/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3891546]

I have to make a presentation on the "neutrino fast than light" thingy - do you guys have links for relevant articles, opinions, papers (I know the original paper) etc.?

Thank you!!

[Anonymous No.3891551]

Here's CERN's press release.

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

[Anonymous No.3891556]

NEGATIVE MASS!

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3891557]

>>3891556
Flubber?

[Anonymous No.3891614]

Original paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

[Anonymous No.3891626]

Seminar about the result:
http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=155620

[Anonymous No.3891646]

You should also read
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0239
and other preprints on arxiv.org.

[Anonymous No.3891666]

Theoretical physics papers related to the topic:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0103051
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0201077
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0203060
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0306028

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9810355
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9607477
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9411230

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269385904605

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269386904806

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0009291

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/superluminal-neutrinos-from.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9812418
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9809521
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0610324

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5687

[Anonymous No.3891695]

<span class="math">[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.3891718]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/06/wall-street-journal-neutrinos-show-climate
-change-isnt-real/

This is kinda funny but not too sciencey. Would be good as an example of how fucking stupid the world is though.

[Anonymous No.3891743]

thanks so far!
keep em comming.

[Anonymous No.3891953]

<span class="math">[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.3892066]

>>3891666
MORE EMMA!

[Anonymous No.3892081]

>>3892066
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwoApyVgDYk
In which she explains the secret of her voice.

[Anonymous No.3892143]

>>3892081
OH.
She was such a queer.

[Anonymous No.3892493]

<span class="math">[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.3892834]

<span class="math">[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.3892837]

CERN calculations are WRONG
FTL neutrinos are IMPOSSIBLE

that's all you need to know about the subject

[Anonymous No.3892960]

>>3892837
[citation needed]
the wouldn't publish it if they knew they are wrong. Sure, it sounds unlikely, but it still needs explaination.

Anyone knows of CERN statements about it after the release?

[Anonymous No.3893399]

<span class="math">[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.3893507]

<span class="math">[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.3894027]

<span class="math">[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.3895786]

<span class="math">[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.3895831]

>>3892960

Surely if they couldn't figure out how they were wrong, they would open the question to public scrutiny and appeal to the masses for answers?

[Anonymous No.3895836]

>>3895831
That's exactly what they did, isn't it? Except public scrutiny as in the scrutiny of external physicists; not the public in general.

[Anonymous No.3895849]

>>3892960
>Anyone knows of CERN statements about it after the release?

Yes, everyone at CERN thinks their data analysis is shitty and comparing the neutrino time-distribution to the proton time-distribution is pants-on-head retarded.

[Anonymous No.3895850]

>>3895786
>>3894027
>>3893507
>>3893399

my thoughts exactly.

[Anonymous No.3895859]

>>3895849
can you show me to a link?
where do you get this info from?
how do you know how it works?

[Anonymous No.3895866]

>>3895859

Think about how neutrinos interact with everything they encounter vs how light interacts with everything it encounters.

[Anonymous No.3895873]

>>3895859
>where do you get this info from?

I spent a week at CERN right after this whole thing happened, and this came up in every single conversation. Along with jokes about there being a tunnel between CERN and LNGS built by the Italian government.

Every single person I have talked to about this agreed on the experiment proving absolutely nothing until they can prove there is an actual correspondence with the muon time-distribution instead.

>how do you know how it works?

I have a degree in physics.

[Youmad !tr.t4dJfuU No.3895878]

Any footage of the FTL Neutrino? I'm trying to find an actual video of the Neutrino beating light for a school project. Does anyone here know where I can find it? Thanks!

[Anonymous No.3895882]

>>3895878
Yeah, here it is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk7VWcuVOf0

[Anonymous No.3895884]

>>3895873
>Every single person I have talked to about this agreed on the experiment proving absolutely nothing until they can prove there is an actual correspondence with the muon time-distribution instead.

I don't understand.

[Anonymous No.3895881]

>>3895878
haha, you. you're funny.

[Anonymous No.3895893]

>>3895884
Look, the way they compute the difference in speed between neutrinos and light in this experiment is obviously not time-of-flight, since you can't know when the neutrino departed.

The neutrinos are produced by having a beam of protons onto a target, this produces mesons, mostly pions, which decay into muons and neutrinos. The experiment at LNGS measures the amount of neutrinos revealed per unit of time, then they compare it with the data from CERN that measures the number of protons in the beam about 750 m before the target. Comparing these two measurements they get to the result they published.

But the hypothesis that the two distributions have to be equal is absolutely unfounded, and the data would fit perfectly if you assumed that the last 1% of protons in the bunch had a slightly different neutrino production cross-section (which is actually far more reasonable than assuming that all protons in the bunch have exactly the same despite being subject to different magnetic fields during the extraction).

The only way to make the measurement independent of this would be to measure the number of muons per unit of time after the target and compare that to the neutrino distribution, because if a muon is produced you can be sure there was the right kind of interaction with the target. But they never bothered to get the right kind of detector to do that, the muon detectors they use are only to aim the beam towards LNGS.

And this is as simple as I can make it.

[Anonymous No.3895958]

What are some other possible problems with the experiment?

>>3895893
very interesting, thanks!
But you don't have to put it easy, as long as you explain the words in pure terms and not use "HDGJX12" if you mean some experimental device.

[Anonymous No.3896440]

<span class="math">[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.3896482]

just remember the implications of this. I don't know if you've had any special relativity but this is what you need to know.

Special relativity is an extension of Newtonian Mechanics that works at very high, near-light speeds where Newtonian Mechanics breaks down. The Speed of Light barrier is not a direct mathematical result of relativity, but rather is a necessary condition to preserve causality. Events can be causally connected (i.e. press power button on your remote, tv comes on). If information could travel faster than light those events wouldn't have to be causally connected and the tv could come on before you press the power button. Obviously this is crazy so we think that there is a "barrier" at light speed. It's interesting to note, though, that this really isn't a direct mathematical result of relativity.

So what does the Neutrino experiment give us? Well breaking the light speed barrier gives us 3 choices:

1. Relativity is incorrect (would be astonishing as we have nearly almost 100 years worth of consistent evidence for it without ever a mistake)
2. Causality is incorrect (we would have to rework how we think about causally connected events...could have some really crazy implications)
3. There was some sort of mistake in the Neutrino experiment. (definitely the most rational position to be taking at the moment until further evidence is found)

[Anonymous No.3896524]

>mfw people are using this story to attack every goddamn scientific thing they've ever heard about

Take this presentation as an opportunity to explain to people that just because science isn't right all the time, it doesn't mean it's wrong all the time. Please.

[Anonymous No.3898360]

[Anonymous No.3898783]

[Anonymous No.3900875]