View Full Version here: : Neutrinos caught speeding at CERN??
23-09-2011, 05:55 AM
Seems we get this story from time to time - another funding ploy or ....
23-09-2011, 07:12 AM
More here … (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-cern-faster-than-light-particle.html)
Looks like they're taking it seriously … Fermilab is ramping up to see if they can replicate the readings and they're requesting T2K (Japan) to step up to the mark, also … a call to arms !
Caution is warranted, I would think especially in the light of:
The plot thickens !
Fermilab is in need of some publicity and T2K are still cleaning up after the earthquake damage. :question:
We'll see, I guess. This kind of thing has happened before.
In a way, this reminds me of the 'unaccountable noise' measured in the GEO600 gravity wave detector in Germany. A scientist called Hogan has been attempting to explain the noise in terms of the Holographic Principle. We covered this in this thread (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=67784&highlight=Hologram)).
It'll be interesting to watch the reactions to this within scientific community, though !
PS: The team reporting this are no slouches in Particle Physics, either. It is a big team and they have published many peer-reviewed papers. Accusations centred around the credibility of the team, would seem unfounded.
23-09-2011, 07:31 AM
Its interesting … neutrinos oscillate from one flavour to another (this was observed last year in May). This means they have a small, but non-zero mass. The MINOS experiment then measured oscillation differences between mass eigenstates, (2 and 3, according to Wiki), which means that there is at least one neutrino with a mass of at least 0.04eV.
That's pretty tiny !
One has to wonder about the uncertainty/error bars of the newly measured velocity. I guess all we can do is wait and let other 'pros' review the analysis and replicate the results. (Which is what the CERN team are requesting … a normal part of the process .. and the media will hype this up beyond belief, I'm sure of that !)
23-09-2011, 08:23 AM
There is a huge amount of precision imposed on all the instrumentation needed to make this measurement accurate.
Seeing as neutrinos don't interact with normal matter, knowing when they are emitted and being able to eliminate any latency effects in the detectors at the receiving end, is critical. One needs a very, very accurate clock to measure the time time taken. The precision of the distance measurement is also critical, especially over a tiny distance like 730 kms !
They are also up against astronomical neutrino measurements to date from Supernovae. Mind you, the distances the little beasties have to have traveled in space, might allow for a good chance that they could change flavours in transit .. thereby rendering these measurements a little suspect, as well.
I don't think the results (and the paper .. if there is one, yet) have been peer-reviewed (??). They seem to be requesting this, at this stage.
My take on this, is that this is more than likely another media hype-up which taps into the middle of the normal science review process, in order to get 'the scoop'.
I look forward to some real science scrutiny on the results.
23-09-2011, 09:12 AM
Interesting. Didn't the same Gran Sasso laboratory announce the presence of dark matter to a 4 sigma confidence level, despite the fact no one else on the planet has been able to verify this?
23-09-2011, 09:33 AM
Did they book them??:):):P:P
Neutrino 1: "Hey Steve, this is fun!!!. Racing around here at 0.99999c"
Neutrino 2: "Sure is.....might get booked for speeding, you know"
Neutrino 1: "Nah....not likely"
Neutrino 2: "Hey, there's one of those 'physics cops' behind the detector over there!!!"
Neutrino 1: "Him...dopey Dora in the lab coat, no worries!!!. He's useless"
23-09-2011, 09:42 AM
Wikipedia has already an article on the subject (actually, the details will follow shortly):
23-09-2011, 09:45 AM
Being serious for now.....it's a very interesting result. But like Craig said, it's most likely just media hype grabbing onto the coattails of an unusual result that's turned up. If it holds up to experimental scrutiny and the peer review process, then that is a different matter altogether, but I think it's a little premature to have "announced" such a result on the basis of an apparent detection. Especially with neutrinos...considering for all intents and purposes the little blighters would normally just shoot straight through the detectors and keep on going without even touching the sides. Then you have those coming in externally from cosmic sources contaminating the experiment, as Craig mentioned.
However, if it does turn out to be repeatable experimentally and the paper passes the peer review, then that will most certainly throw a very large spanner into the works. SR will have to be heavily modified if this is the case.
23-09-2011, 09:48 AM
I believe so. I think Fermilab thought they (Gran Sasso) shot themselves in the foot with that one because they weren't able to go much beyond about 2/2.5 sigma at the very best.
23-09-2011, 09:53 AM
60ns time delay is very easy to measure on the bench even with standard oscilloscope.
However, I am not sure if this is within the un-certainty of the synchronisation of clocks between two labs.
Perhaps there was an error made somewhere.
23-09-2011, 09:54 AM
Good point Steven.
I had assumed that this Antonio Ereditato guy was credible as he has been part of the Laguna Design Study .. the 'L Collaboration', which has been working on the development of neutrino detectors throughout Europe.
I had assumed because of his membership within this team and because of his role within that team, there was more to this than just a single scientist coming up with some spurious study results.
Perhaps the quality of testing done by that particular team (from Gran Sasso) should be subject to a little more scrutiny, particularly if they were the originators of the DM 4 sigma issue (??) :question:
23-09-2011, 09:58 AM
That's what they're trying to determine. Although they believe they have it right.
23-09-2011, 10:15 AM
I remember the neutrinos detected that was thought to originate from SN1987A.... They arrived almost at the same time as light signal, and the distance was much, much larger.. compared to only 760km in this case.
Now either neutrinos change the propagation speed along with their flavour (so that the arrival time from SN averaged out) or there is something very fishy with this recent measurement
Or the detection of those 7 neutrinos from SN1987A was erroneous and coincidental.
I just made a quick calculation.. if the time delay between two labs (760kn away from each other) was 60ns, the time delay from Magellanic Cloud (assumed distance of 150.000ly away) should be 4 years.
Something is VERY wrong here.
23-09-2011, 11:51 AM
IF we were able to detect all nuetrinos how many would we find:shrug:?
I get the impression we would find a thick soup all rushing by at near C I expect.
Thinking about nothing I thought about how many (nuetrinoes) you could observe on an almost infinite number of tradjectories and it would seem reasonable to think there are a few...same for HB really but just because we cant observe them takes away from imagining how full space must be of with each of these or if not those another particle doing the same job.
Even full destrustion of the standard model will still leave that fact remaining..
How does a nuetrino interact with matter?I will look it up.
23-09-2011, 12:10 PM
From Wiki... taking this statement as being reasonable
Most neutrinos passing through the Earth emanate from the Sun. Every second, in the region of the Earth, about 65 billion (6.5Χ1010) solar neutrinos pass through every square centimeter perpendicular to the direction of the sun.
Wow and that is from just one Sun:eyepop:.
23-09-2011, 12:12 PM
Yes I am apprehensive -- as commented by others, the time gap seems unreasonably large for such a small distance between the detectors (in context). The comparison Bojan mentioned re the neutrinos from 1987A and the short gap (three-odd hours from memory) between their arrival and the light's arrival over a distance of 50 Kpc for me rings alarm bells.
I hope it isn't something as basic as the speed of light in a vacuum -v- the speed of light through the medium(s) between the detectors. Will be interesting to see if the result is able to be duplicated independently elsewhere. [Edit: Nope, just realized this can't be the error -- my dopey mistake].
Science is starting to get scary now. :scared2:
But will also take on board what Craig said about possible media hype.:question:, But still, if it's open to public scrutiny- it makes me think they are really on to something here.:question:
I've been doing lots of reading this morning on the various media releases regarding this subject- they are flying all over the place on facebook.:eyepop:
So I thought I'd share some here...
And regarding SN1987A (from above article)....
23-09-2011, 12:47 PM
How do you determine that the particle you're measuring at the far end is the same one that you sent?
It's not like you can put a number on them.
23-09-2011, 01:05 PM
I think that figure, or its interpretation by Wiki authors, might be dodgy (Wiki's problem .. not yours)? :question:
I checked the reference linked paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412440) (Dec 2004) and I can't find anywhere where it cites this figure. :question: (Someone can check me on this).
From the Ice Cube observatory (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.2253v2) with 22 strings (25% of planned total detectors), as at July 2009), they say:
So, it seems the presently accepted flux density (as measured) is:
14x10^-11 GeV per square cm per sec.
If the combined mass of all three neutrinos is say, 0.28 eV, then using the Ice Cube figures, (& by my quick calcs … if someone can check me) .. comes out to be about 0.05 combined neutrinos per square cm per sec.
Mind you, I'm not quite sure what the E^-2 spectrum means. (I think this is just scientific speak for straight flux density).
Its a big difference if I'm right (which might also be a first on this sort of stuff .. I'm happy to be corrected ...). :)
23-09-2011, 01:11 PM
Usually they are generated in individual experiments (in bursts), and they know when the experiment (burst) took place - so they (neutrinos) are actually tagged.
23-09-2011, 01:19 PM
If the postulate for GR is wrong what happens then?
Anyways before we get too excited let the dust settle;).
23-09-2011, 01:23 PM
Don't hold you breath Alex.. yet ;)
23-09-2011, 01:23 PM
It maybe a dodgy result. However, don't discount it on the basis that it upsets the current paradigm. Wouldn't be the first time scientists missed something just because they thought differently, only to find out years later they were wrong about their initial assumptions.
Only time and more experiments are going to resolve this little problem. Unless, of course, the Gran Sasso team have overlooked something or made a mistake somewhere along the way.
23-09-2011, 01:24 PM
23-09-2011, 01:26 PM
Why not....they were supremely confident in Newton's laws for over 250 years before they began to slowly realise that they weren't entirely accurate. Same can be said of SR (and GR, even). Theories are not immutable...even the best of them.
23-09-2011, 01:28 PM
Who left this fridge magnet on my detector?!!!
23-09-2011, 01:56 PM
Yes SR ..the postulate is nothing faster than C therefore etc...
It would seem a worry I would have thought if the postulate of SR is incorrect even if everything else works according to the theory.
Anyways someone will explain it all to the satisfaction of everyone and realise they were wrong about being wrong if they are right about their opinion about being wrong..
23-09-2011, 02:00 PM
The paper has turned up on arXiv .. here it is. (http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897)
23-09-2011, 02:08 PM
they've compared the distribution at the emitter point with the distribution at the detector point (730km away). The clocks at the emitter and receiver are GPS-synchronised to a precision of 2ns, so the 60ns detected is much larger than any systematic error.
The distribution arrives at the detector 60ns earlier than the light propagating in a vacuum.
23-09-2011, 02:20 PM
That's why I said "yet".
Holding breath for another 250 years may prove to be lethal for Alex :P.
23-09-2011, 02:24 PM
Hi Bojan...As Carl pointed out I was barking up the wrong tree. SR not GR.
But I have had my doubts about GR's postulate relating to equivalence in the past as you well know;).:lol::lol::lol:
If they can exceed C they fit a requirement of nature why should this be so?
23-09-2011, 02:38 PM
let them first confirm their results (that means somebody else must repeat the result of the measurement) .
Then we shall see what happens next.
As far as speed of light in vacuum is concerned, no-one said it is the highest speed.. it is just a constant.
Particle with any rest mass greater that 0 can't be accelerated to c ( because for that we need to apply infinite amount of energy...) but if "particle" has imaginary mass (tachyon), it can travel with speed higher than c and no postulate is violated (OK, Carl, you can shoot me now)
23-09-2011, 02:43 PM
Read the report.
The percentage change of muon neutrino velocity against the speed of light is 0.000248%.
This seems suspiciously too close to the speed of the light despite the 6 sigma level.
Perhaps there is an unknown systematic error occurring here.
23-09-2011, 02:48 PM
MMM... the big problem for me with the push idea for gravity was the need for particles that travelled faster than C:D... I felt they (N's) could be the particle that could replace the graviton and the HB really;)...even responsible for slowing the space craft in interstella space:rolleyes:... but their sheer numbers is interesting:) ..they have mass apparently and yet can break the rules... we need infinite energy to make the smallest mass reach C let alone exceed it...it could be a breaking the sound barrier type moment in history maybe.
There must be a mechanism behind action at a distance and/or quantum entanglement which would work well if particles exist that are not required to obey the speed rules..this may suggest that there are other partcles that can exceed C...maybe there will be particles that can not travel slower than a speed well above C... regions of space different to our expectations.
This is alittle confronting it is not as though some one from a nutter fringe believed such may be possible these results are from folk who know what they are doing and to have all wondering can this result be the way it really is...a new door may be openning.
23-09-2011, 02:48 PM
Leaving aside the Quantum Field theory considerations tachyons don't violate SR. Tachyons form a symmetrical theory of SR where the speed of light is a lower limit instead of an upper limit.
23-09-2011, 03:13 PM
Firstly I typed the last post before seeing your post Bojan.
It will be a storm in a tea cup maybe...but I do like to think one may be witnessing a moment of history...the prospect of something new etc...
BUT faster than c and if they have mass that would be news.
23-09-2011, 03:14 PM
That's exactly right. Newton's laws weren't proven wrong and thrown out, they're just as valid and accurate today as the were when Newton formulated them. What has changed is our understanding of the assumptions and constraints under which they are valid.
The same has happened and will continue to happen with everything we "know", at some point we will realise and understand it as a special case of something more general.
23-09-2011, 03:24 PM
Good onya Steffen !
I can see the dreamers in this world already going ballistic ie: around the web, today
with this news !
At the very least, the guys who made this announcement are responsible for what happens as a result of the way they've announced it
which seems pretty cavalier, IMHO.
23-09-2011, 03:48 PM
:D you had me " roll'in " on the carpet Carl ... :D
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
23-09-2011, 04:49 PM
Justifying CERN maybe after possibly losing the Higgs Boson.
23-09-2011, 05:17 PM
The researchers are being responsible, it's the idiotic press that needs to be reeled in.
From the report.
23-09-2011, 05:29 PM
Yep .. I suppose so, Steven …
The BBC report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484) goes like this …
Still, I don't understand why they had to release it all to the general public?
Surely if you want some peer scrutiny, you collaborate at peer level??
They've even released the data to the public, (I understand).
Why take this approach ?
The above quote makes him sound like a saint .. couched in all those "this is crazy" type nonsense ! If its crazy then find someone at your peer level who can make sense of it .. you won't get that from the general public !
Sounds to me like if it turns out to be a valid measurement, this mob are setting themselves up for the Nobel !
23-09-2011, 05:45 PM
Their behaviour is not out of the ordinary. Reporting to the press before a peer review process isn't new, the cold fusion fiasco is a case in point.
There were rumours circulating about a week ago and reported by some physics bloggers, so it appears the scientific community had wind of what was going on before the public.
23-09-2011, 07:29 PM
23-09-2011, 07:30 PM
23-09-2011, 07:34 PM
He basically reiterated what I had said previously.
23-09-2011, 09:46 PM
I still don't buy it... But I'd love to know that it is true! I love neutrinos and these fundamental particles and their ability to puzzle us. But as I've just written to Suzy Webb, where there's smoke...
I agree that those scientists must take reponsability on what they have announced. Let's wait and see...
Thanks Denise, as always I appreciate your input. ;)
Many of us including Denise have been talking about it on facebook.
I'm just sitting back and listening to what you guys are saying and remaining healthily skeptical but can't help feeling a rush of excitement all the same. My mind like many others is spinning at a large rate because of this information.
I thought some of you'll may be interested in what Brian Cox might have to say on the matter (no swoon gestures from me this time as I have my serious astro hat on :P ).
So here is a 4 min. audio file for a BBC interview with Brian r (http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15034852)egarding the latest news from Cern.
I can't help myself...
that is just an awesome, rugged, gorgeous pic of Brian. :P :help:
NO more swooning.:rolleyes: Here anyway.:rolleyes::lol:
23-09-2011, 11:09 PM
It Does seem an unusual way to ask for help or confirmation from other reseachers? and as others have said without the paper being peer reviewed:question:
I remain sceptical untill further evedence is forthcoming :question:
23-09-2011, 11:26 PM
Of course Brian Cox gets into the discussion.:lol:
If Brian looked like the scientific genius in the attachment would you have conveyed his message?:shrug:
Oh my gosh! :scared2:
That man needs a good shower! :prey2:
....wanders what the correct answer is :question:
That's not you is it Steven :question: :P
Because if it is, its a lose - lose situation for me. :screwy::lol:
I have to say tho, looks are a very nice bonus, but not necessary. For that man to be taken seriously- he would at least need to have a shower and look somewhat respectable if he's to be a public figure; never mind the hair. He would not be allowed on tv looking like that- there's no where to dab studio make up on.:shrug: Guys have to wear makeup and look presentable on tv.:shrug:
Lawrence Krauss is a bit hard on my eye (don't tell Shelley), but I still enjoy watching/listening to him. :P
TO EVERYONE: Steven made me talk about Brian against my will.:help: :lol:
24-09-2011, 12:26 AM
24-09-2011, 06:47 AM
So, apart from the make-up, how did else did Cox make it on to TV ?
:lol: :P :)
24-09-2011, 07:22 AM
More 'follow ons' (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-scientists-stunned-sceptical-faster-than-light-particles.html) today ..
24-09-2011, 08:42 AM
"Science by press release" has a very bad history. Think: cold fusion, the Martian "Canals", the meteorite supposed to have evidence for life on Mars.
More interesting than when a difficult experiment comes up with a radical result that may or may not be true, is when two very careful studies come up with contradictory results e.g. there is no scientific consensus on whether eggs are good for you or bad for you!
24-09-2011, 08:46 AM
If only I was as devilishly handsome............
Anyone familiar with "Time Team" will know the identity of the gentleman.
Let's just say the dirt is part of his occupational environment.
If he was squeaky clean he wouldn't be doing his job.:P
How about Leonard Susskind, the man who put Stephen Hawking to shame over the information paradox of black holes?
The man who comes across as Mr Average but possesses a brilliant intellect.
Probably doesn't have the eye candy component however....
More likely it would be preventing you talking about Brian.:lol:
24-09-2011, 09:20 AM
Hey, Steven...you forgot Balderick:):P:P:)
He'll figure out this neutrino thing, cos' he always has a "cunning plan" (especially when digging for Roman ruins):):)
24-09-2011, 09:44 AM
Interesting discussion, Suzy, about looks vs brains.
Seriously, if a person is going to spend about 18 hours per day doing science, which is probably what it takes to make a contribution at the highest level, she/he is probably going to end up looking pretty awful.
(being a professional scientist is quite "unbalanced" in terms of the contrast between the level of physical activity and the level of mental activity that is engaged in by the scientist)
I once recall meeting a handsome young scientist of athletic appearance, and twenty years later I see that he looks really old...... in fact he has acquired the exact appearance of a wasted old dero in the park!
Sad, really, that prolonged intellectual activity in the absence of exercize and other activities, can have these effects.
P.S. If, as I suspect (no proof at all, for now), scientists as a group are not a particularly long lived cohort, this would provide hard evidence for my theory about the physical effects of 24/7/365 science on the human body.
24-09-2011, 11:27 AM
It is not science that makes you age before your time. It is dealing with idiots and having to constantly reiterate the total history of science to get these idiots up to a semblance of knowledge!
24-09-2011, 12:46 PM
Just re-reading the report and doing some pondering, two things emerge for me:
i) the scientific credibility of the team, seem to not be a real issue .. these guys know what they're doing when compared with anyone not in the business of measuring fundamental particle behaviours;
ii) the fact that Fermilab has already measured faster than light speeds, (even though it was within their margin of error), adds a lot more inferred weight to the possibility that this measurement may be valid.
I'm starting to wonder whether it is a neutrino distribution that they've actually measured? :question:
It seems that the mass of a neutrino is measured indirectly, by measuring the m^2 term and recent measurements (http://cupp.oulu.fi/neutrino/nd-mass.html) somehow produced a negative m^2 term. This would mean that it has an imaginary mass:
i = sqrt(-1), so sqrt(i)^2 < 0
So, this would qualify it as being a tachyon, (as Bojan hinted at, way back).
Tachyons don't violate SR but in theory, they seem to exist courtesy of symmetry. General symmetry in nature is under test at the LHC, and is part of the Higgs hunt, also (not looking too good, either). The symmetry I'm talking about here however, doesn't necessarily have to be related to 'general symmetry in nature', which would decouple this from the LHC tests anyway.
Perhaps these guys have discovered the Tachyon, so it wouldn't be a big surprise that it travels > c ? :question:
PS: Don't ask me to describe how something with an imaginary mass would behave in nature .. but it might explain a lot of strange things ? I mean, there are lots of real effects imaginary terms have in electrical fields (eg: power factor) .. so why not an imaginary mass in particle physics having real effects in QM physics ?
24-09-2011, 01:11 PM
"We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here" said the bartender. A neutrino walks into a bar and orders a drink.
24-09-2011, 01:24 PM
I should correct what I said in my post #4 in so far as I didn't really mean latency in the detectors would cause a faster than light speed measurement …. fairly clearly, any latency effect in the detector would return a slower than light speed .. but what about 'latency' at the emitter end ?
How do they know precisely when bunch of neutrinos started to leave the emitter (so as to start the clock, or record the departure time)?
What if some sneak out before they record the departure time ?
The report seems to say that the answer to the above questions are all the function of a statistical model .. which is probabilistic in nature.
24-09-2011, 02:03 PM
Wondering whether it was neutrinos they were measuring, Craig. Could be, or maybe certain flavours of neutrinos have tachyon-like properties.
One of the properties of tachyons is the less energy they have the faster they go. So, for a tachyon that is traveling only a shade faster than light, the same horrible consequences of "infinite mass and energy" dog them. However, they behave in a gravitational field in exactly the same way as ordinary particles of matter do....since mass, whether it's imaginary or not, is still mass. In other words, they gain their mass in exactly the same way as ordinary matter, only it's mass is the mirror opposite of the mass of an ordinary particle.
24-09-2011, 08:08 PM
Neutrinos, Tachyons travelling faster then light bah., it was well known that atom of the pickle is green and sour. Give Copernicus the image of Mars surface and see what he would make of it. To believe that current scientific understanding of the Universe that we are (maybe) part of is in the words of Mark Twain, bit premature . Most of scientific conclusions that prevail today will be most likely drastically changed or completely rebuked in next thousand years. Regardless of the maths that supports it. Im not saying that we should not speculate and examine the world that surrounds us. But to present speculations about something, that general public cannot verify, as scientifically proven fact is at best - misleading.
By the way if Higgs Bossons does not exist what is the implication for applied technology?
And no I do not have science paper reviewed by peers to support this- but I got few thousand years of history to go by.
24-09-2011, 09:13 PM
Looks like high energy neutrinos (produced in CERN) are experiencing Lorentz-violating oscillations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz-violating_neutrino_oscillations) and can travel FTL.
From wiki article :
25-09-2011, 10:29 AM
Yep, I agree
using classifying terms like neutrino and tachyons, may also be a misleading part in all of this.
Figure 13 of the paper shows that the higher energy particles are around 60ns FTL, and the lower ones are around 50 ns FTL, so, the faster particles exhibit more energy. The possibility of measurement inaccuracies (etc) aside, at the very least, this shows that what they've measured is behaving closer to what we relate to as 'neutrinos' than 'tachyons', when considered from a two parameter perspective. (Which should carry more weight than a single parameter view).
Fascinating stuff. At the end of the day, there's only one thing which makes sense .. independent tests and subsequent verification !
25-09-2011, 10:40 AM
Like I said earlier, they maybe exhibiting tachyon-like behaviour but they're not tachyons, per se.
25-09-2011, 10:44 AM
Just had a thought....I wonder for how long the debate on this will run on for. It could conceivably be several years before any substantive, independent tests can be carried out in full. These guys tested their results 16000 times. In order to get anything meaningful out of independently testing this, the others are going to have to do similarly as the Gran Sasso team. Test it till the wheels fall off. This is too important a result not to do so.
25-09-2011, 10:55 AM
I understand, (although I now can't remember where I read this), that the MINOS/Fermilab set up may only require (relatively minor) electronics upgrade funding to retest. That would seem to be the best bet .. and only funding related.
One has to wonder whether or not, this might have been OPERA's motives for making this announcement in the way they have, as it demonstrates the need for at least two facilities, world-wide, in order to verify typical ground-breaking discoveries. If someone doesn't make a second facility available elsewhere, then there's always going to be some doubt about results unique to a given lab. And, they've just about shut Fermilab down .. I'm not sure what it is they've got it funded for at the moment. (This is understandable, mind you, given that the LHC is up & running & healthy).
I wonder how this will be handled in the case of 'ground-breaking' LHC findings (if any are forthcoming) ?
25-09-2011, 11:06 AM
That's the other thing....who's going to do the independent testing. They've just about thrown the plastic covers over the chairs at Fermilab. If they close completely, it doesn't leave too many others capable of doing the work. What a pity if this result gets left up in their air just because no one can get the funding to do the independent tests.
25-09-2011, 11:21 AM
We shouldn't forget the T2K lab in Japan
it is capable, also.
25-09-2011, 12:07 PM
It doesn't leave too many labs capable of carrying out the experiments.
25-09-2011, 01:20 PM
The researchers now have an issue that is not only the bane of experimental science but also crops up in other areas such as industry.
The test is repeatable but is it reproducible? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility).
Having participated in reproducibility testing along with other laboratories around the world, a problem the researchers have is that the number of laboratories that are currently able to perform this test is woefully small.
For a reproducibility test to be statistically valid, the number of laboratories participating has to be quite high.
25-09-2011, 01:25 PM
Yep.....and that is going to cloud the minds of many of the scientists. But what can you do??!!!. If you only have one or two other labs that can do the work, then that's what you've got to work with.
I think they'll just have to take this into consideration when deciding about this result.
25-09-2011, 01:54 PM
Here we go again … the Principle of Locality vs Counterfactual Definiteness !
PS: Meaning .. are the results at Gran Sasso influenced directly by their immediate surroundings … or can we speak meaningfully of the definiteness of their results … which no one else might ever be able to replicate ?
… Just kidding around. :)
25-09-2011, 06:37 PM
Lets be patient util some more details available on this. The results are said to be within 60 ns time frame. Probably it will take some time until another Lab can reproduce the same results such as neutrinos travelling greater than C (the speed of light in a vacuum). Hopefully they can provide substantial evidence on repeatability (plus statistical validity) and particularly on the methods/theories used for measuring the mass of neutrinos (before we change the way we looked at our Universe)
25-09-2011, 08:43 PM
Neither. The immediate objective is to examine the experiment itself not the theory. Is the experimental design valid? Have the engineers stuffed up yet another great scientific adventure (sorry no offense meant:lol:) resulting in systematic errors?
The irony is that if neutrinos do in fact exceed the speed of light, one of the first casualties is the Principle of Locality (along with SR). The Principle of Locality requires that information cannot exceed the speed of light as causality is violated. Yet if neutrinos exceed the speed of light the principle is no longer valid.
25-09-2011, 10:53 PM
Probably the case, hey Steven. Leave the science to engineers and you end up with lots of egg on the face:):):P:P:P
And one big stuff up:):):P:P
Should sack the lot of them:):):P:P
25-09-2011, 10:57 PM
Here's a thought.....if neutrinos can exceed "c", then what else does (apart from tachyons, of course).
25-09-2011, 11:04 PM
We already know what happens when engineers dabble in "science", they come with nonsense such as the Electric Sun model.:rofl::rofl:
PS Apologies to all sound minded engineers out there.
26-09-2011, 12:49 AM
They need to be sedated:):):P:P
And have their computers taken away from them:P:P
26-09-2011, 06:13 AM
Here, here, Carl... I am an engineer and I am not caught throwing eggs around .. (yet) ;)
26-09-2011, 07:24 AM
Goodness me !
Another tirade !
I'd almost feel lost thesedays without one !
I think I might go and have another ultraviolet catastrophe !
better to be caught throwin' a few eggs around
than to be a rotten one!
26-09-2011, 07:56 AM
Meanwhile, back to business
here's an independent review (http://johncostella.webs.com/neutrino-blunder.pdf) of the OPERA statistical analysis, (hot off the press
dated 25th Sept).
This, at least gives and independent perspective on the question of statistical validity. (This guy's an Aussie PhD from Melbourne).
26-09-2011, 08:10 AM
It's not a tirade.. it is referring to OT issue.
26-09-2011, 08:14 AM
OT ?? Which one ? What issue ?
26-09-2011, 08:16 AM
I am out of here.
26-09-2011, 09:09 AM
If anyone would like me to return to the QM vs Classical thread to demonstrate what now appears to be a gross misunderstanding of where I was coming from .. and a similar gross misunderstanding of why I left it, then I would be happy to do so .. I will do so anyway.
The 'UV Catastrophe' can simply be viewed as an historical artefact, often used to re-inforce the perception of a fundamental differentiating factor between QM over Classical. Returning to the perspective I adopted in that thread, would seem to be of interest ?
26-09-2011, 09:58 AM
That was a good read. I can concur with his assessment of his eyes...I'm 45 and my eyes aren't as good as they used to be:):):P
Seriously though, that was a good read and explained his and Palmer's positions quite well. I totally agree with the conclusions. I'll have another read of it later.
26-09-2011, 10:01 AM
No...no tirade, just a statement of fact concerning engineers:):):P:P:P
Steven and I have it completely correct:):):P:P
Well, if you're going to have one of them, make sure you've got a lot of good sunblock....don't want to get burnt in the process:):):P:P
How do you know if one of those eggs you guys throw isn't rotten already:):P
28-09-2011, 05:54 PM
Gotta love Jim Al-Khalili !!
Everytime this guy pops up, (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15034414) I like what he has to say.
This time he says:
Ain't that just the coolest ?
True commitment, right there !
28-09-2011, 06:14 PM
He will be eating his boxer shorts and most theoretical physicists will be having kittens.:lol:
28-09-2011, 08:06 PM
From the same article..........
If an effect can precede a cause, showers of neutrinos might arrive here on Earth before a supernova actually kicks off on the other side of the galaxy.
Although covered earlier this is the corrolation via observation needed.
No comments upon the time travel speculation in the article:rolleyes:
29-09-2011, 01:19 AM
But does he actually know that, for sure??!!!:):P
29-09-2011, 01:21 AM
Might mail him a large bottle of tabasco sauce, just to spice things up:):P:P
29-09-2011, 11:17 AM
Everybody knows that the price of milk is directly proportional to the speed of neutrinos, why is this being rehashed all the time? People should expend their energy on establishing what the price of fuel is proportional to
29-09-2011, 12:33 PM
Gee Steffan …
Cliches are part of being a 'daggy' scientist !
Jim's already put his boxer shorts on the line ! What more can one ask for ?
Oh well … I suppose there's always a critic somewhere .. I dunno ..
Here's an article quoting different physicists on what they think of this. Lawrence Krauss included.
03-10-2011, 07:32 PM
Gee Krauss is pretty critical of it all !!
Mind you, I agree with what he's said
the way it has been announced is very risky for all the players involved.
Maybe Krauss is just jealous ?
I still prefer Jim Al Khalili's putting his boxer shorts on the line !
That one still takes the cake !
11-10-2011, 07:56 AM
Krauss has written a short article explaining his reasons behind his comments:
CERN and colliding theories (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-cern-colliding-theories.html)
So, with those words, Krauss has gone up (in my estimation) of public science presenters.
Its good to see that he recognises the very real risks of poorly managed media announcements, and the precariously balanced position of the image of science in the minds of the public.
What's more, he's also shown that he's prepared to demonstrate his own regard for responsibility, by taking the time to clearly explain his own comments .. all entirely supportable from the perspective of the scientific process
(which is more than can be claimed by certain other popular science presenters
Good on him.
So, far Khalili and Krauss have demonstrated leadership skills, and not simply a desire for ratings and self-image consciousness.
11-10-2011, 01:58 PM
"Results that have withstood the test of experiment will continue to remain valid, no matter how physical theory evolves."
This is, I think, one of the most important and poorly understood (by non-scientists) concepts in science, so it's nice to see it said so clearly.
I've had several weird conversations over the years (and seen writing along the same lines) with people who can't seem to see the difference between falsifiability (a structural feature of a theory that allows it to be tested against experiment) and falsification (an experiment actually contradicting a theory).
The worst was someone who had started from the observation that gravity as an attractive force is falsifiable and then concluded that it is entirely plausible that someone might do an experiment tomorrow which demonstrates it isn't. This wasn't a subtle point about dark energy or MOND or the like, or a theoretical point about epistemology. It was a straight-out insistence that an advance can simply invalidate all previous results.
11-10-2011, 02:23 PM
Yep .. I think I see your point .. I guess a lot would also depend on the way a Theory is expressed in the first place.
I guess the person you're referring to above might have been coming from the principle that it only takes one negative example to disprove a Theory, and perhaps got things a little confused in the process ?
If one can't examine all examples of a phenomenon throughout all time and space, (ie: the problem of induction), then there's always the possibility that a properly constructed Theory can be disproven. The logical outcome might be to rework the Theory as a subset of something more generalised, where past evidence and new evidence co-exist ?
PS: I forgot to add that the term 'disproven' is used here in the informal colloquial sense .. as 'proof' doesn't exist in the science process, in the first place.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.