|
Post by nomihoudai on Oct 15, 2011 5:22:49 GMT -8
I think any scientist knew they missed something when the results came out but nobody could immediately point his finger on something. Also the problem pointed out in the article may be very well the case if they forgot that, but on the other rotating frames in relativisitc velocities shouldn't be taken that easy, I doubt a second grader would be able to On another note, what I really dislike about these articles is the big header of "relativity disproven"...a faster than light particle with NO mass would not disprove the theory of relativity and in the regular Standart model neutrinos have no mass. There already was Tachyons that people dealt with but they have never been proven to exist, so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Oct 17, 2011 6:05:28 GMT -8
Yes, the article clearly says in the third paragraph in second grade language "The fact that the experiment gave the same result so many times suggested that one of two things was true: either the neutrinos really were speeding past light itself and heralding a new era of physics, or there was some fundamental flaw with the experiment, which was much more likely."
Why you suspect anything that has to do with science and government and technology I will never understand- what late night parties? You were there? You better believe that everyone was very skeptical, hence it was re-assessed over and over until the flaw in the experimental design was sussed out. A lot of money was thrown at the nuclear problem too. Now we have a lot of extra power we would be buying from Iran otherwise. In fact you are suspicious of GPS, the Chinese, the administration of the grants of the world and scientists all in just one thread. Surely not every is out to get you, to trick you into thinking they were making your life more convenient just to rip it all away so they can laugh and say "ha ha ha, look at this guy now with his quill pen, candle and mariner's map!"
|
|
|
Post by bobw on Oct 17, 2011 6:43:00 GMT -8
Why you suspect anything that has to do with science and government and technology I will never understand- what late night parties? You were there? You better believe that everyone was very skeptical, hence it was re-assessed over and over until the flaw in the experimental design was sussed out. A lot of money was thrown at the nuclear problem too. Now we have a lot of extra power we would be buying from Iran otherwise. In fact you are suspicious of GPS, the Chinese, the administration of the grants of the world and scientists all in just one thread. Surely not every is out to get you, to trick you into thinking they were making your life more convenient just to rip it all away so they can laugh and say "ha ha ha, look at this guy now with his quill pen, candle and mariner's map!" He's probably just one of these people who won't believe anything they read, a bit like these nutters who fall for all these conspiracy theories.
|
|
|
Post by pennswoods on Oct 17, 2011 13:25:26 GMT -8
OK, I admit tying the subject of this thread to the boffins at CERN is like apples to oranges.
It is highly amusing though, that the first headlines were "FASTER THAN LIGHT" ... that's all we saw for about a week. Not, "Well, we saw some weird sh*t, maybe we better make sure all our test equipment is calibrated properly before we start slapping ourselves on the back..." It was the same story a short while ago, "Tests hint at presence of Higgs Boson, the GOD PARTICLE!!!!" then a little while later, "Oops, not so much..."
I don't have a real problem with GPS itself at all, just with the people who ASSume GPS is like gravity--- just THERE--- with no concept or care of what it actually is. How many times have I seen some idiot with a GPS reciever pasted square in the middle of his or her windshield, going 80mph down the interstate swerving in poor attempts to stay in lane because they are looking at the GPS instead of everything ELSE they should be looking at?
I'm not a nutter, at least by most folks' standards. I also love Peking Duck.
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Oct 17, 2011 13:36:08 GMT -8
Learn to differentiate:
Media =/= Science
|
|
|
Post by pennswoods on Oct 17, 2011 17:52:15 GMT -8
that's just it-- even the scientists can no longer differentiate. If they could, we wouldn't have been subjected to hearing about their supernatural neutrinos. They wouldn't have made public comment about their flawed experiment before eliminating all the other possibilities.
"The fact that the experiment gave the same result so many times suggested that one of two things was true: either the neutrinos really were speeding past light itself and heralding a new era of physics, or there was some fundamental flaw with the experiment, which was much more likely."
SO, the scientists initially go with the first option instead of the second "much more likely" option? Lex parsimoniae thrown right the hell out the window. Great work!
end transmission
|
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Oct 17, 2011 23:02:41 GMT -8
The official paper reported what they saw, how they proceeded, and where actual flaws might be...but I doubt you have read that one. There was nothing about "OmGOMG, we are super awesome, we got neutrinos that are faster than the speed of light and Einstein is a #*#*#"
The same with the Higgs, I was having lectures at that time from a professor which was the first contact point for media at CERN who never lost a single word about possible results pointing towards the direction of a Higgs.
I don't know where they always get these stories from but sure not from CERN itself and not under the form the tell it further to the public. I was listening the radio when the neutrino results had been reported and the radio speeker spoke of neuTRONS being faster than light...
Guess we will leave it at that now, I have no clue where you got that weird opinion about CERN and what they have exactly done bad to you but if it makes you happy...
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Oct 18, 2011 5:52:27 GMT -8
You are clearly not involved in the sciences at all. The reference you are using to suggest that scientists themselves are reporting these fantastic assertions before even considering the alternative is a component of the Syfy channel. It should be fairly obvious what is really going on here, it's not "the scientists" making these wild claims in the public forum. The reason you "have to hear about it" is because you read Syfy channel news.
|
|
|
Post by pennswoods on Oct 19, 2011 1:59:55 GMT -8
Thanks for the info, I'll have to look into the SyFy channel news. Didn't know there was such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Oct 19, 2011 4:01:21 GMT -8
The article link that you posted is SyFy Channel news. That site, dvice.com, is the Syfy Channel news website. Look under the title. So you are in luck- you actually do know that there is SyFy Channel news as you referred us all to it.
|
|
|
Post by pennswoods on Oct 28, 2011 16:05:34 GMT -8
wow, you are correct! The paper I intended to link to was www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/which is the correct paper but the wrong link on the site I copied it from... good thing I wasn't publishing a scientific paper with that kind of juvenile error! How I wish we had audio ability here, I can hear it now, the best fake Ivy League, chin out and nose up, Thurston Howell III B.S. accent... "Look Lovy, he CLEAAARLY isn't in the sciences, at ALL." ;D
|
|
|
Post by Chris Grinter on Oct 28, 2011 16:56:52 GMT -8
that's just it-- even the scientists can no longer differentiate. If they could, we wouldn't have been subjected to hearing about their supernatural neutrinos. They wouldn't have made public comment about their flawed experiment before eliminating all the other possibilities. "The fact that the experiment gave the same result so many times suggested that one of two things was true: either the neutrinos really were speeding past light itself and heralding a new era of physics, or there was some fundamental flaw with the experiment, which was much more likely." SO, the scientists initially go with the first option instead of the second "much more likely" option? Lex parsimoniae thrown right the hell out the window. Great work! end transmission *head to desk* This is so obviously a case of media hype that it's painful you don't see it. The scientists never claimed they thought neutrinos were faster than light, but instead they are being honest researchers and publishing their data regardless of the fact that they knew something was wrong with their experiment! (instead of just shelving it and saying oops) Your quote above is as close to "well we screwed something up" as you will find in peer review, they explicitly say it's most likely something was flawed. The headline "faster than light" sells a lot of papers - but a journalist is not a scientist... Starlight isn't being a snob, he is just pointing out that fact that you don't understand science/science reporting/media.
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Oct 29, 2011 2:31:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by pennswoods on Oct 29, 2011 4:49:24 GMT -8
that's just it-- even the scientists can no longer differentiate. If they could, we wouldn't have been subjected to hearing about their supernatural neutrinos. They wouldn't have made public comment about their flawed experiment before eliminating all the other possibilities. "The fact that the experiment gave the same result so many times suggested that one of two things was true: either the neutrinos really were speeding past light itself and heralding a new era of physics, or there was some fundamental flaw with the experiment, which was much more likely." SO, the scientists initially go with the first option instead of the second "much more likely" option? Lex parsimoniae thrown right the hell out the window. Great work! end transmission *head to desk* This is so obviously a case of media hype that it's painful you don't see it. The scientists never claimed they thought neutrinos were faster than light, but instead they are being honest researchers and publishing their data regardless of the fact that they knew something was wrong with their experiment! (instead of just shelving it and saying oops) Your quote above is as close to "well we screwed something up" as you will find in peer review, they explicitly say it's most likely something was flawed. The headline "faster than light" sells a lot of papers - but a journalist is not a scientist... Starlight isn't being a snob, he is just pointing out that fact that you don't understand science/science reporting/media. Scientists are smart people. They obviously DO understand "science/science reporting/media". Therein lies a basic reason people in general, especially those subhuman troglodytes who "are not in the sciences at all" don't care much about things such as this. In the real world, for instance in my world of precise test measurement, data collection, and decision making, if I bring my supervisors a jacked-up outcome and say "Sorry Sir, I spent all week doing these tests but there is something wrong with the data, it is most likely wrong, and it contradicts well understood principles" I would be looking for a new job due to incompetence.
|
|
|
Post by starlightcriminal on Nov 1, 2011 5:22:57 GMT -8
Then you aren't in research. If I did the same thing, I would hear "then we have some flaw in our experimental design. Let's try adjusting these conditions that are most likely the root of the problem and try several controls before we go back to the expensive stuff." So maybe in your "real world" you have to look for another job, but for many of us our job is to try to test what goes on in the "real world" so we can find a good way to diagnose what we see. Someone has to design these tests and it isn't as simple as thinking of a problem and then thinking of a solution without any testing or experimentation. Think about how many times those smart NASA scientists had to redesign before we got the first man into space. You take for granted all the work that went into all the instruments you use for "[your] world of precise test measurement, data collection, and decision making" in the first place. No one just sat down and built that stuff and then handed it to you. You are monitoring something, some of us are trying to figure out how to design ways to monitor something so that we can pass them on to your boss and he can make you use them, and possibly fire you if you don't do it correctly. If researchers were fired every time something didn't work out immediately there would be none of us left. We explore the unknowns in some area which leaves lots of room for trial and thus error, hence we are also very unlikely to make such rash claims as the media does. That's why every decent paper qualifies their results with statistics and should also report any potential problems or unexplored areas that they encounter.
I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just pointing out that there is an inherent misunderstanding in the way you perceive how research operates, a trouble which is not uncommon at all. It's important to clarify so that people know how to read and apply the information in scientific publications. It's similar to the false logical argument against evolution- "it's called the 'theory' of evolution because it's just a theory"- that word, "theory" means something entirely different in the context of scientific literature than the statement implies to a lay person. Simply, theory means something so likely to be true that we can demonstrate it lots of different ways and cannot show otherwise. If someone doesn't understand that, it's not surprising that they might try to walk around telling people evolution isn't likely true because it's only a theory, you would be 100% incorrect in your logic because the word "theory" means something else in that context so you predicate the argument on a misinterpretation of the language. You have to understand the semantics and methods involved before you can make judgments on the validity, especially if you are going to try to use this to impugn someone or some other field's integrity.
|
|