CERN claims FTL neutrinos

[Mjolnir]

Wait, seriously Mjolnir? You need non-real (imaginary, complex, take your pick on terminology) numbers to design a radio? I admit I am only in college, but still... that can't be right. :|

Technically, there's nothing you need complex numbers for...you can transform any calculation using complex numbers into one using vectors or just scalar reals. There's a reason they are used, though...it's a vastly more convenient framework to work in for many things. In particular, practically anything dealing with waves or other time-variant systems...filters, signal analysis, compression, controls, etc. In radio transmitter and receiver design, just matching the impedance of the antenna involves complex numbers. Complex numbers are so pervasive in electronics engineering that the field has its own symbol for the imaginary unit...it's called j instead of i to prevent confusion with electrical current.

[starstriker1]

Half the math uses immaginary numbers - which don't exist in nature - to get their results.

NUMBERS don't exist in nature. You can't pull a 3 out of anywhere, you can't mine for 7s, and there is no elementary particle for a 2. Numbers are abstract concepts used by the human mind to understand and describe the environment around it. Imaginary numbers are a convenience for denoting a specific kinds of concepts, which the others have clearly demonstrated has utility for describing many natural processes. It's worth noting that nature also does not correspond to "common sense"... it's significantly stranger. If a feature of the natural world is best described with an imaginary number, so be it... crazier things have happened and will continue to happen.

Also, you don't get to pick and choose what math you accept. Mathematical theorums and concepts are the only things in the entire universe that are either true or untrue, and they are always PROVABLY so. They arise from the basic axioms, so you can only reject them if you're willing to reject the principles of logic as well.

[discord]

there was a nice little movie with that funny hawking guy...i think, math is all around us in nature, and it comes back again and again...shapes of leaves, shells formation of sand dunes in wind, waves, and so on ad nauseam.

have fun.

[Cy83r]

IIRC, those're called patterns and math is used to describe and understand them as how nature works. Basically, math is the translation of the language in which the universe operates, but they are not the same, one is just a crude simulacrum of the other.

[fredgiblet]

I think there are many mathematicians who would argue that nature is just a crude simulacrum of math.

[TrashMan]

Half the math uses immaginary numbers - which don't exist in nature - to get their results.

NUMBERS don't exist in nature. You can't pull a 3 out of anywhere, you can't mine for 7s, and there is no elementary particle for a 2. Numbers are abstract concepts used by the human mind to understand and describe the environment around it. Imaginary numbers are a convenience for denoting a specific kinds of concepts, which the others have clearly demonstrated has utility for describing many natural processes. It's worth noting that nature also does not correspond to "common sense"... it's significantly stranger. If a feature of the natural world is best described with an imaginary number, so be it... crazier things have happened and will continue to happen.

Also, you don't get to pick and choose what math you accept. Mathematical theorums and concepts are the only things in the entire universe that are either true or untrue, and they are always PROVABLY so. They arise from the basic axioms, so you can only reject them if you're willing to reject the principles of logic as well.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

[junk]

I think there are many mathematicians who would argue that nature is just a crude simulacrum of math.

Not really. Since most mathematicians know that they use "ideal" models for their representation as there's variables they often can't aproach but are there.

[Nemo]

So...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2685


Apparently, they may have failed to account for the relativistic motion of the satellites.

[Absalom]

Alright, someone remind me: how many years did CERN go over the results before releasing their paper?

My thoughts on http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2685 :
Relevant : Does the movement of sender/receiver due to Earth's motion make this point relevant even regardless of any satellite involvement? (a.k.a. did they take motion-based distance dilation as seen from the emitter/receiver into account?)
Typo : That's "photon", not "foton", use a spell-checker Ronald.

[junk]

to be honest I think their own respective movement was the first thing they considered.

[Mjolnir]

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.

[Absalom]

So it's still weird? Got it.

[Trantor]

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.

[Mikk]

This is proof of CERN being bent on world;domination! Beware of green jello, srsly.

This is the only way ... interstellar travel...

No it is not. Subluminal = win.

[Wintermute]

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.

[Mjolnir]

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.

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.

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.

[Trantor]

If they hadn't just shut down Tevatron due to it being "obsolete",

OT: Still cannot believe that. Is this creationist sabotage?

[Absalom]

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.

[fredgiblet]

I think part of that is that people here don't know how little gets spent on it.

[icekatze]

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.