Superluminal neutrinos? Apparently not.

[bassybill]

Study rejects faster than light particle finding | Reuters

Einstein survives again.

[PSPookie]

That's not what the other paper said ...

NERD FIGHT!

So long as we don't get superluminal nutrias I'm good.

[champbassist]

How could we even begin to argue these topics in any scientific capacity when the crux of the controversy consists of stuff that goes well above 99.9% of forum members? Though I do agree these threads make for some funny, related comments (e.g. your neutrino joke, Bassybill. Absolutely priceless, it was ).

[Tituscrow]

Hey, I heard that joke before bassybill cracked it! It was even quoted on a BBC special hosted by Marcus du Sautoy

[Internet Police]

Originally Posted by champbassist

How could we even begin to argue these topics in any scientific capacity when the crux of the controversy consists of stuff that goes well above 99.9% of forum members? Though I do agree these threads make for some funny, related comments (e.g. your neutrino joke, Bassybill. Absolutely priceless, it was ).

We are the 99.9%....eeeek

[MEKer]

I kinda figured someone would bring out something to show the original experiment was flawed. I read the original paper, fun, above my head in most of it, but the authors themselves were just reporting an interesting, anomalous finding, not trumpeting any confirmation. They knew everyone would immediately jump on it as well. There is a bout a zillion things showing proof of Einstein's special relativity findings. I think this anomaly will fall into the "Tachyon" bin.
But pretty much all experiments (even wrong or failed ones) have some sort of benefit leading into sometimes unexpected Wow! moments or previously "unthought-of" other roads of investigations. Its all cool. They'll keep digging on the faster than SoL thing I am sure, for better or for worse.


PS: Perhaps a fart smell is faster then SoL---sure seems to be sometimes times.............

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Not surprised really, but I'll add that neither paper has been accepted yet.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by MEKer

I kinda figured someone would bring out something to show the original experiment was flawed. I read the original paper, fun, above my head in most of it, but the authors themselves were just reporting an interesting, anomalous finding, not trumpeting any confirmation. They knew everyone would immediately jump on it as well. There is a bout a zillion things showing proof of Einstein's special relativity findings. I think this anomaly will fall into the "Tachyon" bin.
But pretty much all experiments (even wrong or failed ones) have some sort of benefit leading into sometimes unexpected Wow! moments or previously unthought of other roads of investigations. Its all cool.

True, it was the mass media that was blowing it all out of proportion.

I will add, that you can have as many studies as you want that indicate one thing, but it only ever takes one study to disprove something

[Bloodhammer]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

True, it was the mass media that was blowing it all out of proportion.

The media (including scripted t.v. shows and movies) has people thinking all kinds of wacko things.

Every time I mention something about the LHC, somebody always says, "you mean that place where they make black holes? They're going to destroy the whole world with that thing! It's so scary!"

[L-A]

So if something is superluminal, does it mean I see the future if I witness it?

[i_got_a_mohawk]

As it is purely hypothetical.

It would determine on the speed and distance really, but generally no (I'm sure someone could work a way around that ).

Everything we see is in the past, even more of a head****, when you look at someone, you are seeing them at different points in time. When you look at someones face, their ears are further in the past than their nose

[L-A]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

As it is purely hypothetical.

It would determine on the speed and distance really, but generally no (I'm sure someone could work a way around that ).

Everything we see is in the past, even more of a head****, when you look at someone, you are seeing them at different points in time. When you look at someones face, their ears are further in the past than their nose

Heh, an excellent point

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Also, thinking more about it. To see it, you'd obviously need to see the light reflected or emitted from it. So, you'd see it once it had past by, in a manner similar to how you hear super-sonic jets once they have flown past.

This is why I avoid theoretical physics

[L-A]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

Also, thinking more about it. To see it, you'd obviously need to see the light reflected or emitted from it. So, you'd see it once it had past by, in a manner similar to how you hear super-sonic jets once they have flown past.

This is why I avoid theoretical physics

Ah, but part of the quantum physics theory is that an element's state only exists under observation. Hence its dependence on the speed of light, and the future-ness of things that can go faster than c!

[Bloodhammer]

If you were able to travel back in time, to the exact same place in space (Like H.G. Wells' "Time Machine"), you'd end up in space rather than the room/building/city you'd want to visit in the past because the Earth would be somewhere different in its trajectory.

[onosson]

The beauty of science - whether they found what they thought, or not, they will have contributed to our knowledge in either case.

[Bloodhammer]

Originally Posted by onosson

The beauty of science - whether they found what they thought, or not, they will have contributed to our knowledge in either case.

Like our knowledge of building black holes and time machines!






j/k

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by L-A

Ah, but part of the quantum physics theory is that an element's state only exists under observation. Hence its dependence on the speed of light, and the future-ness of things that can go faster than c!

I was thinking of it in a more newtonian fashion.

If we are talking about subatomic particles & QM, then of course, the observation of such a particle will have an impact on such a particle.

Bah, the closest I'm getting to understanding quantum mechanics was letting Peter Higgs cut infront of me to get a coffee, my other experiences have been mathematical exercises in non-conventional torture

[L-A]

Hehehe. I have no choice but to vulgarize when the topic is such – my understanding of science is pretty vulgar.

[PSPookie]

Originally Posted by Bloodhammer

Like our knowledge of building black holes and time machines!






j/k

I already have a working time machine. Unfortunately, it only works in one direction (to the future) and at a rate of one second per second

Don't worry; refinements are making their way through R&D.