[ 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: 611 KB, 960x1299, science too far.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5222157 No.5222157 [Reply] [Original]

Remember that time we thought neutrinos moved faster than light?

>> No.5222162

What's a neutrino?

>> No.5222177

>>5222157
because the media overreacts to everything? yes, i remember that.

>> No.5222178

I remember the time scientists were saying "We got an experiment which contradictory to previous results shows FTL neutrinos, give us some time to get to the bottom of this". Then popsci went OMG we warp drives now!!!!!!1111

>> No.5222187

>>5222157
remember the time when literate people heard the claim and called bullshit?

>> No.5222181

I heard someone had to resign over this.

>> No.5222193

>>5222177

the media? hahahaha, everyone on this board was spouting shit about FTL was possible.

the delusional space enthusiasts are worse than christians when it comes to any little hint at FTL being possible.

>> No.5222218

>>5222193
FTL might be possible, but not from shooting lasers

>> No.5222233

>>5222178
I was so proud of everyone at CERN while that was going down. No stupid pronouncements to the media, no pandering to overenthusiastic observers, just careful, methodical rechecking of the experiment.
Pure, rigorous, downright classy science.

>> No.5222250

They did actually release a paper about it. They said it still needed more testing but basically were saying it was possible. Monumental fuck-up, stop blaming pop-sci

>> No.5222257

>>5222218

No, it isn't. Velocities do not add at relativistic speeds.

I'd explain it, but you wouldn't listen.

>> No.5222252

>>5222181
The entire team should have been fired for gross incompetence, been fined and forced to pay back all their wages and pay for the time they took away from people who aren't retarded.
Checking connections are working properly is the 2nd check after making sure it's turned on when you have technical difficulties

>> No.5222262

>>5222178
They had 3 years to do that

>> No.5222263

>>5222257
I think he's talking about the methods that bend spacetime.

>> No.5222268

>>5222263

Those are all bullshit too for very obvious reasons like needing the mass of jupiter in energy or magic unobtanium.

Why not just say something equally stupid like entropy can be broken if we just find a magic element?

>> No.5222274

>>5222268
Thus the "but not from shooting lasers".

>> No.5222280

>>5222178

I remember it more like "We've checked EVERYTHING, and this anomaly is still there, we're prepared to stake our credibility on it"

Followed by "Oh wait the cable wasn't screwed in tight".

>> No.5222282

>>5222268

> mass of jupiter in energy

I wish people would get this right. Those metrics need the gravitational effect of that much negative mass, it's not talking about literal power requirements.

>> No.5222288

>>5222233

>just careful, methodical rechecking of the experiment.

Which did not include tightening their gps connections.

>> No.5222293

>>5222157

Remember when Dresden Codak wasn't a heap of mary sue singularity wish fulfillment?

>> No.5222299

>>5222293
Remember when "singularity" meant, "Point beyond which we are utterly incapable of prediction." rather than "Point at which all of our dreams and fantasies get fulfilled."?

>> No.5222301

They still do. Learn to cherenkov radiation.

>> No.5222303

>>5222293
No, but I remember when it was a smaller, more tolerable heap with more amusing unrelated, usually 1 pagers, and no godawful head-up-ass running storyline updated less than once a month while Diaz's massive self-fellating bullshit art blog was filling itself to the brim with irrelevant garbage.

>> No.5222309

Would it ever be possible to use neutrinos as a means of energy?

In 1000 years will we be using "neutricity" as opposed to electricity?

>> No.5222324

>>5222293

It never wasn't. he drank the singularity kool aid early and never had a rational thought again.

>> No.5222328

>>5222309

don't be stupid.

>> No.5222333

>>5222299

yeah. it was before the internet and little kids raised on the science channel made it into their own personal religion.

>> No.5222364

>>5222309
If you could develop a method or material that allows for heavy interaction with neutrinos, they could, possibly, be an incredible source of energy.

>In 1000 years will we be using "neutricity" as opposed to electricity?
I don't think either of us understand what the fuck you're trying to say there.

>> No.5222384

>>5222364

what would the neutrino source be?

oh let me guess, a supernova? degenerate matter? quantum hoozits?

fucking kids.

>> No.5222385

>>5222384
The fucking sun you imbecile.

>> No.5222391

>>5222385
May as well install a solar panel.

>> No.5222406

>>5222391
Solar panels don't work at night.

>> No.5222407

>>5222385

wow you're fucking stupid.

maybe we should tap the immense amount of x-rays the sun emits too while we're at it?

>> No.5222410

>>5222288
Simple shit goes wrong, even on the most complex experiments. Of course it seems obvious after the fact, that's the benefit of hindsight and not being there at the time. The error might or might not have been avoidable, but important thing is how you deal with it.

>> No.5222415

>>5222406
Neither does the Sun.

>> No.5222428

>>5222415
Hey, don't stop reading this post, I'll cease to exist if you're not looking at me!
Could you observe me a buddy too? It's lonely living in a universe where things only exist when the solipsist mind bothers to think of them.

>> No.5222465

>>5222415
Most neutrinos pass through the Earth.

>>5222407
Holy fuck, /sci/ is more stubborn in its beliefs than the average Christian. I bet you believe in the popular image of evolution, too. Even though there's a dozen examples of contradictory evidence.

>> No.5222500
File: 168 KB, 668x639, 1344808858389.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5222500

>>5222415
Stop posting.

>> No.5222501

>>5222157
>we

No, I don't remember that.

>> No.5222502

>>5222465
Forgot about that, my bad.

>> No.5222503

I remember when /pol/ celebrated "the end of jew science," yes.

>> No.5222523

>>5222157
Don't include "me" in that. Most of sci was telling off idiots who actually thought that. We said "wait for confirmation, idiots".

>> No.5222525

>>5222465
>Holy fuck, /sci/ is more stubborn in its beliefs than the average Christian. I bet you believe in the popular image of evolution, too. Even though there's a dozen examples of contradictory evidence.
Like what, 'tard?

>> No.5222552

>>5222525
>Convergent evolution(those on Madagascar, where there was no influence, is the best example)
>Inconsistent fossil records.
>Artificially synthesized organic cells don't behave in an organic fashion.
>No vestigial organs are truly vestigial(they have all been found to have a purpose).

And most important: Evolutionary adaption follows a particular, rapid path in all known modern cases. There aren't many 'failures'.

I'm not saying I believe in creationism. The opposite, if anything. I just don't believe the modern theory of evolution is correct.

>> No.5222559

>Convergent evolution(those on Madagascar, where there was no influence, is the best example)
How is this evidence against modern evolutionary theory?

>Inconsistent fossil records.
Examples/Citations please.

>Artificially synthesized organic cells don't behave in an organic fashion.
Examples/Citations please.

>No vestigial organs are truly vestigial(they have all been found to have a purpose).
How is this evidence against modern evolutionary theory?

>And most important: Evolutionary adaption follows a particular, rapid path in all known modern cases. There aren't many 'failures'.
How is this evidence against modern evolutionary theory? If you found a population of "failures", that would be against modern evolutionary theory. The failures die off before they get to large numbers, dumbass.

>I'm not saying I believe in creationism. The opposite, if anything. I just don't believe the modern theory of evolution is correct.
It might help if you learn about the thing you're dismissing before you dismiss it.

>> No.5222564

>>5222552
What are you using your wisdom teeth for?

>> No.5222565

No... I remember a lot of shitposters from /pol/ and /x/ spamming the board with ZOMG EINSTEIN WUZ WRNG and WERS MUH FTL!? bullshit and a lot of /sci/ posters trying to explain to them that it was probably just an instrument error.

>> No.5222574

>>5222552
He's just trolling guys. Examples that are just statements, the whole evolution theme, this is how /sci always gets trolled. Just leave him be.

>> No.5222663

>>5222661

>Inconsistent fossil records.
No animal fossils previous to the Cambrian explosion, during which time the Animalia kingdom formed and separated into hundreds of phyla within a relatively short period.

>Artificially synthesized organic cells don't behave in an organic fashion.
Uh.. Google peptide synthesis? Synthetic proteins, even those that can exist on their own when expressed by bacteria, are unstable without a support such as PEG.

Field was too long.

>> No.5222661

>>5222559
>How is this evidence against modern evolutionary theory?
Convergent evolution points to non-random evolution. Current evolutionary theory tries to correct this by allowing 'genetic hitchhiking', but the cases on Madagascar -- such as the farsa -- which are often from a completely separate genus but resemble nearly every feature from a specific family, make this.. not impossible, but very, very unlikely.

Vestigial organs are an assumed part of evolutionary theory. It was actually a large part of evidence when trying to compete with creationism in the early days of its adoption. The belief is that we outgrow the use of these organs, when in fact it seems the body adapts to suit these organs' existance. For example, the appendix is likely to have served a similar purpose to the gall bladder in the past. Now, it operates solely against bacterial and toxic infection, and is seen as a part of the lymphatic system but shares none of the traits common to other organs associated with or attached to the lymphatic pathway.

Known failures are usually in the Human population, unfortunately. This makes it difficult to argue with you on my final 'evidence' post. However, if it's true, it's contrary to modern evolutionary theory's focus on random mutation and natural selection.
One major case are the Gray-Crowned Rosy-Finch in Montana, migrating from California. They adapted(longer, pointer beaks) to survive within a ten-year span, and there are no known alterations in the population aside from color, a common mutation among birds.

>> No.5222727

>>5222663
>No animal fossils previous to the Cambrian explosion, during which time the Animalia kingdom formed and separated into hundreds of phyla within a relatively short period.
Inconsistent does not mean incomplete.

>Known failures are usually in the Human population, unfortunately.
I don't think you know what "failure" means. They're obvious the product of their parents, which means they are successful in the usual genetic fitness sense.

>> No.5222732

>>5222661
>Convergent evolution points to non-random evolution.
That' great! Because evolution is not a random process.

>Current evolutionary theory tries to correct this by allowing 'genetic hitchhiking',
So, you don't understand it at all, k.

>> No.5222742

>>5222661
>Vestigial organs are an assumed part of evolutionary theory.
It's a weak evidence, and with or without it, we still have evolution as true. You can invent whatever purpose you want to something, so this is an unfalsifiable claim.

It is factual that whales don't really use the remnants of the back legs all that often. Like, almost no use at all. I'm sure if you stretch hard enough you can find some "purpose" or another.

>> No.5222743

>>5222663
>Synthetic proteins, even those that can exist on their own when expressed by bacteria, are unstable without a support such as PEG.

I doubt that very much. If the purified protein is stable it does not matter whether it was obtained naturally or synthetically.

>> No.5222766

>So, you don't understand it at all, k.

Please explain things to me then, oh wise one? I doubt I'm lacking in understanding, considering I've got three years of study and education in biochemistry..

>If the purified protein is stable it does not matter whether it was obtained naturally or synthetically.
... You obviously don't understand complex molecular structures... Stability is relative, and light, air composition, ambient moisture, and many other factors can contribute to breakdown. Not to mention natural decay, which is exponentially faster in many synthetic compounds.

>> No.5222769

>>5222732
>evolution is not a random process

... That's exactly what I'm saying. Currently accepted evolutionary theory(that taught in schools) is posited as random, with only natural selection being the deciding factor in survival.

>> No.5222848

>>5222769
>>5222769
I'm not sure what you were taught in your school, but the most common interpretation of evolution is that is de facto non random. I don't know how many time's I've heard Dawkins get mad at creationists for saying its random.

>> No.5222857

>>5222769

it's no more random than domestication.

>> No.5222863

>>5222766
you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.
ambient atmosphere, light etc would contribute to the decomposition of both naturally obtained and synthetically produced samples.

try harder

>> No.5222889
File: 33 KB, 600x450, huh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5222889

>>5222848
>>5222857
What the fuck is with my professors saying that it's random, then? Hell, even highschool, I was told it was random. I go to Texas A&M.

>>5222863
What? I.. Don't even know how to respond to that. You completely misinterpreted what I said, and didn't even refute your interpretation...

>> No.5222893

>>5222889
Maybe you heard random mutations and thought oh its random. Natural selection picks from the random mutations, only the traits that make the animal better suited for the environment.

>> No.5222891

>>5222889
>What the fuck is with my professors saying that it's random, then? Hell, even highschool, I was told it was random. I go to Texas A&M.
Evolution by natural selection is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.

>> No.5222895

>>5222889
There's an element of randomness in when mutations occur. Either that, or the "unpredictability" in that we as humans generally don't know the range of possible adaptations and can't account for all environmental factors very well.
Maybe. Or something.

>> No.5222906

>>5222889

education is really shit these days.

It's the non-random selection of traits beneficial to survival. The mutations are more or less random, but whether or not they stick is dependent on their ability to help or harm the creature. Neutral ones can stick around for a long time.

>> No.5223043

>>5223024
In 1994 it was the mass-energy of Jupiter, now down to 722kg because of a slight adjustment. That's pretty good progress and better than none at all

>> No.5223050

>>5222280
>"Oh wait the cable wasn't screwed in tight"

Do you even science? There's a reason most tech support answers start by "Make sure the computer is plugged and turned on".

>> No.5223049

>>5223043
>took 20 years to get down to a possibly practical amount of matter that's not even proven to be possible to attain

>> No.5222925

This has made me check out Google for Texas education.. It's second-to-last in SAT scores, and fourth-to-last in ACT... The colleges have less funding, and A&M(second most populous) is not even in the top 100 nation wide... I suddenly feel like I'm less worthy of being on this board.

>> No.5223053

>>5223024
>Good luck with that!

I do not dispute that it is still unachievable. I only made the factually correct statement that the "mass of jupiter" estimate is based on outdated information.

>> No.5222929

>>5222925
Don't worry about it, at least 50 percent of this board is kids in high school, and 25 percent is people in a CC.

>> No.5222957

>>5222268

http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/11/5/001

>> No.5222968

>>5222925
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/08/18/7410377-fact-check-does-texas-teach-creationism-in-pub
lic-schools-is-it-constitutional?lite

>> No.5222991

>>5222268
>Those are all bullshit too for very obvious reasons like needing the mass of jupiter in energy or magic unobtanium.

That is no longer accurate. Optimizations to the alcubierre drive concept have reduced, enormously, the energy needed.

http://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar-spaceflight.html

>> No.5223023

>>5222968
My biology teacher and PT teachers taught both evolution and creationism as 'possible'. PT teacher also introduced the class to the theory of intelligent design, which got her laughed at by myself and a friend.. For which we were both sent into the hallway for, and we ended up fucking around for the entire class period.. Fun times.

>> No.5223024

>>5222991
>http://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar-spaceflight.html

Ah, people linking articles they do not understand.

> the warp drive could be powered by a mass about the size of a spacecraft like the Voyager 1 probe NASA launched in 1977.

The Voyager Spacecraft masses 722 kilograms. 722 kg has about 6.4890e+19 joules of energy, or about 64890000000000000000 joules (that would read sixty-four quintillion, eight hundred and ninety quadrillion joules) or 64,890 petajoules to handled it more comfortably .

If we want to convert that to Kilotons or megatons that would be around 15509082 kilotons, or fifteen thousand, five hundred and nine (15509) megatons. The most powerful nuclear device detonated was the Tsar bomb, at its horrifying 50 megatons or 210 petajoules. So, we would need about 310 or 311 tsar bombs to power such drive.

Good luck with that!

>> No.5223031

>>5223024
Almost exactly the amount of energy the world produced in 2008... The world. Holy shit.

>> No.5223034

>>5223031

and this is just one of several fundamental physics problems facing the drive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Difficulties

>> No.5223038

>>5223034

>More difficulties emerge in regards to the amount of exotic matter required for such a propulsion. According to Pfenning and Allen Everett of Tufts, a warp bubble traveling at 10 times light-speed must have a wall thickness of no more than 10−32 meters. This is close to the limiting Planck length, 1.6 × 10−35 meters. A bubble macroscopically large enough to enclose a ship 200 meters across would require a total amount of exotic matter equal to 10 billion times the mass of the observable universe. Straining the exotic matter to an extremely thin band of 10−32 meters is considered impractical.

i lol'd