DailyDirt: If I Could Catch Time In A Bottle...
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
The scientific method relies on independent verification of measurements and results, but sometimes it's not easy to replicate experiments or measure things at the leading edge of science. Scam artists are often identified when they explain that their results are so far advanced that no one else can replicate them. Real scientists, though, don't buy that. Here are a few scientific discoveries that still need a bit more verification.- Neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light don't seem to exist, and
the CERN team that first said they saw some FTL neutrinos, now admit they made a couple mistakes.the CERN team, after reporting unusual data, determined definitively that it was caused by a mistake (and what that mistake was) with input from the broader scientific community. As some expected, there were systematic errors that produced a timing error of just 60 nanoseconds. [url] - CERN scientists have trapped anti-hydrogen for a little over 15 minutes -- a new record that could allow them to determine more about how antimatter behaves. Does anti-hydrogen rise, fall or do nothing in a gravitational field? [url]
- The Large Hadron Collider is still hunting down the elusive Higgs boson which might not exist at all. This sub-atomic particle has been nicknamed the "God Particle" -- but it looks like it's just a matter of time before people either find it or start re-writing modern physics. [url]
- To discover more interesting science-related stuff, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-hydrogen, antimatter, ftl, gravity, higgs boson, lhc, measurements, neutrinos, particles, physics, science
Companies: cern
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That would depend on which way the field lines were going. It should not "do nothing" as they can be magnetically trapped. One would expect there charge to be +e because it has a positron around it but I may be mistaken about that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:3D_image_of_Antih ydrogen.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penning_trap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Charge
An antiproton has a charge of -1, a positron has a charge of +1, making a neutral particle.
The "surface" of antihydrogen would be positive and attracted to the "surface" of regular matter.
The general consensus is that antimatter has regular positively signed energy-matter of the same values as it's matter counterparts, and would fall towards regular matter and antimatter alike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If we could catch time in a bottle
The 1980's forever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
They trap them using the magnetic moment of the component parts, the particle itself is neutral and doesn't do a whole lot in an ordinary magnetic field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and of course gravity affects anti-matter just like affects normal matter.
ie it would be influenced by gravity the same way as 'normal' hydrogen does.
Hydrogen also does not 'rise' by itself, it rises because in air it is less dense, it therefore floats. (lighter than air).
considering I would expect there to be little or no air mixed with the anti-matter H+, that it would be attracted by the gravity of the earth, and would tend to fall, just as normal hydrogen would fall, when not suspended in air.
what level of science education do they have in the US ?
no wonder your country is going to shit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[citation needed!]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time in a bottle
Jim Croce's agent [Bad, Bad Leroy Brown] called. He wants his royalties. He said, "I've Got A Name, and You Don't Mess Around With Jim. Don't make me do this The Hard Way Every Time, or you'll be singing those Workin' At The Car Wash Blues. So pay up, or it'll be More Than That Tomorrow."
Just thought I'd pass it on! ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time in a bottle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conspiracy
Great, another government cover up. You'd think they would let us have just one little breakthrough, but nooo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it truly is the God particle it will only be found when it is good and ready. If it has a sense of humor it will wait until physics is re-written. Now that would be funny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the god particle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give the CERN team credit
They arranged an incredibly complex experiment and got anomolous results. When they could not find a reason, they presented to the broader community for analysis. They always contemplated that it could be an error or systematic flaw. This phrasing, while technically accurate, seems to imply that they tried to hide or were at least surprised by the fact there were mistakes.
A better phrasing would be "the CERN team, after displaying unusual data, determined definitively that it was caused by a mistake and what that mistake was with input from the broader scientific community."
The CERN team worked hard, honestly presented their results with full contemplation it might include errors, and publicized all details when they were known. The Scientific Community, including the CERN team, worked exactly the way it should in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give the CERN team credit
I've updated the post to reflect your edit. Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
scientific method
it is not about having it independly tested by another lab, it is a scientific consensus.
Global warming has been determined by applying 'the scientific method' to the earths climate, there is a concensus amoung the majority of scientists that is exists.
You cannot 'do the experiment' in another lab to prove it, we have only one earth.. evolution cannot be confirmed in another 'lab' as we have only one earth.. does not mean that the science in invalid.
physics is being re-written every day as knowledge of physics progresses.
did you guys ever go to school ? if so how come you failed to learn anything ? or is it because you 'have the internet' there is no reason to think anymore!! or are you just stupid ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: scientific method
One last clarification: science doesn't prove anything. Science can only disprove.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]