Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

Speed of Light Exceeded? - LHC Announcement

PunkJay

By PunkJay
in The Astro Lounge

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Space Bat

Space Bat

Posted
Posted

Whilst I was quite happy to believe in the speed of light and its limitations and rules governing it...was also open to the fact it was based on predictions and understanding of an underdeveloped species on a tiny rock rotating around a fairly insignificant star...in a mundane galaxy in a massive universe.

Possible we know as much as we can - or as I believe don't really know as much about physics as we think we do :glasses2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PunkJay

PunkJay

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Whilst I was quite happy to believe in the speed of light and its limitations and rules governing it...was also open to the fact it was based on predictions and understanding of an underdeveloped species on a tiny rock rotating around a fairly insignificant star...in a mundane galaxy in a massive universe.

Possible we know as much as we can - or as I believe don't really know as much about physics as we think we do :glasses2:

Well said! We humans need to remember this from time to time

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted

Thats very interesting - I like the way that are throwing their work open to wider scrutiny before making big claims, despite checking it many times themselves - a true spirit of scientific investigation there :rolleyes:

If these neutrino's have exceeded LS I wonder how many other theories will need to be re-thought :glasses2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ben Ritchie

Ben Ritchie

Posted
Posted

There was an interesting blog post from Tommasso Dorigo (physicist working with the CMS experiment at CERN) which he then removed - and apparently will repost

New Results From Opera Due Tomorrow

My understanding (and memory!) of the removed posting was that the detection timing was very well understood, but maybe the production wasn't and some neutrinos were emitted earlier than thought. So worth watching that for thoughts from an expert - that blog and Résonaances are both excellent sources for current results in particle physics.

Some more in Luboš Motl's blog

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/italian-out-of-tune-superluminal.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beulah

Beulah

Posted
Posted
Whilst I was quite happy to believe in the speed of light and its limitations and rules governing it...was also open to the fact it was based on predictions and understanding of an underdeveloped species on a tiny rock rotating around a fairly insignificant star...in a mundane galaxy in a massive universe.

Possible we know as much as we can - or as I believe don't really know as much about physics as we think we do :rolleyes:

Well said sir. :glasses2:

It is incredibly exciting to have a whole new universe of undiscovered knowledge open up to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RikM

RikM

Posted
Posted
There was an interesting blog post from Tommasso Dorigo (physicist working with the CMS experiment at CERN) which he then removed - and apparently will repost

New Results From Opera Due Tomorrow

My understanding (and memory!) of the removed posting was that the detection timing was very well understood, but maybe the production wasn't and some neutrinos were emitted earlier than thought.

It would explain things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ben Ritchie

Ben Ritchie

Posted
Posted

My other concern here would be the neutrino results from SN1987a; the neutrinos arrived three hours before the light, consistent with emission from a core-collapse supernova where the star is transparent to neutrinos but not to light, which isn't emitted until shock break-out some hours later.

The supernova was at 52kpc, or 1.6x10^18 km, so if you get 60ns over 800km...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Multi-Coated

Multi-Coated

Posted
Posted

I wonder , is this a space time issue created by the speed of the material in relation to the mass of Earth ie altering the space time it sits in ( time travel forward / loop shortcut in time to destination . The relative speed is still the known constant ,just had slightly less distance to travel than the rest of us to the given point ) or am I totally lost ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
IvanT

IvanT

Posted
Posted

I've just finished answering an OU assignment question using the universal constant, do you think I should instead answer "your formulas may be incorrect so I can't answer this one" :-)

Very very interesting times ahead if this one is verified.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
661-pete

661-pete

Posted
Posted
The supernova was at 52kpc, or 1.6x10^18 km, so if you get 60ns over 800km...

That comes out at nearly four years. Perhaps they should be looking for any records of a neutrino burst sometime in 1983?

How did they establish synchronisation between the two sites, I wonder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

Of course it could be retracted and the team are being scrupulously honest and trying to prevent the fatuous press from brewing up a load of nonsense.

On the other hand we do not have a totally convincing theory of time. I'm mildly obsessed by this so rejoice when a ***** in the armour of past-present-future appears. Past-present-future cannot possibly be the whole story of time.

Olly

Edit; that word filter again?? For goodness sake, do Americans have to rule every second of our lives? The word removed is, I suppose, considered racist against chinese people but is in the OED as a blemish in a smooth surface. I'm old enough to be allowed to find this annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WayBig

WayBig

Posted
Posted
It's not a timezone problem is it? That always confuses me :glasses2:

Comedy genius....or perhaps one group is in daylight saving, the other isn't.

Fascinating stuff though, the scientific method in action, it's great that items like this make the news, even if it means we have to put up with a few sensationalist tabloid headlines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.