To save Scrym the trouble of making their own video. It is called the Dirac String Trick: Admittedly, doing it with a belt in a restaurant is more impressive ;-).
I'm always hoping for physics to get thrown out the window and start over. Makes things fun.
This is a common misunderstanding.
All science is based on observation, since that's all we have. I'm as skeptical as anyone on this particular case right now, but I keep an open mind and enjoy the fantasy of filling in the blanks with whatever I think is most awesome at any given time. Lightsabers might not make any practical sense, but that doesn't mean I don't want one.
Video (mp4) of yesterday's seminar at CERN on the OPERA results.
Watched this. It was interesting. I skipped to the Q&A; after I became really tired of the walk through each error they potentially corrected for so-far. It frightened me a bit that the audience behaved not entirely differently from a bunch of college freshmen (missing or misunderstanding parts of the presentation, one guy trying to tell them that he has all the answers), but I want to blame that on the language barrier.
I thought most of the questions were quite good and clearly asked by people who know their shit. That the presenter could give good answers to most of them is also telling of the diligence they put into the research. Most crucially though, on the points raised about the uncertainty in the proton PDF shapes as well as the statistical methods for fitting, he was not so clear. Looking at the plots shown (and remember that they always cherry pick the best looking plots), it certainly looks like there may be an effect, but extremely small changes (such as discounting the very messy topside of the plot) can easily kick the effect from a "solid discovery" 6 sigma down to a "we can almost publish this" 4.7 sigma.
Interesting blog post by a physicist concerning these findings. To say he's skeptical is an understatement.
Skeptical of what? That science will get to the bottom of this, just like everyone in the OPERA experiment wants? I remain highly un-skeptical of science. I like how they spun this one, saying "Faster than the speed of light? WTF?" That news sources think this is worth writing and talking about is GOOD news, as it shows there is healthy interest in science and CERN and all that stuff. I've heard very non-science podcasts and radios shows talking about this, and there is now a pretty good understanding that the speed of light is the universal speed limit. I like that!
The LHC might not be the Apollo moon landings, but it's the best we've got at the moment. Why not let people get involved in the process, rather than just releasing final results?
Interesting blog post by a physicist concerning these findings. To say he's skeptical is an understatement.
Well, he makes a pretty big leap in there. See, the thing is that the speed limit does not have to be the speed of light. The analogy to rotation angles works (barely) but misses the crucial point that there only has to be a speed limit in the universe. Special Relativity as formulated by Einstein assumes that this is the speed of light and that it is the same for all particles, but it could conceivable be the speed of neutrinos (or maybe neutrinos have their own speed limit).
What he then jumps to is the effect of anything going faster than the de-facto speed limit of the universe (regardless of what that limit is, and whether any particle can even reach it); once you define a speed limit consistently, this sets up the concept of causality and it is causality which we defnitely, no-kidding-about-it, not in a million years, do not want to mess with.
The main problem with this neutrino result is not that something is going faster than light, it is that the neutrinos are going four to five orders of magnitude faster than the previously measured upper limit from supernova 1987-A. It's not that the LHC guys are contradicting theory, it's that they are contradicting a well established experimental result.
See, the thing is that the speed limit does not have to be the speed of light.
Wouldn't that imply that photons have mass? In fact, it's neutrinos that are believed to have mass.
Right now, the simplest explanation is that a mistake was made in calculating the speed of the particles, even the physicists involved are being very cautious.
If it stands up, this episode will be laden with irony. Far from breaking Einstein's theory of relatively, the faster-than-light measurement will turn out to be another confirmation of it.
Error very likely found.If it stands up, this episode will be laden with irony. Far from breaking Einstein's theory of relatively, the faster-than-light measurement will turn out to be another confirmation of it.
Comments
Admittedly, doing it with a belt in a restaurant is more impressive ;-).
The LHC might not be the Apollo moon landings, but it's the best we've got at the moment. Why not let people get involved in the process, rather than just releasing final results?
What he then jumps to is the effect of anything going faster than the de-facto speed limit of the universe (regardless of what that limit is, and whether any particle can even reach it); once you define a speed limit consistently, this sets up the concept of causality and it is causality which we defnitely, no-kidding-about-it, not in a million years, do not want to mess with.
The main problem with this neutrino result is not that something is going faster than light, it is that the neutrinos are going four to five orders of magnitude faster than the previously measured upper limit from supernova 1987-A. It's not that the LHC guys are contradicting theory, it's that they are contradicting a well established experimental result.
Right now, the simplest explanation is that a mistake was made in calculating the speed of the particles, even the physicists involved are being very cautious.