CERN press release regarding neutrino experiment • Hacker News Board

Re: CERN press release regarding neutrino experiment

#81

Post by podperson » Sun, Sep 25, 2011, 4:00 PM UTC

viscanti wrote: post #29

podperson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not based on the linked article, which is horrible. I gave up when it was simultaneously trying to claim that the ether exists but space can have no properties.

The author could have done a better job of explaining this, if he would have said "Einsteinian Space" rather than "space" in that section. That's fairly easy to infer from the context, but it could have been explained better. Einstein viewed "space" as a vacuum. Tesla argues that view is flawed, that nothingness by definition can't have any properties, and as a result can't bend, because there's nothing to bend. He p…

If all that we're talking about is terminology then the entire article is pointless.

Re: CERN press release regarding neutrino experiment

#82

Post by Luyt » Sun, Sep 25, 2011, 10:14 PM UTC

drbaltar wrote: post #62

cube13 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most importantly, they're not presenting the finding as fact. They're really asking for anyone that can prove them wrong, because they don't believe it, and are almost positive that there's something wrong with either their methodology or measurements.

I wonder how the Cold Fusion fiasco was presented back in the 90's? Not that they are at all similar, but those were certainly bold claims as well.

There was an interesting (and entertaining) book written about the Cold Fusion Hype, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science:_The_Short_Life_and...

From Gary Taubes' (the author) website: Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion is book of science history by Gary Taubes about the early years (1989–1991) of the cold fusion controversy. It is not a scholarly work, but a popular retelling of the events, based on interviews with over 260 people. The book presents a timeline of the events, making the case that the cold fusion field has many examples of poorly-performed science. The actions of Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, and Steven E. Jones, the scientists who made the dramatic first claims of fusion, are described in rich detail. The book then shows the worldwide reaction and later disrepute of the cold fusion field, with Taubes placing himself in the side of "good science". Taubes says at the end that cold fusion had only demonstrated that research can continue even if the phenomena doesn't actually exist, as long as there is funding available. Taubes had previously written an article for Science in which he insinuates that the cold fusion work of A&M University was fraudulent.

Re: CERN press release regarding neutrino experiment

#83

Post by mrb » Mon, Sep 26, 2011, 12:16 AM UTC

Confusion wrote: post #28

mrb wrote: post #27

My SWAG: the relativist effect of time being slowed down in Earth's gravity was not taken into account. (Time is slowed down, therefore neutrinos appear to arrive 60ns "early".) They spent a lot of time triple checking the accuracy of their instruments without seemingly thinking about higher level factors such as the Theory of relativity... http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf Of course there are 99% chances I a…

There is a 100% chance that you are wrong. Do you honestly believe that they wouldn't think of taking that into account, if it could be relevant? That you can immediately think of it, but not an entire group of physicists; let alone a group trained and experienced in performing time-critical experiments? How far removed from reality do you believe physicists to be? Anyway, relativity cannot possibly be relevant in ex…

I meant to say they may have made a mistake on just this one relativist effect... even though I am sure they did think of it.

BTW, relativity is relevant in the OPERA experiment. Theoretical physicist Luboš Motl explains why: http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/potential-mistakes-in-oper...

Re: CERN press release regarding neutrino experiment

#84

Post by mrb » Mon, Sep 26, 2011, 12:25 AM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #33

mrb wrote: post #27

My SWAG: the relativist effect of time being slowed down in Earth's gravity was not taken into account. (Time is slowed down, therefore neutrinos appear to arrive 60ns "early".) They spent a lot of time triple checking the accuracy of their instruments without seemingly thinking about higher level factors such as the Theory of relativity... http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf Of course there are 99% chances I a…

You didn't look at the webcast, did you? Someone asked this question and they said "no we took it into account in the sense that the clocks at CERN and Gran Sasso run at different speeds because they are at different elevations. However, that's only a 1e-18 effect and the signal is 1e-5.

I am talking about the presence of the gravitational field, not its difference between the 2 sites. Anyway, I calculated gravitational time dilation on Earth out of curiosity. It has an effect of only about 1e-9.