Theodious78 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 So, does this mean that a device can not be created to use for space travel? or can there be a device created? Someone told me it was all a hoax. Is this true? Now would you be able to send out a signal using this energy as a carrier wave to some of the 'Earth - like' planets in the galaxy? I'm new to the science world and like to learn. please help. Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 So, does this mean that a device can not be created to use for space travel? or can there be a device created? You mean a devise for superluminal communications? We think that such communication is impossible. Special relativity tells us that we cannot send information faster than the speed of light. So even if neutrinos were found to be travelling greater than the speed of light it could have been the case that no information is transmitted. So it could be possible that such particles do not violate causality. Right now it looks like a moot question. Things are a bit more complicated in general relativity where we can have situations like wormholes that could be used for such devices. That said, such exotic situations in general relativity seem unnatural and my simply not be permitted in nature. Someone told me it was all a hoax. Is this true? I don't think it was a hoax, unless some evidence to the contrary comes forward. You have to remember just how complex the experiments are and just how many people contribute. It must be a very difficult process of just working together. Because of this I am not surprised that rather mundane issues could be the course of the superluminal measurement. This should not be seen as scientist and engineers being incompetent. CERN does very complex and hard science. Now would you be able to send out a signal using this energy as a carrier wave to some of the 'Earth - like' planets in the galaxy? I'm new to the science world and like to learn. please help. In principle we could use neutrinos to send messages. This would be difficult and the message would travel less than the speed of light. The biggest difficulty as I see it is that neutrinos interact with matter very weakly. The aliens would need very sensitive receivers. I expect that the message would get to the planet in good condition, but they will find it hard to detect enough neutrinos to get the message. A better way would be to use electromagnetic waves, such as radio or even laser light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LXH Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 I don't think it was a hoax, unless some evidence to the contrary comes forward. You have to remember just how complex the experiments are and just how many people contribute. It must be a very difficult process of just working together. Because of this I am not surprised that rather mundane issues could be the course of the superluminal measurement. It isn't a hoax, but the scientists have found errors in the instrument that may have led to the results. So it's very likely that they didn't find it after all. Details: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/error-may-have-caused-cerns-faster-than-light-neutrinos-discovery-195632.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slavenenco Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 this discovery really would be amazing, i would agree that there are things faster than light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) Here's the latest on the faster-than-lightspeed neutrino possibility. It seems that new measurements seem to contradict the original measurements but they do not seem to be able to exactly explain why there is a difference between the original observations and the present ones. OPERA will be making new measurements with pulsed beams from CERN in May to give us the final verdict. In addition, cross-checks are underway at Gran Sasso to compare the timings of cosmic ray particles between the two experiments ..... (quote from link) http://www.scienceda...20316204743.htm Edited March 17, 2012 by pantheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borg09 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Here's the latest on the faster-than-lightspeed neutrino possibility. It seems that new measurements seem to contradict the original measurements but they do not seem to be able to exactly explain why there is a difference between the original observations and the present ones. (quote from link) http://www.scienceda...20316204743.htm Lets hope their new tests can shed some light (pun intended) on this intriguing topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Lets hope their new tests can shed some light (pun intended) on this intriguing topic Their internal timing tests have shown that the improperly-connected fiber caused around 60-70 ns of delay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IM Egdall Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 (edited) Their internal timing tests have shown that the improperly-connected fiber caused around 60-70 ns of delay. I read that an problem with an oscillator caused a problem in the opposite direction. Does anybody know by how much? Edited April 6, 2012 by IM Egdall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) IM Egdall, Here was an article in Scientific American which I think is usually pretty reliable. http://blogs.scienti...lty-connection/ The article reports a faulty connection to an oscillator that when properly reconnected exactly accounted for the observed 60 nano-second differential. I have read other articles, however, that dispute the exactness of this assertion and even mentioned other out of spec. components that could even increase the 60 nano-second discrepancy. My guess is that they still have not determined the cause of the discrepancy but it would seem that nearly all now generally agree that there was a discrepancy involved based upon much circumstantial evidence discussed since then. Edited April 10, 2012 by pantheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts