faster than light?

As I have said before, I don't really understand this stuff. Still I find it
challenging and even rewarding to try...
IMHO, better tha crossword puzzles and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudoku"]sodoku.[/ame]

As to the exact, accurate, and precise distance between two points on
opposite or nearly opposite points on the the earth's surface, there is in
an experiment like this one the matter of the earth being an oblate
sphereoid as opposed to a sphere. The following extracted from
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth"]Wiki[/ame] just to suggest the resulting complications:

Since the Earth is flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator,
the geometrical figure used in geodesy to most nearly approximate
Earth's shape is an oblate spheroid. An oblate spheroid, or oblate
ellipsoid, is an ellipsoid of revolution obtained by rotating an ellipse
about its shorter axis. A spheroid describing the figure of the Earth or
other celestial body is called a reference ellipsoid. The reference
ellipsoid for the Earth is called Earth ellipsoid.

An ellipsoid of revolution is uniquely defined by two numbers-- two
dimensions, or one dimension and a number representing the
difference between the two dimensions. Geodesists, by convention, use
the semimajor axis and flattening…

The possibility that the Earth's equator is an ellipse rather than a circle
and therefore that the ellipsoid is triaxial has been a matter of
scientific controversy for many years. Modern technological
developments have furnished new and rapid methods for data collection
and since the launch of Sputnik 1, orbital data have been used to
investigate the theory of ellipticity...

A second theory, more complicated than triaxiality, proposed that
observed long periodic orbital variations of the first Earth satellites
indicate an additional depression at the south pole accompanied by a
bulge of the same degree at the north pole. It is also contended that
the northern middle latitudes were slightly flattened and the southern
middle latitudes bulged in a similar amount. This concept suggested a
slightly pear-shaped Earth and was the subject of much public
discussion. Modern geodesy tends to retain the ellipsoid of revolution
and treat triaxiality and pear shape as a part of the geoid figure: they
are represented by the spherical harmonic coefficients C22,S22 and
C30, respectively, corresponding to degree and order numbers 2.2 for
the triaxiality and 3.0 for the pear shape...

So, I can see how an small but significant measurement error --
on the order of what, 2 meters in an average radius of 6317
kilometers, 2 parts in 6 million? -- could exist.

The remaining big question being...
Would that be enough to result in the surprising experimental results?

 

The short answer is no. Here's why. All the coordinates of GPS are not based on the earths surface or shape, but an idealized Lat, Long, Elevation coordinate system called WGS-84 (World Geodetic System-1984). The earths distortions are then mapped as variations from this ideal system. (Sea level in WGS-84 is an elevation of 0. The actual level of the ocean or sea can actually be above or below this depending on where you are on the planet. The whole trick with WGS-84 is for this to be a small a variation as possible.)

So when two sites are being surveyed, the GPS Lat, Long, and Elevation of each site are on the WGS-84 spheroid. From that the seperation is an exact mathmatical calculation. Any error would be in the survey position, not any WGS-84 errors.

 

Ya lost me Treb.What hate do you perceive in these comments?

 

Could be they are dickering with the Uncertainty Principle here. Positional measurements may be difficult for particles traveling very close to the speed of light.

 

One thing I know... peer review is done to help the greater community determine if the tests themselves have a built in variable that gives unreliable results/conclusions...

When the scientists released what they were observing, they were also saying "WE DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS AN ERROR ON OUR PART OR IN THE EQUIPMENT WE ARE USING TO TEST, WILL YOU FOLKS DO THIS AND TELL US IF WE ARE SEEING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT WHAT THE RESULTS TELL US IT IS"

Remember Pons and cold fusion... same principle...

 

The uncertainty principle doesn't apply.

To measure speed you have to measure distance and time.

If you measured time, would the distance change? If you measure the distance, does the time change?

You can measure the distance independently of the time. The act of measuring distance doesn't affect time and vice versa.

 

Re: Speed of Light Broken

They did not measure the speed of individual neutrinos 16,000 times. Instead, they ran a probabilistic experiment, then statistically analyzed the 16,000 neutrinos detected:

 

Re: Speed of Light Broken

Perhaps the easiest way to eliminate the uncertainty of when the neutrinos were generated and started time of flight is to build another detector down the path of the beam of neutrinos.

That way you know the time it interacted with the first detector, and with second detector. Since the uncertainty is a constant on both measurements it drops out of the equation.

 

^^ I believe they can't measure any individual neutrino at both ends, as the detection process halts them.

Neutrinos are fired down the path not singly, but instead in very large groups. The interaction rate with the detectors is almost vanishingly small, the vast vast vast majority pass through undetected.

 

Re: Speed of Light Broken

Very well put.

 

I'm not proposing they measure the same individual neutrino at both locations.

They measure different neutrinos at each location, calculate time of flight to each location. With the same error in both locations, the origination error is then eliminated. By origination I mean when exactly the neutrinos start their flight.

If the measurement is statistical in nature, it should work right?

 

Tochatihu: you as a person who has continued to be only a person of science: do not engage Trebuchet. Most of his posts are reserved in his diatribes of politics: in this thread, he has already shown how much he is against science. I'm forewarning!!:jaw:

 

Most definitely. They are dickering with all quantum mechanical effects, which includes the uncertainty principal. The measurement is entirely statistical so they get lots of results slower and faster than the speed of light. This is true of many other experiments as well. The eye opener here is that the final average is above the speed of light. The exciting part may be that they are dickering with some other effect that skews the light results.

It may be snipe hunting, but if they catch a real snipe, that's one successful hunt.

 

I couldn't ask for a better example of what I'm talking about than what dr rosie just supplied below. I don't believe in AGW, therefore I'm against or hate science. I don't believe in much of what they say about evolution therefore, I'm against or hate science. I'm a Christian, therefore I'm against or hate science. Even though the church brought about the science curriculums and schools of higher learning. If I had gotten on here and expressed doubt about this science, like a lot here have, this thread would be full of comments like dr rosies. Haters gonna hate.

An example of your claim please?

 

That's what's cool about science a lot of useful stuff has been discovered through failures. If perchance nothing is faster than light big deal, who wants to go out to all those other stars anyway?

All these negative comments about this experiment just goes to show how many anti-science types there are on this board! :rant:

op2:​

 

Just one of many examples on how you don't know the scientific method.

 

Thanks for pointing this out and I'll admit to being way out of my league here. But as far as the nuances of this experiment are concerned I could careless. Just build me a freaking FTL drive already!

 

Whatever. :loco:

 

^^And above posts reinforce my point of rock thrower not being a person of science: " But as far as the nuances of this experiment are concerned I could careless." Yes, you've proven that: you only want an inflammatory headline for one of your political blogs.

 

A tempting offer, but unfortunately it still appears to be an impossibility.

Tom