Support NeoGAF

[The Elite]

why are the guys by the hadron collider (??) wearing hardhats?

Birds dropping bread on their heads.

 

[Alien Bob]

why are the guys by the hadron collider (??) wearing hardhats?

Higgs Bosons are massive

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

The nerdiest joke I know is the old "spherical chicken" jab...

A physicist, an engineer and a statistician are conscripted to fight in a war, and assigned to the same artillery piece. During combat, the fire-control system breaks, and they have to manually aim the gun. The physicist says "no problem guys, I'll take care of it". He scribbles down the projectile motion equations from memory on a bit of paper, plugs in his values, aims the gun and fires. The shell falls fifty meters short of their target, much to his dismay.

The engineer laughs. "You fool! You calculated for ideal conditions. Can't you feel that wind?" The physicist frowns and lets the engineer take over. He makes some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations to adjust for the wind, adjusts the gun again and fires. Just as the gun recoils, however, the wind dies down, and the shell overshoots by 50 meters.

The statistician jumps up and shouts "We got 'em!"

 

[Consul]

hahahahahahahahaha

 

[Spider from Mars]

I'm ready to start banging aliens, make it happen CERN.

 

[mt1200]

Should I burn my modern physics book?

 

[coldvein]

i was just thinking that if you were standing next to a hardon collider (??) and something went wrong, a hardhat wouldn't come close to saving you.

 

[Red UFO]

i was just thinking that if you were standing next to a hardon collider (??) and something went wrong, a hardhat wouldn't come close to saving you.

Well, you certainly aren't wrong there my friend.

 

[UrbanRats]

A physicist, an engineer and a statistician are conscripted to fight in a war, and assigned to the same artillery piece. During combat, the fire-control system breaks, and they have to manually aim the gun. The physicist says "no problem guys, I'll take care of it". He scribbles down the projectile motion equations from memory on a bit of paper, plugs in his values, aims the gun and fires. The shell falls fifty meters short of their target, much to his dismay.

The engineer laughs. "You fool! You calculated for ideal conditions. Can't you feel that wind?" The physicist frowns and lets the engineer take over. He makes some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations to adjust for the wind, adjusts the gun again and fires. Just as the gun recoils, however, the wind dies down, and the shell overshoots by 50 meters.

The statistician jumps up and shouts "We got 'em!"

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician (it is said) were holidaying in Scotland. Glancing from a train window, they observed a black sheep in the middle of a field.
"How interesting," observed the astronomer, "all scottish sheep are black!"
To which the physicist responded, "No, no! Some Scottish sheep are black!"
The mathematician gazed heavenward in supplication, and then intoned, "In Scotland there exists at least one field, containing at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."

 

[Angry Grimace]

Lightspeed. Yawn. Tell me when they reach warp.

 

[Stridone]

Fuck sensational newsreporting and morons clamoring "TIME TRAVEL". The only thing this might mean is that light does not travel at c.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Fuck sensational newsreporting and morons clamoring "TIME TRAVEL". The only thing this might mean is that light does not travel at c.

Its the only way people will read it! But I guess the time travel bit would be a way to conserve general relativity. The neutrinos are not actually traveling faster than the speed of light. They are traveling in a distinct temporal reference. So their actual speed doesn't break C but they travel the distance faster in relationship to our time frame.

And yes I am pulling this out of my ass.

 

[Zeppu]

Maybe the act of observing light speed has caused light speed to be overtaken.

:O

 

[BigJonsson]

Why they gots to break physics?

 

[Stinkles]

Fuck sensational newsreporting and morons clamoring "TIME TRAVEL". The only thing this might mean is that light does not travel at c.

Yeah, because the bolded would not be an important fact.

 

[Emerson]

Today's news, humans understand fuck all about physics and are shocked when they are wrong.

 

[Orayn]

Today's news, humans understand fuck all about physics and are shocked when they are wrong.

Considering some of the things our knowledge of physics has helped us create, I think we deserve more credit than "fuck-all." Also, it's good to be wrong. Being wrong is the first step in becoming more right.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Yeah, because the bolded would not be an important fact.

But his point was they sensationalized an already astounding discovery (if true). And verification of "Time travel" would likely have ramifications that would undermine a vast swathe of all science (no linear cause and effect, fucks up everything). While fast neutrinos could be included using some exotic model that applied district to neutrinos.

Being wrong is the first step in becoming more right.

Science is never "right". Science is about coming up with the best guess and explanation of our current level of knowledge. As we accrue more information the guesses change. Its not possible for the scientific method to ever establish something that is "true." Even if the theory is true there must always be some way to expand or refute it.

If it cannot be expanded upon or refuted its not science. There will always be potential for new information superseding all that came before it. The problem is people "accepting" what scientists (and or the media butchering their words) say while not understanding what science is. And certainly not having the knowledge required to really grasp the full impact of the discoveries beyond the sensationalist garbage that explains it to the public. Theory becomes fact and truth.

There's nothing wrong with being incorrect or theorizing, what annoys me is when people act like there is no possibility of our current understanding being incorrect.

Exactly.

 

[Emerson]

Considering some of the things our knowledge of physics has helped us create, I think we deserve more credit than "fuck-all." Also, it's good to be wrong. Being wrong is the first step in becoming more right.

I'm a science major and love science, and I can recognize the things we do understand, but I do think "fuck all" is an accurate descriptor of what we understand about the universe, relative to what there remains to be discovered.

There's nothing wrong with being incorrect or theorizing, what annoys me is when people act like there is no possibility of our current understanding being incorrect. Sure, we think we understand a lot of things, but people a thousand years ago thought they knew a lot of things too.

Human arrogance I suppose, is what annoys me.

 

[Stinkles]

But his point was they sensationalized an already astounding discovery (if true). And verification of "Time travel" would likely have ramifications that would undermine a vast swathe of all science (no linear cause and effect, fucks up everything). While fast neutrinos could be included using some exotic model that applied district to neutrinos.

If C is not the universal speed limit, time machines aside, the discovery would be every bit as important - and perhaps connected to - a change in the rules about causality. It would have ramifications for everything from the age of the universe to the nature of creation itself.

However, every time this shit has happened in the past, Einstein has won, so let's give it a couple of years for them to figure out how/why the neutrinos obeyed C. Maybe they fold space at a local level and travel half the distance.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

If C is not the universal speed limit, time machines aside, the discovery would be every bit as important - and perhaps connected to - a change in the rules about causality. It would have ramifications for everything from the age of the universe to the nature of creation itself.

You can include an out-lier like neutrinos appearing to move faster than C in many ways that would preserve our current models. Discovery that time is not linear would change just about every premise science is based upon.

Maybe they fold space at a local level and travel half the distance.

Which is exactly the sort of explanation that would be used to preserve all the other assumptions physics is based upon currently. Even if it DOES move faster than C you can still explain it in a way that doesn't contradict everything else. Which is certainly what would occur it happens all the time.

Truth doesn't matter, merely if you are able to "explain" the occurrence in a consistent and coherent way (in relationship to everything else). And Einstein has indeed already been contradicted. Static state universe being the one that comes most readily to mind.

 

[krameriffic]

I'm a science major and love science, and I can recognize the things we do understand, but I do think "fuck all" is an accurate descriptor of what we understand about the universe, relative to what there remains to be discovered.

There's nothing wrong with being incorrect or theorizing, what annoys me is when people act like there is no possibility of our current understanding being incorrect. Sure, we think we understand a lot of things, but people a thousand years ago thought they knew a lot of things too.

Human arrogance I suppose, is what annoys me.

Science requires skepticism, elsewise any half baked idea with one experimental confirmation would spark a revolution in our thinking and the entire system of scientific inquiry would collapse.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

It should also be worth noting that even when amazing discoveries are made that clash with the current "trend" in thought it is not instantly accepted and the rules rewritten. It takes time and effort regardless of how sound the science is (certainly there are exceptions).

Academic acceptance is not reducible solely to the validity of the science.

 

[rdrr gnr]

I wasn't able to catch the CERN presentation. Did they outline a time-frame in which other laboratories would attempt to recreate the results?

 

[Orayn]

It should also be worth noting that even when amazing discoveries are made that clash with the current "trend" in thought it is not instantly accepted and the rules rewritten. It takes time and effort regardless of how sound the science is (certainly there are exceptions).

Academic acceptance is not reducible solely to the validity of the science.

Ideally, the evidence will bear out good science, even if it takes years to win people over and get them to look at things in a new light.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I wonder what kind of shitstorm would happen if they found an exception to the Law of Conservations of Mass and Energy?

 

[Orayn]

I wonder what kind of shitstorm would happen if they found an exception to the Law of Conservations of Mass and Energy?

Technically, those can already be violated on extremely short timescales due to the uncertainty principle. A macroscopic example would be a pretty big shitstorm though, yes.

 

[Byakuya769]

I wonder what kind of shitstorm would happen if they found an exception to the Law of Conservations of Mass and Energy?

Aren't black holes an exception?

 

[Divvy]

The nerdiest joke I know is the old "spherical chicken" jab...

An atom walks into a bar looking depressed.

The bartender asks him, "Why so glum?"

The atom responds, "I lost am electron."

The bartender asks, "Are you sure?"

The atom answers, "Yup, I'm positive"

 

[toxicgonzo]

useful image

 

[Noirulus]

Aren't black holes an exception?

Nope.

 

[Levyne]

has this been posted? here is the related document.

http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf

Gonna give this a read through.

Here's the conclusion:

The OPERA detector at LNGS, designed for the study of neutrino oscillations in appearance mode, has provided a precision measurement of the neutrino velocity over the 730 km baseline of the CNGS neutrino beam sent from CERN to LNGS through the Earth’s crust. A time of flight measurement with small systematic uncertainties was made possible by a series of accurate metrology techniques. The data analysis took also advantage of a large sample of about 16000 neutrino interaction events detected by OPERA.

The analysis of internal neutral current and charged current events, and external νµ CC
interactions from the 2009, 2010 and 2011 CNGS data was carried out to measure the neutrino velocity. The sensitivity of the measurement of (v-c)/c is about one order of magnitude better than previous accelerator neutrino experiments. The results of the study indicate for CNGS muon neutrinos with an average energy of 17 GeV an early neutrino arrival time with respect to the one computed by assuming the speed of light in vacuum:

δt = (60.7 ± 6.9 (stat.) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns

The corresponding relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity and the speed of light
is:

(v-c)/c = δt /(TOF’c - δt) = (2.48 ± 0.28 (stat.) ± 0.30 (sys.)) ×10^-5

with an overall significance of 6.0 σ.


The dependence of δt on the neutrino energy was also investigated. For this analysis the data set was limited to the 5489 νµ CC interactions occurring in the OPERA target. A
measurement performed by considering all νµ CC internal events yielded δt = (60.3 ± 13.1 (stat.) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns, for an average neutrino energy of 28.1 GeV. The sample was then split into two bins of nearly equal statistics, taking events of energy higher or lower than 20 GeV. The results for the low- and high-energy samples are, respectively, δt = (53.1 ± 18.8 (stat.).) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns and (67.1 ± 18.2 (stat.).) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns. This provides no clues on a possible energy dependence of δt in the domain explored by OPERA within the accuracy of the measurement.


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 result.

A neutrino with the expected velocity of less than the speed of light would have a negative δt and fall below the dashed line. The error bars are tiny compared to the difference measured. Could be huge if it's not a mistake.

 

[Byakuya769]

Nope.

Not when they collapse on themselves and disappear?

 

[Orayn]

Not when they collapse on themselves and disappear?

I don't know what you mean - We've theorized a way for black holes to decay, but never seen one "disappear."

 

[coldvein]

so if i was standing in the middle of this passage, and a neutrino got shot through my eyeball at over the speed of light, what exactly would happen?

 

[Orayn]

so if i was standing in the middle of this passage, and a neutrino got shot through my eyeball at over the speed of light, what exactly would happen?

Jack-squat. Some ridiculously high number neutrinos are passing through you at nearly the speed of light right now. They're just so darn tiny and light that it takes purpose-built high tech equipment just to record individual neutrino strikes.

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

I don't know what you mean - We've theorized a way for black holes to decay, but never seen one "disappear."

Whilst we haven't seen one disappear, due to Hawking Radiation isn't it at least the eventual case for all black holes to do so?

 

[Orayn]

Whilst we haven't seen one disappear, due to Hawking Radiation isn't it at least the eventual case for all black holes to do so?

It's thought to be the way things would work, but we've never observed it.

 

[Stinkles]

so if i was standing in the middle of this passage, and a neutrino got shot through my eyeball at over the speed of light, what exactly would happen?

 

[The Technomancer]

so if i was standing in the middle of this passage, and a neutrino got shot through my eyeball at over the speed of light, what exactly would happen?

Nothing, neutrinos have almost no interactions with normal matter, since they are electrically neutral.

 

[Sibylus]

Anybody else on here absolutely HOPING it's true? I don't even know what the consequences were, it simply intrigues me to witness a law of nature fall.

Well, yeah. Superluminal communication and electronics alone would be a monumental possibility.

 

[theBishop]

Was this measured at LHC? I assumed yes, but maybe there's another CERN particle accelerator near Geneva. Why wouldn't this be part of the coverage?

 

[Byakuya769]

It's thought to be the way things would work, but we've never observed it.

But all the mass is eventually accounted for by the Hawkings radiation?

 

[Cygnus X-1]

has this been posted? here is the related document.

http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf

Gonna give this a read through.

Here's the conclusion:



[/IMG]http://i.imgur.com/BEkvp.png[/IMG]

A neutrino with the expected velocity of less than the speed of light would have a negative δt and fall below the dashed line. The error bars are tiny compared to the difference measured. Could be huge if it's not a mistake.

Not just huge. Much more! But as a scientist, it would have been dumb to think that the Einstein's relativitiy would have been absolute forever. The good point is that, if true, it's going to be still valid for the 99.9% of cases since till today, in all measurements, it worked perfectly. Exactly like the Newton's mechanics sill works perfectly for low-speed problems. Nevertheless, the theory is going to be expanded. Like it was and like it alway be. It is what I call an evolution, since another dumb thing is to think that humans species is near to know everything and what we still have to discover are just minor details. Not at all in my opinion: I think that in 2 or 3 centuries people will say we were primitive and they will wonder how we couldn't get some basic mistakes.
This could be a first turn-around. Like at the beginning of the 20th century experiments were more and more showing the limits of classical mechanics, now advances in technology could start to show the limits of the Relativity of Einstein. And maybe one day progress will start to show the limits of Schroedinger's quantum mechanics. Who knows?

Point is that: we have to verify that. Not one. Not 10. Not 100, but thousands of times to be sure that what has been measured really is accurate. The idea to publish the results so that other labs can repeat the measurement is sure the best, because if there is a systematic mistake, it's going to be impossible to find it, since till now they failed to to that.
Better is to make the same experiment in other places of the world. Particularly in Minnesota, Soudan Mine and Japan, T2K. They have to power up their instruments and repeat the measurement.
Then, and only then, if what happened is real, then next years are going to be on fire, for sure!!! First: I would start to repeat the same measurements, but with antineutrinos. If neutrinos are faster then photons, it is legit to think that antineutrinos could do the same. Then: all low mass fermions. If necessary (it will), bosons as well, even if the mass is higher and they shouldn't the faster than the photons (but at this point, better measure every sub-particle we are aware of).

 

[toxicgonzo]

has this been posted? here is the related document.

http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf

Gonna give this a read through.

Here's the conclusion:


A neutrino with the expected velocity of less than the speed of light would have a negative δt and fall below the dashed line. The error bars are tiny compared to the difference measured. Could be huge if it's not a mistake.

That's pretty neat.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

lets just hope they dont turn the speed of light machine into this

It's also good until we're being torn apart and sodomized by chaos demons.

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

It's also good until we're being torn apart and sodomized by chaos demons.

That's why we make sure to invent Gellar Fields.

After sending all the telephone cleaners, hairdressers, and advertising account executives away that is.

 

[Atlagev]

A physicist, an engineer and a statistician are conscripted to fight in a war, and assigned to the same artillery piece. During combat, the fire-control system breaks, and they have to manually aim the gun. The physicist says "no problem guys, I'll take care of it". He scribbles down the projectile motion equations from memory on a bit of paper, plugs in his values, aims the gun and fires. The shell falls fifty meters short of their target, much to his dismay.

The engineer laughs. "You fool! You calculated for ideal conditions. Can't you feel that wind?" The physicist frowns and lets the engineer take over. He makes some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations to adjust for the wind, adjusts the gun again and fires. Just as the gun recoils, however, the wind dies down, and the shell overshoots by 50 meters.

The statistician jumps up and shouts "We got 'em!"

This is pretty funny.

 

[Anthropic]

Was this measured at LHC? I assumed yes, but maybe there's another CERN particle accelerator near Geneva. Why wouldn't this be part of the coverage?

I believe the neutrinos are generated by a beam that comes off from one of the early stages of the LHC (called the SPS). The beam of protons hits a target which then generates neutrinos. The beam is pointed at the detector which is 730KM away, under the Alps. Neutrinos travel through solid matter, there's no tunnel between the LHC and the detector. Here's a diagram of where the beam starts:

I'm not sure if CERN calls the whole accelerator the LHC or if they only refer to the last stage, with the giant huge tunnel where the highest energies are reached, as the LHC.

 

[Kenka]

I really REALLY liked this video from the GUNNSHOP:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-LCCU0txsA

Man, this guy describes things in a way that totally seduced me. I suck at reporting. You should watch it for yourself.