It Seems That Neutrinos Do Not Exceed Light Speed, After All...

[Methuselah]

It now seems that, following further research at CERN, scientists no longer believe that neutrinos can exceed the speed of light...If they ever really did?

http://www.gizmag.co...ht-speed/22876/

[Crepuscular Ray]

I thought they originally blamed the wrong timing on a loose connection in a computer at the Italian end of things?

[Methuselah]

I must have missed that one?

[A.J]

yep, was reported a couple or so months back if I remember correctly

[Methuselah]

I must be losing it guys!

[Crepuscular Ray]

Nah, dinne fash yourself. It sounds as if there was more than one problem. They really should have looked into all the technical possibilities before they released the original claim.

[Methuselah]

Yes they should. And, as was the case with Cold Fusion malarkey, at great deal of discussion has occurred over nothing...

[davehsug]

But they did, that's why they released it. They were pretty sue there was an error somewhere & threw it open to the wider scientific community to find it.

[Crepuscular Ray]

But they did, that's why they released it. They were pretty sue there was an error somewhere & threw it open to the wider scientific community to find it.

Agreed to some extent Dave, but I'd have thought that looking at the possibility of loose connections even before they threw it open to the wider scientific community and cause all sorts of idiot speculation in the odder elements of the general press would have ben sensible.

[Pixel]

bartender says:

"We don't serve Neutrino's in here"

Neutrino enters the bar….

(-:

[Methuselah]

I suppose it drummed up some interest in Physics for a while, before some people decided it was boring again.

Aye, QS. The lack of general interest in matters scientific (I don't think that expertise in the use of mobile telephone really counts.) is a tad unhealthy...

While sentences such as 'Scattering and barrier penetration' might help, stonkers like 'Time development, wave packets and measurement' may not?

[Methuselah]

It's difficult to find a balance between 'making things simple-enough to be 'interesting' to newcomers to the subject whilst, at the same time, not rendering everything so inane as turn everyone-else off...I for one do not have the answer.

[knocker]

Aye, QS. The lack of general interest in matters scientific (I don't think that expertise in the use of mobile telephone really counts.) is a tad unhealthy...

While sentences such as 'Scattering and barrier penetration' might help, stonkers like 'Time development, wave packets and measurement' may not?

We could I suppose promote Stephen Hawkin's latest idea. Welcome to the Escher-verse. A quantum universe where string theory meets reality. I started reading the article in the New Scientist and fortunately the rugby started before my headache could reach mammoth proportions.

[Methuselah]

I agree SS, but I tend to think that an individual either wants to be interested or doesn't. As a career, there's rarely money to be made in the sciences, and even top-end academics and professionals don't make big bucks - they do it because they have the urge to know what's what and why and how and where. In a time where everyone seems to want to 'live the dream', who gives a smeg about questions with no answers and things that have no real impact on our current lives? (I say current because obviously some things will have an impact in the future, unless the government/s keep withdrawing funding).

Some of the 'popular science' programmes that have been on over the last few years have done a good job in inspiring people to take more of an interest in the sciences in general, which is great and i'm not putting them down.. but they are all very similar to each other in content and style - big scenery, big ass-busting science experiments and it's all about cutting-edge stuff - like Hollywood for nerds. It feels almost un-reachable and gives a slightly tainted view of what's really happening behind the scenes: a bunch of nobodies working all day and night for 20 grand a year.

It would be good to see some normal science in a programme, a bit like the stuff the OU used to have on late at night, but then that's not very exciting viewing is it? Well, unless you are already interested

I think i've gone full circle with my point

Now you're taking me back, QS. I used to watch those 'kipper tie and flares' programmes long before I ever actually studied anything...

[Methuselah]

I'm not taking you back SS, you're just showing your age

[samadamsuk]

Hey all.

Imo it might be partly due to the fact that particle physics doesn't go to the heart of what we're in and why we're here - many people are fascinated in the big questions, as I see them, but I for one aren't massively interested in the swathe of particles discovered unless discoveries start to wrap up the questions of fundamentaly what is existense etc - does that read right? I'm probably talking cxxp! Of course, if there was some discovery about us being close to another brane, or evidence for many worlds etc, then I think a lot more people would be following things. Sure the Higgs Boson fits a hole in the current model - maybe I just need educating ?

Sam

[Methuselah]

It's not age SS, it's ripening!

Aye, like a prune...

Hey all.

Imo it might be partly due to the fact that particle physics doesn't go to the heart of what we're in and why we're here - many people are fascinated in the big questions, as I see them, but I for one aren't massively interested in the swathe of particles discovered unless discoveries start to wrap up the questions of fundamentaly what is existense etc - does that read right? I'm probably talking cxxp! Of course, if there was some discovery about us being close to another brane, or evidence for many worlds etc, then I think a lot more people would be following things. Sure the Higgs Boson fits a hole in the current model - maybe I just need educating ?

Sam

Hi Sam...I do see what you mean. But on the 'education' side, you'd better see what QS says. She's the scientist.

[Methuselah]

Whoa no! I'm just giving my humble opinion

We're free to choose what we care to learn about, no offence intended.

None taken. But I was being serious, not sarcastic. You're learning now what I forgot 15-20 years back...

[Methuselah]

The Grauniad's take: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/08/neutrino-researchers-einstein-right

[Coast]

Oh no, are we back on again?????

US sees stronger hints of Higgs

Hints of the Higgs boson detected last year by a US "atom smasher" have become even stronger, scientists have said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18677808

Discuss!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

I'm not taking you back SS, you're just showing your age

I call it maturing from one's first childhood into one's second

Anyway aren't there exotic particles which do exceed the speed of light?

[Methuselah]

I call it maturing from one's first childhood into one's second

Anyway aren't there exotic particles which do exceed the speed of light?

I don't believe so, Mike.

[DAVID SNOW]

Sorry Coast, but that article relates to the search for the Higgs itself, not to the search for/speculation of faster-than-light neutrinos

I like that Mike

Not that has been proved? Most particles exhibit a mass anyway, exotic or not, making them extremely unlikely to be traveling faster than light just for that fact.

And if a particle was moving faster than the speed of light,how would it be possible to detect it anyway?

[DAVID SNOW]

By knowing when it left, and when it arrived!

Can you have a "when" if something is exceeding light speed?

[in the vale]

There is a 'when' even if something exceeds C - if time even exists as a thing. The 'when' of the cause may be after the 'when' of the effect, depending on the perspective / relative speed / local conditions of the observer. Or some nonsense like that.