!! CERN claims faster-than-light particle measured

[DrPizza]

I'm excited to see what error it is that they made at CERN. It will, of course, be exciting to see if they are correct, but other observations have already pretty much confirmed that neutrinos travel at the speed of light. i.e. observations of the recent supernova millions of light years away.

So, what could it be? Something with the curvature of the earth? Time difference due to different distances from the center of the Earth? (Time is traveling at a different rate for the 2nd floor of your house than it is for the first floor of your house - something that's now measurable (and has been measured experimentally.))

I was close! It *was* an error related to relativity.

My Dumb Question: do neutrinos have a wavelength?

Everything has a wavelength...?

They're moving, so DeBroglie would say "Oui."

Because nothing could have possibly happened in between here and millions of light years away to alter the data....

Whoa! Millions of light years away! Does this mean you're now giving in and are going to admit the Earth is more than 6000 years old?

 

[DrPizza]

I wonder how much of this premature publication is a response to the growing discontent of not finding the Higgs particle.

Actually, *not* finding it will be just as exciting, if not more exciting to physicists.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Einstein can now stop rolling in his grave.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Actually, *not* finding it will be just as exciting, if not more exciting to physicists.

Higgs would lose his hundred buck bet

 

[Locut0s]

I was close! It *was* an error related to relativity.

I'm surprised the error seems to have been a relatively simple effect of relativity too. I guess it just goes to show that even particle physicists at times have difficulty putting themselves entirely in the mind set of relativity.

 

[PowerEngineer]

There never was any doubt that there was a mistake somewhere. We found out in a hurry who the uneducated idiots were in this thread. The same crowd who believe 911 was an inside job or that the Russians murdered JFK.

LOL

Count yourself among them. There always is doubt about the complete validity of all scientific "laws", especially when experiments push them towards the limits of our experience. It's the reason why scientists continue to conduct experiments (like this one) to verify the predictions of general relativity.

 

[Locut0s]

Count yourself among them. There always is doubt about the complete validity of all scientific "laws", especially when experiments push them towards the limits of our experience. It's the reason why scientists continue to conduct experiments (like this one) to verify the predictions of general relativity.

This. The scientists themselves WERE very skeptical of the results and thought it was likely some error they were making but they were not sure and ground breaking science often does arise from results just like this.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

If GPS is geosynchronous isn't it stable relative to the position of interest and thus not moving at a different speed relative to it?

 

[Locut0s]

If GPS is geosynchronous isn't it stable relative to the position of interest and thus not moving at a different speed relative to it?

GPS satellites aren't in geosynchronous orbits.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

If GPS is geosynchronous isn't it stable relative to the position of interest and thus not moving at a different speed relative to it?

The GPS satellites are in medium earth orbit, below geosynchronous orbit; they orbit faster than the Earth rotates.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The GPS satellites are in medium earth orbit, below geosynchronous orbit; they orbit faster than the Earth rotates.

Or do they orbit slower?

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/gps/news/Apr2010/Navigator_Space_Receiver_info_04212010_rev4.pdf

 

[Locut0s]

Or do they orbit slower?

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/gps/news/Apr2010/Navigator_Space_Receiver_info_04212010_rev4.pdf

Either way relativity comes into play.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Either way relativity comes into play.

Relativity is a theory, like evolution. You can't prove it: because it's a theory. Just like gravity and fire.

 

[SsupernovaE]

Relativity is a theory, like evolution. You can't prove it: because it's a theory. Just like gravity and fire.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[Locut0s]

Relativity is a theory, like evolution. You can't prove it: because it's a theory. Just like gravity and fire.

wat?

Proof in science is not like proof in mathematics. But this doesn't mean that "theories" aren't elevated to the level of fact. They are. At some point a body of evidence is built up that is large enough that the general scientific community basically takes a theory as fact. This doesn't mean that the theory is unassailable at this point. Like I said it's not math. But it does mean that the burden of proof is now REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY on the side of the person trying to disprove the theory. Both evolution and relativity have more than enough scientific evidence backing them up that they have moved from "theory" to "fact". Which, again, isn't to say that they are unassailable.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Tesla said that neutrinos would travel faster than the speed of light almost 80 years ago but nobody believed him.

that's because he was too busy messing around with making a machine for the transported man, duh, Christopher Nolan documented that blunder pretty thoroughly

 

[Dr. Zaus]

wat?

Proof in science is not like proof in mathematics. But this doesn't mean that "theories" aren't elevated to the level of fact. They are. At some point a body of evidence is built up that is large enough that the general scientific community basically takes a theory as fact. This doesn't mean that the theory is unassailable at this point. Like I said it's not math. But it does mean that the burden of proof is now REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY on the side of the person trying to disprove the theory. Both evolution and relativity have more than enough scientific evidence backing them up that they have moved from "theory" to "fact". Which, again, isn't to say that they are unassailable.

My point was that the point was clear after I found-out that only some GPS are geosynchronous; the pedantic elaboration from Mr. Pedantic was simple scientific priggishness.

 

[Craig234]

There never was any doubt that there was a mistake somewhere. We found out in a hurry who the uneducated idiots were in this thread. The same crowd who believe 911 was an inside job or that the Russians murdered JFK.

LOL

I don't know of anyone who thinks the Russians assassinated JFK, despite efforts to suggest it.

 

[wirednuts]

really? they didnt think about the satellites time difference? they have to feel pretty stupid-

Researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands went and crunched the numbers on how much relativity should have effected the experiment, and found that the correct compensation should be about 32 additional nanoseconds on each end, which neatly takes care of the 60 nanosecond speed boost that the neutrinos originally seemed to have. This all has to be peer-reviewed and confirmed, of course, but at least for now, it seems like the theory of relativity is not only safe, but confirmed once again.

 

[JTsyo]

Relativity is a theory, like evolution. You can't prove it: because it's a theory. Just like gravity and fire.

are you talking about time dilation? that has already been see by sending an atomic clock to space and noticing the time differance on it.

 

[AMCRambler]

Something is fishy here. These guys are firing particles out of the accelerator and they've got a receiving station in Italy? How the he'll is that even safe or legal? Considering how little we know about these things im thinking firing them outside of the containing chambers of a collided is not smart. Physics chime in if im wrong here.

 

[SsupernovaE]

Something is fishy here. These guys are firing particles out of the accelerator and they've got a receiving station in Italy? How the he'll is that even safe or legal? Considering how little we know about these things im thinking firing them outside of the containing chambers of a collided is not smart. Physics chime in if im wrong here.

Neutrinos don't interact strongly with ordinary matter. In fact, it is the most safe beam of particles ever fired since 99.99999% (at least) of the particles will never touch anything within our lifetime.

 

[Ichinisan]

...I am wrong.

 

[AMCRambler]

Neutrinos don't interact strongly with ordinary matter. In fact, it is the most safe beam of particles ever fired since 99.99999% (at least) of the particles will never touch anything within our lifetime.

How do they know the one they detected in Italy was generated at CERN?