[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 80 KB, 499x499, 1306576604445.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3814244 No.3814244 [Reply] [Original]

Explain me the neutrinos moving faster than light thing in layman's term please geniuses. Or is that genui?

>> No.3814256

They don't physically move faster than light.
It's either relativistic effects or systematic error.
Most likely the latter.

>> No.3814268

>>3814244
>systematic error.


for the love of god just stfu with that BS already. Your cynicism doesn't make you smart at all faggot. Just stop.

>> No.3814277

>>3814256

Wow, every thing in this post is wrong.

>> No.3814289

>>3814268
>zero background in physics
>calling someone out for bullshit

>> No.3814303

There is another option that some people seem to be overlooking. The value for the speed of light may be a bit too low.

It's happened before with other things, after all, and when investigating this anomaly, we should exhaust all possible human errors, including a long-trusted observation about light's speed.

>> No.3814305

>>3814268

Allow ME to be more precise. I will bet you cash that the neutrinos did not travel faster than light.

>> No.3814306

>>3814277
you just mad they made a 0.012% error in calibration

>> No.3814316

>>3814303

we haven't measured the speed of light in vacuum lately?
Really? Are you sure? Like seeing how far away the moon is or something?
Really?
REALLY?

>> No.3814321

the speed of light is faster than light

>> No.3814322

>>3814305
>>3814305
Will also bet money against dumbass popsci readers who think they can physics

>> No.3814334

The fucking dickweeds at OPERA measured the standard error all wrong. Take a look at their data, it's obvious that there's no way it was in 6, it's only 2 away.
It's not a new discovery, it's just interesting

/thread

>> No.3814354

Thy might have forgotten to subtract the speed of the movement of the earth to get the absolut speed.

>> No.3814363

>>3814354

No, they didn't make a systematic error, they made a statistical error.

>>3814334

>> No.3814366

>>3814316

Relax, asshat. I'm not one of the people that were attacking you a moment ago. I just thought I'd mention this, since so many of the people on this board are seeing the false dilemma of mistake in calibration OR Einstein proven wrong. I actually agree with your position here.

You should try decaf.

>> No.3814370

>>3814354
3/10

>> No.3814377

Neutrinos are fermions, specifically they are part of a group called Leptons. A lepton you might be aware of is the electron. The 3 leptons types, electronic, muonic and tauonic all have a neutrino part, so there are electrons, muons, taus and electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos and electron neutrinos. The scientists at CERN fired a group of Muon Neutrinos through the earth to the Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy, which arrived as Tau Neutrinos. Their arrival was detected as being 60 billionths of a second faster than the speed of light. This was repeated around 15000 times, each time the same value was achieved.
The 'big deal' is that Leptons, being fermions, have mass. The fact that something with mass has moved faster than light is important because according to Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity an event occurs in the same order from every reference frame. A particle with mass moving faster than light brings up the paradox of the Tachyon antitelephone, in which causality is broken. Causailty is aperhaps the most fundamental of assumptions made in physics

>> No.3814380

>>3814366

I think the tripcode is affecting me.

>> No.3814395

The neutrino took a different path.
Light took a "straight" line. The neutrino, for lack of a better explanation, used portals.

>> No.3814397

>>3814377

Intredasting. I think what I and others are asserting is:

Their timing mechanisms are off. If there are computers involved.. and I bet there are....

Someone dun goofed!

>> No.3814400
File: 6 KB, 137x132, aah.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3814400

>>3814377
>through the earth
MAYBE THE ALIENS HAVE A MAGIC MACHINE BURIED INSIDE THE EARTH

>> No.3814422

>>3814377
Wouldn't someone have to build a new LHC to verify the results independently? Wonderful! A new excuse for funding!

>> No.3814424

>>3814397
well that goes without saying, i prefer a universe with causality. The fact that they openly asked for help in determining the error tells me even they knwo it's probably wrong

>> No.3814438

OP here, I'm no closer to understanding but you've managed to bore me into not caring.

Nah joking, ty for your explanations.

>> No.3814441

Well, I'm not a physics major, but I know this much.

Einstein stated that all motion is relative, except one thing: massless particles. They seem to be a universal constant, where time actually stands still, and move, relative to any reference point, at a constant value that is about 300 million meters per second.

If any sort of particle, massive or massless, moves faster than the speed of light, all theories and equations proposed by Einstein's theory of relativity are useless, and those have been some of the fundamental laws (or so we thought) of physics.

Then again, Einstein said that God doesn't play dice, or that fundamentally random things don't happen as quantum physics suggests, so he's been wrong before.

But I would say that the scientists made an error when measuring the speed of the neutrinos. But that's just what I find to be logical, I could be wrong.

>> No.3814459

>>3814441
>useless
So very wrong. If not for relativity, the GPS wouldn't work (among other things). If this holds any water, relativity may have to be MODIFIED, like newtons laws of motion had to be.

>> No.3814461
File: 13 KB, 224x202, ohi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3814461

>>3814400
that must be true because there is no other explanation

>> No.3814465

>>3814459
well again, I'm no physicist.

But I know that many of his ideas are based on the fact that the speed of light cannot be broken, and if it can be, much of what he proposed is very much false.

>> No.3814466

Can you find the data online somewhere?

>> No.3814479

>>3814465
>based on the fact that the speed of light cannot be broken

Not really. It's just based on the fact that the speed of light is the same, regardless of how you define your coordinate system. The assumption that nothing can move faster than light was made from calculating the required energy for accelerating something (with mass)
to the speed of light; it approaches infinity, and the amount of energy in the universe is finite. It does not prohibit the existance of things that have been moving faster than the speed of light since the creation of the universe.