Indeed?
What is "a violation of c"? Are you letting your armchair post again in your place?
The speed of light may have been broken.
- Thread starter Pincho Paxton
- Start date
Indeed?
What is "a violation of c"? Are you letting your armchair post again in your place?
That was not the question, the question was : What is "a violation of c"?
As an aside, what made you think that the authors would consider light traveling through rock in their experiment?
When I said:
Apparently the neutrinos have been measured to move faster than light would for the same distance through a vacuum, then? There's a fine line between either of you asking for clarification because you are confused, and simply being pedantic.
What I meant by "through a medium" is something other than a vacuum. In this case, rock. If you think it's odd to consider the speed of light through rock I would agree with you, which is why I looked at this person in a strange way when they made this comment. What I meant by "violation of c" is that something is able to travel faster than c (or possibly faster and slower than c), as is normally prohibited in Relativity.RJBeery said:
Apparently the neutrinos have been measured to move faster than light would for the same distance through a vacuum, then? There's a fine line between either of you asking for clarification because you are confused, and simply being pedantic.
Who are you referring to being pedantic, me or tach?
Right, yes.
Here we go again. When you say medium, I take it you are talking about anything that is transparent to light? What happens when light travels through a transparent medium is that it gets absorbed by atoms and then gets readmitted. The actual photon always travels at c when it travels. But getting absorbed and admitted is what causes it to take longer traveling through a medium.
On the other hand a neutrinos rarely interact with any matter and when they do they don't get absorbed and readmitted. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here?
As much as I appreciate your comedy like responses here and please, take this as a compliment first, I do believe RJbeery is being misunderstood. I read most of his posts previous to mine questioning the medium reference and I do believe he knows what he means, he just didn't articulate it to the best standards, which is appreciable. Not many can.
I do appreciate that they made some refinements and redid the experiment. However, it was the same group of people that ran it again. I won't start getting much of a warm fuzzy until another group of scientists run the experiment and get the same results.
Agreed, I was just nit picking a bit. But sometimes a little nit picking is called for and can lead to some interesting comments, and sometimes not.
Ok, but be careful - a little nit-picking can be a crusade to many.
Deal with the question at hand. Be a true scientist and deal with not only the question, but the right time to let it drop my friend.
How many gods does it take to fix the speed of light?
The way I understand the current paper, this experimental run was intended as a proof of concept, for a refinement of the original experiment.
It was a short experimental run with specific refinements, predominately shortening the neutrino bursts to 3 ns (?) and intended to test the experimental design. I believe it is to be repeated over a longer time frame early next year. And it already sounds like there are plans to reproduce it, in both the US and Japan.
The new design does eliminate at least some of the criticisms of the earlier results.
Yes, posted.
It still has a lot of room for errors.
I'm not that bothered about their speed TBH, I find Neutrinos interesting for many other reasons. I think that they are our link to Dark Matter.