First, Einstein was right. Then he was wrong. Then he was right due to a loose wire. Now he may have been wrong due to an oscillator. Many of us would just throw up our hands and say everything is relative with Einstein, but scientists at OPERA say that a second equipment problem may have led to a too conservative reading of the 730-kilometer journey of the neutrinos reported by the European Organization for Nuclear Research or CERN.
The oscillator is used to provide time stamps to synchronize the GPS systems which measure the travel time. The scientists believe that the oscillator problem may have canceled out the cable problem . . . and that the little neutrinos did move faster than the speed of light — beyond the cosmic speed barrier of 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second). That would contradict Einstein’s theory. So I guess we have to treat Einstein like a big dummy again . . . absent another loose cable or spilled coffee cup.
I am just waiting for a finding that neutrinos are sentient with a wicked sense of humor . . . and hovering around 299,791 kilometers per second just to mess with us.
Source: CBC
Tony,
You’re not a believer in Aristoteles either perhaps. You don’t believe that things fall because they are seeking their natural “home”.
Some still praise him here. I don’t know him that well. Just knowing that he reviled or ignored (interpretation) gathering empirical evidence severed my connection with him.
His legacy was in some part like that of the persistence of the Athenian based philosophy academies. They came to an end ideawise long before Constantine’s mother had them murdered and the temples torned down.
Your thoughts?
I707~”The equivalency being between…….well no need repeating what you already know. Right?”
——————————
I did not know. Splain!???
Tony,
Did you really believe that I believed in teleology????
Was just making a good story for those who do believe in it. Poor souls. Most even do at times ask ourselves, what’s the purpose of it all. And some believe there is an answer. Not all are well-founded in science as you and I are. But never mind
And even scientists, pushing the sciences limits, can speculate a bit too.
Even the serious ones, or perhaps especially the most serious ones
They’re the creationist about the final gap, like what lies outside of the universe, Or what happened before the big bang, or maybe a return to the philosophical point of “prime cause”.
Some say, that in fact, “science” itself is based on faith. Or at least presumptions that up to now seem born out. Or the faith in science being an ultimate answer. That is indeed faith. Doing science requires a form of teleology. Feeling that science is a purposeful activity. .
But ultimately, the answer comes back, “The facts, only the provable facts!”
As for 1987a, it only confirmed, assuming Einstein was correct, that other distance estimation techniques seemed also buttressed by the data.
Your presentation of the current supernova model type 1B is correctly given.
Thanks for the chat.
@idealist707: What astrophysicists are wondering why neutrinos exist?
I know an astrophysicist who does not wonder any such thing, because like me he ascribes no purpose to neutrinos, or supernovas, or particles in general. Things do not exist for a purpose, they have no job to get done. They just exist and react. Even our sun does not exist for a purpose, it is a simple nuclear reaction in progress.
Purpose is something ascribed by brains. I have heard biologists wonder why certain cryptic structures evolved, and sociologists wonder how certain cultural practices evolved, but I have never heard a physicist of any stripe wonder what the “purpose” of a particle is or what “use” is a supernova. A supernova is akin to a chemical reaction, it just happens. It would be like asking what “use” is a parabolic trajectory of a thrown object: It has no inherent “use,” it is the result of nature balancing forces. If we model the forces mathematically, we see that balance as a predictable parabola.
If a human decides to put that predictability to use, say to improve accuracy, it is the human that has ascribed use, not the universe.
However, it does turn out humans can use supernovae: Because supernova are predictable physical reactions, we can use the supernova 1987a to time the speed of neutrinos. As it turns out, 24 neutrinos that were produced by 1987a, from the core collapse, arrived three hours ahead of the photons from that same collapse. That is because the neutrinos produced in the core were able to pass through the millions of miles of matter to the surface of the star, while the sub-light-speed shock wave would not arrive at the surface until about three hours later, which is when the photons from the collapse would escape into open space. That is in agreement with the mathematical stellar models of a core-collapse supernova.
That is actually the best evidence so far of neutrinos traveling at the speed of light; the distance of 1987a was 168,000 light years; and the discrepancy in arrival time between neutrinos and photons was an explainable three hours.
So there is a human use for supernovas, they give us good reason to suspect that the OPERA experiment(s) are flawed. And if they are not flawed, then supernovas give us a contradiction and new puzzle to resolve that might lead to a better theory of physics.
Woosty,
How tired of those jokes, Einstein became. It was his second biggest mistake I believe. He said in fact, that he had first thought to call it his Equivalence Theory, and regretted his final choice, as it was so often misinterpreted. The equivalency being between…….well no need repeating what you already know. Right?
AY,
Just be glad he takes some of them to other sites.
Or maybe his absence is explained by his institution just limiting his net access to a few hours.
Small favors are often hugely appreciated. How greatly must this eunice be acknowledged.
Elaine.
—“Think what would have happened to the US space program if scientists and engineers in this country gave up after the first couple of rocket failures.”
We might, just might, have cast our energies on our home, Earth. And pioneered that theme. Leaving the Russians to produce a moon base.
But someone thought, now that we have all these ICBMs, can we make some plowshares out of them, and imitate Flash Gordon. Think of all the good movies. And so it went. A road not taken, as Robert Frost said.
You probably can recite the whole poem by heart.
Bdaman,
Trying to hijack this thread, I see.
Geezer Elaine….he does what he does best… I think some could and would say multiple personalities all in the same day…. You’re a teach right..
“Many of us would just throw up our hands and say everything is relative with Einstein…”
——————————–
hahahahahaha!
Raff you can say that again. It wont be loong and the FACTS will prove the 97% of climate scientist who agree that they are wrong. Here’s another, scientist now believe the Himalaya’s will melt by 2350 and not 2035 as I
nitially reported by the IPCC.
rafflaw,
If all people felt as Bdaman does, there would never be any scientific progress. Scientists theorize–and then test their theories. Scientists create experiments to tests their hypotheses. Not all tests/experiments are successful. Still, scientists learn from the failures. Think what would have happened to the US space program if scientists and engineers in this country gave up after the first couple of rocket failures.
What is was, what was is and now what was isn’t but is…..
Raff,
Some folk are only right in their mind….then again… That may be wrong….
As for the “wickedness” of neutrinos, astrophysicists are still wondering why they exist.
When a good-sized supernova occurs, the energy produced is equal to that of all the other stars in the universe at that instant.
And using the what-use-is that criteria, one wonders why——since the neurinos carry 99 percent of that energy away at the speed of light, and to large degree effect nothing
It I told you how many, just from the sun, are going through your body right now. your mind would not even boggle. Why, because we humans don’t comprehend such quantities. We say drops in the ocean. Doesn’t come close. It’s very many more.
And if you were 100 lightyears-thick of solid lead, which you are not, then maybe one or two might stop and say hey to you.
So so much power and so little effect. They must be wicked for teasing.
And the rest of the universe agrees with us.
This is why science requires peer review and repeatability. It is entirely possible for honest researchers to make mistakes, have faulty equipment or misread results. They have their work checked by other scientists and retest their hypothesis. If there are discrepancies the work gets further review and explanations are found. If the original results are reproducible or predictable they become scientific knowledge if not they are discarded.
Thats why a bunch of researchers in one lab saying something is always taken as a maybe. Same with 8 clowns (6 of whom have no educational or work background in climate science) who write a pack of lies for the WSJ do not get immediate acceptance of their claims while 97% of the actual scientists, with the actual education, experience and no ties to the oil & gas industry, agree that they have examined the results and taken their own measurements which conclude the oceans are getting warmer & it is tied to mans activity.
Bdaman,
At least these scientists admit when they are wrong!
JT,
That guess (?) as to sentiency is much shared in quantum theory circles; even R. Feynman said it.
As for the tests, they themselve said it would take at least 6 months to be “reasonaby sure”, which for scientists is only a second.
But as some people misinterpreted Einstein, “all is relative”.some thought.
Actually, he tried to re-brand it as “all is equivalent”.
Nice to follow physics here. Just shows that realities are well-represented here, as I suspected.
Scientist now believe the Artic will be ice free by this summer and not 2008 as originally reported even though they are experts and 97% of them agree.
If they treat major issues as frivolously as this it will inspire deniers to be more skeptical.
Not very professional.
I have two good friends who are theoretical physicists. One of hem is also married to a theoretical physicist. All three said the original report did not pass the smell test. I had been waiting for the other shoe to drop.
97% of climate scientist agree that they are right to try and correct what they percieve is a wrong by justifing in their mind it’s for the greater good.