're a sheep following whatever standards science sets forth regardless of how ridiculous they are.

I was reading an article about how some scientists are preparing a paper on how neutrinos 'can' travel on a 2D plane if the results of this are true. They'd rather throw a completely idiotic notion into the mix of which they have absolutely no proof of instead of just going with the simplest solution to which they have no proof the opposite is true.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11420 Posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011 12:28:58 PM
I think that Fermilab works well as an example of the upgrading I was talking about. They already have MINOS, which is the same sort of thing, and they're planning to upgrade it to reach the standard of the equipment used by OPERA at CERN.

You may have read that it will take at least months and probably years to test the results elsewhere. That's because of the need to upgrade equipment to the standard used by the OPERA team at CERN. Who, unsurprisingly, didn't just buy a GPS handset from a supermarket and use that.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11420 Posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011 12:16:58 PM
I think it's worth noting that 5 senior members of the team chose to not put their names on the release because they thought (correctly) that it would be presented as being more robust a finding than they think it actually is.

The actual paper and the actual comments from scientists on the team are much more cautious than the media portrayal of it.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11420 Posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011 12:10:24 PM
They are using our GPS for both distance and timebase synch. We told people it was only good to about 50ns resolution. Cern is off by 60ns. Coincidence? Sounds more like they didn't bother to read the user's manual.


Are you serious or just poking fun at me poking fun at you for your "Eurotards" comment?

I'm not sure if you're joking or if you really are a nationalist bigot.

duffytoler
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 5220 Posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011 12:01:16 PM
Maybe their next step should be to help the USA improve their equipment up to European standards

Umm, "European" standards? They are using our GPS for both distance and timebase synch. We told people it was only good to about 50ns resolution. Cern is off by 60ns. Coincidence? Sounds more like they didn't bother to read the user's manual.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11420 Posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011 12:00:47 PM
Everything is based on the assumption the the speed of light = C. This assumption arises because no one has observed anything faster.


It's c, not C. No, that is not pedantry. Accuracy matters in science.

More importantly, you're wrong. No matter how often you call it an assumption, you will remain wrong about that. You're like a creationist insisting that evolution doesn't exist and thinking that it does is an act of faith.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11420 Posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011 11:57:51 AM
"Experiments produce exactly the results predicted by the equation, i.e. it appears to be an accurate description of reality."

Please show me one. Everyone says this, but no one can show me one.



OK. I'm now going to assume you're trolling. You appear to have some knowledge of the subject, so you can't be that ignorant of it. Therefore you must be trolling.

The entire GPS system is probably the best-known example, but there have been many others. It's even been done for entertainment quite recently on the BBC science entertainment program "Bang Goes The Theory".

Tekas
Male, 18-29, Europe
 151 Posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011 8:33:47 AM
I would not be surprised if they found out the measurements accurate. After all, this is science: it evolves. What is said to be true now may not be true in the future; and it probably wasn't in the past.

To me, the fact that singularities exist, and that all current theories boil down at extremely microscopic levels is a big sign that there may be more to it than we think. There must be something else missing in all our equations, since not everything works in all situations: being quantum physics a good example.

Klamz
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 693 Posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011 5:51:48 AM
"Experiments produce exactly the results predicted by the equation, i.e. it appears to be an accurate description of reality."

Please show me one. Everyone says this, but no one can show me one.

Your equations, please show me one without it using anything related to the speed of light as a starting point.

THEY DON'T EXIST! Everything is based on the assumption the the speed of light = C. This assumption arises because no one has observed anything faster. The entire foundation of theoretical physics is based on an assumption with no proof to back it up. It's the equivalent of believing in a god, you don't know so you just guess.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11420 Posts
Saturday, September 24, 2011 9:37:44 PM
More likely explanation for Cern's result: Eurotards can't measure time and distance.


Maybe their next step should be to help the USA improve their equipment up to European standards so that the findng can be independently tested in the USA.

The CERN team has acknowledged the possibility that they've overlooked another explanation. That's why they spent a long time checking before throwing it open to anyone with good enough equipment to test - they found their own results very surprising.

You do know that CERN is one of the leading research centres in the world, don't you? Or are you really that parochial in your outlook?

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11420 Posts
Saturday, September 24, 2011 9:24:15 PM
what about tachyons?.....


Not been shown to exist, despite decades of looking for them. They're hypothetical. There's an explanation as to how they could exist but be unable to convey information in any way, but it goes over my head.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11420 Posts
Saturday, September 24, 2011 9:18:14 PM
No, not really. In SRT, if the velocity exceeds c, then you get the square root of a negative, which results in an imaginary number. This doesn't exactly imply that we go back in time. It just means we don't know what the hell happens.


Which is why I said "could indicate". You can work it out and get the result that time moves faster than in a stationary frame of reference, i.e. you go backwards in time.

But I also said later it's the wrong tool for the job:

The problem is that none of special relativity (including that equation) can apply to anything that can carry information of any kind and move faster than the speed of light, because special relativity says that is impossible.


So yeah, we don't know what the hell happens. If it can happen at all.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12074 Posts
Saturday, September 24, 2011 9:02:39 PM
More likely explanation for Cern's result: Eurotards can't measure time and distance.

Quite possibly. However, if the converse is proved true, then us "Eurotards" might be on to something.

duffytoler
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 5220 Posts
Saturday, September 24, 2011 8:08:08 PM
SN1987A detected neutrinos coincident with the light. More likely explanation for Cern's result: Eurotards can't measure time and distance.

mvangild
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
 528 Posts
Saturday, September 24, 2011 7:25:51 PM
If you put a value of spatial speed higher than c into the equation, it produces values that could indicate moving backwards through time.

No, not really. In SRT, if the velocity exceeds c, then you get the square root of a negative, which results in an imaginary number. This doesn't exactly imply that we go back in time. It just means we don't know what the hell happens.

Solarmew
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
 119 Posts
Saturday, September 24, 2011 6:54:05 PM
what about tachyons?.....

BrimstoneOne
Male, 30-39, Canada
 2239 Posts
Saturday, September 24, 2011 5:53:30 PM
this is just a preliminary announcement, there still needs to be an independent conformation of the "discovery"

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11420 Posts
Saturday, September 24, 2011 4:49:35 PM
"I can't understand how we think the neutrinos would travel back in time."


The effect of movement in space on movement in time is described by an equation that's part of special relativity.

Experiments produce exactly the results predicted by the equation, i.e. it appears to be an accurate description of reality.

If you put a value of spatial speed higher than c into the equation, it produces values that could indicate moving backwards through time.

The problem is that none of special relativity (including that equation) can apply to anything that can carry information of any kind and move faster than the speed of light, because special relativity says that is impossible.

Page: 1 2 3 4 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.