CERN caught speeding

[GeeGee]

There could still be a systematic error that is giving them these measurements. We'll just have to wait for others to do the experiment to see what's really going on.

[Giorgio]

Indeed, but I expected them to catch the error on the first revised run, this is why I am puzzling.

[Tom Ligon]

Small world: the CosmicLog piece calls out Edwin Cartlidge, who interviewed me for a piece on amateur fusioneers a few years back, published in a British physics mag.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... html?rss=1

Doubts remain, which is healthy, but interest is high. They'll get to the bottom of it in time.

Science News recently had an article on timekeeping standards. There is a new generation of atomic clock being worked on which is so good it that if started at the Big Bang, it would still be keeping time within 1 second of true. Something like 1 part in 10^18 precision, IIRC. They've had better than 1 in 10^16 for years. It probably is possible to do this without GPS if people are willing to throw two of the best clocks available onto the job.

[MSimon]

Small world: the CosmicLog piece calls out Edwin Cartlidge, who interviewed me for a piece on amateur fusioneers a few years back, published in a British physics mag.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... html?rss=1

Doubts remain, which is healthy, but interest is high. They'll get to the bottom of it in time.

Science News recently had an article on timekeeping standards. There is a new generation of atomic clock being worked on which is so good it that if started at the Big Bang, it would still be keeping time within 1 second of true. Something like 1 part in 10^18 precision, IIRC. They've had better than 1 in 10^16 for years. It probably is possible to do this without GPS if people are willing to throw two of the best clocks available onto the job.

Last I recall on the subject is that they were doing 10^17 to 10^18 regularly in experiments but the equipment was the size of a small truck.

And for getting Allen Variance you need at least 3 clocks.

One clock - you know what time it is.
Two clocks - you are not sure
Three clocks - you can do the math.

[ScottL]

Doubts remain, which is healthy, but interest is high. They'll get to the bottom of it in time.

Experiment's been rerun, with apparent verification of initial results:

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=12493
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236

Results were repeated by the same group. We need independent verification before this becomes more widely held as verified.

[Tom Ligon]

Allen variance ... as explained to me when I was a teenager. "A man with one watch always knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure."

[krenshala]

Doubts remain, which is healthy, but interest is high. They'll get to the bottom of it in time.

Experiment's been rerun, with apparent verification of initial results:

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=12493
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236

Results were repeated by the same group. We need independent verification before this becomes more widely held as verified.

According to the article posted yesterday the ones that did the experiments agree with you that additional testing/experiment is needed to confirm the results. The changes they made to their experiment (pulsed neutrinos) helps the validity, however.

[rcain]

excellent results. will be a while though before all responses/comments are made to it and available to review. longer still before any other lab can free up resource and replicate - from what i understand maybe a year or two.

i wonder if there's some faster gains to be made from the current installation - just thinking aloud - reversing the direction, for instance, varying the intensity.

at least they didn't end up receiving the pulse before they sent it - that would have been very worrying indeed.

[mvanwink5]

When the transition from slide rules to calculators took place, one consequence was more confidence in wrong answers. It is hard to argue against all those additional decimal places. The point is, in the end there is no substitute for actually knowing what one is doing. More clocks means nothing.

Similarly, there are tests, and then new and improved tests, and then more tests. What then?

Few have guts at this early stage to advance an explanation for fear of being wrong, their issue is that they just don't really know. Johan gave an explanation. Have there been any others?

Best regards

[tomclarke]

When the transition from slide rules to calculators took place, one consequence was more confidence in wrong answers. It is hard to argue against all those additional decimal places. The point is, in the end there is no substitute for actually knowing what one is doing. More clocks means nothing.

Similarly, there are tests, and then new and improved tests, and then more tests. What then?

Few have guts at this early stage to advance an explanation for fear of being wrong, their issue is that they just don't really know. Johan gave an explanation. Have there been any others?

Best regards

Thus far we have one very complex experiment, and although they have repeated results in a different way, many steps in the calculation remain unchnaged. So this is useful, because it eliminates some concerns, but in no way validates the result.

When we have independent verification it will be time to start throwing hats in the air.

[mvanwink5]

Tom,
As I see it, the test effort so far only means that the results deserve serious scrutiny. I completely agree that hats in the air is not appropriate and instead sober, hard work is ahead. Then if verified, hard drinking (kidding of course).
Best regards