Ask a physicist anything. (6)

[sandwiches]

Clearly, because the news is always correct...

He thinks we follow a similar line of thinking as his and that we'll believe anything any scientist tells us the way he believes anything he interprets from the Bible.

 

[Chalnoth]

He thinks we follow a similar line of thinking as his and that we'll believe anything any scientist tells us the way he believes anything he interprets from the Bible.

Yes, it's really sad.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

He thinks we follow a similar line of thinking as his and that we'll believe anything any scientist tells us the way he believes anything he interprets from the Bible.

It's strange how so many people think of science as something only other people do.

 

[Nabobalis]

I agree that it would be the discovery of the century if confirmed, and it would be really exciting to shake things up. However, I don't believe it -- it almost has to be a mistake.

On a different note, "neutrino beam"? I'm pretty sure neutrinos don't get put into a beam.

It is possible to create a beam of neutrinos, but depending what method used you either end up with a messy beam or a very weak beam. But you do have T2K which should have the best of both worlds. Read up about it here.

 

[Doveaman]

However, I don't believe it --

Why not?

Is Einstein infallible?

Why not just hold a neutral position until the results are further examined?

it almost has to be a mistake.

So why don't you wait for confirmation before you start not believing?

After all, it's science.

 

[Chalnoth]

Why not?

Is Einstein infallible?

Certainly not. But there are extremely good reasons to believe this can't be the case.

Basically, if neutrinos traveled faster than light, they would be tachyons. And tachyons cause the vacuum to be unstable. This basically means that if tachyons exist, the vacuum has a tendency to explode spontaneously, so much so that existence simply isn't possible. So tachyons simply cannot exist unless you have some way to prevent them from ever interacting. But neutrinos interact, so they can't be tachyons.

Beyond the simple theoretical reasons, we also have measurements of the relative speed of neutrinos and photons from the explosion of supernova 1987A. At some 160,000 light years away, this supernova explosion gives us a vastly more accurate measurement of the relative speed of photons and neutrinos, and they're the same to at least a factor of one part in 10^8.

Finally, the measurement reported is a really easy measurement to screw up. All they would have to do is get the location of one or both of the instruments off by a few meters in the wrong direction and they'd produce this result.

 

[Doveaman]

Certainly not. But there are extremely good reasons to believe this can't be the case.

So why don't you tell that to the scientists who are doing the experiments instead of allowing them to waste time and money trying to find out?

Why do they even bother doing experiments when they can just ask you for answers?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So why don't you tell that to the scientists who are doing the experiments instead of allowing them to waste time and money trying to find out?

Why do they even bother doing experiments when they can just ask you for answers?

And spoil their job security?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Nostromo]

Why not just hold a neutral position until the results are further examined?

Not believing is a neutral position.

So why don't you wait for confirmation before you start not believing?

After all, it's science.

Because not believing is what you do when you don't have confirmation, i.e. when you don't have any reason to believe.

 

[Chalnoth]

So why don't you tell that to the scientists who are doing the experiments instead of allowing them to waste time and money trying to find out?

Why do they even bother doing experiments when they can just ask you for answers?

Um, this wasn't the purpose of the experiment.

 

[Doveaman]

Not believing is a neutral position.

Not believing is atheism. A neutral position is agnostic.

Because not believing is what you do when you don't have confirmation, i.e. when you don't have any reason to believe.

Except that the experiment provided a reason. Whether or not we believe that reason is up to the individual.

 

[Doveaman]

Um, this wasn't the purpose of the experiment.

Then step aside and let the experiments proceed.

Save your comments for when they are done.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Not believing is atheism. A neutral position is agnostic.

Not knowing is agnosticism. It isn't really a neutral position on belief, since it isn't about belief.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

And tachyons cause the vacuum to be unstable.

Would this be true for the very tiny increase of speed over lightspeed that has been detected for neutrinos?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chalnoth]

Then step aside and let the experiments proceed.

Save your comments for when they are done.

*sigh*

This experiment is, overall, a very valuable experiment that I am wholeheartedly in support of.

What I do not support are scientists making silly, false statements just to rile people up. The idea of a neutrino being faster than light is a tiny sideshow that really has no bearing on the real science that is being done with OPERA. It's basically just a publicity stunt that shows a shocking lack of care for scientific rigor.

 

[mzungu]

So why don't you tell that to the scientists who are doing the experiments instead of allowing them to waste time and money trying to find out?

Bad scientists are like bad Christians; They both do not adhere to the rules of science and dogma of Christianity.

"Judge not lest you be judged in return" (hint: found in a religious book which I recommend you read)

 

[chris4243]

Why not?

Is Einstein infallible?

Nope. I'm pretty sure he's wrong about gravity, for example, and he is generally accepted as having been horribly wrong about quantum mechanics.

Why not just hold a neutral position until the results are further examined?
So why don't you wait for confirmation before you start not believing?

After all, it's science.

But I am waiting for confirmation before I start not believing. Exactly how dumb do you think I am, to discard a 100 year old theory with thousands of experiments confirming it, just because some small group of physicists claimed to have clocked ghostlike particles that can easily travel through the Earth without interacting, beating the speed of light by 0.00000006 seconds? It's like if someone told you that they made a perpetual motion machine and you just go believe them. How about we wait for someone else to check their work first, like we would with any other surprising or important result?

After all, it is science and not a gullibility contest.

 

[chris4243]

So, want to make the bet? Or is it that you don't believe it either but were just hoping for some easy science-bashing?

 

[Nostromo]

Not believing is atheism.

You unravelled the riddle, atheism is a neutral position. Well done.

Except that the experiment provided a reason. Whether or not we believe that reason is up to the individual.

But we don't have confirmation yet, as you said yourself.

 

[razeontherock]

*sigh*

This experiment is, overall, a very valuable experiment that I am wholeheartedly in support of.

What I do not support are scientists making silly, false statements just to rile people up. The idea of a neutrino being faster than light is a tiny sideshow that really has no bearing on the real science that is being done with OPERA. It's basically just a publicity stunt that shows a shocking lack of care for scientific rigor.

Thanks! This makes lots more sense than anything else I've read on the subject.