In post 48, Yosarian2 wrote:Is the claim that all neutrinos travel faster then light, or one specific type does, or the neutrinos created in a certain place were, or what? What was this experiment measuring, exactly? I'm still kind of fuzzy on the details.
It is used to study neutrinos flavor oscillations. Nothing too difficult on a theoretical level (meaning a graduate physics student can solve the equations with a little bit help)
PS : Is it me or my post that mykonian quoted disappeared ?
In post 8, Twistedspoon wrote:just when i ggt interested in quatum and special relativity and start reading books on it (try the elegant universe by Brain Greene) everything I know becomes wrong...
sigh...
it
shouldn't
be possible
dude
I HAVE TO READ THAT BOOK FOR PHYSICS C
I've been reading it the past few weeks... everyone in my class kind of raged when we saw this.
In post 8, Twistedspoon wrote:just when i ggt interested in quatum and special relativity and start reading books on it (try the elegant universe by Brain Greene) everything I know becomes wrong...
sigh...
it
shouldn't
be possible
dude
I HAVE TO READ THAT BOOK FOR PHYSICS C
I've been reading it the past few weeks... everyone in my class kind of raged when we saw this.
it's interesting isn't it?
of course, I'm choosing to read it so maybe I'm slightly more favourable :p
1 Thessalonians 5:21: Test everything, but hold fast onto what is good
"Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick"
~Screwtape
In post 24, Otolia wrote:1. The statement of restrained relativity "Nothing travels faster than light" is false. The true statement is "No information travels faster than light".
You are aware that the second statement includes the first, right?
By the way, that is not quite true; there are some things in quantum physcis that happen instantly at great distances ("spooky action at a distance" to quote Einsten), like the collapsing of the wave-form of one particle when a different particle is observed, but they can not be used to carry information.
yeah, otolia mentioned that. Which was nice, I had forgotten about it, but I finally understand the notation now so I actually have a clue what it is about.
In post 50, Otolia wrote:PS : Is it me or my post that mykonian quoted disappeared ?
It's still there.
Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.
so Prof. Carlo Rubbia kinda asked a question that freezed the CERN guys: how is it possible that in 1987 the neutrinos from the supernova in the Lareg Magellanic Cloud hit the Earth at the same time as we saw the star, (so more or less at the speed of light) and not 3 years before?
Used to play a lot, haven't played for like 8 years, would like to play again.
I don't understand that question's strength: wouldn't neutrinos being shot out of a supernova into space and neutrinos being shot from something that is decidedly
not
a supernova have the potential to result in different outcomes?
In post 57, lewarcher82 wrote:so Prof. Carlo Rubbia kinda asked a question that freezed the CERN guys: how is it possible that in 1987 the neutrinos from the supernova in the Lareg Magellanic Cloud hit the Earth at the same time as we saw the star, (so more or less at the speed of light) and not 3 years before?
Maybe because neutrinos are very hard to capture, maybe for others reasons. Nothing is a simple as the journalists write it ><
That's a brilliant idea, sl. So all we have to do is make a ftl-neutrino communication device, hook it up to a computer capable of buying and selling stocks in a few nanoseconds, and we can buy and sell stocks right before they go up or down.
Does time travel count as insider trading?
I want us to win just for Yos' inevitable rant alone. -CrashTextDummie
Ahh. The fact that two things that are simultanious in one frame of reference are not simutanious in another, right. Interesting. I remember a physcis problem like that in college.
("Guy has a 10 foot ladder he wants to put in an 8 foot long barn. So his solution is he's going to run REALLY fast, accelerating the ladder until nearly the speed of light so that it become shorter, so that to a stationary observer, it looks like the ladder is only 7 feet long at the moment the ladder enters the barn. So there should be at least a split second where the ladder is in the barn, right? But the problem is, from the point of view of the guy running WITH the ladder, the ladder is still 10 feet long and the BARN actually looks shorter. So how does this work?"
The answer is that simultaneity itself breaks down at relativistic speeds. From the point of view of the stationary observer, the back of the ladder enters the barn before the front of the ladder breaks through the back wall, so the ladder is totally inside the barn briefly; but from the point of view of the guy running with the ladder, the front of the ladder actually breaks through the back wall of the barn before the back of the ladder is in the barn, so from his point of view, the ladder is never totally in the barn. Both points of view are equally correct and valid; if there was ever a point in time where the whole ladder was inside the barn depends totally on your frame of reference. Two things that happen at the same time in one frame of reference don't in a different one.)
I want us to win just for Yos' inevitable rant alone. -CrashTextDummie
well the title is misleading they only ruled out one potential systematic error not completely corfirm the result, but maybe there is something to this afterall??
Are any of those more versed in higher levels of physics able to "simply" explain the reason gravity and electromagnetism have thus far been incompatible in a UFT?
Picking this thread because cursory searches turned this up as the most serious physics discussion thread.
Only playing in games at personal moderator and/or 50%+ playerlist request.