If Einsteins wrong then what?

[mindlight]

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?

 

[Verticordious]

From what I've been reading, the difference is only like .002%. That means is quite possible the experimenters made some kind of error. It also means, that even if true, it doesn't mean much as far as the age of the Earth is concerned. An extra .002% increase in the theoretical top speed of a particle isn't going to suddenly make a young Earth/universe plausible. It will be interesting to see how this turns out, but I don't see how this would have any effect on the OEC vs YEC or Creation vs Evolution debate.

 

[shernren]

Everybody cares about proving Einstein wrong. Nobody cares about proving him right any more.

Light from galaxy clusters confirm theory of relativity – University of Copenhagen

 

[mindlight]

From what I've been reading, the difference is only like .002%. That means is quite possible the experimenters made some kind of error. It also means, that even if true, it doesn't mean much as far as the age of the Earth is concerned. An extra .002% increase in the theoretical top speed of a particle isn't going to suddenly make a young Earth/universe plausible. It will be interesting to see how this turns out, but I don't see how this would have any effect on the OEC vs YEC or Creation vs Evolution debate.

If Einstein is wrong about the limit and this can be proven then whose to say that there are not other particles travelling so fast that they are utterly unobservable. Or that in certain conditions it is possible for mass to travel at faster than light speeds or that the electromagnetic signatures we derive from starlight have been misread.

Also theoretically (According to Einstein) it is impossible to have faster than light travel due to the amount of energy required to propel mass at that speed. 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.

 

[Papias]

Also theoretically (According to Einstein) it is impossible to have faster than light travel due to the amount of energy required to propel mass at that speed. 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.

Mindlight, are you saying that you understand modern physics, and as such can tell us what would be relevant, indeed, what would lead to "the whole construct of an old universe starts to fall apart"?

Papias

 

[mindlight]

Mindlight, are you saying that you understand modern physics, and as such can tell us what would be relevant, indeed, what would lead to "the whole construct of an old universe starts to fall apart"?

Papias

This is not as yet a proven experiment.

My suggestion is and always has been that modern mainstream physicists may not understand modern physics to the extent that they believe they do and the theories they have endowed with so much certainty no longer look infallible. Just as Creationists have been saying all along for mainly non scientific reasons.

Light speed is not an absolute - now where have I heard that before.

Also the actual theme of this OP "smartie pants" is to cast some light on the implications of these discoveries rather than to evaluate my fitness to run CERN. I can already tell you I do not want the job ;-)

But various creative theories are already turning up as to why this is occurring

1) It's an instrument or configuration error
2) These particles are slipping through extra dimensions of space as predicted by string theory.
3)

If this is true, It would rock the foundations of physics.The existence of faster-than-light particles would also wreak havoc on scientific theories of cause and effect. If things travel faster than the speed of light, A can cause B; but then, B can also cause A. … If that happens, the concept of causality becomes ambiguous, and that would cause a great deal of trouble..... "Your first response is it can't possibly be true, that they must have made a mistake!"

4)

said he blamed the readings on a so-far undetected human error.
If not, and it's a big if, the door would be opened to some wild possibilities.
The average person, said De Rujula, "could, in principle, travel to the past and kill their mother before they were born."

Physicists wary of junking light speed limit yet - WSJ.com

 

[philadiddle]

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

There was a book that came out when Einstein was still alive called '100 Scientists that prove Einstein Wrong' or some such. They asked him about it and he said, 'When you think about it, it only takes one.

I can think of something worse then being wrong some 50 years after your death. His calculations indicated to him that the universe was expanding so he published his findings. He received so much criticism that he eventually reworked his numbers. Then Hubble proved through observation that the universe was in fact expanding.

The only thing worse then being wrong for a scientist would be to be right and let people talk you out of it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mindlight]

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.

It appears the vested interest is to protect scientists egos from a causal ambiguity that would expose much of their previous certainty as fraudulent.

If not this experiment then the next. Either way your pride is going down.

 

[mindlight]

There was a book that came out when Einstein was still alive called '100 Scientists that prove Einstein Wrong' or some such. They asked him about it and he said, 'When you think about it, it only takes one.

I can think of something worse then being wrong some 50 years after your death. His calculations indicated to him that the universe was expanding so he published his findings. He received so much criticism that he eventually reworked his numbers. Then Hubble proved through observation that the universe was in fact expanding.

The only thing worse then being wrong for a scientist would be to be right and let people talk you out of it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Very true, the guy saw things very clearly and defined the framework for 2 generations. But that does not mean his model will endure forever and indeed one would expect it not to if science is truly developing in an honest direction.

 

[shernren]

It appears the vested interest is to protect scientists egos from a causal ambiguity that would expose much of their previous certainty as fraudulent.

If not this experiment then the next. Either way your pride is going down.

Very true, the guy saw things very clearly and defined the framework for 2 generations. But that does not mean his model will endure forever and indeed one would expect it not to if science is truly developing in an honest direction.

I'll be entirely happy to say that scientists can be, and often are, frequently wrong. What I don't like is that you seem to think of it as a problem with either the egos or the honesty of scientists - that we don't like being wrong because that would make us embarrassed, and somehow that makes us lie (as you insinuate when you talk about science "truly developing in an honest direction" - which implies that its current direction is somehow dishonest).

Have you ever made a "hand-on-the-door" remark to a doctor? Say you come in tired and sniffling, and the doctor sees that you have all the symptoms of a viral infection, and gives you a few tablets for your runny nose and some Vitamin C and tells you to rest up. And then just as you have your hand on the door, you stare at your wrist and say "By the way, doc, I've got a little lump just above my hand ... "

At this point the doctor's job has just gotten a whole lot tougher. On one hand (heh), that lump might be a symptom of something dead serious like leukemia. If that's the case, then the doctor must change his diagnosis and get you started on some really awful medicine. On the other hand, you really do look exactly like you've just got a simple flu, and the lump on your hand might just be a little natural swelling, in which case the doctor would be doing the worst possible thing in the world by prescribing you a few courses of chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant when you actually only needed to stay at home a day or two. Either case, whether or not the doctor changed his diagnosis would have nothing to do with his ego or honesty. He'd just be doing his job, as best as he could.

What would a good doctor say at this point? I'd say, "Well, it's unlikely that this is going to change my earlier diagnosis, but let's just take a close look at it just in case ... "

And that's exactly what scientists are saying about the supposed superluminal neutrinos. Nothing more, nothing less. Just doing our job.

See, us doing our job properly requires us both to change our diagnosis (or theories, to use the sciencey-sciencey word) when we are wrong, and to stick to our diagnosis when we are right. Now do you get why this is hard?

Perhaps you would be happier if every scientist in the world immediately fell to their knees and recanted of ever believing in Einstein and rubbed the equation E=mc^2 out of their textbooks. Who cares about the "whole construct of an old earth", we'd immediately have to shut down every single nuclear reactor worldwide while checking. Nobody could turn a computer on (since their electronics depend substantially on quantum mechanics), nobody could look at the sun or let its light through their windows (its light comes from nuclear reactions too), and jewellers would be forbidden from selling gold. Gold's luster, according to quantum mechanics, is a result of electrons moving around their nuclei at speeds significantly close to the speed of light. But what if the scientists are wrong, and those electrons are actually travelling superluminally, and maybe putting on a gold ring would allow you to travel back in time and kill your grandmother?

So the whole world is paralyzed for a month while physicists hurriedly check their calculations. And then whoever hasn't starved to death yet hears about a press release from Gran Sasso: "Really sorry, humanity, but it turns out one of our American visitors used inches where he should have used centimeters. Crisis over. You guys can start using quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity again."

The considerable confidence scientists still have in the theory of relativity really has little to do with ego or dishonesty. It's just us trying to do our job, as best as we can, and our job in this case requires us to fairly and accurately assess how well the mountains of evidence we have accumulated up to now stand up against this isolated measurement claiming unprecedented accuracy.

All things considered, it would be a much graver mistake for us to toss out relativity when it had turned out to be correct all along, than it would be for us to keep relativity when it turns out to need a little tweaking.

(PS That quote from WSJ - The average person, said De Rujula, "could, in principle, travel to the past and kill their mother before they were born." - is utter nonsense. The average person will be able to travel to the past and kill their mother when the average person is made out of neutrinos, or can kill their mother using neutrinos.)

 

[mindlight]

I'll be entirely happy to say that scientists can be, and often are, frequently wrong. What I don't like is that you seem to think of it as a problem with either the egos or the honesty of scientists - that we don't like being wrong because that would make us embarrassed, and somehow that makes us lie (as you insinuate when you talk about science "truly developing in an honest direction" - which implies that its current direction is somehow dishonest).

Have you ever made a "hand-on-the-door" remark to a doctor? Say you come in tired and sniffling, and the doctor sees that you have all the symptoms of a viral infection, and gives you a few tablets for your runny nose and some Vitamin C and tells you to rest up. And then just as you have your hand on the door, you stare at your wrist and say "By the way, doc, I've got a little lump just above my hand ... "

At this point the doctor's job has just gotten a whole lot tougher. On one hand (heh), that lump might be a symptom of something dead serious like leukemia. If that's the case, then the doctor must change his diagnosis and get you started on some really awful medicine. On the other hand, you really do look exactly like you've just got a simple flu, and the lump on your hand might just be a little natural swelling, in which case the doctor would be doing the worst possible thing in the world by prescribing you a few courses of chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant when you actually only needed to stay at home a day or two. Either case, whether or not the doctor changed his diagnosis would have nothing to do with his ego or honesty. He'd just be doing his job, as best as he could.

What would a good doctor say at this point? I'd say, "Well, it's unlikely that this is going to change my earlier diagnosis, but let's just take a close look at it just in case ... "

And that's exactly what scientists are saying about the supposed superluminal neutrinos. Nothing more, nothing less. Just doing our job.

See, us doing our job properly requires us both to change our diagnosis (or theories, to use the sciencey-sciencey word) when we are wrong, and to stick to our diagnosis when we are right. Now do you get why this is hard?

Perhaps you would be happier if every scientist in the world immediately fell to their knees and recanted of ever believing in Einstein and rubbed the equation E=mc^2 out of their textbooks. Who cares about the "whole construct of an old earth", we'd immediately have to shut down every single nuclear reactor worldwide while checking. Nobody could turn a computer on (since their electronics depend substantially on quantum mechanics), nobody could look at the sun or let its light through their windows (its light comes from nuclear reactions too), and jewellers would be forbidden from selling gold. Gold's luster, according to quantum mechanics, is a result of electrons moving around their nuclei at speeds significantly close to the speed of light. But what if the scientists are wrong, and those electrons are actually travelling superluminally, and maybe putting on a gold ring would allow you to travel back in time and kill your grandmother?

So the whole world is paralyzed for a month while physicists hurriedly check their calculations. And then whoever hasn't starved to death yet hears about a press release from Gran Sasso: "Really sorry, humanity, but it turns out one of our American visitors used inches where he should have used centimeters. Crisis over. You guys can start using quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity again."

The considerable confidence scientists still have in the theory of relativity really has little to do with ego or dishonesty. It's just us trying to do our job, as best as we can, and our job in this case requires us to fairly and accurately assess how well the mountains of evidence we have accumulated up to now stand up against this isolated measurement claiming unprecedented accuracy.

All things considered, it would be a much graver mistake for us to toss out relativity when it had turned out to be correct all along, than it would be for us to keep relativity when it turns out to need a little tweaking.

(PS That quote from WSJ - The average person, said De Rujula, "could, in principle, travel to the past and kill their mother before they were born." - is utter nonsense. The average person will be able to travel to the past and kill their mother when the average person is made out of neutrinos, or can kill their mother using neutrinos.)

Interesting and a lot of truth in that. If you take science as a practical tool, that does a lot of useful stuff, then you would not have to change working models because a deeper reality had just been revealed which the existing theories do not accomodate. The working models are tried and tested and work for the jobs they are designed for. That they do not explain out of scope realities is unimportant.

Practically most people use Newtonian mechanics and never progressed to Einstein anyway. The apple falls on my head period. OK If I work in a nuclear power plant I need a more sophisticated model - step in quantum mechanics etc. But then comes the deepest questions about the remote places of the universe (for which we have a paucity of experimental data) and so we are still groping for answers. Maybe this experiment at the subatomic level adds some insight or maybe its just experimental error I do not know.But as yet this scientific investigation is really quite uninformed by contrast to nuclear power plants and working models for dealing with apples in an orchard. Let's work for a model that gives us faster than light drives and a better explanation of how light and therefore signalling could work in deep space.

Regarding the ego issue - sorry but Hawkings and Dawkins et al are pride and unbelief personified and this is a feature of the most vehement antiChristian scientists.

 

[shernren]

Interesting and a lot of truth in that. If you take science as a practical tool, that does a lot of useful stuff, then you would not have to change working models because a deeper reality had just been revealed which the existing theories do not accomodate. The working models are tried and tested and work for the jobs they are designed for. That they do not explain out of scope realities is unimportant.

That's certainly true. But any deeper or alternative theory has to first explain why the working models have, well, worked. Take special relativity as an example. One important number in special relativity is c, the speed of light and the maximum speed you can achieve. It turns out that if you do all your special relativity with c set at infinity, instead of what it is, you get back Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics has worked so well because c is basically infinite when you compare it to the speed of a falling apple or a fleeing physicist. But it's not when you compare it to the speed of an electron around a gold nucleus.

Most deeper theories thus have "miniature" versions of working models in them.

Practically most people use Newtonian mechanics and never progressed to Einstein anyway. The apple falls on my head period. OK If I work in a nuclear power plant I need a more sophisticated model - step in quantum mechanics etc. But then comes the deepest questions about the remote places of the universe (for which we have a paucity of experimental data) and so we are still groping for answers. Maybe this experiment at the subatomic level adds some insight or maybe its just experimental error I do not know.But as yet this scientific investigation is really quite uninformed by contrast to nuclear power plants and working models for dealing with apples in an orchard. Let's work for a model that gives us faster than light drives and a better explanation of how light and therefore signalling could work in deep space.

There is a distinction between understanding Einstein's theories and using them. Same as you don't have to understand how antibiotics work, you just have to trust the good doctor who prescribes them to you.

Actually, that's a better analogy than the one I gave earlier. Imagine if tomorrow a report came out in The Lancet showing indirectly that most bacteria actually grow better with antibiotics than without. Would doctors immediately stop prescribing antibiotics? They wouldn't, because they would have to be absolutely sure both that the result is real, and that any new theory can explain why billions of people have already been saved by these supposedly counterproductive chemicals. It wouldn't be a matter of ego or honesty. It would just be them trying to do their best with their job.

Similarly, scientists are naturally skeptical about this new result, simply because they are being responsible with their understanding of all the data thus far.

Regarding the ego issue - sorry but Hawkings and Dawkins et al are pride and unbelief personified and this is a feature of the most vehement antiChristian scientists.

Of course - but may I humbly suggest that their pride and unbelief is not so much because they are antiChristian scientists, and more because they are antiChristian scientists.

There is nothing inherently egotistical about being a scientist. Sure, we understand a lot of stuff people don't. But when we go to the doctors, they know more about my body's workings than we do; when we go to the lawyers, they know more about the legal system than we do; when we go to J.K. Rowling, she knows more about Harry Potter than we do. That makes some of them proud, to be sure, but it doesn't automatically make all of them or even any of them proud.

I would like to think that less scientists are like Dawkins than like Richard Feynman, who said the following things:

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.

We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on.
​

 

[mindlight]

That's certainly true. But any deeper or alternative theory has to first explain why the working models have, well, worked. Take special relativity as an example. One important number in special relativity is c, the speed of light and the maximum speed you can achieve. It turns out that if you do all your special relativity with c set at infinity, instead of what it is, you get back Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics has worked so well because c is basically infinite when you compare it to the speed of a falling apple or a fleeing physicist. But it's not when you compare it to the speed of an electron around a gold nucleus.

Most deeper theories thus have "miniature" versions of working models in them.



There is a distinction between understanding Einstein's theories and using them. Same as you don't have to understand how antibiotics work, you just have to trust the good doctor who prescribes them to you.

Actually, that's a better analogy than the one I gave earlier. Imagine if tomorrow a report came out in The Lancet showing indirectly that most bacteria actually grow better with antibiotics than without. Would doctors immediately stop prescribing antibiotics? They wouldn't, because they would have to be absolutely sure both that the result is real, and that any new theory can explain why billions of people have already been saved by these supposedly counterproductive chemicals. It wouldn't be a matter of ego or honesty. It would just be them trying to do their best with their job.

Similarly, scientists are naturally skeptical about this new result, simply because they are being responsible with their understanding of all the data thus far.



Of course - but may I humbly suggest that their pride and unbelief is not so much because they are antiChristian scientists, and more because they are antiChristian scientists.

There is nothing inherently egotistical about being a scientist. Sure, we understand a lot of stuff people don't. But when we go to the doctors, they know more about my body's workings than we do; when we go to the lawyers, they know more about the legal system than we do; when we go to J.K. Rowling, she knows more about Harry Potter than we do. That makes some of them proud, to be sure, but it doesn't automatically make all of them or even any of them proud.

I would like to think that less scientists are like Dawkins than like Richard Feynman, who said the following things:

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.

We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on.
​

In practice you do not have to understand much theory to run a working model. An expert car driver does not also have to understand much about the electronics in his car computer. But he has to be able to trust that when he turns the steering wheel or applies the brake the expected result occurs. The medical example also holds here. Evolution has little if nothing to do with the testing regime for new drugs. Its about testing results of using what is created in practice. This kind of experimental science could be completely separated from old universe , evolutionary theories with little or not impact on actual results. Indeed many great discoveries are in practice despite the theoretical regimes that underpin them not because of them.

In history there have been some very creative theories as to the why of a thing which have little bearing on the workability of a thing and some of them from earth wind and fire to Ptolemmies astronomical model have been deeply wrong while still providing a intellectual framework which the high priests of science have assured us explains why things occur and make their predictions. Basically if you test a piece of engineering enough then you know that this input , in this circumstance creates this output. Its the same with a computer language. I can use a rapid application development language without understanding the construction of the APIs they utilise but which are constructed in another language. My code will work with or without this understanding and it does not add much to the results to know the extra language. It does however add value to test the thing into the ground until I know for sure what will happen when people use it.

Actually in practice I think I know more about Harry Potter than JK Rowling appears to know in one crucial respect because I do nor share her conviction that witchcraft can be good. I know that he needs Jesus and that his witchcraft is something he must renounce if he is to see the Kingdom of God. The creator of Harry Potter is blind to this and indeed would not have created him if she had shared my view.

I agree with Feynmann - cool quote.

Most scientists are in practice down to earth and professional. Its when you get them talking about irrelevancies like evolution that they start going wild eyed and nutty.

 

[Johnny Todd]

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

 

[sfs]

It appears the vested interest is to protect scientists egos from a causal ambiguity that would expose much of their previous certainty as fraudulent.

If not this experiment then the next. Either way your pride is going down.

That's not the way it works. As a tangent, I'll say that I disagree with shernren: In my experience, physicists are, on average, pretty arrogant. I recall a lunchtime conversation at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. One of the younger physicists was complaining about a news story, in which a congressman accused high energy physicists of arrogance (something to do with us demanding large sums of money, I'm sure). Jonathan Dorfan, a well-known physicist and later director of SLAC, was sitting there too. He just looked at the guy for a minute and said, "You needed a congressman to tell you we're arrogant?" He was right. Physicists tend to think of themselves as smarter than almost everyone else; a standard line is, "A good physicist can do anything."

But that has nothing at all to do with why physicists refuse to immediately embrace a new, potentially revolutionary finding like this. The real reasons for the reluctance are two, I think. The first is experience: most dramatic new results turn out to be wrong. The second is psychological: they don't want to be disappointed. Nothing in the world would be more exciting than a discovery that overturned everything we thought we knew. I remember the buzz of excitement that followed far less revolutionary experimental findings -- what could be causing the effect? could we see it in our data? what kind of experiment would we design to pin it down better? (And yes, the exciting new findings all turned out to be wrong.)

 

[mindlight]

That's not the way it works. As a tangent, I'll say that I disagree with shernren: In my experience, physicists are, on average, pretty arrogant. I recall a lunchtime conversation at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. One of the younger physicists was complaining about a news story, in which a congressman accused high energy physicists of arrogance (something to do with us demanding large sums of money, I'm sure). Jonathan Dorfan, a well-known physicist and later director of SLAC, was sitting there too. He just looked at the guy for a minute and said, "You needed a congressman to tell you we're arrogant?" He was right. Physicists tend to think of themselves as smarter than almost everyone else; a standard line is, "A good physicist can do anything."

But that has nothing at all to do with why physicists refuse to immediately embrace a new, potentially revolutionary finding like this. The real reasons for the reluctance are two, I think. The first is experience: most dramatic new results turn out to be wrong. The second is psychological: they don't want to be disappointed. Nothing in the world would be more exciting than a discovery that overturned everything we thought we knew. I remember the buzz of excitement that followed far less revolutionary experimental findings -- what could be causing the effect? could we see it in our data? what kind of experiment would we design to pin it down better? (And yes, the exciting new findings all turned out to be wrong.)

I think you are right on both your comments. Physicists are an arrogant breed but that might not be the main reason for the reluctance to accept this finding. I overplayed the "your pride is going down" comment by way of reaction to an individuals pride and sarcasm.

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.

 

[William_0]

Everybody cares about proving Einstein wrong. Nobody cares about proving him right any more.

That's science.

 

[philadiddle]

It appears the vested interest is to protect scientists egos from a causal ambiguity that would expose much of their previous certainty as fraudulent.

If not this experiment then the next. Either way your pride is going down.

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's not the way it works. As a tangent, I'll say that I disagree with shernren: In my experience, physicists are, on average, pretty arrogant. I recall a lunchtime conversation at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. One of the younger physicists was complaining about a news story, in which a congressman accused high energy physicists of arrogance (something to do with us demanding large sums of money, I'm sure). Jonathan Dorfan, a well-known physicist and later director of SLAC, was sitting there too. He just looked at the guy for a minute and said, "You needed a congressman to tell you we're arrogant?" He was right. Physicists tend to think of themselves as smarter than almost everyone else; a standard line is, "A good physicist can do anything."

Wasn't your PHD in Physics Steve?