Talk:Faster-than-light

Neutrino - 50-60ms faster than speed of light

I lack the technical skill to add this but CERN or the research groups thereabouts measured neutrinos going 50-60ms faster than speed of light. 10ms margin for error. This is the second group to notice this, although the first time it was measured the experiment had a margin of error too high to make it conclusive.

They are calling for other groups to retry the experiment, which gives us 3 for three, and a possible confirmed discovery.

The implications of this are massive, rendering pretty much anything in the travel or communications area of science-fiction potentially into science fact. (ftl, subspace, possibly crazy stuff like hyperdrive/jump gates too since it could be used to sync both ends of the trip etc) Although likely prohibitively expensive.

It is also significant as a solid measurable particle (old faithful) can now do it, prior to this the only way the effect could be achieved is the less reliable spooky areas of quantum physics entanglement, states and the like.

At the very least in the short term, we now have a technology arc for lower latency communication research. Interesting times indeed.

NB - another article states its billionths of a second not millions(ms) (that's why its on the talk page!) still fascinating nonetheless.

ms would actually be milliseconds, which means thousandths of a second. In any case neither ms, nor "millionths of a second," nor "billionths of a second" are measurements of Velocity, or of velocity differences, at all. Billionths of a second over what distance? Jeh (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If these results are confirmed, there will be plenty of time to update, not just this article, but pretty much the entire corpus of Wikipedia physics articles. For now there is nothing that needs to be done about it. Get as excited as you like, but don't change articles until there's more to go on. --Trovatore (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's actually 50-70 nanoseconds (60 nanoseconds with a margin of error of 10 nanoseconds). There are a bunch of online articles that could be used as sources. Right now, if you just google "faster than speed of light" and look at the news results, there are many possible references. Alphius (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, the distance this occured over was approximately 454 miles. Alphius (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Possible references" is not really the point. Even the guys who reported the results don't really believe them. The overwhelmingly most likely outcome of this is nothing at all; other groups will try to reproduce it, will fail, and the whole thing will be put down to some piece of equipment that was miscalibrated somewhere.

This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. We don't bend with every little breeze. I think there's an essay on WP:RECENTISM.

Now, it would be really really exciting if things come out any other way than the scenario I've outlined. Then at least we could reasonably predict that, even if not ultimately confirmed, the result won't be just forgotten (for example, cold fusion has been mostly debunked, but will not be forgotten), and it would be reasonable for us to cover it. Right now it's not. --Trovatore (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

According to Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=particles-found-to-travel), this event has actually occured over 16,000 times already.... Alphius (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the page on the Scientific American website was technically reprinted from Nature. Alphius (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Original paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 cyclosarin (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The implications are indeed huge, but nothing involving FTL communication, travel or FTL anything. If its a real effect, which is still very much up in the air, its not an invalidation of Lorentz symmetry. See Tachyon page for details.Isocliff (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the current balance is about right. We should have a brief mention of what is essentially a news item because it is so directly relevant to the subject of the article and originates from a very reputable laboratory. I think it is right to have it in what is already a section that contains a degree of unverified speculation.

I do not think we should add any more details until the results are verified, neither do I think we should comment on the implications of the results, until they are confirmed. For the moment, it should be clear from the rest of the article that the result would represent a very significant discovery in physics. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. Yes Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, but it is not specifically a scientific one. If speculation has been published, Wikipedia should refer to it. 195.194.187.132 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not that it's speculation. The problem is that it's too recent. We are not a news source. We should wait until it is clear that this episode will be at least memorable. --Trovatore (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly the paper has not been published, it is just what is known as a preprint, a document open for comment if you will on the arxiv. As for WP:NOTNEWS even if incorrect this announcement and the fact that LNGS/CERN are seeking input on their findings has made the top news on almost every media outlet in the last 36 hours, means it meets criteria for notability for inclusion. To include any statement on this, we must include that the authors of the paper draw no conclusion what so ever on the results, hence the reason they are seeking 3rd opinion so to speak. Regards ^Khukri 20:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

36 hours, seriously? Come on. We want to include content that will still be notable in, minimum, ten years. It's reasonable to include breaking events if it's clear that that will be true. For this one it's not. --Trovatore (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability isn't temporary WP:NTEMP, to arbitrarily say 10 years is your perception. Hell Pons & Fleischmann is still notable to this day for something not too disimilar, and whether it proves a dud or not is irrelevant, it is not our place to say what may or may not be notable in 10 years. Cheers ^Khukri 20:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

We should not cover flashes in the pan; it makes us look non-serious. If this lasts long enough to be comparable with cold fusion, then absolutely we should cover it. The threshold would be considerably less than cold fusion, but substantially more than we've seen so far.

I don't propose ten years as any firm rule, just a way of keeping in mind that we're not a news source. At this point it's reasonably possible that the whole thing will just go away. Until we're reasonably confident that won't happen, we shouldn't cover it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree about flash in the pan, hence I added the qualifier to my first statement, that everyone has gone at extreme lengths to avoid people drawing conclusion on these results. A better way of imagining it is in two parts, one is the media notability, the second is the science itself. We are commenting on the media furore so to speak at the moment, which certainly is worth considering as per notability guidelines, the science itself as you rightly say is along way from being notable in its own right. The two are distinctly different and any inclusion into the article should be written on the fact that is has garnered significant media attention not on the basis that X has happened or conclusions of Y. Cheers ^Khukri 21:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I just think "significant media attention" in the short term is not a metric of encyclopedic notability. What matters is if the attention lasts. --Trovatore (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

How about if the attention doesn't last, we just remove the mention from the article? It's certainly something notable that people are coming to wikipedia looking for at the moment, so it should be there--at least for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.204.148 (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Responding a bit belatedly to this comment: It is now clear that the episode is notable and will continue to be. Nevertheless your reasons are wrong. We should absolutely not cover things "at least for now". That's the meaning of WP:NOTNEWS as I interpret it — WE ARE NOT A NEWS SOURCE!!!1!!111!!!. Flashes in the pan should not be covered, even if people are coming to WP to look for them. That's not what we do. --Trovatore (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Those who understand physics may want to check this blog. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Disbunked in Feb 2012 as a result of a cable length calculation error. C is still C. Even if originally correct, it is not a significant change.--173.69.135.105 (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Singular "they"? Looking for consensus -- please respond

Please have a look at this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faster-than-light&action=historysubmit&diff=461903375&oldid=461863804

To me, the use of "they" as a singular form is so distracting as to damage readability. Do you think the singular "they" should be retained in this article? Thanks -- Jo3sampl (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I undid your edit because to me the "he or she" and "his or her" is far more damaging, and there seems to be no Wikiwide consensus for or against the usage of the "singular they" (see WP:Gender-neutral language), although it is used abundantly in the literature — and here. But if it hurts that much... perhaps we can replace "traveler" with "travelers" and put the section in "plural they". What do you (and others) think? DVdm (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That's probably a little better, yes. Although many sources use singular they, there are enough readers who find it sufficiently grating that I think it should generally be avoided if we can. --Trovatore (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If this would be a(nother) section about the twin paradox, we could do what some books do, make the stay at home twin male, and give him a female twin sister to make the trip. We can't do that here however. - DVdm (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Using the conditional in place of the subjunctive is grating, too :-) --Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

_{I was in dubio about adding a ;-) there, but decided not to :-) - DVdm (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)}

The singular 'they' is more natural than 'he or she'. Either that or stick to the traditional 'he'. Both annoy some people Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's how the reference desk responded:

The relevant point from Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language is "As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so." Further to that, your change put "he or she" or "his or her" 5 times in one paragraph and was therefore particularly stilted, so I think the reversion was justified.

Yikes -- still think "singular they" is awful, but okay. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether that passage really reflects a broad consensus. There is a relatively small group of MOS regulars who have disproportionate influence, and one of them in particular has what I judge to be a politically motivated position on this point. --Trovatore (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that Martin's point is that, sure, there might indeed be no broad consensus about the singular they (although it's really widely used) but there surely is such a consensus about wp:RETAIN, hence my edit summary. Note, I have restored the title of this talk page section to its original version — as soon as people have replied, I think it's best to keep the section title. - DVdm (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Jo3sampl, have a read of Singular they. It is an excellent article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonsensical sentence?

"Don't misunderstand to be drift velocity of the charge carrier which is too slow."

This sentence makes little sense as stated. A word may be missing between "misunderstand" and "to". David Spector (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OPERA neutrino anomaly: an issue about the discription

"On September 22, 2011, a paper from the OPERA Collaboration indicated detection of 17-GeV and 28-GeV muon neutrinos, sent 730 kilometers (454 miles) from CERN near Geneva, Switzerland to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy, traveling faster than light by a factor of 2.48×10⁻⁵" Now, there's a problem with the "730 kilometers" part. There is a difference between a place in Switzerland and a place in Italy beeing 730 kilometers in the standard sense and there actually being 730 kilometers between these two points. The problem, any instance of someone saying "this point here is x kilometers away from this point" is incorrectly assuming the Earth is flat", as to say even if someone got a tape measure and measured the distance to the nearist nanometer they would be fundermentally wrong, and would be too high. This is because the Earth is of course round, and moving along the surface of a sphere to get to a point obviously would take more time the cuting straight throught the sphere, like if you have a ball of playdo, draw on it two dots and then measured using a tape measure and then with a straght ruler pushed into the ball of course the ruler would measure the shorter distances.

Obviously neutrinos don't have to dive themselve along the surface to get to their destination, so if CERN near Geneva, Switzerland is 730 kilometers from Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy then the neutrinos certainly did NOT travel 730 kilometers.

Also, as the earth is constantly spining and rotating around the run which in turn is spriling around a super black hole in the center of our galaxy, if the Earth happens to be moving and rotating in a way where Italy is moving towards the neutrinos would also have a much shorter distance to travel. Robo37 (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Has been considered on day one after the announcement—and probably even on day minus-fourty. Anyway, see some news about some hardware. - DVdm (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)