whereagles Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 One question for the physicists (or physics knowledgeable people). If the neutrinos really are going faster than light, shouldn't they arrive before they are produced? Or is the theory that relativity is completely wrong with regards to faster than light travel and its effects? Faster than light neutrinos would make them what physicists call 'tachyons'. Such objects appear in some theories (e.g. string theory) and they cause a couple of phenomenological problems, so people usually tweak the theories to get rid of them. There are a lot of funny things you can do with tachyons, but in short this is what it boils down to: we'd have a lot of stuff to rewrite if this FTL neutrinos thing were true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 Niven's Law of Time Travel: In any Universe of discourse in which time travel is possible, it will not happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwalimu02 Posted December 11, 2011 Report Share Posted December 11, 2011 interesting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 True? False? Still taking all bets! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Neutrinos clocked at light-speed in new Icarus test An experiment to repeat a test of the speed of subatomic particles known as neutrinos has found that they do not travel faster than light.But they do travel pretty fast anyway... B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 I have absolutely no knowledge of anything going on here with neutrinos. That said, the reason for my post is that my reaction to the "news" about neutrinos was, "That's old stuff." I mean, I recall hearing back in the mid-1980's that Einstein might be wrong and that neutrinos went faster than the speed of light. If I recall correctly, the reason back then was something about being able to detect a surge in neutrinos before the light reached us when a star went nova, or something. Of course, that probably had some other explanation for some, but the point was that the neutrinos-go-too-fast scenario seems to have been around for a while, hasn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USViking Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 I have absolutely no knowledge of anything going on here with neutrinos. That said, the reason for my post is that my reaction to the "news" about neutrinos was, "That's old stuff." I mean, I recall hearing back in the mid-1980's that Einstein might be wrong and that neutrinos went faster than the speed of light. If I recall correctly, the reason back then was something about being able to detect a surge in neutrinos before the light reached us when a star went nova, or something. Of course, that probably had some other explanation for some, but the point was that the neutrinos-go-too-fast scenario seems to have been around for a while, hasn't it? Without looking it up IIRC neutrinos began to be ejected in the earliest stages of the supernova process before light. IOW the earliest surge of neutrinos had enough of a headstart on the light to arrive on Earthsooner than the earliest surge of light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Without looking it up IIRC neutrinos began to be ejected in the earliest stages of the supernova process before light. IOW the earliest surge of neutrinos had enough of a headstart on the light to arrive on Earthsooner than the earliest surge of light. Again, speaking from ignorance, but it seems to me that perhaps the explanation offered in the past might have been based upon an assumption that neutrinos could not actually move faster than the speed of light. In other words, if I assume that x and y must travel at the same speed, and x gets here first, then I must assume that x left first. However, if I assume that x and y do not have to travel at the same speed, then if x gets here first, from a common source and event, I might then assume that x was faster than y. Or, that x took a different route to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USViking Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 It turns out the neutrino is a subject fit for poetry: Cosmic Gall -John Updike- Neutrinos, they are very small.They have no charge and have no massAnd do not interact at all.The earth is just a silly ballTo them, through which they simply pass,Like dustmaids through a drafty hallOr photons through a sheet of glass.They snub the most exquisite gas,Ignore the most substantial wall,Cold-shoulder steel and sounding brass,Insult the stallion in his stall,And scorning barriers of class,Infiltrate you and me! Like tallAnd painless guillotines, they fallDown through our heads into the grass.At night, they enter at NepalAnd pierce the lover and his lassFrom underneath the bed-you callIt wonderful; I call it crass. YOU are now being invaded by about 1014 neutrinos each second! (although it has turned out they do have mass) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 It turns out the neutrino is a subject fit for poetry: Cosmic Gall -John Updike- Neutrinos, they are very small.They have no charge and have no massAnd do not interact at all.The earth is just a silly ballTo them, through which they simply pass,Like dustmaids through a drafty hallOr photons through a sheet of glass.They snub the most exquisite gas,Ignore the most substantial wall,Cold-shoulder steel and sounding brass,Insult the stallion in his stall,And scorning barriers of class,Infiltrate you and me! Like tallAnd painless guillotines, they fallDown through our heads into the grass.At night, they enter at NepalAnd pierce the lover and his lassFrom underneath the bed-you callIt wonderful; I call it crass. YOU are now being invaded by about 1014 neutrinos each second! (although it has turned out they do have mass) Rick Santorum is not going to be happy about this one bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 I'm glad we finally got rid of those scofflaws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 I have absolutely no knowledge of anything going on here with neutrinos. That said, the reason for my post is that my reaction to the "news" about neutrinos was, "That's old stuff." I mean, I recall hearing back in the mid-1980's that Einstein might be wrong and that neutrinos went faster than the speed of light. If I recall correctly, the reason back then was something about being able to detect a surge in neutrinos before the light reached us when a star went nova, or something. Of course, that probably had some other explanation for some, but the point was that the neutrinos-go-too-fast scenario seems to have been around for a while, hasn't it? The best part of all that was the name "tachyon" for faster than light neutrinos. Led to all sorts of great SciFi usage, cause it just sounds cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonottawa Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 I wouldn't be surprised to learn that quantum science is nothing but quackery based on half-baked, marijuana-induced theories unfalsifiable due to the lack of sufficiently sophisticated observation/measurement apparatus. Most of the stuff they spout makes more sense if you picture them taking a hit on a giant bong first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Most of the stuff they spout makes more sense if you picture them taking a hit on a giant bong first.It may sound like that, but I don't think we would have smart phones if it weren't correct. Most microelectronic technology has to take quantum theory into account. Similarly, GPS wouldn't work correctly if they didn't adjust for the effects of special and general relativity on time. Special relativity causes the clocks on the satellites to run 7 microseconds/day slower than clocks on the ground, while general relativity causes them to run 45 microseconds/day faster, for a combined 38 ms/day difference. This may not sound like much, but GPS requires timing accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds, so if the system didn't adjust for this the position measurements would accumulate errors at the rate of 10 km/day. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USViking Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 I wouldn't be surprised to learn that quantum science is nothing but quackery based on half-baked, marijuana-induced theories unfalsifiable due to the lack of sufficiently sophisticated observation/measurement apparatus. Most of the stuff they spout makes more sense if you picture them taking a hit on a giant bong first. Speaking of bongs, have you cleaned the screen on yours lately? Quantum science has been confirmed by measurement in some cases to several decimal points; it is perhaps the most fully corroborated scientific theory of all time. And among other things, these computers we have so much fun playing with could not have been developed without it: Contributions of Physics to the Information Age 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 Good quantum mechanics joke in today's Dilbert: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2012-04-17/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfay Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 Einstein: "Pwned. lol" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.