CERN claims FTL neutrinos
Moderator: Outsider Moderators
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
From what I've read, this is based on a misunderstanding of the experiment. The neutrinos were timed with clocks on the ground, synchronized to each other by using the GPS clocks as a common reference. Any error due to the location of the GPS satellites in Earth's gravity well and their relative motion would be essentially identical from both ends of the experiment, only the difference in the error between the two locations would be relevant to synchronization.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
So it's still weird? Got it.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
We have a new standard of cool in summing up a scientific paper:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1110/1110.2832.pdf
Money Quote: "Probably not."
Two words, where others jabber for pages and pages. Thumbs up.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1110/1110.2832.pdf
Money Quote: "Probably not."
Two words, where others jabber for pages and pages. Thumbs up.
sapere aude.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
This is proof of CERN being bent on world;domination! Beware of green jello, srsly.
No it is not. Subluminal = win.This is the only way ... interstellar travel...
-
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:09 am
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
Apparently Neutrinos are still traveling faster than the speed of light in the latest version of the experiment, though there are still some sources of error to rule out I think.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
Brief summary: same basic experiment with a minor tweak, narrower pulses of neutrinos to help exclude any effects of the pulse shape and make sure they're measuring the times accurately. If the effect was a result of a bias in the pulse shape, they should have at least seen a change in the apparent speed.Wintermute wrote:Apparently Neutrinos are still traveling faster than the speed of light in the latest version of the experiment, though there are still some sources of error to rule out I think.
If they hadn't just shut down Tevatron due to it being "obsolete", we could replicate the experiment there with completely different equipment...there was talk about doing some extra equipment calibration checks and using already-collected data, but I don't know if that ever got anywhere.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
OT: Still cannot believe that. Is this creationist sabotage?Mjolnir wrote:If they hadn't just shut down Tevatron due to it being "obsolete",
sapere aude.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
Probably not, more likely budget sabotage. The space program is supposedly really popular here in America, but you wouldn't guess that by the money that gets spent on it.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
I think part of that is that people here don't know how little gets spent on it.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
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.
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.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
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?
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
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.Karst45 wrote:But on the other hand, is Cern project a private on?
New toys come extra.
sapere aude.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
See if one can intervene (or to annoy people), and correct some things (please tell me if this IS too annoying or geeky) . (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.
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...
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...
For those who actually cared I could try to give a better explanations if you want...
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.
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...
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...
For those who actually cared I could try to give a better explanations if you want...
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
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.
Thus, both facilities were receiving the timing signals, neither was sending them. Various formulas, however, could theoretically have been miscalculated.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
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.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...
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
-
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:15 pm
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
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.
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.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
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:to check their results, i want to see their formulas, the basis of those formulas and the assumptions those calculations each hold.
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.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.
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
Mjolnir wrote: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.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...
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.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
It's been on /. for hours and I'm still the first to post it? For shame!
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... Rc.twitter
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... Rc.twitter
Re: CERN claims FTL neutrinos
A new flavor of "runtime error"...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
sapere aude.