CERN claims FTL neutrinos

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

Karst45
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:03 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos

Post by Karst45 »

icekatze wrote:hi hi

There's lots of people out there that don't understand much of anything about money on large scale projects. I hear people cry and wail about someone wasting a million dollars on some project. I wonder, are they still living in the 50s? There's this thing called inflation that I'm not sure some people even understand.

Well when you hear about a comitee being formed (at the cost of 500 000$) Just to see if a project of 2 millions will be worth it, when everyone with half a brain would see not worth it. what ever this "inflation" thing your call. it will still offend people that good money is wasted on such project.

But on the other hand, is Cern project a private on?

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos

Post by Trantor »

Karst45 wrote:But on the other hand, is Cern project a private on?
Nope, CERN is an alliance of 20 european countries (Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire.), and their annual budget is roundabout 1 billion (tax-)euros, most of it for the LHC.
New toys come extra. ;)
sapere aude.

User avatar
Widde84
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:31 am

Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos

Post by Widde84 »

See if one can intervene (or to annoy people), and correct some things (please tell me if this IS too annoying or geeky) :ugeek: . (if someone have a higher ed than I in physics (Ph.D. student or so) please correct me if I'm wrong...)
First: FTL neutrinoes: This result is as far as I gathered only preliminary or test results to see if their toys were working and obviously they were. The problem is time. They wanted to measure the speed the neutrinos had and thus did the classical approach. They have a beam of neutrinos with a known distance. Time is measured by sending a signal saying: "and they leave NOW!" ...rather simple. :D
Problem: This signal did Not go the same path as the neutrinos, neutrinos went in a straight line from CERN to Italy, whereas the signal went up into space in a GPS satellite, to another satellite and down to Italy, so you can probably sumise the problem here. What they plan to do is to correct for this time difference, basically just add the time it takes for the signal to travel. And ofcourse there are other stuff that could happen to the signal in the atmosphere...
Second: Cold Fusion: A dream, it didn't work the first time, nor the second, third time... don't know how many times they actually tried but not many... this we know why and actually have known since Culomb put up his law of electrostatic forces. It is the exact same REASON (not energies) you won't have a fusion of atoms when you slam your hand in the coffe table (so we should probably be happy about that)...

Foton is correct in my language and Photon is english spelling, but who cares... :D

Third: Numbers: Imaginary numbers are used in wavefunctions in quantum mechanics to describe electronic states in atoms and molecules and to explain how and why molecules have a certain structure.... and other fancy wavefunctions maybe even in string theory but I wouldn't know that... :mrgreen:

For those who actually cared I could try to give a better explanations if you want... :ugeek:

Absalom
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:33 am

Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos

Post by Absalom »

Unless some fool was tapping directly into a GPS ground station, neither facility was sending ANYTHING to the GPS satellites: the number of ground stations is limited, used ONLY to keep the GPS system correctly oriented, and as far as I know send their signals to only the actual satellites.

Thus, both facilities were receiving the timing signals, neither was sending them. Various formulas, however, could theoretically have been miscalculated.

User avatar
Mjolnir
Posts: 452
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:24 pm

Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos

Post by Mjolnir »

Widde84 wrote:Problem: This signal did Not go the same path as the neutrinos, neutrinos went in a straight line from CERN to Italy, whereas the signal went up into space in a GPS satellite, to another satellite and down to Italy, so you can probably sumise the problem here. What they plan to do is to correct for this time difference, basically just add the time it takes for the signal to travel. And ofcourse there are other stuff that could happen to the signal in the atmosphere...
Not quite...they didn't bounce a signal off a GPS satellite. That isn't something anyone does, the only communications sent to GPS satellites are to maintain and manage the GPS network. What they did was synchronize two ground clocks using GPS satellites visible to both sites as a common reference. Then they can just compare timestamps on the data from the accelerator and the neutrino detector.

This should also eliminate most relativistic errors. The GPS satellite's clock might be going fast or slow as seen from the ground, but by an amount that's basically the same at each ground position, and it's only used to keep the clocks in sync with each other. They're still trying to figure out what might be introducing the 60 ns error. (or otherwise explain neutrinos doing something no other particle has been seen doing)

Wikipedia has a quite detailed writeup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-tha ... no_anomaly

Fotiadis_110
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos

Post by Fotiadis_110 »

to check their results, i want to see their formulas, the basis of those formulas and the assumptions those calculations each hold.

If there are even a small number of assumptions held within their formulas then we could easily hold such a tiny discrepancy within those gaps.

The easiest solution is easy: we have miscalculated light-speed sufficiently to mess up our results.
If error is less than the normal +- errors held within experiments used to determine light-speed, it's not that hard to be hiding away.

User avatar
Mjolnir
Posts: 452
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:24 pm

Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos

Post by Mjolnir »

Fotiadis_110 wrote:to check their results, i want to see their formulas, the basis of those formulas and the assumptions those calculations each hold.
Then go look. The experiment and equipment has been described in great detail. A wide range of experts have been and still are examining their assumptions and looking for any mistakes.

Fotiadis_110 wrote:If there are even a small number of assumptions held within their formulas then we could easily hold such a tiny discrepancy within those gaps.

The easiest solution is easy: we have miscalculated light-speed sufficiently to mess up our results.
If error is less than the normal +- errors held within experiments used to determine light-speed, it's not that hard to be hiding away.
The error is way too big to be something like a mismeasured speed of light. The neutrinos were measured as traveling faster than light by one part in 40000...we commonly accelerate particles to just a few parts per million short of c. Light travels 18 meters in 60 ns, the error in time of flight between two points on the Earth's surface 730 km apart...location results from GPS would be way off. It's one of the easiest answers to come up with, but also one of the easiest to find problems with.

User avatar
Widde84
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:31 am

Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos

Post by Widde84 »

Mjolnir wrote:
Widde84 wrote:Problem: This signal did Not go the same path as the neutrinos, neutrinos went in a straight line from CERN to Italy, whereas the signal went up into space in a GPS satellite, to another satellite and down to Italy, so you can probably sumise the problem here. What they plan to do is to correct for this time difference, basically just add the time it takes for the signal to travel. And ofcourse there are other stuff that could happen to the signal in the atmosphere...
Not quite...they didn't bounce a signal off a GPS satellite. That isn't something anyone does, the only communications sent to GPS satellites are to maintain and manage the GPS network. What they did was synchronize two ground clocks using GPS satellites visible to both sites as a common reference. Then they can just compare timestamps on the data from the accelerator and the neutrino detector.

This should also eliminate most relativistic errors. The GPS satellite's clock might be going fast or slow as seen from the ground, but by an amount that's basically the same at each ground position, and it's only used to keep the clocks in sync with each other. They're still trying to figure out what might be introducing the 60 ns error. (or otherwise explain neutrinos doing something no other particle has been seen doing)

Wikipedia has a quite detailed writeup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-tha ... no_anomaly

Hmm, thought they sent some timed signal different from the neutrino path, probably read it too fast... Anyhow, I think they did know what the problem was and is working on fixing it. I think it was something to do with the measured travel time of the neutrinos...

The clock on the GPS' go faster if I remember correctly, due to less gravity up there. This is compensated for and calculated (i think) on the satellite using Einsteins theory of relativity (kinda pointless to do the calculations on a small cellphone if you can do it on a supercomputer in space).... I dunno, but the GPS is about using the theory of relativity, which makes it work when traveling anyhow.

fredgiblet
Moderator
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos

Post by fredgiblet »

It's been on /. for hours and I'm still the first to post it? For shame!

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... Rc.twitter

User avatar
Trantor
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos

Post by Trantor »

fredgiblet wrote:It's been on /. for hours and I'm still the first to post it? For shame!

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... Rc.twitter
A new flavor of "runtime error"...
sapere aude.

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos

Post by Arioch »

Hardly a surprise. Either everything we know about physics is wrong, or this one experiment had some kind of error. I know which is the more exciting conclusion, but it's not hard to figure out which the more likely conclusion. (Sez Occam's Razor.)

User avatar
Razor One
Moderator
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 3:38 pm

Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos

Post by Razor One »

Guess Cern will have to go back to poking around a certain Mad Scientists Phone-Microwave now...

It'd be awesome if it had held up and we'd found something completely revolutionary insofar as physics goes... but as the saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
Image
SpoilerShow
This is my Mod voice. If you see this in a thread, it means that the time for gentle reminders has passed.

Michael
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:51 pm
Location: England

Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos

Post by Michael »

looks like they really did screw up some where, according to the news just on
CJ Miller: How many millions must be banned before we stop having pointless arguments on the Internet?
fredgiblet: ALL OF THEM! Our banhammers will blot out the sun!
CptWinters: Then we will troll in the shade.!
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
GeoModder
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos

Post by GeoModder »

fredgiblet wrote:It's been on /. for hours and I'm still the first to post it? For shame!

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... Rc.twitter
I've read it on my national news site. Not in English thus. :P
Razor One wrote:It'd be awesome if it had held up and we'd found something completely revolutionary insofar as physics goes... but as the saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
Occam's Razor aside, the difference with the speed of light was so minime it had to be a mistake of sorts.
Image

Post Reply