tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3928397148645231881..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: An Ugly Little FactLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46145701773412966102011-10-10T18:05:34.036-04:002011-10-10T18:05:34.036-04:00@Jud: knock yourself out - it's in the public ...@Jud: knock yourself out - it's in the public domain now, anyway!Richard Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16115218690707131186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50991024618042161452011-10-10T06:59:59.678-04:002011-10-10T06:59:59.678-04:00An ugly interpretation of an observation cannot de...<i>An ugly interpretation of an observation cannot destroy established scientific consensus, though. Not without friends.</i><br /><br />Ooh, I like this, especially the "Not without friends" part. One of these days I may steal it, with your kind permission.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89690527475038144772011-10-08T16:17:28.313-04:002011-10-08T16:17:28.313-04:00I think Huxley was right. An ugly fact can slay a ...I think Huxley was right. An ugly <i>fact</i> can slay a beautiful hypothesis. An ugly <i>interpretation of an observation</i> cannot destroy established scientific consensus, though. Not without friends. (It's not yet a <i>fact</i> that neutrinos can travel faster than light, and I think it's a little unfair on general relativity to equate it with "a beautiful hypothesis".)<br /><br />I don't know that many of them were "beautiful" but I've had many a reasonable hypothesis killed by the reality of the data.Richard Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16115218690707131186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12638231300296363532011-10-07T21:25:58.141-04:002011-10-07T21:25:58.141-04:00Re neutrinos arriving earlier than light.
Accordi...Re neutrinos arriving earlier than light.<br /><br />According to Wikipedia, during a supernova neutrinos are emitted while the core of the star collapses. Light is emitted later when the shock wave of the collapse hits the stellar surface.Chris Nedinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06978886926715669724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86315178601606032602011-10-07T20:20:46.517-04:002011-10-07T20:20:46.517-04:00The light from the supernova was delayed because i...The light from the supernova was delayed because it had to get through the remnants of the stellar explosion. <br /><br />As an example: The photons in our solar core take many years to escape to the surface while the sun is almost transparent to neutrinos. Neutrinos can pass through LIGHTYEARS of lead. This is why only a very tiny % of neutrinos are detected in experiments.Michael Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14278512837240256168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70103362906421795932011-10-07T18:19:12.375-04:002011-10-07T18:19:12.375-04:00Stenger went on to say that the neutrinos interact...Stenger went on to say that the neutrinos interact very weakly with matter so are not impeded by the solar mass where as the photons don't escape until most of the solar material has blown away in the super nova some time later.<br /><br />So the neutrinos start their journey earlier than the photons and both types of particle seem to be travelling at the same speed.steve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16610907793161226162011-10-07T18:17:50.588-04:002011-10-07T18:17:50.588-04:00The neutrinos arrive first exactly as predicted. I...The neutrinos arrive first exactly as predicted. In a supernova the core of a massive star 'explodes' creating a burst of neutrinos and photons. The neutrinos escape from the star immediately but it takes about tree hours for the photons to reach the surface. The neutrinos arrive first because they have a head start.Don Catesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72107175211262691292011-10-07T17:45:21.093-04:002011-10-07T17:45:21.093-04:00Anon2, actually, the difference between the light ...Anon2, actually, the difference between the light and the neutrinos from 1987A is due to the fact that it takes photons from the inside of a star some time to "diffuse" to the surface; they have a relatively short average path length in the electromagnetically thick environment of a star's interior (even when its exploding).<br /><br />Neutrinos, on the other hand, interact so weakly with matter than the star is effectively transparent, so the neutrinos radiate from the explosion immediately.<br /><br />For this reason it is expected that the neutrinos would be detected first, and the difference observed with 1987A is consistent with models of stellar interiors.<br /><br />(This is kind of an exciting problem for me as I was briefly associated with the SuperK collaboration as a grad student, when they started fooling with GPS timing for the K2K experiment.)Zombienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6040596333766355422011-10-07T16:52:07.623-04:002011-10-07T16:52:07.623-04:00Stenger said:
Three hours before the visible ligh...Stenger said:<br /><br /><i>Three hours before the visible light reached Earth, a handful of neutrinos were detected in three independent underground detectors.</i><br /><br />This sort of says that the neutrinos arrived <b>before</b> the light. They were were not quite as fast as the CERN neutrinos, but still faster than light. Isn't that what Stenger's words say?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87724313592015511762011-10-07T14:37:13.415-04:002011-10-07T14:37:13.415-04:00Re: "Thomas Huxley was wrong. That's not ...Re: "Thomas Huxley was wrong. That's not how science works." <br /><br />I don't read Huxley's quote the way you seem to. I believe his meaning was that we can come up with elegant theories that explain a whole lot of things, and it's just beautiful, everyone loves it. And then an ugly little data point shows that's not right. Well, science accepts that, it doesn't fall in love with its own theories so much that it rejects conflicting data.<br /><br />So yeah, you're right, it won't throw out the elegant theory, perhaps it'll be used in a limited context, but science knows that just because something is beautiful doesn't make it true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com