/sci/ - Science & Math

It might have been measurement error. It might be that our old measurements for c were off.

It might be that like Newtonian mechanics, relativity is just another good model, but which breaks down in certain domains.

>>3786204
>It might be that like Newtonian mechanics, relativity is just another good model, but which breaks down in certain domains.
I think it's this. I mean, they've been doing it for three years, so I have trouble buying a measurement error.

>>3786204
c is Einstein's CONSTANT, calculated before any successful experiment could show it...

Where did you get that specific number, OP?

not only that, the biggest measurement error was 10 ns and this was 60ns faster then c

>>3786212
It was using the same equipment, possibly using some of the same written calculations. Someone might have forgotten to carry a 1.

Another example from a physicist on the radio is that there might have been Cheetoh's dust on the detector. Who knows.

>>3786214
Then perhaps the measurement of the constants used to calculate c were off.

http://hosted.ap.org /dynamic/stories /E/EU_BREAKING_LIGHT_SPEED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

No more relativity.
At last the proof that relativity is wrong is here.

Fu science.

neutrinos are faster than light nigga, neutrinos are not light deal with it

Ftl travel may be possible. We may visit the stars.

>>3786215
>>3786215
>>3786215
>>3786215
>>3786215
>>3786215
This.

>300006km/s
I'm gonna need some citation, OP.

>>3786264

relativity is a line in the sand for basically everything in the universe. our current understanding of physics is based on the belief that nothing, not protons, not electrons, not neutrinos, can move faster than the speed of light.

neutrinos are very very strange particles though and we haven't learned as much about them as we have others. that's what makes this so interesting.

sooo....you're either stupid or you're trolling.

So information CAN travel FTL.

:D

neutrions are actualy gravitons

>>3786284

citation: news report on AP...I just gave the link. Read thread.

>>3786284
Not op here; did a rough calculation and got 299,803km/s, 11km/s faster than c.

>>3786284
Do you live under a rock? It's been talked about all day on this board and was on ever major news site.

whoa, my GF just send me a link about this and i rushed in /sci/ to post it.
But obviously you got it first.

So this is interesting, lets assume neutrinos do FTL speeds, what would that mean?

>>3786296
No retard, it doesn't say 300,006 anywhere in that link.

>>3786296
>>3786299

You two are retarded.
I'm >>3786284

>greentext
>300 006km/s
>asked for citation on this figure
>figure didn't appear in linked article
>or in any of the other threads I've seen this afternoon
>or any of the ones last night
>to top it off, another anon does calculations (actually telling us he did them, rather than just stating them as fact) and arriving at a different figure.

So again, I need citation on that figure OP.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article13669695.ab
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/vetenskap/partikel-rorde-sig-snabbare-an-ljus
there u have it was afk

>>3786345

>greentext
>take head out of ass
>google what you want to know like the rest of us
>read
>stop whining for OP to hold your hand

God, imagine what it must have been like in the lab.

>>3786360
>OP posts figure without source as fact
>Burdon of proof
>It's apparently my job to go gather information myself, rather than OP's to back up his claim.
>Still no source posted.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15410354,00.html
another link for the retard that is too stupid to use google

>>3786361

shitstorm. confusion. yelling in french.

but exciting. i mean, i'm excited and i barely know anything but the most basic of physics. i know enough to daydream about some of the implications.

the annoying thing is now that CERN and the LHC are back in the news, we'll most likely get a flood of rednecks screaming about black holes six feet under switzerland.

in another thread on this board some redneck was spouting something about it all being liberal nonsense. prepare for stupidity.

>>3786313
>>3786324
>>3786345
>>3786359
>>3786360
>>3786361
>>3786365
>>3786368

> Broke the laws of physics
> /sci/ enters rage-mode.
Never change.

>>3786365

I'm not OP, you jackass. and two links directly above the post you just called me out on have the figure. if you're too lazy and stupid to google then I hope to god you can manage "open link in new tab"

>>3786359
>>3786359
>>3786359
Ah at last, thank you very much.
>>3786368
It's not a matter of whether I can use google or not. It's not my job to back up your claims.

guise what if aliens use these FTL to travel to earth and then aliens

>>3786375

You may or may not come to the realization that it was CERN's claim, and not in fact my own.

But hey, you made it! Now maybe you can finally figure out what everyone is talking about, welcome to the conversation. Or did you still want to argue links

>>3786386

Strictly speaking, you claimed that CERN claim this speed.

>>3786385
>>3786385

If neutrinos travelled 730km 60 nanoseconds faster than light, then they would be traveling at 299,799km/s. 300,006 is strange, just saying.

This is a genuinely interesting and ground breaking discovery and all you lot can do is argue about semantics and the religious implications.

Get a fucking grip /sci/.

I'm not a physicist but how about this?

The neutrinos are traveling <--- that way at just under c.
The earth is traveling that ---> way. Would that account for our measurements clocking the neutrinos at just over c?

>>3786400

This.

>>3786400
I agree. I want to throw a party, and have drinks. This is so incredible. It blows my mind. Gives new meaning to the saying, "Nothing is impossible." What'll be next?

>>3786408
over 730km? Unlikely.

how do you know it traveled 730 km?

>>3786408

1. Are we sure the neutrinos are traveling in that direction? Which direction does the LHC face?
2. Someone would have to tell us exactly how fast the earth travels, which I'm unsure of.
3. Probably irrelevant, since the particle physicists at CERN would have had to take these calculations into account immediately after the anomaly, otherwise they wouldn't deserve to work there.

>>3786408
not quite.

http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/al.html

>The team found that the neutrinos travelled 300,006 kilometers per second, which is about six kilometers per second faster than the speed of light.
>6km/s
>actual light speed is 299,792km/s
>actual difference is 214km/s (770,400km/h)
>derp

does that mean I can download porn before I want it?

>>3786408

Its a closed ring, in sure earth has zero interference under the conditions.

>>3786188
Arm chair physicist! The guys at CERN know what they are talking about unlike you.

>>3786428
Forget it someone fucked up the numbers in the news article, they key quote here is
>The team found that the neutrinos travelled 300,006 kilometers per second, which is about six kilometers per second faster than the speed of light.
>6km/s

That's not a little bit faster, that's a fuckload faster.

this is gonna like that BS where they tell you 0.999999 reoccuring is the same as 1.

i mean if it doesn't make sense it's not true

derp

>>3786436

still fun to talk about.

(much respect to CERN, hopefully they don't come after us)

derp

>>3786441
It is the same. Get out.

What I want to know is- neutrinos have been around for a while(known, I mean) How come they weren't able to find out sooner?

>>3786452
Anyone who goes against Einstein is a looney ! It was sort of like a religion or a cult.

>>3786385
how can they get accurate testing when there are billions passing through every cubic centimeter every second?

>>3786459
The test has been repeated dozens of times that's how.

>>3786451

lol how can 0.9999999.... be the same as 1. look at them. they are clearly different.

Press conference about this will be held in 5 hours and 40 minutes here: http://webcast.cern.ch

>>3786466
How can 2+2 be 4? They are clearly different.

I like this quote from the Head of Particle Theory at Oxford:

>"The constancy of the speed of light essentially underpins our understanding of space and time and causality, which is the fact that cause comes before effect.

>"Cause cannot come after effect and that is absolutely fundamental to our construction of the physical universe. If we do not have causality, we are buggered."

Wonder if Israel will give the Nobel Prizes and money back.

>>3786485
You are trolling, right?

>>3786476
Hey whoa what the fuck

What does the speed of light have to do with causality?

As someone who believes in Determinism, if C&E get disproved you can consider my jimmies officially rustled.

I don`t think this threatens anything, maybe the fact that the speed of light is not, that speedy and the fact that maybe, if proven by other experiments, that maybe we can ya now.

send a cake to the future!!! for example.

>>3786490
Not at all the money and prizes should be given back. That money would be a lot in these times.

>>3786501
You already can.

It's called a time capsule.

>>3786498
You can have cause and effect without determinism. Naive FTL is equivalent to a "go back in time" machine. Lots of people think that "go back in time" mcahines imply that there is no such thing as causality (whatever that means).

>>3786503
He was still right. He is still right. He still deserves the prize money. That we found a place where it's slightly off doesn't change how radically important it was back in the day.

Same with Newton.

Asshat idiots who think that suddenly because it's not absolute it must be absolutely wrong.

>>3786470
>>3786470

because if you put 2 and 2 together you get 4

if you put 0.9 with 0.09 ... etc do you get 1?

>>3786514
Why are you being so conservative ? You act like its a religion or a cult. Everything you know is a lie and radical change is coming. This is a new golden age for science forget everything you knew.

>>3786515
Theoretically speaking, if the universe is infinite then it is 1.

If the universe is not infinite, then at some point 'etc' has to stop.

>>3786515

Nope, if you put 0.999... and 0.999... together you get 2 though.
I don't even know why I'm answering though, it's so obvious that you're just trolling.

>>3786515
No. Luckily that's not what 0.999 repeating means.

Look. Here are you options. If you want to use the math that everyone else uses, then let's talk Real Numbers. It's trivially provable that two Real Numbers are distinct iff the distance between them is nonzero. It's also trivially provable that 0.000...0001 is not a Real Number.

0.999..., like all decimal expansions, is defined as a limit. It's defined as
lim as n -> inf of sum as i = 1 to n of 9/10^i
That limit equals 1.

If you don't like it, then f off. We're going to keep using Real Numbers. Let me know how your new number system fairs.

>>3786523
No.

>>3786522
Newtonian mechanics is still correct today as it was 400 years ago. Relativity is still as correct today as it was a week ago. GPS still works. There is no radical change. It is definitely not a lie.

>>3786527
>>3786527

>It's trivially provable that two Real Numbers are distinct iff the distance between them is nonzero.

then prove this trivially

>>3786531
Look at the human so afraid of change he fears the unknown future so he crawls back to something he can depend on like Eisenstein theories. Humans are disgusting.

>>3786536
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichotomy_%28mathematics%29

>>3786509
I'm skeptical about time travel myself, but even with it taken into account, I'm not entirely sure how determinism and C&E could exist separately. Well, technically speaking, determinism could still happen even with Effect taking place before Cause and with time travel taking place, because there is still a cause somewhere and an effect elsewhere.

>>3786545
Take quantum mechanics. I can devise a system where there are two possible outcomes A and B. I don't know which outcome will happen when I run the experiment. However, I do know that some other third outcome X is impossible. That is, I caused X not to happen, or alternatively I caused A or B to happen. This system is not deterministic.

I love how people here are clinging to einsteins theory like it's actualy a religion

>3 years of testing, every time the same result
>"no...noo it must be a testing error hurrp durrp!

Isn't science supposed to be all about embracing the most up to date knowledge we have at this present time and drawing conclusions based on that information, and not outdated information?

I for one think it's going to have amazing results, if this turns out to be true, it's going to be very exciting to watch what the scientific community will do with this information

>>3786515
1/3 = 0.33333333...
2/3 = 0.6666666...
3/3 = .999999999...
3/3 = 1

>>3786551
>Isn't science supposed to be all about embracing the most up to date knowledge we have at this present time and drawing conclusions based on that information, and not outdated information?
We're about adopting that which has the most evidence. Thus far, one team, with on apparatus, does not constitute sufficient evidence to overturn a century's worth of evidence.

Call us back when it's independently reproduced a couple times.

>>3786551
it's natural human peasant behavior.

>>3786557
So why not keep an open mind to the possibility that this could be true?

Why dismiss it beforehand, I see alot of resemblance in people here and religious fanatics who dismiss any type of evidence before even reviewing it properly.

Dr. Richard T. Bale would like a word with all of yoy.

>>3786557
Fucking human stop fearing the unknown question everything. This shit could have been discovered decades ago. Fucking cultist.

>>3786562
If you saw my posts elsewhere, I'm not dismissing it. I'm calling people asshats who are saying shit like "everything you know is a lie" or "causality doesn't exist!" or "0.999... doesn't equal 1".

Will you stop this 0.9999 crap? Something amazing just happened and you are discussing old sci troll topics.

>>3786567
It's not fearing the unknown. It's how science works. There's a reason we want independent replication for something this big. Reminds me of cold fusion. They never replicated that. It's stuff like that why we want reproduction.

>>3786568
I think you are way to sceptical.
I agree that we shouldn't take this for truth until it has been replicated, but a certain healthy amount of enthousiasm would be well placed I would say.

All the "It must be an error" bullshit has just as much evidence to back it up as the notion that this is true.

None of this really matters anyways.

Source on GPS using relativity. Some how I doubt this is not true.

>>3786589
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

how long until the conference starts?

>using accurate atomic clocks placed in orbit inside artificial satellites. To achieve accuracy requirements,

>The receiver uses the messages it receives to determine the transit time of each message and computes the distance to each satellite. These distances along with the satellites' locations are used with the possible aid of trilateration, depending on which algorithm is used, to compute the position of the receiver.

Yea not seeing how this proves relativity right when its mostly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration

>>3786635
Newtonian mechanics is right. General Relativity is more right. You are doing a false dichotomy.

>>3786613
I echo this question

>>3786188
E=MC2 does not exist its nothing its worthless so why should relativity even be used now ?

>>3786647
my post
>>3786641
meant to reply to this

ITT: how all physicist feel right now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDEdKzAZgko

>>3786647
F=ma is right in a lot of domains. All of the predictions that it made back in the day are still correct today.

Then we found some other experiments where F=ma no longer gave accurate predictions. Then came GR.

GR's past predictions are still correct today. Perhaps we'll verify this new observation, and a more complete theory will come along.

GR is still correct to some degree, and Netwonian is still correct to some degree. Choosing between right and wrong is a false dichotomy.

And yet it moves faster than light /sci/

And yet it moves faster than light /sci/

>>3786662
NO! THIS PROVES GOD! AUIUUUUUUUUGHHHYEEEEEHAAAAWWWWWWWWWW!!! REPENT!!!!!!

>>3786662
>Perhaps we'll verify this new observation, and a more complete theory will come along.

So you admit relativity is wrong? Of course some algorithms will still work the general conclusion is that Einstein was wrong and we need to return science back to what it was in the early 1900s.

>>3786691
>So you admit relativity is wrong? Of course some algorithms will still work the general conclusion is that Einstein was wrong and we need to return science back to what it was in the early 1900s.
You're trolling, or a retard. On the off chance you're a retard, let me ask this. Ever do high school physics where you figure out how long a ball takes to fall? When GR came along, would you want to completely throw out Newtonian? Newtonian is still useful. It still makes a lot of correct predictions. GR is still useful. It still makes a lot of predictions. Throwing out all of GR would be just as retarded as throwing out all of Newtonian, especially before we get a better theory.

why is everyone getting all worked up over C being different? last time i checked nutrinos are not light (correct me if im wrong)

I get that it is a big thing cause we believed that the speed of light was a limit.

but all they have done is noticed that these nutrinos are fast. that should still leave C as a constant, as they havent observed light moving faster than light..right?

there will be a staged alien invasion, they will claim it's because we finally figured this shit out. big wigs are all gonna be in denver next week, shits goin down! its been planned for millenia

>>3786701
>You're trolling, or a retard

Ad hominem I win the debate.

shit, maybe they got the distance wrong

Maybe neutrinos found some shortcut through space. Just saying'.

>>3786701
You forgot to close your post with: "You fucking cockgobling retarded cunt."

>>3786703

All they've seen is a particle moving faster than c. They didn't observe it accelerating from below c, up to the velocity of c, and then past c. It was just always faster than c.

>>3786711
Fallacy fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

>>3786711

0/10

Apply yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

What would be the implications of finding a particle traveling at speeds greater than C? Can anyone here interpret what it would mean for a particle to have less than 0 mass? Would that technically mean there is even more dark matter out there (since we would also have to account for a relative portion of negative mass)?

>>3786720
but your theories have been proven to be a fallacy. Your a Pot calling the kettle black

>>3786719
yeah thats what i've thought.

FTL information sharing would be nice for satelites and things

>>3786728
There are no implications. It's our bedrock theory. We'd need to develop a new model to get implications, and if someone does that, they'd win the Nobel prize.

>>3786720
meant to reply to this

>>3786729

>>3786733
The implications on a theoretical level I mean. Assuming this finding is true, what would that imply. What other predictions could we derive from it?

>>3786762
Again, we lack a model to make predictions. This just showed the model is wrong (potentially showed). If the model is wrong, we can't make predictions. If you want predictions, you need a new model, and that will earn you a Nobel prize.

>>3786768
Or you can be like Eisenstein and just plagiarize and get a Nobel Prize

>>3786762
If imaginery or complex masses are possible then there's a shit load more maths particle physicists can now play around with.

Until these measurements are repeated and verified though I wouldn't expect anything to come of it.

>>3786781
Amazing how his theory works and we have nothing that is better right now.

Let me tell you why the Higgs boson is bullshit...

I'm pretty much skeptical, neutrinos are a bitch to reveal and I wouldn't be too surprised if it were some sort of experimental error. I mean, that other thing at Tevatron turned out to be bullshit when they got more data, and those were far easier to reveal, so I'll give this one a few more years.

But I'm sure some theorist already has some theory to go around and replace Lorentz invariance if this turns out to be true.

Something similar?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cy0bd-TdmA

The sound of the blast, a descending roar, arrives before the shock-wave.

Why, if it's limited to the speed of sound?

hmmm
sorry for the following ignorance of the this post but it's just an idea I had before...

Suppose the neutrino has antimatter properties and travels slightly slower in time than other particles. As it moves it goes slower than things around it so it covers a greater distance...

idk I seriously doubt these findings, if it can exceed c legitimately wouldn't you expect it arriving before it left?

What flavour was the neutrino?

>>3786781
>Eisenstein

Wasn't the visible light of sn1987 in the LMC preceded by the detection of simultaneous neutrino events?

Yes, ALL OF PHYSICS IS WRONG, jump out of your window now! You always wanted to fly, right? NOW YOU CAN.

>>3786821

Slower in time? That means it doesn't age as much, not that it's moving any faster.

If it was going faster than light we'd expect to see what the researchers have claimed to have seen...no time travel is expected.

>>3786821
>Suppose the neutrino has antimatter properties and travels slightly slower in time than other particles.

I don't even understand what you are trying to say here, antimatter behaves exactly like regular matter.

>What flavour was the neutrino?

CNGS is looking for oscillations in muon neutrinos, so it's probably safe to assume that was the flavour. Still, when they propagate freely through the Earth crust, they are travelling as eigenstates of their mass, not of their flavour, so it would be quite wrong to assume this.

>>3786821
the beam generated was almost pure muon neutrinos by the time of arrival it was around 1% electron neutrino 2.7% muon neutrino and 96% tau neutrino

For years Scientists have said this was impossible. This is God saying "Your move fags."

>>3786903
Then the Scientists respond by creating new hypothesis, editing theories/models so everything fits once more.
Waiting for Gods next move.

>>3786903
>For years Scientists have said this was impossible
No they haven't. For years scientists have known that something was up when GR and Quantum didn't play nice.

>>3786903
Which god?

>>3786914
The allmighty Atheismo.

Lieutenant Gaeta. Call our birds in. Spool up.

>>3786876
>>3786896
thank you for your replies, thanks for the info on the flavour, sorry about the idea just trying to bring in something fresh.

>>3786876
what I meant by antimatter properties was very poorly thought out. There a theories about a time reversal nature of antimatter particles, I thought it could be the same with the neutrino.

>>3786976
>There a theories about a time reversal nature of antimatter particles

No, you are probably mixing up time reversal (T symmetry) and charge conjugation (C symmetry).

>around 1% electron neutrino 2.7% muon neutrino and 96% tau neutrino

[citation needed], I'm curious where you got this data, since I've been looking for it in the past to no avail.

>>3786992
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf
The actual paper that the team released. Flavour data is at the top of page 5.

>mfw people in this day and age still think you can't go faster than light.

Tell that to the off switch.

>>3786276
I love this post. Thank you

Optimism people. This could be a new wave of scientific understanding in the making.

>Oh, wrong again?
>I'll just enjoy my 300k starting

>>3787007
Well, maybe I'm just a derp, but I don't really see the figure about 96% tau neutrinos. Did you compute it from the difference? Because, if so, I think you might have misinterpreted something, the way I understand it, it's supposed to be 2.1% muon antineutrinos, less than 1% electron neutrinos and antineutrinos, and all the rest would be muon neutrinos.

>>3787007
try putting that in your bibliography

>>3787033
"Adam et al.", fuck everyone else.

>>3787024
No, I'm a derp I skim read that bit and misread.

God just trolled the fuck out of you guys.

>>3787035
I know. I immediately thought of that as anyone would but then my joke wouldn't work :(

Too bad I suck at Paint.

>If true,it could explain why some particles appear to be in two places at once - the particle gets from a to b before the light leaves from a.

OH GOD MY FUCKING MIND IT HAS BEEN BLOWN

I want it to be true just so all the arrogant skepticfags look like retards for blindly worshipping Saint Albert and his Book of Relativity.

>>3787046
hahaha I like this

Does this mean we will enter a brand new age of science with thousands of new discoveries lying in wait for us?

>Despite the large significance of the measurement reported here and the stability of the
analysis, the potentially great impact of the result motivates the continuation of our studies in
order to investigate possible still unknown systematic effects that could explain the observed
anomaly. We deliberately do not attempt any theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of
the results.

could this be because distance between two points is not constant measurement, but depends upon the particles at the end?

we earlier believed speed is constant, then concluded it is relative to observer.
for centuries we believed time is constant and then v came to know time is relative to observer.
could this be the revelation that distance between two points in turn is relative to the particles at two end?
for example for an electron distance between point A and B could be X, but same distance for a proton could be Y, where X-->Y (tends to)

>>3787057
There always were thousands of new discoveries waiting for us, but yeah if light speed can be broken this will turn physics upside down.

>>3787059

Of course they have to be conservative about it, you can hardly expect a huge scientific institution to just flagrantly denounce 100s of years of relativistic endeavours.

>>3787050
>blindly believing something without ruling out other interventions

You give science a bad name!

>>3787050
>>3787046
>>3787046
>>3787046
>>3787046
LOL

>>3787057
No. We'll forget about it in a few weeks, and get back to the regular hurr politics and durr religion.

>>3787066
I didn't say I believed it you dolt I just said I wanted it to be true for a particular reason.

>>3787065
yes that's my point with the quote

What is your point?

>>3787070
Okay then . Perhaps this is more appropriate

>denouncing skepticism

You are the worst thing about humanity!!

>>3787072
No, I am denouncing the hypocrisy of self-styled skeptics who simultaneously think nothing can possibly prove Einstein wrong, of which there seem to be an increasing number appearing in light of this news.

>>3787060
Hmm I like this theory.

But it seems to me that they're finding a more significant error than what could possibly be caused by a minor distance like a positional particle shift... And it would average out over 3 years of experiments, no?

>>3787072

>>3787076
Skeptics are not clinging to theories of the past because it's comforting (what you've done there is construct a straw man). they'd be delighted if it were true. But you have to rule out all other factors before you can make a conclusive statement. Especially with something as fundamental as this.

>6km/s faster than c
>300,006km/s

How about you actually graduate high school before coming on this board?

>>3787079
the last statement was a deliberate exaggeration, not an honest plea. there are clearly worse things than what he said.

Awhile ago someone on /v/ asked if Otacon is smarter than Einstein (Gamespot poll thing).

Someone's response was:
>The LHC disproved Einstein's theories. He is generally considered to be a fraud these days.

After there was a discussion about how Einstein was evil for creating nukes and how his theories were only supported by the US government to make them look good in the war, and that it was obvious his ideas would be proven wrong some day

>>3787086
I too like to laugh at those idiots.

>>3787086

Nobody said anything about him being a Jew? That would be the most obvious card to play.

>>3786225
>It was using the same equipment, possibly using some of the same written calculations. Someone might have forgotten to carry a 1.

A us experiment sending neutrinos a similar distance(illinois to minnesota) showed up similar effects. It was however discarded because the exact location of the facilties were deemed to much hassle to determine.

>>3787082
Read through any thread or response to this news, you'll find smug 'skeptics' who don't say anything about other factors but about why it can't be wrong because DURR EINSTEIN.

HEY GUIES, HOW COME WE DIDNT DETECT NEUTRINOS *BEFORE* WE SAW EXPLOSION OF SUPERNOVA? EXPLAIN THIS

There has to be more experiments. One is not enough.

lol, /sci/ is more agaisnt each other than /g/

i made some calculations.. they sent the neutrino 732 km, the light travels that distance in, 0,002 441 689 177s(speed of light is 299 792 458m/s) 60ns faster means neutrino traveled in 299 799 825m/s.. that is 7367km/s faster then light, not a little

and if you put the speed to 300 006 00m/s that would make the time for the neutrino to be there 0, 000 001 737 976s faster = 1,737 976x10^-6s ( µs)

Is a neutrino a matter particle?

>mfw the lab is less than 20km from epicentre of the magnitude6 2009 earthquake that leveled nearby city.

i made some calculations.. they sent the neutrino 732 km, the light travels that distance in, 0,002 441 689 177s(speed of light is 299 792 458m/s) 60ns faster means neutrino traveled in 299 799 825m/s.. that is 7367km/s faster then light, not a little

and if you put the speed to 300 006 000m/s that would make the time for the neutrino to be there 0, 000 001 737 976s faster = 1,737 976x10^-6s ( µs)

an here comesssssssssssss the aether!!

>>3787118
They had to have taken all of that into consideration, lets be serious.

I'm sure they've calibrated dozens of times by sending a beam of light or something through the tube and getting c on the nose

>>3787118

holy fuck thats creepy

hey /sci/ is that detector in Italy somehow connected trough tunnel like in CERN or neutrino passed through the simple ground to reach detector?

>>3787118
>ftl particles
>timetraveling to the past to cause the quake
The italians simply sued the WRONG scientists.

>It was using the same equipment, possibly using some of the same written calculations

This. People saying "measurement error" don't know shit about systematic errors. If it was an error in the equipment, ALL the results would be skewed, not just 15,000 points.

>>3787125
sadly no tube: just a fuckton of rocks

There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
There has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.

>>3787146

there were 15000 experiments you iggy niggy

>>3787146

They said they've been testing for 6 months dipshit, what more do you need.

I know very little about the issue, but isn't it possible that natural fluctuations in spacetime between the two CERN locations could explain this?

>>3787146
>doesn't know shit about systematic error
Any one experiment gathers literally millions of points of data. 15,000 points is a high enough proportion to not be a random error and small enough not to be an error in the instruments.

>>3787154
I'm on your side but it was 15,000 points in ONE experiment, not 15,000 separate experiments, retard.

see?

lol creation science was right all along

I'm just waiting for a similar dent in evolution now, if they decide to publish it at all

>>3787156
>>3787162

If this data is from the same source, it could make repetitive errors due to various hardware/software glitches.

The results have to come from many, MANY different sources. This is how the scientific method works.

>>3787160
>I know very little about the issue
Yes you do
>isn't it possible that natural fluctuations in spacetime between the two CERN locations could explain this?
>Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like
Sorry but that question was, for lack of a better word, retarded. Do you get your scientific knowledge from Stargate SG1 and Battlestar Galactica?

>>3787162
we are talking about SYSTEMATIC ERROR, dumbknot.
you can take as many data points as you like, but if your apparatus is wrong then all your results will be biased.
we need more experiments, like from fermilab or something, to confirm it.

>>3787168
>>3787168
>>3787168
>>3787168
>>3787168

>>3787168
>repetitive errors
>15,000 out of MILLIONS

Re-read the point made here >>3787162

>>3787180
BUT THIS COMES FROM THE SAME FUCKING SOURCE!

>>3787172

Well sorry, cunt. I don't know physics, like I mentioned. Hope the view's great up there on your high horse though, you fucking armchair physicist.

>>3787175
Protip: If all results are biased then the systematic error makes no difference. Rule zero of statistical science.

>>3787046
Someone needs to draw that better.

>>3787196
>makes retarded ill informed statement
>Gets furious when told how retarded his statement is

>ALL the results would be skewed, not just 15,000 points.
There is a glitch in my cars speedometer. Somewhere between 90 and 100, the pointer starts resonating. This doesn't happen at other speeds though, so they're all still correct.

I's ridiculous how precise the measurements have to be, a delay of 100ns on recording the time of released neutrinos could account for this. Really need to wait for some independant experiments to back this up before taking it too seriously.

This only comes from one source. Many different sources have to replicate those results for them to be somewhat valid. And even then, we would need to check for the malfunctioning of the research software and hardware, and see if all these sources use different types of software and hardware.

>>3787205
That's completely different. Your piece of shit car not being able to handle high speeds is not comparable to a piece of equipment used to measure results for the most expensive piece of experimental equipment in the world.

>>3787206
That's not how it works. My watch ran out of batteries, and now it always gives the same error; it says 12:44

>>3787211
There were similar results at fermilab a few years back. I wouldn't expect you to remember as you'd have probably been learning F=ma back then.

>>3787224
That's not a systematic error. A systematic error is like your watch being 1 second slow.

>>3787224
No, your error would change every fucking second.

>>3787216
The sppedometer works perfectly again, when I go about, approx. 96 km/h. It's just between 93 and 96.
If you knew anything about physics, you'd know that that's bullshit. Of course my cars speedometer isn't even nearly as precisely constructed as the detectors in CERN, but the things that my speedometer is measuring is also way easier to measure. The CERN is pushing the frontiers of science, do you honestly expect that it is impossible that one of the assumptions they have to make their measurements or their detectors might be wrong?

>>3787232
Then my watch is a fucking second late.
Both are trivial counterexamples to his retarded picture.

>>3787250
>speedometer resonates between 93 and 96 km/h
>Guys, my car has a resonant frequency, this is a systematic error.
I think it's YOU who knows nothing about science

>>3787257
No, Bob, you are the retard.

>>3787216
>it's expensive, it means it must be right

This is what capitalism leads us to...

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html

>>3787268
Implying it's not the same physics that works for my car, that also works in the CERN. Unexpected interference happens, nature isn't perfect.

>>3787273
Oh god. If you can't even tell what's wrong with that picture, then you don't know anything about errors.

>>3787292
Oh, I'm sorry, you should have told me that your car used super-powerful electromagnets at energy levels around 8TeV to function.

>>3787307
>super-powerful electromagnets at energy levels around 8TeV

And this is how we know you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here.

>>3787307
>super-powerful electromagnets at energy levels around 8TeV
Haha, ok.
Also, lrn2analogy.

>>3787307
>super-powerful electromagnets at energy levels around 8TeV

Are you serious?

The fucking magnets are over 9000 GeV

>>3787229
yep, there were, but with HUMONGOUS error bars, so they were almost irrelevant.

>>3787304
It's nothing to do with the picture. you're claiming that a watch with no batteries is a systematic error, which is equally as retarded as that picture. In fact, that's the exact same thing as in the picture.

Allow me to explain systematic errors seeing as your high school teacher hasn't taught you about errors yet.

Let's say it's daylight savings time and the clocks have gone back one hour and you forgot to turn your watch back one hour. That's a systematic error because your watch is always one hour out. Now a clever little boy can figure out that his watch is an hour forward and account for this when telling the time from his watch. That's why a systematic error is insignificant if you are aware that such an error exists, which the scientists at CERN would have known considering they inspect their equipment thoroughly. The French can't do much right, but they've got mad skills when it comes to science.

>>3787338
CERN is in Geneve. Switzerland. Swiss are even more nitp(r)icks.

>>3787338
Except there is a systematic error in a watch that doesn't tick.
The error is |current time - displayed time|.
That's a systematic error too, as there is a deterministic, precise calculation for it. The fact that you don't _know_ one of the variables in the calculation doesn't matter. This is also very relevant btw.

>>3787352
and Opera(the other half of the experiment) is Abruzzo. Italy. Italians are eve-
Oh, wait.

Allah be praised.

CERN makes a Webcast about Neutrino properties at 16:00-18:00 (Switzerland/Zürich) (in 1.5 h).
You can view it online on:
http://webcast.cern.ch/
I guess we will know more then.

have they measured the speed of actual Electromagnetic radiation (light) using the method they used for the neutrino findings?

>>3788805
Because light passes through the earth.

>>3788835
at a certain wavelength that could be propegated through the crust in large enough bundles that could get be detected
not taking into acount giving half of europe cancer

>>3786831

The key to flying is forgetting to fall. Gravity has no hold on you then!

>>3786188
>what does this mean to the theory of relativity?!

It mean's Einstein was wrong, and everything you learned in science class was wrong. I am super pissed right now.

>>3789140

Learn what your teatchers tell you, wont make you smart.. learning what you do your self makes you smart..

learn2learn
Einstein = Much Crap2

Guys, couldn't this be caused by the indirect effect of a vacuum not being a "vacuum".

The speed of light is a constant in vacuum (when photons interact with a medium the perceived speed decreases).

Could it be that there is "something" (lets call it ougabouga matter/energy) in the vacuum that interacts with photons but not with neutrinos?

Maybe the dark matter that fills the galaxy is slowing down light and we never accounted for it.

>>3789238
"Could" means you dont know, could means i dont know & could means we dont know.
Prepare for new sience and say bye bye einstein!

so now that FTL travel is possible, when will it be possible to upload our mind in neutrinos so we will be immortal?

>>3789380
a week or two at most.

here we come heat death!

>>3789238
>Speed of light in a vacuum is c
>Neutrinos travel faster than c
>HERPADUKPA IZNOVAKYOOM

>>3786188
i'm confused

doesn't this just mean that neutrinos are faster than photons?

>reported by major newspaper
>no scientific journal posting yet
>no other groups other than CERN has done this


>people already buying into it as if it were 100% true
call me when it's replicated by other recognized groups confirming it.

>>3789410

My point was: couldn't it be possible that there is some interaction between photons and "the environment" that isn't felt by neutrinos? From what I have heard/read neutrinos have a tendency to move through "stuff" fairly unhindered.

I don't see how this calls for HURRR DURRR style green text, since theories regarding "dark matter" and "dark energy" are postulated all the time to account for some force/interaction that can not be fully described.

Granted, I'm not a particle physicist (am a scientist however). Just my armchair observation.

ITT: fags that think c = the speed of light

>>3789455
NASCAR fan here; maybe the neutrinos were drafting

just sayin'

>>3786204
http://public.web.cern.ch/press/pressreleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html
TL;DR: It is not a measurement error. This is the one thing the researchers are sure of, ie they checked their instruments good and proper before talking to the public.
They are publishing their findings so that other researchers can try to figure out what systematic error(s) could have skewed their results. Shit like tectonic plates moving or the moon orbiting or something like that. Trust these guys, they are thorough, and they will triple check every possibility in due time.

>>3789473

Then please enlighten me.

If these neutrinos travel at a speed faster than what is acknowledged to be the highest speed that can be attained, there must be some interaction that they are not feeling that other particles do feel.

If this assumption is incorrect, please correct me in a civilized manner. This will help me in bettering my understanding of the subject.

>>3789473
hah, nice one

>>3789512

It's possible that it is gravity and/or the strong force.

>>3786188
Speed of light and relativity mostly apply to particles, so it's not entirely surprising that we can discover various forms of energy than can move fast it, as such an issue was raised here: http://www.universetoday.com/33752/device-makes-radio-waves-travel-faster-than-light/

Even though a neutrino is a subatomic particle, the aspect and point remain.

Also nothing's going to happen to relativity that didn't happen to Newton's laws, Quantum mechanics, etc.

>>3789492
Also:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897
>". An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 \pm 6.9 (stat.) \pm 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured"
The neutrinos traveled the distance through the earth faster than light would have traveled the same distance through a vacuum.

Let me tell a joke

"I already heard this joke 10 times, stop it
We are already closed
Neutrino walks into a bar"

2012, the year scientists realize that if we don't send a neutrino beam back into the past to hit some prehistoric pond, human beings would never have existed to begin with.

What's so special about light that it has to be the maximum speed possible? Sorry for the dumb question.

fucking neutrinos
how do they work?

>>3789566
It's just a result of some strange predictions made by Maxwell's equations.

>>3789566
no, i don't understand it either, nor do i understand the implications of neutrinos moving faster than photons

but it sure seems to have the eggheads riled up

Time for a science joke!
"We don't serve Neutrinos in here!!" A Neutrino walks in to a bar.

>>3789380
this!

>>3789600
ahah, but how did bartender knew that Neutrino will be there?

>>3789380
not just immortal bro

you'll be sending your mind into the fucking past

that's like, double immortal or some shit

ITT niggers ain't heard of tachyons
Einstein's theory admits them.

>>3787168
What if neutrinos have slightly different speeds in Italy than in other countries?

>physics
>science

relativity doesn't say you can't go faster than light, only that you can't accelerate to ftl, nothing to see here, move along

We should all be excited. This means we can LITERALLY hit things with an inverse tachyon beam.

>>3786287 but if information CAN travel FTL, doesn't this mean that we can send messages back in time and cause major time travel paradoxes???

>>3789545
nyoh my god...

They're going to break the time dimension if they keep shooting neutrinos at it. Stupid CERN people.

could it just be a bit of lorentz contraction?
I know there's been cases of muons that appear to travel faster than light to get to earth but it's just been this

>inb4 it's announced that their measuring machine is broken

>>3789670
nope.png
you can go AT c if you've always been at c, you cannot accelerate to c and you cannot be going faster than c

>>3789380
Fuck that. How much longer before we can convert biological mass into neutrinos with a deceleration system that allows the particles to slow at the destination and reconstruct the matter? Boys, we're going back in time.

didn't an experiment produce a photon prior to the beam being activated? i.e., the photon teleported? i seem to remember quite a buzz about it years ago

Fuck it. Somebody call Gordon Freeman.

>>3789870
that was quantum entaglement, nothing really that interesting, just sounds interesting

>>3789885

or Morgan Freeman

I want to see where the arrogant bastards that sage every potential thread about speed of light are.

A single neutrino relative to how many? caught relative to what? moving relative to what? at? whoa. 300 006km/s..holy shit. at cern.

>>3789944
How is it arrogant to sage troll threads?

>>3789885

or Cassidy Freeman

>>3789885

or Milton Friedman

>>3790027
Or Milton Berle.

>>3789885

or Adolf Augustus Berle

>>3786222
>60ns faster
>than c

Time can't be faster than a velocity. I read that article too.

And this reputable scientist said there was no room for speculation as of yet.

And now over to michio kaku who believes this is conclusive evidence for God.

>>3789855
Fuck you. I know how that shit works. I'm taking the shuttle craft.

Hai science. More discoveries for me to steal and twist??

Neutrinos mean you are a quantum being in a sub 4th dimensional space that can transcend consciousness to travel faster than light so that blah blah blah...

Can somebody just go and make sure the Detector isn't 48 feet closer than they thought it was???

I heard that things can go faster than light if they don't move through a vacuum. How is that possible if Einstein, the nazijew, said that nothing can move faster than light?
I mean, it seems common knowledge that there are things that can move faster than light (if it's not in a vacuum) so what's the big deal with the CERN "news" ?

So this recent discovery with CERN is confusing me. I took a basic optics and spectroscopy class, and when you have measured something you have added energy to the object being measured. So how are they accurately measuring these particles?

Posting this because people are ignoring my question

Does this mean.

We time machines now?

>>3790781
When I come to power, he will be drawn and quartered... publicly.

lol you guys are retarted the speed of darkness is faster than the speed of light

>Come here from /b/
>genuinely interested in this
>find everyone arguing in here like a bunch of /b/tards
>mfw

>>3786452

From what I remember reading about them a long ass time ago. They are hard as fuck to detect. You know how protons that come from inside the core of the Sun can take millions of years to reach Earth? Because of all the collisions and shit because everything is so damn dense? Well, neutrinos have no fucking problemo with that and just zip right the fuck out.

So, if they can easily zip right through every fucking thing, it's pretty fucking hard to capture/detect them. Because they just go through every fucking thing. But every once in a while, You catch a glimpse of one.

Bump