Recently during an OPERA experiment in Italy, they found that neutrinos arriving 60 nanoseconds earlier than they thought was possible which would mean it exceeded the speed of light. This would prove Einstein's theory of relativity wrong, because neutrinos exceeded the speed of light. many scientists were intrigued by the results and are trying to create theories on why this type of result was possible, such as the possibility of new physics being one of the most radical. An example that this is impossible is that a supernova showered earth in 1987 and with the theory of the recent experiment, the time would take 4 years rather than the 3 hours that it was observed. The results of the experiment could be from an error from the movement of the satellite that the movement would account for a 64 nanoseconds discrepancy,
The author of the piece is Adam Mann, and has written many articles on wired.com, which is a notable place for scientific articles, 21 to be exact.he is an and Astronomy and physics reporter for Wired.com, The context of the piece is from the recent experiment that gave impossible results that was thought to be a new phenomenon, though there is now a debate whether this is a viable problem or whether it was an erroneous experiment. The audience is people with interest in science, and contains a large amount of scientific lingo that is not explained, so there is an assumption that the audience knows what exactly he is talking about. He starts off with"Faster-than-light neutrinos mean Einstein is wrong!", which states the most extreme answer, followed by "At least, that’s what some popular press articles have suggested..." This allows the reader to say that it is too early to assume and because there is a scientific context, that the theory must be tested over and over until it has been proven. He uses past events, and applies the theory and see how much results would vary IF the theory was valid, and how much it varies from the actual results (3 months compared to 4 years). He shoots down many theories that don't seem to be valid, and why he thinks so from evidence. However, he ends the article by, "Ultimately, it will take a great deal more time and scholarship before the physics community settles on the true explanation for the OPERA results. Until then, vigorous debate is likely to continue." saying that some theories could still be valid and only time and testing can tell what exactly scientists should make of the results of this OPERA experiment.
No comments:
Post a Comment