These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

They just went and broke the speed of light...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1 - 2011-11-18 21:30:32 UTC
Ann133566
Doomheim
#2 - 2011-11-18 21:33:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Ann133566
Still don't believe it. I'll wait tilll the Japanese and the Americans run the experiment.
Zions Child
Higashikata Industries
#3 - 2011-11-18 21:57:20 UTC
1) This is your usual science journalism, and they're making a big deal out of a group of scientists who are very unsure about their results, or
2) This particular group has little ethics with regards to science.
Why? You don't publish results like this when you can't be absolutely certain of their validity. A variety of mistakes could have been made in this. Also, why would neturinos, which we've known about and tested for quite a long time, suddenly be capable of travelling faster than the speed of light? It is possible that the speed of light is not a barrier, but I highly doubt that we would all of a sudden find out that a particle we've known of for a long time possesses the ability to break that barrier.
Iosue
League of Gentlemen
The Initiative.
#4 - 2011-11-18 22:12:49 UTC
Zions Child wrote:
You don't publish results like this when you can't be absolutely certain of their validity.


i know many scientists, in fact, i married one. none of them speak in terms of absolute certainty. furthermore, the scientific method acknowledges that no theory or law is ever certain, as new findings may overturn previously accepted principals from time to time. while i can agree that this is a news article and not a scientific journal, the fact that they are reporting initial findings to lay people, such as yourself, shouldn't be considered unethical. presumptuous maybe, but not unethical. of this i am certain.
Taedrin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2011-11-18 23:06:29 UTC
Zions Child wrote:
1) This is your usual science journalism, and they're making a big deal out of a group of scientists who are very unsure about their results, or
2) This particular group has little ethics with regards to science.
Why? You don't publish results like this when you can't be absolutely certain of their validity. A variety of mistakes could have been made in this. Also, why would neturinos, which we've known about and tested for quite a long time, suddenly be capable of travelling faster than the speed of light? It is possible that the speed of light is not a barrier, but I highly doubt that we would all of a sudden find out that a particle we've known of for a long time possesses the ability to break that barrier.


The experiment has a six-sigma certainty rating. Note that only a five-sigma certainty is needed to declare a formal scientific discovery. The reason why this is getting so much attention is that it basically overturns everything we know about the laws of physics. In fact if this was any other discovery, they would have published their results long ago, and received little to no recognition from the world.

I am actually quite happy with these scientists, as they are doing and saying everything exactly as they should:

"This additional test we made is confirming our original finding, but still we have to be very prudent, still we have to look forward to independent confirmation. But this is a positive result."

Notice how they accept the possibility that they did something wrong, and how they WANT other people to get involved. unlike certain other "scientific research" groups who try their hardest to discredit anyone who disagrees with them (I'm looking at you, global warming fanatics/skeptics). When someone asks the question "what if...?", real science doesn't say "you're an idiot for saying something different than me!". Real science says "that's an interesting idea. Let's see if you are right or wrong!"

And that's what is happening here. The scientists who ran the experiment made some alterations which were suggested by their peers, and after reconfirming the same results they are now waiting for independent verification to either confirm or deny their results.

The media is simply getting overexcited, and rightly so! This is a very exciting discovery and even if the results are not confirmed, there will be a lot of new science developed to explain these findings.
Ann133566
Doomheim
#6 - 2011-11-18 23:07:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Ann133566
Zions Child wrote:
1) This is your usual science journalism, and they're making a big deal out of a group of scientists who are very unsure about their results, or
2) This particular group has little ethics with regards to science.
Why? You don't publish results like this when you can't be absolutely certain of their validity. A variety of mistakes could have been made in this. Also, why would neturinos, which we've known about and tested for quite a long time, suddenly be capable of travelling faster than the speed of light? It is possible that the speed of light is not a barrier, but I highly doubt that we would all of a sudden find out that a particle we've known of for a long time possesses the ability to break that barrier.


Yeah they are very unsure of their results and seem genuinely baffled by them. Hence they brought in outside experts to advise them and check their instruments and software and found everything was in working order. The reason they did publish their findings was because they ran out of avenues to explore to so I wouldn't say it was unethical. I'm skeptical about the whole business and believe it's something they have overlooked. However neturinos have been known to act in strange ways before and have been even recorded breaking the light barrier before in a U.S. experinment but the scientist there put it down to a quirk.
Slade Trillgon
Brutor Force Federated
#7 - 2011-11-19 00:22:12 UTC
Taedrin wrote:
Zions Child wrote:
1) This is your usual science journalism, and they're making a big deal out of a group of scientists who are very unsure about their results, or
2) This particular group has little ethics with regards to science.
Why? You don't publish results like this when you can't be absolutely certain of their validity. A variety of mistakes could have been made in this. Also, why would neturinos, which we've known about and tested for quite a long time, suddenly be capable of travelling faster than the speed of light? It is possible that the speed of light is not a barrier, but I highly doubt that we would all of a sudden find out that a particle we've known of for a long time possesses the ability to break that barrier.


The experiment has a six-sigma certainty rating. Note that only a five-sigma certainty is needed to declare a formal scientific discovery. The reason why this is getting so much attention is that it basically overturns everything we know about the laws of physics.


Although I can see the argument from both sides what does not need to be overshadowed is the fact that said physics, that may be 'overturned' if what is linked above is actually 'true', aided with things like helping us come up with computers, put satelittes and man into space, and any other number of huge scientific advances.


Slade
Astenion
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2011-11-19 00:37:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Astenion
LOL @ people acting like CERN is a bunch of rednecks shooting a potato gun in a cornfield.

It's not like CERN is some second-rate laboratory. They invited them to run their own experiments and to share their findings, which is the prudent thing to do.
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe
#9 - 2011-11-19 01:14:18 UTC
This could be the best news ever and free us from Einstein's cage.

I've been following this with much interest.
Zions Child
Higashikata Industries
#10 - 2011-11-19 03:09:39 UTC
Iosue wrote:
Zions Child wrote:
You don't publish results like this when you can't be absolutely certain of their validity.


i know many scientists, in fact, i married one. none of them speak in terms of absolute certainty. furthermore, the scientific method acknowledges that no theory or law is ever certain, as new findings may overturn previously accepted principals from time to time. while i can agree that this is a news article and not a scientific journal, the fact that they are reporting initial findings to lay people, such as yourself, shouldn't be considered unethical. presumptuous maybe, but not unethical. of this i am certain.

Absolute certainty was the wrong choice of words, but with regards to something this earth shattering there needs to be considerably larger amounts of certainty involved before one pushes these findings towards science journalists, who have exactly zero respect for scientific accuracy.
In reading the actual journal article on arxiv, they basically went through it without talking about what it means, because they aren't assholes. The media however, is. People should really wait until it is confirmed by a different group of people operating along a different route before they start talking about the implications.
Dray
C.O.D.E
#11 - 2011-11-19 05:46:31 UTC
To be fair it's looking more and more likely that the neutrinos have broken the light barrier, but it is a sub-atomic particle and the rules are a little different at that level, whether we'll ever be free of "Einsteins cage", as some one put it, I can't see it.

Still you never know.
Vicker Lahn'se
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2011-11-19 08:55:22 UTC
Zions Child wrote:
Iosue wrote:
Zions Child wrote:
You don't publish results like this when you can't be absolutely certain of their validity.


i know many scientists, in fact, i married one. none of them speak in terms of absolute certainty. furthermore, the scientific method acknowledges that no theory or law is ever certain, as new findings may overturn previously accepted principals from time to time. while i can agree that this is a news article and not a scientific journal, the fact that they are reporting initial findings to lay people, such as yourself, shouldn't be considered unethical. presumptuous maybe, but not unethical. of this i am certain.

Absolute certainty was the wrong choice of words, but with regards to something this earth shattering there needs to be considerably larger amounts of certainty involved before one pushes these findings towards science journalists, who have exactly zero respect for scientific accuracy.
In reading the actual journal article on arxiv, they basically went through it without talking about what it means, because they aren't assholes. The media however, is. People should really wait until it is confirmed by a different group of people operating along a different route before they start talking about the implications.


Get off your soap box.

There is no reason why this subject shouldn't receive media coverage. It's not some back alley quack trying to make a perpetual motion machine. We're talking about a large group of highly regarded scientists disclosing information after they have rigorously checked it hundreds of times.

People have a right to hear about this. As a physicist, I can say that my colleagues take this experiment seriously. Everyone has reservations as to the certainty of the finding, but that doesn't mean that it's not a hot topic. As a citizen of the world, I would say that people need to know what's going on at CERN. It's a huge project, and represents the culmination of a lot of human resources.

You may think that you're showing prudence by expressing skepticism, but you come across as being simply dismissive. You've readily criticized others for their lack of objectivity, but it would appear that it is you who possesses the most subjective attitude. Just because a finding doesn't agree with your vision of how the world should work does not give you the right to ridicule it, especially when the finding is coming from one of the leading research institutions in the modern world.
Zions Child
Higashikata Industries
#13 - 2011-11-19 09:07:30 UTC
Vicker Lahn'se wrote:
Zions Child wrote:
Iosue wrote:
Zions Child wrote:
You don't publish results like this when you can't be absolutely certain of their validity.


i know many scientists, in fact, i married one. none of them speak in terms of absolute certainty. furthermore, the scientific method acknowledges that no theory or law is ever certain, as new findings may overturn previously accepted principals from time to time. while i can agree that this is a news article and not a scientific journal, the fact that they are reporting initial findings to lay people, such as yourself, shouldn't be considered unethical. presumptuous maybe, but not unethical. of this i am certain.

Absolute certainty was the wrong choice of words, but with regards to something this earth shattering there needs to be considerably larger amounts of certainty involved before one pushes these findings towards science journalists, who have exactly zero respect for scientific accuracy.
In reading the actual journal article on arxiv, they basically went through it without talking about what it means, because they aren't assholes. The media however, is. People should really wait until it is confirmed by a different group of people operating along a different route before they start talking about the implications.


Get off your soap box.

There is no reason why this subject shouldn't receive media coverage. It's not some back alley quack trying to make a perpetual motion machine. We're talking about a large group of highly regarded scientists disclosing information after they have rigorously checked it hundreds of times.

People have a right to hear about this. As a physicist, I can say that my colleagues take this experiment seriously. Everyone has reservations as to the certainty of the finding, but that doesn't mean that it's not a hot topic. As a citizen of the world, I would say that people need to know what's going on at CERN. It's a huge project, and represents the culmination of a lot of human resources.

You may think that you're showing prudence by expressing skepticism, but you come across as being simply dismissive. You've readily criticized others for their lack of objectivity, but it would appear that it is you who possesses the most subjective attitude. Just because a finding doesn't agree with your vision of how the world should work does not give you the right to ridicule it, especially when the finding is coming from one of the leading research institutions in the modern world.

You aren't the only one who gets to wear the physicist badge, friend. This finding is meaningless until it can be verified by other groups. Also, I take it you just completely ignored my second post. And if every "scientific breakthrough that will completely change [x] field forever" as reported by the media were true (even limiting it to information obtained from realistically accurate research groups), the scientific disciplines as a whole would be in a very different place right now.
Something Random
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2011-11-19 11:49:06 UTC
Zion - your first reaction did sound a little "Heresy!!! Burn them!!!" in a physicsy kinda way.

All they are doing is calling in the brains, after all where the hell do you start with the maths on that one alone.

The way i see it there is obviously a quirk here going on and they need to find out what and why. The variables involved however... i am guessing at some point they may even have to take rock samples if they keep getting the result and others dont ???

Watching this with real interest and im glad theyve been so open from the start.

"caught on fire a little bit, just a little."

"Delinquents, check, weirdos, check, hippies, check, pillheads, check, freaks, check, potheads, check .....gangs all here!"

I love Science, it gives me a Hadron.
Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#15 - 2011-11-19 13:08:13 UTC
A bunch of people on a forum claiming CERN is wrong. Lol
Decaneos
Casalt Corp
CAStabouts
#16 - 2011-11-19 14:21:29 UTC
so zion what your saying is this data is compleatly irelevent if no one else decides to run the test.

even if they run it 1 million times end up making a flt ship and blast of into space you would still sit there and go, NO ONE ELSE DONE IT SO ITS NOT POSSIBLE!
Zions Child
Higashikata Industries
#17 - 2011-11-19 20:02:34 UTC
decaneos wrote:
so zion what your saying is this data is compleatly irelevent if no one else decides to run the test.

even if they run it 1 million times end up making a flt ship and blast of into space you would still sit there and go, NO ONE ELSE DONE IT SO ITS NOT POSSIBLE!



You clearly don't understand science. If no one else confirms the results, its an internal error somewhere along the path from CERN to Italy.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#18 - 2011-11-19 21:19:58 UTC
Zions Child wrote:


You clearly don't understand science. If no one else confirms the results, its an internal error somewhere along the path from CERN to Italy.


What if they do get confimation?

Being open and honest is by far the best way to do science and lets not forget that plate tectonics was seen as a rather bonkers theory untill the 1950s
Cherry Nobyl
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2011-11-19 22:51:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Cherry Nobyl
substantial claims require substantial evidence. it's certainly a substantial claim.

i look forward to texting myself from an apple [μ−]phone 'whatever you do...' and having it turn out like this and this
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#20 - 2011-11-19 23:10:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
The experiment has got two main sources of uncertainty; localization of emitter and receiver, and when exactly are emitted and received the neutrinos.

The scientists in this experiment tried their best to reduce uncertainty and have achieved the same results as in the original experiment; so now it's time that someone else sets up the experiment and tries to replicate the results.

Anyway we may remember that we're talking about the CERN, which is absolutely top notch. There is nobody above, just their equals who work elsewhere.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
12Next page