Faster than a speeding bullet... - Page 2

beppe · 09-23-2011, 10:41 AM

I have two distinct points of view to comment the news as reported in the papers.
a) the result of the experiment as such, in its scientific significance
b) the communication of the finding of the experiment in the actual public fundings perspective.

a) It is not an entirely new discovery. It has been based on 3 years of data, and it follows the findings of the Minos experiment (Fermi Lab). I am not a specialist in any of the fields of science that could be directly interested. Nevertheless, I am not surprised that any, I mean really all of the principles, postulates, hypotheses on which any, and I mean all, theories can be developed about nature, can one day be shown inaccurate to a given degree. My opinion is that it is not of truth that we are discussing but of representations of nature. I doubt that to day any scientist would build a theory of nature based on something that needs to be absolutely certain.

b) The paper Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam
has 73 authors, from 49 laboratories and from 11 countries: Russia, Switzerland, Italy, Korea, Francia, Turkey, Germany, Japan, Israel, Croatia, Belgium (in the order of quotation).

These large numbers give me the idea that it is a call for further fundings, in a moment when all the countries mentioned are going through severe cutting of expenses. It is not an uncommon gesture by the physicist community.

It is a technical paper, yes, easy to follow and it looks completely sound to me, but it is signed by administrators also. It has some public relation purpose, in my opinion of course.

Somebody is hoping to be able to continue experimenting on this "hot" subject for many many years to come. Like it did happen for the ether caper.

HarryT · 09-23-2011, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beppe

Nevertheless, I am not surprised that any, I mean really all of the principles, postulates, hypotheses on which any, and I mean all, theories can be developed about nature, can one day be shown inaccurate to a given degree. My opinion is that it is not of truth that we are discussing but of representations of nature. I doubt that to day any scientist would build a theory of nature based on something that needs to be absolutely certain.

The idea that the speed of light is an absolute "maximum speed" is as close to certain as anything within modern physics. A century of rigorous experimentation has failed to find any flaw in the idea. The fact that you are "not surprised" by this experimental result astounds me. Do you have any concept of how rigorously special relativity has been experimentally tested?

Soldim · 09-23-2011, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beppe

b) The paper Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam
has 73 authors, from 49 laboratories and from 11 countries: Russia, Switzerland, Italy, Korea, Francia, Turkey, Germany, Japan, Israel, Croatia, Belgium (in the order of quotation).

These large numbers give me the idea that it is a call for further fundings, in a moment when all the countries mentioned are going through severe cutting of expenses. It is not an uncommon gesture by the physicist community.

Many of the CERN landmark papers have long lists of authors -- simply because many scientists are involved at different stages of the work. The ATLAS paper was one of the most impressive ones in that respect.

Anyway, scientists always want more funding, and more publications, so surprises there, I'd think.

beppe · 09-23-2011, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

The idea that the speed of light is an absolute "maximum speed" is as close to certain as anything within modern physics. A century of rigorous experimentation has failed to find any flaw in the idea. The fact that you are "not surprised" by this experimental result astounds me. Do you have any concept of how rigorously special relativity has been experimentally tested?

But of course Henry. Rigorously in some specific contest. Rigorously in your own words means as close to certain as anything. Then observables change and new contests are considered.

I am "not surprised" by this finding by itself no more than by any new finding. The difference here is that it involves what are considered and probably are fundamental ideas. So, are the consequences that give it importance, not the thing in itself.

I have educated my self to not take anything for granted.

Salgueiros · 09-23-2011, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beppe

But of course Henry. Rigorously in some specific contest. Rigorously in your own words means as close to certain as anything. Then observables change and new contests are considered.

I am "not surprised" by this finding by itself no more than by any new finding. The difference here is that it involves what are considered and probably are fundamental ideas. So, are the consequences that give it importance, not the thing in itself.

I have educated my self to not take anything for granted.

..but since you are not a physicist or scientist of any kind, you CAN adopt the attitude that particles can travel faster than light without looking too silly, and without any consequence. However, previously, physicists did not only had to accept that but also all their theoretical architecture was based on that. And since that CAN change (let us wait for other groups to confirm the results) new and exciting things might come in the future.

HarryT · 09-23-2011, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salgueiros

..but since you are not a physicist or scientist of any kind, you CAN adopt the attitude that particles can travel faster than light without looking too silly, and without any consequence. However, previously, physicists did not only had to accept that but also all their theoretical architecture was based on that. And since that CAN change (let us wait for other groups to confirm the results) new and exciting things might come in the future.

I am going to predict right now that this is going to be found to be caused by a currently-unidentified experimental error. The chance of it being a real physical effect are quite vanishingly small.

Salgueiros · 09-23-2011, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I am going to predict right now that this is going to be found to be caused by a currently-unidentified experimental error. The chance of it being a real physical effect are quite vanishingly small.

I would say that 99% of "great findings" we (scientists) see in the lab ARE errors.... if that was not the case we would see bombastic news every week or so

kennyc · 09-23-2011, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I am going to predict right now that this is going to be found to be caused by a currently-unidentified experimental error. The chance of it being a real physical effect are quite vanishingly small.

That what I'm thinking as well Harry and many (most?) physicists (including the authors I think). There have been too many confirmations of relativity both experimentally and mathematically. Though I must admit that I've always secretly found it difficult to accept the speed of light as an absolute upper constant of the universe.

HarryT · 09-23-2011, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyc

Though I must admit that I've always secretly found it difficult to accept the speed of light as an absolute upper constant of the universe.

If you look at it as a rotational transformation of 4-dimensional spacetime, then it's actually a necessary constraint. Not the precise number, but the fact that there is an "upper limit".

kennyc · 09-23-2011, 12:19 PM

Well sure, if you limit to 4D space...but that's not what string theory is currently saying.

Steven Lyle Jordan · 09-23-2011, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cassidym

That's it. A very good read BTW. In fact, I'd re-read it but I haven't got the, erm, time.

Also, why didn't this discovery make the front pages? It was on page 11 of today's Washington Post behind an article on rising tolls on local highways.

In the case of the Post, I'd say because they need an audience who gives a damn.

kennyc · 09-23-2011, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

In the case of the Post, I'd say because they need an audience who gives a damn.

beppe · 09-23-2011, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salgueiros

..but since you are not a physicist or scientist of any kind, you CAN adopt the attitude that particles can travel faster than light without looking too silly, and without any consequence. However, previously, physicists did not only had to accept that but also all their theoretical architecture was based on that. And since that CAN change (let us wait for other groups to confirm the results) new and exciting things might come in the future.

Who told you that? On the contrary, I am an active researcher in the earth sciences. Just to bragg a bit, I was just invited to hold a Lectio Magistralis. Why should you turn it on the personal side? Discrediting the interlocutor is not in your honor.

It is not enormously faster. Just a bit. A tiny bit in terms of everyday life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I am going to predict right now that this is going to be found to be caused by a currently-unidentified experimental error. The chance of it being a real physical effect are quite vanishingly small.

That possibility is always there. I doubt it though, with so many signing the paper. Actually they are 173.

An educated guess ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you look at it as a rotational transformation of 4-dimensional spacetime, then it's actually a necessary constraint. Not the precise number, but the fact that there is an "upper limit".

It might also be that the upper limit will have to be nudged up a bit. For neutrinos at least.

Salgueiros · 09-23-2011, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beppe

Who told you that? On the contrary, I am an active researcher in the earth sciences. Just to bragg a bit, I was just invited to hold a Lectio Magistralis. Why should you turn it on the personal side? Discrediting the interlocutor is not in your honor.

If you are a scientist, then why do you say silly things about things you do not know? Science is not "guessing" or "hinting" or "feeling" or personal opinions. What kind of science do you do?

bhartman36 · 09-23-2011, 03:47 PM

I'm not a scientist of any kind, but I've always thought that no science was truly "settled". My understanding is that the speed of light is one of the most tested things in science, and therefore it would be really surprising if anything was found to exceed that speed. But the possibility of overturning something we "know' is always there -- even if it's only for specific cases or situations.

I would think this would be especially true for cosmological science. What we know about physics beaks down inside black holes (e.g., yielding a lot of infinity values), so it's clear we have something wrong with how we see the universe. Having to rethink the speed of light might be part of that problem. (Again, I'm not a scientist, but that's what comes to mind.)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Suggestions for speeding up reading?	daroga	General Discussions	28	09-05-2010 03:35 AM
Speeding Up The Load Time of Scanned Books	owl123	iRex	0	06-04-2009 10:11 AM
Speeding up reading of PDF on iLiad	Malder1	iRex	3	05-15-2008 06:33 AM
iLiad Speeding up the system?	firekat	iRex Developer's Corner	6	05-14-2008 10:34 AM

09-23-2011, 10:41 AM	#16
beppe Grand Sorcerer Posts: 5,161 Karma: 81026524 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Italy Device: Kindle3, Ipod4, IPad2	I have two distinct points of view to comment the news as reported in the papers. a) the result of the experiment as such, in its scientific significance b) the communication of the finding of the experiment in the actual public fundings perspective. a) It is not an entirely new discovery. It has been based on 3 years of data, and it follows the findings of the Minos experiment (Fermi Lab). I am not a specialist in any of the fields of science that could be directly interested. Nevertheless, I am not surprised that any, I mean really all of the principles, postulates, hypotheses on which any, and I mean all, theories can be developed about nature, can one day be shown inaccurate to a given degree. My opinion is that it is not of truth that we are discussing but of representations of nature. I doubt that to day any scientist would build a theory of nature based on something that needs to be absolutely certain. b) The paper Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam has 73 authors, from 49 laboratories and from 11 countries: Russia, Switzerland, Italy, Korea, Francia, Turkey, Germany, Japan, Israel, Croatia, Belgium (in the order of quotation). These large numbers give me the idea that it is a call for further fundings, in a moment when all the countries mentioned are going through severe cutting of expenses. It is not an uncommon gesture by the physicist community. It is a technical paper, yes, easy to follow and it looks completely sound to me, but it is signed by administrators also. It has some public relation purpose, in my opinion of course. Somebody is hoping to be able to continue experimenting on this "hot" subject for many many years to come. Like it did happen for the ether caper.

09-23-2011, 12:19 PM	#25
kennyc The Dank Side of the Moon Posts: 35,872 Karma: 118716293 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Denver, CO Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire	Well sure, if you limit to 4D space...but that's not what string theory is currently saying.

09-23-2011, 03:47 PM	#30
bhartman36 Wizard Posts: 1,316 Karma: 1515835 Join Date: Mar 2009 Device: Kindle 3 Wi-Fi, Craig CMP738a Android Tablet	I'm not a scientist of any kind, but I've always thought that no science was truly "settled". My understanding is that the speed of light is one of the most tested things in science, and therefore it would be really surprising if anything was found to exceed that speed. But the possibility of overturning something we "know' is always there -- even if it's only for specific cases or situations. I would think this would be especially true for cosmological science. What we know about physics beaks down inside black holes (e.g., yielding a lot of infinity values), so it's clear we have something wrong with how we see the universe. Having to rethink the speed of light might be part of that problem. (Again, I'm not a scientist, but that's what comes to mind.)

Advert

Advert