Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Spoken like a true scholar!Just as an update on the neutrino situation, I saw a talk today by one of the members of the collaboration. It was fairly interesting. My basic impression after walking away from the talk is:
1. I'm more convinced than ever that supernova 1987A observations make this result exceedingly unlikely. With SN1987A, the extremely long baseline (about 160,000 light years) means that measurement errors or errors in modeling the supernova simply aren't very important for the final result, which is that the difference in neutrino speed compared to the speed of light cannot be more than about one one thousandth of the observed speed discrepancy by the OPERA collaboration. It's going to be obscenely difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a theory that explains both observations (this was more from conversations before and after the talk than the talk itself, by the way).
2. The OPERA collaboration detected no difference in the arrival time at different energies. This, to me, was a giant red flag: in order to explain both the OPERA and the SN1987A observations, you're going to need the speed to depend upon energy. And yet it didn't appear to.
3. This measurement was an extremely sensitive and difficult measurement to make. It required a series of very accurate determination of time and position. And they did attempt to correct for the various errors by using a level of redundancy on these measurements. Still, if, for example, the delay induced by the electronics at the CERN laboratory were underestimated slightly, or the delay induced by the electronics at Gran Sasso was overestimated, that could explain the discrepancy as well.
4. There may have been some irregularities in the data reduction. As stated above, it's a really really sensitive measurement. And some people thought that the statistical analysis performed to extract the delays may have been a bit dodgy.
5. Approximately half of the OPERA collaboration declined to sign the paper. This may indicate some doubt within the OPERA collaboration that sufficient rigor was employed in this result, and is overall a pretty damning indictment of the results. There may be a mundane explanation for the fact that they didn't sign, but it really is not a good indication.
Current research indicates that light travels at c in all three instances.Whats the speed of light in a dustpan and brush?
Is the speed of light the same in a Dyson cyclonic and a traditional Hoover upright?
But I personally dont think the OPERA scientists were incompetent.First, I disagree that you were; you made a glib remark that changed Chalnoth's words, If you had said "In my opinion, OPERA are incompetent", that's fine. But deliberately twisting someone's words to fit your own presuppositions doesn't fit the criteria of honest and civil debate.
Dont make me out to be a monster.The original 'Ask a Physicist' threads were mine, and were shut down by someone like you.
I wasnt aware your thread was closed. Sorry about that.Maxwell511 recreated the sixth incarnation,
I see it that way too, actually.but I still see this thread as my own, if only in spirit.
Ahhh, so that is why you're so strongly opposed to any idea that this could possibly be a mistake.As a creationist, faster than light speed is not a problem in my religion, so such results only help to confirm my faith.
As a creationist, faster than light speed is not a problem in my religion, so such results only help to confirm my faith.
Current research indicates that light travels at c in all three instances.
The average speed (distance over transit time, relativity notwithstanding) would be slightly less than c, but the actual velocity of light would still be cWell, it would be slightly less considering all these objects would be in earths atmosphere. Though by a very small margin, otherwise everything would be glowing blue...
Technically, no. Light has only one intrinsic property, which can be expressed as energy, frequency, wavelength, etc. On the other hand, changing a photon's frequency would require interfering with it some how, probably by absorbing it and re-emitting it at a different frequency (a phenomenon known as florescence). As there will be a small delay before re-emission, it will appear to slow down.Here's one for ya: If you compress a light beam by changing its frequency and decompress it again; Will the time it takes to cover a given distance "appear" to change
Well, to nitpick a little bit, a single photon has four degrees of freedom:Technically, no. Light has only one intrinsic property, which can be expressed as energy, frequency, wavelength, etc. On the other hand, changing a photon's frequency would require interfering with it some how, probably by absorbing it and re-emitting it at a different frequency (a phenomenon known as florescence). As there will be a small delay before re-emission, it will appear to slow down.
Ah, that's why I said intrinsic property. Its extrinsic properties are, as you rightly say, variously categorised as direction, spin, polarisation, etc. But there's only one intrinsic property, expressed as either energy, momentum, etc.Well, to nitpick a little bit, a single photon has four degrees of freedom:
1. One degree of freedom for the frequency (or wavelength, or energy).
2. Two degrees of freedom for the direction of motion.
3. One degree of freedom for the spin (is it spin up or spin down?). This is also related to the polarization (can be described as horizontal or vertical polarization, or alternatively as right-handed or left-handed circular polarization).
Nope.Ahhh, so that is why you're so strongly opposed to any idea that this could possibly be a mistake.
I agree. My faith has already been confirmed. Thanks for the reminder.This idea that this could possibly confirm your faith is positively ludicrous.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?