Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Siphorous, Sep 22, 2011.
...by a few billionths of a second.
If true, this could be monumental.
Indeed. I understand their cautious approach to their findings. I'll be keeping an eye on this one to see what their peers have to say - and indeed if anyone does repeat their experiments assuming this can't be explained and finds the same sort of results.
Very Interesting, but imo it wouldnt surprise or bother me to find out that what man thought they knew was wrong, we are afterall just specks in this vast universe and dont and wont ever know everything.
A report regarding the seminar the scientists held regarding this and how they performed the experiment.
If you're really into this, full webcast is here:
Logically speaking, if light could go so fast, then something has to go faster than the speed of light
Time travel anyone?
if nothing is faster than light
then how do stars twinkle
i know the answer just being silly
absense of light
that article is awesome
Good article in laymans terms of what's happened so far.
Anything faster than light was thought to be "not possible".
I read that yesterday. Cant wait to hear more.
heres an interesting thought
or did you mean a pulsating star?
A terrible time travel joke that made me smile though it was so bad (from the Wired article comments):
The bartender says "We don't serve faster-than-light particles in here". A neutrino goes into a bar.
Another great Article, Siph! Was a good read.
Fermilab are going to test this out - they measured faster than light before (MINOS experiment) but the margin of error was too great.
This time, they have the data - just need to set up the measuring stuff to vastly increase the accuracy. 4-6 months they say before some results are known.
Some of the comments are amusing. Aside from the folks brining next years election into this... this was amusing:
"and the winner is.....Time Travel"
"Time travel couldnt be here to collect its award. It picked it up next tuesday"
There's been much thought and analysis put into these results. Some have written papers questioning various points, others look to replicate the the experiment.
Now, the original team look like they are going to repeat their experiment in a slightly different way to account for criticism of how they timed the neutrinos:
Still faster in repeat experiments despite revisions to improve the accuracy of the result, some team members still sceptical.