K-Tec

DOOOOOOM for physics..are we ?.

  • Posts: 38
  • Thank you received: 0

DOOOOOOM for physics..are we ?. was created by joner

www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/22/cern_spots_ftl_neutrinos/


Nice.

We might be going to the stars after all :) .
11 years 2 months ago #90636

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 8851
  • Thank you received: 237

Replied by dave_lillis on topic Re: DOOOOOOM for physics..are we ?.

I'd bet the discovery channel will have a program on this soon enough if the results are repeatable.
Dave L. on facebook , See my images in flickr
Chairman. Shannonside Astronomy Club (Limerick)

Carrying around my 20" obsession is going to kill me,
but what a way to go. :)
+ 12"LX200, MK67, Meade2045, 4"refractor
11 years 2 months ago #90639

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 38
  • Thank you received: 0

Replied by joner on topic Re: DOOOOOOM for physics..are we ?.

I seen the story break on Newsnight (BBC) last night. The correspondent claimed that the same effect was seen in an experiment a few years ago in the Fermi labs in the US .At the time Fermi ignored the data and put it down to bad data.

If this can be repeated again in experiments then this blows everything we know about the universe out of the water ...unless of course your an avid scifi fan and know that warp power is a fact ;) .

Roll on the future :).
11 years 2 months ago #90641

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 187
  • Thank you received: 39

Replied by Nerro on topic Re: DOOOOOOM for physics..are we ?.

If that's going to turn out to be true I will have a serious talk with my physics teacher about those bad marks she wrote me in school :)
11 years 2 months ago #90642

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 9637
  • Thank you received: 544

Replied by Seanie_Morris on topic Re: DOOOOOOM for physics..are we ?.

"While the researchers are still advocating “prudence” in the face of these results, they believe their observations – in which the neutrinos made the 730 km journey 60 nanoseconds faster than light would have done – are accurate."

Wow...
Midlands Astronomy Club.
Radio Presenter (Midlands 103), Space Enthusiast, Astronomy Outreach Co-ordinator.
Former IFAS Chairperson and Secretary.
11 years 2 months ago #90643

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 4173
  • Thank you received: 181

Replied by albertw on topic Re: DOOOOOOM for physics..are we ?.

The experiments in 2007 were not at Fermilab, they measure neutrinos from the Neutrino Main Injector at Fermilab but are measured at the MINOS detector about 700km or so away. Similarly the work done on the current story was not CERN. The speeds from the MINOS experiment were not 'bad data', however a superluminous claim fell within experimental error (uncertainty of the exact distance iirc). It's also not a matter of 'repeating it again' the results are based of statistical data taken since 2009; they have repeated it about 16000 times.

If the values that OPERA are presenting were correct then we should not have seen the 1987a supernova show up in neutrino detectors. They should have appeared years, and not three hours, before the visible light. We have pretty good evidence that they don't go faster than c. So it'll be interesting to see what's actually going on here.

The preprint of the paper is at arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

Still, the GPS in my car was still working this morning, so special relativity is doing just fine :) Which is just as well since GPS is used to measure the length of the OPERA tunnel.

Pesky little neutrinos... I'm going to have to update my neutrino talk yet again!
Albert White MSc FRAS
Chairperson, International Dark Sky Association - Irish Section
www.darksky.ie/
11 years 2 months ago #90645

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 187
  • Thank you received: 39

Replied by Nerro on topic Re: DOOOOOOM for physics..are we ?.

Well given some thought maybe that experiment doesn't brake any rules after all.given the distance of 700km or so surely there should be some curve from earth?as we know mass bends the light as it was proven on solar eclipses then maybe neutrinos just doesn't interact with mass as photons?they just go straight?maybe that's what they are seeing?
11 years 2 months ago #90646

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 8851
  • Thank you received: 237

Replied by dave_lillis on topic Re: DOOOOOOM for physics..are we ?.

haha, wouldnt it be gas if that was it, but I'd imagine they must have thought of that one.

As for 1987a, its an interesting point you raise there Al, here are some details of the neutrinos from 1987a, note the abruptness of the neutrino graph,
ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci...upernovaremnants.htm

Do we know for sure that the visible light and neutrinos arrived at Earth at exactly the same time, if the neutrinos are moving at C+x, then maybe x is soo tiny that they were here a few seconds or a minute or so before the visible light got here?? dunno, just thinking out loud, too many unknown variables here for me, I'm an observer not a nuclear physicist. :angry:
Dave L. on facebook , See my images in flickr
Chairman. Shannonside Astronomy Club (Limerick)

Carrying around my 20" obsession is going to kill me,
but what a way to go. :)
+ 12"LX200, MK67, Meade2045, 4"refractor
Last edit: 11 years 2 months ago by dave_lillis.
11 years 2 months ago #90648

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 4173
  • Thank you received: 181

Replied by albertw on topic Re: DOOOOOOM for physics..are we ?.

haha, wouldnt it be gas if that was it, but I'd imagine they must have thought of that one.

As for 1987a, its an interesting point you raise there Al, here are some details of the neutrinos from 1987a, note the abruptness of the neutrino graph,
ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci...upernovaremnants.htm

Do we know for sure that the visible light and neutrinos arrived at Earth at exactly the same time, if the neutrinos are moving at C+x, then maybe x is soo tiny that they were here a few seconds or a minute or so before the visible light got here?? dunno, just thinking out loud, too many unknown variables here for me, I'm an observer not a nuclear physicist. :angry:


Supernovas happen very quickly. Which is part of the reason for the abruptness in the graph you mention, and that abruptness also gives physicists confidence that the neutrinos were coming from the superonva and not somewhere else. They did arrive about 3 hours before the visible light. This is explained by the neutrinos being able to escape from the core of a star immediately at the time of core collapse (almost massless, non interacting) whereas the visible light was only emitted when the shockwave from the collapse reached the surface.

1987a is what, 50kpc or so away? If we take the 60ns quicker over 700km (ish) that the paper mentions, then a quick 'back of the envelope' calculation says that the neutrinos should have arrived 4.3 years before the visible light. Unfortunately there were no reliable neutrino detectors around in 1983 :) (unless the ruskies have some data from Baksan that they never told anyone about). So if there were some special super-luminous neutrinos emitted from 1987a - we missed them :)
Albert White MSc FRAS
Chairperson, International Dark Sky Association - Irish Section
www.darksky.ie/
11 years 2 months ago #90651

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 1321
  • Thank you received: 250

Replied by johnomahony on topic Re: DOOOOOOM for physics..are we ?.

Interesting. I wonder if information can be sent faster than light though? Given how little neutrinos interact with matter, perhaps they are travelling in a slightly higher dimension or have extra dimensionality :silly: . It may not be a violation of Einsteins laws. I'm on antibiotics at the moment...must be affecting my brain :D
The Lord giveth, the Revenue taketh away. (John 1:16)

www.flickr.com/photos/7703127@N07/
11 years 2 months ago #90653

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 8851
  • Thank you received: 237

Replied by dave_lillis on topic Re: DOOOOOOM for physics..are we ?.

well, thats that so, looks like they definitely missed something or something completely new is going on, so much for the neutrino drive/wormhole. :stooges:
Dave L. on facebook , See my images in flickr
Chairman. Shannonside Astronomy Club (Limerick)

Carrying around my 20" obsession is going to kill me,
but what a way to go. :)
+ 12"LX200, MK67, Meade2045, 4"refractor
Last edit: 11 years 2 months ago by dave_lillis.
11 years 2 months ago #90656

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 1321
  • Thank you received: 250

Replied by johnomahony on topic Re: DOOOOOOM for physics..are we ?.

If this turns out to be true , then perhaps mass and energy can escape from a black hole. Should we see lots of them from black hole sources?
The Lord giveth, the Revenue taketh away. (John 1:16)

www.flickr.com/photos/7703127@N07/
11 years 2 months ago #90669

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.061 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum