OT: CERN scientists discover particles moving faster than light

[Scott]

http://io9.com/5842947/scientific-breakthrough-physicists-at-cern-have-recorded-particles-moving-faster-than-light

Looks like Einstein may have been wrong — An international team of
scientists at CERN has recorded neutrino particles traveling faster
than the speed of light...

[reilloc]

Anti-Einstein disinformation. Well done.

LNC

[TT]

Few thoughts...

-To my understanding they've measured a statistical average, so could be
luck of the draw, however unlikely...

-something fishy about neutrinos changing into other forms of neutrinos
in high speeds

-Why does speed of light has to be the max... only because that's the
best we knew during Einstein's days? Neutrinos are not photons...

-Did they include rotation and travel of Earth to their
calculations...maybe neutrinos couldn't care less travelling with the
earth...

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 23, 12:55 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> 23.9.2011 19:18, Scott kirjoitti:
>

> >http://io9.com/5842947/scientific-breakthrough-physicists-at-cern-hav...

>
> > Looks like Einstein may have been wrong An international team of
> > scientists at CERN has recorded neutrino particles traveling faster
> > than the speed of light...
>
> Few thoughts...
>
> -To my understanding they've measured a statistical average, so could be
> luck of the draw, however unlikely...

This experiment means little until its results are replicated.

>
> -something fishy about neutrinos changing into other forms of neutrinos
> in high speeds
>
> -Why does speed of light has to be the max... only because that's the
> best we knew during Einstein's days? Neutrinos are not photons...

The Special Theory of Relativity is not a "has to be"; it's a "has
been confirmed by experiment and observation over and over and over."
These confirmations have continued, and have become ever more careful
and precise, up to the present -- long past "Einstein's days." (By the
way, were you thinking of the song "Einstein's Day" by Mission of
Burma? Fabulous track.)

As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence." Falsifying Special Relativity will demand A LOT of
evidence.

[Scott]

On Sep 23, 12:55 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:

> 23.9.2011 19:18, Scott kirjoitti:
>

> >http://io9.com/5842947/scientific-breakthrough-physicists-at-cern-hav...

>
> > Looks like Einstein may have been wrong — An international team of
> > scientists at CERN has recorded neutrino particles traveling faster
> > than the speed of light...
>
> Few thoughts...
>
> -To my understanding they've measured a statistical average, so could be
> luck of the draw, however unlikely...
>
> -something fishy about neutrinos changing into other forms of neutrinos
> in high speeds
>
> -Why does speed of light has to be the max... only because that's the
> best we knew during Einstein's days? Neutrinos are not photons...
>

breaking the speed of light opens the door to the possibility of time
travel. that means beings from another world might someday read your
material on RST with some interest. ;

[AliAsoag]

On Sep 23, 10:53 am, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/23/2011 11:18 AM, Scott wrote:
>

> >http://io9.com/5842947/scientific-breakthrough-physicists-at-cern-hav...

>
> > Looks like Einstein may have been wrong — An international team of
> > scientists at CERN has recorded neutrino particles traveling faster
> > than the speed of light...
>
> Anti-Einstein disinformation. Well done.

I see similarities to RST. Some say 14 > 16 or even 10 > 16. So no big
deal. ;-)

[Rodjk #613]

On Sep 23, 11:18 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://io9.com/5842947/scientific-breakthrough-physicists-at-cern-hav...

>
> Looks like Einstein may have been wrong — An international team of
> scientists at CERN has recorded neutrino particles traveling faster
> than the speed of light...

"We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here" said the
bartender.
A neutrino walks into a bar...


:)

Rodjk #613

[Superdave]

in which case whisper is dead meat.

[Superdave]

they made an error somewhere. pure and simple.

[Katya]

On Sep 23, 7:03 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here" said the
> bartender.
> A neutrino walks into a bar...
>
> :)
>
> Rodjk #613

Even in Switzerland, where the neutrinos are the majority ?
They could not discriminate based on weight or charge: now the
extremists can exploit the speed agenda.

[bob]

and some say 8 > 17, even worse.

bob

[bob]

Neutrino.
Who's there?
Rodjk:
Knock knock.

bob

[Superdave]

did rogue swiss neutrinos bring down the twin towers?

[bob]

everybody knows cheney hates the swiss dave.

bob

[felangey]

>"We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here" said the
bartender.
A neutrino walks into a bar...

Lol. :)

[Iceberg]

On Sep 23, 7:26 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 12:55 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
> > 23.9.2011 19:18, Scott kirjoitti:
>
> > >http://io9.com/5842947/scientific-breakthrough-physicists-at-cern-hav...
>
> > > Looks like Einstein may have been wrong An international team of
> > > scientists at CERN has recorded neutrino particles traveling faster
> > > than the speed of light...
>
> > Few thoughts...
>
> > -To my understanding they've measured a statistical average, so could be
> > luck of the draw, however unlikely...
>
> This experiment means little until its results are replicated.
>
>
>
> > -something fishy about neutrinos changing into other forms of neutrinos
> > in high speeds
>
> > -Why does speed of light has to be the max... only because that's the
> > best we knew during Einstein's days? Neutrinos are not photons...
>
> The Special Theory of Relativity is not a "has to be"; it's a "has
> been confirmed by experiment and observation over and over and over."
> These confirmations have continued, and have become ever more careful
> and precise, up to the present -- long past "Einstein's days." (By the
> way, were you thinking of the song "Einstein's Day" by Mission of
> Burma? Fabulous track.)

this is the kind of dogmatic sheepness I'd expect from Ramirez. he
subscribes to the view that you mustn't ever challenge what's been
established, even if it is JUST a theory.

[Iceberg]

On Sep 24, 2:25 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:03:11 -0700 (PDT), "Rodjk #613"
>

> <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 23, 11:18 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>http://io9.com/5842947/scientific-breakthrough-physicists-at-cern-hav...
>
> >> Looks like Einstein may have been wrong — An international team of
> >> scientists at CERN has recorded neutrino particles traveling faster
> >> than the speed of light...
>
> >"We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here" said the
> >bartender.
> >A neutrino walks into a bar...
>
> Neutrino.
> Who's there?
> Rodjk:
> Knock knock.
>
> bob

clever, very clever :)

[TT]

23.9.2011 21:26, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
> On Sep 23, 12:55 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 23.9.2011 19:18, Scott kirjoitti:
>>
>>> http://io9.com/5842947/scientific-breakthrough-physicists-at-cern-hav...
>>
>>> Looks like Einstein may have been wrong An international team of
>>> scientists at CERN has recorded neutrino particles traveling faster
>>> than the speed of light...
>>
>> Few thoughts...
>>
>> -To my understanding they've measured a statistical average, so could be
>> luck of the draw, however unlikely...
>
> This experiment means little until its results are replicated.
>>
>> -something fishy about neutrinos changing into other forms of neutrinos
>> in high speeds
>>
>> -Why does speed of light has to be the max... only because that's the
>> best we knew during Einstein's days? Neutrinos are not photons...
>
> The Special Theory of Relativity is not a "has to be"; it's a "has
> been confirmed by experiment and observation over and over and over."

Not really.

Hafele-Keating experiment, furthermore it's more accurate duplication,
fell in 1% of predictions.

GPS proves Einstein's theory of time dilation. However I have a
recollection of reading that reality did not follow initial calculations
100%...although being close. Correct me if I'm wrong (or right).

> These confirmations have continued, and have become ever more careful
> and precise, up to the present -- long past "Einstein's days."

Have they really, or are you just quoting an article...

MORE IMPORTANTLY, what the fuck does it have to do with neutrinos?!
...there are no practical applications that use neutrinos. If neutrinos
break the "laws" of Einstein's theory, that wouldn't change a thing in
modern science, in practice; Time dilation is still a phenomenon, light
speed is still the same etc.

-

Ok, you see claims that IF Neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of
light then that would make time travel backwards possible.

That is incorrect, imo:

Travelling backwards in time is impossible because of the paradoxes it
creates. The only thing that this would change is revising theories,
adding small adjustments to Einstein's theory of time dilation: Light
speed is not maximum speed, the time would probably further slow down
when going faster than light speed...but never turn backwards.

So in other words news articles/scientists are using current theory to
explain why faster than light speed is impossible, while if it indeed is
possible then the theory changes.

> (By the
> way, were you thinking of the song "Einstein's Day" by Mission of
> Burma? Fabulous track.)

Rather:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN-U-Yg2rLs

One of my all-time favourite songs too. :)

>
> As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> evidence." Falsifying Special Relativity will demand A LOT of
> evidence.

I don't see it as falsifying, it's just adding, revising it a bit. Light
speed is still light speed etc. Just adjust the theory on further than
light speed range...not that it probably would have any relevance to
other matter than those pesky neutrinos.

Now there's a rather strong argument why the results would be incorrect,
in addition to several possibilities of measuring inaccuracy.

"in 1987 detectors on Earth identified neutrinos and photons—light
particles—from an exploding star. Both types of particles reached our
planet at almost exactly the same instance."

Then again I doubt CERN exploded a supernova to make those neutrinos, so
the speed could be different. Add there a factor how hard neutrinos are
to spot so we could have missed the high concentration of faster than
light speed neutrinos 4 years prior to Supernova explosion became
visible to us...

[AliAsoag]

On Sep 23, 7:17 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:53:45 -0700 (PDT), AliAsoag
>

You are using the wrong number. The speed of light is 16 which has to
be compared with.

[Joe Ramirez]

Yes, they have, and I never quote articles without citing them.

>
> MORE IMPORTANTLY, what the fuck does it have to do with neutrinos?!
> ...there are no practical applications that use neutrinos. If neutrinos
> break the "laws" of Einstein's theory, that wouldn't change a thing in
> modern science, in practice; Time dilation is still a phenomenon, light
> speed is still the same etc.
>

Special Relativity is not an empirical claim about what the actual
speed of light happens to be. It is, fundamentally, an absolute limit
on the ways in which various parts of the universe can relate to each
other. The basic stuff of the universe is information. Under Special
Relativity, information cannot travel faster than light. If
superluminal neutrinos really do exist, then information *can* travel
faster than light. The implications of this would be enormous for all
of physics and cosmology. It would not be simply an accidental
property of a single trivial particle. (Not quoting from an article,
btw.)

[TT]

I didn't claim so.
It's rather about consequences of speed.

> It is, fundamentally, an absolute limit
> on the ways in which various parts of the universe can relate to each
> other.

Ummmm...that's one way of looking at it. So how do you think universe
interacts? ...Gravity hasn't been explained in quantum mechanics so
speed limit of light may have very little to do with it.

> The basic stuff of the universe is information. Under Special
> Relativity, information cannot travel faster than light.

What are we talking about, internet or universe...

Under special relativity nothing moves faster than the light, but if
something does...that doesn't mean the whole theory is wrong.

> If
> superluminal neutrinos really do exist, then information *can* travel
> faster than light.

If you want to call neutrinos information. In a way they can be that
too. But it doesn't mean that one could back in time or that elements of
other particles would change.

> The implications of this would be enormous for all
> of physics and cosmology.

No time travel backwards still would be possible. One particle could
move faster than photons and that's it.

> It would not be simply an accidental
> property of a single trivial particle. (Not quoting from an article,
> btw.)

Well in practice I think it indeed would be a property of this single
particle. Unless other particles can manage it too.

The implications would be theoretical mostly imo, unless you find a way
to do something useful with neutrinos, like communicating...just makes
it slightly faster through long distances...but does that really change
principles of spacetime?

Now I don't see the main arguments of special relativity being about
maximum speed of "information": it's about spacetime itself, it's just
that light speed has been the upper speed limit...

Unless you want to specify what drastic changes this new discovery would
bring? :)

Or if you can find someserious article that mentions something else than
Back to The Future series and neutrinos popping in and out between
multiverses etc.

[Joubert]

Jesus christ, what a thread. Don't you guys feel any kind of shame talking
something you have absolutely no clue about?

[Joubert]

You'd both better stick to tennis.

[Javier González]

On Sep 24, 10:48 pm, Joubert <LVahlf...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Jesus christ, what a thread. Don't you guys feel any kind of shame talking
> something you have absolutely no clue about?

We discuss tennis 365 days a year. As you can see, it never stopped us
before ;)

[Scott]

On Sep 23, 12:18 pm, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://io9.com/5842947/scientific-breakthrough-physicists-at-cern-hav...
>

> Looks like Einstein may have been wrong — An international team of
> scientists at CERN has recorded neutrino particles traveling faster
> than the speed of light...

room for doubt?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110923084425.htm

...In order to perform this study, the OPERA Collaboration teamed up
with experts in metrology from CERN and other institutions to perform
a series of high precision measurements of the distance between the
source and the detector, and of the neutrinos' time of flight. The
distance between the origin of the neutrino beam and OPERA was
measured with an uncertainty of 20 cm over the 730 km travel path. The
neutrinos' time of flight was determined with an accuracy of less than
10 nanoseconds by using sophisticated instruments including advanced
GPS systems and atomic clocks. The time response of all elements of
the CNGS beam line and of the OPERA detector has also been measured
with great precision.

"We have established synchronization between CERN and Gran Sasso that
gives us nanosecond accuracy, and we've measured the distance between
the two sites to 20 centimetres," said Dario Autiero, the CNRS
researcher who will give this afternoon's seminar. "Although our
measurements have low systematic uncertainty and high statistical
accuracy, and we place great confidence in our results, we're looking
forward to comparing them with those from other experiments..."

is the 20cm the reason for the discrepancy?

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 24.9.2011 22:29, AliAsoag wrote:
> On Sep 23, 7:17 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:53:45 -0700 (PDT), AliAsoag
>>
>> <ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>> On Sep 23, 10:53 am, reilloc<reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/2011 11:18 AM, Scott wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://io9.com/5842947/scientific-breakthrough-physicists-at-cern-hav...
>>

>>>>> Looks like Einstein may have been wrong � An international team of

>>>>> scientists at CERN has recorded neutrino particles traveling faster
>>>>> than the speed of light...
>>
>>>> Anti-Einstein disinformation. Well done.
>>
>>> I see similarities to RST. Some say 14> 16 or even 10> 16. So no big
>>> deal. ;-)
>>
>> and some say 8> 17, even worse.
>
> You are using the wrong number. The speed of light is 16 which has to
> be compared with.
>

Yeah, but the 16 is in Fahrenheits. Nobody acknowledges those.

--
http://memedepot.com/uploads/2000/2098_steamboat.gif

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 25.9.2011 3:51, Joubert wrote:
> You'd both better stick to tennis.

Could you post the same post in the Miss Lonelyhearts (Berdych &
Safarova) thread? Please.

--
http://memedepot.com/uploads/2000/2098_steamboat.gif

[Joe Ramirez]

1. c as the speed limit for information exchange is well-established.
In fact, sometimes the test for whether the speed of light actually
has been surpassed in a way that would violate Special Relativity is
whether any information has been conveyed.

2. Go read about the "it from bit" perspective (Wheeler) or the views
of people like Ed Fredkin.

[TT]

Perhaps it is. Remember we're arguing about "what if" here, what if the
measurements are correct. Most likely they are not. At least that'll
teach something about the methods of measurement if not the
universe/this particle.

They can always come up with silly theories about neutrinos finding
shortcuts, jumping around multiverses etc in order to get around light
speed issue. I think that's kind of copout though since those things are
hard/impossible to prove...more of a game of imagination rather than
science...

Anyway, perhaps they could revise the speed limit, while not having to
change cosmological theories that much. Now Einstein did revise Newton's
theories, sort of built on those.

> In fact, sometimes the test for whether the speed of light actually
> has been surpassed in a way that would violate Special Relativity is
> whether any information has been conveyed.

I guess the operative word is "sometimes"...

>
> 2. Go read about the "it from bit" perspective (Wheeler) or the views
> of people like Ed Fredkin.

No doubt a fascinating read. I find the claim that universe is a one big
computer somewhat artificial...although interesting thought exercise.
Guess the change of universal speed limit would not be that crucial to
these people then, like changing processor bus speed or in extreme cases
like shopping between PC and Mac... :)

[DavidW]

TT wrote:
>
> MORE IMPORTANTLY, what the fuck does it have to do with neutrinos?!
> ...there are no practical applications that use neutrinos. If
> neutrinos break the "laws" of Einstein's theory, that wouldn't change
> a thing in modern science, in practice;

Oh dear.

[jdeluise]

Yes, they are very useful for detecting cloaked Romulan warbirds ;)

[Scott]

lol