Those crazy neutrinos...

[Heliomance]

CERN has redone the neutrinos experiment, (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236) having improved it to take account of some of the criticisms levelled at the original one. The neutrinos are still breaking the speed limit...

[Astrella]

Well, it's only one of the possible error margins that they reduced significantly, granted, it was the biggest one, but there still more verification to be done.

[The Succubus]

Has anyone considered physics is deliberately messing with us?

http://xkcd.com/812/ (contains NSFW word)

[Astrella]

Has anyone considered physics is deliberately messing with us?

Physics would never do that to us... would it? :smalleek:

[H Birchgrove]

Physics would never do that to us... would it? :smalleek:

Hello? Schrödinger's cat, anyone?

[Spiryt]

Well, if something can travel faster than our beloved c, then probability and causality we would like to believe in can be as well put 6 feet under.

My rat left in dark place will still more often than not chew something that I would rather have unchewed.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

Well, if something can travel faster than our beloved c, then probability and causality we would like to believe in can be as well put 6 feet under.

Don't worry. Scientists will fix it by increasing the speed of light in 2208.

[shawnhcorey]

Reporting that the speed of light is broken is just sensationalism. There are other explanations. For example, neutrinos my be created 60 ns before the Standard Model says they should. Remember, they have no way of directly detecting when the neutrinos were created. This would mean an adjustment to the Standard Model but hardly anything to write home about. Unless your mother is a nuclear physicist, that is. :smallwink:

[Shadow of the Sun]

Hello? Schrödinger's cat, anyone?

Considering Schroedinger proposed that in an attempt to show just how stupid the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics was...

Yeah, no. Schroedinger's cat is NOT REAL. It's a thought experiment attempting to DISPROVE an element of quantum physics.

[H Birchgrove]

Considering Schroedinger proposed that in an attempt to show just how stupid the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics was...

Yeah, no. Schroedinger's cat is NOT REAL. It's a thought experiment attempting to DISPROVE an element of quantum physics.

Yeah, but quantum physics is still weird. Where the heck is that electron supposed to be? :smallconfused: :smallwink:

[The Succubus]

Considering Schroedinger proposed that in an attempt to show just how stupid the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics was...

Yeah, no. Schroedinger's cat is NOT REAL. It's a thought experiment attempting to DISPROVE an element of quantum physics.

Also, physics needs more cats in it. Feline behaviour would actually account for a lot of the strange actions of sub-atomic particles.

[Astrella]

Yeah, but quantum physics is still weird. Where the heck is that electron supposed to be? :smallconfused: :smallwink:

Well, it's mostly the combined effect of

a) You can't really imagine things at that scale.
b) I blame the classic way of representing an atom (Nucleus-grape with orbiting electrons-dots) for getting a concept in people's head that hard to get out. Also because we have the tendency to think in analogies that actually take place at our scale.

[Haruki-kun]

Schroedinger's cat is better as an example of probability than physics if you ask me...

So Neutrinos? When can we start building spaceships with the stuff? :smalltongue:

[cthulhubear]

There's one relatively major question here. Have we truly passed the speed of light? I'm not denying that data, albeit there's probably a few errors in there. The thing is, how exactly can we calculate the speed of light to the point? We truly don't know if we've surpassed the speed of light because even with modern technology we have, we can't figure out what the speed truly is. We have estimates on it, but we can't tell exactly what it is, so in my opinion until we have the exact number of the speed of light, we won't know if we have surpassed it or not

TL:DR version: We can't tell if we've surpassed the speed of light, because we don't know what it truly is.

[Weezer]

There's one relatively major question here. Have we truly passed the speed of light? I'm not denying that data, albeit there's probably a few errors in there. The thing is, how exactly can we calculate the speed of light to the point? We truly don't know if we've surpassed the speed of light because even with modern technology we have, we can't figure out what the speed truly is. We have estimates on it, but we can't tell exactly what it is, so in my opinion until we have the exact number of the speed of light, we won't know if we have surpassed it or not

TL:DR version: We can't tell if we've surpassed the speed of light, because we don't know what it truly is.

Actually we have an exact measurement of the speed of light. It is 299,792,458 m/s. No decimal places because we define the meter on it. It has been measured in a number of ways, all of which give the same answer. I myself measured it as part of an undergraduate physics class and got an answer that was 95% accurate. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Measurement)is a link to wikipedia describing some of the various ways it has been measured. I used what in the article is termed as time of flight. The amount of time I spent lining up those damn mirrors...

[SDF]

I don't believe a neutrino surpassing the speed of a photon necessarily changes everything we know, but the assumption that a neutrino theoretically has mass is what brings such big questions. We may have to discover more about the boson before we get our answers, or reexamine what we know about neutrinos themselves. Almost makes me want to study physics now :smallbiggrin:

[Traab]

I just think its a good thing. If this is real, and correct, then it will make scientists everywhere start working on ways to explain this and make either this occurrence fit the theory, or come up with a new theory that includes this exception. Every time we discover something new, it helps to redefine our understanding of life, the universe, and everything!

[Ravens_cry]

In the late 19th century, physics was thought be about played out, that everything that could be discovered had been and everything after would be a matter of refinement and cleaning up the maths.
Well, we all know how that turned out.
Even if this turns out to be ratty data, I think it is wonderful we can live in a time when we can ask these kinds of questions.

[Caesar]

Has anyone considered physics is deliberately messing with us?

http://xkcd.com/812/ (contains NSFW word)

Somebody actually posed the theory that the Universe actively conspires against physicists by working backwards thru time to undo any discovery of the Higgs boson, by causing various accidents which would alter the result of the experiment (any accident would do, including the birds that nested in the accelerator tunnels). He wasnt entirely serious, but he didnt mean it was impossible, either. So he published the idea.



As for the neutrinos, one of the things they are planning to do is to run the whole experiment "backwards" by shooting them from the target site and measuring them at CERN. If they are making certain errors in their measurements, then they will end up with neutrinos that are ever slightly too slow, instead of too fast. The best thing to do, of course, is wait for an entirely different part of the world to repeat the experiment.

Both plans are in the works, but will take years before anybody has constructed the proper setup, unfortunately.

[pendell]

If you'll skip past the politics and down to the science, I'd like to direct your attention to Jerry Pournelle's comments on the matter (http://jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/?p=3478)



News keeps coming in about the FTL neutrinos. Apparently we have several confirmations of some of the neutrinos definitely arriving 50 or more nanoseconds faster than the lightspeed travel time. Admiral Grace Hopper used to hand out nanoseconds at her lectures: a piece of wire a bit more than 18 inches long, which is how far light travels in a nanosecond. Sixty nanoseconds is a fair distance. I have yet to see a report of actual information travelling faster than light in these experiments, but that would be the obvious next experiment. If information is sent faster than light, the theory of evolution is in need of drastic revision, and theories like Petr Beckmann’s entangled gravitational fields as a form of aether bear examination. I suppose that relativity is still the way to bet, but the amounts you should be willing to bet are getting smaller and smaller. It’s exciting. I’m rooting for the neutrinos…


So.

What the devil is he talking about ?

Why do we need an ether if information can travel faster than light? And why would we need to revise the theory of evolution? Wut?

I e-mailed him, of course, but Dr. Pournelle is a very busy man. I may not hear from him for some time, if ever. Thoughts?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Traab]

What does the possibility of info being sent faster than the speed of light have to do with the theory of evolution?

[H Birchgrove]

I hope he just brain farted.

[Urpriest]

What does the possibility of info being sent faster than the speed of light have to do with the theory of evolution?

Well, just a guess:

1. The speed of light limit is the cornerstone of the principle of locality, which basically says that we can do science just by looking at nearby stuff and get a fairly good estimate of what's going on.

2. If we can't just look at nearby stuff to get a decent idea of what's going on, then everything that we observe could be influenced by something very far away and effectively unobservable, so everything we predict could be overturned trivially.

3. Thus science loses the ability to predict anything and nobody could reason confidently about the world.

4. Thus evolution, as a conclusion humans have come to, would be suspect. Why specifically evolution? You'd have to ask Dr. Pournelle.

[Tonal Architect]

Maybe it's not That theory of evolution, but some other ToE that pertains to physics?

Anyways, now I want a ship that reach the speed of neutrinos, light is too old-fashioned for me.

[Frozen_Feet]

Yeah, but quantum physics is still weird. Where the heck is that electron supposed to be? :smallconfused: :smallwink:

Just think of the electron as a cloud of places where it could be. It's just like my wallet - I don't know where exactly it is, but it's comforting to know it's somewhere in my house, and most likely in the pocket of my jacket. :smallbiggrin:

[pendell]

What does the possibility of info being sent faster than the speed of light have to do with the theory of evolution?

That was egg-zactly my question. I asked him. We'll see if I get an answer. But I also asked here because we have some smart people here.



3. Thus science loses the ability to predict anything and nobody could reason confidently about the world.


That's a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? There are plenty of things that science can predict. It's the whole basis of scientific experiment. All that would mean is that the set of natural phenomena that can be predicted and reliably reproduced is only a subset of all natural phenomena. But then, we knew that already, didn't we? So that subset is smaller than we thought. I still don't see why it upsets the entire apple cart of scientific knowledge or why it should discredit the theory of evolution -- or necessitate an ether. That second is one no one has addressed yet. Why do we need ether if information can travel FTL?


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Traab]

Well, just a guess:

1. The speed of light limit is the cornerstone of the principle of locality, which basically says that we can do science just by looking at nearby stuff and get a fairly good estimate of what's going on.

2. If we can't just look at nearby stuff to get a decent idea of what's going on, then everything that we observe could be influenced by something very far away and effectively unobservable, so everything we predict could be overturned trivially.

3. Thus science loses the ability to predict anything and nobody could reason confidently about the world.

4. Thus evolution, as a conclusion humans have come to, would be suspect. Why specifically evolution? You'd have to ask Dr. Pournelle.

Except that isnt really the case, it just requires us to look at the world through our new understanding. Think of it as confirming a result with newer, more accurate equipment, rather than just assuming everything is wrong. Like, dna testing for criminal forensics. Before then we could still figure out fairly well who was there and what they did, now with dna evidence, its become more accurate.

So, the theory of evolution may not be exactly what we think it is, but at least now we will have new assumptions to test it with to determine whether its still confirmed, plausible, or busted. (thanks mythbusters) As just because one aspect of our understanding of life, the universe, and everything, (thanks hitchikers) may be flawed, doesnt mean everything else is. Especially the things that are only peripherally connected in some way at best. On the surface, neutrinos being capable of surpassing the speed of light isnt all that connected to evolution. Also, is this something thats capable of naturally occurring? Or is this a forced reaction that wouldnt occur on its own outside of a lab? if its naturally occurring its worth double checking our previously held beliefs, but if its something that doesnt happen in nature, I dont see how it would have an effect.

[Weezer]

I have no idea what evolution has to do with neutrinos going faster than light. It's not like neutrinos have any bearing at all on things at the scale of organisms. As for the aether thing, there are a number of very fringe physics theories that reject much of relativity and traditional quantum mechanics in favor of an aether. These theories are accepted by pretty much no one in the field, though I don't know enough about them to comment specifically on any of them.

[Yora]

I assume the word evolution is a mix-up, with the author writing a completely different word than intended. Maybe it should read "relativity".

[shawnhcorey]

As for the aether thing, there are a number of very fringe physics theories that reject much of relativity and traditional quantum mechanics in favor of an aether. These theories are accepted by pretty much no one in the field, though I don't know enough about them to comment specifically on any of them.

As for wacky theories, don't disregard them completely. At one time, string theory was a wacky theory. Æther does have a bases in physics since all space has energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy).

[Traab]

As for wacky theories, don't disregard them completely. At one time, string theory was a wacky theory. Æther does have a bases in physics since all space has energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy).

So was the earth revolving around the sun. :smalltongue:

[Weezer]

As for wacky theories, don't disregard them completely. At one time, string theory was a wacky theory. Æther does have a bases in physics since all space has energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy).

I wouldn't use string theory as an evidence of a non-wacky theory. It's undeniably pretty math but it fails one of the key requirements for a good scientific theory: it is unfalsifiable. As one of my physics professors put it, string theory is what you get when you let a bunch of mathematicians loose on physics with no one keeping them grounded.
But your point is a good one, the wacky theories of today are the accepted ones of tomorrow. Though be careful and remember that the vast majority of these theories are going to turn out to be bunk.

[Lord Raziere]

……does anyone else think this is all starting to sound like magic?

just saying.

[Weezer]

It's the converse of Clark's law:
Any insufficiently understood technology is perceived as magic.

[Asta Kask]

As for wacky theories, don't disregard them completely. At one time, string theory was a wacky theory.

Was?

Still is for those of us who want experimental confirmation...

[shawnhcorey]

I wouldn't use string theory as an evidence of a non-wacky theory. It's undeniably pretty math but it fails one of the key requirements for a good scientific theory: it is unfalsifiable.


Was?

Still is for those of us who want experimental confirmation...

Not directly provable. But if its consequences are different from say the Standard Model, then it is indirectly provable. Of course, if it exactly matches the Standard Model, then it is simply a transformation, isn't it?

[Asta Kask]

Not directly provable. But if its consequences are different from say the Standard Model, then it is indirectly provable. Of course, if it exactly matches the Standard Model, then it is simply a transformation, isn't it?

Yes... a pity they haven't actually managed to work out any large-scale consequences.

[Weezer]

Yes... a pity they haven't actually managed to work out any large-scale consequences.

Yup, exactly. It makes some pretty big claims (large numbers of dimensions etc) but fails to give any testable consequences that would either differ from the standard model or extend beyond it. Pretty much the textbook definition of pure theory divorced from any experimentation.

[Asta Kask]

I find that xkcd (http://xkcd.com/171/) usually summarizes things pretty well.

[Murdim]

And why would we need to revise the theory of evolution? Wut?
Sadly, the probable answer to this question has little to do with science. From what I could gather about him, Pournelle's motives are very much inappropriate-topic-y in nature.


As for wacky theories, don't disregard them completely. At one time, string theory was a wacky theory. Æther does have a bases in physics since all space has energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy).
Actually, from my layman's perspective, I'd say that vacuum energy only contributes to making the aether "theory of the gaps" obsolete. The idea is that even the Universe's vacuum has an energy, because nothingness as we can conceive it is only a relative "zero energy" point in a similar way the ground is a relative "zero voltage" point. Vacuum doesn't need to be filled with anything to have a potential energy. If anything, an aether would only conflict with the calculations done on vacuum energy.

[shawnhcorey]

Actually, from my layman's perspective, I'd say that vacuum energy only contributes to making the aether "theory of the gaps" obsolete. The idea is that even the Universe's vacuum has an energy, because nothingness as we can conceive it is only a relative "zero energy" point in a similar way the ground is a relative "zero voltage" point. Vacuum doesn't need to be filled with anything to have a potential energy. If anything, an aether would only conflict with the calculations done on vacuum energy.

Sorry, the energy of a vacuum is not a relative measure but an absolute one. This is where Hawking radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation) comes from. The energy of vacuum is a small but positive amount; it is never zero.

[Yora]

Sadly, the probable answer to this question has little to do with science. From what I could gather about him, Pournelle's motives are very much inappropriate-topic-y in nature.
The same way that some of the early quantum scientists decided that it makes a difference if a human watches quantum processes. It just fit their personal believes. They just wanted it to be that way.

[Weezer]

The same way that some of the early quantum scientists decided that it makes a difference if a human watches quantum processes. It just fit their personal believes. They just wanted it to be that way.

And why people like Einstein and Schrodinger were so opposed to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which lead to the "god does not play dice with the universe" quote from Einstein and the Cat thought experiment from Schrodinger.

[Ravens_cry]

It's the converse of Clark's law:
Any insufficiently understood technology is perceived as magic.
Also known as the Ambrose Correlation (http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff300/fv00255.htm).

[pendell]

Well, I heard back from Dr. Pournelle. And the answer is he mis-typed. He meant "relativity" not "evolution".

Here I was thinking there was some new bizarre way that all the different scientific theories linked up I was unaware of. Ah well :).

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Yora]

And why people like Einstein and Schrodinger were so opposed to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which lead to the "god does not play dice with the universe" quote from Einstein and the Cat thought experiment from Schrodinger.
However, the "god doesn't play dice part" is actually a reference to another aspect of quantum theory. That one was actually meant as an example that he didn't believe that atomic states are purely random, but that the state must be the result of an outside factor that isn't yet discovered. However, modern understanding is, that it's really unpredictable by monitoring outside factors and from that determine the atomic state.
But that the human mind does not influence atomic states was another of his believes, which he shared with Shroedinger.

[Ravens_cry]

One of my favourite analogies of the nature of science was Feynman's compairison (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4) to watching a small part of the chessboard during play and trying to work out the rules of the game from watching the pieces move.
Have we found a new move or are we looking at the board wrong?
Time will tell, future experiments will tell, but such is the nature of the game.

[Weezer]

However, the "god doesn't play dice part" is actually a reference to another aspect of quantum theory. That one was actually meant as an example that he didn't believe that atomic states are purely random, but that the state must be the result of an outside factor that isn't yet discovered. However, modern understanding is, that it's really unpredictable by monitoring outside factors and from that determine the atomic state.
But that the human mind does not influence atomic states was another of his believes, which he shared with Shroedinger.

I wasn't trying to imply that they thought that human minds influenced quantum states, but merely that they were opposed to some interpretations because of their personal stances. Yes I am aware what Einstein was referring to, he was a proponent of the hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics, which opposed the Copenhagen interpretation.