TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

CERN Measures Neutrinos Travelling Faster Than Light

Go To

CaissasDeathAngel House Lewis: Sanity is Relative from Dumfries, SW Scotland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
#51: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:01:25 PM

Agreed Occono, it's just "meh, they're probably wrong, end of debate". Which is not a valid statement.

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
Toodle Since: Dec, 1969
#52: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:15:23 PM

Eh, it's almost undoubtedly wrong.

This is more of a "Wow, we must have fucked up big time, and we can't even figure out why, let's get as many people in here to make sure there's not some larger anomaly," than it is "Wow, we beat the speed of light, everyone come see."

CaissasDeathAngel House Lewis: Sanity is Relative from Dumfries, SW Scotland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
#53: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:23:14 PM

[up] That's what they're saying, but the evidence is rather in favour that they accidentally got it right, so far. This is one of the biggest recent discoveries in history if it turns out to be true.

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
TheEarthSheep Christmas Sheep from a Pasture hexagon Since: Sep, 2010
Christmas Sheep
#54: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:26:25 PM

[up] This. It would be bloody incredible. We call this kind of thing a 'paradigm shift'. If this is true, everything is different than we thought it was.

Isn't that incredible? The universe is just so amazing. If there is a God, he is an incredible artist.

Still Sheepin'
Zersk o-o from Columbia District, BNA Since: May, 2010
o-o
#55: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:30:22 PM

Oh god, I hope this is true! :3

ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᓈᒻᒪᔪᐃᑦᑐᖅ
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#56: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:32:08 PM

Does this mean ultimate in regards to Faster-Than-Light Travel that Science Will March On?

It seems that way. If this can be repeatedly observed and possibly deduced why, we can begin experimenting how to replicate the effect. Then there will be no such thing as impossible in regards to space travel!

The Imperium of Man's rise just began with this discovery and it didn't take a God-Emperor to do it.

Toodle Since: Dec, 1969
#57: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:32:33 PM

@Caissas

Like you said, they were apparently trying really hard to figure what the hell was up with these numbers for years, before announcing them like this.

But there are still plenty of conceivable ways that there are really, really weird anomalous screw-ups with the instruments, the people behind them, etc.

Versus the thousands of experiments humanity has run that have some very precise things to say about what the speed of light is, and how it relates to everything else in the universe.

Yeah, the possibility's bigger than it usually is, but even from the most basic empirical standpoint, "something's moving faster than the speed of light," isn't a safe bet even worth considering yet. Maybe if we kept getting the result for a much longer time, or similar results started popping up elsewhere, even under similar levels of scrutiny that bet would become a little safer. In the strictest empirical sense, mind you.

I think the quote from the BBC article sums it up:

"My dream would be that another, independent experiment finds the same thing - then I would be relieved," Dr Ereditato said.

But for now, he explained, "we are not claiming things, we want just to be helped by the community in understanding our crazy result - because it is crazy".

edited 22nd Sep '11 4:34:27 PM by Toodle

TheEarthSheep Christmas Sheep from a Pasture hexagon Since: Sep, 2010
Christmas Sheep
#58: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:34:59 PM

[up] We all understand that there is nothing sure about any of this. We're talking about how absolutely bloody brilliant it would be if it's true.

Still Sheepin'
Toodle Since: Dec, 1969
#59: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:38:12 PM

Well, in the once again most strictly definitive sense, that would actually not be very brilliant at all.

Because that would mean that physics, and the people working on it for the past century or so have been very, very wrong.

Which at the very least means those physicists were not as brilliant as we thought they were.

edited 22nd Sep '11 4:40:07 PM by Toodle

SomeSortOfTroper Since: Jan, 2001
#60: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:39:13 PM

Well, the number is accurate to six sigma- 99.99966% they say so either there's some systematic error in the machines or some special physical effect they forgot to account for ("It turns out that the Earth's gravity causes it to curve slightly more on Tuesdays.")

GreatLich Since: Jun, 2009
#61: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:39:23 PM

[up][up] Not wrong. Inaccurate.

edited 22nd Sep '11 4:39:36 PM by GreatLich

AllanAssiduity Since: Dec, 1969
#62: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:39:43 PM

Better to make mistakes and be proven wrong, then to have keep making mistakes.

It is in folly that we gain wisdom.

abstractematics Since: May, 2011
#63: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:40:25 PM

[up][up]Actually, the existence of a pure FTL result is a major find, so yes, they would be wrong.

edited 22nd Sep '11 4:40:40 PM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.
TheEarthSheep Christmas Sheep from a Pasture hexagon Since: Sep, 2010
Christmas Sheep
#64: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:40:31 PM

Toodle: So what? Newton was very, very wrong too! This is how science works! We're all just inching closer and closer to the truth! It's a very cool thing!

edited 22nd Sep '11 4:41:00 PM by TheEarthSheep

Still Sheepin'
Zersk o-o from Columbia District, BNA Since: May, 2010
o-o
#65: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:43:28 PM

Toodle: But science is sometimes about reworking everything to better understand the universe! :3

A while ago, people thought that space was filled with Aether. :3 That being wrong doesn't mean the scientists who thought that weren't smart, though. :3

ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᓈᒻᒪᔪᐃᑦᑐᖅ
SavageHeathen Pro-Freedom Fanatic from Somewhere Since: Feb, 2011
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
#66: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:47:19 PM

Yay FTL!

There had to be some way: It'd suck to have such a big and awesome universe and not be able to explore it.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#67: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:52:41 PM

The problem is that if this result is true, then it will throw out so much physics that it's not even clear that "the speed of light" is a meaningful concept anymore.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
Yej (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#69: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:53:17 PM

^ I think this result might have just disproved causality if replicable.

Toodle Since: Dec, 1969
#70: Sep 22nd 2011 at 4:57:13 PM

Well, yes, it's actually very cool how adaptive science is.

But even science has to build off of derivative premises.

I'm mostly just saying that the findings here have not been scrutinized well enough for such a fundamental aspect of our understanding to need adaptation in the same way that a lot of other theories and ideas are modified on a regular basis.

Feel free to consider what may happen if it were true. Scientists work from hypotheticals all the time.

But while science is very, very flexible, it does still seem to gain a good deal of its precision and fluency from a rigorous sequence of protocol.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the people associated with these results are indeed basically asking the entire scientific community "Hey guys, we got different numbers than pretty much all of you. Anyone want to come help us figure out what the hell just happened?"

As opposed to trying to literally rewrite everything we know about physics.

Because if the rules related to special relativity were wrong, that's pretty much literally what we'd need to do.

Our concerns would have a lot less to do with how we could possibly build awesome interstellar space ships, and would go back to trying to make sure that rockets don't catch our own atmosphere on fire or that the LHC isn't about to create a black hole.

Zersk o-o from Columbia District, BNA Since: May, 2010
o-o
#71: Sep 22nd 2011 at 5:00:29 PM

And in case you hadn't noticed, the people associated with these results are indeed basically asking the entire scientific community "Hey guys, we got different numbers than pretty much all of you. Anyone want to come help us figure out what the hell just happened?"

And we know that! :3

I don't exactly see what you're trying to say. :/

ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᓈᒻᒪᔪᐃᑦᑐᖅ
Toodle Since: Dec, 1969
#72: Sep 22nd 2011 at 5:01:43 PM

...I'm actually not sure what you're trying to say either.

My handle is Toodle, and I find all of this stuff very interesting! I'm glad you're excited about it too, Zersk.

storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#73: Sep 22nd 2011 at 5:01:58 PM

Well if it turns out that all physics from the last 100 years is wrong, interstellar travel is the least of our worries.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
TheEarthSheep Christmas Sheep from a Pasture hexagon Since: Sep, 2010
Christmas Sheep
#74: Sep 22nd 2011 at 5:02:33 PM

[up][up][up][up] Of course, but we have to do that with every paradigm shift. This is a great thing!

edited 22nd Sep '11 5:03:16 PM by TheEarthSheep

Still Sheepin'
TotemicHero No longer a forum herald from the next level Since: Dec, 2009
No longer a forum herald
#75: Sep 22nd 2011 at 5:04:20 PM

Bah, we already knew stuff could move faster than the speed of light.

After all, Chuck Norr- <is shot>

edited 22nd Sep '11 5:04:48 PM by TotemicHero

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)

Total posts: 760
Top