DescentBB

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:55 am**

Seems the Godfather of math and physics may have gotten it wrong after all:

"The new evidence, challenging a dogma of science that has stood since Albert Einstein published his theory of relativity in 1905, appeared to confirm that sub-atomic particles called neutrinos could travel fractions of a second faster."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/ ... test=faces

The above was a 2nd test to correct some potential errors in data acquisition. As the article states, if the test results hold up in subsequent tests, then there will be a whole lot of re-thinking going on.

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:46 am**

That's totally awesome. I want Einstein to be wrong. I want things to go faster than light so we can learn more about the universe. I want results that make it possible for me to visit a star or another galaxy. Imagine how awesome a new understanding of the universe would be if General Relativity turned out to be a wrong as Ptolemaic epicycles.

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:56 am**

In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle not known to have substructure; that is, it is not known to be made up of smaller particles. If an elementary particle truly has no substructure, then it is one of the basic building blocks of the universe from which all other particles are made.

Now this is interesting. Is this suggesting that some form of matter is traveling faster than light?

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:40 pm**

Funny little buggers.

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:44 pm**

My bet is on a systemic measurement problem (perhaps something like this), which would actually further verify Special Relativity.

We'll see.

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:53 pm**

The results will need to be replicated by another team, it is looking like what foil suggests.

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2011 6:28 pm**

Ummm Flipster, if you read the article it looks like this was a test by a 2nd team to verify the results of the first team.

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2011 6:59 pm**

The atom is the smallest part of matter that represents a particular element. For quite a while, the atom was thought to be the smallest part of matter that could exist. But in the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th, scientists discovered that atoms are composed of certain subatomic particles and that, no matter what the element, the same subatomic particles make up the atom. The number of the various subatomic particles is the only thing that varies.

Neutrino-Mass, Small, but non-zero

This definitely needs to be reproduced in a totally unaffiliated lab.

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:44 pm**

woodchip wrote:Ummm Flipster, if you read the article it looks like this was a test by a 2nd team to verify the results of the first team.

No, both experiments were conducted by firing a beam from CERN to the same Italian laboratory. It's definitely something that scientists in other parts of the world are going to attempt to re-create.

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:27 pm**

This part's important;

"The positive outcome of the test makes us more confident in the result, although a final word can only be said by analogous measurements performed elsewhere in the world."

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:31 pm**

Yeah, when you have a result like this that's apparently so anomalous to a well-established theory, you have to run a bunch of repeat tests under different circumstances to see if it holds up. It's a very intriguing phenomenon, and it'll potentially have some amazing consequences if it winds up holding up, but it's going to take a bit of time to find out if that's the case.

Posted: **Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:22 am**

::chuckles:: I keep hearing things about the universal speed limit being proven wrong. I already have my doubts about much of Einstein's theory.

Posted: **Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:47 am**

Burlyman wrote:::chuckles:: I keep hearing things about the universal speed limit being proven wrong. I already have my doubts about much of Einstein's theory.

You should doubt his theory. I don't see why anyone wouldn't doubt it. Einstein himself doubted it. Relativity is not the final word. There is always going to be a better explanation for reality. But in the meantime, Relativity helps us explain a lot of amazing things about the Universe.

Posted: **Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:08 pm**

Everything is relative.

Posted: **Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:29 pm**

woodchip wrote:Ummm Flipster, if you read the article it looks like this was a test by a 2nd team to verify the results of the first team.

Which needs to be verified.

This going to be tested many, many times.

Posted: **Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:45 pm**

Einstein was wrong about many things.

JFTR

“Spooky action at a distance” comes right to mind…

Posted: **Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:41 pm**

Yeah, he was, and pretty much every famous scientist from history was too. What makes them cool people is how much they actually managed to get right. For instance, without accounting for general relativity, we couldn't get GPS systems to function accurately.

Posted: **Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:40 pm**

According to Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, instantaneous action-at-a-distance was seen to violate the relativistic upper limit on speed of propagation of information. If one of the interacting objects were to suddenly be displaced from its position, the other object would feel its influence instantaneously, meaning information had been transmitted faster than the speed of light.

One of the conditions that a relativistic theory of gravitation must meet is to be mediated with a speed that does not exceed c, the speed of light in a vacuum.

At least he considered it.

Posted: **Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:33 am**

Spidey wrote:Einstein was wrong about many things.

JFTR

“Spooky action at a distance” comes right to mind…

Quantum entanglement is another term for Spooky action

Posted: **Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:37 am**

Posted: **Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:24 am**

I have news for you: All scientists are wrong, at least in my opinion.

I think of scientific discovery as function asymptotically approaching the way that things actually work as the sophistication of our understanding of the mechanics increases.

Newton's theories are based on fairly basic math, which proved to inadequate when you start pushing the extremes.
Einstein's theories are based on much more complex math, which (IMO) will eventually prove to be inadequate when you start pushing the new extremes.
The next guy's theories will be based on even more complex math, which will eventually prove to be inadequate when you start pushing the new, new extremes.
etc.

I'd venture to say that this applies to all science. The more detailed we get in our understanding, the more nuance we will find.

It strikes me as kinda funny that people make a big deal about theories being inadequate when I always assumed that it was basically a given. Maybe I'm just a pessimist. I'd be surprised if general relativity really is the end-all-be-all theory that explains everything perfectly. That being said, I'm not all that versed on general relativity, so maybe it's generic enough to suit the bill.

Posted: **Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:59 pm**

One of the goals of science is to make explanations simple and elegant. The complexity of math in today's advanced formulas doesn't just bother you, also bothers scientists. Einstein knew Relativity wasn't the total explanation of phenomenon. That's why he worked, literally to his dying breath, on a better theory; "a unified theory."

It's not that scientists are wrong. They are as right as they need to be. Each scientific tool, from something as simple as F=ma to the outrageous looking formulas we associate with string theory, is a perfectly true, perfectly useful tool. But it's understood in all of science that the tools we have today are simply the best explanations we have right now, and newer, better ones are always just around the corner. But that doesn't invalidate current science, scientists, or scientific tools in any way, shape, or form.

Now that I read this post back to myself, I think it is a hard thing for many people to grasp. Maybe it's best to think of new scientific discoveries as an "upgrade." The old science was good and useful, but the new science is better, more powerful and compact, like going from a MAC Performa to a Powerbook. You did great things with that Performa, but man, look out! You can do so much more now!

Posted: **Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:44 pm**

Science is a great and wonderful thing…until it takes that place in your brain that tc likes to talk about.

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:33 am**

One of the goals of science is to make explanations simple and elegant. The complexity of math in today's advanced formulas doesn't just bother you, also bothers scientists. Einstein knew Relativity wasn't the total explanation of phenomenon. That's why he worked, literally to his dying breath, on a better theory; "a unified theory."

It's not that scientists are wrong. They are as right as they need to be. Each scientific tool, from something as simple as F=ma to the outrageous looking formulas we associate with string theory, is a perfectly true, perfectly useful tool. But it's understood in all of science that the tools we have today are simply the best explanations we have right now, and newer, better ones are always just around the corner. But that doesn't invalidate current science, scientists, or scientific tools in any way, shape, or form.

Now that I read this post back to myself, I think it is a hard thing for many people to grasp. Maybe it's best to think of new scientific discoveries as an "upgrade." The old science was good and useful, but the new science is better, more powerful and compact, like going from a MAC Performa to a Powerbook. You did great things with that Performa, but man, look out! You can do so much more now!

That's what Snoopy said

Here a little, there a little.

Posted: **Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:02 pm**

I've already proven Albert Michelson wrong

Posted: **Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:47 am**

Foil wrote:My bet is on a systemic measurement problem (perhaps something like this), which would actually further verify Special Relativity.

We'll see.

Yep, only it may have been caused by a faulty cable.

http://news.yahoo.com/faulty-wire-error ... 55932.html

Posted: **Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:18 pm**

CERN Press Release

I'll hold my "told you so" until this is tested.

Posted: **Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:52 pm**

Such is science. When you're dealing with such absurdly-precise timings, even a tiny glitch somewhere can throw your end results out-of-whack. And then the poor lab techs have to scramble around to test all the connections.

Posted: **Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:42 pm**

Bah! What's the advantage of going warp 1.00000001 or something. If you can't at least make it to warp 2, it's not worth it.

Posted: **Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:23 pm**

Yeah, I want a slipstream drive on my starship! No pantywaist warp 1 point something.

DescentBB

Einstein Wrong

Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong

Re: Einstein Wrong