Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

[Vondy]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

I'd be curious to see a list of people who think (I don't want to say "believe") that human-caused global warming is happening, and a list of those who think that while there is global warming, humans are not (the primary) cause. And if needed, a third category of people who think there is no warming.

 

Oh, and alongside their names, I'd also like to see their credentials.

 

 

I'll weigh in.

 

It seems to me that 1) there is climate change going on, 2) there is insufficient data to know exactly what human impact really is, and 3) irrespective of human impact we should make reasonable efforts to create a cleaner and more conscientious mode of living.

 

My credentials for conclusions 1 and 2: none.

[Ravor]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

I doubt very many people could disagree with you on that Vondy.

 

Of course, now comes the hard part, define reasonable.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Um, I don't think so. Don't think reference frame can be multiple choice like that.

 

Reference frames explicitly ARE multiple choice, and the correct answer is "all of the above". That's one of the things that makes Relativity kind of hard to wrap one's head around: any frame of reference is correct. All frames of reference are correct. Of course, the laws of physics must hold up correctly in all frames of reference.

 

However, I think that article missed a point: in the reference frame of the GPS satellite, the neutrinos had a shorter distance to travel on the moving earth . . . but the clock on the moving earth was ticking slower as well. Hmm . . . I guess that's not really the big question. I should be asking, "did the two events (generation and detection) have a timelike or spacelike separation?" IF I understand Relativity correctly, and that's a big "if", events with a timelike separation (i.e. light could get from event A to event B before B happens) have a timelike separation in ALL frames of reference. If the generation and detection of neutrinos have a timelike, or slower than light, separation in the GPS satellite reference frame, there shouldn't be ANY reference frame in which they appear to have a spacelike (FTL) separation . . . I think.

 

Would anyone with a better grasp of Relativistic physics care to correct me on this?

[McCoy]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Reference frames explicitly ARE multiple choice' date=' and the correct answer is "all of the above". That's one of the things that makes Relativity kind of hard to wrap one's head around: any frame of reference is correct. All frames of reference are correct. Of course, the laws of physics must hold up correctly in all frames of reference.[/quote']

Which is why you can't cherry pick to find one where the data works out. [T]he laws of physics must hold up correctly in all [inertial] frames of reference.

[McCoy]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

It seems that we've been misunderstanding each other' date=' you are talking about whether or not setting off nukes can affect global temps in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do (Something which I don't think anyone can reasonably despute.), I'm talking about the hype which claimed mankind was spewing enough junk into the air simply by living our First World lifestyles that we were going to end life as we know it and usher in a new ice age.[/quote']

"Human activity" is "Human activity," be it a single H-Bomb or ten thousand jet contrails a day. Human caused global dimming was pretty conclusively proven by the grunding of US commercial aircraft post 911. We have done that experiment.

 

But rather than ushering in a new ice age, (and btw could I please get a cite that anyone seriously thought it would? Thank you!) it is slightly slowing the speed at which we are warming the planet.

[Old Man]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

They have Neutrino detectors and a particle accelerator' date=' but they us GPS satelites as their stopwatch? *facepalm*[/quote']

 

Measuring particle speeds was not the original purpose of the experiment.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Which is why you can't cherry pick to find one where the data works out. [T]he laws of physics must hold up correctly in all [inertial] frames of reference.

 

Ah, it seems that we are in agreement, and I just misunderstood you. Sorry about that!

[Christopher]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Measuring particle speeds was not the original purpose of the experiment.

And what about all the others that aimed verify that effect? (15.000 as far as the article says)

And why didn't they considerered that their clock was going wrong directly? When having wierd measurement of time, I first double check if my clock is going right.

 

They used a single, far away (around 20,000 km), fast moving object (relative to the ground; orbital period around 12 hours) as time giver. One that had so much problems with timing the transmission, that adding an additional singal only for timing error correction was one of the mayor improovements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_modernization#Civilian_L2_.28L2C.29 (you cannot transmit digitally unless both ends timings are close enough).

And then this signal needs to be processed on both ends in exactly the same way (or you get delay from the circuits/processing too).

 

When I am not mistaken, alone the speed of light/radiowavs causes some discrepancy:

When light move 300,000 km/s then it makes 300 km/milisecond or 0.3 km/nanoscond.

So in the 60 nano-seconds delay the radio signal only makes around 180 km.

Radiowaves need 66,667 Nanoseconds (around a thousand times the delay) just to make the 20,000 km to earth surface.

[Cancer]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Failure to account for relativistic effects on the clocks used in the experiment? http://nbcu.mo2do.net/s/18488/29?itemId=tag:dvice.com' date='2011://3.83661&fullPageURL=/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php[/quote']

 

Actually, I wondered about that sort of thing right at the outset. I am not a relativist (and picking up enough general relativity to figure out how to compute it is ... well, you try it and us know how well it goes), so I didn't know how to compute the magnitude of the clock difference. I knew that using GPS as your clock means you had damnwell better include the GR terms right, but I didn't know how to include them right. Happily, I am not a co-author on the manuscript, either.

[Cancer]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Which is why you can't cherry pick to find one where the data works out. [T]he laws of physics must hold up correctly in all [inertial] frames of reference.

 

And therein lies the precise problem. Strictly speaking, neither the GPS satellites nor the rotating Earth are inertial frames: both are accelerating due to revolution/rotation and are at different points within a gravitational field. And the two elements of the experiment, CERN and Gran Sasso, are at different altitudes within Earth's gravitational well, and therefore they also are in slightly different frames. So if you use GPS as your clock, you have to reduce all three clocks to a single frame before you can do the comparison. And (I can't tell from the article published) either they didn't do that or they didn't do it right.

 

FWIW, two points.

 

1. IMO (assuming this is actually what has happened) this is an embarrassing mix-up but a positive thing for physics. Lots of people got interested, due to a splinter result off an experiment intended to do other things. It didn't pan out, but that not panning out is a victory for the process.

 

2. Radio astronomers have been dealing with this sort of effects for decades. When you gang radio telescopes scattered across the Earth together to achieve sub-arc-second resolution at the Galactic center (for example), you have to sync up the recorded radio wave crests at each telescope (up to about 10,000 km apart) to see the phase differences in the wave crests as seen at those places, and those wave crests are arriving at a frequency of about 1 GHz. You can sync those up. I think it has always been done by syncing atomic clocks together and shipping the clocks out with the recording systems for the data taken. That takes care of the GR issue at an adequate level.

[Ravor]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

"Human activity" is "Human activity' date='" be it a single H-Bomb or ten thousand jet contrails a day. Human caused global dimming was pretty conclusively proven by the grunding of US commercial aircraft post 911. We have done that experiment.[/quote']

 

Uh-huh, and if I spit into a milk jug I've just raised the fluid level as well, everything is about scale. As for the latter bit, meh, can't really say that I'm very impressed with a short term temp spike during a season where they are common enough to have been given a name. The weather system is far more complex then you seem to be giving it credit for.

 

However with that said, assuming for a moment that man caused globabl dimming really does have that drastic of an effect on the climate then it seems to me that the warmists are barking up the wrong tree.

 

*EDIT*

 

Once again, the irony abounds considering that a little "global warming" would be welcome today considering that it's cool enough that I'm simply keeping the calve milk in my garage instead of taking up refigerator space.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Uh-huh' date=' and if I spit into a milk jug I've just raised the fluid level as well, [b']everything[/b] is about scale. As for the latter bit, meh, can't really say that I'm very impressed with a short term temp spike during a season where they are common enough to have been given a name. The weather system is far more complex then you seem to be giving it credit for.

 

However with that said, assuming for a moment that man caused globabl dimming really does have that drastic of an effect on the climate then it seems to me that the warmists are barking up the wrong tree.

 

*EDIT*

 

Once again, the irony abounds considering that a little "global warming" would be welcome today considering that it's cool enough that I'm simply keeping the calve milk in my garage instead of taking up refigerator space.

 

I repeat. You're wrong. And we'd explain that you're wrong if this were the thread for another global warming discussion. Go start one, or revive one and leave this thread for the faster-than-light neutrinos. Please.

[McCoy]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

I repeat. You're wrong. And we'd explain that you're wrong if this were the thread for another global warming discussion. Go start one' date=' or revive one and leave this thread for the faster-than-light neutrinos. Please.[/quote']

Or as you seem to be the only one objecting to this thread drift, you could start the new thread and we'll follow.

[Christopher]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Once again' date=' the irony abounds considering that a little "global warming" would be welcome today considering that it's cool enough that I'm simply keeping the calve milk in my garage instead of taking up refigerator space.[/quote']

[iRONY]The temperatures in the 2 km² of space you live and work on, are surely the perfect observation point to calculate and extrapolate the weather and climate changes on the entire 510,072,000 km² Planet.[/iRONY]

 

I can tell you that my part of the world is getting warmer lately (comparign it to the times since 1990) with a lot of extremly warm summers and mild winters, but that won't really help you understand it.

Only taking that little bit of world outside your window into account, is a mistake you cannot make when you try to understand global climate change, global warming or global dimming.

Just because the Average Temperature increases doesn't means it can't allso fall in local areas. The world doesn't ends on your horizion and a around 7 billion people are affected by it.

[Ravor]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Hey now, no need to get insulting, a square mile or two is all you're willing to credit me?

 

 

Seriously though, let's wave a magic wand and pretend for a few moments that you are right (What can I say, tis a really good magic wand.). Now what? I guess we have to roll up our sleeves and look at what really needs to be done to resolve the issue. Exactly how much does the world need to cut our emissions by? What enforcement measurements are needed to ensure that both the First World and the Third World abide by the cuts for the good of all? Don't forget the penalities for countries and people who "cheat".

 

Now, once you've been able to figure that out, why don't you explain to the audience what the necessary anti-global warming programs will mean for the average First Worlder, then contrast to the developing nations.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Or as you seem to be the only one objecting to this thread drift' date=' you could start the new thread and we'll follow.[/quote']

 

Or better yet, why not get a mod to change this thread title to "Global Warming Argument Part Deux" so people expecting to find a conversation about neutrinos don't wander into an unwanted political debate.

[John T]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Science: FTL Global Neutrino Warming Moving At FTW Speeds!!!

[John T]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Leave this thread for the faster-than-light neutrinos. Please.

Mostly a dead discussion til further testing is done, beyond re-debating the implications ad nauseum.

[McCoy]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Failure to account for relativistic effects on the clocks used in the experiment? http://nbcu.mo2do.net/s/18488/29?itemId=tag:dvice.com' date='2011://3.83661&fullPageURL=/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php[/quote']

 

And therein lies the precise problem. Strictly speaking' date=' neither the GPS satellites nor the rotating Earth are inertial frames: both are accelerating due to revolution/rotation and are at different points within a gravitational field. And the two elements of the experiment, CERN and Gran Sasso, are at different altitudes within Earth's gravitational well, and therefore they also are in slightly different frames. So if you use GPS as your clock, you have to reduce all three clocks to a single frame before you can do the comparison. [b']And (I can't tell from the article published) either they didn't do that or they didn't do it right.[/b][emphasis added]

Assuming this is actually what has happened. Hard to get the details from a popularization, but AFAICT the University of Groningen team is speculating so far. They may have found the answer, but I'll wait for peer review before saying Case Closed. Either way, more experiments needed.

 

Somehow earlier I had missed this was a neutrino beam and was assuming the neutrinos were spreading out in a sphere (or hypersphere?) from where they were generated. I see the difficulty in placing more detectors at

different distances (and now different directions).

 

1. IMO (assuming this is actually what has happened) this is an embarrassing mix-up but a positive thing for physics. Lots of people got interested' date=' due to a splinter result off an experiment intended to do other things. It didn't pan out, but that not panning out is a victory for the process.[/quote']

[Cancer]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

I like what xkcd has to say about the FTL neutrinos.

[McCoy]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Hey now, no need to get insulting, a square mile or two is all you're willing to credit me?

 

 

Seriously though, let's wave a magic wand and pretend for a few moments that you are right (What can I say, tis a really good magic wand.). Now what? I guess we have to roll up our sleeves and look at what really needs to be done to resolve the issue.

Step One: Stop breeding like rabbits in Australia.

 

Pretty much it. Lots of things we can do to mitigate the problems faster, but that one alone will take care of the problem in time. Without that one, anything we do is rearranging deck chairs on the Titianic.

 

Now' date=' once you've been able to figure that out, why don't you explain to the audience what the necessary anti-global warming programs will mean for the average First Worlder, then contrast to the developing nations.[/quote']

Here's the good news! The US already has. Our population is increasing currently due to immigration. PRC has capped their population too (I can admire the results if not the method.) Believe the same goes for most of Europe, can someone please check the figures for me?

 

Now it's a case of getting India and the rest of the third world to follow suite, preferably without the four horsemen riding.

 

Now let's say we're right and do nothing. What's the impact on the average first worlder of one billion dead or refugee?

[SteveZilla]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

o.0 Dead/refugee from what?

[Ravor]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Uh-huh, any other population reduction measures in history that you care to mention as "admiring the results of"? I mean seriously, stop and think about what you are actually saying.

 

*slaps forehead* Aww, I almost forgot, by your very own words, the First World has already taken the only truly acceptable step in solving our problems by dying faster then our birthrate can support. (And yeah, it's my understanding that you are correct about Europe's numbers as well and if I remember correctly they started before we did.) So, I'll ask again, what enforcement measures would be needed to ensure that both the First World and the Third stick to your final solution for Global Warming? And what penalities should there be for countries and people who didn't stop "breeding like rabbits in Australia"?

 

 

SteveZilla, McCoy is referring to the predictions of mass death and waves of refugees from the areas hardest hit by Global Warming, if my brain isn't jello at the moment I seem to recall that the prediction a few years back was that we'd have around one hundred million "enviromental refugees" by 2010.

 

 

*EDIT*

 

 

Hmm, almost forgot to address McCoy's question, out of your "billion" how many are dead versus displaced and what countries do the majority of refugees stem from in your scenerio?

[The Dude]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Uh-huh, any other population reduction measures in history that you care to mention as "admiring the results of"? I mean seriously, stop and think about what you are actually saying.

 

*slaps forehead* Aww, I almost forgot, by your very own words, the First World has already taken the only truly acceptable step in solving our problems by dying faster then our birthrate can support. (And yeah, it's my understanding that you are correct about Europe's numbers as well and if I remember correctly they started before we did.) So, I'll ask again, what enforcement measures would be needed to ensure that both the First World and the Third stick to your final solution for Global Warming? And what penalities should there be for countries and people who didn't stop "breeding like rabbits in Australia"?

 

 

SteveZilla, McCoy is referring to the predictions of mass death and waves of refugees from the areas hardest hit by Global Warming, if my brain isn't jello at the moment I seem to recall that the prediction a few years back was that we'd have around one hundred million "enviromental refugees" by 2010.

 

Um.. I don't think this is the thread you are looking for.

[John T]

Re: Science: Particles seen moving at FTL speeds (CERN)

 

Um.. I don't think this is the thread you are looking for.

It hasn't been for some time.