Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC


Recommended Posts

By the way, here's the paper they "published" about the findings:

http://static.arxiv....f/1109.4897.pdf

CERN is supposed to release more information today though.

Very interesting read especially the last paragraph of the conclusion: "...possible still unknown systemic effects that could explain the observed anomaly..." They have left no interpretation of their results!! I think this anomoly is due to either mathematical calculation errors or experimental errors, we'll see....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting read especially the last paragraph of the conclusion: "...possible still unknown systemic effects that could explain the observed anomaly..." They have left no interpretation of their results!! I think this anomoly is due to either mathematical calculation errors or experimental errors, we'll see....

They say in the paper that it was a deliberate omission not to put any interpretation into the paper....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's repeating a theory he read elsewhere. Here it is in an article on this topic in today's Guardian:

>

Of course, it's cooler to make it look like your idea than to reference where you got it from ;)

Interesting presumption, save for the fact that I didn't have to read it elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if this can be related to other quantum experiments in which electrons have been observed to occupy two (or more) locations at any given moment. If that initial observation is true and those properties exist in this experiment, then distance would not be a factor at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if this can be related to other quantum experiments in which electrons have been observed to occupy two (or more) locations at any given moment. If that initial observation is true and those properties exist in this experiment, then distance would not be a factor at all.

huh, got a source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that we may "see" two elections could come from the observer affecting the result:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

Or it could be explained by this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds

Yeah but EPR paradox violates uncertainity principle, it doesn't mean that a particle exists in 2 places at a time. And even if we consider MWI, the universe will seperate and we can't interact with both particles of the different worlds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but EPR paradox violates uncertainity principle, it doesn't mean that a particle exists in 2 places at a time. And even if we consider MWI, the universe will seperate and we can't interact with both particles of the different worlds.

Well, EPR may explain why it appears that the particles are in 2 places at the same time. For many people, seeing is believing (even if it goes deeper than that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually things get very crazy at subatomic levels.

And Einstein never believed they can be like that.

But i suppose they are.

Now we are starting to see how it is.

But i have many doubts about this perticular experiment.

Ever read about those experiments where information is transfered faster than light?

I mean the particles dont actually travel in that. They appear at the destination.

What if these particles travelling actually disappeared and reappered a few nanonanonano meters ahead and actually skipped distance like this?

Would these detectors ever find this out? That a particle shifted space? Or it duplicated where the previous just died and the clone reappeared to be a little ahead in space carrying on with the same speed?

This sort of thought process is rather intriguing. However, how would that work, and why? Is the duplicated particle being sent along the same path? Does it have to accelerate to reach the prior particle's speed? There are so many questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is so less that it may very well have been a measurement error.

Err, not really. If you had been measuring the speed of sound then it would have been minor but in light it's a significant difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Err, not really. If you had been measuring the speed of sound then it would have been minor but in light it's a significant difference.

60 ns difference amounts to a difference of 18m/s in the original 3*10^8 m/s. That's a margin for error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing about this is that I was just reading an article in Popular Science about how the universe itself will outpace the speed of light.

there is a difference... universe is expanding so objects are moving in the opposite direction.

If two objects travel in opposite direction with the speed 75% as that of light then they are expanding at 1.5 times the speed of light.

that still will not make an object travel beyond speed of light.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

60 ns difference amounts to a difference of 18m/s in the original 3*10^8 m/s. That's a margin for error.

No it doesn't, read the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.