Faster-than-light neutrino result reportedly a mistake caused by loose cable

Oh, why what do we have here?



Is this the Michelson morley experimental set-up?

I don't know man... floating a slab of granite on liquid mercury doesn't seem like something that I could do at home...

But maybe you just happen to have a lot of mercury thermometers on hand... oh well...

Anyway... Oh, what's all of this transparent matter filling the test chamber that happens to have a refractive index that makes the speed of light be invariant in relation to all of it's free floating atoms?

Oh, that's right.... it's AIR....

Nice... Real Nice....



So, maybe THAT was your invariant special frame of reference, Eh?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Oh, why what do we have here?

Is this the Michelson morley experimental set-up?

I don't know man... floating a slab of granite on liquid mercury doesn't seem like something that I could do at home...

I don't know about you, but I don't live in the 1800s. I can go to the store and buy a laser pointer, mirror, and diffraction grating for like $10 each.

reply to post by Moduli

EITHER (the speed of light depends on direction) OR (it does not)

Relative to what?

lol

Michelson and Morely showed it does not, therefore IT DOES NOT.

You mean that the relative speed of the earth as compared to the rest of the universe does not change it... that hasn't proven that there is NO other reference frame, maybe closer to the experiment than the centre of the universe.... lol

This isn't rocket science.

That's right... it's Not Special Relativity Either. lol

"it does not" logically implies relativity is true.

Nope, it DOES NOT.

lol

Michelson-Morely's result implies relativity must be true.

No, the Michelson morley experiment implied that the luminiferous either was WRONG.

You are confusing your terms here....

Remember your logic now....

Not A does not automatically imply B is true... it could imply that C is true, or D, or E.

You are just getting stuck in the false paradigm of "Only Two Options!"

The only possible issue is margins of experimental error

Or that the test rig itself was acting as a frame of reference for the light... you know... or that....

This is very simple.

I agree.... I don't see what you problem is....

reply to post by Moduli

I don't know about you, but I don't live in the 1800s. I can go to the store and buy a laser pointer, mirror, and diffraction grating for like $10 each.

Here's ya something for free.... From me To You:

Typical Values for Refractive Index

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Not A does not automatically imply B is true... it could imply that C is true, or D, or E.

There's no B, C, D, or E here! Only A! There's only one statement! This is why I keep saying you don't know what the words I use mean--you don't! You don't know what any of this means! You clearly don't know what a reference frame is, you don't understand what the experiment even measured, you don't understand basic logic, you don't know how to reason, you don't know anything! This is shocking ignorance.

Though not too surprising, considering you are claiming the past century of science and hundreds of thousands of scientists are wrong. But yeah, you're clearly smarter than hundreds of thousands of the smartest people in the world.

Originally posted by Muttley2012
I could be wrong, but didn't scientists at another lab independently confirm the faster-than-light neutrino results? Am I wrong or did both facilities have a loose cable?

Most likely, coincidentally, one of their dogs chewed up the homework.

reply to post by Moduli

shocking ignorance.

You ARE starting to appear that way, aren't you?

Do you know why the speed of light is different in glass than it is in water?

Though not too surprising, considering you are claiming the past century of science and hundreds of thousands of scientists are wrong.

IT's not as many as you would think, actually....

But yeah, you're clearly smarter than hundreds of thousands of the smartest people in the world.

What effect do valance shell electrons have on electromagnetic wave propagation?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Moduli

 

Do you know why the speed of light is different in glass than it is in water?

No, I don't know that because it's not true. What is true is that the EFFECTIVE speed of light in the EFFECTIVE theory that APPROXIMATES the propagation of light in a medium has a MASSIVE particle whose speed is SLOWER than the speed of light which comes from the massless photon.

IT's not as many as you would think, actually....

I have met many of the top physicists in the world, many more above average and average ones, and tons of below average ones. Not one physics PhD I have ever met in my life has not believed in relativity. Not one. Ever.

reply to post by Moduli

No, I don't know that because it's not true. What is true is that the EFFECTIVE speed of light in the EFFECTIVE theory that APPROXIMATES the propagation of light in a medium has a MASSIVE particle whose speed is SLOWER than the speed of light which comes from the massless photon.

BY massive Particle, you of course mean the changing magnetic and electric fields of the atoms within the medium, right?

As in, the ones that the photon induces?

Not one physics PhD I have ever met in my life has not believed in relativity. Not one. Ever.

Well, we are about to change all of that, actually....

And you are still appealing to authority, actually.

Originally posted by Moduli
I have met many of the top physicists in the world, many more above average and average ones, and tons of below average ones. Not one physics PhD I have ever met in my life has not believed in relativity. Not one. Ever.

By 20 Oct 2011 there were more than 80 CERN FTL related papers on Arxiv, most with new theories to explain the FTL mechanism. And only a few suggesting experimental error.

It's amazing how quickly relativity was disregarded or sidestepped in the rush to publish.

PS Its not nice to ridicule those with alternate views to yours. You will find a lot of alternate views on this site.

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
By 20 Oct 2011 there were more than 80 CERN FTL related papers on Arxiv, most with new theories to explain the FTL mechanism. And only a few suggesting experimental error.

None of those papers written by respected, well-known, or remotely good scientists suggested that there were real relativity-violating effects. There were a lot of papers about how the effect is theoretically impossible, in lots of different ways, though, by leading theorists, as well as a lot of papers about what the experimental errors or statistical analysis errors could be. The physics community simply did not take the idea that relativity was violated seriously. I know, I live there!

PS Its not nice to ridicule those with alternate views to yours. You will find a lot of alternate views on this site.

Alternative views are fine, just not ones that contradict reality.

reply to post by redoubt


reply to post by 1ncegreat


As far as Im aware this experiment was measuring the time taken for neutrinos to get from CERN (Geneva - French Swiss Boarder) to the OPERA experiment at Gran Sasso(Italy). Correct me if Im wrong, but thats still only one experiment, even if there are two continents involved.

Originally posted by Moduli

Alternative views are fine, just not ones that contradict reality.

So only SOME alternative views are fine by you, the ones that don't contradict YOUR PERSPECTIVE OF reality.

Very interesting tolerance there...

I find this article very suspicious. They did the test more than once, shouldn't they have known there was a loose cable? You would think that when they did it a second time they would double check to make sure everything is OK.

It's hard to even trust the scientists now because even they can be forced to shut up and lie about findings... but I want to believe that they wouldn't lie about something this important this fundamental to our understanding of physics - reality.