Ass Hat
Home
News
Events
Bands
Labels
Venues
Pics
MP3s
Radio Show
Reviews
Releases
Buy$tuff
Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls
  
  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food
  
  New Thread
  New Poll
Miscellaneous
Links
E-mail
Search
End Ass Hat
login

New site? Maybe some day.
Posting Anonymously login: [Forgotten Password]
returntothepit >> discuss >> CERN - Faster than light neutrons possibly debunked by Burnsy on Feb 23,2012 1:26pm
Add To All Your Pages!
toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Feb 23,2012 1:26pm
I couldn't find the original thread although I think I remember this being discussed.

Here

"Scientists who last year found particles that appeared to break the Universe's speed limit are looking at two technical issues that could have skewed the controversial finding, CERN said on Thursday.

The European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) confirmed a report by the US journal Science on Wednesday that the team were verifying a cable connection.

"It may have caused a slight discrepancy (in the results), and they are checking to see if this is the case," CERN press officer Arnaud Marsollier told AFP by phone.

They are also verifying a timing instrument called an oscillator, he said.

"This is a complicated experiment with a multitude of cables and equipment," said Marsollier.

"The physicists have checked things out, are continuing to make checks and will check again. It (a technical flaw) is always possible, but they have been saying this from the very beginning."

The fuss began in September when scientists from a team known as OPERA cautiously announced that sub-atomic particles called neutrinos had been found to travel some six kilometres (3.75 miles) per second faster than the velocity of light.

The neutrinos were timed at their departure from CERN's giant underground lab near Geneva and again, after travelling 732 kms (454 miles) through Earth's crust, at their arrival at the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy.

To do the trip, the neutrinos should have taken 0.0024 seconds. Instead, the particles hit the detectors in Italy 0.00000006 seconds sooner than expected.

The findings sparked widespread scepticism because they attacked Einstein's theory of relativity, which says the maximum velocity in the Universe is the speed of light.

The report on the Science Insider website of the prestigious US journal said the "60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer.

"After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fibre, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed," it added.

"Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos. New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis."

The oscillator, also being verified by the OPERA team, is designed to synchronise the timing of each neutrino at their points of departure and landing.

Marsollier said the OPERA team are scheduled to report back in May, and there were no immediate plans to bring forward any announcement in the light of the checks.

The OPERA team went over their results again and again for six months before going public with their announcement, where they sounded a loud word of caution.

"Their findings were a shock to them, which is why they have asked others to replicate the experiment and to carry out the same measurements," Marsollier noted."



toggletoggle post by arktouros at Feb 23,2012 1:36pm
yeah, last i read those neutron tests weren't accurate. OLD NEUS



toggletoggle post by MATH at Feb 23,2012 1:38pm
Burnsy said[orig][quote]


To do the trip, the neutrinos should have taken 0.0024 seconds. Instead, the particles hit the detectors in Italy 0.00000006 seconds sooner than expected.




This makes no sense. Uf the neutrinos travel time can only be expressed in tenthousandths then the 6 hundredmillionth discrepency is meaningless. The article is incorect. MATH will now kill those responsible for this atrocity of mathematical grammar



toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Feb 23,2012 1:39pm
Fucking sigfigs.



toggletoggle post by MATH at Feb 23,2012 1:40pm
SERIOUSLY



toggletoggle post by arktouros at Feb 23,2012 1:41pm
0.00240000 > 0.00000006
i'm not sure what you're talking about?



toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Feb 23,2012 1:42pm
I had read that the results came under extreme scrutiny, even from the team that conducted the experiment but I hadn't read anything definitive. Not that this qualifies as definitive haha.



toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Feb 23,2012 1:43pm
He/she is talking about this I believe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures



toggletoggle post by MATH at Feb 23,2012 1:43pm
IS IT REALLY LIKELY THAT 0.0024 = 0.00240000? Doubtful... 0.0024xxxx +/- 0.00000006 would be acceptable. 0.0024 +/- 0.00000006 is meaningless.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Feb 23,2012 2:27pm
Weren't you supposed to be in the test chamber half an hour ago?



toggletoggle post by the_reverend   at Feb 23,2012 2:34pm
"The time portal follows Terminator rules as opposed to Back to the Future rules, or Timerider, but that was just silly"



toggletoggle post by narkybark   at Feb 23,2012 2:36pm
Sorry guys, no good, a sandwich bag with bread crumbs fell into the Neutrino Matrix



toggletoggle post by arktouros at Feb 23,2012 3:10pm
MATH said[orig][quote]
IS IT REALLY LIKELY THAT 0.0024 = 0.00240000?


YES, BECAUSE IN FACT, IT DOES



toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Feb 23,2012 3:15pm
I think their point is that if the neutrons arrive 0.00000006 second earlier, then it has to be .00240000 to mean anything. You could have 0.00241111 which is still 0.0024.



toggletoggle post by narkybark   at Feb 23,2012 3:16pm



toggletoggle post by Mark_R at Feb 23,2012 3:24pm
Burnsy said[orig][quote]
I think their point is that if the neutrons arrive 0.00000006 second earlier, then it has to be .00240000 to mean anything. You could have 0.00241111 which is still 0.0024.


Agreed. I also wonder if this is just a copyedit thing wherein zeroes after 0.0024 were removed from the text because an editor didn't think/realize they were meaningful.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Feb 23,2012 3:24pm
WHO CARES ABOUT CONSTANT SPEEDS WHEN WE HAVE WORM HOLES AND DIMENSIONAL RIFTS YOU FUCKING THINKHARDS



toggletoggle post by arktouros at Feb 23,2012 3:25pm
Burnsy said[orig][quote]
I think their point is that if the neutrons arrive 0.00000006 second earlier, then it has to be .00240000 to mean anything. You could have 0.00241111 which is still 0.0024.


nahhhh, 0.00240000 == 0.0024. the trailing zeros are insignificant digits that are assumed to be there if you need to work with a larger string. 0.00241111 is a larger number than 0.0024 and therefore not equal.

"it has to be .00240000 to mean anything" doesn't make sense. the fact that they arrived .00000006 seconds earlier means that it took .00239994 seconds for the neutrinos (not neutrons) to arrive instead of .00240000 (or .0024) seconds.



toggletoggle post by arktouros at Feb 23,2012 3:26pm
Mark_R said[orig][quote]
Agreed. I also wonder if this is just a copyedit thing wherein zeroes after 0.0024 were removed from the text because an editor didn't think/realize they were meaningful.


no, no, no. let me be the math nazi here.



toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Feb 23,2012 3:31pm
I think it is an unjust assumption to say that .0024 = .00240000 How do we know that their anticipation was exactly .00240000? It could have been, say, .00239994 which, when rounded appears as .0024.



toggletoggle post by arktouros at Feb 23,2012 3:31pm
the zeros after .0024000 are the same as saying 00001 when working with whole numbers. go ahead and prove me wrong, i can sit here and argue about math all day long, my prick is getting harder.



toggletoggle post by arktouros at Feb 23,2012 3:34pm
burnsy, it's not an assumption, that's just a fact, .0024 is exactly the same number as .00240000 or .00240000000000000000000. you linked to the wiki article about significant figures that confirms it.

also they would not round numbers like that when working with exact measurements.



toggletoggle post by arktouros at Feb 23,2012 3:35pm
"
To do the trip, the neutrinos should have taken 0.0024 seconds. Instead, the particles hit the detectors in Italy 0.00000006 seconds sooner than expected."
it's a perfectly sound mathematical statement.



toggletoggle post by Yeti at Feb 23,2012 3:36pm
yeah when trying to measure something that could potentially be the biggest scientific breakthrough imaginable, rounding is out.



toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Feb 23,2012 3:36pm edited Feb 23,2012 3:37pm
Haha, I'm aware that my management/accounting degree does not stand up to your math degree (you did study math, yes?). I'm also aware that saying .0024000 is superfluous. I just think that their anticipated neutron arrival time was not exactly .0024. If their measurements are capturing out to the 8th decimal, shouldn't their anticipated arrival time be expressed with the same number of decimal places?



toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Feb 23,2012 3:38pm edited Feb 23,2012 3:38pm
arktouros said[orig][quote]
"To do the trip"

Pretty shitty English though, lol.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Feb 23,2012 3:39pm
When measuring compelling and important numbers like this, they would NEVER round.
I was off a calculation at work by .0001% a few weeks ago and that could have resulted in a few thousand dollars. Luckily I realized that dimensional rifts exist and got lost in rttp's warp thread.



toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Feb 23,2012 3:46pm
My job is the opposite aril. Almost all figures in our workpapers and writeups are expressed in thousands. We don't pay attention to decimals unless it has to do with foreign exchange rates.



toggletoggle post by arktouros at Feb 23,2012 3:47pm
Burnsy said[orig][quote]
Haha, I'm aware that my management/accounting degree does not stand up to your math degree (you did study math, yes?). I'm also aware that saying .0024000 is superfluous. I just think that their anticipated neutron arrival time was not exactly .0024. If their measurements are capturing out to the 8th decimal, shouldn't their anticipated arrival time be expressed with the same number of decimal places?


i do have a BS in math which was exactly 4 years of this BS.

for their arrival time, it could very well have been 0.0024 seconds, based on the distance and the existing formulas for neutrinos, which is way out of my scope because i'm no physicist. but you never need to worry about expressing numbers with the same amount of decimal places, the work involved in calculations using decimals doesn't ever call for having a strict number of places.

0.0024 - 0.000000006 = 0.0023999400000000000000000000



toggletoggle post by Alx_Casket  at Feb 23,2012 3:48pm edited Feb 23,2012 3:48pm
Burnsy said[orig][quote]
My job is the opposite aril. Almost all figures in our workpapers and writeups are expressed in thousands.





toggletoggle post by arktouros at Feb 23,2012 3:50pm
it does seem strange that they expected a number with only 4 decimal places, and not some extreme precise number like 0.00239994000000000000000000001 (which is just an inconceivable amount larger than 0.00239994)



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Feb 23,2012 3:50pm
ITT: College library table discussions



toggletoggle post by arktouros at Feb 23,2012 3:52pm
i miss these discussions. complaining to vendors that their software doesn't work while telling people to restart their computer and setting up virtual servers is just not the same.



toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Feb 23,2012 3:55pm
Ah. Understood. Good discussion.

A big LOL @ alx_catskit



toggletoggle post by boblovesmusic   at Feb 23,2012 3:58pm



Enter a Quick Response (advanced response>>)
Username: (enter in a fake name if you want, login, or new user)SPAM Filter: re-type this (values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
Message:  b i u  add: url  image  video(?)show icons
remember:type...click...think...edit...
[default homepage] [print][2:34:50pm Apr 29,2024
load time 0.03301 secs/12 queries]
[search][refresh page]