171–180 of 255 posts
[0] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/neutrin...
I desperately want to believe that this will somehow enable us to live in a Star-Trek future, even though I'm sure it won't. Would someone with some knowledge of physics care to break down the ramifications of this (if it's not some sort of measurement error)? Please?
Consider what we know about the Universe but can't fully explain so far. We know that space-time is dominated by a "dark energy" that may be due to background quantum vibrations or some as yet completely unknown phenomenon. We know that most of the mass of the Universe is bound up in dark matter which at present seems most likely to be a weakly interacting massive particle, specifically neutralinos (a supersymmetric particle). Neutralinos are thought to be their own anti-particles, they could have been responsible for bizarre "dark stars" in the early Universe and for an ongoing gamma ray flux due to neutralino-neutralino annihilations. Moreover, most of the dark matter in the Universe would essentially be the cosmic neutralino background, an echo from the big bang analogous to the cosmic neutrino background and cosmic microwave background. There is already tantalizing experimental evidence that such dark matter particles exist, from multiple sources.
Additionally, recent evidence seems to hint strongly of the existence of strange-matter. Unlike ordinary quark-based matter such as protons, neutrons, other baryons and hadrons strange-matter would consist of up, down, and strange quarks in a more-or-less liquid like state instead of individual quarks being bound up in 2 or 3-quark composite particles. It is possible that some of the so-called "neutron-stars" out there are in fact strange-matter stars. It's also possible that such matter is stable in effectively arbitrarily sized fragments, down to individual tons, grams, or even atomic nuclei scales. Who knows what kind of post-nuclear physics we could perform if we got our hands on such particles. One possibility would be to use them to create energy via fusion. Tossing particles at a strangelet with sufficient speed should cause them to dissolve and fuse with the strangelet, releasing more energy in the process than conventional fusion.
And that hardly touches the surface. There are even more bizarre things out there like micro black holes, the matter vs anti-matter chirality, the possibility that superconductors serve as mirrors for gravitational waves, and so much more. There's plenty of star trek out there waiting for us.
====( http://www.fullmalls.com )===== The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time.
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30
Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15
New era cap $12
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $20
accept paypal and free shipping
====( http://www.fullmalls.com )=====
====( http://www.fullmalls.com )=====
====( http://www.fullmalls.com )=====
====( http://www.fullmalls.com )=====
====( http://www.fullmalls.com )=====
====( http://www.fullmalls.com )=====
====( http://www.fullmalls.com )====
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.
In this case, it's "this fact that we've believed to be completely fundamental to physics for the past century appears to be wrong," and if you stated that without asking for people to check your work carefully because you are puzzled too, people are going to laugh at you if it turns out that you were wrong somehow. I'm not sure how you really could report this without downplaying it; it's just too incredible a claim for people to believe if you did anything close to overstating it.
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.
Most of the time reporters misunderstand the research and then oversell it in order to get their story read. The general public is usually left scratching their heads because of this bizarre layer of clueless journalists between them and the scientists. Yes, some scientists are hard to understand, but there's no hope in trying to understand particle physics filtered through the soft spongy grey matter of a liberal arts major! Scientists are quite often educators who are used to speaking to a wide range of audiences. Journalists would do far far better to introduce the subject and then let the scientist explain it in their own words. I have no idea why this is not done more.
As for the FTL neutrinos at CERN... I'd hold on to skepticism for now. The reason they're asking for help finding the glitch instead of proudly proclaiming that they've found tachyons (FTL particles) is because this would be a truly bizarre result that would upend a century of physics that has, to date, proved remarkably accurate in its predictions. If this discovery proved true it would literally force us to rewrite physics from ~1900 onwards. Physicists are not afraid of this. Quite the contrary! It would touch off a bonanza of research! There would be so much work to do that the field would literally explode. It's just a lot more probable that there really is a glitch somewhere and we simply haven't found it yet.
This actually would not be the first time that tachyons were "found". A group in the 70's found statistically significant evidence for them preceding cosmic showers. They were so sure of their results that they published. Then, a year or two later, they discovered that it was just a glitch in their electronics! These guys were small fry compared to CERN, but CERN's accelerator is so complex that glitches could be very hard to find. The scientists at CERN are clearly out of ideas and mean just what they say: They don't believe their results and they want help finding the glitch that's probably causing them. It's extremely irresponsible to report this story as if FTL particles have really been found before CERN has had a chance to consult with outside scientists and other facilities have had a chance to try reproducing their results.
╰─ｍ∞ｍ─╯ !free shipping!j0rdan sh0es........ 28 dollarc0ach p-u-r-s-e...... 25 dollar
c00gi cl0thes........ 20 dollar
U.G.G B00ts.......... 39 dollar
Dear Friend:
We can supply all kind jersey with good quality and low price. contact me, let's talk details.
Delivery time: 5-6days, Shipping Method: EMS Newest stock list: every 3-5days updated
Warm Regards,
Carolyn
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Scientist rarely keep the data secret. It's the basis of peer review. 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.
No. In this world, it is true that scientists rarely keep the data secret, more often than not, silly conspiracy theorist views notwithstanding. Business-sponsored science is very often secret, but please don't attempt to paint, as the parent commenter disingenuously attempts to do, that scientists are the root of data secrecy. There have been now six separate inquiries into the misguided, corporation driven, politic…
"The variable speed of light (VSL) concept states that the speed of light in a vacuum, usually denoted by c, may not be constant in most cases."
"In 1998, Magueijo teamed with Andreas Albrecht to work on the varying speed of light (VSL) theory of cosmology, which proposes that the speed of light was much higher in the early universe, of 60 orders of magnitude faster than its present value."
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.
The beauty of state-funded news, no?
Until it steps on the state's toes.