Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC • Hacker News Board

Re: Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

#231

Post by trocker » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 6:22 PM UTC

azulum wrote: post #187

trocker wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes,the mankind would literally need to rewrite physics! It will be so exciting to be a part of it! About the 70's group, can you share the link to the article?

am i the only one that has come to love the scientific method simply because it creates more questions than it answers. there is just so much that we do not and cannot understand. the more we learn, the less we know. fantastic. on the flipside, i would be certain that certainty is a particular kind of hell, if having such knowledge didn't condemn me to it. excuse me while i proceed to consume my tail http://en.wikipe…

+1 here! Questions are fun. I didn't learn my name till people around me bugged me thousands of times a day with the questions -- 'what is your name, you cute little thing?'.

I so so digg your 'the more we learn, the less we know' dialogue.

Re: Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

#232

Post by altrego99 » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 6:22 PM UTC

nikcub wrote: post #123

fleitz wrote: post #47

Keep in mind that given that they said a few billionths of a second that the adjustment to c would be on the order of: (5 nanoseconds) / ((732 km) / c) = 0.000204776269 percent update: AP says it's 60 nanoseconds so (60 nanoseconds) / ((732 km) / c) = 0.00245731523 percent Also in different units: ((60 nanoseconds) / ((732 km) / c)) * c = 16 479.1646 miles per hour Interestingly, the earth moves about 60,000 miles pe…

this isn't about adjusting c, c will always be c the speed of light in a vacuum is a known quantity, it isn't changing. this is about relativity being void

Speed of light under influence of any gravitational field is not c.

Re: Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

#233

Post by vrode » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 8:05 PM UTC

gluejar wrote: post #103

discussion by people who actually know stuff: http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutrinos-be-superlumin...

Superluminal Travel is a sexier name.

Re: Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

#234

Post by Retric » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 8:09 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #210

Retric wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short answer is no, long answer is sort of. The way in which data / code is released is a complex issue. However, if your willing to wait a reasonable amount of time AND pay for the costs involved you can get just about everything produced. Still, in the larger context validating someone's data is basically worthless activity. It's far more important to go out and collect new data, build a new model, run a new simula…

Well the model is the thing that tells us what effect a rise in temperature/CO2 would actually have, no? Seems common sense to me that this should be open so that people can judge it. You could program a model to say anything regardless of the data.

When it comes to global worming you have two models one of which is what happens after a fraction of a second when you have various levels of CO2 in a column of air over in daylight or darkness. That's a well understood thermodynamics problem and rarely debated, but you will have little trouble finding out the specific details on this issue.

The larger model is based around how that the extra heat maintained gets distributed around the world and everyone knows this is far less accurate. The people building this are well aware it's highly limited but by trying to balance the errors in both direction they hope to create a good estimate. The problem is when you start tweaking the heat distribution equations it's easy to find errors in every direction because they are greatly simplified so it's easy for someone to introduce systematic errors by only correcting issues in one direction.

Which is why you provide a high level description but when you release your source code you open yourself up to a lot of fruitless debate. Sort of like someone saying based on your methodology the rocks are really 1/1,000,000th a year older which means your science is a joke and less valid than my consistent theory that god created the world 8 weeks ago. But, if you actually build a model from scratch under similar assumptions it's going to have similar outputs and error bars or look really biased.

Re: Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

#235

Post by derleth » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 10:04 PM UTC

weavejester wrote: post #218

derleth wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The beauty of state-funded news, no? Until it steps on the state's toes.

The BBC is indirectly funded, but not controlled by the UK government. It's possible that the government could threaten to cut the BBC's budget by reducing the cost of the TV license, or not raising it along with inflation, unless it changed its news coverage. However, a tactic like this would go over about as well as a proposition to repeal the first amendment would in the United States.

> The BBC is indirectly funded, but not controlled by the UK government.

I doubt funding can ever be divorced from control, even if it is indirect. The BBC knows where its next meal comes from.

Re: Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

#236

Post by gmac » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 11:01 PM UTC

beloch wrote: post #176

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #3

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.

Scientists generally do not keep data secret. They try to publish as much as they can actually! This is how you get nice things like funding and tenure! 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 sci…

Scientists generally do not keep data secret. They try to publish as much as they can actually!

Publish != tell the media. Publish != share raw data.

Re: Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

#237

Post by hugh3 » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 11:03 PM UTC

rckrr wrote: post #44

We're witnessing an increased vibrational rate of photons; it is, for those who are ready, a beginning of a higher density experience.

Good to hear, I've always wanted to be able to gain weight without looking fatter.

Re: Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

#238

Post by hugh3 » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 11:06 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #55

foob wrote: post #50

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…

The result would tear apart well established theories that have been tested time and time again in thousands of different ways. That's what makes this so exciting!

No, I'll wait until it's replicated in another lab before I get excited.

Failing that, I'll at least wait three years for the "Ohhh yeah, so we checked again and it turns out that [simple explanation X]".

On the offchance that this is a startlingly new breakthrough in physics, I don't lose much by waiting three more years before I believe it.

Re: Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

#239

Post by hugh3 » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 11:08 PM UTC

pitchups wrote: post #160

Just for reference Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity - does not strictly prohibit the existence of particles that travel faster than the speed of light, it only prohibits acceleration in an inertial frame to reach the speed of light : As per Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light ) "In special relativity, while it is impossible in an inertial frame to accelerate an object to the speed of lig…

True, but such a particle would violate causality and allow messages to be sent backwards through time (including, presumably, the message "Hey, don't send this message") which causes potentially nasty causality violations. Great Scott!

Re: Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

#240

Post by hartror » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 11:40 PM UTC

Groxx wrote: post #188

hartror wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phil Plait the Bad Astronomer goes into some of the technical challenges the scientists have to overcome in this experiment in laymen's terms. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/09/22/fa...

Wow, and he's extremely reserved about the whole thing - usually he's like a cold shower, raining on the press's parade. I like the SN1987A counter-example, though - it does raise a few questions. Not even remotely conclusive, but it makes it more puzzling.

Well normally the press or the PR people representing the scientists blow things all out of proportion. In this case it seems everyone is being pretty reserved and the claims, while extraordinary are already heavily couched in caveats.

I am expecting one of two things to happen:

a. A systemic error in the measurements, which is most likely IMO. b. a modification of physics similar to how relativity was a modification of Newtonian physics.