Nyah, Nyah
Peter Robinson ·
March 17, 2012 at 7:32pm
From today's New York Times, "Einstein Proved Right in Retest of Neutrinos' Speed":
European researchers said Friday they had measured again the speed of a subatomic particle that a September experiment suggested traveled faster than the speed of light, violating Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which underlies much of modern physics.
The research team, led by the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Carlo Rubbia, found that the particles, neutrinos, do not travel faster than light.
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: Nyah, Nyah
Mr. Robinson - the science is settled. I heard that research team you cite was funded by "Big Speed of Light."
Edited on March 17, 2012 at 7:41pmJan '11
Re: Nyah, Nyah
Two out of three?
Consider the confidence we have in that "oops." Did they misread the results the first time, or the second?
And ... how would you be able to tell?
Oct '11
Re: Nyah, Nyah
If I recall correctly, I thought I had read that the initial experiment was inaccurate due to a "loose wire" in the test equipment. I also recall the team from the initial experiment also being quite skeptical of their own results. So, bottom line, we're just seeing the "sausage being made" in the scientific world.
May '11
Re: Nyah, Nyah
Uncertainty over a complex scientific experiment result? More testing is in order. Meanwhile for the rest of us, the world continues to turn.
May '10
Re: Nyah, Nyah
It was a transcription error. They were referring to Ricardo Montalban in Star Trek II.
It was a Latino, not a neutrino, that traveled faster than the speed of light.
Feb '12
Re: Nyah, Nyah
Maybe neutrinos do travel faster than the speed of light and this "second" experiment is a coverup of an inconvenient truth. A loose fiber optic cable, indeed! I think the CERN folks are just lazy and don't want to go the the hassle of developing new theories.
When faced with with the choice of a simple answer and a elaborate conspiracy theory, I prefer to let my imagination run wild.
May '10
Re: Nyah, Nyah
I don't know about "Einstein proved right", but at least we can say he wasn't proved wrong.
I find it amazing that measurements can be made with such precision over such great distances, that a slightly loose data cable is even noticeable, let alone the fact that it introduces very significant measurement errors.
May '10
Re: Nyah, Nyah
KC Mulville: Two out of three?
Consider the confidence we have in that "oops." Did they misread the results the first time, or the second?
And ... how would you be able to tell? · 5 hours ago
They found an error in their experimental setup, so the actual transfer time of a signal across a cable was different from their estimate of it. You can conclude that results using the flawed setup are less reliable than results using the correct setup, especially if the results from the flawed setup defy the laws of physics that have otherwise been correct in every other experiment to date.
Jan '11
Re: Nyah, Nyah
Mark Wilson
You can conclude that results using the flawed setup are less reliable than results using the correct setup, especially if the results from the flawed setup defy the laws of physics that have otherwise been correct in every other experiment to date.
That's circular reasoning.
If you're testing a theory, you can't say that the test was successful because it confirmed the theory.
Jun '10
Re: Nyah, Nyah
Well I finally got my dad to join Ricochet. As he as time to post more I think y'all will find he's a lot of fun to read. Here is his first post and it is pertinent.
May '10
Re: Nyah, Nyah
KC Mulville
That's circular reasoning.
If you're testing a theory, you can't say that the test was successful becauseit confirmed the theory. · 6 minutes ago
That's not what I said.
They found a potential source of timing error in their experimental setup: if a particular fiber-optic cable was not attached firmly it would delay the transfer of time-critical data and cause the measurement system to incorrectly report a speed faster than the neutrinos had actually traveled. It is unknown if this condition was present in the previous experiment.
They reran the experiment with the correctly seated cable and observed the expected difference in the measurement. Once other research stations reproduce the results, they can say with some confidence that their original experiment was flawed.
The fact that any experiment agrees with theoretical results is generally evidence in favor of a good experiment. When an experiment unexpectedly defies a well-established theory, it is exciting, but it is also a reason to take extreme caution in drawing conclusions, and examine other plausible causes that explain the unexpected results.
If, and only if, you can eliminate all other explanations, then you must overturn the theory.
Mar '11
Re: Nyah, Nyah
I can't help but think that Einstein would also think "dark matter" was a load of BS, the egotistical inability of modern sciences to admit that the math simply doesn't fit with what they can prove.
May '10
Re: Nyah, Nyah
"So what do the results look like?"
"Well, the number didn't quite work out as well as we'd like--there's a portion that's unaccounted for. But if we just add a little fudge factor we can get a consistent answer."
"Oh, that's good. How big is the fudge factor?"
"Just over 80% of all the matter in the universe. No big deal."
Jan '11
Re: Nyah, Nyah
Mark Wilson
When an experiment unexpectedly defies a well-established theory, it is exciting, but it is also a reason to take extreme caution in drawing conclusions, and examine other plausible causes that explain the unexpected results.
Sure, but didn't we also hear explanations, at the time the first report was issued, that faster-than-light particles were perfectly reasonable to expect? That particles with a negative charge will travel faster than light, and that this is what the first experiment proved?
I'm not claiming any knowledge about physics here. (I happily admit I don't have any.) I'm just sitting back and indulging the pleasure of skepticism, noting that these public assertions of "proved" knowledge conflict with each other.
Sep '10
Re: Nyah, Nyah
KC, I don't know where you heard that, but that's not what the experiment was about. Neutrinos are particles with zero charge. There are plenty of particles with negative charge--such as electrons--but none of them have ever been observed to travel faster than light.
Not that skepticism is bad. There have been many, many experiments that have observed particles behaving as Einstein's theory predicts they will; and some of the most careful experiments in the 20th century were done by physicists who were skeptical of Einstein's theory and wanted to prove it wrong.
Jan '11
Re: Nyah, Nyah
dogsbody
KC, I don't know where you heardthat,but that's not what the experiment was about.
Truth is, I thought I heard it here, on Ricochet ... but I could be entirely wrong.
(Fact is, I'm skeptical of me most of all. Besides, how can you take anyone seriously with that hat?)
May '10
Re: Nyah, Nyah
dogsbody
KC, I don't know where you heardthat,but that's not what the experiment was about.
I haven't heard that before either. But neutrinos get their name from their neutral charge.
Feb '12
Re: Nyah, Nyah
Albert was the original Dr. Who (Time Lord). That's why he left us with the picture. So Peter could use in this post.
Oct '10
Re: Nyah, Nyah
In addition to having studied computer science when I was a kid, I also studied physics. I'd originally intended to take a double-major, but my time management skills precluded that, so I stuck with computer science because 1) it's easier, and 2) it's much easier to make a living at.
With that by way of background, when I read about the "faster-than-light" neutrinos, my immediate thought was: that'll get overturned faster than a 9th circuit court decision. The reason is simple: not only does such a finding violate Special Relativity, it also violates the Standard Model of Particle Physics. It'd be one thing if the finding were in the shadowy area of quantum gravity, where General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are frustratingly mutually inconsistent. But it isn't.
Mark & KC: remember how scientific law works. The scientific method can't prove anything is "true." All it can do is fail to falsify something long enough that we call it a "law." The correct response to something violating Special (not even General!) Relativity is indeed two raised eyebrows.
May '10
Re: Nyah, Nyah
Paul Snively:
Mark & KC: remember how scientific law works. The scientific method can't prove anything is "true." All it can do is fail to falsify something long enough that we call it a "law." The correct response to something violating Special (not even General!) Relativity is indeed two raised eyebrows. · 3 hours ago
Yessir. That's why my first comment on this thread was "I don't know about 'Einstein proved right', but at least we can say he wasn't proved wrong."