| Author | Message | ||
     Reindog |
BTW: 60ns is a LOT of time in my job as I live in a 220 Mhz world. We are talking 13 clocks! Wow! It is great to see CERN practicing real science as there is a call for the world to scrutinize their results to find out where they went wrong. Unlike Professor Gore. | ||
| Sifo |
The was a young lady named bright Who could travel fasted than light She left Earth one day, in a relative way and came back the previous night. | ||
| Blake |
>>> I live in a 220 MHz world It defies practical senses of reality. Then consider that 30 GHz is now mundane in SatCom. The new ALMA array is supposed to be able to view the far reaches at up to 720GHz. A lot of really amazing technology keeping a collection of 12m (39') diameter radio telescopes positioned accurately enough to make that work. Magic at 5000m (16,400') elevation. Remember to breath outside of the oxygenated control rooms. | ||
| Slaughter |
220 MHz... duuuude that's like 1.4 E-6 meters whoooa man! | ||
| Doerman |
we were in Tyler. Coincidence? My phone GPS indicated I was in India once. I was in actuality in UT. I live in a 220 Mhz world Tom... slow down a little! That kind of vibration will get to you sooner or later! | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I can see CERN from my house, it's only about 7 or 8 miles away. I go past it on my way to work & apart from the security you'd think it was a some sort of manufacturing plant. I know at least one of the other residents on the estate works there, another deplaced Brit like me. I'd love to get a job there too but they don't have much call for truck drivers. Can't say I noticed the neutrinos zipping by either but then I'm on the other side of the complex from Italy. | ||
| Boltrider |
Ridiculous Speed and Ludicrous Speed soon to follow. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
How you going to slap a ticket on that? | ||
| Superdavetfft |
I've always wondered about the speed of light. Well if speed is an objection in motion going in a direction that sets a basis saying 'in motion' with reference to a certain point. What if one object was going west at 3/4 speed of light and another was going east at 3/4 SoL? From the center each is going 3/4 SoL but if you were on board object number one it could be perceived as being stationary and object 2 could be going 1.5 SoL away from it. That's always perplexed me... how can an item have a speed 'limit' if speed is relative to another point? I hope that made some sense, it is friday at 4;20-  and my brain is done for the week. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
Reindog +1 Peer reviewed science is the only way to go. When you make a claim it takes some balls to toss it out to the scientific community and let them nitpick it, prod it for holes etc. It's be pretty embarrassing to have something wrong though hehe. | ||
| Blake |
When you make a claim it takes some balls to toss it out to the scientific community and let them nitpick it, prod it for holes etc. That isn't just true in the scientific community. It's just plain old integrity. It works the same for mathematics, accounting, lawyering, engineering, child-rearing, hunting, fishing, farming, racing, construction, warfighting, etc. | ||
| Blake |
The only time people think that it's not proper to subject their claims to scrutiny is when they are uninterested in truth. That aversion to seeking truth may be born of greed, bigotry, hatred, or just foolish delusion. | ||
| Fast1075 |
Couldn't help myself.  | ||
| Sifo |
Peer reviewed science is the only way to go. Peer review has come to mean having peers just look over your paper for obvious mistakes before publishing in some of the sciences. It's barely even science at that point. These guys are doing it right without even publishing yet. I don't blame them for not publishing honestly. I'd guess there's still about an 80% chance of there being some problem with the measurements. They would look foolish to publish to only find a measuring error. If it happens this way they just look cautious, which they appear to be. We have seen a star go supernova and the light and neutrinos reached us at the same time from light years away. From that distance the neutrinos should have been way ahead of the light. Still there could be something specific to this experiment that causes it. Or they may not have reset their TPS correctly. | ||
| Slaughter |
Back to the title: Science is never settled. Always open to scrutiny and a challenge and change. And NO - the results were not published. They were "reported" A media feeding frenzy does not science make. | ||
| Sifo |
I just have to laugh when people claim the science is settled, usually on things that have had had far less scrutiny than E=MC2. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
http://youtu.be/mk7VWcuVOf0 | ||
| Gregtonn |
"That isn't just true in the scientific community. It's just plain old integrity. It works the same for mathematics, accounting, lawyering, engineering, child-rearing, hunting, fishing, farming, racing, construction, warfighting, etc." I agree, except for the lawyering part (and maybe the etc...that sounds like one of those open-ended liberal things  ). G | ||
| Thumper74 |
We skipped ludicrous and went straight to plaid! | ||
| Bolthead |
We have seen a star go supernova and the light and neutrinos reached us at the same time from light years away. From that distance the neutrinos should have been way ahead of the light. Still there could be something specific to this experiment that causes it. Or they may not have reset their TPS correctly. According to Wikipedia, the velocity of visible light traveling through a vacuum is 299,792.458 km/s. When visible light travels through air, it's approximately 90 km/s slower. From what I've read in "Wired", neutrinos are not the same as electromagnetic waves. Among other things, they have some mass. In any event it's apparent neutrinos and electromagnetic waves are equally good at traveling through a vacuum (see paragraph above). But according to the CERN experiment, when it comes to traveling through rock, neutrinos are simply faster. I know this conflicts with many people's understanding of the theory of relativity, but that theory deals with the speed of light, i.e. electromagnetic waves. What the CERN experiment says to me is if you had a neutrino bouncing around in a rock carried by a space ship traveling at the speed of light for a distance of one light year, then at the end of the year the crew of the spaceship will not have aged but the neutrino would be slightly older than when it left. Neutrinos are also very inert. I can't see a way to make them fuel or raw material for a warp drive. When I want to go warp speed I hop on my XB12R   | ||
| Sifo |
It's not that a neutrino bounces through the rock. It's that the rock is mostly empty space and the neutrino just passes through without hitting anything. It really shouldn't be any faster than in a vacuum. I'm wondering about the path of the light. I can't imagine that they had 730 KM of straight path in a vacuum for the light to travel through. What medium did they use for the light? I seems to me that anything other than a vacuum would slow it down causing the neutrinos to arrive first. It's just beyond imagination that the folks running the experiment wouldn't understand this though. I'm guessing it's just the simplistic reporting that's been done so far. It should be interesting when we learn the details. | ||
| Bolthead |
I absolutely agree we are suffering from simplistic reporting...again. I'm very curious to know what other researches discover when they duplicate the CERN experiment. | ||
| Sifo |
The problem I see with verifying the results is that the facilities required are very unique. It would be easy for another researcher to come in using much of the same equipment for measurement and fall into the same error, assuming an error has been made. Verification at a separate facility is almost certainly decades away. | ||
| Britchri10 |
Math is math. Take what they present: Analyze, dissect, check, double check & then posit. It's what peer review is all about. Chris C | ||
| Hootowl |
Minor point: gravity doesn't bend light it warps space. Light follows the curvature of space. | ||
| Gregtonn |
Einstein did not agree: http://isaacmmcphee.suite101.com/albert-einstein-a nd-bending-light-a43865 G | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Somewhere in my library I have "A Brief History of Time" by Steven Hawking. I wish I could say I understood it & had read it right through, but like most people it lost me about a third of the way in. The concepts were just too huge & outside my range to comprehend. I might have another crack at it though. | ||
| Gregtonn |
"...gravity doesn't bend light it warps space." That also begs the question(s); How do you define "space" and how can you tell when it is "warped"? G | ||
| Aesquire |
Superdave.... http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/modul e3_weird_logic.htm http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/ You can follow the various links around and become expert. ( or at least sound like one...) Now I've always suspected that æther Has reality as the background fuzz of antiparticle/particle creation as photons interact with it.... the current theory is that those happen in "flat" or "stress-free" space, and is the basis for the Zero-point energy.... ( unfortunately, I don't think we have a clue how to tap that, today ) I admit part of the reason to like the idea of æther is it makes reactionless drives possible.... Or it could be that I just like the symbol æ  | ||
| Aesquire |
Warped is when space watches a David Cronenberg film. |
