Ftl- wtf?

[Dannyalcatraz]

After re-running their experiment, scientists have ruled out certain error potentials regarding an experiment that showed a neutrino traveling faster than light outside the experiment's margins for error.

Scientists: Faster-than-light finding still holds - Yahoo! News

 

[Umbran]

Yes. The initial experiment used pulses of neutrinos that were a bit long compared to the travel time, leading some to question the result. The new experiment used neutrino pulses that were 3000 times shorter than the original experiment, eliminating that question.

The new experiment, however, was the same people, using the same equipment, and same general methodology - so some other systematic error may well be in the mix. Most folks are waiting for independent verification of the result before making up their minds on whether it is a real effect.

 

[NewJeffCT]

and before you know it, the Vulcans will be here initiating first contact.

 

[Mark CMG]

and before you know it, the Vulcans will be here initiating first contact.


__________________
Winter is coming - E. Stark

Logic is coming - Spock

 

[Croesus]

Yes. The initial experiment used pulses of neutrinos that were a bit long compared to the travel time, leading some to question the result. The new experiment used neutrino pulses that were 3000 times shorter than the original experiment, eliminating that question.

The new experiment, however, was the same people, using the same equipment, and same general methodology - so some other systematic error may well be in the mix. Most folks are waiting for independent verification of the result before making up their minds on whether it is a real effect.

Yeah, this will be interesting to watch, though it will likely be years before any such results can be replicated sufficiently to be convincing (assuming the results are not quickly invalidated).

If I were a physicist, I'd be excited. Data that call into question one of the central tenets of current theory come along rarely. Whatever the final answer, this has got to shake things up a bit.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And about two weeks from now, a technician with manditory ass-crack will be rechecking a certain section of the accelerator and discover where his missing iPod has been, and shout out (in the appropriate non-English language) "Thar's your problem raht tharrr!"

And Einstein's particles will cease their spooky action at a distance...

 

[Bullgrit]

Couple of things:

I hate when articles use a headline or lead saying, "Einstein was wrong." The report and reporter immediately lose some credibility in my eyes.

The new experiment used neutrino pulses that were 3000 times shorter than the original experiment, eliminating that question.

It also drives me crazy when someone says something like, "X times less." I've always thought that was incorrect to the point of being gibberish. Multiplication makes more, division makes less. (Yes, I know multiplication with a fraction makes less.)

I just assumed that scientists -- and other people who usually use precise language -- would never say such a phrase. But with Umbran saying this, it makes me wonder if my disdain for such phraseology is improper. Is "X times less" ("3000 times shorter") actually correct?

Bullgrit

 

[Siberys]

"3000 times less", I always understood anyways, was the same as a saying "one three-thousandth"... I mean, division can be written as multiplying by the divisor's reciprocal, right? 1/2 is the same as 1*.5; 400/8 is the same as 400*.125... so on and so forth.

 

[Umbran]

Is "X times less" ("3000 times shorter") actually correct?

{Voice=DrLeonardMcCoy}
Dammit, Jim, I'm a physicist, not a grammarian!
{/voice}

If number A is X times larger than B, then it *must* be that B is a similar factor smaller than A. Larger than is multiplication by the factor, smaller than is division. That logic is solid, and it is generally understood when one says it.

When writing on EN World, I go for clarity and accuracy, and if that means some of the constructions I use wouldn't be seen as "proper" by Strunk and White, well, I'm willing to take that risk

 

[freyar]

Once again Umbran has pinpointed the source of a lot of the skepticism about this experiment.

Here's some more news. The OPERA experiment collaboration has re-released their draft manuscript with the new data (that is, with the shorter neutrino pulses). They've also revealed a little more about their apparatus. Here's something of interest: the clocks which the experiment uses to measure a 60 nano-second effect run at 20 MHz. That means the clocks note the time every 50 ns, which seems like an error that you just can't remove. So I'd be very interested to know how they are claiming error bars several times smaller.