Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity [Update: Paper made the wrong - Polidicks

[QUOTE=aVoN;32789128]This (depressing) is no real argument[/QUOTE] I wasn't using it as an argument, I'm just saying I personally always thought Einstein was right, but the idea that we might never leave Earth and explore our universe to a greater extent seemed sort of sad

[QUOTE=sltungle;32789741]He's at least partially right (although he could have put it more elegantly). Science starts out as a way for people to understand the unknown, but if history has taught us anything it's that the second we finally do understand what we were investigating we seek ways to exploit it, or loopholes to get around it because we're not happy being told what we can and can't do.[/QUOTE] No he's not. He's completely wrong. "How do we exploit this" has nothing to do with science. Creating models that explain the behavior of natural phenomena as accurately as possible is science. Trying to figure out the best way to do what we want with them is engineering. [editline]15th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Atlascore;32790087]You're right, guess I should have used better examples. Still, my point stands, thousands of years ago we barely understood anything, and "that's just how nature/god is" was the explanation we used for a lot of things, using it now is just plain ignorance. We understand significantly more than we did back then, but there's still millions of things we know very little or nothing at all about, saying something like traveling at the speed of light is impossible is stupid, plain and simple. For goodness sake we've only had fully functioning computers for a few decades, and we've only been traveling through space for a few decades as well, how about wait until we actually understand this stuff fully before we go off and start saying things are just outright impossible? Our technology is basically still in it's infancy anyway, quantum computers are just one of the many examples of this, our computers could be working a 100 times faster than they are now in a few decades and that could change everything.[/QUOTE] You completely misunderstood my first post and have been going off that ever since. I'm not saying "HEY THIS IS HOW IT IS BECAUSE SHUT UP NATURE SAYS SO" and I'm not saying we shouldn't seek to push the laws of nature to the fullest extent that they can help the human race. I had figured the comparison to calling gravity "sad" would have made it simple enough but apparently not. You seem to have a naive and overly romanticized view of science. [editline]15th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Atlascore;32789760]No, if we did science your way no one would actually do anything. "It's just how nature is" is a stupid argument. Defying nature is pretty much the reason anything ever was invented. "Nature didn't give us wings" Airplanes "Bacteria and viruses from nature are killing us" Medicine "I can't swim across this ocean" Boats There's literally a million other things we've done to defy nature and spread humanity to every corner of this planet.[/QUOTE] Got bad news for you: We do do science my way.

I doubt this is the real answer to why the results were what they were. Just as we were skeptical about the original finding, we must be skeptical about this.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32797111]No he's not. He's completely wrong. "How do we exploit this" has nothing to do with science.[/QUOTE] Yes it does - that's the basis of applied science and, by extension, engineering. Theoretical science seeks to model, experimental science seeks to validate, and applied science... well, seeks to apply. All of those areas of science are equally as important as the others. It'd be arrogant to state that one is superior to the other.

I disagree. Applied science is the application of science and not the science of applications. It does not qualify as a science itself because it does not seek to extend the body of fundamental scientific knowledge via the scientific method, only to determine practical applications of current understanding. [editline]15th October 2011[/editline] And nowhere in this thread has anyone been arguing over superiority of one to the other.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;32789760]No, if we did science your way no one would actually do anything. "It's just how nature is" is a stupid argument. Defying nature is pretty much the reason anything ever was invented. "Nature didn't give us wings" Airplanes "Bacteria and viruses from nature are killing us" Medicine "I can't swim across this ocean" Boats There's literally a million other things we've done to defy nature and spread humanity to every corner of this planet.[/QUOTE] That's engineering's job, not science science is the study of nature

[QUOTE=Turnips5;32798126]That's engineering's job, not science science is the study of nature[/QUOTE] Which was precisely my original point but now the question seems to be whether "applied science" is itself a science to which I say no.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32798172]Which was precisely my original point but now the question seems to be whether "applied science" is itself a science to which I say no.[/QUOTE] I really have no idea what "applied science" is, that sounds just like engineering to me I think we're all in agreement here and people are just looking for arguments now

It's essentially engineering but I don't think we're all in agreement since this whole thing really came out of a semantic point about what constitutes "science" to begin with though I will agree it's kind of an irrelevant argument because all it concerns is definitions.

The problem with this conclusion is that we're using Einstein's model to explain why his model isn't wrong

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;32798297]The problem with this conclusion is that we're using Einstein's model to explain why his model isn't wrong[/quote] ehh, nope there's nothing wrong with it if they applied it incorrectly the first time

Accounting for error within a model isn't really an issue. If we couldn't do that it would be impossible to account for error in any reasonable fashion because someone could say I needed to account for the error that occurs in the "invisible unicorn hits the neutrino beam with his magical horn" model. [editline]15th October 2011[/editline] To attempt to account for error apart from ANY model of how things work just doesn't make sense because it wouldn't allow us any understanding of where the error came from.

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;32785628]Imagine I have a blue ball and a red ball, I drop both into tunnels of equal height. Both balls fall at the same speed, but time moves slower in the red ball's tunnel. So while both balls are falling at the same speed, the blue ball will reach it's destination 'sooner'. [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3655261/time.png[/img][/QUOTE] I have absolutely no real education in the laws of physics, so excuse my next questions. Why and how does time move slower in the red ball's tube, and is it possible to make time move faster instead of slower?

[QUOTE=Simski;32799700]I have absolutely no real education in the laws of physics, so excuse my next questions. Why and how does time move slower in the red ball's tube, and is it possible to make time move faster instead of slower?[/QUOTE] Einstein says that time changes the closer you get to the speed of light (or that's what I think he said)

It also changes in a gravitational potential. Lower potential = slower time.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;32802091]I was wrong[/QUOTE] three words that are vital for intellectual honesty

Told everyone. Everyone told me I was close-minded. Trolled.

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;32803804]Told everyone. Everyone told me I was close-minded.[/QUOTE] You're not close minded. I love you.

[QUOTE=Obama Yo Momma;32803811]You're not close minded. I love you.[/QUOTE] :3:

[QUOTE=Simski;32799700]I have absolutely no real education in the laws of physics, so excuse my next questions. Why and how does time move slower in the red ball's tube, and is it possible to make time move faster instead of slower?[/QUOTE] There's no real reason for in the tube, but in real life time moves slower around more massive objects. I have no clue why it happens, but I'm not sure many, if any people do. Time's a difficult concept to grasp, we have no particle for it. As for making time move faster, not in the sense that you might think. If you want to move into the future, you'd just position yourself in a position where time moves slower. What would be a day to you might be 5 days elsewhere. (That's a stretch, but around a blackhole or something perhaps.)

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;32804060]There's no real reason for in the tube, but in real life time moves slower around more massive objects. I have no clue why it happens, but I'm not sure many, if any people do. Time's a difficult concept to grasp, we have no particle for it.[/QUOTE] you too can know if you spend 4 years doing a physics degree and take general relativity

[QUOTE=Simski;32799700]I have absolutely no real education in the laws of physics, so excuse my next questions. Why and how does time move slower in the red ball's tube, and is it possible to make time move faster instead of slower?[/QUOTE] It just so happens that things like size, time, and mass are effected by speed... well, not really, but sorta... its kinda difficult to explain. Basically there's this thing called the Lorentz factor in physics. This is it: [img]http://www.livephysics.com/images/stories/equations/relativity/relativistic003.gif[/img] That factor is stuck into equations at relativistic speeds when its effects become noticeable. It's reference frame specific though (which is why I said things are 'not really' effected by it above, because it's impossible to tell who's REALLY going faster/slower bigger/smaller more massive/less massive). If you're travelling at like 0.999999999c then the Lorentz factor becomes insanely large and if you looked at someone in another inertial frame you'd see them as being REALLY slow. But, at the same time, if they looked at you they'd see you going as really slow too. The apparent mass and length of things in other inertial frames would change, too. This symmetry is broken during acceleration and deceleration though. If someone accelerates into an inertial frame at like 0.99999999c and then decelerates back into their original one they will have aged less than everyone who didn't go off with them on a near light speed voyage.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;32804122]you too can know if you spend 4 years doing a physics degree and take general relativity[/QUOTE] General relativity helps to explain how time functions, but doesn't really explain why. At least, it doesn't seem that way from what I've read over the years. There's people here who are considerably more knowledgeable than I am on the subject.

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;32798297]The problem with this conclusion is that we're using Einstein's model to explain why his model isn't wrong[/QUOTE] The point is, the guys at Opera seem not to have correctly used Special Relativity. Now, according to this paper, if you do so, there is no deviance speaking for possible FTL Neutrinos. So Special Relativity never has been wrong. It just has been used incorrectly before. [editline]16th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Biotoxsin;32804751]General relativity helps to explain how time functions, but doesn't really explain why. At least, it doesn't seem that way from what I've read over the years. There's people here who are considerably more knowledgeable than I am on the subject.[/QUOTE] But that is not the point of Physics. Physics tries to describe nature. Even if you have a "correct" model (which you never can say), it doesn't mean nature works exactly like this. E.g. "Does a metric exists"? Does a "Hamilton Operator" exist? Or are they just mathematical constructs helping us to describe nature (which is what I think). Since this point is truly philosophical and anyone can make his mind up on this with different ideas, it is unimportant for Physics. I see physics and general science just as a model describing nature and not as the "bare truth". So in that sense, it is unimportant to interpret it on that philosophical level.

it's not like any of this stuff matters in real life anyways...

[QUOTE=Neolithic v2;32810912]it's not like any of this stuff matters in real life anyways...[/QUOTE] ...says the guy over the fucking internet stop being ignorant [editline]16th October 2011[/editline] YOU are the problem with society

[QUOTE=Turnips5;32811002] YOU are the problem with society[/QUOTE] So let's just keep pouring billions of dollars into science so we can find really fast particles OR Billions of dollars to feed starving people Human Life > Scientific Progress I know this post is a little... maybe much. But don't misunderstand, i'm not against progress, I just think that the amount of money that goes into science can easily go to other places and save people's lives. (If you're wondering why this crossed my mind, it's because my father works for aid organizations and I usually think about this stuff)

[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;32811268]So let's just keep pouring billions of dollars into science so we can find really fast particles OR Billions of dollars to feed starving people Human Life > Scientific Progress I know this post is a little... maybe much. But don't misunderstand, i'm not against progress, I just think that the amount of money that goes into science can easily go to other places and save people's lives. (If you're wondering why this crossed my mind, it's because my father works for aid organizations and I usually think about this stuff)[/QUOTE] Why not drag the money out of the military budget to put toward aid? Why should it be science that suffers? Why not the arts? Relativity gave us working GPS systems which have made life easier for most humans, and probably saved lives. Yes, mostly this stuff is done out of pure curiosity, however it usually always ends up being integrated into some practical application. Realistically we can't pull ALL funding from everywhere just to supply it to aid. That'd be retarded.

I agree with your above statement good sir. I didn't meant "fuck science pull all da moneys" But ya i hear what you're saying completely, there needs to be a balance, and there needs to be more money put towards it. And yes I'm aware we're in a bit of a financial tough spot right now.

[QUOTE=Neolithic v2;32810912]it's not like any of this stuff matters in real life anyways...[/QUOTE]Yes physics doesn't matter at all we should all remain ignorant and accept what we've been told about the universe from religions [editline]16th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=sltungle;32811350]Why not drag the money out of the military budget to put toward aid? Why should it be science that suffers? Why not the arts? Relativity gave us working GPS systems which have made life easier for most humans, and probably saved lives. Yes, mostly this stuff is done out of pure curiosity, however it usually always ends up being integrated into some practical, application. Realistically we can't pull ALL funding from everywhere just to supply it to aid. That'd be retarded.[/QUOTE]I'm sorry to say this but most, if not all major scientific breakthrough came from war. Microwaves and Radar came from war. The internet came from war (was developed originally as a US military network in the Cold War) Nuclear power plants came from war (it's heavily based on the research we did during the Manhattan Project) Almost all civilian technologies started from war applications, so saying we should cut military to boost science is ignorant at best I'm not saying war is good, I'm saying we need more funding for civilian [b]and[/b] military research but less funding for actual military shit (building even more tanks, guns, planes, ships, etc.)