Higgs Boson might have been found

[Paul98]

Paul98, but they have observed neutrinos going faster. They've even observed the light going faster than the speed of light. If you don't know what I'm referring to it was a study done in Australia in the early 2000s. They pulsed light through a tube filled with a certain type of gas(the name escapes me) and the pulse exited the chamber before entering. Quite significantly quicker in fact. That's how they came to the conclusion that the leading photon of a beam of light contains all of the information require to recreate the beam of light. So it does seem to me that the speed limit of set at the speed of light could be wrong.

Also, I'm not saying the neutrinos did go faster, I'm saying so far no one has proven their data wrong. Only brought it into question. I am eagerly awaiting more tests, especially those done by other entities.

I am positive that you didn't understand what ever that test about light was doing. Which isn't surprising this stuff is very complex, and most of the news is so badly written that what they write and what is really going on are two totally different things. I would like to know what test you are talking about so I can see what was happening so if you can find it let me know.

That neutrino test was very complex and other neutrino tests have shown them to be going very close to the speed of light. So we don't take one test that hasn't been repeated as fact if so many other tests have shown the opposite effect.

 

[bfdd]

Paul98, those other tests weren't the same as this one so to say "we've seen neutrinos go slower than light, so this must be a fluke" is wrong as well. I'm saying it's something new, it has been repeated once and no one has disproven it yet. That's awesome and I'm waiting eagerly for more news. Also, I'll go dig for an article on it, but what I'm telling you is pretty much verbatim what I read from the physicists that ran the test.

Pulse of light exits chamber before completely entering chamber, that should not be possible, the only conclusion raised is that the lead photon in a pulse/beam of light contains all of the information required to recreate said pulse/beam of light. You do not need the entirety of a pulse/beam of light for it to be observed, simply the lead photon.

 

[Paul98]

Paul98, those other tests weren't the same as this one so to say "we've seen neutrinos go slower than light, so this must be a fluke" is wrong as well. I'm saying it's something new, it has been repeated once and no one has disproven it yet. That's awesome and I'm waiting eagerly for more news. Also, I'll go dig for an article on it, but what I'm telling you is pretty much verbatim what I read from the physicists that ran the test.

Pulse of light exits chamber before completely entering chamber, that should not be possible, the only conclusion raised is that the lead photon in a pulse/beam of light contains all of the information required to recreate said pulse/beam of light. You do not need the entirety of a pulse/beam of light for it to be observed, simply the lead photon.

Yes it's been repeated, but with the same equipment. It has repeated by anyone else. It will be tested using different equipment with in the next year or two. But till then it's just one experiment, where thousands of others have shown what they are doing wasn't possible. Once we get multiple tests showing that this is or isn't correct we can talk. But until then the assumption should be that there is something wrong with the measurements, math, or equipment that is causing this result to be what it is.

As for the second part I don't even know what you are talking about. you need some sort of source, it just sounds like you are making stuff up or have no idea what you are talking about. Without knowing what's going on how can I make any conclusion.

 

[bfdd]

Here, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=120094&page=1#.TuFdUbIk6dA one of the first results that came up. I guess I am wrong for saying "leading photon" but to me that's the same thing as "leading edge"


oh and lulz, this isn't even about the paper i remember reading. the test i remember reading about was done in Australia.

 

[Paul98]

Here, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=120094&page=1#.TuFdUbIk6dA one of the first results that came up. I guess I am wrong for saying "leading photon" but to me that's the same thing as "leading edge"


oh and lulz, this isn't even about the paper i remember reading. the test i remember reading about was done in Australia.

This is why you don't take physics information from the news, the actual physics is very different that what was reported. Leading edge make far more sense than lead photon. This isn't photons moving faster than the speed of light. Look up group velocity if you want to learn some more about what was going on here. Nothing is moving faster than the speed of light. What they are talking about and the speed of light are very different things.

 

[DrPizza]

First, magnets are a mystery. I mean one can talk about how things line up so that there is a magnetic field, however just why that happens? It just is.

Light follows the shortest possible line which would be straight in a flat space, however introduce a mass and space becomes curved. The more massive the object the greater the curvature. Because the shortest possible line isn't straight anymore, light follows that path.

This is P&N, not highly technical, so I assume you're just joking. Nonetheless, in case you aren't, magnetism is understood better than gravity.*

*edit: Except by insane clown posse morons & their followers.

 

[disappoint]

This is P&N, not highly technical, so I assume you're just joking. Nonetheless, in case you aren't, magnetism is understood better than gravity.*

*edit: Except by insane clown posse morons & their followers.

Really? We have observational evidence for curved space. Have we observed or can we detect the existence of virtual photons?