Merged Puzzling results from CERN

Sound travels much faster than light and--- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162045&page=2
The sound that we play around with is leftover energy of reactions that have magnetically regrouped into larger chips (molecules). This leftover energy is just one in many that an air cell has as it's nucleus!

Considering new technology, and I was listening from the Moon "I would hear your whistle before you would!"

Dr.Sid said:
The speed of light varies depending on the medium it travels through. A gap between the end of the fiber cable and the pick-up in the conenctor means it travels through a bit of air first.
------
Well that could hardly account for 60ns. Light will travel roughly 60 feet in that time. Air slows down light only marginally.
Interesting theory someone mentioned on BadAstronomy was that the device sometimes failed to transfer the data (due to losses or reflection) .. and simple resent the data again. Such protocol can act on pretty low level, unknown to user, and without any effect if the connection is fine.
Click to expand...
 
Faster-than-light neutrino really not fast, scientists say (again):

http://www.latimes.com/news/science...-light-neutrino-cern-20120611,0,2050787.story

"The story captured the public imagination, and has given people the opportunity to see the scientific method in action -- an unexpected result was put up for scrutiny, thoroughly investigated and resolved in part thanks to collaboration between normally competing experiments. That's how science moves forward." -- Sergio Bertolucci, director of research at CERN

-- Roger
 
You can take physics in high school and realize that on an important level the fact that the speed of light is a constant and it helps us understand the universe. The speed of light being a constant is brilliant.

I knew those European rascals from CERN had their head up their bottoms when they tried to trick us Americans that their whatyoumaycallit was faster than light. I knew from day one they were wrong.

It's shameful that the best gizmo at slaming atoms is on European soil.
 
Senex said:
You can take physics in high school and realize that on an important level the fact that the speed of light is a constant and it helps us understand the universe. The speed of light being a constant is brilliant.

I knew those European rascals from CERN had their head up their bottoms when they tried to trick us Americans that their whatyoumaycallit was faster than light. I knew from day one they were wrong.

It's shameful that the best gizmo at slaming atoms is on European soil.
Click to expand...

yeah your jalousy triggers my schadenfreude. ;)
 
Data From Kyoto?

Does anyone have a link to the data or the presentation given at Kyoto? If not, do you know when a paper will be released?

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/
At the 25th International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics in Kyoto today, CERN Research Director Sergio Bertolucci presented results on the time of flight of neutrinos from CERN to the INFN Gran Sasso Laboratory on behalf of four experiments situated at Gran Sasso. The four, Borexino, ICARUS, LVD and OPERA all measure a neutrino time of flight consistent with the speed of light.
Click to expand...

One thing the previous experiment (Sept 2011) did was to force them to dedicate more resources to the neutrino measurement. The pulse width was reduced to 3 ns from 10.5 us for the ICARUS experiments.
I believe that the May 2012 experiments could have also used a shorter pulse. I am still wanting to get the data, and a description of the experiment.
 
Discussion of Miles Mathis' claims split to here. While some of it was related to this thread, the focus was clearly on the nature of time and it therefore seemed sensible to split the whole chain rather than trying to untangle it all.
Posted By: Cuddles
 
Bruce Voigt said:
Sound travels much faster than light and--- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162045&page=2
The sound that we play around with is leftover energy of reactions that have magnetically regrouped into larger chips (molecules). This leftover energy is just one in many that an air cell has as it's nucleus!

Considering new technology, and I was listening from the Moon "I would hear your whistle before you would!"
Click to expand...

Are you kidding ? Much faster than light ?

Also, no, light does not change speeds. The interactions the photons have in a medium make "the light" slower but the photons always travel at c.
 
If the error had been the other way, instead showing the particles to be going slower by the same amount, would the results have been accepted and the fault gone un-noticed?
 
If they'd been going slower by 60ns over 750km at an energy of 17.5GeV I'm pretty sure that implies a low enough Lorentz factor (scribbles on envelope ~150?) that it suggests a rest mass way out of bounds for our other constraints. It'd not break physics in the way going faster does, but it's certainly the sort of result that's in complete contradiction to a whole bunch of other results.
 
alexi_drago said:
If the error had been the other way, instead showing the particles to be going slower by the same amount, would the results have been accepted and the fault gone un-noticed?
Click to expand...

No. It probably wouldn't have been heard of by most people because "One experiment disagrees with others on neutrino mass" doesn't make as good a headline as "Einstein Proven Wrong!!1!eleventy!", but it would certainly not have been blindly accepted by the people actually dealing with the science.
 
Thanks, so a discrepancy either way would have been as unexpected and investigated the same way? Or would the nature of the discrepancy and the publicity have made any difference to that?
 
Either way would be unexpected, but one way more newsworthy than the other.
 
alexi_drago said:
Thanks, so a discrepancy either way would have been as unexpected and investigated the same way?
Click to expand...

Well, it's hard to compare levels of unexpectedness. A discrepancy one way would contradict pretty much everything we know about neutrinos and nuclear physics, a discrepancy the other would contradict virtually all physics in the last century. So I'd say the way it actually happened was more unexpected since it would affect a lot of essentially unrelated areas if true, while going the other way would have been very unexpected within particle physics but would likely have less far-ranging implications.

Or would the nature of the discrepancy and the publicity have made any difference to that?
Click to expand...

I suspect the investigation and follow-up experiments happened a lot faster because of all the publicity, but it would certainly have all happened eventually. That's just how science works - one experiment says something, then everyone tries to replicate it and figure out how it might be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom