It is currently Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:23 am


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4375
Location: Greenwich, London
First Supersymmetry falls, now the light speed barrier? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5274
Location: Lancashire
I heard a brief radio news summary about the discovery this morning. Quite a few years ago, on an HORIZON programme, a German theoretical physicist demonstrated that he had transferred information at faster than light speed. This guy was a serious scientist, not an hoaxer.

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 7:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:51 pm
Posts: 349
Its just a revisit to the old neutrino problem....when you measure the speed of a neutrino it appears to travel faster then light....this has been done many times and always brings the same result.

The margin for error however means that the innacuracy of the measurement would allow it to actually fall below the speed of light.

From this margin for error it is 60% likely that it travels faster than light, 35% likely that it travels at the speed of light and only 5% likely that it travels slower than the speed of light. ( figures approx. )

However...as Neutrinoes can allegedly change flavour then they must have a mass...according to the best current theories.
Also according to the best current theories any object containg mass must travel less than the speed of light.

Therefore the 5% likely scenario appears has been taken to be correct.

This has been known about for decades.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 7:18 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4375
Location: Greenwich, London
Email them and tell them not to worry, Kev.

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:51 pm
Posts: 349
joe wrote:
Email them and tell them not to worry, Kev.


Details of email in quotes below...



"vous se sont trompés garçons français"



They haven't replied yet


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:41 pm
Posts: 1450
Location: 55° 57'N: 03° 08'W
"What can I get you?" asks the barman.

A neutrino walks into a bar, AGAIN.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:12 pm
Posts: 3288
Location: Sheffield (53° 21' N 1° 12' W)
stella wrote:
"What can I get you?" asks the barman.

A neutrino walks into a bar, AGAIN.


And says " The same as what I had tomorrow"

All the best
Dave

_________________
Meade LX 200 (7"). Odyssey 8" Dob.
11X80 10x50 15x70 bins
Celestron Neximage ccd cam


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Posts: 6502
Location: Manchester
Dear Joe et al
For most of my lifetime I thought light travelled at about 186,000 miles in a second through a vacuum (or about 300,000 km per sec for them who prefer metric).
Now I always accepted those numbers are only approximate and the value is known better than that. I've also understood that it is impossible to create a true vacuum even in the best laboratory on Earth.
However, one thing that has bugged me in recent years is that it seems likely or at least possible there is no such thing as a true vacuum in space.
(I'm also inclined to say my use of the term "space" relates to all the "know" currently visible universe, beyond which I'll suggest a "true vacuum" might exist ie outside space there is a true vacuum.
I personally do not like the idea of multiverses -even if it can be backed up with mathematics,beyond my understanding.)
So space being space, not a true vacuum, we do not know the speed of light through a vacuum (? or maybe we do ??????).
Whatever, provisionally accepting that the the recent "faster than light speed measurement is correct" lets just suppose that the material through which the "neutrino or whatever particle it was that did it" just happened to be travelling through material (between Geneva and Italy) that was\is particularly favourable to neutrinos. Perhaps Earth is neutrino friendly ?
Elsewhere in space light might travel not quite like we think going possibly as fast as neutrinos ?
Unlikely as it might seem - once we get out of space (which contains these stupid awkward bits currently called Dark Energy and Dark Matter) in the possibly true vacuum of the Universe outside, light might conceivably travel at some incrediblly unknown fast speed or dare I say it not travel through a true vacuum at any speed at all ?
Having made that layman's probably nonsensical conjecture, I am currently reading (slowly) through Prof Cox and Prof Forshaw's book "The Quantum Universe - everything that can happen does happen".
I cannot claim to have grasped all the nitty gritty properly but I am now nearly converted into believing Quantum Physics. Got a way to go yet though before I'm an absolute believer.
Best wishes for Christmas and the New Year from Cliff


Last edited by Cliff on Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Posts: 6502
Location: Manchester
Dear al(L)
'New Scientist' magazine 7th Jan 2012 says :-
"Faster than light neutrinos, if they exist, would not only flout special relativity but also the fundamental tenet that energy is conserved in the universe. ..............................................................
I would have loved to have (the result to be true), says Nussinov (Telaviv university),but it is inconsistent with basic, basic things."
Best wishes from Cliff
PS Ah! Ah! Perhaps light still travels at "about" 300,000 km per second in a vacuum. However, I still don't know what a vacuum is ?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Posts: 6502
Location: Manchester
Dear Joe et al(L)
But possibly not ?????!!!!!!!!!
Best wishes from Cliff


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group