Do you need a detector the size of the ones at CERN to detect them?
Maybe the neutrinos distorted space time?
Discussion on:
Top
Rated
Rated
So arrogant
Posted by Lucky2BHere
23rd Sep 2011
Just
In
In
Learning
Posted by cmhatte
17th Aug
Show:
+1
Vote
Do neutrinos have mass ?
Posted by TonyTrenton
22nd Sep 2011
+1
Vote
Don't try this at home
Some neutrino detectors are mentioned in the Wiki entry on neutrinos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Neutrino_detection
They're not small.
If these results are verified, not planning on visiting Alpha Centauri or checking up on Lee H Oswald back in '63, but, still, wow. Rather, WOW!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Neutrino_detection
They're not small.
If these results are verified, not planning on visiting Alpha Centauri or checking up on Lee H Oswald back in '63, but, still, wow. Rather, WOW!!
Posted by hoodedswan
23rd Sep 2011
+1
Vote
Only into the future
The initial conditions of the singularity that spawned our universe set the arrow of time always into the future.
Going back in our time line would mean reversing Entropy and finding and using all th energy necessary to reconstruct everything that had been, before Entropy had changed it.
Going back in our time line would mean reversing Entropy and finding and using all th energy necessary to reconstruct everything that had been, before Entropy had changed it.
Posted by TonyTrenton
22nd Sep 2011
+1
Vote
Naw dude...
It just means traveling billions of light years in hundreds of millions of years, to see what happened at the start of time itself.
Posted by gork platter
22nd Sep 2011
+1
Vote
Find a better way to attract readers than "time travel"
I almost did not read this article. The "hook" of "time travel" is
a turn-off for me. If you are not smart enough to find a better
hook than such contradictory ideas, I don't consider what you
say to be very important. I wish our schools did a better job
of teaching about the basics of physics. Then no one would
be tempted to read this article, and you might have to
find a better hook.
The report that (neutrinos or anything) may have exceeded the speed of light, if true would/should be significant enough to attract readers. It is a sorry time, that "time
travel" still wins over reported events.
a turn-off for me. If you are not smart enough to find a better
hook than such contradictory ideas, I don't consider what you
say to be very important. I wish our schools did a better job
of teaching about the basics of physics. Then no one would
be tempted to read this article, and you might have to
find a better hook.
The report that (neutrinos or anything) may have exceeded the speed of light, if true would/should be significant enough to attract readers. It is a sorry time, that "time
travel" still wins over reported events.
Posted by just.a.guy
23rd Sep 2011
+4
Votes
So arrogant
Saw a quote today about this from a scientist that said something like if this is true, then we don't know anything about anything. Of course we don't! We are so far from fundamentally understanding things, it's silly.
How much further along are we, really, from how we humans viewed the cosmos when we ascribed the movement of stars and even the reasons for weather to anthropomorphic entities, than we are now? We can see more, we can better explain what we see - but only within our own perceptual restrictions, which are pretty darned significant. Every machine we build, every new formula we devise comes from *us* and *our* needs and perceptions.
Thinking we know, even ever, what makes all of this tick is simply arrogant. We are an infinitesimally small part of this machine and clearly inconsequential. That is not to say it is not in us and beneficial as a species to us to discover. It's clearly a part of our need to survive. But, there are things beneath and inside of everything that we can perceive that are most likely unreachable. Why would this grand system give life forms, such as we are, the ultimate ability to fully understand - and then possibly control - our surroundings and ultimate destiny. We are not smart enough, and that would not be a good system design. So far, it seems it's going to outlast us, no?
That said, the pure joy of finding things like this is truly exciting. It's all we got!
How much further along are we, really, from how we humans viewed the cosmos when we ascribed the movement of stars and even the reasons for weather to anthropomorphic entities, than we are now? We can see more, we can better explain what we see - but only within our own perceptual restrictions, which are pretty darned significant. Every machine we build, every new formula we devise comes from *us* and *our* needs and perceptions.
Thinking we know, even ever, what makes all of this tick is simply arrogant. We are an infinitesimally small part of this machine and clearly inconsequential. That is not to say it is not in us and beneficial as a species to us to discover. It's clearly a part of our need to survive. But, there are things beneath and inside of everything that we can perceive that are most likely unreachable. Why would this grand system give life forms, such as we are, the ultimate ability to fully understand - and then possibly control - our surroundings and ultimate destiny. We are not smart enough, and that would not be a good system design. So far, it seems it's going to outlast us, no?
That said, the pure joy of finding things like this is truly exciting. It's all we got!
Posted by Lucky2BHere
23rd Sep 2011
+2
Votes
Just asking...
I agree with the reader who questions the "Get ready for time travel" hook. Even if this 80 nano-second anomaly is confirmed, we are very far from "using" this fact for our own purposes. I also like Luck2BHere's reminder that as a species we tend to major in arrogance when it comes to what we think we know and can do.
The first thing I would like confirmed is the actual distance between the emitter and detector. This surely affects the time-of-travel which this is all about. 80 billionths of a second - how "far" is that at light speed? Doubtless all this has been well thought out before the experiment began (but see Luck2BHere's caution!) What is the margin of error in the measurement over 455 miles? How does that error compare to say, the size of the detector, or the positions of the detecting instrumentation within the detector?
The first thing I would like confirmed is the actual distance between the emitter and detector. This surely affects the time-of-travel which this is all about. 80 billionths of a second - how "far" is that at light speed? Doubtless all this has been well thought out before the experiment began (but see Luck2BHere's caution!) What is the margin of error in the measurement over 455 miles? How does that error compare to say, the size of the detector, or the positions of the detecting instrumentation within the detector?
Posted by der5997
23rd Sep 2011
+1
Vote
Lightspeed
If my calculations are right, at 186282.4 miles per second light travels 0.9835711 feet in a second. So rounding that off to 1 foot per billionth of a second you get 80 feet (24.384 meters) in 80 billionths of a second.
Posted by riverat1
23rd Sep 2011
+1
Vote
Lightspeed - in Re Just Asking
Thanks for the math! It's in the ball park of what I expected. The margin of error for measuring over 455 miles through rock, and allowing for a difference in level from the emitter to detector - could that be more than the 0.00333% that 80 feet is of the 2,402,400 feet in 455 miles? I'm thinking "yes it is."
Posted by der5997
24th Sep 2011
+1
Vote
RE: Just Asking...
Presumably, they took the earth's rotation into account. Then again, "top scientists" failed to convert metric to English and lost a satellite.
Posted by bb_apptix
26th Sep 2011
+1
Vote
They found nothing
The only thing they found is that light-speed is not the fastest speed. We can go beyond that now. Let's say we can travel at that speed than we will simply be able to travel faster than the light around us. It is not time traveling.
Also, the difference between what we thought was possible and what we found now is very small, it might just be a miscalculation.
Also, the difference between what we thought was possible and what we found now is very small, it might just be a miscalculation.
Posted by wompai
24th Sep 2011
+4
Votes
Neutrinos
I guess you will have to turn into a neutrino first before you can time travel
Posted by TonyTrenton
24th Sep 2011
+1
Vote
speed of light
However those perceptions/observations may still be closer to the reality than any scientific official truths. http://bit.ly/qsvnNe
Posted by noreneherman
26th Sep 2011
+1
Vote
I have been writing about this for a while
I was very happy to see this back up my hypothesis.
http://jet??srock.word??press.com/??category/p??hysics/
Check out the dates
http://jet??srock.word??press.com/??category/p??hysics/
Check out the dates
Posted by richard_gillespie@...
26th Sep 2011
0
Votes
Learning
Remember that one time when we found out that light was the faster than whatever was the fastest at that time? I guess that could happen again. Laws of physics were made by us and even we have said we're still learning and know very little about everything.... so, we just learned something. Something is faster than light.
Posted by cmhatte
17th Aug