• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

JayUtah said:
You observe correctly that real research is difficult and time-consuming.
Click to expand...

But in this case it's just about doing some very basic calculations and checks of the data from the CERN experiments. A professional scientist with good software would be able to do that very quickly.
 
Anders Lindman said:
But in this case it's just about doing some very basic calculations and checks of the data from the CERN experiments. A professional scientist with good software would be able to do that very quickly.
Click to expand...

Hah.

Not only do you have to understand the physics, but you would practically have to have experience in similar experiments to be able to intuit which variables you need to include.

Take a random for-instance. There will be several lengths of wire between the elements of the detector and the analyzing circuitry. I know enough (as do several people on this board), to realize that you need to account for the light-speed delay in those wires. At the precision of the measurement necessary, though, we might need to know the speed of light in the actual conductor medium...it might trip us up if we just put down "copper" and called it good enough.

There are a bewildering number of delay stages in the entire arrangement, from the firing of the beam and potential transients there, to the spread of the detector averaging peak (because we are talking about mere DOZENS of neutrinos at the detector; a small enough number they may not statistically cluster at the center of the beam time).

As a start, you'd have to read the paper in detail. But I suspect very strongly you are going to find there are a number of assumptions and procedures that are so well-known within the field they get glossed over in the paper; unless you are an experimentalist in the field yourself you may not even notice their omission.

That's how experiments look, particularly when you are this close to the edge of the detectable.
 
nomuse said:
Hah.

Not only do you have to understand the physics, but you would practically have to have experience in similar experiments to be able to intuit which variables you need to include.

Take a random for-instance. There will be several lengths of wire between the elements of the detector and the analyzing circuitry. I know enough (as do several people on this board), to realize that you need to account for the light-speed delay in those wires. At the precision of the measurement necessary, though, we might need to know the speed of light in the actual conductor medium...it might trip us up if we just put down "copper" and called it good enough.

There are a bewildering number of delay stages in the entire arrangement, from the firing of the beam and potential transients there, to the spread of the detector averaging peak (because we are talking about mere DOZENS of neutrinos at the detector; a small enough number they may not statistically cluster at the center of the beam time).

As a start, you'd have to read the paper in detail. But I suspect very strongly you are going to find there are a number of assumptions and procedures that are so well-known within the field they get glossed over in the paper; unless you are an experimentalist in the field yourself you may not even notice their omission.

That's how experiments look, particularly when you are this close to the edge of the detectable.
Click to expand...

I meant the final measurements of the speed of the neutrinos. And to match that against how the clocks were synchronized for each measurement (where the satellite was in relation to the clocks at the time of synchronization).
 
Anders Lindman said:
I meant the final measurements of the speed of the neutrinos. And to match that against how the clocks were synchronized for each measurement (where the satellite was in relation to the clocks at the time of synchronization).
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I am saying.

WHAT is the final speed of the neutrinos? What, do you think they borrowed a radar gun from the highway patrol?

All they know is when data of a confirmed hit arrived at the computer logging the data. This is the last event of a long sequence of activities, each of which has to have a calculated interval.

Here's an analogy. Say you want to know when Flight 101 from Taipei came in. Your data is when the lights go on at the house of a friend of yours who was on that flight. How long did the cab ride take? How long to clear customs? How long at the baggage corral? Did you factor in for the heavy weekend traffic, that she was flying the day after 9-11, that there was a recent rain? Did you remember that your friend never checks luggage, but did want to bring back a bottle of wine?

All of these times have varying degrees of precision, and most can only be referred to statistically; there is no one-true-time for a cab ride, for instance, but instead a statistical spread of average times.
 
nomuse said:
That's exactly what I am saying.

WHAT is the final speed of the neutrinos? What, do you think they borrowed a radar gun from the highway patrol?

All they know is when data of a confirmed hit arrived at the computer logging the data. This is the last event of a long sequence of activities, each of which has to have a calculated interval.

Here's an analogy. Say you want to know when Flight 101 from Taipei came in. Your data is when the lights go on at the house of a friend of yours who was on that flight. How long did the cab ride take? How long to clear customs? How long at the baggage corral? Did you factor in for the heavy weekend traffic, that she was flying the day after 9-11, that there was a recent rain? Did you remember that your friend never checks luggage, but did want to bring back a bottle of wine?

All of these times have varying degrees of precision, and most can only be referred to statistically; there is no one-true-time for a cab ride, for instance, but instead a statistical spread of average times.
Click to expand...

I meant that the data for the calculated speeds for the neutrinos can be examined directly. Those calculations have already been done! By the scientists at CERN. Are those calculations correct? Maybe, maybe not. That doesn't matter, because they were all done using the same method. Those measured/calculated speeds are then compared with the synchronizations of the clocks in relation to the satellite. So it's very simple. The only thing needed is to know if CERN included the relativity calculations for the moving satellite or not. Hmm... They most likely did. This is basic schoolbook stuff. Ok, forget about it. :o:D The relativity is no doubt already included in the results. But then what was that claim about that CERN had missed that? :confused: Probably some smokescreen disinfo for the public.
 
Anders Lindman said:
But in this case it's just about doing some very basic calculations and checks of the data from the CERN experiments. A professional scientist with good software would be able to do that very quickly.
Click to expand...

That doesn't absolve you of the responsibility of doing the legwork necessary to substantiate your claims. Again, why does your idle denial obligate anyone else?
 
JayUtah said:
That doesn't absolve you of the responsibility of doing the legwork necessary to substantiate your claims. Again, why does your idle denial obligate anyone else?
Click to expand...

CERN can hardly have missed the relativity calculations. See my previous post. And then it's hardly worthwhile to check if CERN has missed that because it's such basic physics.
 
Now I know! :cool: CERN has no doubt included relativity calculations for the moving satellite since that's such basic physics. But still, if the calculations and data for the CERN experiments were made public so that anybody could examine it, then that would show if Einstein's relativity is true or not. If Special Relativity is false, then the motion and position of the satellite relative to the clocks would make no difference, and the CERN data would expose that!

ETA: Oh darn. :mad: I forgot something. If CERN has included the relativity calculations for the moving satellite, and the measured speed of the neutrinos is always 64 nanoseconds +/- some small fraction, then that would confirm Special Relativity (if the 64 nanoseconds is a measurement/calculation error), because if SR was false then the speed would vary when including SR in the calculations.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Because I don't have access to the CERN data.
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
What have you done to try to obtain it?
Click to expand...

Anders Lindman said:
Nothing. That would be too burdensome. And on a second thought, even if I had the data, then how to do the calculations? :confused:
Click to expand...

So your suspicions are based soley on a prejudiced view of science and an expectation of 'Big Lies'.

You complain that you don't have the CERN data then complain that even if you did have it you would not be able to understand it (you don't know what the term 6 sigma refers to) and that it would take a long time to learn enough to actually analyze the data yourself.

YES it does take a long time to get one's Masters of Science in physics, the better part of a decade. It takes such a long time because there is an awful lot to learn. You however are willing to stand on the sidelines and snipe at the people who have done the hard work to obtain the knowledge neccessary for a masters or doctorate degree despite your having no knowledge or desire to obtain such knowledge.

Why should anyone take you seriously?

Really, WHY?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom