EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: TerminalJack505 on February 23, 2012, 02:34:02 am
-
Science Magazine's website has a couple of paragraphs here...
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html)
...about how a loose fiber optic cable is believed to be responsible for the faster-than-light results.
Sounds like the scientists are trying to place the blame on the engineers for the goof-up. :D
-
always the same .loose wire 's mean no or worse connection. what about the software doing all the caculations on this data. 1/0 1/0 it's off to work we go :)
-
One day Einstein will be proved wrong just like Freud has been and many other greats of that period. After all there are many fudges in Einstein's theory's he was one of the first to admit it, and when you look at quantum theory and particles being in 2 places at once, something will have to give.
-
One day Einstein will be proved wrong just like Freud has been and many other greats of that period. After all there are many fudges in Einstein's theory's he was one of the first to admit it, and when you look at quantum theory and particles being in 2 places at once, something will have to give.
I'm not sure if Einstein is wrong, but the theory just doesn't cover everything. Just like Newton's theory works quite fine and reasonably accurately at the scale we humans most often work with.
I think that one of the biggest problems in physics is that we don't know how gravity works at subatomic scale (or, we don't have proven theory for quantum gravity), general relativity just doesn't work there. Nevertheless, gravity is such powerful force that it wins all other forces in the universe if enough mass is in enough small space. We ultimately need one unified theory for everything, not two. That is probably the holy grail of physics.
Regards,
Janne
-
One day Einstein will be proved wrong just like Freud has been and many other greats of that period. After all there are many fudges in Einstein's theory's he was one of the first to admit it, and when you look at quantum theory and particles being in 2 places at once, something will have to give.
I'm not sure if Einstein is wrong, but the theory just doesn't cover everything. Just like Newton's theory works quite fine and reasonably accurately at the scale we humans most often work with.
I think that one of the biggest problems in physics is that we don't know how gravity works at subatomic scale (or, we don't have proven theory for quantum gravity), general relativity just doesn't work there. Nevertheless, gravity is such powerful force that it wins all other forces in the universe if enough mass is in enough small space. We ultimately need one unified theory for everything, not two. That is probably the holy grail of physics.
Regards,
Janne
As long it does not break Ohm's Law I can live with whatever the physicist come up with. ;D
-
I was lustening to the radio and they were on about it being down to relying on GPS clocks in two locations and compensation systems that takes account for the time it takes to process signals.
Hang on, wasn't it Italians doing the test ???? says it all....... (meant humorously by someone who is 1/4 IT and lived there a while !)
-
One day Einstein will be proved wrong just like Freud has been and many other greats of that period. After all there are many fudges in Einstein's theory's he was one of the first to admit it, and when you look at quantum theory and particles being in 2 places at once, something will have to give.
I'm not sure if Einstein is wrong, but the theory just doesn't cover everything. Just like Newton's theory works quite fine and reasonably accurately at the scale we humans most often work with.
I think that one of the biggest problems in physics is that we don't know how gravity works at subatomic scale (or, we don't have proven theory for quantum gravity), general relativity just doesn't work there. Nevertheless, gravity is such powerful force that it wins all other forces in the universe if enough mass is in enough small space. We ultimately need one unified theory for everything, not two. That is probably the holy grail of physics.
Regards,
Janne
As I understand it no one knows what gravity is even, they cannot find a gravity wave or a gravity particle all one can do is accept gravity and live and work with it at present. It is a very big hole in very little understanding, one day the puzzle will be solved.
-
i read somewhere gravity is the only element connecting us with other dimension, so unified theory? how unified our current theory connecting with other dimension?. and if the source i read last time is wrong, then i'm wrong that Einstein proved/stated Euclid (geometry) is wrong, where according to einstein, the "real life" straight line is not actually straight due to gravity pull, contradicts with as stated by Euclid. but the way i see it, Euclid's was only stating "theoritical straight line", even though not exactly as "real life" straight line, but close enough... nothing wrong with that, just an approximation, just like the rest of "man made Laws", imo.
edit: at last we found a good use of a "loose wire", to travel faster than light, the only thing that probably will prove Einstein is wrong :D
-
One day Einstein will be proved wrong
Won't happen.
It's already been proved correct for countless situations, so those don't just become magically "wrong".
But they will most likely find areas where it's not the entire solution, and something else will explain better with more precision in more unusual circumstances etc.
Dave.
-
Won't happen.
It's already been proved correct for countless situations, so those don't just become magically "wrong".
lesson from history told so. i agree the proper term is not "wrong", but "less accurate". further more, einstein theory have not been promoted into "Law", so we cant tell for now.
-
i read somewhere gravity is the only element connecting us with other dimension, so unified theory? how unified our current theory connecting with other dimension?. and if the source i read last time is wrong, then i'm wrong that Einstein proved/stated Euclid (geometry) is wrong, where according to einstein, the "real life" straight line is not actually straight due to gravity pull, contradicts with as stated by Euclid. but the way i see it, Euclid's was only stating "theoritical straight line", even though not exactly as "real life" straight line, but close enough... nothing wrong with that, just an approximation, just like the rest of "man made Laws", imo.
It all comes down to definition. Euclids theory only works in a flat plane. We start to run into trouble when we redefine the surface and the straight line which will make Euclid = wrong. When we redefine the surface as a sphere and the straight line as a greater circle (e.g. equator), we find that Euclids parallel line theory simple does not work at all as greater circles will always cross each other in 2 points. Once again, it's down to the definitions.
A physicist, an engineer and a mathematician were tasked to build a fence around a flock of sheep in a paddock using the least amount of material one day. The physicist built an infinitely large fence and reduced it's size till it exactly fit around the sheep. The engineer went one better he built a circular fence which uses the least amount of material for the area it covers. The mathematician won the contest though. What he did was, he built a fence around himself and defined the area outside as the paddock. Definition again.
Anyway, You can't make a particle go FTL unless it's a tachyon. However I think it was Tesla who theorised about a type of wave that could travel FTL. He called it a longitudinal wave and was a kin to:
Having a piece of rope between two people.
One person flicking the rope creates a lateral wave which takes a certain time to travel to the other person.
One person pulling the rope causes an (almost) instantaneous reaction on the other end.
-
Greetings EEVBees:
--I have to agree with DJ, and most of you, that FTL particles are very, very unlikely. But I did want you to know that the argument is not over. Please see the below link from CBC reviving the entire controversy
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/23/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos-opera.html (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/23/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos-opera.html)
"'Faster-than-light' particles may have been even speedier"
--Meanwhile this is a great time to reread, one of the greatest Time Travel stories I know of; "All You Zombies" (1959) by Robert Heinlein. The song playing on the jukebox in the bar where the story is being told is "I Am My Own Grandpa" Imagine my surprise when I found out it was a real song (1947), see link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_My_Own_Grandpa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_My_Own_Grandpa)
--And a video of the song from 1947, with Lonzo and Oscar:
Lonzo and Oscar - I'm My Own Grandpa (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2jvFqqfXGc#ws)
--In the song a man becomes his own (step) grandfather through some unlikely marriages. While in the Heinlein story a Time Machine is involved.
--Just a taste of what we could be in for, if FTL is proven.
"If you had had a nickel for every nickel that he has, you would have a lot of nickels."
Albert Einstein 1879 1955
Best Regards
Clear Ether
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity)
-
Science Magazine's website has a couple of paragraphs here...
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html)
...about how a loose fiber optic cable is believed to be responsible for the faster-than-light results.
Sounds like the scientists are trying to place the blame on the engineers for the goof-up. :D
Humm! IIRC they had a dual clocking system to trap such errors and both clocks had to agree for a valid test. Would seem like a logical and indeed mandatory requirement in my mind. I smell BS.
-
Dear Diracshore:
--Thanks for the link to the interesting article. That clears everything up. Now I completely understand.
"Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused. But on a higher level."
Enrico Fermi 1901 1954
Best Regards
Clear Ether
-
Theory does not have to be correct to be a tool to work with, I have a 1938 admiralty handbook of wireless telegraphy. In it they state that the upper atmosphere gets hotter the higher you go after you get above the Kenelly layer (Heaviside) and at a height of 170 miles they they state the temperature as being 2000 deg F. and this is the reason that radio waves were reflected. They still managed to work long distance radio with the theory they had even if later research proved it wrong.
-
Scientists rarely get things "wrong" in a sense that a theory has to be completely thrown out the window. Usually it's more of a case of refining existing models until you converge to the best possible explanation. "Wrong" also depends on context and scale. I seriously doubt that a civil engineer will ever need to worry about any of that space time stuff.
-
Scientists rarely get things "wrong" in a sense that a theory has to be completely thrown out the window. Usually it's more of a case of refining existing models until you converge to the best possible explanation. "Wrong" also depends on context and scale. I seriously doubt that a civil engineer will ever need to worry about any of that space time stuff.
yes .getting something wrong is good.it puts to bed an idea or conclusion ruling it out.trial and error ,how we all learn
-
still a loose optical fibre wouldn't cause a consistant error, they went back and checked it over and over before they announced it, i still have to say it is almost certainly that they relied on gps for there clocks, and forgetting to factor in the delays of there machines,
-
First off, the OPERA team do NOT claim to know what is causing the issue. They only have guesses at this point as to what some problems might be. There might be more. But until they rerun the experiment we won't know.
For more information please see this: http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/02/24/finally-an-opera-plot-that-makes-some-sense/ (http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/02/24/finally-an-opera-plot-that-makes-some-sense/)
One day Einstein will be proved wrong just like Freud has been and many other greats of that period. After all there are many fudges in Einstein's theory's he was one of the first to admit it, and when you look at quantum theory and particles being in 2 places at once, something will have to give.
No he won't. Any new model needs to be able to fully describe current physical phenomena. For example, one can take quantum mechanics and reduce it to classical mechanics. Someday when humanity comes up with a higher level model, it will need the ability to reduce to quantum mechanics.
Both special and general relativity are correct up to our current understanding of the universe. That said, general relativity, and quantum mechanics, are both not a complete picture of physics because they are not compatible. That is, you cannot derive one from the other. That does not mean they are both incorrect in what they do predict.
Won't happen.
It's already been proved correct for countless situations, so those don't just become magically "wrong".
lesson from history told so. i agree the proper term is not "wrong", but "less accurate". further more, einstein theory have not been promoted into "Law", so we cant tell for now.
I'm not sure what you mean by "not promoted into law". The word 'theory' does not mean guess or hypothesis. A scientific theory is high standing given to something that accurately describes the physical world. On the other hand, 'law' is usually a simplified version. For example, Ohm's law was originally obtained as an empirical equation, hense law and not theory. He performed experiments, fit the data, and obtained V=IR. Einstein on the other hand, first came up with his theories and mathematical equations from first principals to describe the physical world, and years later the concepts were tested. Now, since Ohm's law does give a simplified description of a small part of the physical world, E&M theory must have the ability to be simplified through assumptions to obtain the same result. Ohm's Law as most know it (V=IR) is a simplification of a more complex one derived from Maxwell's equations when we take the assumption that he material is sufficiently linear, isotropic, and homogeneous.
Scientists rarely get things "wrong" in a sense that a theory has to be completely thrown out the window. Usually it's more of a case of refining existing models until you converge to the best possible explanation. "Wrong" also depends on context and scale. I seriously doubt that a civil engineer will ever need to worry about any of that space time stuff.
Can't think of anything for civil off the top of my head, but other engineering professions for sure. GPS relies on both special and general relativity corrections to be as accurate as it is. High end chip designers (eg Intel CPU designers) need to account for quantum electrodynamics if they expect their chip to work.
still a loose optical fibre wouldn't cause a consistant error, they went back and checked it over and over before they announced it, i still have to say it is almost certainly that they relied on gps for there clocks, and forgetting to factor in the delays of there machines,
No, they did put it in.
Source: I have a BSc in Physics, and I am currently a MSc Physics student at the Institute for Quantum Computing at the University of Waterloo. In case anyone is wondering, yes my avatar picture is of myself and Prof Stephen Hawking :O better picture: http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/6647/stevenandstephen.png (http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/6647/stevenandstephen.png)
-
Scientists rarely get things "wrong" in a sense that a theory has to be completely thrown out the window.
I just want to clear something up. Scientists get things wrong all the time. Science as a whole rarely does. The goal is to kill the bad ideas before they become accepted principles.
still a loose optical fibre wouldn't cause a consistant error, they went back and checked it over and over before they announced it, i still have to say it is almost certainly that they relied on gps for there clocks, and forgetting to factor in the delays of there machines,
The certainly didn't forget to add the propagation delays of their cables and circuits. 5 minute of reading their reports or watching a presentation would have told you that. Obviously they might have done it wrong, but they certainly did not forget. While they have made no definitive statement, given that they have two candidate anomalies I don't know why you would be so sure you know the answer better than them.
Anyway, I can think of one easy way a loose cable can cause this. A loose (or dirty) connection gives signal reflections. If the cable is carrying a PPS signal and the receiver is phase locked to it, the PLL might be able to lock to the wrong pulse.
-
Anyway, I can think of one easy way a loose cable can cause this. A loose (or dirty) connection gives signal reflections. If the cable is carrying a PPS signal and the receiver is phase locked to it, the PLL might be able to lock to the wrong pulse.
It's looking like it might be an orientation issue. They found it does make a difference to the delay depending on the rotation of the connector. If it was disturbed after initial calibration, they found it could introduce a delay of up to 100ns.
The first comment of this article contains a human translation (not google!) of an interview with one of the OPERA scientists (original interview in German).
http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/02/24/finally-an-opera-plot-that-makes-some-sense/ (http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/02/24/finally-an-opera-plot-that-makes-some-sense/)
-
Hey Clear Ether,
You are welcome. Here is a video on superstring theory,
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html)
A different explanation than LQG, but also worth looking into.
-
Scientists rarely get things "wrong" in a sense that a theory has to be completely thrown out the window.
Contrary to popular beleif (particularly among the creationists), in science, something only becomes a "theory" when it is actually backed up by empirical evidence. e.g. the "theory of gravity", and the "theory of evolution". And that is completely different to the non-scientific use of the word theory.
Which is why few theories are every completely thrown out the window, because such evidence needs to be fairly widely conclusive before it becomes a popular theory. Hence it's natural to find that theories are simply refined as new situations present themselves.
Dave.
-
What I don't understand with this whole thing is that surely this was the simplest and most obvious error possible?
I remember them saying that they have checked all this basic stuff time and time again, and yet it was still baffling, and must be something really bizarre.
Yet, now they claim is was as simplest thing all along, a basic 60ns down a fibre optic that was corrected for in the software, the value of which just happens to match the measured error they published to the world?
WTF?
Dave.
-
Perhaps they are lying because they don't like the implications of the discovery. Specifically
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone)
Or not.
-
Perhaps they are lying because they don't like the implications of the discovery.
I don't think there is experimental physicist alive that wouldn't give their proverbial right testicle to be the discoverer of this if is true.
Noble prize territory.
Dave.
-
Contrary to popular beleif (particularly among the creationists), in science, something only becomes a "theory" when it is actually backed up by empirical evidence. e.g. the "theory of gravity", and the "theory of evolution". And that is completely different to the non-scientific use of the word theory.
Which is why few theories are every completely thrown out the window, because such evidence needs to be fairly widely conclusive before it becomes a popular theory. Hence it's natural to find that theories are simply refined as new situations present themselves.
Yep. In essence, a scientific theory is just another tool to model concepts or to extrapolate over gaps in our knowledge. Therefore, theories have a solid scientific foundation and constructed from facts we already confident about.
-
...Tachyonic_antitelephone... sending message to the past (let alone time travel to the past) at least to the same universe is impossible, prove.. i'm not genius! even if it can (to different universe) then there's not much point either, except for fun. and i believe its also impossible, prove? i'm not genius! and... not rich.