By happy coincidence this is exactly where the old forum left off, and I can't think of a better, more elegant demonstration of a science experiment to begin with here. (Hence I've thrown the old OP away - I can't imagine anyone (even you, Cobra N) is particularly upset.)
Take it away, Commander Scott:
Science. It still works, bitches.
Posts: 15
Where's my hoverboard though? It had better be here by October 21, 2015....
Buy my books you badgers! http://www.amazon.co.uk/Richard-Bacon/e/B004KS8Z8C
Remember those faster-than-light neutrinos? Great, now forget 'em
I don't understand why anyone ever considered the possibility that they were travelling faster than light in the first place as that was always amongst the most implausible of explanations for the anomaly. Human error was always the most likely explanation by far.
To be fair, they have just said that's why they think the discrepancy occurred. But there is a lovely symmetry of an Einsteinian theory being used to discover the error.
I love that people talk about human error in relation to this, and fail to acknowledge that human error could also include the very principles that are being challenged. Relativity is, after all, only a theory.
True, just like the "germs" they found on Mars were always more likely to be geological features, but the possibility that they were traveling faster than light was pretty exciting, no matter how unlikely.
Odds on it is right, seeing as the explanation comes up with a time difference that matches the discrepancy.
*twitch*
{Xbox, YouTube: Blue5wirl}{Steam, Twitter, Last.fm: BlueSwirl}{3DS: 0602-6557-8477}
Not at all. It's just extremely unlikely that everything that we have believed up to this point about how the universe works is significantly wrong, compared to the possiblity that someone made a miniscule measurement/calculation error which entirely explains the observed anomaly. Of course it is still a possiblity, just as is the chance that you'll win the lottery tomorrow and then get run over by bus whilst attempting to chase the winning ticket which has just been snatched out of your hand by a passing eagle.
Isn't it much more likely that they have succeeded in breaking the speed of light barrier, but are now trying to cover it up, to protect the interests of Big Business. Hmm?
Did you kill TingleFan and steal his avatar? Was he threatening to blow the thing wide open?
igorgetmeabrain has just won the whole forum. Next forum.
{Xbox, YouTube: Blue5wirl}{Steam, Twitter, Last.fm: BlueSwirl}{3DS: 0602-6557-8477}
Oddly enough, I was watching an episode of Horizon the other week which was all about a growing group of cosmologists and physicists who are starting to believe exactly that. Essentially, the central theory about how the universe works has had many extra bits bolted on in order to explain things that we don't understand (such as dark energy, dark flow, dark matter and the period of hyper-expansion after the big bang), but which don't really fit in to anything else, and which we are now, retro-actively trying to find evidence for.
Some people are starting to think that there are so many holes in our understanding of the Universe that maybe it's our understanding itself which is flawed.
I thought our central theory explained everything pretty well....
Except for all those bothersome anomalies :)
I think I know which episode you watched Yoss ("Is everything we know about the universe wrong").
Those theorists are not working on anything that would undermine c as the cosmological speed limit. They don't question relativity even, they just question stuff like dark matter, dark energy and dark flow. One (the weird skeptical spanish one...), for example, thinks the speed limit is variable in that it was once higher. That would help explain inflation without, erm, inflation... at least so goes my fragile grasp of the entire clusterfuck that is cosmology-by-headline-concepts.
Others think there are multiverses, and that gravity works across the multiverses... in some way again I don't understand. Then you don't need to invent 70% of the mass of the universe just to reconcile theory with observable facts.
Yeah, that's the one. And I should have pointed out that my post wasn't in relation to the arguments about the speed of light, it was just prompted by Igor's statement about it being unlikely that everything we know about how the Universe works is wrong.
And I should also apologise for how poorly written my previous post was. A quick edit and no re-reading before posting will do that sometimes. I'll try harder in future.
Double twitch.
You keep on using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
I'm having that pic.
erm, yes.
Wouldn't this be normal for satelites then? If a satelite's measurements are subject to Einsteinian effects would this not be factored in as standard to communicating with them and getting information from them?
Or is it that we rarely use data to this level of precision so the effects aren't noticeable?
Or neither?
Or both?
Yes.
Ah but is it?
Which word do you have an issue with, and what makes you think I don't understand it?
Yes.
Actually, the GPS clocks account for both Special and General Relativity, but it's GR that has the bigger effect. The clocks are built so that they tick 'slower' than normal as viewed from Earth, so that when they're up there they're going at the right rate to match clocks on the ground. Quite clever.
That's all measured and taken into account though (well... usually). Day to day, or at least month to month, one of the biggest global effects on accuracy is the Earth's magnetic field, which is not generally a predictable effect but has to be continually measured and allowed for. The Sun's output, either directly or indirectly, affects the field which in turn affects the travel time for signals between GPS satellites and receivers. Typical commercial accuracy means It's not needed everywhere but some activities do take it into account.
You can check out the current space weather courtesy of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, although it's probably not as much use as seeing whether it'll rain tomorrow (quite handy for checking when there's a chance of a visible aurora, though). But their Space Weather Prediction Centre does a neat little FAQ.
Theory.
You're thinking about as in "guys *lightbulb* I think I have a theory."
You're confusing a theory with a theorem. Theory of relativity versus Pythagoras' Theorem, for example.
Jesus this is a good answer.
Some of the stuff on that link is blowing my mind.
ok right.
What's your problem?
So, in a nutshell, it was an elementary error to overlook the effect?
I need some tabloid-friendly take-home message from this in order to understand it.
none dude. i just don't know where theorem came from. Anyhoo, you can't dismiss relativity as just a theory as if it were some supposition or rationalisation. The word in that context is a little more solid than that in its meaning. Having said that, your point, more nuanced, would sand. It could be replaced by a better theory. Key word is better. It's unlikely it was completely wrong all along, as this piece of evidence suggess. Anyhoo, interesting times and all that.
There's nothing else to say beyond what Mod did already, really: it may be that instead of disproving special relativity they actually added to the weight of evidence for it. It's not confirmed as the explanation, but it seems one of if not the most plausible answer at the moment.