Neutrino experiment repeated at Cern - Finds same result
68 replies, posted
I've been wondering what really happens with the neutrino, as when you use the lorenz-factory you get an imaginary value. The neutrino arrives before it is created?
If it's been carried out on the same equipment, this doesn't lend any "faster than light" theory credence.
Our entire model of the world is based on the assumption that constants are constant throughout all of space (Yeah sorta) and time. Of all constants, though, it's the speed of light that is the underlying assumption of EVERYTHING.
Oh Jesus if the speed of light is variable with time we'll see the most amazing revolution in physics in this century.
No, but you'll observe the effect of it hitting the detector before you actually observe it hitting the detector. Shit gets weirder the further you go into quantum mechanics
Have hey explored the fact that not only is there no straight line from CERN to that other place meaning that it will not travel along the distance they fought it would above ground and goes though the crust and reaches it ever so faster.
Or that the earth rotating on its self and the fact it's not a fixed point in space would not imply he results are correct...
It's already known there's something wrong with relativity though. Singularities, as far as I know, are evidence of this. Scientist are looking for some Quantum Theory of gravity that will unite these two giants
Applied for Physics at uni next year, would be an interesting couple of years if this test turns out to be reliable, but yeah, the same people repeating the experiment and getting the same result esentially means nothing.
[QUOTE=dingusnin;33328813]Have hey explored the fact that not only is there no straight line from CERN to that other place meaning that it will not travel along the distance they fought it would above ground and goes though the crust and reaches it ever so faster.[/QUOTE]
Uhh. I hope you're not serious or I just didn't understand your logic.
[QUOTE=dingusnin;33328813]
Or that the earth rotating on its self and the fact it's not a fixed point in space would not imply he results are correct...[/QUOTE]
Nothing is "fixed" in space. It's all relative to the chosen coordinate system.
i once did a physics class and i am a regular on the physics subforum of fp and i can safely say that this is all a lie
what the shit is cern anyway
[QUOTE=samframpton;33329326]Applied for Physics at uni next year, would be an interesting couple of years if this test turns out to be reliable, but yeah, the same people repeating the experiment and getting the same result esentially means nothing.[/QUOTE]
As Overv said, basically all this experiment run did was (possibly) eliminate a few potential candidates for last time's results.
[QUOTE=Bobie;33329344]i am a regular on the physics subforum of fp[/QUOTE]
Holy fuck you must be a genius.
[QUOTE=Bobie;33329344]i once did a physics class and i am a regular on the physics subforum of fp and i can safely say that this is all a lie
what the shit is cern anyway[/QUOTE]
nice jokes lol, too bad the experiment is serious
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;33328778]Our entire model of the world is based on the assumption that constants are constant throughout all of space (Yeah sorta) and time. Of all constants, though, it's the speed of light that is the underlying assumption of EVERYTHING.
Oh Jesus if the speed of light is variable with time we'll see the most amazing revolution in physics in this century.[/QUOTE]
Even if it isn't entirely a constant (an odd choice of words), I doubt it'll be THAT big a deal. I mean science is filled with tonnes of 'exceptions'. I don't think it would be too devastating to simply need to stick a second correction factor into relativistic equations along side the Lorentz factor that only apply in VERY specific circumstances. The rules pertaining to the speed of light obviously hold true in like 99.99% of circumstances that are encountered every day in the universe. If they're different 0.01% of the time we'll account for that.
As sltungle said, it's not that huge. Scientist already know that for Quantum Mechanics to exist, it needs to violate either the principle of locality or counterfactual definiteness (Bell's theorem)
The Bartender says "you can't go that fast in here!". A neutrino walks into a bar.
I stole this don't rate funny
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33330153]The Bartender says "you can't go that fast in here!". A neutrino walks into a bar.
I stole this don't rate funny[/QUOTE]
You did it wrong, you're supposed to do the punctuation like this.
[release]and the bartender says "you can't go that fast in here!". A neutrino walks into a bar[/release]
The kinda results you expect from something that could fit right in at Black Mesa.
[QUOTE=dingusnin;33328813]Have hey explored the fact that not only is there no straight line from CERN to that other place meaning that it will not travel along the distance they fought it would above ground and goes though the crust and reaches it ever so faster.
Or that the earth rotating on its self and the fact it's not a fixed point in space would not imply he results are correct...[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/avatar/268937.png?garryis=awesome[/img]
I'd rather see this done elsewhere by a different team.
[editline]18th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Contag;33327501]well considering photons are massless
spacetime is curvature as a result of mass
and I'm rather sure that neutrinos aren't exactly the most massive particles[/QUOTE]
Photons may be massless but they are both deflected by a gravitational field and produce a gravitational field of their own.
[editline]18th November 2011[/editline]
The reason I hate this experiment is because it gives the uneducated who don't believe in relativity because they don't understand it fuel with which to go, "Yeah, see!? I knew it was bullshit all along!"
Photons have no intrinsic mass but do have an effective mass, as they have energy of motion (mass was realized to be a form of energy and vice versa).
I don't want this to be true
[QUOTE=sltungle;33329445]Even if it isn't entirely a constant (an odd choice of words), I doubt it'll be THAT big a deal. I mean science is filled with tonnes of 'exceptions'. I don't think it would be too devastating to simply need to stick a second correction factor into relativistic equations along side the Lorentz factor that only apply in VERY specific circumstances. The rules pertaining to the speed of light obviously hold true in like 99.99% of circumstances that are encountered every day in the universe. If they're different 0.01% of the time we'll account for that.[/QUOTE]
From my understanding, the speed of light should be the one and only constant that has to be, well, constant (in a vacuum anyway). Otherwise a whole lot of our assumptions don't make sense anymore.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33330743]
Photons may be massless but they are both deflected by a gravitational field and produce a gravitational field of their own.
[editline]18th November 2011[/editline]
The reason I hate this experiment is because it gives the uneducated who don't believe in relativity because they don't understand it fuel with which to go, "Yeah, see!? I knew it was bullshit all along!"[/QUOTE]
I didn't say that they weren't influenced by gravity or created a gravitational field - I said that they would probably have to be more massive if they were going to have an appreciable effect
Yeah, I mean, even if this is the case, our approximation has worked out well enough so far
Now watch them go "We get the Nobel Prize because we were the first to [i]confirm[/i] it!" :v:
Even if this doesn't seal the deal, it's still a step forward. Didn't expect something huge like this to get accepted just like that overnight anyway.
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;33335287]Even if this doesn't seal the deal, it's still a step forward. Didn't expect something huge like this to get accepted just like that overnight anyway.[/QUOTE]
There's nothing to accept yet except that there's a strange anomaly we don't understand. We have no idea why this is the case yet.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33330743]The reason I hate this experiment is because it gives the uneducated who don't believe in relativity because they don't understand it fuel with which to go, "Yeah, see!? I knew it was bullshit all along!"[/QUOTE]
Don't fucking remind me.
[QUOTE=/sci/ at time of posting]
Lol you relativity fags need to stop sucking Einstein dick. His theory was bloody wrong and finally it has been disproven.
Einstein himself that it only took one piece of evidence for him to be wrong. This is it.
Einstein was a hack and his theory has so much holes in it. This is the final nail in the coffin. Einstein stole his ideas anyway of a Mathematician who did most of the calculations.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Bobie;33329344]i once did a physics class and i am a regular on the physics subforum of fp and i can safely say that this is all a lie
what the shit is cern anyway[/QUOTE]
yes, so smart you don't even know what cern is
I don't claim to be much of a physicist, let alone a particle physicist, but if matter cannot exceed the speed of light because its mass approaches infinity, thus requiring infinite energy (which is impossible), can a particle that does not have mass in the first place exceed the speed of light? Electrons have ~1/2000 the mass of a proton, and always move at nearly the speed of light. Photons have no mass, and move at the speed of light (since they are light). Does this mean neutrinos have negative mass? Or are they a energy particle like photons that simply have less potential mass? Do they just move faster than light by some unexplained principle?
Photons don't have Mass- they're Protestant.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.