If Einsteins wrong then what?

[Don Oscar]

Faster than light particles found, claim scientists | Science | The Guardian

My physics friends are quite excited by some pretty big discoveries coming out of Gran Sasso.

If light speed is not the limit as relativistic physcis presupposes what implications does that have for our view of causality in the universe?

apparently Einstein was wrong concerning wich was the top speed. the top speed seems to be litle bit faster than light. the new speed limit have increased in a tiny portions, almos unmeasurable. but all the Eistein principies and deductions stand firm; only moving the value in a extraordinary minimal quantity.

 

[mindlight]

Why are you insulting me and commenting on my ego? I'm merely pointing out that you have a better grasp on what's going on than the people who actually spend their lives and invest their time studying it. They should try to understand things the way you do, since, based on the posts in this thread alone, you obviously know what's really going on here. We could probably save a lot of research dollars by just asking you ahead of time how things will turn out.

There's no need to insult me, I am complimenting you.

I'm sure scientists all over the world have been flocking to this thread to better understand where this discovery may take us. This is some well researched insight as to how this will affect all of modern physics and our entire cosmology.

Well it seems scientists from all over the world have read and even contributed to this thread. The experiments at OPERA have been conducted in a scientific manner and I have tried to be careful to keep to the truth in what I have said. The tone of your remark still sounds proud and sarcastic to me but if this was intended as a compliment then I apologise.

 

[philadiddle]

If the theory is wrong then our observations of the universe are wrong and the whole construct of an old universe starts to fall apart.

^^This is what I was referring to. I am agreeing with you that they don't know how the universe really works and that the result of this experiment is that their whole cosmological construct will fall apart. As I said, it's good that you know where these experiments are heading, maybe scientists can stop wasting money with research and just consult you.

I appreciate your insight into this matter, it's most informative.

 

[mindlight]

apparently Einstein was wrong concerning wich was the top speed. the top speed seems to be litle bit faster than light. the new speed limit have increased in a tiny portions, almos unmeasurable. but all the Eistein principies and deductions stand firm; only moving the value in a extraordinary minimal quantity.

No that's not the case. Einsteins theory is that there can be nothing moving faster than light because of the amount of energy required to move mass at that speed. His theory breaks if this assumption is disproved.

OPERA experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos? Physics Luminaries Voice Doubts: Scientific American

Nobel laureates skeptical about faster-than-light neutrino experiment

Challenging Einstein is usually a losing venture - Yahoo! News

Faster than light? CERN findings bewilder scientists - latimes.com

Scientists Question Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos | Wired Science | Wired.com

Faster-than-light travel discovered? Slow down, folks | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

 

[mindlight]

^^This is what I was referring to. I am agreeing with you that they don't know how the universe really works and that the result of this experiment is that their whole cosmological construct will fall apart. As I said, it's good that you know where these experiments are heading, maybe scientists can stop wasting money with research and just consult you.

I appreciate your insight into this matter, it's most informative.

Then apologies for the misunderstanding

 

[Freedom63]

Faster than light particles found, claim scientists | Science | The Guardian

My physics friends are quite excited by some pretty big discoveries coming out of Gran Sasso.

If light speed is not the limit as relativistic physcis presupposes what implications does that have for our view of causality in the universe?

If Einstein is wrong then science continues to be exactly what it is supposed to be...an ongoing process of discovery, verification, and refining our knowledge.

I see nothing in this new potential discovery that would make an old universe suddenly a young one as some are so quick to suggest. (I realize this was not your direct question...just thought I would throw that in there)

 

[mindlight]

If Einstein is wrong then science continues to be exactly what it is supposed to be...an ongoing process of discovery, verification, and refining our knowledge.

I see nothing in this new potential discovery that would make an old universe suddenly a young one as some are so quick to suggest. (I realize this was not your direct question...just thought I would throw that in there)

No of course the Old Universe hypothesis is founded on a lot of different conclusions from different kinds of observation. Not least something like Supernova 1987a. But a lot of these observations and deductions depend on this cosmological constant. If it's wrong or can be broken in certain conditions then that opens up new questions about how light travels in deep space (considering we have next to no real observations at first hand of what really happens in this medium) and casts a degree of doubt about physics assumptions about causality. If it is possible to push mass at faster than light speeds then how can Einsteins assumptions about the amount of energy required be true.

My hope for a new kind of physics that will actually offer a little more hope about travel to other stars than the current Einsteinian model and which also which will stand in apparent contradiction to scripture as I believe the current model does.

 

[mindlight]

Some creationist comments on this:

Answers in Genesis & the Speed of Light | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

 

[sfs]

Wasn't your PHD in Physics Steve?

Yes. That's why I know the breed.

 

[Freedom63]

Some creationist comments on this:

Answers in Genesis & the Speed of Light | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

Yeah I love the section dealing with the AIG's handling of this. I used to spend quite a bit of time on their website because I so enjoyed the comments following every blog post. But since they shut down the comments (obviously they could no handle the scientific critiques of their nonsensical theories) it has lost all entertainment value.

For a while they also served a tremendous value in demonstrating just how far literal creationists were willing to go in an attempt to prop up their views. AIG was caught in misrepresentations (often demonstrably deliberate) in nearly every blog post, and guilty of outright dishonesty in a large percentage of them. But now that they have shut the comments down they are nothing more than very poorly written propaganda for the weak minded. But hey...I guess it pays the bills.

 

[shernren]

It would be great if this finding were true for creationist reasons- because it introduces an ambiguity into the physicists view of causality that casts a question on various observations that appear in scientific terms to confirm an old universe.

Ah yes, the good old creationist argument: "If something is wrong, then maybe everything's wrong." Imagine if I had the following conversation with my dad:

Me: What did Mum cook for dinner yesterday?
Dad: Hmm, I think it was pasta.
Me: Do you know for sure that Mum is loyal to you?
Dad: Of course!

Me: Actually, Dad, I checked the fridge. Yesterday we had rice for din -
Dad: EGADS! Everything I knew about Mum might be wrong! She must be cheating on me!
​

Science proceeds not just by demolishing old theories but by building new ones. Not only that, new theories must accommodate the observations that old theories once explained. You talked about drivers not needing to know physics to drive their cars - true, but someone's got to know enough physics to actually make one, doesn't he? And if scientists create an extension to the Theory of Relativity tomorrow which predicts that my car should never start unless I replace all the petrol in the tank with soapy water, I can immediately tell them they're wrong, and so can you.

See? Any theory replacing the theory of relativity will have to accommodate all the phenomena the theory of relativity once explained, including why we have been accelerating plenty of other particles to within an inch of the speed of light for decades now without ever seeing even one of them cross the light speed barrier.

Also maybe if its true then there is some hope that it is theoretically possible to achieve faster than light drives in certain but as yet mysterious circumstances. Then maybe one day we the human race can start visiting stars rather than just theorising about them. At the moment this is entirely ruled out by the kinds of energy required to move mass such long distances.

Like I said, you won't be moving around superluminally any time soon until we turn you into neutrinos. And why exactly do you think the human race will be visiting stars? Don't you take conservative eschatology seriously?

In any case, some theoretical physicists have been beating the stuffing out of the result. Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glashow (yes, the discoverer of the electroweak) have calculated that neutrinos really traveling that fast should have spit out tons of energy in the form of electron-positron pair emissions, disallowing them from reaching OPERA with the claimed energies; and yet another theoretical physicist blogger has given quite detailed possibilities for unnoticed errors, including a list of errors which aren't big enough to explain the result (most of them GR-related). See links here:

Superluminal Neutrinos Would Wimp Out En Route | Degrees of Freedom, Scientific American Blog Network

The Reference Frame: Potential mistakes in the Opera research

 

[mindlight]

Yeah I love the section dealing with the AIG's handling of this. I used to spend quite a bit of time on their website because I so enjoyed the comments following every blog post. But since they shut down the comments (obviously they could no handle the scientific critiques of their nonsensical theories) it has lost all entertainment value.

For a while they also served a tremendous value in demonstrating just how far literal creationists were willing to go in an attempt to prop up their views. AIG was caught in misrepresentations (often demonstrably deliberate) in nearly every blog post, and guilty of outright dishonesty in a large percentage of them. But now that they have shut the comments down they are nothing more than very poorly written propaganda for the weak minded. But hey...I guess it pays the bills.

The size and self reinforcing nature of the scientific community is going to make any opposition to it look amateurish by comparison. But that by itself does not guarantee mainstream science is right - its just their positions are more worked through and thoroughly argued. Its not clear if the OPERA experiment is what is claimed anyway. But I wonder what it would take to truly break the mould. Could even a legitimate result be rationalised away.

 

[mindlight]

Ah yes, the good old creationist argument: "If something is wrong, then maybe everything's wrong." Imagine if I had the following conversation with my dad:

Me: What did Mum cook for dinner yesterday?
Dad: Hmm, I think it was pasta.
Me: Do you know for sure that Mum is loyal to you?
Dad: Of course!

Me: Actually, Dad, I checked the fridge. Yesterday we had rice for din -
Dad: EGADS! Everything I knew about Mum might be wrong! She must be cheating on me!
​

Science proceeds not just by demolishing old theories but by building new ones. Not only that, new theories must accommodate the observations that old theories once explained. You talked about drivers not needing to know physics to drive their cars - true, but someone's got to know enough physics to actually make one, doesn't he? And if scientists create an extension to the Theory of Relativity tomorrow which predicts that my car should never start unless I replace all the petrol in the tank with soapy water, I can immediately tell them they're wrong, and so can you.

See? Any theory replacing the theory of relativity will have to accommodate all the phenomena the theory of relativity once explained, including why we have been accelerating plenty of other particles to within an inch of the speed of light for decades now without ever seeing even one of them cross the light speed barrier.



Like I said, you won't be moving around superluminally any time soon until we turn you into neutrinos. And why exactly do you think the human race will be visiting stars? Don't you take conservative eschatology seriously?

In any case, some theoretical physicists have been beating the stuffing out of the result. Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glashow (yes, the discoverer of the electroweak) have calculated that neutrinos really traveling that fast should have spit out tons of energy in the form of electron-positron pair emissions, disallowing them from reaching OPERA with the claimed energies; and yet another theoretical physicist blogger has given quite detailed possibilities for unnoticed errors, including a list of errors which aren't big enough to explain the result (most of them GR-related). See links here:

Superluminal Neutrinos Would Wimp Out En Route | Degrees of Freedom, Scientific American Blog Network

The Reference Frame: Potential mistakes in the Opera research

The proof of congenital deceit may well start with a revelation about food. However preposterous the example you shared sounds.

If true this discovery would change things. FTL drives do not necessarily require I be denuded of all mass first. If the explanation for this apparent anomaly (if proven)was the string theory option of neutrinos slipping through dimensional cracks for example then I could potentially get to the stars by utilising versions of these mulitdimensional doorways. Indeed it might even be possible that we view the stars themselves through versions of these. Of course discovering which cupboard opens up to Narnia is a problem all by itself.

Conservative eschatology has a spectrum of positions between dispensationalist and total reformist. Jesus may come back tommorrow or in a thousand years. But while we wait a few excursions to the stars would not contradict any conservative Evangelical principles I know of so long as they do not bankrupt the human race in pursuit of secular humanist pipe dreams. For me its a tour of Gods creation and a potential solution to the population problem not to mention the logical outworking of the creation mandate to go forth and multiply.

 

[Freedom63]

The size and self reinforcing nature of the scientific community is going to make any opposition to it look amateurish by comparison. But that by itself does not guarantee mainstream science is right - its just their positions are more worked through and thoroughly argued. Its not clear if the OPERA experiment is what is claimed anyway. But I wonder what it would take to truly break the mould. Could even a legitimate result be rationalised away.

"Self reinforcing"? You do not seem to understand the way the scientific community works. Every theory proposed is immediately placed under intense scrutiny within the community as a whole with every effort made to break the theory. Most simply are shown as false. There is no governing council telling scientists which to embrace or which to reject. In fact the more acceptance a theory receives the greater the allure of proving it wrong due to the notoriety associated with discovering a flaw so many others had missed.

Of course these findings have not been confirmed yet, and there is a good chance it will turn out to be a mistake. Notice how reputable science works though. The initial findings are shared and intense scrutiny is invited in an effort to either confirm or disprove. No conspiracies, no cover ups, no marching orders from some unseen controlling body telling everyone what to believe.

 

[Jpark]

It's just a revision. It's not like they're going to dismiss his discoveries.

Theories are not absolute nor are they static. They are not suitable replacements for God. There is something else that man prefers in the place of a God.

 

[mindlight]

"Self reinforcing"? You do not seem to understand the way the scientific community works. Every theory proposed is immediately placed under intense scrutiny within the community as a whole with every effort made to break the theory. Most simply are shown as false. There is no governing council telling scientists which to embrace or which to reject. In fact the more acceptance a theory receives the greater the allure of proving it wrong due to the notoriety associated with discovering a flaw so many others had missed.

Of course these findings have not been confirmed yet, and there is a good chance it will turn out to be a mistake. Notice how reputable science works though. The initial findings are shared and intense scrutiny is invited in an effort to either confirm or disprove. No conspiracies, no cover ups, no marching orders from some unseen controlling body telling everyone what to believe.

Yes as Shernen shared there are a lot of questions about this discovery.

No I do not believe in a scientific version of the inquisition. The community has itself got a set of assumptions and rules which I believe are becoming the harder and harder to overthrow the more they appear to be verified by the community.

Also of course science looks for the uniform and the repeatable rather than the rare and the miraculous so I wonder if the exceptions to the rules sometimes slip through the net e.g. The unique event of Gods Creation, the unique event of the flood, Jesus's creation miracles, and the complex and mysterious things not covered by the big theories or only speculated about by scientists operating well beyond the reliable scope of the scientific tool.

 

[mindlight]

You talked about drivers not needing to know physics to drive their cars - true, but someone's got to know enough physics to actually make one, doesn't he?

God made the car, we drive it and there is a whole load of guys spouting off about how its made. It is possible to use and reuse natures code by simply calling it but with little to no understanding of the reasons of why it works.

Sciences real strength lies in the practical discoveries that have transformed our lives. The authenticity of its explanations as to why a thing works or does not work has yet to be proven and may never be. Indeed not even predictability is definite proof and especially not when accompanied by rather too much complexity as with many modern theories. Ptlomeys theory provided a theoretical framework by which predictions could be made but was overthrown by a better model. Whose to say the same will not happen with Einstein taking us into a new era of science in which not only nuclear power but so also Faster than Light travel becomes possible.

The truth might actually be very simple just as Creationists argue.

 

[shernren]

Lawrence Krauss has a thoughtful article where he sets forth his viewpoint: results were released too soon.

CERN and colliding theories - latimes.com

I might not agree with his conclusion, but there are many points in there worth considering for the "this is wrong, so everything might be" creationists.

 

[mindlight]

This is not the first time a result of this sort has been recorded although the equipment at MINOS was not as advanced a similar result was recorded then.

Fermilab Today

 

[Calminian]

I'm sure glad that God isn't limited by physics.....I mean how could he raise the dead, or cause Peter to walk on water, or feed 5,000 with a couple of fish and few pieces of bread. hopefully Science will someday realize God is so far above science that it makes it almost futile in its concepts

This is a simple yet profound point. Aristotle speculated there were 2 types of movement, violent and nature. Perhaps predictable and unpredictable would be a very boiled down way to look at it. His downfall was in his examples, most of which shown to also be natural movements.

I think there are 3 types of movement (causality if you will). Natural (uniform/predictable), random (predictably/uniformly unpredictable), and willful/purposeful (experimentally unpredictable). This last one will always be outside of the realm of science. And IMO, it's that last one that played a primary role in our origins.

While it's neat seeing advances in physics, I don't get too excited about it in regard to the origins question.