Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Big story ....CERN scientists break the speed of light

1235

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig



    I think that this is very poor; how much research money needs to be spent on proving that Einstein knew what he was talking about?

    As much as it takes to prove him wrong.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    It seems odd that no-one noticed that the data carried by the fibre optics was arriving laterearlier than expected; the neutrinos weren't arriving early, the light was arriving late!

    A 60 nS delay earlyness equates to an extra 18 metres or so of extra distance travelled by light along the fibre-optic cable. What with GPS and relativity, shouldn't that anomaly have been spotted first?
    Fixed that for you
    Even horse-racing officials go to the trouble of analysing a 'photo-finish' before publishing results.

    I think that this is very poor; how much research money needs to be spent on proving that Einstein knew what he was talking about?

    Have you any idea how complicated this stuff is ? ALOT more complicated than your post which you managed to get back-assward


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Fixed that for you



    Have you any idea how complicated this stuff is ? ALOT morme complicated than your post which you managed to get back-assward

    Hmm, a faulty connection made the signal arrive early?

    Interesting.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    Hmm, a faulty connection made the signal arrive early?

    Interesting.

    Read the link.

    Edit: Reading it again it is ambiguous.
    After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed. Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos.


    But in any case the most important point is:
    New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.

    Nothing is proven nor disproven yet


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Read the link.

    Edit: Reading it again it is ambiguous.
    After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed. Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos.

    I'm confused; how was what I said 'ASSWAYS'? I think that your correction was 'ASSWAYS'! Are you saying that tightening the connection caused light to exceed the speed of light?
    But in any case the most important point is:


    Nothing is proven nor disproven yet

    That may be the case for you but I enthusiastically disagree.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    I'm confused; how was what I said 'ASSWAYS'? I think that your correction was 'ASSWAYS'! Are you saying that tightening the connection caused light to exceed the speed of light?
    No didn't say that. Clearly you have an issue with reading comprehension.
    That may be the case for you but I enthusiastically disagree.
    Its also the case for the scientists doing the experiements and the journalist reporting it - you know - like how I quoted. They need to do a new experiment and prove they were wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    I can't find where i read it but I presume someone here may have read it to, but I remember reading that they re did the experiment using atomic clocks instead and got the same result? How would this loose cable affect this?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    No didn't say that. Clearly you have an issue with reading comprehension.

    Its also the case for the scientists doing the experiements and the journalist reporting it - you know - like how I quoted. They need to do a new experiment and prove they were wrong.

    In fairness, neither you nor the article explained it clearly.

    himnextdoor, what happened was, due to the loose connection, there was a calibration issue with the clock. The receiver was overestimating the delay between detection and registration of the detection. This is not the delay between the emission and detection of the neutrino. Basically, if the neutrino is detected at time T, the computer will register the detection at T + delay, due to the delay in communitcation between the detector and the computer. Scientists subtract the delay time from the reading (I.e. They calculate T + delay - delay = T). When the connections were properly fastened, the delay turned out to be much smaller than they originally thought. Hence, beforehand they were calculating detection times that were too early.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭krd


    Morbert wrote: »
    When the connections were properly fastened, the delay turned out to be much smaller than they originally thought. Hence, beforehand they were calculating detection times that were too early.


    That sounds really iffy. You would expect that anyone with the kind of claim they had, would have spent weeks or even months stripping the equipment and retesting, to make absolutely sure there was no calibration issue.

    A loose fibre cable doesn't sound right either - the difference in distance would be so small.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    krd wrote: »
    That sounds really iffy. You would expect that anyone with the kind of claim they had, would have spent weeks or even months stripping the equipment and retesting, to make absolutely sure there was no calibration issue.

    A loose fibre cable doesn't sound right either - the difference in distance would be so small.

    Yes. I'm having trouble with this too.

    I think we are talking in terms of the problem being one of 'latency' that occurs between the input and output of a detecting device. It seems obvious that since detectors have to process their signal through various transducers, there will be a delay introduced by the detecting equipment itself and therefore any accurate calculation would have to take this delay into account.

    It also seems reasonable that this would be achieved through the calibration process.

    What doesn't make sense is that the initial calibration process (with the faulty connection) took the extra 60 nS delay into account; the initial value for the delay caused by the equipment and the loose connection was equated to 'extra distance in the path taken by light'. i.e., if the distance between two points is known then the 'shape' of a signal transmitted from point 'A' can be used to predict the shape of the signal arriving at a detector at point 'B'; the predicted signal at point 'B' can be compared to the output signal of the detector and the phase difference would correspond to the delay caused by the equipment. Every 60 nS of delay is eqivalent to the detecting equipment being 18 metres or so further away from the transmitter than it actually is.

    So, they calibrated their equipment and carried out the experiment. And there was no suspicion of a faulty connection.

    The clocks starts counting, a signal is transmitted from point 'A' and data starts flowing from point 'B'. Neutrinos are detected. The output signal of the detector is compared to the signal that would be expected if the neutrinos were travelling at light-speed in which case there would be no phase difference. Any detected phase difference would correspond to the speed of neutrinos when compared to the speed of light.

    But the experiment reported that neutinos were travelling faster than light which means that the loose connection was actually tight when the experiment was conducted. In order for the data to show a 60 nS phase shift between photons and neutrinos, the fault cannot have been present during the experiment. If it was present, then the data would have shown no phase-shift (dealt with in calibration) and the experiment would have concluded that neutrinos do not travel faster than light.

    How did they determine that a connection that was tight during the experiment was loose in the calibration process before it?

    It sounds sloppy at best but then I would still like to know the mechanism by which a loose connection can introduce precisely 60 nS of delay into a system. Even assuming that the connections were electrical in nature rather than fibre-optic and taking into account the fact that changes in 'capacitance' and 'inductance' can cause a small delay through poor connection, 60 nS sounds a lot.

    And as I have already said, from a fibre-optics viewpoint, 60 nS equates to an extra 18 metres or so distance travelled by light. Or an 18 metre GPS error. Or 'x' number of clock-ticks that weren't counted.

    I think that the loose connection theory is more about saving face that it is about anything else and that it was something else that went wrong, something that would undermine credibility perhaps.

    It's disappointing; I had rather hoped that the difference in the speeds of neutrinos and photons would be directly related to the rate of expansion of the Universe.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Yes. I'm having trouble with this too.

    I think we are talking in terms of the problem being one of 'latency' that occurs between the input and output of a detecting device. It seems obvious that since detectors have to process their signal through various transducers, there will be a delay introduced by the detecting equipment itself and therefore any accurate calculation would have to take this delay into account.

    It also seems reasonable that this would be achieved through the calibration process.

    What doesn't make sense is that the initial calibration process (with the faulty connection) took the extra 60 nS delay into account; the initial value for the delay caused by the equipment and the loose connection was equated to 'extra distance in the path taken by light'. i.e., if the distance between two points is known then the 'shape' of a signal transmitted from point 'A' can be used to predict the shape of the signal arriving at a detector at point 'B'; the predicted signal at point 'B' can be compared to the output signal of the detector and the phase difference would correspond to the delay caused by the equipment. Every 60 nS of delay is eqivalent to the detecting equipment being 18 metres or so further away from the transmitter than it actually is.

    So, they calibrated their equipment and carried out the experiment. And there was no suspicion of a faulty connection.

    The clocks starts counting, a signal is transmitted from point 'A' and data starts flowing from point 'B'. Neutrinos are detected. The output signal of the detector is compared to the signal that would be expected if the neutrinos were travelling at light-speed in which case there would be no phase difference. Any detected phase difference would correspond to the speed of neutrinos when compared to the speed of light.

    But the experiment reported that neutinos were travelling faster than light which means that the loose connection was actually tight when the experiment was conducted. In order for the data to show a 60 nS phase shift between photons and neutrinos, the fault cannot have been present during the experiment. If it was present, then the data would have shown no phase-shift (dealt with in calibration) and the experiment would have concluded that neutrinos do not travel faster than light.

    How did they determine that a connection that was tight during the experiment was loose in the calibration process before it?

    It sounds sloppy at best but then I would still like to know the mechanism by which a loose connection can introduce precisely 60 nS of delay into a system. Even assuming that the connections were electrical in nature rather than fibre-optic and taking into account the fact that changes in 'capacitance' and 'inductance' can cause a small delay through poor connection, 60 nS sounds a lot.

    And as I have already said, from a fibre-optics viewpoint, 60 nS equates to an extra 18 metres or so distance travelled by light. Or an 18 metre GPS error. Or 'x' number of clock-ticks that weren't counted.

    I think that the loose connection theory is more about saving face that it is about anything else and that it was something else that went wrong, something that would undermine credibility perhaps.

    It's disappointing; I had rather hoped that the difference in the speeds of neutrinos and photons would be directly related to the rate of expansion of the Universe.

    I have found a more thorough article. Apparently it is not the connection between the detector and the computer, but rather the GPS antenna and the computer.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17139635

    This sounds entirely plausible.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭krd


    Morbert wrote: »
    I have found a more thorough article. Apparently it is not the connection between the detector and the computer, but rather the GPS antenna and the computer.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17139635

    This sounds entirely plausible.

    I don't know. They're still claiming it was a lose fibre cable. I've worked with those cables, and probably the same kind of hardware their using for the computer. Usually, a loose cable wouldn't make a difference, unless it was nearly hanging out of its slot. If you're having a problem with the cable, you'll see intermittent drops in the signal. I don't see where you would get a latency.

    Accurately figuring out the latencies in the electronics might be more difficult. If they were wrong in calculating or measuring the latencies within their equipment, it would explain where they went wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    krd wrote: »
    I don't know. They're still claiming it was a lose fibre cable. I've worked with those cables, and probably the same kind of hardware their using for the computer. Usually, a loose cable wouldn't make a difference, unless it was nearly hanging out of its slot. If you're having a problem with the cable, you'll see intermittent drops in the signal. I don't see where you would get a latency.

    Accurately figuring out the latencies in the electronics might be more difficult. If they were wrong in calculating or measuring the latencies within their equipment, it would explain where they went wrong.

    A variation of 60 billionths of a second wouldn't make a difference in a lot of situations. But when you are dealing with resolutions on their level, it makes all the difference in the world.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭krd


    Morbert wrote: »
    A variation of 60 billionths of a second wouldn't make a difference in a lot of situations. But when you are dealing with resolutions on their level, it makes all the difference in the world.

    I know. But a loose fibre optic cable, at most the distance is in the range of a millimetre. 60ns, gives an error of about 18 metres.

    You'd definitely see latencies of 60ns, and much more, in the electronics.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    krd wrote: »
    I know. But a loose fibre optic cable, at most the distance is in the range of a millimetre. 60ns, gives an error of about 18 metres.

    You'd definitely see latencies of 60ns, and much more, in the electronics.

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v2

    The timing apparatus schematics are figures 3 and 6. Latency is not just due to wire distance, which is why the apparatus had to go through intensive calibrations in the beginning. They certainly would not have been able to predict the latency to within 60ns by considering wire distance.

    The collaboration are going to be running the experiment again, the next time the beam is available, with the fixed connection (and a few fixes of other possible sources of error) which will definitively determine whether or not the problem was in the apparatus.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 168 ✭✭Scartbeg


    FWIW a delay of 60ns would correspond to approx 12m travel in an optic fibre which will have a refractive index of approx 1.5

    More likely a bad connection would result in multiple reflections between the optical surfaces concerned which would cause multiple or mis-shapen pulses to be received


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Scartbeg wrote: »
    FWIW a delay of 60ns would correspond to approx 12m travel in an optic fibre which will have a refractive index of approx 1.5

    More likely a bad connection would result in multiple reflections between the optical surfaces concerned which would cause multiple or mis-shapen pulses to be received

    Which would fail to match the 'comparative data' and would as a result raise a red flag on the experiment.

    The data (in the form of neutrino bursts) was 'pulsed', was it not, which means there was a 'reference' to which the output data could be compared.

    In any event, I fail to see how a loose connection, especially a fibre-optic connection, could introduce precicely 60 nS of delay for the entire duration of the experiment without raising a few eye-brows...

    ... especially when you consider that they discovered that the problem was due to a loose connection that was actually tight when the experiment was performed...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    I was pretty sure it was going to be something simple like that.
    No actually - I haven't a clue tbh.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    krd wrote: »
    I know. But a loose fibre optic cable, at most the distance is in the range of a millimetre. 60ns, gives an error of about 18 metres.

    You'd definitely see latencies of 60ns, and much more, in the electronics.

    Yes. And this could easily dealt with by comparing the phase-shift between output and a mathematically calculated 'expected' input to the detector; this kind of latency is easily calculated.

    I use music recording software and MIDI equipment and am constantly dealing with latency issues effectively and I don't require billions of dollars worth of funding to achieve this; why do CERN, etc.?

    And how does one explain the intermittent nature of a loose connection when the connection was actually sound for the duration of the experiment? It would have to be in order for the experiment to produce the data that showed that neutrinos travel faster than light... or through another dimension... or whatever...

    The error must have occurred during calibration. Whether that be with the clocks, the GPS or whatever else is involved, somebody cocked something up.

    I mean, how could they determine that a connection that is tight was loose?

    Or else the physics is wrong; what if that is what they have dicovered? How would we know?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Morbert wrote: »
    I have found a more thorough article. Apparently it is not the connection between the detector and the computer, but rather the GPS antenna and the computer.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17139635

    This sounds entirely plausible.

    To be honest, this article rather makes my point, I think; consider:

    Under the heading of 'Faulty Connection?' the article explains that:

    "The two problems the team has identified would have opposing effects on the apparent speed.

    On the one hand, the team said there is a problem in the "oscillator" that provides a ticking clock to the experiment in the intervals between the synchronisations of GPS equipment.

    This is used to provide start and stop times for the measurement as well as precise distance information.

    That problem would increase the measured time of the neutrinos' flight, in turn reducing the surprising faster-than-light effect"

    So, is the oscillator running too quickly or too slowly? What is so hard about that? I mean, what does '4 GHz' actually mean in the real world?

    Did they think the clock was ticking faster than it actually was?

    It can't have been that, can it? Do you see what I mean though?

    They seem to be saying that 'there may be a problem with the clock' and that this 'fault' would cause the clock to count more quickly in order to indicate sub-ligh-speed travel by neutrinos, should such a fault exist; how do they know it wasn't counting too slowly? How can that happen at CERN?

    Or it might have been a loose connection [EDIT which would indicate FTL travel by neutrinos.EDIT] Give us a break. Are they for real?

    I might be considered a cynic but I think that someone is looking for more funding; someone who likes to play with really big toys.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭krd


    Yes. And this could easily dealt with by comparing the phase-shift between output and a mathematically calculated 'expected' input to the detector; this kind of latency is easily calculated.

    Yeah..... but unless they know latency is static, they may need to recalibrate it continuously.
    I use music recording software and MIDI equipment and am constantly dealing with latency issues effectively and I don't require billions of dollars worth of funding to achieve this; why do CERN, etc.?

    I would say, the latency of your music software and MIDI fluctuates.
    And how does one explain the intermittent nature of a loose connection when the connection was actually sound for the duration of the experiment? It would have to be in order for the experiment to produce the data that showed that neutrinos travel faster than light... or through another dimension... or whatever...

    I used to test Telecoms equipment. Fibre could be a pain in the ass for a few reasons. The switching is in nano seconds - but if the cable was "loose", and there was an intermittent problem, you'd lose part of the signal - if it was completely off, you'd know all about it - as you wouldn't get any signal.
    The error must have occurred during calibration. Whether that be with the clocks, the GPS or whatever else is involved, somebody cocked something up.

    It could be that they don't want to admit to sloppy calibration. And there could be politics involved - and finger pointing. And whoever was in charge of making sure the cable was in "tight" is the least politically powerful.
    I mean, how could they determine that a connection that is tight was loose?

    You just un-seat the cable and reseat it. And the little light on those cards that's normally useless - if there's a signal coming from the other end, will flash to let you know it's in properly. And there are a couple of boo boos I can think of. If you calibrated while the computer was cool, and then you let if get very warm, your calibration could be very far off. The cards can vary too - sometimes manufacturers are sloppy, and there are problems with the cards.

    There would also be a margin of error as regards the refractive index of the cable.
    Or else the physics is wrong; what if that is what they have dicovered? How would we know?

    If someone can repeat the experiment and get similar results, then there could be new physics.. But that's probably not going to happen.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Guys, conspiracy theories don't help anyone. People were rushing to get their names on the paper, and a bad connection is possibly one of the most embarrassing, least interesting issues. It is not something they would fabricate.

    himnextdoor, as you can see from the paper, which I urge you to read, it is not simply a case of running a wire across a room. There are multiple sources of delays, and spurious receiver data is not something that calibration would have easily picked up. We are talking about nanosecond synchronisation. You also seemed surprised that the delay is 60 ns. If this really was the source of the delay, it makes perfect sense, as that was how early the neutrinos are arriving.

    Either way, as I said before, they certainly haven't washed their hands of the whole issue. It will be interesting to see what the new results will be.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Morbert wrote: »
    Guys, conspiracy theories don't help anyone. People were rushing to get their names on the paper, and a bad connection is possibly one of the most embarrassing, least interesting issues. It is not something they would fabricate.

    himnextdoor, as you can see from the paper, which I urge you to read, it is not simply a case of running a wire across a room. There are multiple sources of delays, and spurious receiver data is not something that calibration would have easily picked up. We are talking about nanosecond synchronisation. You also seemed surprised that the delay is 60 ns. If this really was the source of the delay, it makes perfect sense, as that was how early the neutrinos are arriving.

    Either way, as I said before, they certainly haven't washed their hands of the whole issue. It will be interesting to see what the new results will be.

    I did read that paper but it still seems to me that CERN are saying that on the one hand there may be a fault that makes neutrinos appear to travel faster than light but on the other hand there may be a fault that makes neutrinos travel at sub-luminal speed but on another hand (how many hands are there?) there may not be a fault at all.

    i.e., the results may be correct or they could be incorrect in one of at least two ways.

    It doesn't inspire confidence does it?

    And I would love to know how a fibre-optic's connection can eliminate a 60 nS delay and also, how do they know that the clock would count more slowly in the event of a fault; how can they discount the possibility that it counted too quickly?

    They seem to know too much without actually being able to know anything and that is not very scientific in my view and consequently denegrades the work done at CERN.

    And don't forget that if it was a loose connection that caused the fault, then it wasn't loose during the performance of the experiment. If it was, then the experiment would have found that neutrinos do not travel at super-luminal speed. If the connection was 'tight' in calibration and 'loose' during the experiment then neutrinos would have been judged to have travelled even more slowly.

    How and why would they even suspect that there could be a problem with a loose connection that was obviously tight while the data was being gathered?

    It reminds me of a plumber who is trying to screw extra money out of a doddery old woman...

    Do you remember the 'millenium-bug' fiasco that caused great consternation and a great deal of cost to the 'educated public'? And do you remember the news reports from about thirty-years ago that a 7400 series TTL logic chip was responsible for almost causing World War 3?

    People will buy anything from guys in white coats.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    "People will buy anything from guys in white coats." said himnextdoor, using CERN's hypertext transfer protocol, on a personal computer, or smartphone.

    You're building conclusions from only half the data.

    EDIT: Also, the millennium bug was indeed a problem. A problem that companies successfully took action against and solved.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    When we stop questioning the agendas of those in authority, we submit completely to their will.

    When they say 'jump', most say 'how high?'
    When they say 'jump', I ask them 'why?'

    All I am saying is that it is perfectly reasonable to speculate about what might have gone wrong. Especially if you take into account that it was okay speculate when we thought neutrinos travelled at super-luminal speed. (How much data, as a fraction of the available data, was considered in coming to that conclusion?)
    Morbert wrote: »
    "People will buy anything from guys in white coats." said himnextdoor, using CERN's hypertext transfer protocol, on a personal computer, or smartphone.

    Meaning what? Are you suggesting that only people that have nothing to do with new technology may criticise or comment about it?
    Morbert wrote: »
    You're building conclusions from only half the data.

    And CERN based their conclusions on more than half the data?

    In any case, I believe that I am taking into account all of the data available to me.
    Morbert wrote: »
    EDIT: Also, the millennium bug was indeed a problem. A problem that companies successfully took action against and solved.

    As I said, people will buy anything from guys in white coats.

    The millenium-bug fiasco was nothing more that a scam to take advantage of ignorance. It was fifty quid to get your computer checked out and washing machines, toasters and irons were at risk too... give me a break.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    When we stop questioning the agendas of those in authority, we submit completely to their will.

    When they say 'jump', most say 'how high?'
    When they say 'jump', I ask them 'why?'

    All I am saying is that it is perfectly reasonable to speculate about what might have gone wrong. Especially if you take into account that it was okay speculate when we thought neutrinos travelled at super-luminal speed. (How much data, as a fraction of the available data, was considered in coming to that conclusion?)

    But your speculation regarding a conspiracy theory is entirely unreasonable.
    Meaning what? Are you suggesting that only people that have nothing to do with new technology may criticise or comment about it?

    Meaning you are completely misinformed about the "guys in white coats", as evidenced by all their technology you are using. You are accusing an institution who revolutionised global networks of not understanding cables.
    And CERN based their conclusions on more than half the data?

    In any case, I believe that I am taking into account all of the data available to me.

    No you are not. You are projecting your own charicature of the data.
    As I said, people will buy anything from guys in white coats.

    The millenium-bug fiasco was nothing more that a scam to take advantage of ignorance. It was fifty quid to get your computer checked out and washing machines, toasters and irons were at risk too... give me a break.

    That was not the millenium-bug fiasco. This was

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,455 ✭✭✭krd



    The millenium-bug fiasco was nothing more that a scam to take advantage of ignorance. It was fifty quid to get your computer checked out and washing machines, toasters and irons were at risk too... give me a break.

    No, the millenium bug was not a scam. I worked for a company whose entire accounts system had to be junked because of the bug.

    Now, anyone charging 50 quid to check your computer for the bug was taking the piss. But it was widespread in some systems where they'd widely used the short year - or used the date time and year in a way that would cause the logic of their software to go haywire.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    You know - the thread title is simply misleading. Are we really expected that the CERN people accelerated a whole scientist(s) to faster than the speed of light ?

    :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Morbert wrote: »
    But your speculation regarding a conspiracy theory is entirely unreasonable.



    Meaning you are completely misinformed about the "guys in white coats", as evidenced by all their technology you are using. You are accusing an institution who revolutionised global networks of not understanding cables.



    No you are not. You are projecting your own charicature of the data.



    That was not the millenium-bug fiasco. This was

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem

    Dude, your credibility just went BANG!!!

    Won't you question Wikipedia? Of course you won't question CERN..


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    krd wrote: »
    No, the millenium bug was not a scam. I worked for a company whose entire accounts system had to be junked because of the bug.

    Now, anyone charging 50 quid to check your computer for the bug was taking the piss. But it was widespread in some systems where they'd widely used the short year - or used the date time and year in a way that would cause the logic of their software to go haywire.

    Then either you don't understand logic or you don't understand haywire,

    What, in your opinion, is the worst thing that could have happened due to the 'milenium-bug'?

    What? Someone might have received documentation that was dated one-hundred years too early?

    WORLD-STOPPING.

    You were, and obviously still are, a trainee.


Advertisement