They've only gone and broken the speed of light haven't they

Pyrian on 28/9/2011 at 00:59

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cULwlnEok1c) Hawkwind?

zombe on 29/9/2011 at 10:20

Sixty symbols video on the subject: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ0m13iJw0k)

I am skeptical too - primarily due to what, again, gets mentioned at the end of the video.

Vernon on 29/9/2011 at 14:24

I love the goofy joke at (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ0m13iJw0k&feature=player_detailpage#t=540s) the end of that video. I don't know why, but I feel like I've heard it before

demagogue on 29/9/2011 at 14:48

I'm going to tell that joke in (http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137017&p=2090801&viewfull=1#post2090801) this post tomorrow. If you see it, it means tachyons are real. ;)

heywood on 30/9/2011 at 08:18

Feature from one of my old favorite radio programs:

(http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/09/29/tracking-neutrinos) http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/09/29/tracking-neutrinos

Al_B on 17/10/2011 at 22:53

(http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php) Relativity may have the last laugh. The comments have quite a bit of discussion about whether this is a genuine explanation or whether it's something too obvious to have been overlooked. In any event, it sounds plausible enough to me - and even if it turns out to be wrong it's stimulating some interesting debate.

DDL on 18/10/2011 at 08:12

You would've thought that'd be the first bloody thing they'd account for, surely?

'Specially if (as according to (http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html) this site) the accuracy of GPS satellite timing is right down in the nanosecond range. :confused:

The Alchemist on 18/10/2011 at 13:42

Quote Posted by DDL

(http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2909) Yeah.

demagogue on 18/10/2011 at 15:23

Interesting. I was reading the Misner textbook on General Relativity not too long ago, and I remember the section on GPS. Just being in a gravitational field is like being in an accelerated frame so time is contracted between the satellite & ground for that (because the field strength is different for the two; gravity is weaker going out), and the satellite clocks already take that into account to get the location right. It's internalized into their computations. But if the location itself is moving, then that adds another contraction on top of that. That makes it sound like, they knew the GPS system was already compensating for time contraction so they didn't double check what was actually going on. But it almost doesn't seem right because that's introductory level stuff. :erg:

DDL on 18/10/2011 at 15:31

I was quite surprised to discover that GPS satellites weren't geostationary, personally.

Still, I think the "rebuttal to the rebuttal" that the alchemist posted indicates that the rebuttal made assumptions based on synchronised atomic clocks being moved from A to B, rather than it all being bounced via GPS. The former applies different adjustments than the latter, and it sounds like they DID account for the latter.

I'm still wondering why they can't just revise relativity to be based on the speed of the neutrino. :p