The Official Science Thread

Originally Posted by DylloS

lol at you thinking you figured out an error in all of this.

Just gettin my passline bet in early. They can mail me my PhD later.

Originally Posted by SamXp

True, but we already know space/time is nonlinear approaching c, and we've been utilizing these formulas in a region where space/time is linear.

I'm still open to the possibility of a measurement error but 15,000 repeats is pretty compelling.

...and it wasn't 15000 repeats.

The average speed was found to exceed [what should be] the speed of light by a few fractions of a second. That means some measurements came in high and some low.

Let's not go handing out any Nobel prizes until we at least get a look at the standard deviation of the measurements.

No one is getting a Nobel Prize just yet, but I think the community that's studying this event is going to confirm that it is incredibly significant, even historic.

Ok, it wasn't 15k repeats, but they studied >15k neutrino events and the average was 60ns faster than c.

Just watched this and they spend quite a lot of time dissecting the measurement method and the margin of allowable error:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1384486?ln=en

Originally Posted by ride365

I don't think this has been pointed out in this thread yet, but the CERN results don't necessarily discount Eintsein's theories or theoretical speed limit "c". It could just mean that we've measured the speed of light wrong or that it was incorrect to assume that c=speedoflight. These results could be confirmed, and the theortical "c" could still hold, and einstein's theories would still hold too.

^^ My last sentence probably stretches it a bit, but we've got a situation here no matter what... be it faulty calculations or assumptions or methodology that's been used/tested for years.

Originally Posted by cowmoo32

The only problem with that (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong here) is that we've used E=mc² in calculations for nuclear reactions for years now and the math works. We know how much energy a given amount of mass has using c=3e8m/s. If c were to change that would mean the energy would change and our calculations have been wrong and we've been extremely lucky that something hasn't gone terribly wrong.

I hear ya... I don't have an answer.

Originally Posted by DylloS

lol at you thinking you figured out an error in all of this.

It is amusing how the general public, even on the physics forums, think they have the answer that these scientists crunching the numbers for months/years overlooked.

Originally Posted by BeRzErKaS

Let's not go handing out any Nobel prizes until we at least get a look at the standard deviation of the measurements.

Their stance so far has been caution and skepticism. Their working assumption that there's an error and that the (scientific) community is required to find it. They said themselves they aren't calling it a discovery. But do you really think they didn't consider standard of deviation error?

Originally Posted by ride365

It is amusing how the general public, even on the physics forums, think they have the answer that these scientists crunching the numbers for months/years overlooked.

That's an ironic statement considering a major vaccine breakthrough was just recently aided by the online gaming community.

I think crowdsourcing is the best possible thing that could happen to science. It keeps people interested and helps point mankind towards our next evolution.

Imagine what we could achieve if we found a way to apply this internet towards actual problem solving instead of just using it to download p0rn and track down people who beat up cats.

^^ That's an apples to oranges comparison.

Originally Posted by BeRzErKaS

That's an ironic statement considering a major vaccine breakthrough was just recently aided by the online gaming community.

I think crowdsourcing is the best possible thing that could happen to science. It keeps people interested and helps point mankind towards our next evolution.

Imagine what we could achieve if we found a way to apply this internet towards actual problem solving instead of just using it to download p0rn and track down people who beat up cats.

Originally Posted by ride365

^^ That's an apples to oranges comparison.

This

How do they know that the neutrinos they're detecting are from their test. There's millions of neutrinos flying through us right now and they don't really interact with matter. Maybe unique energy signature?

Screening....I think. I know screening is used in studies on photons so it's logical that they would use something similar on relativistic particles.


Einstein was undoubtedly one of, if not the most brilliant people to ever exist, but I'm really hoping the findings are confirmed. Kaku doesn't think it will happen though
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-...n-venture.html

"If this result holds, and I kind of doubt it, it means we'll have to rewrite all of modern physics," said Kaku

i<3 michio kaku

No doubt he's a very intelligent man, and one of his books got me interested in physics, but I feel like he spends too much time in the limelight. And like I said, his shows are absolutely ridiculous, as are some of his books; it's sensationalist science.

Never gets old. I imagine this is about as close to paradise as it gets

Originally Posted by 'busa

Tesla was one of the greatest scientists and inventors of the last century.
He invented the AC current we use, the radio, remote controlled torpedos, lots of things.

I wonder why he does not get more respect and attention that he deserves...like Edison and Einstein ?

Originally Posted by cowmoo32

No doubt he's a very intelligent man, and one of his books got me interested in physics, but I feel like he spends too much time in the limelight. And like I said, his shows are absolutely ridiculous, as are some of his books; it's sensationalist science.

As a non scientist I am impressed by the guy (Michio Kaku) but I don't have anything else to compare him too. But every time I see him on tv he is always enthusiastic about whatever he is discussing and he speaks with a lot of confidence. Without knowing anything about his professional reputation among his peers, I would say that his greatest contribution is getting other people interested in Physics, Space and other sciences...aka...Arthur C. Clarke, Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan.

Design for an experimental setup to see quantum movement on a macro scale
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-...rge-short.html


edit: This. Brian Cox is living my goal in life: Make science cool
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/9567556.stm

The mountain by Terje (TSO photography) has really got me wanting to head to the canary islands, i was really close to doing it when i was living in italy.

How long were you in Italy? Were you studying there?

Originally Posted by ride365

I don't think this has been pointed out in this thread yet, but the CERN results don't necessarily discount Eintsein's theories or theoretical speed limit "c". It could just mean that we've measured the speed of light wrong or that it was incorrect to assume that c=speedoflight. These results could be confirmed, and the theortical "c" could still hold, and einstein's theories would still hold too.

That could be true, but there is no reason to believe that all of the measurements of c up until now have been incorrect. It's known to a very high precision.

Originally Posted by cowmoo32

The only problem with that (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong here) is that we've used E=mc² in calculations for nuclear reactions for years now and the math works. We know how much energy a given amount of mass has using c=3e8m/s. If c were to change that would mean the energy would change and our calculations have been wrong and we've been extremely lucky that something hasn't gone terribly wrong.

That's sort of correct, but I believe they used the known c to derive the value of m converted to energy.

Originally Posted by BeRzErKaS

I think the recent quakes shifted the earth's tactonic plates and threw off the GPS measurements. Large quakes have also been known to shift the axis of the Earth slightly.

Wake me up when someone proves me right.

Yes, the recent quakes did shift the plates, and they show this shift in their data (7 cm difference from before and after the L'Aquila earthquake two years ago).

Originally Posted by BeRzErKaS

Assuming they know the distance could be the mistake.

They are firing neutrinos through the content of the Earth from Switzerland to Italy. Not through a pipeline of specific distance. They use GPS to measure the distance between the two facilities. With GPS comes uncertainty from various sources. lol...I just threw earthquakes out there as one possible cause.

They are doing a time vs distance calculation to find speed. So either time was altered, or the speed of light was eclipsed, or someone d1cked up the distance measurement. I'm leaning towards option C.

They claim they know the distance to within a few cm.

Originally Posted by cowmoo32

I must have missed something then. I was under the impression this was done IN the accelerator. If someone screwed the calculations, they did it 15000 times over. The team has tested and retested to be sure of the results.

As mentioned above, the experiment sends neutrinos from CERN in Geneva to the Gran Sasso lab in Italy, but saying they made the mistake 15,000 isn't really accurate. They only have to make 1 mistake in their data analysis and it will be applied to all 15,000 events.

Originally Posted by BeRzErKaS

Just gettin my passline bet in early. They can mail me my PhD later.

...and it wasn't 15000 repeats.

The average speed was found to exceed [what should be] the speed of light by a few fractions of a second. That means some measurements came in high and some low.

Let's not go handing out any Nobel prizes until we at least get a look at the standard deviation of the measurements.

The results are 6 sigma (standard deviations) away from the expected result. That's pretty far from the expectation and constitutes a "discovery" in most cases. Then again, this is assuming they know their systematic errors well.

Originally Posted by pez319

How do they know that the neutrinos they're detecting are from their test. There's millions of neutrinos flying through us right now and they don't really interact with matter. Maybe unique energy signature?

They know exactly when the neutrinos are fired and only accept events coming within a few ms before and after the expected arrival time. Then theirs the energy signature (I believe also mentioned before) and a muon veto to reject events that are due to muon interactions.



The results are interesting but I'm still skeptical. They say that the neutrinos arrive 60 ns early. If this is an error in their distance measurement, the distance should be off by ~60 ft to account for it, much larger than their claimed precision on the distance measurement. My guess is there is an error in the timing (although I didn't spend much time looking into how they establish the timing) or a problem in the data analysis.

The neutrinos come in large bunches with a finite time spread. They can't say exactly when the neutrino they detected left the accelerator, but they have a probability density function for that time. They have to do some clever analysis to get the time difference, and they use a maximum likelihood method (again, I didn't look much into it). Either way, the problem might lie here. It would be interesting to see what other groups have to say about the data.

That's sort of correct, but I believe they used the known c to derive the value of m converted to energy

Hmmm ok. So if c changes that means that there is more energy per given unit of mass than we thought, correct? Would we not have noticed that when using the formula elsewhere? Or is it such a small variance from c that it wouldn't make much of a difference?

As mentioned above, the experiment sends neutrinos from CERN in Geneva to the Gran Sasso lab in Italy, but saying they made the mistake 15,000 isn't really accurate. They only have to make 1 mistake in their data analysis and it will be applied to all 15,000 events.

I see. So the mistake wouldn't be in the measurement, but the analysis of the measurement.

Originally Posted by cowmoo32

Hmmm ok. So if c changes that means that there is more energy per given unit of mass than we thought, correct? Would we not have noticed that when using the formula elsewhere? Or is it such a small variance from c that it wouldn't make much of a difference?
I see. So the mistake wouldn't be in the measurement, but the analysis of the measurement.

Well, if what they see is correct and the value of c has to change (again, I think that's very unlikely) it would be a difference of 0.0025%. It is small, and this effect might not change much in the mass/energy calculations, but it would have been seen in other equations. c comes up in just about every equation, and values that depend on c have been measured to much higher precision than 0.0025%.

As for the mistake, it could be a mistake in the analysis, but if they haven't calibrated their clocks properly for example, it would be a mistake in the measurement that impacts every single event.

Originally Posted by cowmoo32

How long were you in Italy? Were you studying there?

6 months, but i got around... A lot.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k2pilot/sets/

I became best buddies with easy jet, i went somewhere at least every other weekend, and shortly before heading back home i was about to get a flight to either casablanca/morocco, or the canary islands. If i had known what was there it would have been a much higher priority. I think the cost was something like 90 bucks each way to the canary islands, such a good deal.


As for the debate of the determination of c, i was always under the impression that c would stay the same regardless of FTL particles because it was determined through maxwells eq, and that measurements just verified it.