Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
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.
^^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.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.
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.
^^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.
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)
Some creationist comments on this:
Answers in Genesis & the Speed of Light | The Sensuous Curmudgeon
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.
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.
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.
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?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.
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!
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 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.
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?
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?