Faster than light results reyields same results in replication experiment

[IgnoredOne]

Contested 'faster than light' experiment yields same results

Hardly final, yet controversial, but extremely interesting.

 

[Drama]

Things are going faster mwahahaha

 

[kamya]

So to explain it without reinventing our models of science, they are trying to say that it is really moving backwards in time. Meaning we now have some kind of proof that travelling backwards in time is possible.

 

[Drama]

You watched a lot of movies

 

[kamya]

Some super smart physics doods were trying to dumb it down for me and that is what I got out of it. T.T

 

[IgnoredOne]

So to explain it without reinventing our models of science, they are trying to say that it is really moving backwards in time. Meaning we now have some kind of proof that travelling backwards in time is possible.

Assuming that the results do indicate faster than light travel, it'll be easier if it was just slipping in and out of our universe, in which case it could constitute evidence of multiple universes.

 

[paulo]

So to explain it without reinventing our models of science, they are trying to say that it is really moving backwards in time. Meaning we now have some kind of proof that travelling backwards in time is possible.

makes sense, if you cant go any faster forewards you go back.

 

[Skorian]

Cold fusion is more interesting

 

[Ian Haines]

The tachyon particle travels faster than light. These things pass right through us, and the planet, all day, every day, without even slowing down.

The tachyon is so much faster than light that it doesn't even enter our atmosphere until...*AFTER*...it has reached the surface of our planet!

 

[IgnoredOne]

Cold fusion is more interesting

Cold fusion is interesting, but the last 'major announcement' by Rossi, Forcardi, etc is almost certain to be a flat out hoax. A tragedy given the opportunities potentially inherent but I imagine that good low-key research continues.

---

The tachyon particle travels faster than light. These things pass right through us, and the planet, all day, every day, without even slowing down.

A tachyon ( /ˈtæki.ɒn/) is a hypothetical subatomic particle that always moves faster than light. In the language of special relativity, a tachyon would be a particle with space-like four-momentum and imaginary proper time...Despite the theoretical arguments against the existence of tachyon particles, experimental searches have been conducted to test the assumption against their existence; however, no experimental evidence[5] for the existence of tachyon particles has been found.

Note the hypothetical nature of such a particle. Furthermore, neutrinos have nonzero mass so they should fundamentally not be faster than photons who are defined to have zero mass.

 

[Ian Haines]

Well, oddly enough, one sentence extra that I originally typed in, and then deleted before posting, was, "I find this difficult to chew on and even harder to swallow!"

 

[Polar]

The tachyon particle travels faster than light. These things pass right through us, and the planet, all day, every day, without even slowing down.

The tachyon is so much faster than light that it doesn't even enter our atmosphere until...*AFTER*...it has reached the surface of our planet!

There is no scientific evidence for tachyons, it's just an idea.

Anyways the neutrinos travel less than 1/100th of a percent faster than the known speed of light. That imo forms no drastic conflict with Einstein's laws. In fact when a measured speed converges to what is the expected maximum speed that particles with a mass can move, it actually strengthens the theory that nothing can travel faster than light even when they controversially, supposedly do.

This minor anomaly is either a systematic measuring error, or caused by an overseen/unknown physical phenomenon which would probably be fully unifiable with Einstein's laws. It's not going to turn physics upside down. The only thing why this can be problematic to physicists is that it strengthens the notion that it's not that simple to perform reliable experiments with such small particles at such high speeds.

Did you even know they aren't actually "measuring" the speed of the neutrinos. They can't possible measure the speed of the neutrinos because they can't tell for sure when they've been created and started to take flight (you need to smash protons together and wait for the produced pions to decay into neutrinos, that process makes it pretty much impossible to tell when a separate neutrino is created). Instead they compare the timestamps of the created proton waves with those of the neutrino events and normalize these into a probability function on the moment of neutrino emission. In human language, they're guessing when the neutrinos have started moving, a statistically reliable and accurate guess, but still a guess.

My point is really that it are incredibly, incredibly complex experiments and there are a lot of things which could affect the results one way or another. It's way too soon to talk about massed particles exceeding light speed, let alone dig up science fiction talk about moving back in time...

 

[Ian Haines]

All I ask of science is that it "proves it" to me, before it asks me to 'believe' or says that we should get excited about the applications of something science has not yet seen, or even found. Also, science has no idea of how it could apply such knowledge anyway, yet. Maybe the human mind is reaching it's limits of the capability of understanding the super-complexities. Maybe, the complexities will actually render, one day, completely pointless, our relentless hunt for new things to utilise (usually for law enforcement or superiority in war - and, maybe, the space obsession, too).

I just feel that science and humanity are getting further and further away from each other...I thought that science was there..."for us!"

I'd be a lot more impressed by science if it just worked on CURES for illnesses that we should have done away with half a century ago.

 

[Skorian]

Cold fusion is more interesting

Cold fusion is interesting, but the last 'major announcement' by Rossi, Forcardi, etc is almost certain to be a flat out hoax. A tragedy given the opportunities potentially inherent but I imagine that good low-key research continues.

How do I say this. Are you refuring to the proposed possibility that random matter can be created by one of the methods being used to try to achieve cold fusion? Been a while since I saw it so not even sure how to explain, but I believe they proposed that it might be possible to create gold or other substances through this method.

All I ask of science is that it "proves it" to me, before it asks me to 'believe' or says that we should get excited about the applications of something science has not yet seen, or even found. Also, science has no idea of how it could apply such knowledge anyway, yet. Maybe the human mind is reaching it's limits of the capability of understanding the super-complexities. Maybe, the complexities will actually render, one day, completely pointless, our relentless hunt for new things to utilise (usually for law enforcement or superiority in war - and, maybe, the space obsession, too).

I just feel that science and humanity are getting further and further away from each other...I thought that science was there..."for us!"

I'd be a lot more impressed by science if it just worked on CURES for illnesses that we should have done away with half a century ago.

It is not nearly as profitable to cure an illness as to offer months long or life lone treatments for a condition.

 

[IgnoredOne]

All I ask of science is that it "proves it" to me, before it asks me to 'believe' or says that we should get excited about the applications of something science has not yet seen, or even found. Also, science has no idea of how it could apply such knowledge anyway, yet.

Complete proof is impossible. Do you know if you are actually a brain inside a sensory tank? A philosophical question, but a valid one. Science can only provide probabilities, some more likely than others.

Fundamental knowledge will most likely finding application someday. Sealing a mouse inside a jar with a plant to discern if plants restored 'vital force' to the air was pretty pointless once upon a time, but it has come to advance our knowledge of plant respiration.

I actually do think that a good deal of research is genuinely useless(studies of whether how cows line up in fields are extremely dubious), but definitely this does not apply to the understanding of relativity. The central party dictates of Stalinism once tried to apply such a philosophy of what they discerned was 'useful' science, and unfortunately, like most dictates of a central government, it proved quite disasterous. So while I do think that more oversight can be helpful, basic science can and needs to continue to be encouraged.

Think about your own life and how much you just discovered only after having experienced it. Until we explore, we may not find solutions that we had never imagined - what alchemist could have imagined nuclear power? Genetic engineering? A computer?

---

How do I say this. Are you refuring to the proposed possibility that random matter can be created by one of the methods being used to try to achieve cold fusion? Been a while since I saw it so not even sure how to explain, but I believe they proposed that it might be possible to create gold or other substances through this method.

No, I am referring to the most popular development in cold fusion technology r/e the e-cat.

The experiment you are referring to was a series done by Dr. John Bockris of Texas A&M University where he believed that medival alchemy may indeed be at least partially real and he explored the possibilities of low temperature nuclear reactions that could potentially lead to, among other things, gold creation. Presently, it could be safely considered as cold fusion by other means.

His results have not had consistent or much replication, common with many other cold fusion technologies. A lot of money has gone into cold fusion, to be honest, but so far, while it continues to frequently provide 'interesting' results, it cannot seem to provide consistent and valid results. A pity, really.

---

Anyways the neutrinos travel less than 1/100th of a percent faster than the known speed of light. That imo forms no drastic conflict with Einstein's laws. In fact when a measured speed converges to what is the expected maximum speed that particles with a mass can move, it actually strengthens the theory that nothing can travel faster than light even when they controversially, supposedly do.

This minor anomaly is either a systematic measuring error, or caused by an overseen/unknown physical phenomenon which would probably be fully unifiable with Einstein's laws.

I agree that it is most likely a systematic measuring error.

I disagree that it does not cause at least some major shakeup, if indeed neutrinos moved faster than light. A particle with mass should fundamentally never exceed the speed of massless photons.

Of course, it could just mean some yet unknown phenomenon without destroying the essential utility of relativity, but such a discovery would be extremely, incredibly cool.