http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BREAKING_LIGHT_SPEED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
I think this wins me a bet with some people here.
Ha! The title of your thread is going to stir some shit no doubt, but the find is really cool. Faster than the speed of light is something pretty amazing. Gosh the impact would be tremendous. It could affect everything we know about space-time and gravity as it relates to space-time. Well I look forward to hearing more and I hope they can replicate it.
That should makes some theoretical physicists head explode.
Cool stuff. I will be watching this closely.
The title is provoking on purpose. But it’s true. If this is verified, all of general relativity is wrong. It means the religion of physics didn’t actually know anything about the universe.
“In fact, the researchers themselves are not ready to proclaim a discovery and are asking other physicists to independently try to verify their findings.”
It may seem like this is something along the lines of “Score one against the science guys.” but it isn’t. This is just how science works. People know plenty about how physics, this just makes a unifying model explaining all behavior more difficult. Whatever the case maybe, if you need scientific understanding to become eroded or fractured to feel secure in belief, then perhaps that faith isn’t that strong to begin with.
It’s not something that I need.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
“In fact, the researchers themselves are not ready to proclaim a discovery and are asking other physicists to independently try to verify their findings.”[/quote]
Because it goes against all their understanding of physics, not because they are unsure about their process or measurements. They have already done everything they can to try to disprove the discovery.
[quote]Dijon wrote:
It may seem like this is something along the lines of “Score one against the science guys.” but it isn’t. This is just how science works. People know plenty about how physics, this just makes a unifying model explaining all behavior more difficult. Whatever the case maybe, if you need scientific understanding to become eroded or fractured to feel secure in belief, then perhaps that faith isn’t that strong to begin with.
It’s not something that I need.[/quote]
No. Not what I’m getting at, at all. I myself am a science guy. I’m saying score one against the science zealots. I love science and all that it adds to my life, in it’s place.
I have a problem when people try to make it more than it is. It is not absolute, it does not add true understanding. Trying to build absolute beliefs on it is foolish.
Some people refuse to acknowledge it’s limits. Everything it “knows” is never more than a disprovable theory.
No wonder why I failed physics! I was just way ahead of my time.
Just kidding. Passed it, but hated every second.
My Chemistry professor mentioned this today.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It means the religion of physics didn’t actually know anything about the universe.[/quote]
What a ridiculous thing to say
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It means the religion of physics didn’t actually know anything about the universe.[/quote]
What a ridiculous thing to say[/quote]
In what way?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It means the religion of physics didn’t actually know anything about the universe.[/quote]
What a ridiculous thing to say[/quote]
In what way?[/quote]
Your actual, serious opinion as that physicists don’t know anything about the universe?
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It means the religion of physics didn’t actually know anything about the universe.[/quote]
What a ridiculous thing to say[/quote]
In what way?[/quote]
Your actual, serious opinion as that physicists don’t know anything about the universe?[/quote]
Not what I said at all.
Religion: “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
Though there are a lot of physicists that are included in that.
But, I’ll play with you on this one.
Name something physics knows.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It means the religion of physics didn’t actually know anything about the universe.[/quote]
What a ridiculous thing to say[/quote]
In what way?[/quote]
Your actual, serious opinion as that physicists don’t know anything about the universe?[/quote]
Not what I said at all.
Religion: “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
Though there are a lot of physicists that are included in that.
But, I’ll play with you on this one.
Name something physics knows.[/quote]
Well, that still says you think physicists don’t know anything about the universe. You’re making a very strange case here and I have no idea why you’re making some religion connection. This is also a really dumb game to “play”. Name something physics knows? I guess satellites and superconductors and acoustics and plumbing systems (fluid dynamics?) and about a thousand other things that you use all the time are just the product of good luck? What the hell are you on about?
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It means the religion of physics didn’t actually know anything about the universe.[/quote]
What a ridiculous thing to say[/quote]
In what way?[/quote]
Your actual, serious opinion as that physicists don’t know anything about the universe?[/quote]
Not what I said at all.
Religion: “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
Though there are a lot of physicists that are included in that.
But, I’ll play with you on this one.
Name something physics knows.[/quote]
Well, that still says you think physicists don’t know anything about the universe. You’re making a very strange case here and I have no idea why you’re making some religion connection. This is also a really dumb game to “play”. Name something physics knows? I guess satellites and superconductors and acoustics and plumbing systems (fluid dynamics?) and about a thousand other things that you use all the time are just the product of good luck? What the hell are you on about?
[/quote]
Not, not physicists, people who take science as their religion.
Physics doesn’t know any of those systems. Fluid dynamics is a very rough system of ballpark estimation, it can’t predict a single element of fluid. Satellites are currently mapped using general relativity, which now seems to be false (and which NASA has measured problems with). Not one of the things you mentioned is a known. It is entirely possible that the universe itself isn’t analytic and no system of equations could even ever possibly be correct.
Name one thing about the universe that science KNOWS.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It means the religion of physics didn’t actually know anything about the universe.[/quote]
What a ridiculous thing to say[/quote]
In what way?[/quote]
Your actual, serious opinion as that physicists don’t know anything about the universe?[/quote]
Not what I said at all.
Religion: “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
Though there are a lot of physicists that are included in that.
But, I’ll play with you on this one.
Name something physics knows.[/quote]
Well, that still says you think physicists don’t know anything about the universe. You’re making a very strange case here and I have no idea why you’re making some religion connection. This is also a really dumb game to “play”. Name something physics knows? I guess satellites and superconductors and acoustics and plumbing systems (fluid dynamics?) and about a thousand other things that you use all the time are just the product of good luck? What the hell are you on about?
[/quote]
Not, not physicists, people who take science as their religion.
Physics doesn’t know any of those systems. Fluid dynamics is a very rough system of ballpark estimation, it can’t predict a single element of fluid. Satellites are currently mapped using general relativity, which now seems to be false (and which NASA has measured problems with). Not one of the things you mentioned is a known. It is entirely possible that the universe itself isn’t analytic and no system of equations could even ever possibly be correct.
Name one thing about the universe that science KNOWS.[/quote]
It seems like you have an issue with the fact that there is MORE to be known in pretty much every area. It’s not all or nothing.
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
It seems like you have an issue with the fact that there is MORE to be known in pretty much every area. It’s not all or nothing.[/quote]
All science is physics. Physics is all or nothing. It isn’t a question of adding more, it is a process of constantly deleting and replacing.
And as of now, general relativity is deleted and there isn’t even a replacement. So now there is no theory of planetary motion.
For example, people always tout the triumph of science when the sun replaced the Earth as the center of the universe. The real truth is that a sun centered universe is just as wrong as an Earth centered one. All of science and every one of it’s theories is the same. They are all equally wrong. All fundamentally imperfect and flawed.
You still haven’t shown me a single thing science knows.
This is what my brother(physics/math major @ McGill) had to say quickly about it -
Huh…interestingly, I’m taking a break from studying relativity right now. I’m not sure what to think, likely it is a systematic error, or even their statistics could be funky, certainly people will be checking.
Relativity allows for one thing like what we consider the speed of light, one thing that has the property that whatever frame of reference your moving in, you measure it to have the same speed. So right now, we say if you are standing still, or riding on a train, and measure the speed of light, it looks the same in both cases. But we could instead take that speed to be of something else, neutrino’s for instance, and have relativity still be consistent.
The reason relativity uses light specifically as the thing which has the same speed in all reference frames is Maxwell's equations, which give the speed of light without reference to any frame of reference, so predict it will be the same in all frames. So if this result is of substance, it could instead be Maxwells equations, and not relativity, that has an issue.
But yeah, overall, my guess is it's an experimental thing. But of course, it would call serious things into question if it isn't.
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
This is what my brother(physics/math major @ McGill) had to say quickly about it -
Huh…interestingly, I’m taking a break from studying relativity right now. I’m not sure what to think, likely it is a systematic error, or even their statistics could be funky, certainly people will be checking.
Relativity allows for one thing like what we consider the speed of light, one thing that has the property that whatever frame of reference your moving in, you measure it to have the same speed. So right now, we say if you are standing still, or riding on a train, and measure the speed of light, it looks the same in both cases. But we could instead take that speed to be of something else, neutrino’s for instance, and have relativity still be consistent.
The reason relativity uses light specifically as the thing which has the same speed in all reference frames is Maxwell's equations, which give the speed of light without reference to any frame of reference, so predict it will be the same in all frames. So if this result is of substance, it could instead be Maxwells equations, and not relativity, that has an issue.
But yeah, overall, my guess is it's an experimental thing. But of course, it would call serious things into question if it isn't.
[/quote]
If the results had been expected, would he off hand guess it was an experimental problem that caused the results? Of course not. That makes your brother a bad scientist. He is biasing his analysis instead of following the data.