Winter Driving Best Books of the Month Men's Leather Watches Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon $5 Albums Explore Home Audio All-New Amazon Fire TV Grocery Valentine's Day Cards Bring a little greenery into your home Amazon Gift Card Offer girls2 girls2 girls2  Amazon Echo All-New Fire Kindle Paperwhite Winter Sports on Amazon.com Sale
Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

New Science Fiction Series on TV


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 289 posts in this discussion
Posted on Sep 29, 2011 1:55:44 PM PDT
Chad W says:
It seems like a very complex calculation. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to get the margin of error just on the distance between collectors down to a point that would rule out 60 nanoseconds difference. Let alone adding the all the other margins of error in their equipment. I think Occam's razor would say this an error until they can repeat it in space with a light beam for control

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2011 2:07:01 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 29, 2011 2:09:01 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Bob,

"Too bad they can't actually fire a light beam through the Earth to see what their signals would tell them the time actually is."

Unless this is down to the particular type of neutrino, supernova SN1987A has already done that for us, and, given the distance, the neutrinos didn't arrive years early compared with the light.

"My understanding is that the CERN guys released (not announced) the paper to see if other scientists could figure out where or if they were going wrong somewhere. And well they should have."

Yes indeed, but they should have done it in the scientific press, not the ordinary media where it would be misunderstood and misused.

There are so many approximate timings in their estimate, plus large areas of doubt and uncertainty such as exactly when the neutrinos were initiated and the actual accuracy of measuring the exact locations of the accelerator and the detector.

The most worrying is that they rely on GPS for determining the location, and GPS inevitably includes a margin of error... two or three meters, using the ordinary commercial system, and a few centimeters otherwise, *at the surface of the Earth*. However, the Opera lab is deep underground. I'm certain they figured in for the depth and the curvature of the Earth.

Posted on Sep 29, 2011 2:59:05 PM PDT
MH,

re, "Unless this is down to the particular type of neutrino, supernova SN1987A has already done that for us, and, given the distance, the neutrinos didn't arrive years early compared with the light."

I did learn something new about this in their paper. They mention in one line that the energy of those supernova neutrinos was in the MeV range (millions of electron volts) instead of in the GeV (billions of e-volts) like CERN's are, and that might make a difference.

Oh, I forgot my best analogy. Some of the charts they show are like saying that they measured the distribution of each shotgun blast of pellets, which 'kind of' makes a similar distribution of the BBs and then a similar distribution of the ducks taking off, which shows that it is really is these BBs making the ducks scatter and not something else. They show that it can't be due to cosmic neutrinos being measured instead of CERN's neutrinos.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2011 3:08:20 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"They mention in one line that the energy of those supernova neutrinos was in the MeV range (millions of electron volts) instead of in the GeV (billions of e-volts) like CERN's are, and that might make a difference."

Well, neutrinos are electrically neutral. If anything the flavor of neutrino might have a bearing - they are using tau flavor neutrinos.

"They show that it can't be due to cosmic neutrinos being measured instead of CERN's neutrinos."

The matching of the 'blast' versus the 'arrival' is one area where things might be going wrong, as, even allowing for the widening beam over the distance, they don't look that well aligned...

Posted on Oct 15, 2011 6:00:19 PM PDT
Chad W says:
Apparently the discrepancy that appears to contradict the theory of relativity is easily answered by relativity itself.
Essentially they used GPS satellites for distance and time and at relativistic speeds the satellite and the Earth are different frames of reference.

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php

"Researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands went and crunched the numbers on how much relativity should have effected the experiment, and found that the correct compensation should be about 32 additional nanoseconds on each end, which neatly takes care of the 60 nanosecond speed boost that the neutrinos originally seemed to have. This all has to be peer-reviewed and confirmed, of course, but at least for now, it seems like the theory of relativity is not only safe, but confirmed once again."

---
Gotta say, that seems like an obvious first check

Posted on Oct 16, 2011 2:58:37 PM PDT
Thanks for the post, Chad. If this "explains" how neutrinos are NOT traveling faster than light, then follow up corroboration will confirm this.

Although I'm anxious to hear from the CERN team. They sat on their findings for 3 years to look for every possible error. If these different speeds of satellites and the Earth can explain the faster-than-light data, I'd think it would have been an "obvious first check" by CERN too.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2011 3:21:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 16, 2011 3:27:13 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"They sat on their findings for 3 years to look for every possible error."

Marilyn, again, as stated elsewhere, they did not sit on their findings for three years.

Over the period of three years they ran over fifteen thousand tests, which gave a statistical return that suggested the 60 nanosecond discrepancy.

"If these different speeds of satellites and the Earth can explain the faster-than-light data, I'd think it would have been an "obvious first check" by CERN too."

They at least factored in the known error of high accuracy GPS on the surface of the Earth to provide *position*, but it seems they didn't factor in the two frames of reference: the experiment on the ground and the clocks in orbit. By an unfortunate coincidence some of the satellites orbit roughly at 55 degreees relative to the equator, virtually the same as the flightpath of the neutrino cone in the experiment, and so the detector and neutrino source are moving relative to them.

The CERN experiment apparently treats the clocks as though they are on the surface, not in orbit.

Given the three sets of orbits used for GPS this could well go some way to resolving the statistical variation the experiment generates, as in a fair number of the thousands of experiments, the neutrinos don't go faster. It would be interesting to see the distribution, to see in how many experiments they went slower...

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2011 4:14:18 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 16, 2011 4:18:58 PM PDT
EdM says:
"I'd think it would have been an "obvious first check" by CERN too."

That's because you have no apparent knowledge base or experience with actual scientific experimentation, discovery, and the scientific method. It is not unknown that research groups will bring in outsiders [relative to the research group], or undergo peer review, because people involved in science can get too close to their work and get a kind of myopia. This is a known, if not frequent, occurrence, based on my experience/career as a patent examiner.

It is conceptually related to the aspect of what is, or is not, obvious about an invention or discovery. What is "clearly obvious" with the benefit of hindsight [your "obvious first check"], may well be totally unobvious in prospect, before it is first discovered or understood as to the misunderstood [or missing] relevant scientific factor. At the least, you never suggested any such "obvious first check", yourself. If it was so obvious, why didn't you suggest it?

ADDED: BTW - "If these different speeds of satellites and the Earth can explain the faster-than-light data"
This is a totally misformed way to speak. The satellite's position in space and relativity data, does not explain "the faster-than-light data" [truly faster than light as you say it], it explains why the neutrinos are NOT traveling faster than light.

Posted on Oct 16, 2011 4:29:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 16, 2011 4:43:26 PM PDT
Chad W says:
EdM says:
"That's because you have no apparent knowledge base or experience with actual scientific experimentation, discovery, and the scientific method."

Well, I was the first to say it was an obvious first check. My degrees in Biology and Biochemistry give me some experience with the scientific method. Physics on the other hand, I'm more of a layman and a lover of Hard Sci-Fi. Your response was overly harsh. The fact is they were dealing with relativity and one of the first tenets is that time and distance are relative to the observer. One of the basic illustrations is the difference in time/distance/speed seen from an observer on a planet and an observer on a spacecraft.

"At the least, you never suggested any such "obvious first check", yourself. If it was so obvious, why didn't you suggest it?"

In the original article, I believe it was not stated that they used the GPS satellite both for distance measurement and as their clock. It was also not stated what they had already checked and ruled out.

I stand by my statement that this should have been an obvious error predicted by the theory they were testing.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 16, 2011 11:26:37 PM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
"Your response was overly harsh."

Well... considering that it was directed at Marilyn, I'd say it was right on target. While it seems that her ignorance grows daily, I suspect this is just an illusion caused by her revealing new facets thereof. ;)

Posted on Oct 25, 2011 7:29:23 AM PDT
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/science/25neutrinos.html

POP CULTURE AND ERROR-CORRECTION ABOUT NEUTRINOS
"The Opera collaborators and other outside physicists now say (that the satellite "64 nanosecond error") is wrong, and reflects confusion about how GPS systems work."

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2011 7:47:42 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"POP CULTURE AND ERROR-CORRECTION ABOUT NEUTRINOS"

And meanwhile, outside 'pop culture' and inside the scientific community doubts on the claims continue to build up...

Glashow and Cohen point out that if neutrinos can travel faster than light, then when they do so they should sometimes radiate an electron paired with its antimatter equivalent - a positron - through a process called Cerenkov radiation, which is analogous to a sonic boom. Each electron-positron pair should carry away a large chunk of the neutrinos' energy: Cohen and Glashow calculated that at the end of the experiment, the neutrinos should have had energies no higher than about 12 gigaelectronvolts. But OPERA saw plenty of neutrinos with energies upwards of 40 GeV.

CERN physicist Gian Giudice and colleagues looked into what would happen if electrons travelled faster than light by one part in 100,000,000, a speed consistent with the OPERA neutrino measurement. Such speedy electrons should emit a cone of Cerenkov radiation in empty space - but previous experiments show that they don't.

The first glimpses from another detector at the Gran Sasso laboratory don't look good for the faster-than-light hypothesis. An experiment there called ICARUS (Imaging Cosmic And Rare Underground Signals) has been catching neutrinos travelling from CERN since last year. The 100 or so it has seen do not seem to travel faster than light. ICARUS also doesn't see any evidence of the Cerenkov-like radiation Glashow and Cohen predicted.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21064-neutrino-watch-speed-claim-baffles-cern-theoryfest.html

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2011 10:28:24 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
(Did it occur to you, while typing that, that most of it would go right over her head--or through it like a neutrino?! If she even bothered to read it.)

Posted on Oct 25, 2011 10:41:20 AM PDT
For those of you who want to take a look at the actual 4 page PDF of the paper where they calculate how using both GPS and land-based clocks would result in a 64 nanosecond error in the flight time of the neutrinos, here is the link-> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.2685v3.pdf

I always like looking at the original sources, rather than the watered down interpretations we get from the media.

Posted on Oct 25, 2011 10:57:42 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Btw, back to the nominal topic for a moment, is anyone watching the show? Has it gotten any better, or nose-dived (dove?) already? I'm not hearing much buzz about it anymore... ???

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2011 2:14:00 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Ronald,

"Did it occur to you, while typing that, that most of it would go right over her head--or through it like a neutrino?!"

Cut and paste.

"If she even bothered to read it."

9-)

Posted on Oct 25, 2011 5:20:53 PM PDT
Ron,

HaHa...I forgot which show started this and had to look back at the first page.

I'm still watching Terra Nova. So far it seems to be holding up enough for me to keep watching. There isn't too much new sci-fi though. More like a drama/adventure/action series.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2011 5:48:55 PM PDT
Ummm you have internet. . . .right? Cable with Sci Fi ch?? Being Human's American version on Sci Fi second season starts Jan 16th.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2011 1:11:09 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Oh, I only watch the pro-wrestling on Siffy! ;P

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2011 1:12:18 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Thanks, Bob. Kinda what I expected: nothing new. Peyton Place in Prehistory, then?

Posted on Oct 26, 2011 7:46:14 AM PDT
LOL-> "Peyton Place in Prehistory"

Precisely. The new 'mystery' is that there are people in the 'future' who hate the colony leader and want to kill him off, and the gal who heads the rebel 6'ers seems to be working for them. Ooooh.

Oh, and the hero's teen boy apparently is being sucked in by the bad guys as they promised him that they have a way to get his love interest from the future a ticket to Terra Nova so she can join him. He promised her in the premier that he would 'find a way' to get her there.

And, I was a bit remiss on the no new sci-fi comment. A bit old school, but the security folks seem to have various sonic guns. I found some pictures here->
http://terranovawiki.org/wiki/File:Sonic_handgun.jpg
http://terranova.wikkii.com/wiki/File:Sonic_cannon_fires.png

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2011 10:20:36 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Hmm... didn't they use sonic guns of some sort in the Minority Report movie? (Along with the ultra-cool "sick sticks"! LOL)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2011 11:15:38 AM PDT
Fuzzy says:
Ronald: I know it is fiction but I have never figured out what it has to do with science. Personally I do not think it belongs on the SciFi channel. I miss Friday nights on the SciFi channel when they actually had science fiction shows on.

Posted on Oct 26, 2011 11:18:42 AM PDT
Oh yeah, I forgot they had a sonic gun in Minority Report! It was during the scene in the car factory. I found a clip of it on youtube...25 seconds into this-> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRHlY5X2YFE

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2011 5:55:07 PM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
(I was just kidding, Chief. I only watch Siffy now if I'm really desperate. I hate the new name and the crappy programming. Calling them "Siffy" is my act of protest. LOL)
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science Fiction forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  42
Total posts:  289
Initial post:  Sep 11, 2011
Latest post:  Aug 2, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions