/sci/ - Science & Math

NOPE.
If that were true, the neutrinos would be traveling through time.

>Friday 18 November 2011
>implying I'm gonna read articles from last year

they already said there was an error, last year news are old

>>4210407
>>4210382

>no sources
>most likely wild guesses made out of Einstein-fanboy butthurt

It's like I'm really on /b/

>>4210382 If that were true, the neutrinos would be traveling through time.

You're only saying that because someone else said it and you're copying it. Fucking spastic.

i would love it if they were faster than light but...

in supernovas huge amounts of neutrinos and photons are produced, the photon burst arrives at earth first, so unless swiss mountains have some dodgy effect on neutrinos, it seems more likely cern fucked up, (even if twice in a row is a bit silly).

>>4210378

Nice Tesla quote...

"The Nikola Tesla quote has been making the rounds since last week’s announcement from the OPERA research team that they had detected neutrinos that may have traveled faster than the speed of light. For the most part, this has been going under headers like “Tesla was right!”, etc.

However, a quick glance at the source of the quote shows that Tesla was, in fact, completely wrong. See the “they” in that first part of the sentence? In context of the article, that refers to cosmic rays. And cosmic rays are not neutrinos. They’re mostly highly charged protons, atomic nuclei, and electrons (and the occasional anti-particle for fun). It also probably goes without saying that cosmic rays do not, in fact, travel faster than the speed of light."

>2012
>using mainstream media sites as source

>>4210475
>mfw I was the one that started to spread that around on /sci/ originally
>some faggot from reddit found it, spread it further
>becomes internet sensation

While the fact that repeating the test yielded the same faster-than-light result, I'd feel more confident that this new hypothesis may be right if they could come up with another experiment to test it with.

>>4210486
>implying nothing == sensation

>>4210486
OH BOY YOU'RE SO FUCKING COOL NOW AREN'T YOU ANON.

This 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 the 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)
I made some calculations and 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)

I think there has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
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.

Its 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 independent experiments to back this up before taking it too seriously.
But…http://public.web.cern.ch/press/pressreleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html
It is not a measurement error. This is the one thing the researchers are sure of, i.e they checked their instruments before talking to the public.

>>4210516
yes

>>4210486
right to left
4-if I were drunk enough, 2-what is this I don't even?, 8-would definitely bang

They are publishing their findings so that other researchers can try to figure out what systematic error(s) could have skewed their results. Like tectonic plates moving or the moon orbiting or something like that. They’re thorough, and have stated that they will triple check every possibility in due time.

Also there's two widely speculated questions going around:
1)Can we hit things with an inverse tachyon beam
2)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

>>4210533
"I think we're being rated"

>>4210552
right to left

5 - lose a little weight, tone some muscles, get better skin
7 - grow out hair, brush teeth (great bone structure)
2 - seriously, what the fuck?

>>4210524
>could this be the revelation that distance between two points in turn is relative to the particles at two end?

special relativity, I know it was only published a hundred years ago but try to keep up.

>>4210556

>>4210547

>Or something like that
>Can we "hit" things with an inverse tachyon beam

>>4210577
You are either making two implications.
1. I'm a fat neckbeard
2. I have "high" standards

The first is blatantly false so need for discussion there. The second is basically true.

Not my fault it's the norm for people to "settle". I like beautiful people. Sue me.

>>4210382
Or maybe it just means there's something fundamentally wrong with our model

>Fresh results from the OPERA collaboration once more confirm the faster than light neutrinos indicated by MINOS. The new findings, available here, also further strengthen a particular scenario: The neutrinos do not travel with superluminal velocity all the way. They only ‘jump’ a small initial distance shorter than 20 meters, after which they settle back and travel as usual with speeds below that of the speed of light. This initial jump would occur at speeds that are more than ten times the speed of light, perhaps even millions of times the speed of light.
>http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/opera_confirms_faster_light_neutrinos_and_indicates_ultra_su
perluminal_small_initial_jumps-84774

>>4210596
>I like beautiful people
>posts an ugly picture
Obvious troll is obvious.

>>4210626

Op's pic is retarded

In 1920, Ernest Rutherford conceptualized the possible existence of the neutron. 1932 was the official year of its "discovery". Neutrinos are completely different to neutrons and claiming that Tesla had any claim to fame with any of the two is bullox

>>4210626
You cannot know this for certain.

>>4210612
Its still not confirmed. The MINOS collaboration assumed it to be an error and as it did not affect the intended experiment it was ignored. They never rigorously searched for an error. OPERA is the first collaboration to challenge its results and as previous ones did not, you can't claim that confirms anything. It will take an different lab with an entirely different timing mechanism before this is confirmed. This will take years to resolve unless and error is found in the calculations at OPERA.

There are numerous experiments which cast doubt on OPERA's findings:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-pions-dont-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html

>>4210628
Oh man it's one of those
>beauty is in the eye of the beholder
faggots.

ACTUALLY, FAGGOT! Beauty is in the limbic center of a species who shares 99% of it's DNA and a brain that shows more than 90% gene expression.

>pic related
No human on Earth could truthfully tell you the woman on the right is prettier than the woman on the left.

>>4210552
Here, I fix'd 'em up a bit.

>>4210657

>No human on Earth could truthfully tell you the woman on the right is prettier than the woman on the left.

>implying group consensus = objectivity

just because an entire group shares the same subjective opinion doesn't make it "true" or "correct"

there is no way for an unbiased observer to tell which is more beautiful objectively, you have to assume the point of view of a human with human preferences conditioned by evolution, etc....

>2012
>still not understanding subjectivity

jesus christ get it together

>>4210682
>implying I ever said anything about objectivity/subjectivity

Assuming you're the faggot who said
>You cannot know this for certain.

Then you are OBJECTIVELY FALSE. One can show pictures to a subject and record brain responses. Activity in the pleasure center as a result of visual stimuli is beauty. To that individual, that visual stimuli is OBJECTIVELY beautiful, as is the definition of beauty.

Nice try, faggot.

>>4210682
>2012
>not knowing that MY opinions are fact

Jeez, I post two pictures of some girls making amusing faces and you all tie your penises in knots.

>>4210697
>2011
>Being a terrible troll

>>4210682
"Pretty" is also a subjective opinion, so, if the only group that CAN judge about said prettiness agrees about that, then that opinion is objective.

>>4210700

>>4210378
>Look it's you!

>>4210705
No, that's an appeal to popularity.

>>4210682
>there is no way for an unbiased observer to tell which is more beautiful objectively, you have to assume the point of view of a human with human preferences conditioned by evolution
wat the fuck? the retards are out again. i likes sci on the 1st when it was quite. of course human beauty is influenced by human preferences conditioned by evolution. what the fuck did you thing, there was some universal beauty beyond humans that all mater finds beautiful?

>>4210744
lol thank you. Someone with an IQ higher than koko the gorilla.
Man, /sci/ has gone to shit, well all of 4chan really.

>>4210744
>>4210753
Fuck off then. Neither of you has said anything of substance.

>>4210764
Tell your parents I'm sorry. It must have been tough for them to raise a mentally retarded child.

lolololo

@topic
neutron≠neutrino, faggot!

imo /sci/ should have IQ test instead CAPTCHA

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/09/26/no-tesla-did-not-predict-faster-than-light-neutrino
s/
>1932
>thinking cosmic rays are FTL
BHAHAHAHAHAHAHA what a fag