CERN discovers FTL particle (possibly)

I would totally read it but we need Gordo to post as well.

but he's just teasing, I need him to throw me a bone.

lol, stupid fucking gps

  On 10/11/2011 at 5:16 PM, GORDO said:

but he's just teasing, I need him to throw me a bone.

I'm working my way through

http://www.mugur-sch...ions_doc6b1.pdf

And you could maybe start here : http://www.mugur-sch...tions_doc9b.pdf

I haven't read it yet.

If you understand french, read the 10 first pages of http://www.mugur-sch...pdf/tissage.pdf

She basically says what I said.

Something happened to her.

on line 3:

L’investigation dans laquelle j’ai été entraînée a capté dans son champ les processus de conceptualisation quelconques, depuis leur genèse et jusqu’à leurs limites.

The investigation i've been drawn into caught into its field any conceptualization processes, from their genesis up to their boundaries.

And she almost turned mad.

a few pages later:

Mais ma pensée s’arrête surtout sur Sully, mon mari, qui, cette fois aussi – comme toujours – a constamment protégé avec patience et force les conditions fragiles de mes éloignements dans l’abstrait.

My thoughts stop by Sully, my husband, who, once again - like always- constantly protected with patience and strength the fragile conditions of my [trips~remoteness~alienation] into abstractness.

*rimshot*

last line of the book:

Malgré son origine étrangère à l’informatique, la méthode de conceptualisation relativisée pourrait s’avérer particulièrement appropriée aux démarches modernes de création de ‘sens artificiels’.

In spite of its character unrelated to computer science, the method of relativized conceptualization could prove to be especially adapted to modern prospects of 'artificial meaning' creation.

*makes a move to kiss watmm ; kisses own biceps*

You are still not making any sense, dude.

I'm not,

I'm just pointing out that what she says is what I've said in this thread and elsewhere.

read what she wrote if you want to understand what I think.

Is this about a female french scientist who's, while bordering on insanity, construing an elaborate formal system which aims to connect meaning to (logic via) the fundaments of quantum physics? I think a couple of neutrino's must have hit her in the head.

But apart from all the sillyness: Babar, why?

no

She's building a theory that connects quantum physics to the fundaments of meaning.

There is no instantaneous propagation but that of meaning.

Because this is the only thing we consider static. But it's not. There is no way to think of instantaneity but to think a transformation from one state conceptualized at a time t to another state conceptualized at a state t+1.

and this is a quote from the future.

  On 10/17/2011 at 6:10 PM, goDel said:

sarcasm sarcasm sarcasms

 

*giggles*

just want to say i think babar is an ok guy

i would eat beers with him

sarcasm sarcasm sarcasms

*giggles*

  On 10/16/2011 at 11:31 AM, Babar said:

  On 10/11/2011 at 5:16 PM, GORDO said:

but he's just teasing, I need him to throw me a bone.

 

I'm working my way through

http://www.mugur-sch...ions_doc6b1.pdf

 

And you could maybe start here : http://www.mugur-sch...tions_doc9b.pdf

I haven't read it yet.

 

If you understand french, read the 10 first pages of http://www.mugur-sch...pdf/tissage.pdf

 

She basically says what I said.

 

Something happened to her.

on line 3:

L’investigation dans laquelle j’ai été entraînée a capté dans son champ les processus de conceptualisation quelconques, depuis leur genèse et jusqu’à leurs limites.

The investigation i've been drawn into caught into its field any conceptualization processes, from their genesis up to their boundaries.

 

 

And she almost turned mad.

a few pages later:

Mais ma pensée s’arrête surtout sur Sully, mon mari, qui, cette fois aussi – comme toujours – a constamment protégé avec patience et force les conditions fragiles de mes éloignements dans l’abstrait.

My thoughts stop by Sully, my husband, who, once again - like always- constantly protected with patience and strength the fragile conditions of my [trips~remoteness~alienation] into abstractness.

 

*rimshot*

ooooh kolmogorov, i know him, this should be fun.

I can't read French this isn't fair.

So... did those neutrinos truly go faster than light or not? Was it a miscalculation of some sort, or haven't they figured it out yet?

Sorry to derail the thread.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/17/remember-those-faster-than-light-neutrinos-great-now-forget-e/

  Quote

[...] the GPS satellites used to measure the departure and arrival times of the racing neutrinos were themselves subject to Einsteinian effects, because they were in motion relative to the experiment.

apparently einstein is never wrong

you linked two sites referencing the same article, in the first one the explanation is criticized a lot (GPS already takes into account relativistic effects, time wasn't measured with GPS it was only used to measure the distance... ). so there's no official word yet.

so i was thinking the other day. space is inflating or at least was initially inflating at a rate much faster than light. in the blink of an eye space grew from the size of a pea to the size of the observable universe. so the fabric of space, or the laws themselves that dictate that 24 is the highest number and that light travels at a rate of 24, are in fact experiencing some sort of velocity that is higher than 24. SOMETHING OUT THERE IS HIGHER THAN 24!

*snuggles into bed with the quilted multiverse*

  On 10/17/2011 at 10:40 PM, GORDO said:

you linked two sites referencing the same article, in the first one the explanation is criticized a lot (GPS already takes into account relativistic effects, time wasn't measured with GPS it was only used to measure the distance... ). so there's no official word yet.

busted not reading slashdot, how embarrassing

anyway, I suppose they're already planning another experiment to measure the neutrinos' speed again

wow this thread is fucking awesome!

  On 10/17/2011 at 11:55 PM, Fred McGriff said:

so i was thinking the other day. space is inflating or at least was initially inflating at a rate much faster than light. in the blink of an eye space grew from the size of a pea to the size of the observable universe. so the fabric of space, or the laws themselves that dictate that 24 is the highest number and that light travels at a rate of 24, are in fact experiencing some sort of velocity that is higher than 24. SOMETHING OUT THERE IS HIGHER THAN 24!

 

*snuggles into bed with the quilted multiverse*

Someone posted a link to a conference by Lawrence Krauss on here, one or two years ago. He said in 200 billions (millions ?) years, we wouldn't be able to observe other galaxies since they'd appear to move away from us faster than light.

So the universe is inflating faster and faster right ?

Does that mean I am inflating myself ?

*holds breath*

maybe they'll be too far to be observed (assuming that our universe will keep on expanding and that nothing can travel faster than light)

Hex, science people, do atoms die? Because if they don't I got some galactic ancient atoms in me right now.

you are made of star dust. shit that out your dick and glue it to the cat.

  On 10/18/2011 at 11:32 AM, Babar said:

  On 10/17/2011 at 11:55 PM, Fred McGriff said:

so i was thinking the other day. space is inflating or at least was initially inflating at a rate much faster than light. in the blink of an eye space grew from the size of a pea to the size of the observable universe. so the fabric of space, or the laws themselves that dictate that 24 is the highest number and that light travels at a rate of 24, are in fact experiencing some sort of velocity that is higher than 24. SOMETHING OUT THERE IS HIGHER THAN 24!

 

*snuggles into bed with the quilted multiverse*

 

Someone posted a link to a conference by Lawrence Krauss on here, one or two years ago. He said in 200 billions (millions ?) years, we wouldn't be able to observe other galaxies since they'd appear to move away from us faster than light.

So the universe is inflating faster and faster right ?

Does that mean I am inflating myself ?

*holds breath*

and no, you're not: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/lez24/so_the_universe_is_ever_expanding_does_that_also/

  Quote

The answer is no. That's because the rate of expansion is too small to affect such closely gravitationally bound objects. The expansion can have an effect on the maximum size of a galaxy, but for a solar system the effect is way too small.

Here are some numbers. Hubble's law for the expansion is that v=d*H. v being the velocity the two objects are moving away from one another, d their separation, and H Hubble's constant. H is ~70 km/s/Mpc (Mpc = Megaparsec = 3.26 million light years). The Earth is about 93 million miles from the Sun, that's only 4.85x10^-12 Mpc. Using Hubble's law that gives a velocity of ~1.2x10^-6 km/h = 1.2 mm/h. And that's if expansion of the universe is the only factor. Which it isn't. This expansion is dwarfed by the gravitational attraction.

  Quote

This is a misconception which unfortunately gets propagated over and over again, even by smart people.

It makes absolutely zero sense to even talk about 70 km/s/Mpc on terrestrial scales. That expansion isn't just outweighed by local gravitational effects; it doesn't exist here. As in, if you mathematically model the spacetime around the Earth, the cosmic expansion isn't even a factor which somehow gets outweighed by other things, it's straight-up not there. The metric expansion is a phenomenon on scales where we can talk about the Universe being homogenous and isotropic. On smaller scales, that's replaced by normal non-expanding metrics relevant to whatever the local matter distribution is.

I like to think of things in terms of Birkhoff's theorem, and I've posted that view several times on this reddit before. Basically if you carve out a slightly overdense spherically symmetric shell in an expanding background, that will no longer feel the external expansion except as an initial condition due to Birkhoff's theorem, which roughly states that there's no gravitational influence from the exterior of the shell. While perturbations aren't spherically symmetric, on scales like ours where densities are about 30 orders of magnitude greater than the cosmic mean, it might as well be.