| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
The Apostle
The Black Priests
51
   |
Posted - 2011.09.23 03:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
Speed and Eve has recently been doing the rounds in the forums...
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=13107&find=unread
This is of timely interest to those who care.
Quote:PHYSICISTS have reported that sub-atomic particles called neutrinos can travel faster than light, a finding that, if verified, would be inconsistent with Einstein's theory of relativity.
Quote:"The neutrinos arrived 60 nanoseconds earlier that the 2.3 milliseconds taken by light," Mr Ereditato said.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/particles-seen-to-travel-faster-than-light/story-fn5fsgyc-1226144226826
Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. |
Nyio
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
110
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 03:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
Yes, Einstein's real name was mr. Wong..
Also take a look in Out of Pod Section for 2 more threads on this. 
Features & Ideas Discussion: Agent Finder, Black Holes
Needs a banner here.. |
Meryl SinGarda
Homeworld Republic
United Homeworlds
195
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 03:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
This is exactly what I was talking about back on the old forums. Trusting what scientists say but leaving room for thought and open discussion.
Fly Safe, Die Hard
As stated by a fellow player, Mara Rinn, "EVE is not an internet spaceships game. It's a game of politics, subterfuge, capitalism, empire building and trust."-á
|
Headerman
Quovis
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
101
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 03:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Well if that's true it just raises bigger questions: HOW does this particle move so fast? |
The Apostle
The Black Priests
51
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 03:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
Quote:HOW does this particle move so fast?
On the bow wave of light? Much like a drafting Nascar pushes the one in front?
I'm interested but I'm no phycisist.
Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. |
Pytria Le'Danness
Placid Reborn
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 03:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
Headerman wrote:Well if that's true it just raises bigger questions: HOW does this particle move so fast?
It's Minmatar-made. |
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
281
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 03:49:00 -
[7] - Quote
It does not break the speed of sound if it travels through other dimensions on its way, as the theory only relates to speed of light in flat space.
E.g. the fluctuation of neutrinos between the three different types of neutrinos could possibly involve moving through a different dimension.
84,000 AUR ($420) spent on NeX store for Troll and Profit. |
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris
Etherium Cartel
41
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 03:51:00 -
[8] - Quote
Neutrinos are bizarre particles, period. I've typed about a dozen paragraphs explaining why and then deleted them for they are way beyond the discussion level here, so let me explain it as simply as I can:
Neutrinos are always "left-handed", which only makes sense if they are mass-less. (What it means is their spin is pointing in a direction opposite their motion, which you should be able to eventually go faster than one, and therefore see it as moving backwards and hence "right-handed".) Since we never see the "right handed" neutrinos, we thought they must be going the speed of light, and therefore massless.
Neutrinos from the sun (solar neutrinos) were measured and were found to be in the wrong proportion given our knowledge of the nuclear processes happening within (which we know quite well). We then realized they were changing from one type of neutrino to another type, something ONLY possible if they have mass.
So we believe they have a very SMALL mass, but we really don't know for sure.
Now they seem to be able to move faster than light ( I think it's bunkam) which is a strange ******* cosmic coincidence that its speed is so close to that of light. I suspect we'll see that they computed the geodesic path wrong, as they neglected general relativity here, but we'll see.
Best,
AG |
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris
Etherium Cartel
41
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 03:52:00 -
[9] - Quote
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:It does not break the speed of sound if it travels through other dimensions on its way, as the theory only relates to speed of light in flat space.
E.g. the fluctuation of neutrinos between the three different types of neutrinos could possibly involve moving through a different dimension.
Right if there is a coupling to a 5th dimension that the neutrino could access, then it would take a different route than light and get there "early". |
Hoshi
Hedron Industries
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 03:53:00 -
[10] - Quote
Headerman wrote:Well if that's true it just raises bigger questions: HOW does this particle move so fast?
It's red of course. Red ones go Fastah!
"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason." |
mechtech
SRS Industries
SRS.
16
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 04:51:00 -
[11] - Quote
If they moved faster than light it would be readily apparent when detecting supernovas.
They would have to go faster than light in only certain circumstances to fit both the astrometric observations and the recent experimental results.
In short, they almost certainly don't go faster than light, but it will be interesting to find out why the results are coming back as such. |
Kehro Urgus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 04:55:00 -
[12] - Quote
these books get me through dos |
Thorn Galen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 05:02:00 -
[13] - Quote
I believe the solving of harmonic particle theory will answer this conundrum.
The experiment which yielded the results spoken of in this thread was repeated at least 15 times in order to eliminate statistical error. Still not being satisfied with the resutls (as they should not be possible), the group of Scientists are hoping that other Scientists will (hopefully) find error in the data.
Second harmonic and sum-frequency scattering theory has already been applied to the obtained results which now requires secondary and tertiary independant confirmation.
Einstein was not wrong.
(This space for rent) |
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
23
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 05:14:00 -
[14] - Quote
Headerman wrote:Well if that's true it just raises bigger questions: HOW does this particle move so fast?
perhaps because light has to travel threw things such as atoms which could restrict is max speed i.e how gravity bends light... but neutrinos are chemically nuetral so perhaps they dont interact with atoms (unless it happens to hit the nuclii) then there is no restriction so perhaps if you take gravity out of the equation there are no restrictions on max speed...
Just wait untill next year when they make a higs bosom... imagine erecting a em field around a space ship that puts it in a buble where its not affected by gravity... it could literally slip threw space/time like a bubble in your soda can...
|
The Apostle
The Black Priests
52
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 05:15:00 -
[15] - Quote
Quote:Einstein was not wrong.
yet?
Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. |
Thorn Galen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 05:57:00 -
[16] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:Quote:Einstein was not wrong. yet?
You know....it would be frikken AWESOME if his theory was proven wrong, even if partially.
Can you imagine ? Physics as we know it would have to be re-written, for the most part.
Whatever the outcome, it's all very exciting to me. 
(This space for rent) |
Vyl Vit
Cambio Enterprises
47
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 06:28:00 -
[17] - Quote
I think the fact Einstein was right enough for his time, but relatively wrong (pardon the pun) about a few things is common knowledge by now. Also; General Relativity. The vernacular sure do tend to obscure matters, don't it?
To her it doesn't matter much.-á It's chasms have been leapt, and she leans upon the skepticism of her chosen fate. |
Gregor Palter
51
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 06:46:00 -
[18] - Quote
That's generally the conversation I have with people who read/learned about some stuff but lack the actual capacity to use that information.
They go "it's like this and that" where I'll reply with "no that's a theory, the chances of that theory actually being correct based on the tiny amount of the universe we've explored is quite small", leaves them bewildered. Really the worst thing for science is to not question what others have found. History is full of "facts" that later had to be amended to allow for this annoying thing called "reality" but somehow people who spout these "truths" and "facts" never really seemed to have learned that history lesson. |
The Apostle
The Black Priests
52
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 06:53:00 -
[19] - Quote
Quote:That's generally the conversation I have with people who read/learned about some stuff but lack the actual capacity to use that information.
They go "it's like this and that" where I'll reply with "no that's a theory,
Fair point, but is an apple falling on your head and you getting a bruise as a result a mere theory?
Some "theories" are indeed fact although they were theroies at the time of "discovery".
Most of the things we cannot determine by truth are bound by theory until we can prove a different theory or it indeed becomes fact per se.
Get it? I did. Just.
Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. |
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
114
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 07:11:00 -
[20] - Quote
Headerman wrote:Well if that's true it just raises bigger questions: HOW does this particle move so fast?
No, the question is: HOW could they see that, if there was no light!
edit: Answer: Witchcraft!
-
[img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img]
[yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
Gregor Palter
51
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 08:50:00 -
[21] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:Quote:That's generally the conversation I have with people who read/learned about some stuff but lack the actual capacity to use that information.
They go "it's like this and that" where I'll reply with "no that's a theory, Fair point, but is an apple falling on your head and you getting a bruise as a result a mere theory? Some "theories" are indeed fact although they were theroies at the time of "discovery". Most of the things we cannot determine by truth are bound by theory until we can prove a different theory or it indeed becomes fact per se. Get it? I did. Just.
There's a difference between simply regurgitating what others have told you, which isn't necessarily truth, and the reality of getting hit by an apple :) One could ofcourse (and should probably) challenge this hole "reality" thing to begin with though, what is pain and what is an apple :P
|
Florestan Bronstein
United Engineering Services
53
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 09:04:00 -
[22] - Quote
Gregor Palter wrote:until we can prove a different theory or it indeed becomes fact per se.
lol, he wants to prove a theory
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
are you God or sth? 'cause the whole rest of us don't seem to have the access to universal truths you seem to have...
(and as a consequence have to stick with trying to falsify theories and can at best talk about verisimilitude)
your face when the apple falls upwards after a few millenia of falling down every single time |
RaTTuS
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
112
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 09:06:00 -
[23] - Quote
he [Einstein] did not believe in plate tectonics either
http://eveboard.com/ub/419190933-134.png
|
Anya Ohaya
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 09:07:00 -
[24] - Quote
Thorn Galen wrote:
The experiment which yielded the results spoken of in this thread was repeated at least 15 times in order to eliminate statistical error.
If they were eve players they would claim invention was broken. |
Gregor Palter
51
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 09:10:00 -
[25] - Quote
Florestan Bronstein wrote:Gregor Palter wrote:until we can prove a different theory or it indeed becomes fact per se.
lol, he wants to prove a theory hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahare you God or sth? 'cause the whole rest of us don't seem to have the access to universal truths you seem to have... (and as a consequence have to stick with trying to falsify theories and can at best talk about verisimilitude) your face when the apple falls upwards after a few millenia of falling down every single time How dare it, my theory was proven, it was true!!!!lololololololololol
If you're going to quote someone it might be handy if you quote something I actually said or implied. Your reply just shows you didn't understand a word of it.
|
Florestan Bronstein
United Engineering Services
53
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 09:12:00 -
[26] - Quote
Thorn Galen wrote:
The experiment which yielded the results spoken of in this thread was repeated at least 15 times in order to eliminate statistical error.
doesn't exclude a systematic error in their experiment/installation
the need for funding tends to make scientists stupid - instead of calling a press conference they could have just waited a few months for folks at Fermilab to be able or unable to reproduce the results... |
Florestan Bronstein
United Engineering Services
53
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 09:14:00 -
[27] - Quote
Gregor Palter wrote:If you're going to quote someone it might be handy if you quote something I actually said or implied. Your reply just shows you didn't understand a word of it.
butthurt much?
brb, gonna prove (the theory of) gravitation by dropping a brick on my head, trololololololol
(you sir, are confusing theories and phenomena) |
Jagga Spikes
Spikes Chop Shop
33
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 09:16:00 -
[28] - Quote
thing about science is: every theory ever made is just a special case. which means it will eventually be proven wrong, or at least inadequate, and superseded by better theory. as long as one keeps digging, reality never gets boring. |
Gregor Palter
51
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 09:34:00 -
[29] - Quote
Florestan Bronstein wrote:Gregor Palter wrote:If you're going to quote someone it might be handy if you quote something I actually said or implied. Your reply just shows you didn't understand a word of it. butthurt much? brb, gonna prove (the theory of) gravitation by dropping a brick on my head, trololololololol (you sir, are confusing theories and phenomena)
You really, really ought to reread what I posted and think it over a few times, if you keep at it you might realise that it's different from what you think it is.
|
Thorn Galen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 09:34:00 -
[30] - Quote
Florestan Bronstein wrote:Thorn Galen wrote:
The experiment which yielded the results spoken of in this thread was repeated at least 15 times in order to eliminate statistical error.
doesn't exclude a systematic error in their experiment/installation the need for funding tends to make scientists stupid - instead of calling a press conference they could have just waited a few months for folks at Fermilab to be able or unable to reproduce the results...
Yup, I figured that.
Hindsight is a biatch. I figure the CERN scientists involved in this figured that out as well. Thing is, there's a lot of professional pride and jealousy in that sphere of physics. Fermilab are direct competition to CERN and Fermi are doing their work on a far "cheaper" accelerator. There cannot be any exclusion of Fermilab finding Higgs-boson before CERN does.
Again, whatever the outcome, it's fascinating to me either way.
Theoretically, there's a particle out there which, at its slowest speed, is at the speed of light, so actually finding it will be nigh impossible at current TeV levels and technology.
Juicy juicy.
(This space for rent) |
Kehro Urgus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 09:35:00 -
[31] - Quote
Maybe the conditions within the supercollider allowed the neutrinos to break the local light speed rather, achieve a slightly higher speed than normal. Kind of the opposite effect of Cerenkov radiation effects seen in nuclear reactors.  |
Florestan Bronstein
United Engineering Services
54
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 09:48:00 -
[32] - Quote
Gregor Palter wrote:Florestan Bronstein wrote:Gregor Palter wrote:If you're going to quote someone it might be handy if you quote something I actually said or implied. Your reply just shows you didn't understand a word of it. butthurt much? brb, gonna prove (the theory of) gravitation by dropping a brick on my head, trololololololol (you sir, are confusing theories and phenomena) You really, really ought to reread what I posted and think it over a few times, if you keep at it you might realise that it's different from what you think it is.
still mad at your maths teacher for flat out dismissing all of your "empirical proofs"? |
Gregor Palter
51
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 10:01:00 -
[33] - Quote
I concede to your level of stupidity. |
Steve Ronuken
Cossette Moana
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 10:45:00 -
[34] - Quote
Scientific Theory: A model which fits the observed phenomenon closely enough to be used to predict things accurately.
Theory, in regular English use: An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action
Subtle difference between them. And scientific theories doesn't actually say 'this is the ways things are'. They say 'This explains stuff to the limits of our understanding. It might not be exactly right, but it's good enough for government work. We'll adjust it, if it doesn't actually fit'
It's all about levels of abstraction. Newtonian physics is good enough for most stuff in this world, but breaks down when you get really really small. Quantum physics explains stuff at that level, but isn't so good at bigger stuff. |
Gregor Palter
51
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 10:57:00 -
[35] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Scientific Theory: A model which fits the observed phenomenon closely enough to be used to predict things accurately.
Theory, in regular English use: An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action
Subtle difference between them. And scientific theories doesn't actually say 'this is the ways things are'. They say 'This explains stuff to the limits of our understanding. It might not be exactly right, but it's good enough for government work. We'll adjust it, if it doesn't actually fit'
It's all about levels of abstraction. Newtonian physics is good enough for most stuff in this world, but breaks down when you get really really small. Quantum physics explains stuff at that level, but isn't so good at bigger stuff.
Exactly that, yet many idiots mistake findings and theories for facts and argue on that basis. They just gobble up stuff they've learned or read somewhere and poop it out as facts out without actual knowledge or the necessary addendum that they are nothing more than theories.
Case in point; if you ask a moron how the universe started there's a good chance he starts spouting one of the string theories as fact. |
Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor
The Seventh Day
30
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 11:23:00 -
[36] - Quote
Down Boy!
Quote:
the tiny particles were clocked at 300,006 kilometres per second, slightly faster that the speed of light, the researchers said today.
That's not allot faster is you factor in variables like warped space, particle interaction and the fact that we cannot calculate the speed of light to 100% accuracy.
Also, I have some questions for some of you science nuts out there
Fact: inertia is a property of matter (insert equations about how it functions here)
What you can't tell me: what are the physical mechanisms that govern it? Meaning, HOW can matter have inertia in a vacuum? Is it a field? A particle? a gremlin? the will of god? why does an object in a perfect vacuum have inertia and what mechanisms can I visibly see that make it so?
Second Fact: Charge follows + and - differentials and magnetic fields follow "Flux lines"
What you can't tell me: what exactly is it that surrounds a particle that coveys it's charge through a perfect vacuum? Is it an even smaller particle? Well then... I will ask the same about that even smaller particle. What can I SEE and have have you DETECTED that can explain the purveyance of charge through nothing?
Is it magic made by Steven Hawkins? 
So what do you really know?
Not a whole lot when you think about it... |
Karn Dulake
Souls Must Be Trampled
The.Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 11:27:00 -
[37] - Quote
Well of course Einstein was wrong
My ship moves at 3AU a second and according to him thats impossible.
In your face Einstein, in your face |
JackStraw56
Bayesian Motion
Knights of Tomorrow
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 11:34:00 -
[38] - Quote
It's just an error in the experiment IMO. That's the simplest explanation at this point. |
|
CCP Navigator
C C P
C C P Alliance
109
|
Posted - 2011.09.23 11:34:00 -
[39] - Quote
As this topic is covered in OOPE both here and here, this thread will be locked as it is off topic ofr General Discussion.
CCP Navigator - Lead Community Representative |
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |