PDA

View Full Version : Scientist utters "That's interesting, I didn't expect that" after experiment fails



Greg Peterson
11-19-2011, 12:40 PM
"Speed of light broken again as scientists test neutrino result" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-light-broken-again-as-scientists-test-neutrino-result.html)

Even though it has been observed twice now, physicists remain skeptical that neutrinos travel faster than light. The scientific process is under way to prove or disprove the findings.

Events like this are not the only events that advance our understanding of the natural world, but this one in particular challenges one of the most fundamental theories of our universe.

Stories like this must capture the imagination of the next generation of physicists currently in high school or even grade school.

Charlie Reals
11-19-2011, 1:28 PM
"Speed of light broken again as scientists test neutrino result" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-light-broken-again-as-scientists-test-neutrino-result.html)

Even though it has been observed twice now, physicists remain skeptical that neutrinos travel faster than light. The scientific process is under way to prove or disprove the findings.

Events like this are not the only events that advance our understanding of the natural world, but this one in particular challenges one of the most fundamental theories of our universe.

Stories like this must capture the imagination of the next generation of physicists currently in high school or even grade school.
The beginning. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sanfordundergroundlaboratorya thomestake.org%2F&ei=H_THTv_HBaPniAL17YT-Dw&usg=AFQjCNHYdb5JXp9h0GxQstuHxqZtT6O95Q&sig2=hV7wdUAYbkX3hFKFqifRQg

ray hampton
11-19-2011, 4:02 PM
how far under the surface of the south or north pole will man kind had to travel to reach a temperature of 100 degrees ? 4000 feet deep tunnel like this one mite be quite warm

mike holden
11-19-2011, 4:04 PM
My belief is that they will find it is something like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and that time does not exist until measured. Still a fundamental change in how the universe is perceived, but an incremental change not a "game changer" change.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Mike

Dan Hintz
11-19-2011, 8:45 PM
"Speed of light broken again as scientists test neutrino result" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8901001/Speed-of-light-broken-again-as-scientists-test-neutrino-result.html)

Even though it has been observed twice now, physicists remain skeptical that neutrinos travel faster than light. The scientific process is under way to prove or disprove the findings.

Events like this are not the only events that advance our understanding of the natural world, but this one in particular challenges one of the most fundamental theories of our universe.

Stories like this must capture the imagination of the next generation of physicists currently in high school or even grade school.
After some checking from the first experiment, they chalked it up to "scientific glee" error... in other words, someone forgot to take into account the travel time of the GPS signal being used to time the experiment. Once that was added in, the particle speed was well within the expected measurement error.

The same thing will be likely in the second experiment, as there is now question they took into account GPS signal travel time down the wires used from the receiver to the measurement equipment.

Greg Peterson
11-19-2011, 9:54 PM
After some checking from the first experiment, they chalked it up to "scientific glee" error... in other words, someone forgot to take into account the travel time of the GPS signal being used to time the experiment. Once that was added in, the particle speed was well within the expected measurement error.

The same thing will be likely in the second experiment, as there is now question they took into account GPS signal travel time down the wires used from the receiver to the measurement equipment.

Yes, I am aware of the explanation for the first test, and yes, there will likely be an equally obvious explanation for the second test.

But what if?

Charlie Jones
11-20-2011, 9:41 AM
Don't put your faith in scientific truths. Whatever we know now will always be changing... We never see the full picture..That's how the universe is designed.

Greg Peterson
11-20-2011, 11:58 AM
Charlie - We are free to believe what we want to believe. Science is an ever evolving means of advancing our understanding the natural world. I do not find anything inherently wrong in relying on scientific discoveries to make life easier, more comfortable or safer. Even the pope has said there is no conflict between science and the church.

The speed of light has been considered an absolute in physics for the past century. Should it be eventually confirmed that neutrinos do travel faster than light, I think the ramifications for physicists will substantial. To the lay person, not so much at first, and certainly not likely within our lifetime.

The possibility that we could be witness to such a fundamental discovery is pretty awe inspiring.

Copernicus, proving the earth revolved around the sun, started the scientific revolution that led to Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Tesla and Einstein to name just a few.

Every now and then a major discovery is made and our understanding of the natural world is expanded. To suggest that science can completely explain the natural world now or ever will is more a function of ones internal beliefs or biases than the facts. Science goes where the facts takes it.

Again, there very well could be a mundane explanation for the latest test results. But what if?

Wayne Hendrix
11-20-2011, 1:05 PM
My belief is that they will find it is something like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and that time does not exist until measured. Still a fundamental change in how the universe is perceived, but an incremental change not a "game changer" change.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Mike

Exactly, I have always disagreed with the way that time is handled in special relativity.