This is why drinking improves road safety: when you're drunk it's much too hard to use those little buttons so at least you have your eyes on the road.
I'm aware of of the damage a meteor can do. My point was this: 50000 years ago it was pretty common to discover the existence of the meteor only after impact. Nowadays meteors may remain hidden for a while, but once they're less than a day away from impact, I reckon someone will have spotted them. So nobody will think "it must have been a missile".
If such an asteroid landed in either Pakistan or India for example they might think that the other had launched a nuclear weapon at them. That would be a large comet that is only discovered after impact. Does sound unlikely to me.
You should check out those guitar amplifiers some day. They're horribly inaccurate. Some of them even have knobs for massively increasing the distortion.
This statement 'There's been the emergence of a philosophy that big data is all you need. We would suggest that, actually, numbers don't speak for themselves.'
is not about bias and incompleteness. The person who is looking at the data needs to have the necessary concepts and it's a bad idea to call that bias. The data won't do the thinking for him(her). They've just found 3 new exoplanets in old Hubble data. The data hasn't changed and ha, but the people who are looking at them have.
Hm, a bit stingy:) I think they're definitely going to learn something from investigating this. If this is a problem with the experiment it can mean other experiments are off a bit too.
I fully agree, even though some may claim that's 'unsigntific'. Question is how much you invest in following the lead and what priority do you give it. Science also needs to classify claims as 'not even going to check this' or 'doesn't look worth it so gets low priority'. In this case, would you put resources in verifying faster than light claims? In this case I think i would allocate resources.
If I was thinking what you think I was thinking then there would be misconceptions in my post. Physics is very reductionist and mathematical, of course it comes close to an axiomatic system. But it's less so than is assumed, and I mean, amongst people who have studied it(and I did once, long ago).
For the rest I just agree with what you're saying. Yes, the Lorentz transform doesn't have to be the result of enforcing a finite limit speed , but it can be organized that way, and it's useful to be able to do so. I gave the example of deriving maxwells law by going from a finite limit speed to Lorentz, and then applying this to any force with an inverse square law(as long as you don't use mass in it),. You don't have to do this, but there's value to it(apart from the fact that many will think it's not possible).
In fact it shows up pretty well the problem with c, because the speed of light c you end up with in the generated maxwell laws is exactly the limit speed you started up with for creating the Lorentz transform.
and about axiom based theories, here's another rearrangment : it is possible to derive electromagnetism from electrostatics(Coulomb's law)+ special relativity.
I'm not referring to axioms, I'm rearranging them. Physics is not axiomatic. The Lorentz transform is the result of enforcing a finite limit speed. The Lorentz transform was based on the Maxwell equations, hence the limit speed was exactly the speed of light from the start. It seems(or it just is) impossible to make the speed of light smaller than the limit speed. But it is not necessary that there be such a thing as light to create special relativity. You don't need electromagnetism. All you need is the finite limit speed.
I mean rest mass obviously. And no, general relativity is not going to tell you more than special relativity. One way you could look at it is as a generalization in steps
- take special relativity in general coordinate systems. No new concepts here. Keep space flat. You could still call this special relativity really, but it'll depend on who you ask.
- take even more general coordinate systems with curvature. Here there's a new idea being introduced but without a cause for curvature.
- now link gravity to coordinate systems with curvature.
I recall the days when slashdot was solid as a rock. Now in between the error messages you manage to squeeze in a post and after a while you find out if the post succeeded or not.
from what I recall, special relativity can be seen as stating two things:
- there is a maximum speed and because it's not infinite you need the Lorentz transformation - light travels with this maximum speed.
If for example there had been a later discovery that light had mass, then light would not travel at the maximum speed. Now there have been very accurate measurements showing a ridiculously low upper limit for the mass of photons, but the idea of photons having mass does not by itself contradict special relativity. It would mean Maxwells laws are not entirely accurate.
There should be data somewhere that shows an upper limit for the difference between speed of light and limit speed.
Actually from what I recall, special relativity can be seen as stating two things:
- there is a maximum speed and because it's not infinite you need the Lorentz transformation - light travels with this maximum speed. If for example there had been a discovery that light had mass, then light would not travel at the maximum speed. Now there have been very accurate measurements showing a ridiculously low upper limit for the mass of photons, but the idea of photons having mass does not contradict special relativity. It would mean Maxwells laws are not entirely accurate.
So if neutrinos travel faster than light then it would take a bit more work to show that they're also faster than the limit speed. Maybe some people on here have conclusive evidence that light speed is close enough to the limit speed.
Slashdot Mirror
Studies have shown that discussions about happiness tend to morph into miata threads.
This is why drinking improves road safety: when you're drunk it's much too hard to use those little buttons so at least you have your eyes on the road.
Hey I have the right to have an opinion!
I'm aware of of the damage a meteor can do. My point was this: 50000 years ago it was pretty common to discover the existence of the meteor only after impact. Nowadays meteors may remain hidden for a while, but once they're less than a day away from impact, I reckon someone will have spotted them. So nobody will think "it must have been a missile".
If such an asteroid landed in either Pakistan or India for example they might think that the other had launched a nuclear weapon at them. That would be a large comet that is only discovered after impact. Does sound unlikely to me.
You should check out those guitar amplifiers some day. They're horribly inaccurate. Some of them even have knobs for massively increasing the distortion.
the popular press has already gone headline-nonlinear about it."
Don't get any ideas. Slashdot is also the popular press.
he's a superhero. I recall he had superhearing abilities for one. And useful for the community.
Is the Facebook one of those social people thingies? Nope, not using it.
This statement
'There's been the emergence of a philosophy that big data is all you need. We would suggest that, actually, numbers don't speak for themselves.'
is not about bias and incompleteness. The person who is looking at the data needs to have the necessary concepts and it's a bad idea to call that bias. The data won't do the thinking for him(her). They've just found 3 new exoplanets in old Hubble data. The data hasn't changed and ha, but the people who are looking at them have.
Hm, a bit stingy :) I think they're definitely going to learn something from investigating this. If this is a problem with the experiment it can mean other experiments are off a bit too.
I fully agree, even though some may claim that's 'unsigntific'. Question is how much you invest in following the lead and what priority do you give it. Science also needs to classify claims as 'not even going to check this' or 'doesn't look worth it so gets low priority'. In this case, would you put resources in verifying faster than light claims? In this case I think i would allocate resources.
exactly. 1/40000 is way too much. The explanation is nonsense
I hear they are turning the pigs into airships.
neutrinos have mass but I don't mind neutrinos with imaginary mass as long as they're imaginary neutrinos.
If I was thinking what you think I was thinking then there would be misconceptions in my post. Physics is very reductionist and mathematical, of course it comes close to an axiomatic system. But it's less so than is assumed, and I mean, amongst people who have studied it(and I did once, long ago).
For the rest I just agree with what you're saying. Yes, the Lorentz transform doesn't have to be the result of enforcing a finite limit speed , but it can be organized that way, and it's useful to be able to do so.
I gave the example of deriving maxwells law by going from a finite limit speed to Lorentz, and then applying this to any force with an inverse square law(as long as you don't use mass in it),. You don't have to do this, but there's value to it(apart from the fact that many will think it's not possible).
In fact it shows up pretty well the problem with c, because the speed of light c you end up with in the generated maxwell laws is exactly the limit speed you started up with for creating the Lorentz transform.
Those 4 hours are a cool number. I didn't know they had it.
Till further notice, gravity works just as well on neutrinos as on photons and they'll both follow the same freefall trajectory.
and about axiom based theories, here's another rearrangment : it is possible to derive electromagnetism from electrostatics(Coulomb's law)+ special relativity.
I'm not referring to axioms, I'm rearranging them. Physics is not axiomatic. The Lorentz transform is the result of enforcing a finite limit speed. The Lorentz transform was based on the Maxwell equations, hence the limit speed was exactly the speed of light from the start. It seems(or it just is) impossible to make the speed of light smaller than the limit speed. But it is not necessary that there be such a thing as light to create special relativity. You don't need electromagnetism. All you need is the finite limit speed.
I mean rest mass obviously. And no, general relativity is not going to tell you more than special relativity. One way you could look at it is as a generalization in steps
- take special relativity in general coordinate systems. No new concepts here. Keep space flat. You could still call this special relativity really, but it'll depend on who you ask.
- take even more general coordinate systems with curvature. Here there's a new idea being introduced but without a cause for curvature.
- now link gravity to coordinate systems with curvature.
I recall the days when slashdot was solid as a rock. Now in between the error messages you manage to squeeze in a post and after a while you find out if the post succeeded or not.
Exactly. Who knows if these events have anything to do with sponaneous human combustion.
from what I recall, special relativity can be seen as stating two things:
- there is a maximum speed and because it's not infinite you need the Lorentz transformation
- light travels with this maximum speed.
If for example there had been a later discovery that light had mass, then light would not travel at the maximum speed. Now there have been very accurate measurements showing a ridiculously low upper limit for the mass of photons, but the idea of photons having mass does not by itself contradict special relativity. It would mean Maxwells laws are not entirely accurate.
There should be data somewhere that shows an upper limit for the difference between speed of light and limit speed.
Actually from what I recall, special relativity can be seen as stating two things:
- there is a maximum speed and because it's not infinite you need the Lorentz transformation
- light travels with this maximum speed.
If for example there had been a discovery that light had mass, then light would not travel at the maximum speed. Now there have been very accurate measurements showing a ridiculously low upper limit for the mass of photons, but the idea of photons having mass does not contradict special relativity. It would mean Maxwells laws are not entirely accurate.
So if neutrinos travel faster than light then it would take a bit more work to show that they're also faster than the limit speed. Maybe some people on here have conclusive evidence that light speed is close enough to the limit speed.
people shouldn't continually lump trolling together with parody, sarcasm, irony, tongue in cheek, or just stand up comedy.