81–90 of 255 posts
If this result is valid then it would mean that neutrinos are capable of traveling .0025% faster than light. There was a supernova that we observed in 1987 (SN 1987) that occurred 168,000 light years away from us. A neutrino burst was observed in 3 different labs about 3 hours before the light was observed. If neutrinos are capable of traveling .0025% faster than the speed of light then why would we observe these neu…
If this result is valid then it would mean that neutrinos are capable of traveling .0025% faster than light. There was a supernova that we observed in 1987 (SN 1987) that occurred 168,000 light years away from us. A neutrino burst was observed in 3 different labs about 3 hours before the light was observed. If neutrinos are capable of traveling .0025% faster than the speed of light then why would we observe these neu…
"A neutrino burst was observed in 3 different labs about 3 hours before the light was observed. If neutrinos are capable of traveling .0025% faster than the speed of light then why would we observe these neutrinos at a time that is consistent with them traveling at almost exactly the speed of light (slightly less due to their finite mass)?"
Wouldn't this mean that neutrinos DID travel faster than light, since they got here faster? Could the time difference (3 hours versus 4 years) be accounted for in the fact that they do travel slower due to their finite mass, as you pointed out?
Also, if indeed it is a difference of 4 years between when observatories detect neutrinos and when the light gets here, wouldn't it be really, really difficult to correlate one event with the other? In other words, we would probably not be able to prove that a neutrino burst belongs to a particular visible supernova?
(p.s. I'm not an astrophysicist - am I overlooking something obvious?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#Via_faster-than-lig... If we can send information even a little to the past, we can then send it a little more to the past, and by induction we can send information anywhere in time. So we have infinite power computers. Singularity starts here.
If you can send data a little into the past, compute something, then send the result back to the beginning, you can do an infinite amount of computation in a finite amount of time, just by reusing the same time over and over again. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Closed_timeli... edit: OK, this blows my mind (from https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Tachyon#Speed ): It has been argued that w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What DenisM is describing is not the result of a systemic error. It is not an error at all. 'Something' is travelling faster than light in that experiment. The problem is that the 'something' isn't a physical object. The common example is the beam of a lighthouse. Suppose a lighthouse revolves once per minute. At one lightyear distance from the lighthouse, the angular velocity of the beam is 2*Pi lightyears per minut…
Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I think DenisM was talking about something completely different. He mentioned that because of a lack of density in the leading photons, the first piece of equipment missed the measurements while the second one picked it up. That would a problem with the system they're measuring with, not at all to do with treating light as a single entity.
If this result is valid then it would mean that neutrinos are capable of traveling .0025% faster than light. There was a supernova that we observed in 1987 (SN 1987) that occurred 168,000 light years away from us. A neutrino burst was observed in 3 different labs about 3 hours before the light was observed. If neutrinos are capable of traveling .0025% faster than the speed of light then why would we observe these neu…
Um... is there any trace of neutrino bursts before that? Im not sure anyone bothered checking, since such a correlation would have been very hard to justify. A neutrino burst 4 years before a supernova... so what? Could a physicist clarify whether neutrinos could travel at different speeds in vacuum like any 'normal' particle, or are 'fixed speed' like photons. We could well have had several waves with the bulk arriv…
If neutrinos have mass, they can travel at any speed (Edit: In fact, the arrival interval of those neutrinos puts an upper limit on the neutrino mass, because the larger the mass, the more different the speed and the more dispersed the arrival of them at Earth.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scientist rarely keep the data secret. It's the basis of peer review. There's a reason why open access journals (PLoS One) are getting so popular, scientists want to be known and publish. In my experience, ego is a currency much more valuable than money in academic circles.
The vast majority of the world's petroleum geologists keep their data secret.
If this result is valid then it would mean that neutrinos are capable of traveling .0025% faster than light. There was a supernova that we observed in 1987 (SN 1987) that occurred 168,000 light years away from us. A neutrino burst was observed in 3 different labs about 3 hours before the light was observed. If neutrinos are capable of traveling .0025% faster than the speed of light then why would we observe these neu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. Compare that with the other article about this currently on the first page of HN: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BREAKING_LIGHT_SPE... Which is less cautious and more of the standard fare of not-very-well-reported science. sigh
At least they didn't use the phrase "perverse and often baffling" in this one.
A news article where both the scientists and the reporter understate the claims, publish the data, and ask other teams to please prove them wrong. I like this. Most of the time the reporters overstate the research, the scientists keep the data secret, and the general public is left scratching their heads.
Scientist rarely keep the data secret. It's the basis of peer review. There's a reason why open access journals (PLoS One) are getting so popular, scientists want to be known and publish. In my experience, ego is a currency much more valuable than money in academic circles.
In a better world, that would be true.
In this world, it's not.
Most of the climate science data that Phil Jones and others have worked with, and most of their models are secret.
It is THIS that makes me keep at least one ear open for the "anti-" side in the climate debate. Real science SHOULD be conducted out in the open.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Phase velocity vs group velocity. But it's pretty easy to check that everything is alright with group velocity. If there is zero neutrino production at t=0 (in the reactor's frame of reference), and then the production jumps up, there can be no doubt about the group velocity. Bizarre effects relative to superluminal phase velocity only appear when you start generating particles before t=0 and you mess with the medium…
Phase velocity vs group velocity. Yes, thank you. Why did it take me so many words? :)