Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [TR] Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# [TR] Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity - Page 4

Quote:
 Originally Posted by xPrestonn "Science adjusts its beliefs based on whatâ€™s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
Deep.
 Dolans Mate (15 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 760 Gigabyte P55A-UD3 Gainward GTX 560Ti Mushkin Radioactive (4GB)
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
160GB Seagate x 2 Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit LG LED Flatron E2250V x 2
Das Keyboard Utimate S  Silverstone Strider 500w NZXT Guardian 921 Razer Goliathus Fragged Alpha
Audio
Logitech X-540s
 Dolans Mate (15 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5 760 Gigabyte P55A-UD3 Gainward GTX 560Ti Mushkin Radioactive (4GB)
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
160GB Seagate x 2 Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit LG LED Flatron E2250V x 2
Das Keyboard Utimate S  Silverstone Strider 500w NZXT Guardian 921 Razer Goliathus Fragged Alpha
Audio
Logitech X-540s
Quote:
 Originally Posted by xPrestonn The article is not saying SR has been overlooked, it's saying a secondary SR effect has been overlooked. GPS is corrected for SR, but it's corrected in such a way to work at any position on the ground, not for comparing two different positions on the ground. The velocity of the satellite relative to the velocity of the surface of the earth is accounted for, but what it's talking about is the relative velocities of the satellites and the two specific points of reference on the surface of the earth, and the differences there causing the timing problem.
Cept, this difference was also accounted for by CERN, which is my point. If you read the comments on the source page, Assis posted the GPS outputs and inputs from the original CERN paper and explained why the author's presumption is false.

Basically, since CERN didn't explicitly state their method for timing calculations, the author is assuming CERN used satellite clocks to determine timing in both locations. In reality, CERN posted their actual formula, which indicate they did not do this and in fact accounted for the difference.

Also, the CERN timing were verified by ground based atomic clocks as well.

Quote:
 Within the approach used by the author, via special relativity, the GPS frame of reference must use \extit{\extbf{two}} distinct but synchronized clocks to tag the instants at $A$ and $B$. The Eq. (2) in arXiv:1110.2685 should be obtained via the Lorentz transformation for the neutrino events of departure from $A$ and arrival to $B$. Let $\\left(x_{A},t_{A}\ ight)$ and $\\left(x_{B},t_{B}\ ight)$ be the spacetime events of departure and arrival of the neutrino in the baseline reference frame $K$, respectively. The time interval spent by the neutrino to accomplish the travel in the arXiv:1110.2685 GPS reference frame $K'$ is: \ \\delta t'=\\left(1-v^{2}/c^{2}\ ight)^{-1/2}\\left[\\left(t_{B}-t_{A}\ ight)-\\dfrac{v}{c^{2}}\\left(x_{B}-x_{A}\ ight)\ ight], \ in virtue of the canonical Lorentz transformation for time in $K'$ as a function of the spacetime coordinates in $K$, where $v$ is the assumed boost of $K'$ in relation to $K$ in the baseline direction $AB$, $c$ the speed of light in the empty space. With $\\delta t=t_{B}-t_{A}$, $\\delta x=x_{B}-x_{A}=S_{\extit{baseline}}$, $\\delta x=v_{\ u}\\delta t$, where $v_{\ u}$ is the neutrino velocity along the $AB$ direction, the eq. (1) reads: \ \\delta t'=\\left(1-v^{2}/c^{2}\ ight)^{-1/2}S_{\extit{baseline}}\\left(\\dfrac{1}{v_{\ u}}-\\dfrac{v}{c^{2}}\ ight). \ With $v_{\ u}=c$, $\\gamma=\\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}$, $\\delta t'\\stackrel{!}{=}\au_{\extit{clock}}$, as defined in arXiv:1110.2685, the Eq. (2) here becomes the Eq. (2) in arXiv:1110.2685: \ \au_{\extit{clock}}=\\dfrac{\\gamma S_{\extit{baseline}}}{c+v}\\Rightarrow c\au_{\extit{clock}}+v\au_{\extit{clock}}=\\gamma S_{\extit{baseline}}. \ \extit{\extbf{But}}: \\begin{itemize} \\item $\\delta t'\\stackrel{!}{=}\au_{\extit{clock}}$ is not a proper time (it is a time interval measured by distinct clocks at different spatial positions in $K'$); hence: why would the OPERA collaboration correct $\\delta t'\\stackrel{!}{=}\au_{\extit{clock}}$ via $\\delta t=\\delta t'/\\gamma$, as claimed via the Eq. (5) in arXiv:1110.2685? \\item Such correction would be plausible if the events of departure and arrival of the nenutrino had the same spatial coordinate $x'_{A}=x'_{B}$ in the GPS $K'$ frame of reference, but it is not the case. \\end{itemize} Concluding, it seems unlikely that the OPERA collaboration has misinterpreted a GPS time interval.
 Alduin-WIP (22 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-2600k GA Z68XP-UD4 MSI 6950 2gb Twin Frozr III MSI 6950 2gb Twin Frozr III
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
G Skill Sniper Crucial M4 256GB Spinpoint F4 2TB Spinpoint F4 2TB
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Spinpoint F4 2TB Thermalright HR-02 Windows 7 Professional 64 bit Dell U2311H x3 Portrait Eyefinity
PowerCaseOtherOther
Corsair AX750 Silverstone FT02 Sleeving, acrylic, lighting and whole buncha ot... Laser Cutting and Engraving
 Alduin-WIP (22 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-2600k GA Z68XP-UD4 MSI 6950 2gb Twin Frozr III MSI 6950 2gb Twin Frozr III
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
G Skill Sniper Crucial M4 256GB Spinpoint F4 2TB Spinpoint F4 2TB
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Spinpoint F4 2TB Thermalright HR-02 Windows 7 Professional 64 bit Dell U2311H x3 Portrait Eyefinity
PowerCaseOtherOther
Corsair AX750 Silverstone FT02 Sleeving, acrylic, lighting and whole buncha ot... Laser Cutting and Engraving
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Anthraxinsoup Einstein's theory isn't still proven correct. His is just close. Quantum physics is what will have the best answer, as we still have better stuff out there than E=MC2
Lol, who are you to state any of these things?
 AGENT (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 2.4 - 3.4 GHz ASUS Rampage Formula XFX OC 5770 Crossfire G.SKILL Pi Series 4GB DDR2 1300 OC
Hard DriveOSKeyboardPower
WD Caviar Black 640gb RAID 0 W7 Enterprise x64 Razer Tarantula Antec Truepower 750
CaseMouse
Lian Li PC-A71F-B Razer Mamba
 AGENT (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 2.4 - 3.4 GHz ASUS Rampage Formula XFX OC 5770 Crossfire G.SKILL Pi Series 4GB DDR2 1300 OC
Hard DriveOSKeyboardPower
WD Caviar Black 640gb RAID 0 W7 Enterprise x64 Razer Tarantula Antec Truepower 750
CaseMouse
Lian Li PC-A71F-B Razer Mamba
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Doodlebro Things like this shouldn't be posted unless the person posting has knowledge of what is going on. The original thread was full of false claims and ignorant arguments.
Welcome to the internet... I just want to facepalm every time I come across a thread in something I'm educated in. I assume every discussion about things I'm not so educated in is just as full of absolute bullcrap.
 (still needs a name) (15 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 950 3.2 GHz at 1.0V Asus Rampage III Formula Asus HD6870 6GB Mushkin Redline 1600MHz 6-8-6-24
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 250 GB SSD,2X 1TB F3, 250GB WD Blue, 1T... Asus BD Megahalems black chrome edition Windows 7 Professional
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x Asus 24" Mac keyboard Enermax ERV950EWT Silverstone FT02
Logitech MX518 Steelseries I-2 Onkyo 1000W 7.1 surround through HDMI
 (still needs a name) (15 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 950 3.2 GHz at 1.0V Asus Rampage III Formula Asus HD6870 6GB Mushkin Redline 1600MHz 6-8-6-24
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 250 GB SSD,2X 1TB F3, 250GB WD Blue, 1T... Asus BD Megahalems black chrome edition Windows 7 Professional
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x Asus 24" Mac keyboard Enermax ERV950EWT Silverstone FT02
Logitech MX518 Steelseries I-2 Onkyo 1000W 7.1 surround through HDMI
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Doodlebro Things like this shouldn't be posted unless the person posting has knowledge of what is going on. The original thread was full of false claims and ignorant arguments.
I dont see why people cant come up with their own arguments or discuss science even if they dont know much about the subject that they're talking about. People discussing science opens science up to more people and if people wanted the facts I'm sure that they wouldn't be looking for them off of a public forum like this once. They'd look the answers up from a reputable source.

Discussions like these are fun and sure, some of the arguments might be completely wrong or even stupid but its still opening up science to more people which is a good thing.
 My Current Rig (13 items)
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom X4 965BE @ 3.4GHz Gigabyte Nvidia GTX260 216 2X2GB DDR3
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
1TB WD HDD & 250GB WD HDD Windows 7 Asus VH 23" LED LCD Logitech Media