Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 255 posts

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

#241

Post by TheAmazingIdiot »

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…

This is generally the reason in the esoteric studies one does not question a master.

In scientific studies, a question is made and an answer is given. That answer then leads to newer questions further probing the ultimate. One can approach, but never completely know.

In the Occult, one accepts a maxim or answer as an answer. Questioning hinders or derails to what is desired. I am speaking of the ultimate goal of the study of the esoteric: understanding of self.

(You mentioned an occult icon, thereby opening this line of commentary)

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

#242

Post by weavejester »

derleth wrote: post #235
weavejester wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So if you were the UK government, and you knew the BBC was going to publish something you didn't want them to, how exactly would you get them to stop?

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

#243

Post by beloch »

gmac wrote: post #236
beloch wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When we publish papers, we usually include sample raw data as part of an online supplement or appendix whenever the journal permits it (most people never look at these). Not all journals do permit this, and storage constraints sometimes make it difficult to provide a worthwhile sample anyways. We do supply raw data to anyone who asks for it. If that counts as keeping our data secret, then so be it.

I have yet to find encounter a group in my field that refused to share raw data when asked for it. They're usually happy to have another set of eyes look for a meaning they didn't publish (This could lead to another paper they might not have to work very hard for!). Again, is it really secret if all you have to do is ask for it? Corresponding author email addresses are on papers for a reason!

I will say that it is unusual for a group of scientists as prominent as the ones at CERN are to go to the media before publishing, but they are clearly very unsure of their results and would rather have a lot of eyes looking for bugs before they commit to publishing their results. This, of course, won't accomplish much if they try to keep secrets, as you are suggesting.

In fact, here's a challenge for you. Go ask CERN for their FTL neutrino data. I bet they'll be happy to give you a copy. They'll probably even have a grad-student to spare to explain some of it to you, although his or her time will probably be at a premium for the next few weeks!

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

#244

Post by fmx »

altrego99 wrote: post #229
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…

You forget one crucial thing in the experiment. A neutrino reacts with almost nothing. A photon on the other hand, react with almost any damn thing you place around its path - metal? Yes. Mirror? Yes. Wood? Yes. Air? Yes! I very much doubt they completely vacuumed the path of the neutrino to the same degree as it is in outer space. It is possible that neutrinos travel at the same speed as light in vacuum, but travel…

The speed they got in this experiment was faster than light would travel in a vacuum, according to the abstract.

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

#245

Post by majika »

weavejester wrote: post #242
derleth wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So if you were the UK government, and you knew the BBC was going to publish something you didn't want them to, how exactly would you get them to stop?

I'm Australian, and we have the ABC. So, assuming you're British, we're coming from the same page.

That said, the GP does have a point. The only thing preventing the possibility of closed-door deals going on between the BBC and political parties is good faith. Ergo, if it's not already happening or hasn't already happened, which is unlikely, there's no reason it can't happen in future.

Note: despite Australia's high exposure to UK content, I don't know much about the British media landscape. I haven't read the BBC's charter (nor the ABC's, for that matter).

Edit:

It's a tradeoff of different goals. On one hand, you get a news agency which can focus on news - not entertainment as would be dictated by a comittment to profit. On the other hand, that news agency is more susceptible to decisions by government. Consider: what determined the BBC's spending cuts?

I think publicly-owned news organisations are a great idea. The ABC, BBC, and NPR usually provide great news coverage. They have no need to sensationalize content, and that services the public to no end.

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

#246

Post by herdcall »

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…

If the nutrinos were from the same supernova, doesn't the fact that they arrived BEFORE the light still mean they traveled faster than light? Whether it should've been 4 years instead of 3 hours seems besides the point as far as the significance of the recent observation is concerned. Unless I'm missing something here.

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

#247

Post by faragon »

beej71 wrote: post #13
coffeenut wrote: post #5

If I calculated correctly, that's only about .0025% faster than c. Practical implications?

Excellent question. Doesn't seem like "must faster", but if the speed of light isn't the limit, what is the limit? All this reminds me of the beginning of Mostly Harmless: "One of the problems has to do with the speed of light and the difficulties involved in trying to exceed it. You can't. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws. The Hi…

And if there is no limit? (e.g. just practical limits, such as energy availability for our current technology/knowledge)

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

#248

Post by batpad »

archgoon wrote: post #194
bestes wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not secret then, but to be released at a later date. Or released in one of those journals that most of cannot access.

>Or released in one of those journals that most of cannot access Go down to your local university library. Go over to one of the computers (or hop on the wifi). Read the article. Email it to yourself. Not that hard now was it? This is not ideal, but it's not that you _cannot_ access it, it's just not convenient.

uh.. and what if you're in India? uhh .. apply for a Visa at your local consulate, hop onto a plane, go down to the library ... not very convenient, innit? I'm sorry, but academic data walled up in closed journals (im sorry you live in a coccoon where you think everyone has a local university library) is malicious withholding of information - i dont imply that malice exists on the part of the scientist publication, but of the larger system - smug statements that data available only to experts will save the 'wise ones' from useless questions and let them do work or so, are, i think, retarded. any-how, just my personal opinion.

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

#249

Post by gmac »

beloch wrote: post #243
gmac wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When we publish papers, we usually include sample raw data as part of an online supplement or appendix whenever the journal permits it (most people never look at these). Not all journals do permit this, and storage constraints sometimes make it difficult to provide a worthwhile sample anyways. We do supply raw data to anyone who asks for it. If that counts as keeping our data secret, then so be it. I have yet to find…

That's a fair point, and my comment was a bit lazy. All I wanted to say was that publishing findings, publicising findings, and sharing the raw data aren't exactly the same thing and don't necessarily go together.

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

#250

Post by derleth »

weavejester wrote: post #242
derleth wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So if you were the UK government, and you knew the BBC was going to publish something you didn't want them to, how exactly would you get them to stop?

Ensure a reduction in TV license fees, perhaps, or schedule a big, expensive inquiry into whether the BBC is systematically biased in its reporting. After all, the people pay for it so the people have a right to know, regardless of how many millions of pounds it costs the BBC.
Post reply on HN