Serebii Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Interesting, read this earlier. Long way off yet, doubt we would see anything like this in our life-times. Speak for yourself, I intend to live forever.
Jimbob Posted September 23, 2011 Author Posted September 23, 2011 Speak for yourself, I intend to live forever. Share the Elixer of Immortality please, thank-you kindly. :awesome:
Cube Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Also, the speed of neutrinos may be faster than light, but it will still take a good while for them to get to anywhere decent.
Serebii Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Also, the speed of neutrinos may be faster than light, but it will still take a good while for them to get to anywhere decent. Perhaps, but this has completely eradicated the whole basis of the scientific theory for the last 90 years. Quantum mechanics is pretty much out the window. We need to rethink things
Mokong Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 This is some serious shit, even if it is only fractions of a second we're talking bout. Though all I can think of though is "so something could arrive at a point before anyone could even see it"
Tales Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484 Posting this here as it could eventually lead to interstellar travel I read that yesterday. My first thought too was when do they start making interstellar engines
Cube Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 I read that yesterday. My first thought too was when do they start making interstellar engines 5th April, 2063.
Happenstance Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 5th April, 2063. No, thats when they'll first be tested :p
Retro_Link Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 That's really exciting news!! --- In other news... UARS satellite expected to crash into Earth later today It might be worth keeping half an eye on the sky later today, as a six-tonne satellite is expected to hit Earth this evening. The 20-year-old Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) ran out of fuel in 2005 but, thanks to Earth's gravitational pull, for the last six years UARS has been slowly losing altitude; it is expected to hit Earth on Friday, 23 September. Most of the satellite is expected to disintegrate on its way through Earth's atmosphere, but Nasa have identified up to 26 components that it expects to survive the journey. These include the fuel tanks and Nasa says up to 500kgs worth of debris could hit Earth. The space agency does also point out that the risk of any humans being hurt by parts of UARS is extremely small, some experts have said there is a one in 3,200 chance that a piece of debris will hit a person. One final warning from Nasa is if you find what you think is a piece of UARS, do not touch it; instead you should contact your local police for assistance. 1 in 3,200 chance!... that's worth staying in doors for! :p
Cube Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 One final warning from Nasa is if you find what you think is a piece of UARS, do not touch it; instead you should contact your local police for assistance. If I find a piece of UARS, I'm keeping it.
heroicjanitor Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Kinda hoping they made a mistake Would be so much effort to change things now. Fucking neutrinos. Can never behave themselves.
Zell Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Also, the speed of neutrinos may be faster than light, but it will still take a good while for them to get to anywhere decent. According to Special Relativity, as you approach the speed of light © length contracts and time dilates, meaning that theoretically you can travel very long distances in short time frames. Remember that at c or close to c, Newtonian mechanics go out of the window. Perhaps, but this has completely eradicated the whole basis of the scientific theory for the last 90 years. Quantum mechanics is pretty much out the window. We need to rethink things I think we're getting ahead of ourselves a bit! Science adjusts to new discoveries and most of the time it doesn't mean old theories are "wrong". It's extremely hard to predict whether a new scientific revolution will take place, but for all we know these could just be anomalous results.
Serebii Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) I think we're getting ahead of ourselves a bit! Science adjusts to new discoveries and most of the time it doesn't mean old theories are "wrong". It's extremely hard to predict whether a new scientific revolution will take place, but for all we know these could just be anomalous results. I know. I'm just so used to dealing with people who think of our science as an absolute. As a constant, that what we know now is complete and utter fact. It's almost as if they treat it as a religion :/ That said, so much of our current scientific theory and "laws" are based on Einstein's theory of relativity, and this kind of destroys that... 5th April, 2063. Good man, you legend! If I find a piece of UARS, I'm keeping it. As am I. I've got lead lined gloves and various hazmat gear and a few radiation detectors so I'll be fine. Edited September 23, 2011 by Serebii Automerged Doublepost
Retro_Link Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 I've got lead lined gloves and various hazmat gear and a few radiation detectorsWhy exactly?
Cube Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 As am I. I've got lead lined gloves and various hazmat gear and a few radiation detectors so I'll be fine. Pfft. I'm just going to pick it up and take it home. Anyway, I suppose I don't see this as much as a massive thing because the universe is so massive, there's no way that humanity has properly worked out physics and stuff anyway. As important as science is, it's basically just the best theory that fits all the current evidence.
Zell Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 I know. I'm just so used to dealing with people who think of our science as an absolute. As a constant, that what we know now is complete and utter fact. It's almost as if they treat it as a religion :/ That said, so much of our current scientific theory and "laws" are based on Einstein's theory of relativity, and this kind of destroys that... Sort of. Special Relativity was formulated before the discovery of neutrinos, and it mostly refers to objects with mass. No object with mass can exceed the speed of light and the only thing to travel at c was light itself (photons). While it may be that neutrinos end up being slightly faster than photons (bare in mind that this could only be circumstantial as this is the first time we've witnessed this), most of the results of SR (time dilation, length contraction, e=mc^2) will still hold. Quantum and particle would need some work, but I'm no expert on either of them. :p
Jimbob Posted September 23, 2011 Author Posted September 23, 2011 If any of the satellite falls near me, i'm aquiring a part of it as well. Nasa can pay me for the safe return of it, if they want it back that is.
Ellmeister Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 I really don't think they want it back. That is the reason they are calling it junk. As for these new "results" about the particles, call me Mr. Pessimistic until I see more proof!
Mokong Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Hold up, firstly I never saw the film 2012 but this neutrinos thing was mentioned on the radio while I was driving earlier and the DJ mentioned that in the film 2012 it was the neutrinos that frakked the world up.... put 1 + 1 together people it's a frakking sign *leaves house with End of the World posters and megaphone*
MoogleViper Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 According to Special Relativity, as you approach the speed of light © length contracts and time dilates, meaning that theoretically you can travel very long distances in short time frames. But everything and everyone you ever knew and loved would be long since dead/gone.
Zell Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 But everything and everyone you ever knew and loved would be long since dead/gone. Yep. If long distance space travel is ever possible, then everyone would be dead by the time the astronauts made it back! I've been talking to my brother, who has a degree in physics from Oxford, and it turns out that most of what I said in my last post is wrong. Scientists have shown that neutrinos oscillate and therefore do have mass, albeit extremely small. This means that if neutrinos travel faster than c, then it would massively contradict Einstein's postulates and would result is some pretty messed up shit, like neutrinos being able to travel backwards in time. I would wager that these results at CERN are wrong and an error has been made somewhere. Doesn't stop the media from jumping on the hype train.
Tales Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 But space travel has to be true, it just has to
Serebii Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Yep. If long distance space travel is ever possible, then everyone would be dead by the time the astronauts made it back! I've been talking to my brother, who has a degree in physics from Oxford, and it turns out that most of what I said in my last post is wrong. Scientists have shown that neutrinos oscillate and therefore do have mass, albeit extremely small. This means that if neutrinos travel faster than c, then it would massively contradict Einstein's postulates and would result is some pretty messed up shit, like neutrinos being able to travel backwards in time. I would wager that these results at CERN are wrong and an error has been made somewhere. Doesn't stop the media from jumping on the hype train. It's the scientists themselves who posted it online, not the media. They thought it was human error, it wasn't. They thought it was computer error, it wasn't. They are baffled at it. While there may be an error, are you really going to be narrowminded and claim it's impossible just because one intelligent person came up with a theory that it contradicts? This is what I don't like, people taking these theories as pure fact, they're not. Our science is routinely proven wrong, this is just possibly a big part being proven wrong.
Zell Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) It's the scientists themselves who posted it online, not the media. They thought it was human error, it wasn't. They thought it was computer error, it wasn't. They are baffled at it. They haven't found an error yet. The people at CERN are publishing the experiments for other scientists to scrutinise because they haven't worked it out. That isn't scrutinise the theory, but the experiments themselves. You're assuming that because they are publishing it then they are assuming that the results are concrete. They've measured the speeds of neutrinos before you know. The media as a whole understand little of what really happens at CERN (I don't know much either!) but when they hear stuff like faster than light travel or time travel then they are going to sensationalise it. After all, we'd love our science fiction fantasies to come true. While there may be an error, are you really going to be narrowminded and claim it's impossible just because one intelligent person came up with a theory that it contradicts? This is what I don't like, people taking these theories as pure fact, they're not. Our science is routinely proven wrong, this is just possibly a big part being proven wrong. I've actually considered the consequences of what faster than light travel can mean and I will be completely gob smacked if this CERN experiment proves to be correct. I never said it was impossible, I just said it was more than likely that an error had been made, based on what I know. So enough with the strawmans and calling me narrow minded. Of course, I guess I'm also narrow minded for not believing in god, UFOs or the giant spaghetti monster. Like many people, you're confusing two meanings of the word "theory". Gravity is a "theory", so is all of science. But you would not say that the theory of gravity is a mere speculative hypothesis or conjecture that we can choose to believe. Rather it is a schema of ideas held as an explanation of a group of facts that has been backed up by experiment and evidence. Of course scientific theory can never be proved outright (just as you cannot disprove the existence of anything), but common sense says we should treat it as fact. The theory that the Earth is round and not flat is only a theory, but we treat it as fact. This may seem ridiculous but everything we regard as a fact is actually a scientific theory is some way or another. I'd like some examples where our science has been routinely proven wrong, as you so put it. Science changes and adapts, but past results will still be true, and old theory is never discarded, but updated. Edited September 23, 2011 by Zell
Recommended Posts