• 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 Puzzling results from CERN

'Puzzling results at CERN' is not as specific as 'Faster than Light Neutrinos at CERN?' Oh well, damn neutrinos!
 
llwyd said:
An interesting analysis about the experiment on another forum:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/121344-Speed-of-light-exceeded?p=1937635#post1937635

Will be interesting to see how this will turn out! Physics is such a wonder science - if the fundamentalists would only understand how embarrasingly primitive they are when they start competing with science about understanding the natural world...
Click to expand...
Talking about other forums here is another thread on the subject.
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=306706
It includes a link to this pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf . Not sure of the status of the pdf though.

It also includes a discussion about 1987a supernova. They should have detected neutrinos 4.2 years = 1533 days before anything else was detected.
 
Faster than light?

Have a look at this report about breaking the speed of light ????

If true there will be all sorts of interesting mayhem.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
1cm is certainly good enough. I'm not sure I understand how they achieve that - where exactly are these pillars, and why can they receive the GPS signal under so much rock?

Another problem is the size of the neutrino detector, and how accurate it is at determining when and where the neutrino interacted inside it.
Click to expand...
They don't, they survey in a point where they can receive the signals, then use traditional methods to survey the rest of the site.
 
From the conclusion:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf

Despite the large significance of the measurement reported here and the stability of the analysis, the potentially great impact of the result motivates the continuation of our studies in order to investigate possible still unknown systematic effects that could explain the observed anomaly. We deliberately do not attempt any theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of the results.
Click to expand...


That's about all I could understand from the paper :o
 
Kuko 4000 said:
From the conclusion:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf

Despite the large significance of the measurement reported here and the stability of the analysis, the potentially great impact of the result motivates the continuation of our studies in order to investigate possible still unknown systematic effects that could explain the observed anomaly. We deliberately do not attempt any theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of the results.
Click to expand...

That's about all I could understand from the paper :o
Click to expand...
It just occurred to me that this sentence and these circumstances are exactly what everyonemany posters were trying to hammer home about ECREE in the Sagan’s “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is nonsense. Here’s why thread. Now there's a real-life example to use.:)
 
FatCatty, I found these earlier posted comments along the same lines:

"My dream would be that another, independent experiment finds the same thing - then I would be relieved," Dr Ereditato said.

But for now, he explained, "we are not claiming things, we want just to be helped by the community in understanding our crazy result - because it is crazy".
Click to expand...


This is a great example of what we've been trying to explain to the "believers" all along, the scientists making the potential discovery to change fundamentals of physics (or other branches of science) would actually be very excited and motivated by their potential discovery. The same goes for telepathy, levitation, etc.
 
Just reading that kuko: I haven't looked, but others may find this of interest:
UPDATE: The paper is now up on the arxiv preprint server. I took a look, and must say at first glance their reasoning looks solid. They appear to have the baseline distance nailed and the timing as well. However, the devil's in the details, and this isn't my field, so I'll be very curious to see how the pros in this discipline react to the paper
Click to expand...

Edit: "the paper" above refers to:
However, my first thought is that light travels about 30 centimeters in 1 ns, so they need to know the distance between the source and the detector to an accuracy of 3 meters. If they are off by 20 meters, then we’re done; that would explain the difference entirely. I suppose this depends on how they measured the distance and the speed of the particles, too. However, they haven’t published a paper on this just yet, so that’ll have to wait.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I wonder how frequently the distance from source to detector was measured?
The Alps are still under compression due to the northward movement of Africa. Is it possible micromovement is still ongoing due to crysal deformation under stress?
That would cause incredibly small amounts of crustal shortening during the duration of a test - but we are looking at incredibly accurate measuring here.
Could this be what happens when geologically slow strain rates encounter hyper fast clocks?
 
Last edited:
oops...Sorry guys.... i did not look hard enough I guess.... my bad! :(


Can a Mod delete the whole thread?
 
Last edited:
Soapy Sam said:
I wonder how frequently the distance from source to detector was measured?
The Alps are still under compression due to the northward movement of Africa. Is it possible micromovement is still ongoing due to crysal deformation under stress?
That would cause incredibly small amounts of crustal shortening during the duration of a test - but we are looking at incredibly accurate measuring here.
Could this be what happens when geologically slow strain rates encounter hyper fast clocks?
Click to expand...

The movement would have to be on the order of 20m to account for the time difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom