PDA

View Full Version : Neutrinos traveling faster than light, your thoughts?



khaar_nabash
September 24th, 2011, 02:15 AM
Source: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/scientists-question-neutrinos/

OPERA Experiment shows neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light, what do you think about this?

Famicube64
September 24th, 2011, 02:16 AM
fake

Gremlinzzz
September 24th, 2011, 02:32 AM
neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light,that would mean the neutrinos should be traveling back in time.:popcorn:
could be the beginning of time travel

NovaAesa
September 24th, 2011, 02:33 AM
This was posted in the community cafe yesterday.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1848494

Lightstar
September 24th, 2011, 02:37 AM
I was just talking about quantum stuff a hour ago with someone in a different world.

thatguruguy
September 24th, 2011, 03:00 AM
Cosmic Gall
Neutrinos, they are very small.
They have no charge and have no mass
And do not interact at all.
The earth is just a silly ball
To them, through which they simply pass,
Like dustmaids through a drafty hall
Or photons through a sheet of glass.
They snub the most exquisite gas,
Ignore the most substantial wall,
Cold-shoulder steel and sounding brass,
Insult the stallion in his stall,
And scorning barriers of class,
Infiltrate you and me! Like tall
And painless guillotines, they fall
Down through our heads into the grass.
At night, they enter at Nepal
And pierce the lover and his lass
From underneath the bed-you call
It wonderful; I call it crass.

--John Updike

dniMretsaM
September 24th, 2011, 03:06 AM
They have no charge and have no mass


Actually they do have mass (or so I have read).

undecim
September 24th, 2011, 03:08 AM
After all that we've done with the speed of light in both theoretical and practical physics, we aren't going to suddenly see something go faster than the speed of light. There's a million things that can affect the measurement.

Also, I thought general relativity, the same theory that gives us the speed of light limit, also indicated that no two independent observers could agree on exactly what time it is. After traveling that distance, how can they be sure exactly how long the neutrino took to travel it?

thatguruguy
September 24th, 2011, 03:16 AM
Actually they do have mass (or so I have read).

They do, indeed. Something like 1/500,000 the mass of an electron. When Updike wrote that, back in 1960, there was still quite a bit of debate over whether neutrinos had mass.

EDIT: Which is weird, because a particle travelling at the speed of light should have infinite mass.

thatguruguy
September 24th, 2011, 03:19 AM
After all that we've done with the speed of light in both theoretical and practical physics, we aren't going to suddenly see something go faster than the speed of light. There's a million things that can affect the measurement.

Also, I thought general relativity, the same theory that gives us the speed of light limit, also indicated that no two independent observers could agree on exactly what time it is. After traveling that distance, how can they be sure exactly how long the neutrino took to travel it?

They can't, which is why there's a margin of error. However, the margin of error is smaller than the time difference between the measured time it took the neutrinos to actually travel the distance vs. the time it would have taken to travel the distance at the speed of light.

dniMretsaM
September 24th, 2011, 03:24 AM
They do, indeed. Something like 1/500,000 the mass of an electron. When Updike wrote that, back in 1960, there was still quite a bit of debate over whether neutrinos had mass.

EDIT: Which is weird, because a particle travelling at the speed of light should have infinite mass.

I knew it was a fairly new-ish discovery. Anyway, the infinite mass thing was something discussed in the other thread. So if this is true, it would indeed shake the entire foundation of physics.

Barrucadu
September 24th, 2011, 12:02 PM
Until this is verified by another team, this is just experimental evidence - so it's not really worth worrying about it. Of course, it would be pretty cool if the relativity was proven to be wrong in some cases (just like when Einstein showed Newton was wrong in some cases when he gave us relativity).

MacUntu
September 24th, 2011, 12:09 PM
This ↑.

donkyhotay
September 24th, 2011, 02:01 PM
I think it's *much* more likely to be a mistake then anything else. Even if it isn't then it doesn't necessarily invalidate relativity, relativity allows for the existence of tachyons which can't got slower then the speed the light.

hakermania
September 24th, 2011, 02:05 PM
I think it's *much* more likely to be a mistake then anything else. Even if it isn't then it doesn't necessarily invalidate relativity, relativity allows for the existence of tachyons which can't got slower then the speed the light.

I believed it to be a mistake till I read that they knew it 2 years now and just wanted to confirm this. They checked it around 16.000 times.

i don't know. It just can't be possible, something is wrong :P):P

philinux
September 24th, 2011, 02:50 PM
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20961-fasterthanlight-neutrino-claim-bolstered.html

Ric_NYC
September 24th, 2011, 02:53 PM
Actually they do have mass (or so I have read).

They have to have some mass... at least a tiny tiny tiny... tiny one.

:)

fillintheblanks
September 24th, 2011, 03:01 PM
What's a neutrino?

Is it eatable? Sounds like something nutritious.

Gremlinzzz
September 24th, 2011, 03:05 PM
he says it may have took a shortcut:popcorn:
Brian Cox on Cern's baffling light-speed find


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15034852

Gremlinzzz
September 24th, 2011, 03:06 PM
What's a neutrino?

Is it eatable? Sounds like something nutritious.

http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/neutrino.html
:popcorn:

Barrucadu
September 24th, 2011, 04:33 PM
Here is the paper, it's quite an interesting read: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

Gremlinzzz
September 24th, 2011, 04:47 PM
Was it on camera for the entire journey?
did it disappear only to reappear?
did it cheat.caught another dimension cab :popcorn:

MadCow108
September 24th, 2011, 06:41 PM
related 2008 paper discussing a possible explanation for this effect:


It has been suggested that the interactions of energetic particles with the foamy structure of space-time thought to be generated by quantum-gravitational (QG) effects might violate Lorentz invariance, so that they do not propagate at a universal speed of light

http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0253

Famicube64
September 24th, 2011, 06:57 PM
This thread is now about fish.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XSoRof7RYAM/TIfwCnxd6zI/AAAAAAAAGzY/ryuTHQ3gKeA/s400/7958330.jpg

SlackerD
September 24th, 2011, 07:53 PM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/images/051007_robot_fish.jpg

forrestcupp
September 24th, 2011, 08:11 PM
I was just talking about quantum stuff a hour ago with someone in a different world.

I'm talking an hour ago with someone about quantum stuff right now!

Q) Why did the neutrino cross the road?
A) To prove that particles are faster than light.


http://www.poe-news.com/imgs/story/79993-barreleye.jpg

KiwiNZ
September 24th, 2011, 08:19 PM
This whole Speed of light thing is a tad fishy, it needs to be scaled down.

TeoBigusGeekus
September 24th, 2011, 08:33 PM
professor hubert farnsworth: These are the dark matter engines i invented. They allow my starship to travel between galaxies in mere hours.
Cubert j. Farnsworth: That's impossible. You can't go faster than the speed of light.
Professor hubert farnsworth: Of course not. That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208.
:p

KiwiNZ
September 24th, 2011, 08:36 PM
The bait was laid and they all got caught Hook line and sinker by Einstien

TeoBigusGeekus
September 24th, 2011, 08:41 PM
We just don't understand gravity.
Look at the movements of galaxies; IMHO (if it matters), there is no dark matter or dark energy - it's just that our large scale understanding of gravity is flawed.
Why couldn't it be flawed in the tiny scales as well?

KiwiNZ
September 24th, 2011, 08:43 PM
We just don't understand gravity.
Look at the movements of galaxies; IMHO (if it matters), there is no dark matter or dark energy - it's just that our large scale understanding of gravity is flawed.
Why couldn't it be flawed in the tiny scales as well?

I understand Gravity, I drop my Unix Manual it breaks my foot.:p

TeoBigusGeekus
September 24th, 2011, 08:48 PM
I understand Gravity, I drop my Unix Manual it breaks my foot.:p

Yeah, but if your foot and your manual were tiny, you could grow another foot. :lolflag:

emiller12345
September 24th, 2011, 09:00 PM
As far as I can see, there are only two possibilities. One, the experiment has an error, which does happen, and can be proven to be in error by independent experiments trying to verify this result. Or Two, the experiment correctly measured the speed of the neutrinos, which independent experiments can improve our confidence in the hypothesis that neutrinos travel faster then c. However, Einstein showed that there is a very complex relationship between space, time, velocity, and acceleration, and new theories may show that there are more possibilities then these two. Couldn't begin to speculate what they are though.

MadCow108
September 24th, 2011, 10:08 PM
We just don't understand gravity.
Look at the movements of galaxies; IMHO (if it matters), there is no dark matter or dark energy - it's just that our large scale understanding of gravity is flawed.
Why couldn't it be flawed in the tiny scales as well?

the existence of dark matter is pretty much proven by many astronomic observations (the most famous it the bullet cluster)
there also was a first evidence of a direct measurement a few month ago at the same laboratory that made this discovery (but a different experiment)
On large scale relativity or our theory of gravity is mostly correct, the only problem is dark energy and the speed of the expansion of the universe, but everything else is well understood.

but at small scales we know our theory of gravity is fundamentally flawed since a long time, which might explain this observational via string theory or quantum loop gravity

Paqman
September 24th, 2011, 10:16 PM
Einstein was a dunce. Lots of things can travel faster than light. Gossip, for example.

Gremlinzzz
September 24th, 2011, 10:18 PM
the existence of dark matter is pretty much proven by many astronomic observations (the most famous it the bullet cluster)
there also was a first evidence of a direct measurement a few month ago at the same laboratory that made this discovery (but a different experiment)
On large scale relativity or our theory of gravity is mostly correct, the only problem is dark energy and the speed of the expansion of the universe, but everything else is well understood.

but at small scales we know our theory of gravity is fundamentally flawed since a long time, which might explain this observational via string theory or quantum loop gravity

Dwarf galaxies suggest dark matter theory may be wrong
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730
:popcorn:

TeoBigusGeekus
September 24th, 2011, 10:24 PM
the existence of dark matter is pretty much proven by many astronomic observations ...

I didn't say that there are no observations that confirm that there should be more gravity than the real matter would cause; I just said that attributing the extra gravity to an invisible, mysterious matter is in my opinion wrong and that the answer is that gravity on humongous scales needs a new Einstein.

Gremlinzzz
September 24th, 2011, 10:32 PM
Einstein was the genius of his time.would like to know what he and people like Nikola Tesla,could accomplish with todays technology:popcorn:

standingwave
September 24th, 2011, 10:34 PM
My thought is an Isaac Asimov quote:

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm... that's funny...'"

This will either be confirmed or not. Either way, we will have learned something.

Ric_NYC
September 24th, 2011, 10:34 PM
Who's talking about fish?

They taste like chicken!

MonolithImmortal
September 24th, 2011, 10:34 PM
Who's talking about fish?

They taste like chicken!
What fish are you eating?

Ric_NYC
September 24th, 2011, 10:35 PM
What fish are you eating?

Clown fish.:p

MonolithImmortal
September 24th, 2011, 10:38 PM
Clown fish.:p
http://omgcheesecake.net/public/style_emoticons/default/iseewhatyoudidthere.png
I see what you did there.

Ric_NYC
September 24th, 2011, 10:38 PM
http://omgcheesecake.net/public/style_emoticons/default/iseewhatyoudidthere.png
I see what you did there.

Oops...

cpmman
September 24th, 2011, 10:47 PM
Until someone produces a convincing explanation of why photons behave sometimes as if in a straight line and sometimes like a wave force there will be a disparity between the distance travelled in a straight line and the distance travelled following a wave path in a given time. Hence a disparity between the "speed" at which it travelled - it may be that the straight line constant proposed by Einstein has an equivalent wave constant which is different.

When measuring devices are designed and constructed with a preconceived expectation of a fundamental limit then they may not be capable of measuring something which does not acknowledge that limit.

MadCow108
September 24th, 2011, 10:49 PM
Dwarf galaxies suggest dark matter theory may be wrong
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730
:popcorn:

results from simulation are always very hard to judge correctly.
The real observations of dark matter are more convincing. And we have plenty of indirect observations of dark matter.
Hopefully we will have direct observations soon when the dark matter experiments have higher sample sizes (some very nice ones have only recently started or will start soon) and lhc will be running at full power (2013 I think).

These are currently very exciting times.


Until someone produces a convincing explanation of why photons behave sometimes as if in a straight line and sometimes like a wave force there will be a disparity between the distance travelled in a straight line and the distance travelled following a wave path in a given time. Hence a disparity between the "speed" at which it travelled - it may be that the straight line constant proposed by Einstein has an equivalent wave constant which is different.
this is all well explained with current theories (in fact it is part of the fundamental building blocks, see path integrals) and there is no disparity with relativity.
Modern theories are beyond the simple particle/wave dualism used for only for illustration.

KiwiNZ
September 24th, 2011, 10:51 PM
I see objects moving faster than the speed of light everyday, I just have to go to internet banking and watch how has money goes out of my Bank account or drive to the petrol station and watch the dollar counter move as I fill. :p

cpmman
September 24th, 2011, 10:58 PM
I see objects moving faster than the speed of light everyday, I just have to go to internet banking and watch how has money goes out of my Bank account or drive to the petrol station and watch the dollar counter move as I fill. :p

Or bean counts rise to obscene levels (27,000)

ilovelinux33467
September 24th, 2011, 10:59 PM
I see objects moving faster than the speed of light everyday, I just have to go to internet banking and watch how has money goes out of my Bank account or drive to the petrol station and watch the dollar counter move as I fill. :p

:lolflag:

Ric_NYC
September 24th, 2011, 11:05 PM
BTW...

What's the speed of a fart?

:lolflag:

VCoolio
September 24th, 2011, 11:09 PM
1. It's said to change our view on causality; is that true? Isn't it more a matter of observation: you might see the result earlier than the cause? Switching cause and result in time is quite a ridiculous concept if you ask me.
2. If it implicates that big a paradigm shift, it also has an impact on the conditions and presuppositions of this experiment itself, and maybe invalidate it, right?
3. Until this improves the speed of public transport travelling, I don't care that much.

RussianSoup
September 24th, 2011, 11:11 PM
Nifty. Now if someone else gets around to confirming it, maybe they'll finally break physics. Or they'll just dramatically ruin their careers and reputability. I mean stuff (used in the least technical possible way) has been sent above the speed of light, just not information or matter (read as: you can make a pretty spot on the wall move in circles faster than the speed of light, but its still only a pretty spot).

TeoBigusGeekus
September 24th, 2011, 11:14 PM
BTW...

What's the speed of a fart?

:lolflag:

"Farts have been clocked at a speed of 10 feet per second."

Ric_NYC
September 24th, 2011, 11:15 PM
"Farts have been clocked at a speed of 10 feet per second."



WOW!

It spreads very fast...

TeoBigusGeekus
September 24th, 2011, 11:19 PM
WOW!

It spreads very fast...

Have a visual (although disputed):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FOM_2kCOaM

3rdalbum
September 25th, 2011, 03:36 AM
I love coming into a thread after it's been going for a day. It starts off with a debate about the speed of neutrinos, and ends off being a debate about the speed of farts.

I thought anything that travels faster than the speed of light would have zero mass, not infinite mass.

Famicube64
September 25th, 2011, 03:41 AM
I love coming into a thread after it's been going for a day. It starts off with a debate about the speed of neutrinos, and ends off being a debate about the speed of farts.

I thought anything that travels faster than the speed of light would have zero mass, not infinite mass.
Fish. Don't forget the fish. This thread is about fish now, don't you know.

Eiji Takanaka
September 25th, 2011, 04:36 AM
Maybe the speed of light in a vacuum is slower than the speed of light through dense matter.

I.e if you have lots of billiards balls on a table in a line and they are spaced further apart the energy will be transmitted slower, than if they were all spaced closer together.

Or something like that.

LowSky
September 25th, 2011, 07:11 AM
“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.”
― Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

Paqman
September 25th, 2011, 08:51 AM
1. It's said to change our view on causality; is that true? Isn't it more a matter of observation: you might see the result earlier than the cause? Switching cause and result in time is quite a ridiculous concept if you ask me.


Physics at very small scales plays pretty loose with causality anyway. Stuff at the particle level routinely happens without any cause at all. There's no way to predict the radioactive decay of an individual atom for example, it just happens without being caused (as far as we can tell).

I'm no physicist, but my understanding of this stuff is that it's governed by probabilities that work at a more macro scale, rather than by actual cause and effect at a particle level.

Paqman
September 25th, 2011, 09:05 AM
Maybe the speed of light in a vacuum is slower than the speed of light through dense matter.


Other way around, speed of light through anything except a vacuum is determined by that material's refractive index. Even air slows it down slightly.

fontis
September 25th, 2011, 03:20 PM
Einstein was the genius of his time.would like to know what he and people like Nikola Tesla,could accomplish with todays technology:popcorn:

Something better than Unity. :p

forrestcupp
September 25th, 2011, 07:01 PM
My rent was a day late, so I attached a neutrino to it and got it there on time.

Then I ate fish for dinner.

Gremlinzzz
September 25th, 2011, 07:46 PM
If a report of particles traveling faster than the speed of light turns out to be true, it will rock the foundations of modern physics — and perhaps even change the way scientists think about time travel.

But don't fire up the DeLorean just yet. Physicists are skeptical that the tiny subatomic particles, called neutrinos, really are breaking the cosmic rule that nothing goes faster than light. And even if they are, neutrinos don't make the best vessel for sending signals to the past because they pass through ordinary matter almost unaffected, interacting only weakly with the wider world. [Countdown of Bizarre Subatomic Particles]

So you may be able to send neutrinos back in time, but would anyone notice? "If you're trying to get people's attention by bouncing neutrinos off their head, you could wait for quite awhile," Seth Lloyd, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told LiveScience. :popcorn:

http://www.livescience.com/16207-faster-light-discovery-time-travel.html

BeRoot ReBoot
September 25th, 2011, 07:55 PM
If a report of particles traveling faster than the speed of light turns out to be true, it will rock the foundations of modern physics — and perhaps even change the way scientists think about time travel.

Which is why I can only conclude there must be some error in the software, sensors, or the way the experiment was set up in the first place. Or a combination of all three and some other factor. There is simply no way to contradict a perfectly valid theory that builds 70 years of strong inferential, observational and experimental evidence.

Now, I'm not saying this is impossible, but I wouldn't assign a very high probability to this experiment showing the correct result. In case it is correct, it will certainly be interesting to see whether this puts the last 70 years of physics in the bin, or turns out to be some weird, useless special case.

KiwiNZ
September 25th, 2011, 08:20 PM
Which is why I can only conclude there must be some error in the software, sensors, or the way the experiment was set up in the first place. Or a combination of all three and some other factor. There is simply no way to contradict a perfectly valid theory that builds 70 years of strong inferential, observational and experimental evidence.

Now, I'm not saying this is impossible, but I wouldn't assign a very high probability to this experiment showing the correct result. In case it is correct, it will certainly be interesting to see whether this puts the last 70 years of physics in the bin, or turns out to be some weird, useless special case.

How many years was the Earth flat?
How many years was the Earth the Center of known universe?

These were carved in stone scientific fact and corner stone.

Old_Grey_Wolf
September 25th, 2011, 08:56 PM
I don't know if it is really as big of a problem as some seem to make it out to be. Maybe this will lead to a new measurement of the speed of light if the methods used in this experiment can be applied to the speed of light. First, we need to wait for an assessment about the validity of the methods used. We have changed the value for the speed of light over the decades and centuries.


Date Author Result (km/s)
1676 Olaus Roemer 214000
1726 James Bradley 301000
1849 Armand Fizeau 315000
1862 Leon Foucault 298000
1879 Albert Michelson 299910
1907 Dorsay, Rosa 299788
1926 Albert Michelson 299796
1947 Gorden-Smith, Essen 299792
1958 K. D. Froome 299792.5
1973 Evanson 299792.4574

We will have to wait for the confirmation of the experiment. Then maybe we will need to change the theories, or remeasure the speed of light using new methods. Perhaps both.

I am glad to see that people are actually using the appropriate scientific methods to have their results verified before publishing them as fact.

Paqman
September 25th, 2011, 09:30 PM
How many years was the Earth flat?
How many years was the Earth the Center of known universe?

These were carved in stone scientific fact and corner stone.

Not wanting to split hairs, but there's no evidence that there was ever much belief in a flat Earth, it's been known to be round for a looooong time. An ancient Greek bloke even took a surprisingly accurate stab at calculating it's diameter.

The geocentric universe was preached as fact though. We do sometime have to change our preconceptions, and I think BeRoot ReBoot did acknowledge that. He's right that it's far too early to chuck the baby out with the bathwater though. Lots more work needed.

mips
September 25th, 2011, 09:39 PM
How many years was the Earth flat?
How many years was the Earth the Center of known universe?

These were carved in stone scientific fact and corner stone.

I think that was more religion than science that stated that. Considering for example that Galileo Galilei was only pardoned 19yrs ago for something (heliocentrism) that happened almost 400yrs ago. Other cultures/people already proposed heliocentrism about 200-300BC.

KiwiNZ
September 25th, 2011, 09:53 PM
I think that was more religion than science that stated that. Considering for example that Galileo Galilei was only pardoned 19yrs ago for something (heliocentrism) that happened almost 400yrs ago. Other cultures/people already proposed heliocentrism about 200-300BC.

Religion and science was linked for a long time , but I don't want to get into that debate, Reference Code of conduct.

KiwiNZ
September 25th, 2011, 09:55 PM
I don't believe we should be making Universal scientific law as our terms of reference is too small. it's all just too fishy

BeRoot ReBoot
September 25th, 2011, 10:06 PM
How many years was the Earth flat?
How many years was the Earth the Center of known universe?

These were carved in stone scientific fact and corner stone.

What was the evidence in favour of the Earth being flat/the centre of the universe? Remember, back when those kinds of beliefs were prevalent, religion and science were mostly the same thing, "you're supposed to believe it because a book says so" was considered absolute evidence, and what little actual science there was was flawed in methodology and heavily biased.

We're talking about the entirety of 20th century physics here. Real science, empiricism, the scientific method, understanding of cognitive biases, no pressure from legal and moral authorities. I just don't think it very likely that all of mankind could have been wrong for over a half a century without anyone noticing it.

KiwiNZ
September 25th, 2011, 10:25 PM
What was the evidence in favour of the Earth being flat/the centre of the universe? Remember, back when those kinds of beliefs were prevalent, religion and science were mostly the same thing, "you're supposed to believe it because a book says so" was considered absolute evidence, and what little actual science there was was flawed in methodology and heavily biased.

We're talking about the entirety of 20th century physics here. Real science, empiricism, the scientific method, understanding of cognitive biases, no pressure from legal and moral authorities. I just don't think it very likely that all of mankind could have been wrong for over a half a century without anyone noticing it.

I was not saying it was right, I was pointing out that it was the solid belief that those conclusions were fact based on the "then" science.

What we know now is based on the "now" science and may well look just as silly in a few hundred years.

morgan141
September 25th, 2011, 10:35 PM
I was not saying it was right, I was pointing out that it was the solid belief that those conclusions were fact based on the "then" science.

What we know now is based on the "now" science and may well look just as silly in a few hundred years.

Not really. Newtonian mechanics has been succeeded by quantum mechanics (then QFT) and general relativity in various different situations and applications. It has not been the most accurate model for over a hundred years now.

Despite this, it's still taught in schools. It's still taught to engineers and is probably the most widely used field in physics. Why? Because its predictions are accurate enough for the vast majority of applications. Why would you ever want to use GR to build a bridge? It's pointless.

If this discovery is verified SR will not die, it will still be staple first year undergrad material. A more accurate model will need to be constructed yes, but it will still be extremely useful. Hell your satnav isn't going to stop working if a grand unified theory succeeds GR :p.

BeRoot ReBoot
September 25th, 2011, 10:47 PM
If this discovery is verified SR will not die, it will still be staple first year undergrad material. A more accurate model will need to be constructed yes, but it will still be extremely useful. Hell your satnav isn't going to stop working if a grand unified theory succeeds GR :p.

Yes, but at that point Special Relativity stops being a scientific theory about how the universe works, and becomes a law that somewhat accurately predicts the outcome of some physical phenomena. It feels strange, usually it goes hypothesis ->law->theory, not hypothesis->theory->law. I predict Special relativity is pretty close to the Theory of Everything (if such exists), possibly a special case of it. It seems very dubious that it should be reduced to a mere law.

Old_Grey_Wolf
September 25th, 2011, 10:56 PM
What was the evidence in favour of the Earth being flat/the centre of the universe? Remember, back when those kinds of beliefs were prevalent, religion and science were mostly the same thing, "you're supposed to believe it because a book says so" was considered absolute evidence, and what little actual science there was was flawed in methodology and heavily biased.

We're talking about the entirety of 20th century physics here. Real science, empiricism, the scientific method, understanding of cognitive biases, no pressure from legal and moral authorities. I just don't think it very likely that all of mankind could have been wrong for over a half a century without anyone noticing it.

I am not so sure that "back then" things were as you perceive them to be.

Aristotle (384–322 BCE) tried to devise methods for arriving at reliable knowledge based on observation.

Roger Bacon (1214–1294) described a cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and verification. His descriptions may have been based on the work of Muslim scientists; Ibn al-Haytham (965-1040) for example.

BeRoot ReBoot
September 25th, 2011, 11:05 PM
I am not so sure that "back then" things were as you perceive them to be.

Aristotle (384–322 BCE) tried to devising methods for arriving at reliable knowledge based on observation.

Roger Bacon (1214–1294) described a cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and verification. His descriptions may have been based on the work of Muslim scientist; Ibn al-Haytham (1021) for example.

And they were notable scientists both. Still, the societies they worked in prevented their work from gaining notoriety, their views were seen as eccentric and useless by their peers. While they have both made notable advances in the field of scientific methodology and are remembered for their work, their own methods pale in comparison to the modern scientific method. And I'm not saying that to belittle their efforts, it is a simple fact that the state of the art has advanced since the 13th century. While great deeds were without doubt accomplished even in that crude age, it serves no purpose to compare them to modern science.

Old_Grey_Wolf
September 25th, 2011, 11:16 PM
...their own methods pale in comparison to the modern scientific method. And I'm not saying that to belittle their efforts, it is a simple fact that the state of the art has advanced since the 13th century. While great deeds were without doubt accomplished even in that crude age, it serves no purpose to compare them to modern science.

The tools may have improved, and the collection of knowledge may have increased; however, I'm not sure that the human thought processes used in the observation, formation of hypothesis, experimentation, and verification have changed that much.

And, this thread seems to be getting off topic.

Goa'uld
September 25th, 2011, 11:23 PM
neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light,that would mean the neutrinos should be traveling back in time.:popcorn:
could be the beginning of time travel

i suppose. that's one of two suggested ways to screw with time... not that i know much, if anything about this.

but if the particles cheat by going back in time somehow, wouldn't that mean the measured time is less than it is as a result? meaning the light-speed is still constant, but time was cheated somehow?

i'm no believer in sci-fi time-travel. rather i'd be more inclined to think either they found that light isn't the fastest thing out there and neutrinos is the new speed-limit, or the scientists somehow stumbled into a "shortcut" that defies the conventional spacetime model (think extradimensional space). IIRC string theory needs 11 dimensions to work.

occams razor suggests that the most logical explanation is a hung-over scientist. hehe.

emiller12345
September 26th, 2011, 12:02 AM
could it be that neutrinos are really tachyonic?

KiwiNZ
September 26th, 2011, 12:13 AM
And they were notable scientists both. Still, the societies they worked in prevented their work from gaining notoriety, their views were seen as eccentric and useless by their peers. While they have both made notable advances in the field of scientific methodology and are remembered for their work, their own methods pale in comparison to the modern scientific method. And I'm not saying that to belittle their efforts, it is a simple fact that the state of the art has advanced since the 13th century. While great deeds were without doubt accomplished even in that crude age, it serves no purpose to compare them to modern science.

The advanced tools and our "modern science" will be primitive in a few hundred years.

BeRoot ReBoot
September 26th, 2011, 12:22 AM
The advanced tools and our "modern science" will be primitive in a few hundred years.

And just like we recognise and honour the achievements of those who came before us even though we judge them primitive by today's standards, we have to trust our unique insights will be respected by whatever science succeeds us. Every discovery is made by standing on the shoulders of giants.

morgan141
September 26th, 2011, 12:22 AM
Yes, but at that point Special Relativity stops being a scientific theory about how the universe works, and becomes a law that somewhat accurately predicts the outcome of some physical phenomena. It feels strange, usually it goes hypothesis ->law->theory, not hypothesis->theory->law. I predict Special relativity is pretty close to the Theory of Everything (if such exists), possibly a special case of it. It seems very dubious that it should be reduced to a mere law.

I really don't understand what you mean by this. Scientific "laws" are usually single concepts or principles that come from a model (e.g. newton's laws), they are part of a theory.

SR, GR etc are just models. They all describe 'how the universe works' because they make predictions that can be verified. They are not perfect models and each apply under a set of constraints.

For numerous reasons SR cannot be close to a "theory of everything". For one, grand unified theories serve to unify the four fundamental forces, for which SR doesn't describe any (it is only valid for inertial frames). Furthermore, it is classical.


could it be that neutrinos are really tachyonic?

Sadly not. Tachyons require a complex mass whereas neutrinos have a real mass.

KiwiNZ
September 26th, 2011, 12:25 AM
And just like we recognise and honour the achievements of those who came before us even though we judge them primitive by today's standards, we have to trust our unique insights will be respected by whatever science succeeds us. Every discovery is made by standing on the shoulders of giants.

They are made by mortals working hard , thats all

Old_Grey_Wolf
September 26th, 2011, 01:10 AM
... even though we judge them primitive by today's standards, we ...

Who or what is "we"?
I don't think I agree with what you stated. Therefore, I may not be a part of the subset of "we". Please provide your definition of "we" so that I can determine if I am within the subset of "we" or external to it.

Thanks.

kostageas
September 26th, 2011, 02:19 AM
My thoughts on the matter: http://xkcd.com/955/

lisati
September 26th, 2011, 05:00 AM
Perhaps I've watched too many science-fiction shows of varying (dubious?) scientific merit, but for a while I've had a sneaking suspicion that travel faster than the speed of light is possible even if it's not feasible with our current understanding of how the universe works. As for the time-travel aspect of what Einstein had to say, I suspect that it says as much about our perception of time as it does about the actual mechanics of it. Then again, I am not well versed in the subject, so who am I to say?

HuaiDan
September 26th, 2011, 05:08 AM
I'm quite fed up with all the mainstream news outlets crying out that Einstein was wrong as if suddenly all GPS devices will stop working subsequent to these findings being made public.

juancarlospaco
September 26th, 2011, 05:37 AM
I remember B/W movies when people think that if you go faster than sound everything its gonna go BOOOOOOOM!!!, and actually it does boom, but everything still there, the same with light speed, just matter of time...

forrestcupp
September 26th, 2011, 02:04 PM
What is all of this talk about time travel? The neutrinos didn't get to point B before they left point A. They just got to point B faster than light would.

maever
September 26th, 2011, 06:37 PM
We'll have to wait for either the US or Japanese collider to confirm it I guess (if they can).