But that's unpossible, isn't it?
But that's unpossible, isn't it?
Everything is being detailed and explained right now in the live webcast http://webcast.cern.ch/What are the possibilities that they had one of the problems:
1) they got the distance between emitter and sensor wrong by more than 30cm (they are around 720km apart)
2) they got the timestamp for the exact moment of the neutrino-generation wrong by more than ~40ns
they spent months verifying their results, and the margin of error is small enough. If there is an mistake im sure its not that trivial.What are the possibilities that they had one of the problems:
1) they got the distance between emitter and sensor wrong by more than 30cm (they are around 720km apart)
2) they got the timestamp for the exact moment of the neutrino-generation wrong by more than ~40ns
Also, if neutrinos would move faster than C then why isn't it shown in supernovas? The neutrinos from latest one we had this month should have arrived years before the visible light but they didn't. Yes, they did arrive a tiny bit earlier but that can be explained by the time it takes for the visible light to break out of the star. when it goes nova
Interesting. Any idea what kind of difference are we talking about?According to the article above, the supernova neutrinos are much lower energy than those in the CERN experiment (which is pretty crazy in itself IMO) but that could account for the difference.
Basically yes. Only a very tiny fraction of neutrinos can be captured in the sensors we are using. Large majority of them just pass through Earth as it wasn't there. Matter mostly being empty space and neutrinos not having a charge while being vastly smaller than other sub-atomic particles make it quite simple for them.Neutrinos, unlike light, can pass through matter, right?
Interesting. Any idea what kind of difference are we talking about?
hoho said:Interesting. Any idea what kind of difference are we talking about?Basically yes. Only a very tiny fraction of neutrinos can be captured in the sensors we are using. Large majority of them just pass through Earth as it wasn't there. Matter mostly being empty space and neutrinos not having a charge while being vastly smaller than other sub-atomic particles make it quite simple for them.
So about 1000x? That doesn't really seem like enough energy to push something from c to c*(1+1/40000) but what do I knowMeV versus GeV
Mostly because unlike photons they still have mass and accelerating mass to C takes infinite amount of energy. Not sure how much it takes to pass that lineWhich gives me pause to ask the question why shouldn't they be faster than light?
hoho said:So about 1000x? That doesn't really seem like enough energy to push something from c to c*(1+1/40000) but what do I know
From what I understand they basically said they got this weird result and now expect others to look where the mistake could be. If there is no mistake in their experiment then it has to be something we are missing in our current theoriesMostly because unlike photons they still have mass and accelerating mass to C takes infinite amount of energy. Not sure how much it takes to pass that line