Your video, What is a Neutrino?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

After my wife and I saw 2012, I prank called an IceCube research lab at my university. I asked to speak to the person in charge. At the time most of the people in the group knew me, and they happen to put one of friends on the phone. I basically recounted the plot of 2012. He put me on speaker and started to explain neutrinos to me, how 2012 is just a movie, and that they don't interact with anything. In the end, I couldn't help it and I cracked up laughing. Good times, good times.

PS. Don't do this.
PPS. 2012 is awesome.

Good'ol Cherenkov radiation, it's such a nice hue of blue isn't it. Neutrinos are definitely odd little sub-atomic particles with "flavors" that may move faster than the speed-of-light according to the recent experiment(s) done by the OPERA team. Of course it's already been partially re-tested, basically looking for "extra"--you could say Cherenkov radiation, caused by the release of energy by these extra fast neutrinos. Specifically, they're looking for extra electrons (matter/anti-matter pairs, as I say below) being released which should eventually release a few anti-matter electrons in the process, called positrons--which when it happens the electron and positron would appear as a couple.

But, the Gran Sasso physicists involved in the re-testing of the OPERA team's experiment have yet to see even one event which is theorized to occur. This puts a very large noose on the OPERA teams finding, and makes it look more likely that what happened is a measurement error of some kind.

This has little to do with the video, but I thought I'd add it it in for the hell of it.

I believe the Big Bang Theory because I have faith in the scientific community.

There is a faith aspect to "science". I have faith that E=MC^2. I've never checked, but I have faith that the scientific community have checked. However, this is not blind faith. I could, if I was sufficiently motivated, read up on the science and prove this to myself.

Well, this is only half the story. There is a certain amount of faith in science as a whole. This is because science doesn't actually prove anything:

http://www.digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm

To believe in science you must have faith in empiricism, which says that all knowledge comes from sensory experience. Yet there are many truths empiricism cannot account for. Science itself is predicated on a series of unprovable assumptions called "brute givens" which presume the operations of the Universe have remained constant in the past and will continue to do so. Here is a good dialog on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

Please ignore the title, it was just the best clip I could find. Also, check out this conversation between a physics major and a bunch of physicists and mathematicians about him losing faith in empiricism:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-184699.html

Another reason why "science" isn't a religion is that if something is shown to wrong, it gets corrected. If those neutrinos sent from CERN disprove E=MC^2, then my mind is open to change. If something is shown to be wrong in religion, the people who show it up get in trouble.

This isn't always true. For instance, the scientific community at large consider evolution to be "proven" and won't tolerate any dissent on the issue. A scientist who even breathes the words "intelligent design" will be totally ostracized, have their reputations ruined, be unable to publish scientific papers and lose their ability to get grants. It is nearly impossible to do any work on intelligent design for that reason. Evolutionary theories are the sacred cow of science, and they religiously defend it, even to the point of suppressing any debate on it, and also by propagating this view into our political and education system. They also file lawsuits to keep intelligent design from being mentioned in classrooms. This has clearly gone beyond the bounds of mere scientific inquiry. If scientists had taken this same attitude on classical mechanics, quantum mechanics may never have been discovered.

The key is that I don't "believe this nonsense without question". I believe this with question and with the readiness to believe something else if something else is proven. I believe in facts because they are self-evident, and I believe in doubt because I believe we don't know everything and that we should strive to know more and to prove more. Denying proven without offering an alternative which can be backed up at all* just isn't reality. Do I feel I have a claim to rationality and logic? Well, that is what my beliefs are based on. There is proof for Earth being 4.5 billion years old, rational and logical proof.

Well, you have to realize that some of things you seem to consider facts, aren't. The Big Bang theory is not a fact, it is totally unprovable. Not only that, but the theory itself doesn't even really work..it has a number of problems, from how stars and planets form, to the lack of observable matter and energy to make it work, to what they call the smoothness problem:

"These structures must have arisen from tiny variations in the energy density in the early universe. Where the densities were greatest is, presumably, where gravity caused matter to collapse into the structures we see today.

The problem is that to explain these structures seems to require a universe that was created in an incredibly smooth non-chaotic manner. This seems extremely unlikely."''

I like the last bit. It isn't unlikely if you consider the Universe was created by an omniopotent being. The basic problem with big bang cosmology and evoltuion is that they are not real science. You can't observe and test them, they are speculation and assumption about things that happened in the past. It is mere interpretation of data, and there are many ways to interpret it. We are both looking at the same facts, but interpreting them in different ways.

Of course, you presumably do believe that Christianity can be backed up, which is where we've even less chance of agreeing on anything. Every argument I've heard for religion is ultimately circular or illogical.(I don't understand the crutches thing, from either side.)

I don't preumse I can prove to you that Christianity is true. I can show you that there are good reasons to believe there is a God, and that there is good evidence for Christianity, but I cannot prove my experience. I can however tell you this is something you can prove to yourself. If you ask God for the evidence, He will provide it to you. You can do this by praying something like this: "Jesus, if you're real, I want to know about it. If you're God please come into my life and I will give it over to you" If you can pray those words and mean them, you will get an answer. He promised to reveal Himself to those who seek Him dilligently.

As far as the crutch thing goes, what I am speaking about is sin. Those who don't know God are in a servitude to their passions and desires. Meaning, the first priority is a fulfillment of these desires, which the intellect first assents to, and then seeks out a worldview that justifies this fulfillment. Meaning, the atheist naturally doesn't want to believe that which contradicts the fulfillment of his natural desires, and will resist believing it. Admitting that God exists also means that you have a responsibility to obey Him, which further means that you can no longer live according to fleshly desires. So, an atheist will resist the knowledge of God so they can continue to live as they please, doing that which they know by their conscience is wrong, but being unable to resist these things. It has virtually nothing to do with evidence; our sinful nature is just naturally inclined to be in rebellion against Gods authority and will continue to operate this way on any pretense that seems even remotely plausible.

>> ^Quboid:
I believe the Big Bang Theory because I have faith in the scientific community.
There is a faith aspect to "science". I have faith that E=MC^2. I've never checked, but I have faith that the scientific community have checked. However, this is not blind faith. I could, if I was sufficiently motivated, read up on the science and prove this to myself.
Another reason why "science" isn't a religion is that if something is shown to wrong, it gets corrected. If those neutrinos sent from CERN disprove E=MC^2, then my mind is open to change. If something is shown to be wrong in religion, the people who show it up get in trouble.
The key is that I don't "believe this nonsense without question". I believe this with question and with the readiness to believe something else if something else is proven. I believe in facts because they are self-evident, and I believe in doubt because I believe we don't know everything and that we should strive to know more and to prove more. Denying proven without offering an alternative which can be backed up at all just isn't reality. Do I feel I have a claim to rationality and logic? Well, that is what my beliefs are based on. There is proof for Earth being 4.5 billion years old, rational and logical proof.
Of course, you presumably do believe that Christianity can be backed up, which is where we've even less chance of agreeing on anything. Every argument I've heard for religion is ultimately circular or illogical.
(I don't understand the crutches thing, from either side.)
>> ^shinyblurry:
The problem with Bill Maher and his cackling hyenas, and most atheists in general, is that they seem to think that they have some sort of claim to rationality and logic above theists. Yet, as you pointed out, they are no less dogmatic about their faith than anyone else. Though you seem to think that they are in the superior position. I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded, and that this explosion magically produced order and complexity, and from this rocks became alive and turned into soup which turned into monkeys and then into you. These are metaphysical beliefs taken on faith. I find it amusing that people actually believe this nonsense without question and then have the nerve to call me irrational.
The fact is, everyone worships something. Every person has something which they bow down and kiss. Whether it is money, or celebrity, or power, or nature, or themselves, atheists are no different than anyone else. I also find it funny that you talk about crutches, as if atheists don't have crutches? What about drugs, alcohol, pornography, cigarettes, food, sex, etc? How many atheists do you know who use those crutches to get through life? Knowing Christ removes crutches from people, and being a Christian is freedom from crutches, not enslavement to one. Anyone who sins is a slave to sin, but anyone who knows Christ has been set free from that bondage.
So, I appreciate your attempted voice of reason, though you couldn't seem to manage it without condescension towards me, and Christians in general. Perhaps you feel you have to denigrate us in order to be socially accepted here. I think though that you see the futility of anti-theism, and the blind ignorance and hatred it produces in people. You know a tree by its fruit, and that fruit is rotten to its core.

I believe the Big Bang Theory because I have faith in the scientific community.

There is a faith aspect to "science". I have faith that E=MC^2. I've never checked, but I have faith that the scientific community have checked. However, this is not blind faith. I could, if I was sufficiently motivated, read up on the science and prove this to myself.

Another reason why "science" isn't a religion is that if something is shown to wrong, it gets corrected. If those neutrinos sent from CERN disprove E=MC^2, then my mind is open to change. If something is shown to be wrong in religion, the people who show it up get in trouble.

The key is that I don't "believe this nonsense without question". I believe this with question and with the readiness to believe something else if something else is proven. I believe in facts because they are self-evident, and I believe in doubt because I believe we don't know everything and that we should strive to know more and to prove more. Denying proven without offering an alternative which can be backed up at all* just isn't reality. Do I feel I have a claim to rationality and logic? Well, that is what my beliefs are based on. There is proof for Earth being 4.5 billion years old, rational and logical proof.

* Of course, you presumably do believe that Christianity can be backed up, which is where we've even less chance of agreeing on anything. Every argument I've heard for religion is ultimately circular or illogical.

(I don't understand the crutches thing, from either side.)

>> ^shinyblurry:

The problem with Bill Maher and his cackling hyenas, and most atheists in general, is that they seem to think that they have some sort of claim to rationality and logic above theists. Yet, as you pointed out, they are no less dogmatic about their faith than anyone else. Though you seem to think that they are in the superior position. I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded, and that this explosion magically produced order and complexity, and from this rocks became alive and turned into soup which turned into monkeys and then into you. These are metaphysical beliefs taken on faith. I find it amusing that people actually believe this nonsense without question and then have the nerve to call me irrational.
The fact is, everyone worships something. Every person has something which they bow down and kiss. Whether it is money, or celebrity, or power, or nature, or themselves, atheists are no different than anyone else. I also find it funny that you talk about crutches, as if atheists don't have crutches? What about drugs, alcohol, pornography, cigarettes, food, sex, etc? How many atheists do you know who use those crutches to get through life? Knowing Christ removes crutches from people, and being a Christian is freedom from crutches, not enslavement to one. Anyone who sins is a slave to sin, but anyone who knows Christ has been set free from that bondage.
So, I appreciate your attempted voice of reason, though you couldn't seem to manage it without condescension towards me, and Christians in general. Perhaps you feel you have to denigrate us in order to be socially accepted here. I think though that you see the futility of anti-theism, and the blind ignorance and hatred it produces in people. You know a tree by its fruit, and that fruit is rotten to its core.

>> ^shagen454:

The part about "looking" and nature deciding at that instant about the state of something is total bullshit. So, basically the entire theory falls apart for me right there.


Not sure whether the whole theory is bullshit to you because you can't understand it, or you won't understand it because you've declared it bullshit. They could both be true, sort of like a "superposition" of posibilities.

Unlike religion, however, a leap of faith is not needed. You don't have to believe in magic. On quantum levels, this IS the nature of reality, and can be (and has been over and over) demonstrated through observation, experimentation and measurement. As xxovercastxx implied, that doesn't mean we understand it yet, nor do we have to. But we can make predictions with the theory and test them, and the predictions prove out every time.

Then again, I hear neutrinos can travel faster than light nowadays. NOT predicted!

Time travel might still be out of the question though, even with faster than light neutrinos:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/09/24/can-neutrinos-kill-their-own-grandfathers/

fuck neutrinos, I think we should look further into this phenomenon

But massive particles would still be prohibited from traveling faster than the speed of light. It's only the particles with imaginary mass that could travel faster, and they would still fit into the framework of special and general relativity.

Unless we at the same time can show that the neutrinos have non-complex mass. Then it could get really hairy. But I wouldn't bet my house on it.

In reply to this comment by juliovega914:
An exaggeration, yes, but not a terribly big one. Most of the standard theory today is based on the bricks of special and general relativity. For us to have to rethink the laws restricting mass from traveling over the speed of light, we really would need to rethink physics from there all the way back up, which really leaves no physical theories safe all the way back to Newtonian physics. In short, I cant wait to see how this pans out.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Oh, it would definitely be groundbreaking. One of the biggest discoveries in physics to date. But to say that we would have to restart physics is an exaggeration.

In reply to this comment by juliovega914:
I'm pretty sure negative mass would still result in complex energy, because the Lorentz transformation factor would still be proportional to 1/i or -i. Complex mass, however, would allow for the energy to be real (which has been theorized as being possible), but that introduces a whole new problem of trying to conceptualize complex mass.

And on a side note, the first ever physical observation of nonpostive/nonreal mass would be groundbreaking in its own right.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html
for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)

An exaggeration, yes, but not a terribly big one. Most of the standard theory today is based on the bricks of special and general relativity. For us to have to rethink the laws restricting mass from traveling over the speed of light, we really would need to rethink physics from there all the way back up, which really leaves no physical theories safe all the way back to Newtonian physics. In short, I cant wait to see how this pans out.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Oh, it would definitely be groundbreaking. One of the biggest discoveries in physics to date. But to say that we would have to restart physics is an exaggeration.

In reply to this comment by juliovega914:
I'm pretty sure negative mass would still result in complex energy, because the Lorentz transformation factor would still be proportional to 1/i or -i. Complex mass, however, would allow for the energy to be real (which has been theorized as being possible), but that introduces a whole new problem of trying to conceptualize complex mass.

And on a side note, the first ever physical observation of nonpostive/nonreal mass would be groundbreaking in its own right.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)

Oh, it would definitely be groundbreaking. One of the biggest discoveries in physics to date. But to say that we would have to restart physics is an exaggeration.

In reply to this comment by juliovega914:
I'm pretty sure negative mass would still result in complex energy, because the Lorentz transformation factor would still be proportional to 1/i or -i. Complex mass, however, would allow for the energy to be real (which has been theorized as being possible), but that introduces a whole new problem of trying to conceptualize complex mass.

And on a side note, the first ever physical observation of nonpostive/nonreal mass would be groundbreaking in its own right.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)

>> ^Ornthoron:

The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.
>> ^juliovega914:
>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)



I'm pretty sure negative mass would still result in complex energy, because the Lorentz transformation factor would still be proportional to 1/i or -i. Complex mass, however, would allow for the energy to be real (which has been theorized as being possible), but that introduces a whole new problem of trying to conceptualize complex mass.

And on a side note, the first ever physical observation of nonpostive/nonreal mass would be groundbreaking in its own right.

I'm pretty sure negative mass would still result in complex energy, because the Lorentz transformation factor would still be proportional to 1/i or -i. Complex mass, however, would allow for the energy to be real (which has been theorized as being possible), but that introduces a whole new problem of trying to conceptualize complex mass.

And on a side note, the first ever physical observation of nonpostive/nonreal mass would be groundbreaking in its own right.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)

The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)

ZING!>> ^messenger:

Not a very popular one because even with Pepto-Bismol they just go right through ya.>> ^rottenseed:
I thought "Neutrinos" was a breakfast cereal