prepend an h t t p :// before the link
CODE
hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BREAKING_LIGHT_SPEED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Associated Press:
prepend an h t t p :// before the link
hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BREAKING_LIGHT_SPEED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
prepend an h t t p :// before the link
hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BREAKING_LIGHT_SPEED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
I did not see any topic here about this, so... here it is
QUOTE
Drew Baden, chairman of the physics department at the University of Maryland, said it is far more likely that there are measurement errors or some kind of fluke. Tracking neutrinos is very difficult, he said.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Drew Baden, chairman of the physics department at the University of Maryland, said it is far more likely that there are measurement errors or some kind of fluke. Tracking neutrinos is very difficult, he said. |
If the European findings are correct, "this would change the idea of how the universe is put together," Columbia's Greene said. But he added: "I would bet just about everything I hold dear that this won't hold up to scrutiny."
My money is heavily on the side of measurement error. This was on AP, and not a scholarly review of a large dataset.
Of course, if we'd seen it on Fox News, we would know without question...
QUOTE (Granouille+Sep 22 2011, 10:18 PM)
My money is heavily on the side of measurement error. This was on AP, and not a scholarly review of a large dataset.
Of course, if we'd seen it on Fox News, we would know without question...
It's pointless to comment on this just like it's pointless to comment on the article which claims the principle of relativity has been violated. If it was FOX we'd be up to our knickers in bullshit just to read the text through binoculars.
I know. Apologies for feeding the trolls.
So many topics are pointless, and we are up to our knickers in BS.
As an excuse, I can plead chemistry. My knee is killing me and the application of medicine caused a moment of inappropriate loquacity.
So many topics are pointless, and we are up to our knickers in BS.
As an excuse, I can plead chemistry. My knee is killing me and the application of medicine caused a moment of inappropriate loquacity.
Too close to call. Need a slo-mo replay.
USA Today has the story, too.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/story...ight/50518790/1
'Sounds as though CERN is sheepish about their announcement, in effect asking, "What could we have done wrong?"
Surely somebody on this forum can enlighten them.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/story...ight/50518790/1
'Sounds as though CERN is sheepish about their announcement, in effect asking, "What could we have done wrong?"
Surely somebody on this forum can enlighten them.
Probably not. I don't think any CERN scientists hang here anymore. 
I will ask yquantum's daughter, but the answer might take a while. They are busy right now.
I will ask yquantum's daughter, but the answer might take a while. They are busy right now.
Here we go:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...low-down-folks/
Phil Plait is always quick to respond to these kinds of things.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...low-down-folks/
Phil Plait is always quick to respond to these kinds of things.
QUOTE (Granouille+Sep 22 2011, 10:55 PM)
I know. Apologies for feeding the trolls.
So many topics are pointless, and we are up to our knickers in BS.
As an excuse, I can plead chemistry. My knee is killing me and the application of medicine caused a moment of inappropriate loquacity.
I didn't mean you were feeding the trolls. Sorry if it sounded like that. It's just my opinion about presentation and content for AP and science magazine reporting. The science guys always sound like they're blinded by the lights and slobbering over the mic. Man I hope you feel better this getting old sucks. Much wiser but slow as molasses in winter.
So many topics are pointless, and we are up to our knickers in BS.
As an excuse, I can plead chemistry. My knee is killing me and the application of medicine caused a moment of inappropriate loquacity.
I didn't mean you were feeding the trolls. Sorry if it sounded like that. It's just my opinion about presentation and content for AP and science magazine reporting. The science guys always sound like they're blinded by the lights and slobbering over the mic. Man I hope you feel better this getting old sucks. Much wiser but slow as molasses in winter.
No sweat. In fact, I'm waiting for wintry weather so I can get out and do my sport. It's just been too damned hot for too long in Texas.
Understood and appreciated, Bruce. If Dawn replies soon, I'll give you a head's up.
Understood and appreciated, Bruce. If Dawn replies soon, I'll give you a head's up.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 22 2011, 11:52 PM)
Here we go:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...low-down-folks/
Phil Plait is always quick to respond to these kinds of things.
Thanks for those comments. There's to much existing evidence that neutrinos speed is < lightspeed. Measuring the distance using the GPS isn't going to get it. They need to measure the distance so the measurement error bar is in the same order as the rest of the experimental error bar. I would do the experiment over a much greater distance so + or - would be pronounced.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...low-down-folks/
Phil Plait is always quick to respond to these kinds of things.
Thanks for those comments. There's to much existing evidence that neutrinos speed is < lightspeed. Measuring the distance using the GPS isn't going to get it. They need to measure the distance so the measurement error bar is in the same order as the rest of the experimental error bar. I would do the experiment over a much greater distance so + or - would be pronounced.
Until the results can be confirmed somewhere else, treat it like an equipment problem.
On the other hand, Cern could "make lemons out of lemonaide"; they could try to give the neutrinos more energy and see if they go even faster. That is a sure fire way to figure out what they did wrong.
It also helps to understand how neutrinos are detected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector
Another possibility is that they overestimated the distance the neutrinos were traveling. That's my bet.
On the other hand, Cern could "make lemons out of lemonaide"; they could try to give the neutrinos more energy and see if they go even faster. That is a sure fire way to figure out what they did wrong.
It also helps to understand how neutrinos are detected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector
Another possibility is that they overestimated the distance the neutrinos were traveling. That's my bet.
This is posted on the physics site at Cornell:
Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam and .pdf and at a seminar at CERN. So simply because the news is covered in non-scientic media doesn't mean it's not a legitimate item.
Note that the experimenters were looking at three years of data, measuring velocity 15,000 times. Normally this certainty would be counted as a discovery. Since it conflicts with a well established theory, the CERN scientists opened the results to scrutiny.
That being said, I'd be surprised if the results are duplicated. The only fudge factors in the light-speed limit are space and time. And mass. Even if somehow the neutrino could shed its tiny mass, it still couldn't exceed c. Still, data is data.
Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam and .pdf and at a seminar at CERN. So simply because the news is covered in non-scientic media doesn't mean it's not a legitimate item.
Note that the experimenters were looking at three years of data, measuring velocity 15,000 times. Normally this certainty would be counted as a discovery. Since it conflicts with a well established theory, the CERN scientists opened the results to scrutiny.
That being said, I'd be surprised if the results are duplicated. The only fudge factors in the light-speed limit are space and time. And mass. Even if somehow the neutrino could shed its tiny mass, it still couldn't exceed c. Still, data is data.
, must be an experimental error , BUT if its true the concept of max cosmic speed limit, time dilation and length contraction will go in the trash can...
QUOTE (BillY+Sep 22 2011, 10:14 PM)
, must be an experimental error , BUT if its true the concept of max cosmic speed limit, time dilation and length contraction will go in the trash can... Nah, there have been obscure neutrino as tachyon models for some time now. Relativity would stay intact. Tachyon physics would go from fringe to mainstream research.
Frankly I doubt they have the timing of the creation event at one lab to the reception event at the other lab down to the 10ns claimed. Even if they do a statistic will have to be run for many trials as that times so small the energy time uncertainty may lead to as much error.
From the article, this is how they define neutrino velocity.
I'm sure that they checked their software for errors. Mmm... I hope it's true.
QUOTE
In this paper we report on the precision determination of the neutrino velocity, defined as the ratio of the precisely measured distance from CERN to OPERA to the time of flight of neutrinos travelling through the Earth’s crust.
I'm sure that they checked their software for errors. Mmm... I hope it's true.
QUOTE (heretofore+Sep 23 2011, 03:19 AM)
This is posted on the physics site at Cornell:
Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam and .pdf and at a seminar at CERN. So simply because the news is covered in non-scientic media doesn't mean it's not a legitimate item.
Note that the experimenters were looking at three years of data, measuring velocity 15,000 times. Normally this certainty would be counted as a discovery. Since it conflicts with a well established theory, the CERN scientists opened the results to scrutiny.
That being said, I'd be surprised if the results are duplicated. The only fudge factors in the light-speed limit are space and time. And mass. Even if somehow the neutrino could shed its tiny mass, it still couldn't exceed c. Still, data is data.
It becomes legitimate when the detailed paper explaining the experiment and results are opened to scrutiny. The paper provides literature and the AP sensationalizes. That's how it works with humans. I think it's going to be very difficult to duplicate. I like an experiment which can make a direct comparison between the speed of light and the speed of the neutrino over the same path. The possibility for unrealized systematic error and comparing a measured neutrino time to the assumed time for light makes me think they need to find a better way to confirm or deny the result. Just my opinion which doesn't count anyway. Thanks for the link.
Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam and .pdf and at a seminar at CERN. So simply because the news is covered in non-scientic media doesn't mean it's not a legitimate item.
Note that the experimenters were looking at three years of data, measuring velocity 15,000 times. Normally this certainty would be counted as a discovery. Since it conflicts with a well established theory, the CERN scientists opened the results to scrutiny.
That being said, I'd be surprised if the results are duplicated. The only fudge factors in the light-speed limit are space and time. And mass. Even if somehow the neutrino could shed its tiny mass, it still couldn't exceed c. Still, data is data.
It becomes legitimate when the detailed paper explaining the experiment and results are opened to scrutiny. The paper provides literature and the AP sensationalizes. That's how it works with humans. I think it's going to be very difficult to duplicate. I like an experiment which can make a direct comparison between the speed of light and the speed of the neutrino over the same path. The possibility for unrealized systematic error and comparing a measured neutrino time to the assumed time for light makes me think they need to find a better way to confirm or deny the result. Just my opinion which doesn't count anyway. Thanks for the link.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Sep 23 2011, 05:29 AM)
Nah, there have been obscure neutrino as tachyon models for some time now. Relativity would stay intact. Tachyon physics would go from fringe to mainstream research.
Frankly I doubt they have the timing of the creation event at one lab to the reception event at the other lab down to the 10ns claimed. Even if they do a statistic will have to be run for many trials as that times so small the energy time uncertainty may lead to as much error.
Thanks for that.
Frankly I doubt they have the timing of the creation event at one lab to the reception event at the other lab down to the 10ns claimed. Even if they do a statistic will have to be run for many trials as that times so small the energy time uncertainty may lead to as much error.
Thanks for that.
Wow. 
Was just watching the news and it said they original scientists duplicated the faster than light travel over 15 000 times.
Also said they're publishing the work today to let someone else try to duplicate the results.
Oh and I just found out what a neutrino looks like
User posted image: http://yourewinner.com/Smileys/default/kith.gif
Was just watching the news and it said they original scientists duplicated the faster than light travel over 15 000 times.
Also said they're publishing the work today to let someone else try to duplicate the results.
Oh and I just found out what a neutrino looks like
User posted image: http://yourewinner.com/Smileys/default/kith.gif
QUOTE
[UPDATE: The paper is now up on the arxiv preprint server. I took a look, and must say at first glance their reasoning looks solid. They appear to have the baseline distance nailed and the timing as well. However, the devil's in the details, and this isn't my field, so I'll be very curious to see how the pros in this discipline react to the paper.]
So Plait himself is scratching his chin too.Wasn't I pleased when I read waitedavid137's comment. Tachyon mechanics is the first thing I thought too, if the readings hold (notwithstanding my relative ignorance of the field). Aren't there papers by Ed Witten on this?
If MINOS were to confirm OPERA's find, the consequences would be enormous. "If you give up the speed of light, then the construction of special relativity falls down," says Antonino Zichichi, a theoretical physicist and emeritus professor at the University of Bologna, Italy. Zichichi speculates that the 'superluminal' neutrinos detected by OPERA could be slipping through extra dimensions in space, as predicted by theories such as string theory.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/ful...s.2011.554.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/ful...s.2011.554.html
QUOTE (soundhertz+Sep 23 2011, 09:57 AM)
So Plait himself is scratching his chin too...
They did do this experiment for a reason. Its not like they did an experiment and just "happened" to notice that the detector at San Grosso were picking up the neutrinos 60ns earlier than light should arrive. They very deliberately planned the experiment for this exact purpose, that tachyon neutrino models have been around for at least a decade and had yet to be tested. If confirmed there will be Nobel prizes in this one. If they screwed up, a lot of embarrassment.
They did do this experiment for a reason. Its not like they did an experiment and just "happened" to notice that the detector at San Grosso were picking up the neutrinos 60ns earlier than light should arrive. They very deliberately planned the experiment for this exact purpose, that tachyon neutrino models have been around for at least a decade and had yet to be tested. If confirmed there will be Nobel prizes in this one. If they screwed up, a lot of embarrassment.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Sep 23 2011, 10:56 AM)
If MINOS were to confirm OPERA's find, the consequences would be enormous. "If you give up the speed of light, then the construction of special relativity falls down," says Antonino Zichichi, a theoretical physicist and emeritus professor at the University of Bologna, Italy. Zichichi speculates that the 'superluminal' neutrinos detected by OPERA could be slipping through extra dimensions in space, as predicted by theories such as string theory.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/ful...s.2011.554.html
You do realize that Nature is about as valid as wiki, right?
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/ful...s.2011.554.html
You do realize that Nature is about as valid as wiki, right?
I'm just killing time, waiting to see if the experiment can be repeated somewhere else.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Sep 23 2011, 05:59 PM)
You do realize that Nature is about as valid as wiki, right?
The comment by Zichichi is ridiculous. Nobody giving up the speed of light and it won't make any difference to relativistic theoretical models as David pointed out. Personally I don't believe based on the existing evidence that neutrinos travel < c and it's a very complicated experiment. If it is empirically true then it will be interesting to evaluate the anomaly. Neutrinos haven't been the easiest critters to describe over the years.
David
I'd like to here what you think about the experiment? Especially the GPS part. Maybe you could mention something about the possibility of new science [tachyon] you mentioned.
Maybe some possible 'minuscule neutrino Chernokov effect' for passing through solid matter. Or some tunneling effect during oscillation.
The comment by Zichichi is ridiculous. Nobody giving up the speed of light and it won't make any difference to relativistic theoretical models as David pointed out. Personally I don't believe based on the existing evidence that neutrinos travel < c and it's a very complicated experiment. If it is empirically true then it will be interesting to evaluate the anomaly. Neutrinos haven't been the easiest critters to describe over the years.
David
I'd like to here what you think about the experiment? Especially the GPS part. Maybe you could mention something about the possibility of new science [tachyon] you mentioned.
Maybe some possible 'minuscule neutrino Chernokov effect' for passing through solid matter. Or some tunneling effect during oscillation.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Sep 23 2011, 05:59 PM)
You do realize that Nature is about as valid as wiki, right?
did you really say that!!!???....awww david why oh why?
did you really say that!!!???....awww david why oh why?
QUOTE
Citations and Impact Factor
Nature is the world's most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal, according to the 2010 Journal Citation Reports Science Edition (Thomson Reuters, 2011). Its Impact Factor is 36.101. The impact factor of a journal is calculated by dividing the number of citations in a calendar year to the source items published in that journal during the previous two years. It is an independent measure calculated by Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, USA.
Nature is the world's most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal, according to the 2010 Journal Citation Reports Science Edition (Thomson Reuters, 2011). Its Impact Factor is 36.101. The impact factor of a journal is calculated by dividing the number of citations in a calendar year to the source items published in that journal during the previous two years. It is an independent measure calculated by Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, USA.
Could the difference be due to the acceleration of Gravity?
What is the relative height of the source and the receiver to sea level. For the receiver I have an average depth of 3800 meters. Don't know if that is to ground level or sea level.
I cannot find the relative height of the source. I might not be looking hard enough.
What is the relative height of the source and the receiver to sea level. For the receiver I have an average depth of 3800 meters. Don't know if that is to ground level or sea level.
I cannot find the relative height of the source. I might not be looking hard enough.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Sep 23 2011, 06:00 PM)
Could the difference be due to the acceleration of Gravity?
No.
No.
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 23 2011, 09:08 PM)
did you really say that!!!???....awww david why oh why?
I think what gets David is the dumb comment the poser made. He acted like relativistic physics is going to get round filed if this is true. That just shows he doesn't know what he's talking about. I know what the adopted speed of light is but I wonder what the measurement error bar was for the measurements themselves. The number they are talking about with the 10ns claim for complete error bar is probably going to bite them in their collective posterior.
I think what gets David is the dumb comment the poser made. He acted like relativistic physics is going to get round filed if this is true. That just shows he doesn't know what he's talking about. I know what the adopted speed of light is but I wonder what the measurement error bar was for the measurements themselves. The number they are talking about with the 10ns claim for complete error bar is probably going to bite them in their collective posterior.
QUOTE (brucep+Sep 23 2011, 10:34 PM)
I think what gets David is the dumb comment the poser made. He acted like relativistic physics is going to get round filed if this is true. That just shows he doesn't know what he's talking about. I know what the adopted speed of light is but I wonder what the measurement error bar was for the measurements themselves. The number they are talking about with the 10ns claim for complete error bar is probably going to bite them in their collective posterior.
worst case scenario relativity becomes like Newtonian physics accurate but not the whole story...and that is worst case mind you.
from the published paper:
The OPERA detector at LNGS, designed for the study of neutrino oscillations in
appearance mode, has provided a precision measurement of the neutrino velocity over the 730 km
baseline of the CNGS neutrino beam sent from CERN to LNGS through the Earth’s crust. A time
of flight measurement with small systematic uncertainties was made possible by a series of
accurate metrology techniques. The data analysis took also advantage of a large sample of about
16000 neutrino interaction events detected by OPERA.
The analysis of internal neutral current and charged current events, and external νµ
CC
interactions from the 2009, 2010 and 2011 CNGS data was carried out to measure the neutrino
velocity. The sensitivity of the measurement of (v-c)/c is about one order of magnitude better
than previous accelerator neutrino experiments. 22
The results of the study indicate for CNGS muon neutrinos with an average energy of 17
GeV an early neutrino arrival time with respect to the one computed by assuming the speed of
light in vacuum:
δt = (60.7 ± 6.9 (stat.) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns.
The corresponding relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity and the speed of light
is:
(v-c)/c = δt /(TOF’c - δt) = (2.48 ± 0.28 (stat.) ± 0.30 (sys.)) ×10
-5
.
with an overall significance of 6.0 σ.
The dependence of δt on the neutrino energy was also investigated. For this analysis the
data set was limited to the 5489 νµ
CC interactions occurring in the OPERA target. A
measurement performed by considering all νµ
CC internal events yielded δt = (60.3 ± 13.1 (stat.)
± 7.4 (sys.)) ns, for an average neutrino energy of 28.1 GeV. The sample was then split into two
bins of nearly equal statistics, taking events of energy higher or lower than 20 GeV. The results
for the low- and high-energy samples are, respectively, δt = (53.1 ± 18.8 (stat.).) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns
and (67.1 ± 18.2 (stat.).) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns. This provides no clues on a possible energy dependence
of δt in the domain explored by OPERA within the accuracy of the measurement.
+++++++++++++++++++
i really need to see replication. this is not however a one time fluke.
worst case scenario relativity becomes like Newtonian physics accurate but not the whole story...and that is worst case mind you.
from the published paper:
The OPERA detector at LNGS, designed for the study of neutrino oscillations in
appearance mode, has provided a precision measurement of the neutrino velocity over the 730 km
baseline of the CNGS neutrino beam sent from CERN to LNGS through the Earth’s crust. A time
of flight measurement with small systematic uncertainties was made possible by a series of
accurate metrology techniques. The data analysis took also advantage of a large sample of about
16000 neutrino interaction events detected by OPERA.
The analysis of internal neutral current and charged current events, and external νµ
CC
interactions from the 2009, 2010 and 2011 CNGS data was carried out to measure the neutrino
velocity. The sensitivity of the measurement of (v-c)/c is about one order of magnitude better
than previous accelerator neutrino experiments. 22
The results of the study indicate for CNGS muon neutrinos with an average energy of 17
GeV an early neutrino arrival time with respect to the one computed by assuming the speed of
light in vacuum:
δt = (60.7 ± 6.9 (stat.) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns.
The corresponding relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity and the speed of light
is:
(v-c)/c = δt /(TOF’c - δt) = (2.48 ± 0.28 (stat.) ± 0.30 (sys.)) ×10
-5
.
with an overall significance of 6.0 σ.
The dependence of δt on the neutrino energy was also investigated. For this analysis the
data set was limited to the 5489 νµ
CC interactions occurring in the OPERA target. A
measurement performed by considering all νµ
CC internal events yielded δt = (60.3 ± 13.1 (stat.)
± 7.4 (sys.)) ns, for an average neutrino energy of 28.1 GeV. The sample was then split into two
bins of nearly equal statistics, taking events of energy higher or lower than 20 GeV. The results
for the low- and high-energy samples are, respectively, δt = (53.1 ± 18.8 (stat.).) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns
and (67.1 ± 18.2 (stat.).) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns. This provides no clues on a possible energy dependence
of δt in the domain explored by OPERA within the accuracy of the measurement.
+++++++++++++++++++
i really need to see replication. this is not however a one time fluke.
QUOTE (brucep+Sep 23 2011, 05:40 AM)
I like an experiment which can make a direct comparison between the speed of light and the speed of the neutrino over the same path.
I agree. They need to check how long it takes light to follow the same path. Photons and neutrinos need to "run the same race".
I agree. They need to check how long it takes light to follow the same path. Photons and neutrinos need to "run the same race".
QUOTE (brucep+Sep 23 2011, 07:47 PM)
The comment by Zichichi is ridiculous. Nobody giving up the speed of light and it won't make any difference to relativistic theoretical models as David pointed out.
Actually, I thought Zichichi's comment about extra dimensions made it so relativity would not be violated. As light would still be travel in spacetime, not hypothetical string theory dimensions.
Nonetheless, maybe he was just over excited.
Actually, I thought Zichichi's comment about extra dimensions made it so relativity would not be violated. As light would still be travel in spacetime, not hypothetical string theory dimensions.
Nonetheless, maybe he was just over excited.
So a superluminal velocity has been detected. And all the news sources are proclaiming that Einstein’s special relativity is wrong. I don’t think so. And there is no other device that is accurate enough to verify the claims. Could this be another cold fusion fiasco? Although I abhor general relativity, I totally support special relativity. It will take a lot of convincing results for me to accept this.
Ho hum
Then go take your meds and fall asleep. Give it a better think in the morning. Wait before all the evidence is in before drawing conclusions.
QUOTE (cbennett+Sep 23 2011, 11:59 PM)
So a superluminal velocity has been detected. And all the news sources are proclaiming that Einstein’s special relativity is wrong. I don’t think so. And there is no other device that is accurate enough to verify the claims. Could this be another cold fusion fiasco? Although I abhor general relativity, I totally support special relativity. It will take a lot of convincing results for me to accept this.
It's a cold fusion fiasco. As much fun as it would be, they still need to demonstrate that the pathway is what they think it is. I think they said they were using GPS to confirm distance. What if there is a bug in the gps satellite system?
It's a cold fusion fiasco. As much fun as it would be, they still need to demonstrate that the pathway is what they think it is. I think they said they were using GPS to confirm distance. What if there is a bug in the gps satellite system?
QUOTE (Mazulu+Sep 24 2011, 01:31 AM)
It's a cold fusion fiasco. As much fun as it would be, they still need to demonstrate that the pathway is what they think it is. I think they said they were using GPS to confirm distance. What if there is a bug in the gps satellite system?
it was 16,000 separate events with an accuracy of 2 cm in the distance. It is very unlikely:
from the paper:
A key feature of the neutrino velocity measurement is the accuracy of the relative time
tagging at CERN and at the OPERA detector. The standard GPS receivers formerly installed at
CERN and LNGS would feature an insufficient ~100 ns accuracy for the TOFν
measurement.
Thus, in 2008, two identical systems, composed of a GPS receiver for time-transfer applications
Septentrio PolaRx2e [16] operating in “common-view” mode [17] and a Cs atomic clock
Symmetricom Cs4000 [18], were installed at CERN and LNGS (see Figs. 3, 5 and 6).
The Cs4000 oscillator provides the reference frequency to the PolaRx2e receiver, which is
able to time-tag its “One Pulse Per Second” output (1PPS) with respect to the individual GPS
satellite observations. The latter are processed offline by using the CGGTTS format [19]. The
two systems feature a technology commonly used for high-accuracy time transfer applications
[20]. They were calibrated by the Swiss Metrology Institute (METAS) [21] and established a
permanent time link between two reference points (tCERN and tLNGS) of the timing chains of
CERN and OPERA at the nanosecond level. This time link between CERN and OPERA was
independently verified by the German Metrology Institute PTB (Physikalisch-Technische
Bundesanstalt) [22] by taking data at CERN and LNGS with a portable time-transfer device [23].
The difference between the time base of the CERN and OPERA PolaRx2e receivers was
measured to be (2.3 ± 0.9) ns [22]. This correction was taken into account in the application of
the time link.
it was 16,000 separate events with an accuracy of 2 cm in the distance. It is very unlikely:
from the paper:
A key feature of the neutrino velocity measurement is the accuracy of the relative time
tagging at CERN and at the OPERA detector. The standard GPS receivers formerly installed at
CERN and LNGS would feature an insufficient ~100 ns accuracy for the TOFν
measurement.
Thus, in 2008, two identical systems, composed of a GPS receiver for time-transfer applications
Septentrio PolaRx2e [16] operating in “common-view” mode [17] and a Cs atomic clock
Symmetricom Cs4000 [18], were installed at CERN and LNGS (see Figs. 3, 5 and 6).
The Cs4000 oscillator provides the reference frequency to the PolaRx2e receiver, which is
able to time-tag its “One Pulse Per Second” output (1PPS) with respect to the individual GPS
satellite observations. The latter are processed offline by using the CGGTTS format [19]. The
two systems feature a technology commonly used for high-accuracy time transfer applications
[20]. They were calibrated by the Swiss Metrology Institute (METAS) [21] and established a
permanent time link between two reference points (tCERN and tLNGS) of the timing chains of
CERN and OPERA at the nanosecond level. This time link between CERN and OPERA was
independently verified by the German Metrology Institute PTB (Physikalisch-Technische
Bundesanstalt) [22] by taking data at CERN and LNGS with a portable time-transfer device [23].
The difference between the time base of the CERN and OPERA PolaRx2e receivers was
measured to be (2.3 ± 0.9) ns [22]. This correction was taken into account in the application of
the time link.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Sep 23 2011, 05:56 PM)
They did do this experiment for a reason. Its not like they did an experiment and just "happened" to notice that the detector at San Grosso were picking up the neutrinos 60ns earlier than light should arrive. They very deliberately planned the experiment for this exact purpose, that tachyon neutrino models have been around for at least a decade and had yet to be tested. If confirmed there will be Nobel prizes in this one. If they screwed up, a lot of embarrassment.
So it could be about testing tachyon neutrino models. What does a tachyon neutrino theory model? Maybe this is what I should read?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.5418
That was interesting. I read somewhere today that one of the three neutrino types is predicted to be tachyonic?
1) If that's true would you know which type?
2) Does this experiment [if confirmed] satisfy a prediction of a tachyon neutrino model?
So it could be about testing tachyon neutrino models. What does a tachyon neutrino theory model? Maybe this is what I should read?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.5418
That was interesting. I read somewhere today that one of the three neutrino types is predicted to be tachyonic?
1) If that's true would you know which type?
2) Does this experiment [if confirmed] satisfy a prediction of a tachyon neutrino model?
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 24 2011, 01:54 AM)
it was 16,000 separate events with an accuracy of 2 cm in the distance. It is very unlikely:
from the paper:
A key feature of the neutrino velocity measurement is the accuracy of the relative time
tagging at CERN and at the OPERA detector. The standard GPS receivers formerly installed at
CERN and LNGS would feature an insufficient ~100 ns accuracy for the TOFν
measurement.
Thus, in 2008, two identical systems, composed of a GPS receiver for time-transfer applications
Septentrio PolaRx2e [16] operating in “common-view” mode [17] and a Cs atomic clock
Symmetricom Cs4000 [18], were installed at CERN and LNGS (see Figs. 3, 5 and 6).
The Cs4000 oscillator provides the reference frequency to the PolaRx2e receiver, which is
able to time-tag its “One Pulse Per Second” output (1PPS) with respect to the individual GPS
satellite observations. The latter are processed offline by using the CGGTTS format [19]. The
two systems feature a technology commonly used for high-accuracy time transfer applications
[20]. They were calibrated by the Swiss Metrology Institute (METAS) [21] and established a
permanent time link between two reference points (tCERN and tLNGS) of the timing chains of
CERN and OPERA at the nanosecond level. This time link between CERN and OPERA was
independently verified by the German Metrology Institute PTB (Physikalisch-Technische
Bundesanstalt) [22] by taking data at CERN and LNGS with a portable time-transfer device [23].
The difference between the time base of the CERN and OPERA PolaRx2e receivers was
measured to be (2.3 ± 0.9) ns [22]. This correction was taken into account in the application of
the time link.
If you guys want to pursue a tachyonic explanation, that's fine with me. But I'm not convinced. I'm wondering what the measured velocity versus kinetic energy graph looks like. Does it look like the neutrino velocities are all approaching some particulary velocity? If that were so, I would suspect that they were really approaching c, but for a mistake somewhere. Or do the neutrinos seem to ignore the existence of a maximum velocity, as if they were immune to the invariance of c.
Who has the facilities to duplicate this experiment?
from the paper:
A key feature of the neutrino velocity measurement is the accuracy of the relative time
tagging at CERN and at the OPERA detector. The standard GPS receivers formerly installed at
CERN and LNGS would feature an insufficient ~100 ns accuracy for the TOFν
measurement.
Thus, in 2008, two identical systems, composed of a GPS receiver for time-transfer applications
Septentrio PolaRx2e [16] operating in “common-view” mode [17] and a Cs atomic clock
Symmetricom Cs4000 [18], were installed at CERN and LNGS (see Figs. 3, 5 and 6).
The Cs4000 oscillator provides the reference frequency to the PolaRx2e receiver, which is
able to time-tag its “One Pulse Per Second” output (1PPS) with respect to the individual GPS
satellite observations. The latter are processed offline by using the CGGTTS format [19]. The
two systems feature a technology commonly used for high-accuracy time transfer applications
[20]. They were calibrated by the Swiss Metrology Institute (METAS) [21] and established a
permanent time link between two reference points (tCERN and tLNGS) of the timing chains of
CERN and OPERA at the nanosecond level. This time link between CERN and OPERA was
independently verified by the German Metrology Institute PTB (Physikalisch-Technische
Bundesanstalt) [22] by taking data at CERN and LNGS with a portable time-transfer device [23].
The difference between the time base of the CERN and OPERA PolaRx2e receivers was
measured to be (2.3 ± 0.9) ns [22]. This correction was taken into account in the application of
the time link.
If you guys want to pursue a tachyonic explanation, that's fine with me. But I'm not convinced. I'm wondering what the measured velocity versus kinetic energy graph looks like. Does it look like the neutrino velocities are all approaching some particulary velocity? If that were so, I would suspect that they were really approaching c, but for a mistake somewhere. Or do the neutrinos seem to ignore the existence of a maximum velocity, as if they were immune to the invariance of c.
Who has the facilities to duplicate this experiment?
QUOTE (brucep+Sep 24 2011, 03:25 AM)
So it could be about testing tachyon neutrino models. What does a tachyon neutrino theory model? Maybe this is what I should read?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.5418
That was interesting. I read somewhere today that one of the three neutrino types is predicted to be tachyonic?
1) If that's true would you know which type?
2) Does this experiment [if confirmed] satisfy a prediction of a tachyon neutrino model?
This gives some experiment evaluation further down in the update comments.
http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutr...e-superluminal/
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.5418
That was interesting. I read somewhere today that one of the three neutrino types is predicted to be tachyonic?
1) If that's true would you know which type?
2) Does this experiment [if confirmed] satisfy a prediction of a tachyon neutrino model?
This gives some experiment evaluation further down in the update comments.
http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutr...e-superluminal/
QUOTE (brucep+Sep 24 2011, 04:50 AM)
This gives some experiment evaluation further down in the update comments.
http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutr...e-superluminal/
Has the DeBroglie wavelength of a neutrino ever been measured or verified? Is it even possible to do a 2 slit experiment with neutrinos?
I guess this quote from the article answers my question.
It neutrinos have been observed to oscillate between flavors, then they obey QM. So why would they violate relativity?
http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutr...e-superluminal/
Has the DeBroglie wavelength of a neutrino ever been measured or verified? Is it even possible to do a 2 slit experiment with neutrinos?
I guess this quote from the article answers my question.
QUOTE
Since neutrinos oscillate between different flavours we can’t make the excuse that one case looks at electron neutrinos and the other muon neutrinos, can we?
It neutrinos have been observed to oscillate between flavors, then they obey QM. So why would they violate relativity?
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 23 2011, 02:08 PM)
did you really say that!!!???....awww david why oh why?
The Koran, Book of Mormon, and Bible I bet are quoted even more. No reality there.
Ok so lets have a look
http://www.nature.com/nphys/index.html
First on the list
Entanglements next dimension.
So lets see what that's about
Yeah that's right, they just claimed to prove the existence of those 11 spatial dimensions. Really? SHOW ME THE DEMONSTRATION if you want me to believe that. If you want me to accept something's existence, show me the demonstration of the experiment. If you want me to accept that a theory implies some result show me the explicit derivation. We've come to a time when people are so intellectually lazy that journalism has replaced science. I could and at times have given some average Joe of today an explicit derivation mathematically proving a given point and as a typical response get, show me the journal publication. And given that its suddenly doctrine. It should be the other way around completely. The journal is a means of dissemination of information, but if you want me to accept something show me demonstration of its experiment, show me the entire explicit derivation, but do NOT give me a journalist oked publication quote and expect that it ends the discussion like a Rabbi expects quoting the Torah should. Its not specifically wiki, or Nature or whatever source that is percentage wise invalid. It is really the reliance on quotes from such as a means to determine reality that people have so much fallen into the habit of doing that I am frustrated with and am calling invalid.
The Koran, Book of Mormon, and Bible I bet are quoted even more. No reality there.
Ok so lets have a look
http://www.nature.com/nphys/index.html
First on the list
Entanglements next dimension.
So lets see what that's about
QUOTE
We have measured previously untested correlations between two photons to experimentally demonstrate high-dimensional entangled states. We obtain violations of Bell-type inequalities generalized to d-dimensional systems6 up to d=12. Furthermore, the violations are strong enough to indicate genuine 11-dimensional entanglement.
Yeah that's right, they just claimed to prove the existence of those 11 spatial dimensions. Really? SHOW ME THE DEMONSTRATION if you want me to believe that. If you want me to accept something's existence, show me the demonstration of the experiment. If you want me to accept that a theory implies some result show me the explicit derivation. We've come to a time when people are so intellectually lazy that journalism has replaced science. I could and at times have given some average Joe of today an explicit derivation mathematically proving a given point and as a typical response get, show me the journal publication. And given that its suddenly doctrine. It should be the other way around completely. The journal is a means of dissemination of information, but if you want me to accept something show me demonstration of its experiment, show me the entire explicit derivation, but do NOT give me a journalist oked publication quote and expect that it ends the discussion like a Rabbi expects quoting the Torah should. Its not specifically wiki, or Nature or whatever source that is percentage wise invalid. It is really the reliance on quotes from such as a means to determine reality that people have so much fallen into the habit of doing that I am frustrated with and am calling invalid.
QUOTE (brucep+Sep 23 2011, 12:47 PM)
The comment by Zichichi is ridiculous. Nobody giving up the speed of light and it won't make any difference to relativistic theoretical models as David pointed out. Personally I don't believe based on the existing evidence that neutrinos travel < c and it's a very complicated experiment. If it is empirically true then it will be interesting to evaluate the anomaly. Neutrinos haven't been the easiest critters to describe over the years.
David
I'd like to here what you think about the experiment? Especially the GPS part. Maybe you could mention something about the possibility of new science [tachyon] you mentioned.
Maybe some possible 'minuscule neutrino Chernokov effect' for passing through solid matter. Or some tunneling effect during oscillation.
Actually I don't yet know much about the experiment. You smash particles at CERN to create a pulse of Neutrinos. Some are than detected at San Grasso. They take the distance, divide by the time between the events then say they got a speed greater than c. I would need to know more about how the times are determined between the creation and detection events and how the clocks are synced in order to accept it. Essentially they are claiming to have two clocks 730km apart synced withing 10ns and more amazing, that they can determine the time of the creation event and the time of the detection events to within that much time for error. I wouldn't call neutrinos as Tachyons new science as such as model has been around for so long. I would call it fringe science. The theoretical framework is already in place. This is why they went to do this experiment and why supernova neutrino and light reception times have been compared in the first place. There was some suspicion that this may be the result in the first place.
David
I'd like to here what you think about the experiment? Especially the GPS part. Maybe you could mention something about the possibility of new science [tachyon] you mentioned.
Maybe some possible 'minuscule neutrino Chernokov effect' for passing through solid matter. Or some tunneling effect during oscillation.
Actually I don't yet know much about the experiment. You smash particles at CERN to create a pulse of Neutrinos. Some are than detected at San Grasso. They take the distance, divide by the time between the events then say they got a speed greater than c. I would need to know more about how the times are determined between the creation and detection events and how the clocks are synced in order to accept it. Essentially they are claiming to have two clocks 730km apart synced withing 10ns and more amazing, that they can determine the time of the creation event and the time of the detection events to within that much time for error. I wouldn't call neutrinos as Tachyons new science as such as model has been around for so long. I would call it fringe science. The theoretical framework is already in place. This is why they went to do this experiment and why supernova neutrino and light reception times have been compared in the first place. There was some suspicion that this may be the result in the first place.
Crazy .... been doing some basic calc's regarding CERN's faster than light neutrino data.
Supernova 1987A was responsible for a neutrino surge 18 hours before any optical confirmation.
CERN to Gran Sasso = 732km ..... neutrino's arrived 6 x 10^-8 sec's ahead of predicted c
Supernova to Earth ... around 160,000 light years (42 x 10^13km)
Well oddly enough, 42 x 10^13/732 x 6 x 10^-8 = 18.82 Hours!!
Perhaps, there's really additional dimensions to this universe of ours?
Supernova 1987A was responsible for a neutrino surge 18 hours before any optical confirmation.
CERN to Gran Sasso = 732km ..... neutrino's arrived 6 x 10^-8 sec's ahead of predicted c
Supernova to Earth ... around 160,000 light years (42 x 10^13km)
Well oddly enough, 42 x 10^13/732 x 6 x 10^-8 = 18.82 Hours!!
Perhaps, there's really additional dimensions to this universe of ours?
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+)
worst case scenario relativity becomes like Newtonian physics accurate but not the whole story...and that is worst case mind you.
To me, worst case scenarios apply to things like impending disasters. What we have impending here is new knowledge, a refinement, a chance of greater clarity. And that's only if the data holds. And if it actually does, it will be exciting, intriguing, inspiring. "Worst case scenario" is a meaningless thing here.
To the physics-educated here: Are both neutrino/tachyon mechanics and 11D String theory mechanics equally valid when integrating their maths into SR? I hope I asked that correctly; it's late...
To the physics-educated here: Are both neutrino/tachyon mechanics and 11D String theory mechanics equally valid when integrating their maths into SR? I hope I asked that correctly; it's late...
.... and Einstein's speed limit is still valid;- it's just a simple case of off-brane wavicle geometric magnitude.
i.e;- I propose electo-positronic wave aspects carry the photon, whilst neutrino's are integrated into some other ..... possibly, the proton-antiproton equivalent.
ps;- Higher dimensional singularity/ wavefront curvature is a most logical answer.
i.e;- I propose electo-positronic wave aspects carry the photon, whilst neutrino's are integrated into some other ..... possibly, the proton-antiproton equivalent.
ps;- Higher dimensional singularity/ wavefront curvature is a most logical answer.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Sep 24 2011, 06:23 AM)
It is really the reliance on quotes from such as a means to determine reality that people have so much fallen into the habit of doing that I am frustrated with and am calling invalid.
while i disagree with your evaluation of the importance of the paper or of the journal nature, and i find your comments about the paper, antiquarian at best, is not a topic worth even arguing over.
i do agree with your assessment of the ridiculous quotes about the CERN neutrino experiment.
It has been glaringly obvious that experimental/theoretical science has been pumping money out of the NSF for quite sometime to test theories that should have been round filed a long time ago. The current theories are very specialized, difficult to understand, and error prone, which unconscionable people use to their advantage for monetary gain.
while i disagree with your evaluation of the importance of the paper or of the journal nature, and i find your comments about the paper, antiquarian at best, is not a topic worth even arguing over.
i do agree with your assessment of the ridiculous quotes about the CERN neutrino experiment.
It has been glaringly obvious that experimental/theoretical science has been pumping money out of the NSF for quite sometime to test theories that should have been round filed a long time ago. The current theories are very specialized, difficult to understand, and error prone, which unconscionable people use to their advantage for monetary gain.
User posted image: User posted image
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 24 2011, 10:15 AM)
while i disagree with your evaluation of the importance of the paper or of the journal nature, and i find your comments about the paper, antiquarian at best, is not a topic worth even arguing over.
i do agree with your assessment of the ridiculous quotes about the CERN neutrino experiment.
It has been glaringly obvious that experimental/theoretical science has been pumping money out of the NSF for quite sometime to test theories that should have been round filed a long time ago. The current theories are very specialized, difficult to understand, and error prone, which unconscionable people use to their advantage for monetary gain.
What's glaringly obvious is your last sentence is pure ignorance. All we need is more nonsense.
i do agree with your assessment of the ridiculous quotes about the CERN neutrino experiment.
It has been glaringly obvious that experimental/theoretical science has been pumping money out of the NSF for quite sometime to test theories that should have been round filed a long time ago. The current theories are very specialized, difficult to understand, and error prone, which unconscionable people use to their advantage for monetary gain.
What's glaringly obvious is your last sentence is pure ignorance. All we need is more nonsense.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Sep 24 2011, 06:48 AM)
Actually I don't yet know much about the experiment. You smash particles at CERN to create a pulse of Neutrinos. Some are than detected at San Grasso. They take the distance, divide by the time between the events then say they got a speed greater than c. I would need to know more about how the times are determined between the creation and detection events and how the clocks are synced in order to accept it. Essentially they are claiming to have two clocks 730km apart synced withing 10ns and more amazing, that they can determine the time of the creation event and the time of the detection events to within that much time for error. I wouldn't call neutrinos as Tachyons new science as such as model has been around for so long. I would call it fringe science. The theoretical framework is already in place. This is why they went to do this experiment and why supernova neutrino and light reception times have been compared in the first place. There was some suspicion that this may be the result in the first place.
I think somebody made a big mistake and the error bar isn't going to be 10ns or less.
I think somebody made a big mistake and the error bar isn't going to be 10ns or less.
"....established synchronization between CERN and Gran Sasso...gives us nanosecond accuracy,...measured the distance.... to 20 centimeters"
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/...ticles-break-th
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/...ticles-break-th
In 2007 MINOS sniffed a hint of faster-than-light neutrinos, but the margin of error was too big to "make a claim"...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/hea...JzqK_story.html
Forgot where I found this:
MINOS @ 1.000051 c ?
OPERA @ 1.000025 c
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/hea...JzqK_story.html
Forgot where I found this:
MINOS @ 1.000051 c ?
OPERA @ 1.000025 c
Debunking the likes of Sir Issac Newton, Einstein, my Science teachers, I bloody well will have to do better than the preceding.
We have been led to believe that thunder is the after math or results of lightning when in fact the opposite is true!
Thunder (the collapse of air cells) creates the energy of what we call lightning.
Thunder happens first!
Sound travels much faster than light !
The sound that we play around with is leftover energy of reactions that have magnetically regrouped into larger chips (molecules). This leftover energy is just one in many that an air cell has as it’s nucleus!
Considering new technology, and I was listening from the Moon “I would hear your whistle before you would!”
We have been led to believe that thunder is the after math or results of lightning when in fact the opposite is true!
Thunder (the collapse of air cells) creates the energy of what we call lightning.
Thunder happens first!
Sound travels much faster than light !
The sound that we play around with is leftover energy of reactions that have magnetically regrouped into larger chips (molecules). This leftover energy is just one in many that an air cell has as it’s nucleus!
Considering new technology, and I was listening from the Moon “I would hear your whistle before you would!”
QUOTE (Bruce Voigt+Sep 24 2011, 06:23 PM)
Sound travels much faster than light !
QUOTE (brucep+Sep 24 2011, 03:25 PM)
What's glaringly obvious is your last sentence is pure ignorance. All we need is more nonsense.
please bruce, i have always respected your opinion, please inform me why that statement is nonsense?
there are a few unconscionable souls i would like to mention on the, i screwed my government out of money for false research list:
Werner Bezwoda, who admitted to scientific misconduct in trials on high-dose chemotherapy on breast cancer.[35]
Teruji Cho[36] (Japan, Plasma Physics)
Richard Eastell - Actonel Affair; resigned after allegations of financial irregularities; (Medicine)[37][38][39]
Marc Hauser (evolutionary psychology).[40]
Woo-Suk Hwang (Hwang Woo-Suk) (cloning) [41]
Doctoral student Roxana Gonzalez (social psychology) engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and National Institutes of Health (NIH).[42][43] [44] The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found that data falsification altered five published publications. As a result, articles were retracted from the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Biological Psychiatry, and the Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Juan Carlos Mejuto and Gonzalo Astray[45] (Spain, Chemical Physics). Two papers in Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data withdrawn by the editor[46] because of plagiarism.
Victor Ninov[47] (nuclear physics)
Leo A. Paquette[48][49] (chemistry)
Malcolm Pearce (author) - Fraudulent description of successful reimplantation of ectopic pregnancy [24]
Milena Penkowa[50][51][52] (neuroscience)
Scott Reuben (medical management of pain)[53]
Karen M. Ruggiero (social psychology), fabricated data on 240 participants in a study supported by NIH[54][55]
Jan Hendrik Schön (Germany, physics of semiconductors) - forged results, using the same graph image in different contexts [56]
Diederik Stapel (Netherlands, social psychology) – fabricated data in high-publicity studies of human behaviour[57]
Albert Steinschneider - Sleep apnea, SIDS[29][30][41][58][59][60]
Akio Sugino [61] (Japan, molecular biology)
Kazunari Taira [62] (molecular biology)
Andrew Wakefield, who claimed links between the MMR vaccine, autism and inflammatory bowel disease. He was found guilty of dishonesty in his research and banned from medicine by the UK General Medical Council following an investigation by Brian Deer of the London Sunday Times.[63]
H. Zhong, T. Liu, and their co-workers at Jinggangshan University have retracted numerous papers published in Acta Crystallographica following systematic checking which revealed that the organic structures claimed in these papers were impossible or implausible. The supporting data appeared to have been taken from valid cases which had then been altered by substituting different atoms into the structures.[64][65]
it's just a few....
please bruce, i have always respected your opinion, please inform me why that statement is nonsense?
there are a few unconscionable souls i would like to mention on the, i screwed my government out of money for false research list:
Werner Bezwoda, who admitted to scientific misconduct in trials on high-dose chemotherapy on breast cancer.[35]
Teruji Cho[36] (Japan, Plasma Physics)
Richard Eastell - Actonel Affair; resigned after allegations of financial irregularities; (Medicine)[37][38][39]
Marc Hauser (evolutionary psychology).[40]
Woo-Suk Hwang (Hwang Woo-Suk) (cloning) [41]
Doctoral student Roxana Gonzalez (social psychology) engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and National Institutes of Health (NIH).[42][43] [44] The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found that data falsification altered five published publications. As a result, articles were retracted from the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Biological Psychiatry, and the Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Juan Carlos Mejuto and Gonzalo Astray[45] (Spain, Chemical Physics). Two papers in Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data withdrawn by the editor[46] because of plagiarism.
Victor Ninov[47] (nuclear physics)
Leo A. Paquette[48][49] (chemistry)
Malcolm Pearce (author) - Fraudulent description of successful reimplantation of ectopic pregnancy [24]
Milena Penkowa[50][51][52] (neuroscience)
Scott Reuben (medical management of pain)[53]
Karen M. Ruggiero (social psychology), fabricated data on 240 participants in a study supported by NIH[54][55]
Jan Hendrik Schön (Germany, physics of semiconductors) - forged results, using the same graph image in different contexts [56]
Diederik Stapel (Netherlands, social psychology) – fabricated data in high-publicity studies of human behaviour[57]
Albert Steinschneider - Sleep apnea, SIDS[29][30][41][58][59][60]
Akio Sugino [61] (Japan, molecular biology)
Kazunari Taira [62] (molecular biology)
Andrew Wakefield, who claimed links between the MMR vaccine, autism and inflammatory bowel disease. He was found guilty of dishonesty in his research and banned from medicine by the UK General Medical Council following an investigation by Brian Deer of the London Sunday Times.[63]
H. Zhong, T. Liu, and their co-workers at Jinggangshan University have retracted numerous papers published in Acta Crystallographica following systematic checking which revealed that the organic structures claimed in these papers were impossible or implausible. The supporting data appeared to have been taken from valid cases which had then been altered by substituting different atoms into the structures.[64][65]
it's just a few....
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 24 2011, 09:11 PM)
please bruce, i have always respected your opinion, please inform me why that statement is nonsense?
there are a few unconscionable souls i would like to mention on the, i screwed my government out of money for false research list:
Werner Bezwoda, who admitted to scientific misconduct in trials on high-dose chemotherapy on breast cancer.[35]
Teruji Cho[36] (Japan, Plasma Physics)
Richard Eastell - Actonel Affair; resigned after allegations of financial irregularities; (Medicine)[37][38][39]
Marc Hauser (evolutionary psychology).[40]
Woo-Suk Hwang (Hwang Woo-Suk) (cloning) [41]
Doctoral student Roxana Gonzalez (social psychology) engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and National Institutes of Health (NIH).[42][43] [44] The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found that data falsification altered five published publications. As a result, articles were retracted from the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Biological Psychiatry, and the Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Juan Carlos Mejuto and Gonzalo Astray[45] (Spain, Chemical Physics). Two papers in Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data withdrawn by the editor[46] because of plagiarism.
Victor Ninov[47] (nuclear physics)
Leo A. Paquette[48][49] (chemistry)
Malcolm Pearce (author) - Fraudulent description of successful reimplantation of ectopic pregnancy [24]
Milena Penkowa[50][51][52] (neuroscience)
Scott Reuben (medical management of pain)[53]
Karen M. Ruggiero (social psychology), fabricated data on 240 participants in a study supported by NIH[54][55]
Jan Hendrik Schön (Germany, physics of semiconductors) - forged results, using the same graph image in different contexts [56]
Diederik Stapel (Netherlands, social psychology) – fabricated data in high-publicity studies of human behaviour[57]
Albert Steinschneider - Sleep apnea, SIDS[29][30][41][58][59][60]
Akio Sugino [61] (Japan, molecular biology)
Kazunari Taira [62] (molecular biology)
Andrew Wakefield, who claimed links between the MMR vaccine, autism and inflammatory bowel disease. He was found guilty of dishonesty in his research and banned from medicine by the UK General Medical Council following an investigation by Brian Deer of the London Sunday Times.[63]
H. Zhong, T. Liu, and their co-workers at Jinggangshan University have retracted numerous papers published in Acta Crystallographica following systematic checking which revealed that the organic structures claimed in these papers were impossible or implausible. The supporting data appeared to have been taken from valid cases which had then been altered by substituting different atoms into the structures.[64][65]
it's just a few....
Because it isn't founded in fact and it's just an uninformed opinion. You made it seem like you think scientists are just a bunch of charlatans ripping off the public. Not true and anybody who thinks so is full of crap. You did know which part of the statement I would focus on. You made a very general comment so making a short list of people you think fit your general comment doesn't work as an explanation for me.
there are a few unconscionable souls i would like to mention on the, i screwed my government out of money for false research list:
Werner Bezwoda, who admitted to scientific misconduct in trials on high-dose chemotherapy on breast cancer.[35]
Teruji Cho[36] (Japan, Plasma Physics)
Richard Eastell - Actonel Affair; resigned after allegations of financial irregularities; (Medicine)[37][38][39]
Marc Hauser (evolutionary psychology).[40]
Woo-Suk Hwang (Hwang Woo-Suk) (cloning) [41]
Doctoral student Roxana Gonzalez (social psychology) engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and National Institutes of Health (NIH).[42][43] [44] The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found that data falsification altered five published publications. As a result, articles were retracted from the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Biological Psychiatry, and the Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Juan Carlos Mejuto and Gonzalo Astray[45] (Spain, Chemical Physics). Two papers in Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data withdrawn by the editor[46] because of plagiarism.
Victor Ninov[47] (nuclear physics)
Leo A. Paquette[48][49] (chemistry)
Malcolm Pearce (author) - Fraudulent description of successful reimplantation of ectopic pregnancy [24]
Milena Penkowa[50][51][52] (neuroscience)
Scott Reuben (medical management of pain)[53]
Karen M. Ruggiero (social psychology), fabricated data on 240 participants in a study supported by NIH[54][55]
Jan Hendrik Schön (Germany, physics of semiconductors) - forged results, using the same graph image in different contexts [56]
Diederik Stapel (Netherlands, social psychology) – fabricated data in high-publicity studies of human behaviour[57]
Albert Steinschneider - Sleep apnea, SIDS[29][30][41][58][59][60]
Akio Sugino [61] (Japan, molecular biology)
Kazunari Taira [62] (molecular biology)
Andrew Wakefield, who claimed links between the MMR vaccine, autism and inflammatory bowel disease. He was found guilty of dishonesty in his research and banned from medicine by the UK General Medical Council following an investigation by Brian Deer of the London Sunday Times.[63]
H. Zhong, T. Liu, and their co-workers at Jinggangshan University have retracted numerous papers published in Acta Crystallographica following systematic checking which revealed that the organic structures claimed in these papers were impossible or implausible. The supporting data appeared to have been taken from valid cases which had then been altered by substituting different atoms into the structures.[64][65]
it's just a few....
Because it isn't founded in fact and it's just an uninformed opinion. You made it seem like you think scientists are just a bunch of charlatans ripping off the public. Not true and anybody who thinks so is full of crap. You did know which part of the statement I would focus on. You made a very general comment so making a short list of people you think fit your general comment doesn't work as an explanation for me.
Tisk tisk
Must we fight? If we do, then add some criticism of the topic. But I wish the criticism wasn’t so vicious at times.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Sep 24 2011, 01:23 AM)
do NOT give me a journalist oked publication quote and expect that it ends the discussion like a Rabbi expects quoting the Torah should. Its not specifically wiki, or Nature or whatever source that is percentage wise invalid. It is really the reliance on quotes from such as a means to determine reality that people have so much fallen into the habit of doing that I am frustrated with and am calling invalid.
I’m glad you pointed this out although I doubt it will sink in with most. Unfortunately this is a behavior that seems to be ingrained in human thinking, at least since recorded history. We see what we want to see, make absolute conclusions with little evidence, ignore or use convoluted rationalizations to dismiss evidence that indicates our position is flawed or wrong, and form most opinions (and arguments) based on what is in our own self-interests (financial, stature, ego, spiritual, etc).
This is rampant everywhere including this forum, and most people believe this to be true of others but not themselves. I am most disappointed when I see people devoted to the sciences do this, and unfortunately they do it too. I would say the three biggest factors for this behavior are laziness (as you pointed out), ego, and financial, in that order. We all have this tendency including myself; even though I make a constant effort to avoid behaving this way on reflection I still don’t avoid it entirely. This is why I try to be more tolerant of others when they do it. It seems to be ingrained in our genetic makeup.
Perhaps these comments have opened a few eyes.
Maxila
I’m glad you pointed this out although I doubt it will sink in with most. Unfortunately this is a behavior that seems to be ingrained in human thinking, at least since recorded history. We see what we want to see, make absolute conclusions with little evidence, ignore or use convoluted rationalizations to dismiss evidence that indicates our position is flawed or wrong, and form most opinions (and arguments) based on what is in our own self-interests (financial, stature, ego, spiritual, etc).
This is rampant everywhere including this forum, and most people believe this to be true of others but not themselves. I am most disappointed when I see people devoted to the sciences do this, and unfortunately they do it too. I would say the three biggest factors for this behavior are laziness (as you pointed out), ego, and financial, in that order. We all have this tendency including myself; even though I make a constant effort to avoid behaving this way on reflection I still don’t avoid it entirely. This is why I try to be more tolerant of others when they do it. It seems to be ingrained in our genetic makeup.
Perhaps these comments have opened a few eyes.
Maxila
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 24 2011, 10:15 AM)
It has been glaringly obvious that experimental/theoretical science has been pumping money out of the NSF for quite sometime to test theories that should have been round filed a long time ago. The current theories are very specialized, difficult to understand, and error prone, which unconscionable people use to their advantage for monetary gain.
Hi Professor. I agree with your assessment of shady research. In this case, we are questioning the validity of the CERN measurement of the superluminal velocities of neutrinos. It’s a hot topic. Thus this one has generated some overheated discourse. I do not see an end to the controversy for quite some time due to the many possible sources of error. Perhaps it is safe to say that, “We done plowed up some kinda snake.”
Hi Professor. I agree with your assessment of shady research. In this case, we are questioning the validity of the CERN measurement of the superluminal velocities of neutrinos. It’s a hot topic. Thus this one has generated some overheated discourse. I do not see an end to the controversy for quite some time due to the many possible sources of error. Perhaps it is safe to say that, “We done plowed up some kinda snake.”
QUOTE (brucep+Sep 24 2011, 09:49 PM)
Because it isn't founded in fact and it's just an uninformed opinion. You made it seem like you think scientists are just a bunch of charlatans ripping off the public. Not true and anybody who thinks so is full of crap. You did know which part of the statement I would focus on. You made a very general comment so making a short list of people you think fit your general comment doesn't work as an explanation for me.
i meant SOME scientists, bruce. "unconscionable people" i think is what i said. perhaps you read it through the glasses of anger over my statement to david. anyway sorry if i offended. Trashing THE major peer reviewed interdisciplinary journal as not a good source is not the kind of thing i think that a theoretician should do.
it is however true that there is scientific fraud; to not believe that is nonsense; and there is enough of that here, as you said.
i meant SOME scientists, bruce. "unconscionable people" i think is what i said. perhaps you read it through the glasses of anger over my statement to david. anyway sorry if i offended. Trashing THE major peer reviewed interdisciplinary journal as not a good source is not the kind of thing i think that a theoretician should do.
it is however true that there is scientific fraud; to not believe that is nonsense; and there is enough of that here, as you said.
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 24 2011, 08:40 PM)
i meant SOME scientists, bruce. "unconscionable people" i think is what i said. perhaps you read it through the glasses of anger over my statement to david. anyway sorry if i offended. Trashing THE major peer reviewed interdisciplinary journal as not a good source is not the kind of thing i think that a theoretician should do.
it is however true that there is scientific fraud; to not believe that is nonsense; and there is enough of that here, as you said.
Do you know what "good science" is? Maybe, lets see. Can you tell us what the scientific method is? I mean literally as in who proposed it and what the scientific method is that he actually proposed?
it is however true that there is scientific fraud; to not believe that is nonsense; and there is enough of that here, as you said.
Do you know what "good science" is? Maybe, lets see. Can you tell us what the scientific method is? I mean literally as in who proposed it and what the scientific method is that he actually proposed?
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Sep 25 2011, 04:09 AM)
Do you know what "good science" is? Maybe, lets see. Can you tell us what the scientific method is? I mean literally as in who proposed it and what the scientific method is that he actually proposed?
yes david i can. i will however not side track the point, can you tell me what the journal of nature and wikipedia have in common?
are you angry cause they wouldn't publish a paper by you as well?
because your comments are ridiculous and deflective of the true point of the disagreement. have you actually read the paper you flamed? it's here btw: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1104/1104.5087v2.pdf since i assume you don't have a subscription to that "trash".
second, previously in the thread you stated that you would like to see the derivations of the TOF measurements on the CERN experiment...they are in the paper which i assume you have not read either. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1104/1104.5087v2.pdf
that(your lack of knowledge yet eagerness to answer) is a fine example of "poor science"
yes david i can. i will however not side track the point, can you tell me what the journal of nature and wikipedia have in common?
are you angry cause they wouldn't publish a paper by you as well?
because your comments are ridiculous and deflective of the true point of the disagreement. have you actually read the paper you flamed? it's here btw: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1104/1104.5087v2.pdf since i assume you don't have a subscription to that "trash".
second, previously in the thread you stated that you would like to see the derivations of the TOF measurements on the CERN experiment...they are in the paper which i assume you have not read either. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1104/1104.5087v2.pdf
that(your lack of knowledge yet eagerness to answer) is a fine example of "poor science"
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 24 2011, 09:17 PM)
yes david i can. i will however not side track the point, can you tell me what the journal of nature and wikipedia have in common?
are you angry cause they wouldn't publish a paper by you as well?
because your comments are ridiculous and deflective of the true point of the disagreement. have you actually read the paper you flamed? it's here btw: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1104/1104.5087v2.pdf since i assume you don't have a subscription to that "trash".
second, previously in the thread you stated that you would like to see the derivations of the TOF measurements on the CERN experiment...they are in the paper which i assume you have not read either. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1104/1104.5087v2.pdf
that(your lack of knowledge yet eagerness to answer) is a fine example of "poor science"
I had hoped you could actually. Look up Roger Bacon. Find the method. List it here. Then we'll talk.
are you angry cause they wouldn't publish a paper by you as well?
because your comments are ridiculous and deflective of the true point of the disagreement. have you actually read the paper you flamed? it's here btw: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1104/1104.5087v2.pdf since i assume you don't have a subscription to that "trash".
second, previously in the thread you stated that you would like to see the derivations of the TOF measurements on the CERN experiment...they are in the paper which i assume you have not read either. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1104/1104.5087v2.pdf
that(your lack of knowledge yet eagerness to answer) is a fine example of "poor science"
I had hoped you could actually. Look up Roger Bacon. Find the method. List it here. Then we'll talk.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Sep 25 2011, 04:31 AM)
I had hoped you could actually. Look up Roger Bacon. Find the method. List it here. Then we'll talk.
no answer the question david. then i will answer all the questions you want. and btw that is a typical western response...what about Islamic science?
no answer the question david. then i will answer all the questions you want. and btw that is a typical western response...what about Islamic science?
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 24 2011, 09:35 PM)
no answer the question david. then i will answer all the questions you want.
You don't have a real question. You are dodging, probably because you looked up the actual scientific method by now and found out you were wrong.
You don't have a real question. You are dodging, probably because you looked up the actual scientific method by now and found out you were wrong.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Sep 25 2011, 04:38 AM)
You don't have a real question. You are dodging, probably because you looked up the actual scientific method by now and found out you were wrong.
what does the journal of nature and wikipedia have in common david? that is the question
what does the journal of nature and wikipedia have in common david? that is the question
it is not my credentials but yours that are in question.
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 24 2011, 09:41 PM)
it is not my credentials but yours that are in question.
I don't care if my credentials are in question. In fact that's relevant to the point. Credentials have nothing to do with the scientific method. Even a patent clerk can make great contribution to science.
I don't care if my credentials are in question. In fact that's relevant to the point. Credentials have nothing to do with the scientific method. Even a patent clerk can make great contribution to science.
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 24 2011, 09:39 PM)
what does the journal of nature and wikipedia have in common david? that is the question
One thing they have in common is that though they are competing for status as the New Age Bible, neither are as yet quoted as often as the Koran, Book of Mormon, or the Bible.
One thing they have in common is that though they are competing for status as the New Age Bible, neither are as yet quoted as often as the Koran, Book of Mormon, or the Bible.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Sep 25 2011, 04:49 AM)
I don't care if my credentials are in question. In fact that's relevant to the point. Credentials have nothing to do with the scientific method.
i see you wont answer the question, huh?
sure i'll answer your question though there is no one 'real' answer the earliest would have been Ptolemy then al-Haytham who is creditied as the "father" of the modern scientific method...bacon is much much later.
you see once again, you misspoke and you answered your own question wrong. This seems to be a commonly occurring theme in my conversations with you. I accept your answer and the later find out you misspoke. The words "i don't know" are alright to utter david.
i see you wont answer the question, huh?
sure i'll answer your question though there is no one 'real' answer the earliest would have been Ptolemy then al-Haytham who is creditied as the "father" of the modern scientific method...bacon is much much later.
you see once again, you misspoke and you answered your own question wrong. This seems to be a commonly occurring theme in my conversations with you. I accept your answer and the later find out you misspoke. The words "i don't know" are alright to utter david.
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 24 2011, 09:59 PM)
i see you wont answer the question, huh?
sure i'll answer your question though there is no one 'real' answer the earliest would have been Ptolemy then al-Haytham who is creditied as the "father" of the modern scientific method...bacon is much much later.
you see once again, you misspoke and you answered your own question wrong. This seems to be a commonly occurring theme in my conversations with you. I accept your answer and the later find out you misspoke. The words "i don't know" are alright to utter david.
I didn't miss-speak anything. I meant what I've said. Unfortunately you're not willing to be truthful in your answer because it proves you wrong.
sure i'll answer your question though there is no one 'real' answer the earliest would have been Ptolemy then al-Haytham who is creditied as the "father" of the modern scientific method...bacon is much much later.
you see once again, you misspoke and you answered your own question wrong. This seems to be a commonly occurring theme in my conversations with you. I accept your answer and the later find out you misspoke. The words "i don't know" are alright to utter david.
I didn't miss-speak anything. I meant what I've said. Unfortunately you're not willing to be truthful in your answer because it proves you wrong.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Sep 25 2011, 05:13 AM)
I didn't miss-speak anything. I meant what I've said.
then you are just flat wrong on all accounts.
this is unproductive, you can believe anything you want about the journal nature. it is peer reviewed and i'm sure science will get along just fine without you.
then you are just flat wrong on all accounts.
this is unproductive, you can believe anything you want about the journal nature. it is peer reviewed and i'm sure science will get along just fine without you.
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 24 2011, 10:35 PM)
then you are just flat wrong on all accounts.
this is unproductive, you can believe anything you want about the journal nature. it is peer reviewed and i'm sure science will get along just fine without you.
Actually my information is starting once more to disseminate just fine like it or not, and whether you know it or not. The next couple of months will be exciting for me. There's a reason things are happening like foreign professors translating and pdfing Modern Relativity into their own languages, like MIT adding it to multiple sections of the Net Advance of physics etc. This all started to happen a decade ago, but I made the mistake of changing the domain name over to a free server, geocities which later went out of business. Took a while, but its starting to happen again.
this is unproductive, you can believe anything you want about the journal nature. it is peer reviewed and i'm sure science will get along just fine without you.
Actually my information is starting once more to disseminate just fine like it or not, and whether you know it or not. The next couple of months will be exciting for me. There's a reason things are happening like foreign professors translating and pdfing Modern Relativity into their own languages, like MIT adding it to multiple sections of the Net Advance of physics etc. This all started to happen a decade ago, but I made the mistake of changing the domain name over to a free server, geocities which later went out of business. Took a while, but its starting to happen again.
Run for cover!
When Titan’s clash, thunder and lightning come out of the sky.
his English slightly less so for that I do not expect spam mod thanks
100% true experiment and theory of relativity is also true 100% is not uncommon here at all
*why such conditions must be recalled before the experiment was conducted
*1) make sure they only have one way to find the particle velocity is distance divided by time taken to measure time. Calculate the velocityies they do not measure the velocity of all particles in the air the moment it (more specifically they do not measure its velocity in each fraction of the distance).
*it so it will have a certain time to obtain the right with 300000km / s and to the state "teleport" to all the remaining distance so that when the average speed will be the same.(In general relativity have mentioned problems when traveling with 300000km / s, the time will stop. That's the phenomenon is referred to teleport)
*said base is so still have to explain more intensive use of quantum theory. and the fear that a few dozen pages to explain, not jokingbecause the article did not specify the conditions under which experiments are difficult to make but specific analysis. entropy can be used to explain this phenomenon is very reasonable.that is certainly not all fires are 15,000 particles reach the velocity that is only a number but a number will reach speeds under 300000km / s (entropy is what is on google search will)
100% true experiment and theory of relativity is also true 100% is not uncommon here at all
*why such conditions must be recalled before the experiment was conducted
*1) make sure they only have one way to find the particle velocity is distance divided by time taken to measure time. Calculate the velocityies they do not measure the velocity of all particles in the air the moment it (more specifically they do not measure its velocity in each fraction of the distance).
*it so it will have a certain time to obtain the right with 300000km / s and to the state "teleport" to all the remaining distance so that when the average speed will be the same.(In general relativity have mentioned problems when traveling with 300000km / s, the time will stop. That's the phenomenon is referred to teleport)
*said base is so still have to explain more intensive use of quantum theory. and the fear that a few dozen pages to explain, not jokingbecause the article did not specify the conditions under which experiments are difficult to make but specific analysis. entropy can be used to explain this phenomenon is very reasonable.that is certainly not all fires are 15,000 particles reach the velocity that is only a number but a number will reach speeds under 300000km / s (entropy is what is on google search will)
You would have done better to have posted this in your native language.
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 25 2011, 03:40 AM)
i meant SOME scientists, bruce. "unconscionable people" i think is what i said. perhaps you read it through the glasses of anger over my statement to david. anyway sorry if i offended. Trashing THE major peer reviewed interdisciplinary journal as not a good source is not the kind of thing i think that a theoretician should do.
it is however true that there is scientific fraud; to not believe that is nonsense; and there is enough of that here, as you said.
But you didn't just say SOME scientists. You generalized to science in general.
This is what you said:
"It has been glaringly obvious that experimental/theoretical science has been pumping money out of the NSF for quite sometime to test theories that should have been round filed a long time ago. The current theories are very specialized, difficult to understand, and error prone, which unconscionable people use to their advantage for monetary gain."
So which theories are error prone and should have been round filed long ago? Apparently this is where you think the unconscionable scientists are bunched up?
Oh I see "The current theories......
I'm not to angry, just slightly pissed off. Probably due to the assertion that my comment was made in anger.
it is however true that there is scientific fraud; to not believe that is nonsense; and there is enough of that here, as you said.
But you didn't just say SOME scientists. You generalized to science in general.
This is what you said:
"It has been glaringly obvious that experimental/theoretical science has been pumping money out of the NSF for quite sometime to test theories that should have been round filed a long time ago. The current theories are very specialized, difficult to understand, and error prone, which unconscionable people use to their advantage for monetary gain."
So which theories are error prone and should have been round filed long ago? Apparently this is where you think the unconscionable scientists are bunched up?
Oh I see "The current theories......
I'm not to angry, just slightly pissed off. Probably due to the assertion that my comment was made in anger.
QUOTE (Maxila+Sep 24 2011, 11:39 PM)
I’m glad you pointed this out although I doubt it will sink in with most. Unfortunately this is a behavior that seems to be ingrained in human thinking, at least since recorded history. We see what we want to see, make absolute conclusions with little evidence, ignore or use convoluted rationalizations to dismiss evidence that indicates our position is flawed or wrong, and form most opinions (and arguments) based on what is in our own self-interests (financial, stature, ego, spiritual, etc).
This is rampant everywhere including this forum, and most people believe this to be true of others but not themselves. I am most disappointed when I see people devoted to the sciences do this, and unfortunately they do it too. I would say the three biggest factors for this behavior are laziness (as you pointed out), ego, and financial, in that order. We all have this tendency including myself; even though I make a constant effort to avoid behaving this way on reflection I still don’t avoid it entirely. This is why I try to be more tolerant of others when they do it. It seems to be ingrained in our genetic makeup.
Perhaps these comments have opened a few eyes.
Maxila
We're just a bunch of semi-ideologues. That's why we need science.
QUOTE (brucep+Sep 25 2011, 05:55 PM)
But you didn't just say SOME scientists. You generalized to science in general.
This is what you said:
"It has been glaringly obvious that experimental/theoretical science has been pumping money out of the NSF for quite sometime to test theories that should have been round filed a long time ago. The current theories are very specialized, difficult to understand, and error prone, which unconscionable people use to their advantage for monetary gain."
So which theories are error prone and should have been round filed long ago? Apparently this is where you think the unconscionable scientists are bunched up?
Oh I see "The current theories......
I'm not to angry, just slightly pissed off. Probably due to the assertion that my comment was made in anger.
tell me how you feel about singularities bruce?
and to answer your question neuroscience and gravitation physics are the two areas i feel have been way too developed (financially) with little or no empirical evidence.
This is what you said:
"It has been glaringly obvious that experimental/theoretical science has been pumping money out of the NSF for quite sometime to test theories that should have been round filed a long time ago. The current theories are very specialized, difficult to understand, and error prone, which unconscionable people use to their advantage for monetary gain."
So which theories are error prone and should have been round filed long ago? Apparently this is where you think the unconscionable scientists are bunched up?
Oh I see "The current theories......
I'm not to angry, just slightly pissed off. Probably due to the assertion that my comment was made in anger.
tell me how you feel about singularities bruce?
and to answer your question neuroscience and gravitation physics are the two areas i feel have been way too developed (financially) with little or no empirical evidence.
Why is cbennett addressing bar_room_physist as Professor? Is he?
Here are a few more links. They are talking about the signal velocity, not the group velocity, right? What’s the difference between phase and group velocity?
http://www.nu.to.infn.it/exp/all/opera/
http://www.nu.to.infn.it/Neutrino_Matter_Effects/
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1384486
BTW, I was just stung by a bee and it hurts like hell, if anyone cares.
Here are a few more links. They are talking about the signal velocity, not the group velocity, right? What’s the difference between phase and group velocity?
http://www.nu.to.infn.it/exp/all/opera/
http://www.nu.to.infn.it/Neutrino_Matter_Effects/
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1384486
BTW, I was just stung by a bee and it hurts like hell, if anyone cares.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 25 2011, 07:45 PM)
Why is cbennett addressing bar_room_physist as Professor? Is he?
He’s a Professor to me. He steps me though my fringe ideas to test the validity rather than just reply with hostile criticism. So far, he has talked me out of 10 of my 18 postulates I have proposed here.
He’s a Professor to me. He steps me though my fringe ideas to test the validity rather than just reply with hostile criticism. So far, he has talked me out of 10 of my 18 postulates I have proposed here.
QUOTE (cbennett+Sep 25 2011, 12:06 PM)
He’s a Professor to me. He steps me though my fringe ideas to test the validity rather than just reply with hostile criticism. So far, he has talked me out of 10 of my 18 postulates I have proposed here.
Eighteen, eh? Well, maybe you should quit postulating, and read a little, or take free online courses.
Eighteen, eh? Well, maybe you should quit postulating, and read a little, or take free online courses.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 25 2011, 03:15 PM)
Eighteen, eh? Well, maybe you should quit postulating, and read a little, or take free online courses.
It's much easier just to make stuff up.
It's much easier just to make stuff up.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 25 2011, 08:15 PM)
Eighteen, eh? Well, maybe you should quit postulating, and read a little, or take free online courses.
who knows maybe even get a free degree.
http://www.uopeople.org/
or if you're just interested in physics...how about the best classical physics teacher in the world, professor Walter Lewin over at MIT...for free.
http://ocw.mit.edu
(sorry brass rat not included)
there really are no more excuses.
who knows maybe even get a free degree.
http://www.uopeople.org/
or if you're just interested in physics...how about the best classical physics teacher in the world, professor Walter Lewin over at MIT...for free.
http://ocw.mit.edu
(sorry brass rat not included)
there really are no more excuses.
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 25 2011, 01:36 PM)
who knows maybe even get a free degree.
http://www.uopeople.org/
or if you're just interested in physics...how about the best classical physics teacher in the world, professor Walter Lewin over at MIT...for free.
http://ocw.mit.edu
(sorry brass rat not included)
there really are no more excuses.
I'm curious. Are you implying that you've taken all of Walter Lewin's courses?
http://www.uopeople.org/
or if you're just interested in physics...how about the best classical physics teacher in the world, professor Walter Lewin over at MIT...for free.
http://ocw.mit.edu
(sorry brass rat not included)
there really are no more excuses.
I'm curious. Are you implying that you've taken all of Walter Lewin's courses?
QUOTE (AlexG+Sep 25 2011, 09:21 PM)
It's much easier just to make stuff up.
It is much actually much harder to make things up. Anytime a new idea is proposed, it is generally attacked as being quackery. The title of this forum is, “Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories.” How can there be new theories without making things up. I don’t think I’m the only one on this forum who attempts to suggest new postulates. Most of the new stuff comes from the general relativity crowd. Then hot debate ensues.
It is much actually much harder to make things up. Anytime a new idea is proposed, it is generally attacked as being quackery. The title of this forum is, “Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories.” How can there be new theories without making things up. I don’t think I’m the only one on this forum who attempts to suggest new postulates. Most of the new stuff comes from the general relativity crowd. Then hot debate ensues.
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 25 2011, 06:42 PM)
tell me how you feel about singularities bruce?
and to answer your question neuroscience and gravitation physics are the two areas i feel have been way too developed (financially) with little or no empirical evidence.
How can I even know what you're talking about. I don't know anything about neuroscience but I would guess you don't either. You say there is no empirical evidence supporting GR? You're probably talking about quantum gravity theoretical work but you don't have the clarity of mind to say so? So I have to guess what you're referring to? But who has the time to waste on this. You apparently believe the 'crank' comments you made.
and to answer your question neuroscience and gravitation physics are the two areas i feel have been way too developed (financially) with little or no empirical evidence.
How can I even know what you're talking about. I don't know anything about neuroscience but I would guess you don't either. You say there is no empirical evidence supporting GR? You're probably talking about quantum gravity theoretical work but you don't have the clarity of mind to say so? So I have to guess what you're referring to? But who has the time to waste on this. You apparently believe the 'crank' comments you made.
QUOTE (cbennett+Sep 25 2011, 11:59 PM)
It is much actually much harder to make things up. Anytime a new idea is proposed, it is generally attacked as being quackery. The title of this forum is, “Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories.” How can there be new theories without making things up. I don’t think I’m the only one on this forum who attempts to suggest new postulates. Most of the new stuff comes from the general relativity crowd. Then hot debate ensues.
Making up nonsense is easy as evidenced by the total amount of nonsense that's been made up by peanut brains, like you, and posted in this public forum.
Making up nonsense is easy as evidenced by the total amount of nonsense that's been made up by peanut brains, like you, and posted in this public forum.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 25 2011, 10:00 PM)
I'm curious. Are you implying that you've taken all of Walter Lewin's courses?
yes i have.
yes i have.
QUOTE (brucep+Sep 26 2011, 12:34 AM)
Making up nonsense is easy as evidenced by the total amount of nonsense that's been made up by peanut brains, like you, and posted in this public forum.
Besides the vicious criticism you emanate, please point to one original idea that you have submitted to this forum.
Besides the vicious criticism you emanate, please point to one original idea that you have submitted to this forum.
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 25 2011, 04:50 PM)
yes i have.
Me, too. How long ago? Did you take notes? Do you have knowledge in neuroscience?
Me, too. How long ago? Did you take notes? Do you have knowledge in neuroscience?
QUOTE
Me, too. How long ago? Did you take notes?
'91 '92 somewhere in that time frame. Yes but it's been a long time ago. /I don't know if i still have them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Me, too. How long ago? Did you take notes? |
'91 '92 somewhere in that time frame. Yes but it's been a long time ago. /I don't know if i still have them.
Do you have knowledge in neuroscience?
Yes mostly focusing on axon firing and the binding problem and mostly as it relates to simulated AI in multi-entity simulations. My wife is a neuroscientist however and smacks me around a bit with theory, I enjoy the conversations, i am by no means an expert in the field.
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Sep 25 2011, 05:29 PM)
Yes mostly focusing on axon firing and the binding problem and mostly as it relates to simulated AI in multi-entity simulations. My wife is a neuroscientist however and smacks me around a bit with theory, I enjoy the conversations, i am by no means an expert in the field.
Really? I'm currently reading about the cortico-basal ganglia-thalamocortical loops. It helps my atheism...
Do you have any good references?
Speaking of references, is scholarpedia bad or good? I haven't had time to go through it.
Can you answer my question about the neutrino group velocity?
Really? I'm currently reading about the cortico-basal ganglia-thalamocortical loops. It helps my atheism...
Do you have any good references?Speaking of references, is scholarpedia bad or good? I haven't had time to go through it.
Can you answer my question about the neutrino group velocity?
WТF? Why does everyone always ignore my questions? Are they that dumb?
Okay...anyone? What should the difference between the phase and group velocity be for neutrinos?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...ight/FTL.html#5
AND is scholarpedia a bad reference?
Okay...anyone? What should the difference between the phase and group velocity be for neutrinos?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...ight/FTL.html#5
AND is scholarpedia a bad reference?
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 25 2011, 08:24 PM)
WТF? Why does everyone always ignore my questions? Are they that dumb?
Okay...anyone? What should the difference between the phase and group velocity be for neutrinos?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...ight/FTL.html#5
AND is scholarpedia a bad reference?
Since most responses are fighting or insults you should probably take it as a compliment that you don't get a lot of responses.
For any particle massive, massless, imaginary mass the phase velocity is
v = ω/k = E/p
and the group velocity is
v = dω/dk = dE/dp
we have
E˛ = p˛c˛ + m˛c⁴
and differentiating you get
dE/dp = pc˛/E
so you could just as well say the group velocity is given by
v = pc˛/E
As for your site, yes anything be it wiki, your suggestion, Modern Relativity, or whatever is bad for just asserting as reference quote. Nothing but actual demonstration and explicit derivation should carry any weight in scientific discourse. I haven't looked at it, but my bet is that just like any text material there will be portions of it that are right and portions that are wrong. If you're interested in the subject you have to actually work through the math and evaluate for yourself everything's validity to be certain of it.
Okay...anyone? What should the difference between the phase and group velocity be for neutrinos?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...ight/FTL.html#5
AND is scholarpedia a bad reference?
Since most responses are fighting or insults you should probably take it as a compliment that you don't get a lot of responses.
For any particle massive, massless, imaginary mass the phase velocity is
v = ω/k = E/p
and the group velocity is
v = dω/dk = dE/dp
we have
E˛ = p˛c˛ + m˛c⁴
and differentiating you get
dE/dp = pc˛/E
so you could just as well say the group velocity is given by
v = pc˛/E
As for your site, yes anything be it wiki, your suggestion, Modern Relativity, or whatever is bad for just asserting as reference quote. Nothing but actual demonstration and explicit derivation should carry any weight in scientific discourse. I haven't looked at it, but my bet is that just like any text material there will be portions of it that are right and portions that are wrong. If you're interested in the subject you have to actually work through the math and evaluate for yourself everything's validity to be certain of it.
So, negligible like 10^-19 for neutrinos, right?
Thanks but I've had my far share of insults. Besides, it's only a wee little question, not a theory.
Goodnight...Zzzz
Thanks but I've had my far share of insults. Besides, it's only a wee little question, not a theory.
Goodnight...Zzzz
QUOTE (cbennett+Sep 25 2011, 07:51 PM)
Besides the vicious criticism you emanate, please point to one original idea that you have submitted to this forum.
Ideas should be connected to the physical universe.
Yours are not. You take the view that if something is 'new' it must be worth consideration, whether it has any foundation in the physical world or it doesn't.
The science of physics isn't something that was just made up. It is a very accurate description of how the universe operates. If you're going to propose something which runs counter to this very accurate and extremely well tested description, you have to supply something more than empty speculation.
Ideas should be connected to the physical universe.
Yours are not. You take the view that if something is 'new' it must be worth consideration, whether it has any foundation in the physical world or it doesn't.
The science of physics isn't something that was just made up. It is a very accurate description of how the universe operates. If you're going to propose something which runs counter to this very accurate and extremely well tested description, you have to supply something more than empty speculation.
QUOTE (AlexG+Sep 26 2011, 06:00 AM)
Ideas should be connected to the physical universe.
Yours are not. You take the view that if something is 'new' it must be worth consideration, whether it has any foundation in the physical world or it doesn't.
The science of physics isn't something that was just made up. It is a very accurate description of how the universe operates. If you're going to propose something which runs counter to this very accurate and extremely well tested description, you have to supply something more than empty speculation.
Have you submitted any new ideas to this forum? And you say my ideas are not connected to the physical universe? Who can judge whether a new idea has any foundation in the in the physical world? I agree that the science of physics isn’t something that was just made up. But can you determine if a new idea is empty speculation? When presented with arguments that I believe are not unfounded, I recant. I’m flexible and willing to take the heat of criticism when proposing new ideas.
Yours are not. You take the view that if something is 'new' it must be worth consideration, whether it has any foundation in the physical world or it doesn't.
The science of physics isn't something that was just made up. It is a very accurate description of how the universe operates. If you're going to propose something which runs counter to this very accurate and extremely well tested description, you have to supply something more than empty speculation.
Have you submitted any new ideas to this forum? And you say my ideas are not connected to the physical universe? Who can judge whether a new idea has any foundation in the in the physical world? I agree that the science of physics isn’t something that was just made up. But can you determine if a new idea is empty speculation? When presented with arguments that I believe are not unfounded, I recant. I’m flexible and willing to take the heat of criticism when proposing new ideas.
QUOTE (cbennett+Sep 26 2011, 09:17 AM)
Have you submitted any new ideas to this forum? And you say my ideas are not connected to the physical universe? Who can judge whether a new idea has any foundation in the in the physical world? I agree that the science of physics isn’t something that was just made up. But can you determine if a new idea is empty speculation? When presented with arguments that I believe are not unfounded, I recant. I’m flexible and willing to take the heat of criticism when proposing new ideas.
You mean have I made up any empty ideas? I don't think an uninformed imagination is an asset in science.
When you ask who can judge if an idea has any foundation in the physical world, you show that you're uninformed regarding the last hundred plus years of experimentation and observation. If your new idea doesn't agree with what is already known to be fact, then you must supply extraordinary evidence to support it. Not 'wouldn't it be neat if...'.
While you tout your willingness to 'recant', it would be better if the ideas had some foundation in the first place.
You mean have I made up any empty ideas? I don't think an uninformed imagination is an asset in science.
When you ask who can judge if an idea has any foundation in the physical world, you show that you're uninformed regarding the last hundred plus years of experimentation and observation. If your new idea doesn't agree with what is already known to be fact, then you must supply extraordinary evidence to support it. Not 'wouldn't it be neat if...'.
While you tout your willingness to 'recant', it would be better if the ideas had some foundation in the first place.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.