/sci/ - Science & Math

Damn I was just about to post this. Where is your God now?!

GUISE GUISE
.........
GUISE........ LISTEN.......
...... JUST HEAR ME OUT.............


WHAT IF.....

JUST WHAT IF....

STRING THEORY AND MULTIVERSE?

Fascinating.

This doesn't change anything. if a particle goes faster than light, guess what, that just means there's a new "speed of light" that's faster than light, doesn't imply time travel

>>3780870
lolwut?

>>3780855
this is not funny, don't post

So...

Modern physics are fundamentally flawed?

>>3780870
>new "speed of light" that's faster than light
>new "speed of light" that's faster than light
>new "speed of light" that's faster than light
>new "speed of light" that's faster than light

billionths of a second? Heisenbergs uncertainly principle anyone?

If I read that right they're sending neutrinos through the earth and their measurements are down to billionths of a second.

There is plenty of room for error and outside interference of all sorts... I think.... I'm not really qualified. That's why I'm on 4chan!

STRING THEORISTS WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG GUYS

YOU WERE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO THEIR GALILEO

WHAT NOW PLEBES?

I'm going to wait until these results get verified by another team. Extraordinary claims require extra verification.

Maybe neutrinos under those conditions can bend space-time.

Only answer that doesn't unravel decades of studies.

Science advances most when unexpected results appear.

>>3780892

/sci/- the deaf leading the blind.

>>3780843
Five bucks says they find some equipment malfunction causing a measurement error.

This is exciting.

Wikipedia says "Even though supernova observations indicate that neutrinos propagate at the speed of light, it is not clear whether this result holds at higher energies. In particular, in the context of the Standard-Model Extension, a realistic effective theory that includes Lorentz invariance violations, neutrinos experience Lorentz-violating oscillations and can travel faster than light at high energies."
I guess they already knew this was possible?

SON OF A BITCH ASS FUCK TREX JESUS H SODOMY CHRIST DIRGE CUNT...

>>3780897
Not if we can't figure them out.

WTF is gong on here?!

It's times like this that I really wish I understood things and didn't need smart people slowly drip-feeding me explanations. I want to just look at their data and come to a conclusion myself.

But no. I studied archaeology. Fuck.

>>3780906
Maybe the media was a bit slow on this one. Still, the butthurt about to ensue is going to be delicious.

>>3780914
I am a anthropologist. You picked the wrong field man to see raw data.

My physics professor used to be a particle physicist at the LHC. I'm going to ask him about it tomorrow.

I would say this nicely validates my theories, anonymous.

what If-----

although neutrinos barely ever interact with their surroundings, it is possible at some point that on the trip they do interact. if they ended up quantum tunneling through something, the distance, D, that they travel would be shortened by the length of the quantum tunnel. this would make it seem like they went faster than light because technically they didn't cover the entire distance D... thoughts?

>>3780914
>But because the result is so unexpected and would wreak such havoc with our understanding of the Universe, the group is being particularly cautious. They have opted to put a report their measurements online to subject them to wider scrutiny, and will hold a seminar at Cern on Friday to discuss the result.

HOLY SHIT.

If any threads on this board ever need to be stickied, it's this one.

Mother of God...

>>3780926
Quantum tunneling != wormholes.

Quantum tunneling is simply the phenomena of particles overcoming barriers that would otherwise require a higher potential to overcome than what the particle actually has.

>>3780914

Linguist here. I can only be of use if they discover subatomic particles that are composed from phonemes.

>>3780897
That image macro was pretty much my exact response to the article.

Fucking neutrinos, bein' all mysterious n shit

Posting in a 250 replies /sci/ thread

Let's not get too excited here guys. Every now and again some internet article claims some immense scientific discovery, and time and time again it turns out to be disappointing or total bullshit. How many times has something like this happened?

So what does this imply?

IT'S HAPPENING

THE STRING THEORIES

THEY COME

SOON

I'm surprised no one has trolled about portals yet.

Sorry, we're not open yet.

A neutrino walks into a bar.

>>3780961
see:
>>3780926

>>3780963

>>3780956

Well, the BBC is a pretty reliable source, and they're not going OMG GUYZ OMG WE WILL ALL LIVE FOREVAR NAO. The results seem to be legit and interesting, so let's see what happens.

>>3780956
No you will not! You will not crush my dreams of galaxy conquering neutrino fleets.

>>3780963
Wow, haven't heard that one in years

ooooo boy

Just a random fact, it would take light roughly two and half milliseconds to get from the LHC to Gran Sasso laboratory.

>>3780959
Does string theory predict this? I would imagine the article would have mentioned it if it did. Or are you just assuming every violation of the standard model equates to string theory?

>>3780963

hahahahaha

>>3780975
>replying to obvious troll
Don't do this bro. But ancient astronaut theory predicts this, therefore ALIENS.

lets assume this is true, how do we harness this power?

>>3780984
communication faster than light with neutrinos.
useful for a mars base, moon base etc.

>>3780963
LMFAO. I wouldn't normally get this. But neutrino just made my day.

>>3780984
A century of research, slashed funding and two catastrophic laboratory failures.

>>3780991
Good luck with that, considering how fickle neutrinos are. Prepare for garbled as fuck data, even if you use some data integrity preserving magic like parity and shit.

I read an article, I think in new scientist, that physicists were basically at a dead end, no one could find the higgs boson so the standard model couldn't be completed, however this is no way a bad thing, since history shows that when science has no more answers is when a paradigm shift occurs, newtonian to relitivity, plumb pudding to orbital model, particle to quantem mechanics all came after a dead end. The LHC will produce a lot of questions and i think physics will change dramatically in the next 10-15 years.

>>3781000
there is a way to do this for sure.

so what % faster than light is this neutrino traveling?

>>3780891
yeah shit dude I bet the guys at cern werent thinking of that

>>3780963

>>3781001
I really doubt that this could trip Kuhnian revolution. My bet on next one is understanding of chaotic systems and/or turbulence.

pic related

I don't understand one thing. If something travels faster than light it travels BACK in time, therefore the information should be received before it had been send. That induces paradoxes.

>>3781022
No. Shut up and take intro course to special relativity.

>>3781022
no.

>>3780991
It's a difference of two and a half millionths of a percent of the speed of light.

>>3781000
You'd be surprised at what the science of "parity checks" has done since the 50ies. Well, Shanon might be disappointed at the fact that we are still struggling to make efficient codes of practical lengths, but as an example, if you corrupt 4000 consecutive bits on your CD, it will still be perfectly decoded.

Have they recorded how MUCH faster than c the information has propagated?

This can be exceedingly big, and it's already very big.

>>3781008
Light travels 732km in 2.5 milliseconds, neutrinos 60 billionth of a second faster.

By the way, anyone freaking out about ftl communication, keep in mind that the 60 nanosecond lead means neutrinos are roughly 1.000024001 times faster than light.
Which means, after traveling a light year, a neutrino will get there in 364.99124 days instead of 365. Which I think is like 12 minutes faster, if even that.

Man, talk about tearing it up right

FTL TRAVEL CONFIRMED

>>3781022
no nigga that shit just travels beyond that which you thought it wasnt faggot

If they were really faster than light, wouldn't they be detected before they were sent out?

The article is a bit unclear; it says they were detected a small amount of time before they expected would be possible, but maybe there's some path that neutrinos take that light doesn't/can't that shortens the distance travelled

>>3781036
That said, it's a MONUMENTAL discovery, it's just not directly applicable so don't get your panties soaked

>physics
>not being able to properly predict the speed of light
>not a real science

pick all 3

>>3781022
>Pseudoscience bullshit
You're also probably one of those faggots that think black holes are warmholes to different universes.

>>3781046
See
>>3781026

>>3781054

wormholes.... prove they aren't.

>>3781054
>warmhole
>warm

>>3781058

"Prove me wrong" is not scientific.

Prove yourself right, asshole.

>>3781058
Black holes are just massive objects with enough gravity to stop light from exiting. Fall into it, you're dead. To claim it leads into "another dimension" or another place in the universe is just something from Star Trek.

MFW people didn't realize classical physics was bullshit by the time they were 8.

>>3781066
Oh you are so cool and your understanding of physics is so deep. I want to be like you.
/sarcasm

You are retarded.

>>3780956
/sci/ gets a semi for this type of thing every few months.
I will wait for the publication before my trousers bulge.

>>3781066

Except there was nothing to prove it wrong, so wave your tiny dick elsewhere.

>>3781065
Wormholes != black holes

>>3781078
What a delightfully raunchy and accurate summation

>1 step closer to space travel

tomorrow will either be another let down, or a glorious dawn

>>3781096
...Or another neat phenomenon that only takes a slight reinterpretation of existing laws. It's like back in the early 2000s when quantum tunneling was supposed to herald a new beginning in physics.

>>3781093
Stop that.

>Newton
disproved
>Quantum Mechanics
disproved
>Relativity
disproved

>physics
>science
pick one

I'm a total american at physics, but readin a bit on wikipedia about the neutrino it said that an hypothesys says that photons are composed of a neutrino and an antineutrino together.

>>3781056

Yeah, okay. I haven't read anything about special relativity that doesn't suggest that the sending of information FTL would cause serious problems (ie; receiving information about an event prior to the event's occurrence). Tell me why that is wrong.

>>3781096

>relativity disproven

Ok, so what if neutrinos actually have no mass? My understanding is that c is the cosmo speed limit not because ftl shit introduces time paradoxes, but because it requires infinite energy to accelerate a mass to the speed of light. No mass, no problem?

>raises flameshield. pic related, hes talkin to me

>>3781122
>I'm a total american at physics
Because America doesn't have more physicists than any other country, right?

Lay off my nation of origin bro!

i don't know about you guise,
but i can't wait a smbc or xkcd comic about this one

>>3781115
>disproving scientific models
>science
lolwat are revolutions

>>3781138
hail to you, native indian american

So wouldn't that make these neutrinos tachyons?

>>3780963
oh god my sides.

>>3781155
Daily Mail: Tachyon found.

FTL travel = time machine. Prove me wrong.

>>3781163
sage = bump prove me wrong

And they are referring to speed of light in a vacuum, right?

>>3781163
Absolute time. Done.

We are monitoring this thread.

>>3781151
Not India! The United States of America! >:(

>>3781167
well, no. from underground cern in switzerland to gran sasso mountain in italy...

WHAT A GLORIOUS NEWS

EVERYBODY SING WITH ME

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-VQ-2xZThQ

If you wish to make, an apple pie from scratch,
You must first, invent the Universe.

Space is filled, with a network of wormholes,
You might emerge somewhere else in space,
Some-when else in time.

The sky calls to us,
If we do not destroy ourselves,
We will one day,
Venture to the stars.

A still more glorious dawn awaits,
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise,
A morning filled with four hundred billion suns,
The rising of the Milky Way.

A STILL MORE GLORIOUS DAWN AWAITS GUISE

>>3781168

>>implying relativity hasn't buttfucked absolute time out of existence

>>3781188
Please kill yourself.

I'm scared, guys :(

Someone hug me and tell me everything is going to be ok.

>rumor
>not reviewed
>other members of the collaboration disagree
>leaked on a blog
>blog post has since been taken down by the author
I'm inclined to believe this.

I knew it! Take that, Einstein!!!!

NOW WHERE IS MY ENTERPRISE??? I WANT MY GALACTIC SPACESHIP GUISE!!

>>3781206
source of your post?

suddenly aliens

FUCK YES FTLT REV UP THOSE MASS EFFECTS YOU'RE IN ONE

>>3781194
CARL SAGAN IS ALWAYS RELEVANT!

>>3780963
>>3780963

>>3781161
daily mail: SCIENTIST EXCEED SPEED OF LIGHT, TRAVEL TO ALPHA CENTAURI AND RAPE BLUE PEOPLE FOR ROOM TEMPERATURE SEMICONDUCTORS, MAKE IT BACK IN TIME FOR 10 AM TEA

In on scientific discovery thread

In b4 interstellar overdrive and colonisation of the galaxy

>>3781235
Yea, that's more like it.

>>3781235
LOL almost like it
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html

Looks like Erich Von Daniken and his ancient alien theories just got a big boost

>>3781244
way too late, brah

>>3781215
Original article about this:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&w=fd0a4525%2Cdeb929bb&
sig=R6oVQRndSqRxImKDgqX9rQ--&biw=1366&bih=624&source=hp&q=cache%3Awww.science20.com%
2Fquantum_diaries_survivor%2Fsixsigma_signal_superluminal_neutrinos_opera-82744&pbx=1&oq=cac
he%3Awww.science20.com%2Fquantum_diaries_survivor%2Fsixsigma_signal_superluminal_neutrinos_opera-827
44&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=9030l13537l1l13839l13l11l6l0l0l2l486l1902l2-1.
2.2l11l0

Another blogger comments about it:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/italian-out-of-tune-superluminal.html

And if you have any doubts the news media would take the information for their science stories from blog postings alone, think back to that Higgs rumor.

welp, im going to bed

I sincerely hope that tomorrow I'm awakened by air sirens going off to call the worlds population together so that CERN can present to earth the new physics, that will revolutionize everything, and make everything that we've ever known redundant.

>>3781260
yeah bro, they already used this technology to travel faster than light and zoomj into the past to give the nazis this technology and colonize the other planets

>>3780963

Why am I laughing so much.

Itt some huge faggot named Ian.

Does this mean I'm going slower when I run?

>>3781115
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn

please read it before embarrassing yourself further

Too good to be true. 100 dollars says some dickhead made an error and we're still stuck with Einstein. Feels bad man.

>>3781267
uhm.. let's just wait for tomorrow, and what other scientists have to say..

>implying God

>>3781301
You make it sound like that's a bad thing.

>>3781309
amazing, ah?

What's that? The speed of light is just a speed?

WHO KNEW

So yeah, nothing can go faster than light and, you know, we know that, you know? We *know* that. It's a fact. Also, the world is flat, earth is at the center and stars are holes in the canvas of night that lead to heaven. More at 11.

Is it time to buy a gun yet?

Also, what nature of evil being will we be nearly decimated by? Lovecraftian horrors? Tripods? Zombie apocalypse?

You know what this research will be used for ?

Faster than light pornography

>>3781267
Actually, I should revise that; they found out about this from a blog posting, but apparently they also interviewed the guy within the collaboration who believes he's found this result. He should have had more sense than to talk to the press. When in all likelihood this turns out to be a stupid mistake, it will be embarrassing for him.

>>3781318

Economic collapse.

>>3781332

I can't shoot that.

Actually, maybe Jewish people by proxy. But it wouldn't be the same.

>>3781324
I'm braced for disappointment, as we all should be. This planet feeds on teasing us.

>>3781204
Everything will be better than ok. This is exactly what mankind needs, something that proves we don't know anything.

>>3781324
agree on that. given that they would have made it public anyway for others to revise, exposing like this is incautious.. unless he really is sure to be right..

>>3781270
I hope so as well.

Imagine, a new dawn might await us.
Everything, changed in an instant.

All this really means is that we didn't know what we thought we knew. It's not like it's practical to us right now.

>It wipes out years and years of scientific thinking!!!!!

Yup, it does. Get over it and wait for the new theories to develop...and eventually be destroyed.

>>3781343

It was checked 15,000 times.

>>3781349
Only 15,000

pfft

>>3780937

thanks, i am aware that tunneling != wormholes

>>3780967

i never mentioned portals, so implying that i was trying to troll the thread with them is incorrect. please pissoff

i was basing my original post >>3780926
on an idea on an article i had read long ago. i can't find the article itself but i think it was based off of this research: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/ns-lst081607.php

also, inb4 group vs. phase velocity, i don't even

>>3781349
Exactly, have you people even read the damn article?

It's probably just an overlooked or miscalculated source of systematic error. It will be investigated more thoroughly either way, don't worry.

So, break this down for the simplest among us: what does this mean? What possible "benefits" might arise from this?

>>3781360
>benefits
>physics
Pick one^0*40/0.

>>3781349
yes, but for the nature of the discovery "itself" a deeper analysis is required.. the tema itself said that..

>>3781364
*team

Come here from another board with a question, I don't know shit about the subject, but if a lot of calculations are based of the speed of light, what would the be based off of now?

>>3780899
>>3780899
>>3780899
>>3780899

>>3781349
It was not fucking checked 15,000 times. The data set that seems to show the effect is 15,000 points.

>>3781367

It's fully dependant on which equation, equations regarding photons etc will stay the same.

>>3780843
WOOOOHOOOO!!

I knew it! I always knew that FTL was somehow possible... Screw you Einstein!!!

>>3781367
Stop. You're three large leaps ahead of the actual science, and are wasting your time. It's very likely that this is just unidentified systematic errors.

Just finished reading that article, holy fuck, I have no idea

Best to wait and see if this can be verified first before making extraordinary claims like this though

If this is such an important an exciting piece of news, then why isn't it all over the media?

Checkmate, atheists.

BUT CAN I FUCK IT?

>>3781036
>>3781036
>>3781036
>>3781036
Everyone please stop freaking the fuck out and see this

>>3781358
>>3780892
>>3780899
>>3781369

These. Dammit, why am I even here. /sci/ is full of trolls and morons.

>>3781376
>implying

>>3781323
>Faster than light
THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID

>>3781391

No,

But it fucks you.

>>3781380
lol
i heard it one hour ago on the main tv news.. but i'm in italy, particularly interested in the matter, since gran sasso is here..

>>3781036
Also not that the current result is not nearly enough to actually believe that
> neutrinos are roughly 1.000024001 times faster than light.

More research will be done, and it's very likely that this very small discrepancy will disappear.

>>3781396
THATS EVEN BETTER

>>3781386
I thought the significance was that light is now not the ultimate speed barrier and its possible to go faster.

Not sure why it would mean neutrinos just simply replace light.

>>3781363
>physics doesn't ever have beneficial uses

general relativiy is needed for gps...
why? satellites in orbit need to know the same time as trackers on the ground. the satellite is under less gravitational force as something on the ground, therefore its time runs faster

consider your mind blown for today

>>3781403
>Also note
fixed

WTB neutrino lasers for my intergalactic spaceship, willing to pay 2 grams of antimatter.

>>3781410
>2 grams of antimatter

>>3780928
Did they remove this line from the article or am I just blind? (Google finds the line in the article so I know it must have been there at some point.)

Anyway, here's the link to the seminar:
http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=155620

>>3781407
Would have been discovered by engineers

>>3781410
2 grams of antimatter are worth more money than I can even comprehend. A gram of antihydrogen is like 60 trillion dollars.

Neutrino's have negative mass, therefore they travel faster than light.

>>3781419
i don't think so jim

...meanwhile, just outside your solar system

pic is actually related

>>3781430
Why?
What can you do with it?

>>3781403
Ooor it turns out to be even faster than that.

>>3781437
It costs that much because it's so difficult and so expensive to make.

>>3781406
It is
The problem is people running around with their heads cut off expecting hyperdrives tomorrow

>>3781441
>negative mass
Oh sorry I thought this was a science board.

>>3781443
Fucking worms and their wormholes.

Hold the goddamn phone.

So,lets say you're flying your ship faster than the speed of light,you encounter a black hole,Do you get sucked in,Or do you escape if you're faster than the rate of the black hole's consumption?

>>3781442
It would have been a simple matter of comparing the clock on the satellite and the clock on the ground

maybe...just maybe...neutrinos are semi-intelligent and are trolling us?

>>3781386
that's not the point.
point is, einstein's theory of relativity is wrong.
if neutrinos can go faster, maybe something else can too?

picture related

>>3781455
you'd be able to go deeper than light can and escape.
however, shit would go nuts in the "black" because there could be light orbiting the mass in there.

>>3781459
>implying trolls are intelligent

/co/ would say the flash is faster than neutrinos

Wait a fucking second.

Does this mean time travel is possible?

>>3781459
How would that matter? They'd still be moving faster than the speed of light.

Now, if the equipment they used to measure the speed of the neutrinos were sentient beings wanting to troll Italians, THEN you might have a case...

>>3781479
No.

>>3781479

Does nobody understand that trying to ask questions about a new theory with information that only makes sense under the old theory is like asking why we don't fall off the earth if it's round?

>world shits themselves over this today
>nobody remembers it by tomorrow
>nothing changes except in some dank labs

Holy fuck /sci/ is full of morons.

>>3781493
well, just bokmark this, ill watch the webcast..
http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=155620

>>3781492

>>3781471
Prove that facility exists

That's just a drawing, it's obviously not a photograph

This means photons have mass and neutrinos have less or no mass

I always knew!

>>3781456
And the clock in orbit must correct for relativity,ta daaaa

I never studied relativity, can anybody explain to me why exactly the speed of light is (or was) supposed to be the fastest speed possible?

>>3781450
He might be trolling but do we even understand what mass is? Maybe they have substance but negative mass. Like the neutrino may interact with the particle that gives objects mass (forget it's name) in a way that counters its influence, therefore giving you negative mass. But it still has substance.

>>3781506
Why so mad?

>>3781514
OMG youreright! it's a fuckin cia complot!

>>3781501
So will I...

Just imagine if this is true, this opens up for so many new theories.
Finally something concrete that proves we aren't all knowing like some people seem to believe.
What we thought impossible will be proven possible. That's just.. wow.

>>3781528
Like...we know that neutrino's collide with objects because of their kinetic energy. That would imply that they have mass, but in actuality they just have momentum because they're moving. Maybe they have negative mass if they were standing still.

>>3781540
Only the very stupidest of didn't know there were huge gaps in our knowledge

>>3781501
>**Tea and coffee will be served at 15h30**

I'm there.

>>3781188
I'd rather http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUW00Y5x1tM..

>>3781563
lol

>people who said LHC was a waste of money
>TOLD

I'm assuming that these "15,000 times" is from a single experiment with 15,000 particles. To replicate the experiment 15,000 times would be too costly I would imagine.

I'll profess my own ignorance of how the LHC works and is calibrated, but is it possible that this small deviation from the speed of light is due to some kind of calibration error?

For example, I do research on explosives. When I do a mass balance, sometimes I get 105% of the mass back, which is completely normal.

Does this mean we need to reset the atomic clocks now?

>>3781586
they've been testing those results carrying out experiments and taking measurementsfor the last 3 years. Thousands of measurements could well be possible.

>>3781586
>>3781597
i assumed 15000 measurements too, (shoots from cern if you want).
and i think the experiment is running from 2005, so 6 years

Okay so I'm just here on this board to ask a friendly question. Don't flame me for it please I know I don't know shit.

But what does this mean? Everyone is saying how all laws of physics are broken now... What's the concrete problem with things going faster than light?

>>3781594
What the FUCK does this have to do with atomic clocks?

oh, neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light...time to reheat the casserole. What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>3781586
>When I do a mass balance, sometimes I get 105% of the mass back, which is completely normal.
no, you are a bad chemist.

Vacuum dry your shit. And balances have a little balance bubble on them that ensures the proper weight reading each time. Find that shit, and balance your balance properly.
5% error is your fault, not the balances.

>>3781578
0/10

what is... negative mass?

>>3781597
Not that guy, but you're missing the point.

They've got 15,000 measurements. From that set of measurements, it looks like the transit time is less than would be expected for the speed of light by a few billions of a second.

But this is probably a systematic error, as in
>>3781586
> is it possible that this small deviation from the speed of light is due to some kind of calibration error?
>For example, I do research on explosives. When I do a mass balance, sometimes I get 105% of the mass back, which is completely normal.

There's only one experimental result here, not 15,000.

>>3781610

>>3781614
>5% error is your fault, not the balances.
And how much error could be attributed to the balance? (not that guy)

We're dealing with a very, very small departure from the expected velocity of the neutrinos here.

>>3781615

the speed of light is a constant used to determine a multitude of things in quantum mechanics

>>3781615
It wounds the pride of morons

I'm not saying anything until I see formal results published. I'm not going to get my hopes up over a possible recording error.

Quick question from /v/

When light is refracted through a medium, does the light actually slow down or is there some more complex mechanism going on?

I always thought that light was a constant.

>>3781586

Well that may be true, but if such results were "normal" for this type of experiment then the researchers wouldn't be making such a fuss about it, I think...

>>3781623
>Say something stupid
>Get told it's stupid
>KEKITROLU!!1!!1!!!!1111!1!!11!

>>3781610
trolled with the power of a billion billion neutrinos

More data please

>>3781615
our current understanding of physics says that the speed of light is the ultimate limit.
If this result turns out to be true then it would change our understanding of how to universe works, which will open up new possibilities for phyisics research and discoveries and applications in the daily life, and at the same time wil close others.
What are those possibilities is impossible to say now.

New Scientist are saying this story is nonsense, but have so far not said anything else. They have a story coming soon(ish), apparently.

>>3781645
fuck you're a genius

>>3781645
lol

>>3781645
LOLOL IM A FUCKING SCIENCETIST AND THERES NO WAY WE'VE OVERLOOKED SOMETHING FUCKING OBVIOUS LIKE TECTONIC PLATES MOVING

Why isn't this stickied? This is life altering shit.

well fuck. so this could mean everything I studied last year in modern physics I and II might have all been wrong

Who gives a shit about the speed of light? No-one has ever given a decent approximation of the speed of gravity

>>3781671
speed of gravity = speed of light

>>3781672
>/b2/ denizen trying to be funny and lolsorandom

FUCKING GAMESTOP

>Gabe announces Left 4 Dead 3, Portal 3, Dota 3 and Team Fortress 3
>Treats
>Spaghetti falls out of my pocket
>Suddenly, Bears
>Cashier throws up everywhere
>Jizz into the cashier's shocked, open mouth and eyes
>Let out a wet, smelly, shitty fart
>There's shit all over my pants and on the pube-covered floor
>My asscrack explodes, shit and blood is everywhere and inside the cashier's mouth. Pubes shoot out from around my dick and pierce the woman's eyes
>Bowel movement starts becoming frantic, sweating rivers from my forehead and armpits
>Feel awkward as fuck standing there
>The cashier is a beautiful brunette who tells me she loves videogames
>Decide to take it home after hearing about it from /v/, as well as Mass Effect 3
>See Skyrim on the shelves
>Go to Gamestop
>Be a vidya loving neutrino

>>3781663
Hardly. At best, it's an error in our understanding of the universe, something that cannot be rectified without a lot more research. We'll see.

>more data
>could be a mistake

They found this shit out possibly weeks ago, but were rechecking the data because they knew something was off. Either the data was wrong, or it was right.

The news you're hearing today is what CERN found out 'x' weeks ago. What they're doing now, is sending the data to independent organizations and scientists to check that as well one final time.

They're also doing a live seminar of the findings. So, all in all, it's true.

Or everyone dun goof'd.

Chances are, it's true.

>>3781614
You really don't understand the nature of my experiments. My precision completely blows away that of any other researcher who has come before me. Comparing results from my experiments to others makes it look like I simply made up the data, which is actually what my advisers thought I did at first. The standard deviation between replicates is so small that error bars are lost inside the data points. I can assure you that I'm not a bad chemist.

>>3780963

>>3781671
I thought gravity moved at the speed of light?
To expand; if the sun suddenly disappeared, we would not notice any gravitational change until approximately 8 minutes later.

>>3781672

>>3781681
ditto

>>3781674
Not a shred of evidence to support that notion

>>3781630
If you weighing say 1 g. you can get small variations even with it balanced and calibrated correctly. say 1.0005g (+/- 0.0005) That small perturbation can be due to say, changes in air pressure or air flow acting on the balance. That's why a lot of balances have these small glass boxes enclosing the balance, to minimize this effect. The balances are built pretty sturdy and youd really have to fuck it up to get wrong masses or just have it tilting slightly.

If these LHC fellas can have it replicated numerous times, by other research groups that come and go many many times and find the same exact perturbations theyre getting, Id say this shit is fo'real

>>3781685
Theory of relativity states this. Whether you consider that to be true or not is really up to you. Nothing is ever sure in science.

>>3781684
>HURRDURR MY AWESOMENESS BLOWS AWAY EVERYONE ELSE, AND MY NEMESIS ON CAMPUS DIDN'T BELIEVE ME BUT I SURE SHOWED HIM, I GOT AN A+!
Go ahead, show me something that you have done that blows everything else out of proportions.

>>3781630
I'm only posing the question in terms of what I know, so I'm very careful to ask questions instead of giving my opinion on something that I don't know very much about. if it turns out that my experiences are completely irrelevant, then so be it, but it's good to know either way.

Why so surprised? This happens when you believe in dogmas like "nothing can go faster than light".

discovery of the century?

Does this change E=mc2?

This may just be because I am a simpleton, but...
1.) gravity affects light
2.)gravity does not have a range (althought the decrease in force is exponential)
3.) neutrinos barely interact with most 'normal' matter.

Could it just be that the neutrinos simply interact less with gravity than photons and and therefore seem to go faster?

OH GOD I BREAK PHYSICS HALP

>>3781684
Then how in the hell are you getting 100% yeilds at minimum?

What reactions are you doing?

Are you properly weighing your shit?

If you vacuum dry your stuff, what kind of a vacuum are you pulling? You heating?

>>3781712
completely.

Fucking neutrinos out to troll Einstein.

guys... guys......

guys.....


what if.....


speed of gravity > speed of neutrino?

>>3781685
true, just einstein's general realivity and a couple of unverified controversial experiments using binary pulsars

>>3781021
The article seems pretty conservative.

>>3781681
This.

>A particle with no mass moves some billionths of a second faster then light
>Suddenly space crafts travelling to other solar systems

Even if this is correct doesnt really matter that much does it. Get it, matter much?

Where is your warp drive now?

>>3781696
relativity is known not to be the complete truth. the only evidence for speed of gravity is a couple of unverified controversial experiments using binary pulsars. btw, differentfag here

>>3781637
The light is repeatedly absorbed and re-emitted by atoms/molecules in the material, so the light propagates through the material slower than the speed of light. But the photons themselves don't actually slow down at all.

Sounds like we'll just establish a Neutrino speed and then move on, but we know it's never that simple. Which is fun.

>>3781727
The speed of gravity was a prediction of relativity that was never proved

So now that we know Einstein was full of shit, I wonder if mass increases when you go faster than light... maybe it doesn't. Maybe mass decreases... maybe speed has no boundary... maybe speed is infinite.

Hey /sci/. I am an idiot so if anyone can give me an answer to this I'd be happy.

Everything we can see, we can see it in the past because of the time it takes for light to move, is this correct or incorrect?

EL

PSY

CONGROO

>>3781526

Because Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, fucknut.

>>3781637
dude: "speed of light in a vacuum". done

Odds these guys win a Nobel Prize if this thing is real?

What in the name of science...

How long will it be until this is verified and confirmed by more than the CERN researchers?

>>3781741
Ha, good one!
But if this is true, it does open up the POSSIBILITIES of faster than light travel. Not that we will ever experience it (I hope we will though).

Just the fact that there is no longer a limit is mindblowing. The impossible is possible, it opens up so much new things, and so many new theories can be brought the table.

Scientist that actually wanted to work on FTL but weren't allowed/got funding for it because "IMPOSSIBRU" might now get funding and actually start working with it.

>>3781066
implying this is the domain of classical physics

>>3780843
>no scientifc ariticle on this

>no scientist has presented results concering this

ITT: just dumbfucks speading rumors

And ya'll wonder why scientist don't include you in there findings.

>>3781755
True and it takes our brain a while to process the image, so you see double in the past.

>>3781761
100%

>>3781755
>Everything we can see, we can see it in the past because of the time it takes for light to move, is this correct or incorrect?

Yeah... obviously

god damnit

I just KNOW this will unleash a flood of "HURR DURR SCIENCE IS WRONG THEORIES ARE JUST WILD GUESSES" bullcrap in the media and the internet

>>3781772
\thread

>>3781760
Holy shit I didn't know the LHC was 1/3 the earth diameter.

>>3781780
Therefore, God exists.

>>3781773
>>3781777

So what would happen if we could capture an image faster then the speed of light+the time it takes the image to be captured?

>>3781781
>>3781772
http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=155620

Check in tomorrow, press conference about this.

>>3781768
When they move a particle with mass Ill be impressed.

>>3781758

NOT ANYMORE IT DOESN'T NIGGA

WOO LET'S ALL GET NAKED UP IN THIS SHIT

>>3781780
this ought to happen with all our experiments, but unfortunately just a few of them are high profile. it's not like anyone that reads the tabloids knows the slightest ratshit about anything that's going on anyway, they just want to know that we're not better than them.

>>3781477
They already did.

I've already lubed myself up in preparation for Time Travel.

>"But Dr Ereditato and his colleagues have been carrying out an experiment for the last three years that seems to suggest neutrinos have done just that."
>"last three years"

This ain't no fucking calculation error, skepticfags. This is some big shit.

IF this is true it's fucking unbelievable
BUT it may be simple systematic errors

>>3781586
It means they fired a bunch of neutrinos 15,000 times, 15,000 individual particles tells you fuck all.

>>3781798
http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=155620

Tune in tomorrow. Shit is going to be glorious.
I'm gonna plug in my projector into the computer, get naked and eat chips.

>>3781786
We capture the light from the moment before the light you aren't capturing.

>>3781637

When light propagates through a medium of any kind its transit through the medium is delayed by the interaction of each photon with the surrounding atoms in that medium.

The delay is a result of the photon being absorbed by an atom, released by that atom, the photon the travels at c until it hits the next atom, and so forth until it breaches the edges of the medium.

Still travels at c when in free space between atoms.

>>3781798
>This ain't no fucking calculation error, skepticfags. This is some big shit.
Please.

It's probably a source of systematic error that was overlooked or misunderstood. Not a simple math error. No one is claiming that someone forgot to carry the 1.

All faggots, read this post.

>>3781681
>>3781681
>>3781681
>>3781681
>>3781681
>>3781681
>>3781681
>>3781681
>>3781681


Read the articles.
>Gillies told The Associated Press that the readings have so astounded researchers that they are asking others to independently verify the measurements before claiming an actual discovery.

>independently verify the measurements before claiming an actual discovery.

CERN measured it. Now they're asking independent researchers and organizations to check their data as well.

>CERN says a neutrino beam fired from a particle accelerator near Geneva to a lab 730 kilometres away in Italy travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light. Scientists calculated the margin of error at just 10 nanoseconds, making the difference statistically significant. But given the enormous implications of the find, they still spent months checking and rechecking their results to make sure there was no flaws in the experiment.
>still spent months.

There you go. CERN checked it. Now they're getting other to check it before they make the 'official announcement'.

Remember, mainstream media runs faster than independent media. The reason this shit isn't on sites like ScienceDaily and Arstechnica, etc. should be obvious.

Hello I'm a spirit of God from /x and I see you atheists are finally discovering the realm of the divine, congratulations children. We will accept you when you're ready to come to the light

>>3781782
This is a joke right?

>>3781455
Even if you are traveling FTL it would still be the cosmic equivalent of being hit by a semi... ok I'm exaggerating, it would be about 17 987 547.48 times worse than that. (at 60kph)

>>3781796

Would you future-fuck yourself up your own time-hole?

Because I totally would.

More importantly, is it pedophilia if you travel back in time and fiddle with your 3 year old self?

Maybe neutrinos have negative mass?

>>3781818
No, it's probably meant to be.
If you travel back in time and have your way with yourself, that's probably the event that caused you pedophilia to begin with, so you are always destined to it.

>>3781712
Well E=mc² isn't the real formula, so most likely no.

I hope all of you ITT know what "statistically significant" does and doesn't mean.

Oh, who the hell am I kidding. You could probably count the number of people ITT who understand it on one hand.

Why are we talking about time travel again?

And does anyone know how much faster than light these neutrinos are traveling?

>>3781741
Nice!

>>3781844
http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=155620

We'll probably know more tomorrow.

>>3781830

I'm pretty sure nobody on /sci/ can count to 5, bro.

>>3781789
They don't do this to impress you.

>>3781825
read:
>>3781621
tell me please!

>>3781789
Nuetrinos have been prooven to have mass. Lrn2oscillation.

>>3781868
There's no such thing as negative mass, just like there's no such thing as negative length.

>>3781814
>60 nanoseconds
>the speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s
>=0.299792458 meters per nanosecond
>60 nanoseconds = 17.9875475 meters

ok, guys, what if

what IF

the maps are wrong and the laboratory is 18 meters further from CERN?

>>3781881
experiments do not specify positive mass

does this mean I have to re-take my physics? I just got though Physics 2...

>>3781852
>>3781807
>>3781493
I am GMT+1 When will it start for me?

>>3781901
Yeah I'm sure they missed that

>>3781899
why not? and prove to me there such a thing as negative length.

>>3781901
Systematic errors (you point out one possible source) are probably what's going on.

But /sci/ is full of trolls and morons who let their speculation run wild whenever something gives them an excuse.

>>3781921
Mathematician with dull personality detected

You have five apples.

Subtract ten apples and tell me how many apples you have left.

>>3781918
No, you prove to me there is negative length.

>>3781903
There aren't any other forms.

>>3781918
Burden of proof, bitch. You can't be less than nothing tall.

>>3781830
indeed

>>3781901
Yeah, they've range tested with OS maps.

>>3781910
Same time. Zurich is GMT +1. It's pretty easy to google.

>>3781933
I can't subtract more apples than I have sir. Welcome to the real world.

>>3781899
you talkin shit about negative length? î 'll slap your shit.

>>3781852
**Tea and coffee will be served at 15h30**

>>3781944
Why did you bother, if he can't work out timezones he wont understand the conference.

>>3781932
Science is about finding truth, not about entertaining you.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2011/09/22/01008-20110922ARTFIG00686-relativite-einstein-contredit-p
ar-des-chercheurs-francais.php
French article, full of data for those of you lucky enough to know french.
Im having a nerdsgasm.

$5 says it'll be found to be some error in the machinery/software

>>3781949
Facepalm is implied.

>>3781967
>only betting $5

Come on, you don't sound secure at all. Betting your house would be more like it.

>>3781881
Maybe they have negative mass very rarely. Like under extreme conditions sometimes their mass switches to negative for a brief amount of time.

They are known to change anyway ... wasn't exploring them changing what the experience was about?

>>3781961
If it's true, I'm hoping they say something like "This will change the world as we know it" and he will think the world is coming to an end and kill himself.
>>3781960
I will drink coffee and tea for this.

>>3781933
negative five apples(five negative apples?). Which I guess means i still owe you five apples? I feel like i can visualize them now... a lot more easily than i can visualize mass...
what does it mean?!

>>3781985
But you don't have those five apples you owe, do you?

>>3781899
what next? no such thing as a negative index of refraction... oh wait, brb science

>>3781978
Not that guy, but what odds are being offered?

>>3781975
Changing lepton flavour is very different from changing into 'negative mass'

>the only thing that will change is that a new "speed limit" will be set and we'll be done with it

>>3781925
I could prove to you there are plus and minus sides to a battery.

You made a statement "just as there is no negative length" as if it one must follow the other. This is creationist logic.

in before floating point error

>>3782000
>implying a new speed limit wouldn't be a fucking huge discovery.

>>3781996
There's negative absolute temperature as well, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

>>3782008
Ok, let's drop the bullshit.

I'm not the world's expert, but I'm a PhD candidate in a physics, and I'm telling you that real particles can't have negative mass. It's nonsense. You might as well talk about four-sided triangles and demand to know how much Tuesday weighs.

>>3782022
>I'm telling you that real particles can't have negative mass. It's nonsense.

Just like there is nothing faster then the speed of light?

>>3782022
would a PhD candidate also argue that no particles can travel faster than light speed?

>>3781994
just cuts into next year's profit...
Hey! Maybe the universe is divided into things that have negative mass and things that have positive mass, in such a way that it balances. Being creatures made of mass living amongst mass, we only learn about things that have mass, until shit like this.
But maybe not lolwut

>>3782022
>candidate

>>3782032
What, you want me to lie about it? I'm a grad student who's passed his qualifying exam but hasn't defended his PhD thesis yet.

>>3782008

No, he was making a comparison to illustrate his point. He was not saying that there can be no negative mass BECAUSE there is no negative length.

l2criticalthinking


Mass is a scalar.

>>3782042

Then by definition shouldn't there be antiparticles that can't travel at anything below the speed of light?

>>3782022
How the fuck are you a pHd candidate and have never heard of four-sided triangles?
no but srsly lrn2creative

>>3782036
>>3782042

If you guys are gonna continue spewing this bullshit you might aswell go full pyrrhonist. Have fun believing nothing.

>>3782042
Relativity has very strong experimental confirmation, and that's one of the necessary predictions, yes.

It's likely that the current result is due to unidentified systematic error in the experiment. More experiments will be needed to check.

Doesn't qm say something like particles can move faster than the speed of light as long as the average/path time when summed over all space comes out to c?

>>3782066

What in the fuck am I reading here?

Is this real life?

>>3782061
charge is also scalar, right? clearly, critical thinking isn't all you need. you might also need some knowledge.

>>3782074
>/sci/
>modifying facts to fit theory
>not vice cersa

>>3782066
Antiparticles have positive mass and energy. Antiparticles are not tachyons.

>>3782012

I'm betting they didn't account for the position of the moon.

The moon's gravity pinches the Earth's crust closest to the moon. Take a water balloon filled with water. Slightly pinch one edge. That's essentially what's happening.

The distance between both observatories is then reduced, according to your map.

>>3782091
I'm doing no such thing - just updating my priors with a rational Bayesian assessment of new evidence. Relativity is still very likely to be correct about the universal speed limit with the current evidence. It is much more likely that the experiment has a minor source of systematic error that was missed.

>>3782081

- and + charge are entirely arbitrary. They don't really represent negativity in the sense of a normal negative number. You could call them green charge and splurge charge instead of positive and negative.

>>3782071
>Scientist
>Not pyrrhonian

Pick one

>>3782109
nevertheless the + and - effects effects are opposing

>>3782115

Name me a single Pyrrhonian scientist.

You know what this means? INFINITE ENERGY!

>>3781702
I thought about doing that, but there are only a few dozen researchers actively doing work in this area, and I don't think it's the best idea to post my unpublished work, and their published work on a public forum. I'm excellent in the lab. If you don't want to believe that, so be it.

>>3782134
Hush, you will be kill by FBI!

>people ITT seriously arguing that all things have positive and negative
Sure is dualist bullshit. Quite a few things are positive definite, like length.

>>3781961
>>3781977
assholes.
>>3781944
Thanks

>>3782134
or negative energy, surely?! oh wait, no, that, hmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>3782126
Every single one ever.

>>3782093
Yeah, because you are smarter then all the scientists at CERN, right?

You think of things entire teams of scientists cannot, shin son, you should be working at CERN. You're such a genius.

>>3782183

Pyrrhonism necessarily dictates that there can be no answers to anything. It renders the scientific method totally worthless and removes any purpose whatsoever from science; it achieves nothing.

There are very few Pyrrhoniam scientists, whatever you might like to think.

>>3782181
You're welcome, asshole.

>>3782022
What is mass then?

Gentlemen! We are one step closer to the flux capacitor!

>>3782204
He's probably referring to fallibilism, a modern extension, but not all scientists are fallibilist either.

>>3782193
>implying I'm not on a train to the CERN labs as we speak

They called and asked me for help.

You jelly, nonimportant fag?

Seriously, though, look at what they tested:
>"We wanted to find a mistake - trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects - and we didn't"

That shit happens all the time.

>>3782215
A highly concentrated form of energy. On a more fundamental level, we don't really know.

>>3782204
Actually it simply means that nothing can be known, not even this. You make the best theories based on the best evidence and doesn't let personal prejudice cloud judgement. When new evidence arrives old theories are discarded, scientists are pyrrhonian, people who defend their pet theories in spite of evidence are not scientists

>>3782241
how far are you willing to take this?

>>3782232
They're synonymous

>>3782250
>scientists are pyrrhonian, people who defend their pet theories in spite of evidence are not scientists
Your definition of pyrrhonian is way, way too inclusive. Pyrrhonism is more than updating your beliefs on new evidence. A lot more specific than that.

>>3782241
>trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects
So they probably tested if it was effected by the moon..

Where did you start from, and what time did the train depart? You know, just to prove you're so goddamn important.

>>3780855
>implying string theory and multiverses hasn't always been the most probable answer

>>3782286
My definition is the actual definition

>>3782293
They aren't going to call everyone for help after going to the press and asking other institutions to double check for them, ignore moronic trolls.

>>3782309
>my definition is correct
>don't give the definition
Okay.

There's a good chance that we all agree here, but are talking past each other with different terminology.

>>3782333
I know, that's why I asked him about the train.

http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=155620

might be interesting.

>>3782345
>Already given the definition
>Complains about not being given the definition

>>3782354
only if you're a particle physicist

http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=155620

might be interesting..

>>3782256

Probably farther than your wit could withstand. We'll call it a truce. I'll give a shoutout to you fags on /sci/ in one of our reports. Something like "/sci/ is full of faggots." Very discrete.

>>3782293
Or they didn't because, you know, shit like that is overlooked quite often.

>>3782359
>Actually it simply means that nothing can be known, not even this.
>this is indistinguishable from radical skepticism
This is part of what I mean by being overly broad. You have more in mind than your given definition.

>>3782380
>shit like that is overlooked quite often.

But, I, the mighty Anonymous never over looks those things! Only the retarded scientists at CERN do.