Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 33
view profile
History
light speed results baffle Cern Page 2 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
I think considering how little real knowledge of the universe we actually have I find it kind of comical that people still arrogantly cling so tightly to theories in the same way the scientific orthodoxy clung to the idea that the stars revolved around the sun

Probably 90% of what we accept as "fact" now will probably be a historic academic joke to people in a few hundred years, which has pretty much been the case to practically all scientific theory throughout history thus far

Much of what we do infact class as "fact" is merely layer upon layer of postulated theories and conclusions seen as proof of those theories tends to be ones drawn from first assuming the theory was correct anyway which tends to cloud objectivity

So I'd be very surprised if light speed was still classed as an absolute on any level for the remaining duration of just my own lifetime
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 34
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 10/18/2011 1:22:05 AM

That statement alone, is confusing to me. It would seem to me, that "communication," in the sense of a state of 'connectedness,' is a part of causation, as well as of correlation, unless one wishes to say that correlation occurs by coincidence only, 100% of the time, in the case of wave-particle behavior. I'm thinking here, of what I've read about waves and particles collapsing simultaneously, despite being separated. No doubt yet ANOTHER aspect of my inability to grasp modern quantum physics theory.

You're trying to make this more difficult that it is. Here's a simple example. Put a red marble and blue marble in a bag. You and friend each reach into the bag and take one of the marbles. You check and you discover that yours is red. Your friend checks and discovers that his is blue. However, when you see that yours is red, you know his must be blue, yet you did not have to communicate with him to know that. That isn't at all mysterious and it certainly doesn't require any instantaneous cummincation between the marbles for that to happen. There's no causation involved, but there is a correlation. You know if your marble is red, then his must be blue.

The quantum mechanical case is a little more trricky, but the basic idea is the same.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 35
view profile
History
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 10/18/2011 9:31:50 AM
Isnt the problem with some aspects of quantam mechanics though a bit more along the lines of

You look at your marble and its blue, and for the duration youre looking at it so is theirs

When they look at theirs and you arent looking, both marbles are then read

Quantum entanglement kind of clouds the two marble scenario a tad
 arwen52
Joined: 3/13/2008
Msg: 37
view profile
History
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 10/19/2011 5:14:28 PM
"Blunder is the number one cause for why researchers get physics results that conflict with decades (in this case a century) of theory and experiments." Neil DeGrasse Tyson

It turns out the explanation for the results of the experiment were pretty mundane:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/

It's now been three weeks since the extraordinary news that neutrinos travelling between France and Italy had been clocked moving faster than light. The experiment, known as OPERA, found that the particles produced at CERN near Geneva arrived at the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy some 60 nanoseconds earlier than the speed of light allows.

The result has sent a ripple of excitement through the physics community. Since then, more than 80 papers have appeared on the arXiv attempting to debunk or explain the effect. It's fair to say, however, that the general feeling is that the OPERA team must have overlooked something.

Today, Ronald van Elburg at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands makes a convincing argument that he has found the error.

First, let's review the experiment, which is simple in concept: a measurement of distance and time.

The distance is straightforward. The location of neutrino production at CERN is fairly easy to measure using GPS. The position of the Gran Sasso Laboratory is harder to pin down because it sits under a kilometre-high mountain. Nevertheless, the OPERA team says it has nailed the distance of 730 km to within 20 cm or so.

The time of neutrino flight is harder to measure. The OPERA team says it can accurately gauge the instant when the neutrinos are created and the instant they are detected using clocks at each end.

But the tricky part is keeping the clocks at either end exactly synchronised. The team does this using GPS satellites, which each broadcast a highly accurate time signal from orbit some 20,000km overhead. That introduces a number of extra complications which the team has to take into account, such as the time of travel of the GPS signals to the ground.

But van Elburg says there is one effect that the OPERA team seems to have overlooked: the relativistic motion of the GPS clocks.

It's easy to think that the motion of the satellites is irrelevant. After all, the radio waves carrying the time signal must travel at the speed of light, regardless of the satellites' speed.

But there is an additional subtlety. Although the speed of light is does not depend on the the frame of reference, the time of flight does. In this case, there are two frames of reference: the experiment on the ground and the clocks in orbit. If these are moving relative to each other, then this needs to be factored in.

So what is the satellites' motion with respect to the OPERA experiment? These probes orbit from West to East in a plane inclined at 55 degrees to the equator. Significantly, that's roughly in line with the neutrino flight path. Their relative motion is then easy to calculate.

So from the point of view of a clock on board a GPS satellite, the positions of the neutrino source and detector are changing. "From the perspective of the clock, the detector is moving towards the source and consequently the distance travelled by the particles as observed from the clock is shorter," says van Elburg.

By this he means shorter than the distance measured in the reference frame on the ground.

The OPERA team overlooks this because it thinks of the clocks as on the ground not in orbit.

How big is this effect? Van Elburg calculates that it should cause the neutrinos to arrive 32 nanoseconds early. But this must be doubled because the same error occurs at each end of the experiment. So the total correction is 64 nanoseconds, almost exactly what the OPERA team observes.

That's impressive but it's not to say the problem is done and dusted. Peer review is an essential part of the scientific process and this argument must hold its own under scrutiny from the community at large and the OPERA team in particular.

If it stands up, this episode will be laden with irony. Far from breaking Einstein's theory of relatively, the faster-than-light measurement will turn out to be another confirmation of it.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 38
view profile
History
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 10/19/2011 5:27:18 PM
That'll teach them not to rely on manually operated stopwatches being co-ordinated via text message wont it lol :)
 Professoro
Joined: 8/1/2011
Msg: 39
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 10/19/2011 7:24:53 PM

Error bars for measurements can be tough to estimate, just ask Fleischmann and Pons. cheers, O


No big surprise, I suggested this three weeks ago.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 40
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 10/19/2011 10:41:35 PM

Now what would happen if you sent a photon from Cern to a double slit 500km away in Italy with the detector switched OFF and then simultaneously sent a neutrino to Italy to switch the detector ON.
Would the experiment change?

I'm going to post a longer explanation to address a previous question, but the answer in a relativistically correct picture is that the question really makes no sense. Simultaneity is observer dependent. If you pick a frame in which two events, A and B, are simultaneous, it's possible to perform Lorentz transformations to find other reference frames in which A occurs before B and in which B occurs before A. The fact that quantum mechanics predicts correlations between measurements allows the measurements of events A and B to be consistent without being causally connected. In other words, the correlations exist regardless of which frame you choose, but the lack of a causal connection means quantum mechaics is also consistent with relativity.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 41
view profile
History
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 10/20/2011 5:55:04 PM
I don't understand all these post, but most of some, bear with me.

We can question the measuring system used in the experiment, but would it not be wildly more accurate than the system that was used to initially determine "c"? Is it possible that "c" is off?

Further,
E=Mc(sq) leaves many mathmatical possibilities. Understanding the equation it was derived from, there are possibilities of unknown constants (this would, of course, require our laws of physics to be incomplete)

Example E=m(c+K)(sq), where K is a constant of zero based on something we don't know yet like Leedskalnin's theory on magnetivity? This is only an example, but there's many constants we have taken for granted in the past but later found to be variables (like gravity)

Just to add to the incomplete equation suggestion, consider Pythagoran therom as an incomplete version of the cosine law. The right angle constant was, in that case noted, however it was yet unkonwn that cos 90 = 0 nullifying a large part of the equation. Since triangle ae much simpler than the universe, it is reasonable to assume that we do not know all that there is to know and further that the conventional laws of physics were made to be broken by new ones.

If we can measure "c", then we can measure "c+60 billionths of a second"
I personally think these guys did it. It'll just take a while to solve the how and the why.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 42
view profile
History
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 10/20/2011 6:06:06 PM
The tachyon says I'll have a pint of lager please........














(later on)
A tachyon walks into a bar and the barman asks what he wants to drink




 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 43
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 10/21/2011 5:43:07 AM
We can question the measuring system used in the experiment, but would it not be wildly more accurate than the system that was used to initially determine "c"? Is it possible that "c" is off?

That's actually not relevant. If you measure time and distance in meters, then c is 1. The constant c is just a conversion constant to change meters into seconds, just like 2.54 cm/inch changes inches to cm. Furthermore, the value of c is now exact by definition, because to mesure it you need to have a definition of meters and seconds. Instead of defining meters and seconds, it's more accurate to define c and seconds and leave the length of a meter defined by c and the definition of a second.


Further, E=Mc(sq) leaves many mathmatical possibilities. Understanding the equation it was derived from, there are possibilities of unknown constants (this would, of course, require our laws of physics to be incomplete)

Actually, it doesn't, since that expression isn't the full expression anyway. The correct expression includes the momentum as well:

E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2

That expression is a consquence of invariance under Poincare transforms (which includes the Lorentz transforms and decribes the geometry of spacetime in special relativity).

Just to add to the incomplete equation suggestion, consider Pythagoran therom as an incomplete version of the cosine law. T

Loosely speaking, that's what Einstein did when he proposed general relativity. The pythagorean theoem is nothing more than the metric for a Euclidean space. It is what it is by definition. (It also isn't any different than the cosine law, which is just a convenient way to find the lengths of the sides of non-right triangles.) In special reltivity, the metric is non-euclidean and I posted it earlier. In general relativity, the metric is even more general
and takes the form:

ds^2 = -A(t,x,y,z) dt^2 + B(t,x,y,z) dx^2 + C(t,x,y,z) dy^2 + D(t,x,y,z) dz^2

Where A,B,C and D are functions that can depend on the coordinates. It's really no different than the pythagorean theorem or cosine law apart from being a lot more general and more complicated.
 R_O_U_S
Joined: 3/20/2011
Msg: 44
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 10/30/2011 2:03:17 PM
basically... they might be going towards atheory where neutrinos are lighter in mass than we theorized. the speed of light is not a law. Its theory. A theory that under special relativity and quantum physics and the instrumenatation and calculation upon said sub atomic particles might have previously only found the larger slower relatives.
science evoles with technology and experimentation.
what does this mean. ugh what is the other 85 per of the iniverse made up of and why cant we see the darn stuff of its make up. if we could we understand more about where we have come from and where we are headed. exciting stuff.
I belive it has to due with superfluidity. look it up. its interresting stuff. you might have a better idead of its terminolgy than I.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 46
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 11/18/2011 8:25:16 AM

So with more robust testing , results again show neutrino's travelled faster than lightspeed , what will this now mean ?


More testing. Independent verification. Further testing. Followed by more testing. Publication. And maybe...just maybe...awarding of a Nobel. Maybe. Or...
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 48
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 11/18/2011 9:38:48 AM

if independent verification is confirmed will it mean Einsteins theories on relativity are essentially wrong ?


Not necessarily in the same way that Newtonian motion is "wrong" compared to General Relativity. But if you're asking for predictions, I don't have any and neither does anyone else. There are just too many stages between now and then before we can assume that the results are reflective of real phenomenon.

I think the point that Phil Plait made regarding SN 1987A is an important one. A neutrino surge was detected at roughly the same time as the visible light signal was seen and not weeks or years ahead.


surely now a neutrino year will be a bigger distance than a lightyear ?


Maybe. Maybe not. Again, laypeople tend to place far more significance to an observation than is presently justified. Remember, neutrinos are "light" as much as any other part of the electromagnetic spectrum. So let's just see where this goes.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 49
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 12/1/2011 7:54:59 PM

All the text book physicists are going to be baffled by any new scientific findings.


Um...wasn't it the "textbook physicists" who assisted in building the equipment that resulted in the challenging discovery? Sooooo....
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 50
view profile
History
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 12/10/2011 7:34:31 AM
They are fairly sure the error has been found...


Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity
The relativistic motion of clocks on board GPS satellites exactly accounts for the superluminal effect, says physicist.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/?ref=rss



The CERN-LNGS time-of-flight (TOF) experiment (of neutrinos) represents a significant challenge to the special theory of relativity and needs to be addressed either as a source of new physics, or as an un-remedied experimental error. There have been several attempts at using new physics to explain the results, while a few unpublished results exist that address the experimental errors that might lead to the same result. In particular, a recent calculation by van Elburg indicates a potential flaw in the OPERA experiment that represents a source of potential error, i.e., that the motion of the synchronizing GPS satellites causes the clocks to go out of synchronization. Unfortunately, there are several misconceptions about how GPS satellites work that pervade the paper. In addition, the principal contention of the paper, that the experiment is being timed by a moving clock is not substantiated in the analysis. This paper substantiates the point, as well as introduces a new source of error in the “common-view” method of synchronization of clocks.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.1922.pdf


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/faster-than-light-finding-wrong-say-
scientific-colleagues/article2243189/
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/21/oukoe-uk-science-neutrinos-idUKTRE7AK1AP20111121
 cbbull21
Joined: 3/9/2009
Msg: 51
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 12/11/2011 7:13:35 PM
Wait a minute...
even if I am a physics major, I don't know how we have supposedly measured the speed of light in a pure vacuum as opposed to in air or another media if measured on earth. mu_nought is just a number 4pi*10^-? and epsilon_nought is experimental in coulomb's law and electrostatics. it happens that c^2 = 1/(mu*epsilon).
Are we saying neutrinos travel faster than light through either vacuum, air, or another media?
 cbbull21
Joined: 3/9/2009
Msg: 52
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 12/11/2011 7:53:02 PM
Are we saying neutrinos travel faster than light through either vacuum, air, or another media? (or all of the above.)
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 54
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 12/28/2011 9:03:47 AM

Are we saying neutrinos travel faster than light through either vacuum, air, or another media? (or all of the above.)

As far as neutrinos go, that's irrelevant. First of all, a medium is a bulk property of a substance that depends on the collective behaviour of it's constituents when the collective behaviour dominates the way an incoming wave (or particle) interacts. Since media are held together by electromagetic forces, it's perfectly reasonable to treat light (at low energies) that way and to treat the passage of low energy charged particles that way. Neutrinos have no electrical charge. They interact with matter through the weak force, so the medium would only be relevant if there was some likelyhood that the neutrinos would scatter from the constituents of the medium. That isn't the case. The scattering cross section for neutrinos on matter of any sort is ridiculously small. As far as the neutrinos are concerned, the rock they are passing through doesn't exist because the chances of a collision occuring are small, which is why it takes a great deal of effort to detect them. Trillions pass through your body every second.

The reason the neutrinos arrived before the light from supernova 1987a, is that as the core collapses and the matter becomes extremely dense, the matter provides no impediment to neutrinos escaping, so the neutrinos have a head start on the light.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 56
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 12/28/2011 3:30:13 PM
The detectors in existing neutrino experients registered a excess of events shortly before the supernova was seen.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 58
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 12/28/2011 7:02:35 PM
No. There have been neutrino experiments set up in deep mines to study neutrinos from the sun for a long time. From years of taking data, they know how many neutrinos they should be counting. When supernova 1987a was noticed from its brightness in the sky, the people running those experiements just happened to be able to look at their data and notice the higher than normal neutrino count rate and when it started. Models of stellar collapse and supernovas had predicted that lots of neutrinos would be produced during the collapse of a star and escape before the light from the explosion, so it was convenient in that it confirmed that models of stars were fairly good.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 61
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 4/1/2012 9:42:52 PM
The results from the OPERA study have been debunked!

http://news.yahoo.com/speed-light-experiment-professor-resigns-112219270.html
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 62
view profile
History
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 4/2/2012 2:31:26 AM

The results from the OPERA study have been debunked!
http://news.yahoo.com/speed-light-experiment-professor-resigns-112219270.html

Huh? What's to 'debunk'?
The OPERA findings were published, with numerous caveats, to enlist the help of the global science community in the search for the error.
Ultimately they found it.

Hints were given in this very thread they were closing in on the error as long ago as last October, only a month after the publication/request for assistance. The post above yours, which dates from February, links to a story detailing what the error is now thought to have been - a bad connection.

Besides which, your link isn't necessarily related to the discovery of the error, it's about the resignation of one of the team leaders (though actually two have resigned).

You might be interested in these links -
http://news.yahoo.com/faster-light-researchers-quit-over-culture-not-science-182554178.html
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/02/wrong-or-not-cern-scientists-didnt-speak-too-soon/49088/

As well as these two (for background), from the first two posts in this thread -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15034414
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897
 lookingforsophia
Joined: 3/3/2009
Msg: 63
view profile
History
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 4/4/2012 5:20:02 PM

The neutrinos from SN1987A traveled so far that had they been moving that much faster than light, they would’ve arrived here almost four years before the light did. However, we saw the light from the supernova at roughly the same time as the neutrinos (actually the light did get here later, but it takes a little while for the explosion to eat its way out of the star’s core to its surface, and that delay completely accounts for the lag seen).


Reminds me of a race between a herd of horses and a flock of gnats...

I'm pretty sure the gnats got out of the gate early. What keeps me from bettin on the results is those slacker stop watches at the finish line. The guy looking for Horses thru a Telescope only scanned that part of the sky periodically that night I would imagine; but the first Time he saw one i'm sure his Stop Watch recorded the exact nanosecond.
The guy trying to catch the Neutrino gnat flock probably needed a bigger buterrfly net with smaller mesh, imso.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 66
view profile
History
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 6/24/2012 12:26:00 PM

the pentgon stared harrasing me and testing war games senaariosover the radio on me.

You often generate some interesting ideas, but seriously mccullough, if you feel the radio is talking to you, or being used to communicate with you, it's time to go and see your medical advisor.
 GurugiGets
Joined: 6/1/2012
Msg: 67
light speed results baffle Cern
Posted: 7/11/2012 3:51:20 PM
The principles of relative rap hold that rap in a Galilean-ghetto ordinate system is and moves uniform to said translation. Where no revolution is present, rap will remain a natural phenomena. Your belief in this system give it truth.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >