# We Interupt The Usual Sturm Und Drang: EINSTEIN WRONG!?!?



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 22, 2011)

If true, this is BIG BIG stuff.  Wow.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/science-light-idUSL5E7KM4CW20110922



> Finding could overturn laws of physics
> 
> * Scientists confident measurements correct (Adds background and quotes)
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve (Sep 22, 2011)

Badass!


----------



## Blindside (Sep 22, 2011)

Very very cool.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 22, 2011)

Aye, the LHC is providing some very chewy food for thought at present too.  Like Newtonian physics, it may yet turn out to be the case that the Standard Model is a good enough approximation for most things but is not the 'true' description of how things hold together. Exciting times.


----------



## bluekey88 (Sep 22, 2011)

wow...that is stunning news! The implications for this are huge if these observations are confirmed.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## Carol (Sep 22, 2011)

I'm just wow'ed by all of this.

I love that we can perform experiments such as beaming neutrinos for hundreds of miles through the earth's crust.

I'm thrilled that we have the means to measure this precisely enough to account for a small change.

And I am amazed that this is the result!  Damn...I want to learn more!


----------



## billc (Sep 22, 2011)

Don't they realize that the debate on this is over and that every scientist knows that Einstein is right.  Do those scientists work for the oil companies?


----------



## billc (Sep 22, 2011)

Are these guys just speed of light deniers?  If only Al Gore would do a slide show on Einstein, we wouldn't have these scientists questioning the scientific consensus on objects moving faster than the speed of light.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 22, 2011)

I dug this up this from the infamous Wikipedia after a quick search as I recalled hearing many years ago that neutrinos had been observed decelerating through the 'light barrier':

*Even though supernova observations indicate that neutrinos propagate at the speed of light, it is not clear whether this result holds at higher energies. In particular, in the context of the Standard-Model Extension,[SUP][29][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP] a realistic effective theory that includes Lorentz invariance violations, neutrinos experience Lorentz-violating oscillations and can travel faster than light at high energies.*

And I was surprised to find this addendum already added  :

*In September 2011 CERN released data suggesting that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light.[SUP][32][/SUP] The results released by CERN are currently being scrutinised for errors.*


----------



## billc (Sep 22, 2011)

Hmmm...no doubts about the honesty of these guys, or where they recieved their funding?  And yet, anyone who doubts the science behind the belief in manmade global warming is a fool who doesn't get that all real scientists know that global warming is happening.  And this new possible discovery is just accepted and all is fine.  These guys didn't even have data destroyed on them to keep them from researching their theories, and it doesn't seem as if other scientists tried to get them prohibited from the peer reviewed journals by threatening to get the editors of those journals fired.  This discovery does prove one thing, God does indeed have a sense of humor.



> If confirmed, the discovery would undermine Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity, which says that the speed of light is a "cosmic constant" and that nothing in the universe can travel faster.
> 
> That assertion, which has withstood over a century of testing, is one of the key elements of the so-called Standard Model of physics, which attempts to describe the way the universe and everything in it works.



Does anyone see the irony here on martialtalk?


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 22, 2011)

That'll be because global warming is happening, BillC.  Where the debate lies there is on what our contribution to it as a species is and what we can do to ameliorate the effects.  

Saving energy, using fewer resources for the same outcome and polluting as little as possible are sensible courses of action in their own right, regardless of whether there is an anthropomorphic component to planetary climate change or not.

Given that there has been warming during a solar low is especially worrying.

Anyhow, very little to do with the extremely interesting OP ...

... it won't be all that long before the verification and re-analysis of these results begins.  After all, the real strength of science is that you can never prove anything is right, you can only prove it is wrong.  That's why even fundamentals have to be challenged and shaken up on occasion.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 22, 2011)

How ironic that Bill's thread title was both proven and then itself interrupted in the course of the thread.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 22, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Don't they realize that the debate on this is over and that every scientist knows that Einstein is right. Do those scientists work for the oil companies?



Haha....I said he was wrong five years ago in this thread.

Told ya so....:lfao:

Thanks, though, Bill. The implications, while not completely unexpected, are going to be somewhat staggering.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 22, 2011)

elder999 said:


> The implications, while not completely unexpected, are going to be somewhat staggering.



Could the implications be tempered somewhat because neutrinos are mass-less particles?  It seems like that should make a difference, since they are already a special case.


----------



## Carol (Sep 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Could the implications be tempered somewhat because neutrinos are mass-less particles?  It seems like that should make a difference, since they are already a special case.



The engineer-not-a-scientist says yes because where E=MC^2, if M = 0 then, strictly speaking, that value sets both sides of the equation to 0.

The people that have higher science cred than me have said that neutrinos and other high-energy particles may be more of a unique situation...which is probably a better explanation.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Could the implications be tempered somewhat because neutrinos are mass-less particles? It seems like that should make a difference, since they are already a special case.



I was thinking long term, technological implications-I'll always be an engineer first. :lfao: (So, in terms of those implications, *no*)

Though it does lend weight (see what I did there? :lfao: ) to the premise (put forward here by me quite some time ago) that the _photon _*has* mass....... :lfao:


----------



## Carol (Sep 22, 2011)

elder999 said:


> I was thinking long term, technological implications-I'll always be an engineer first. :lfao: (So, in terms of those implications, *no*)
> 
> Though it does lend weight (see what I did there? :lfao: ) to the premise (put forward here by me quite some time ago) that the _photon _*has* mass....... :lfao:



God Hates Engineers


----------



## granfire (Sep 22, 2011)

and the lay woman sits back with a beer and a pretzl.....how ever did this old thing continue revolving with this faulty theory looming....
wake me up when gravity is threatening to fail....


----------



## Monroe (Sep 22, 2011)

granfire said:


> and the lay woman sits back with a beer and a pretzl.....how ever did this old thing continue revolving with this faulty theory looming....
> wake me up when gravity is threatening to fail....



Oh please don't say that. I was really relying on that one to keep the bodies underground. Zombie attack!


----------



## granfire (Sep 22, 2011)

Monroe said:


> Oh please don't say that. I was really relying on that one to keep the bodies underground. Zombie attack!


Nothing a good pump shotgun can't handle!


----------



## elder999 (Sep 22, 2011)

Carol said:


> God Hates Engineers



_Au contraire, ma soeur.

_God *is* the _master engineer_. She told me so Herself....:lfao:


----------



## billc (Sep 22, 2011)

One last thing Sukerkin, people believe in global warming.  I live right where a mile high glacier used to cover the earth and melted without the help of man made industry.  The planet cools and warms in cycles all on its own.  You say it is getting warmer but that assumption is based on data that very well could be made up, see the climategate scandal to see this, wrong, look at how the computer models have been wrong, or driven by agenda based scientists.  So your claim that it is getting warmer needs the same type of scrutiny as any other scientific claim.  The "consensus" as we see in this post, is not always true or close to being true.  Only diligent scientific investigation, over time will tell.


----------



## cdunn (Sep 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Could the implications be tempered somewhat because neutrinos are mass-less particles?  It seems like that should make a difference, since they are already a special case.



It is expected that all massless particles should propagate at (local) c. However, the neutrino is not, strictly, massless, which is the doubly startling effect of the observation. Relativity predicts that they must have a mass that contains a component of _i_ to have a real energy and velocity at that kind of speed, via E=mc[SUP]2[/SUP] + sqrt(1-(v[SUP]2[/SUP]/c[SUP]2[/SUP])).

I really expect this to vaporize on further analysis, but we'll see.

Edit: It would be really nice if this turns out to be part of the key that unifies relativity and QM. We've known they have to be wrong at some level for a very long time.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 23, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The planet cools and warms in cycles all on its own.


 Have never said otherwise.



billcihak said:


> You say it is getting warmer


 Well, it's more the case that the global thermometer says that. I personally fear that we'll enter a tipping point and dip back into Ice Age but for now things are warming up.



billcihak said:


> but that assumption


 It's not an assumption, it's an observation.



billcihak said:


> is based on data


 Yes, indeed it is. 



billcihak said:


> look at how the computer models have been wrong


 Yes they have been and are. 



billcihak said:


> So your claim that


 Not my claim. 



billcihak said:


> it is getting warmer needs the same type of scrutiny as any other scientific claim ... Only diligent scientific investigation, over time will tell.


 Never said that that isn't true.

Now, fascinating as it is {really need a sarcasm smiley} to rake over these coals yet again, we should at least try and stick to topic - tho' I do think there is some wiggle-room for the discussion of the scientific method in general terms when it comes to how well the team in the OP are following it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 23, 2011)

One difference between these scientists and the generally not-in-the-field skeptics you like to point to Bill is that these scientists published their findings after peer review and invite other scientists to criticize or replicate their results.  You know, how science actually works.  When it isn't being funded by Exxon-Mobil.  They publish in _Science _and _Nature_, not the _National Review _or _Washington Post._


----------



## billc (Sep 23, 2011)

Oh, they were allowed to publish in the peer reviewed journals and didn't have their efforts blocked by the opponents of their work...I see...so perhaps the scientists who believe in man made global warming should allow those with different theories publish their work as well, and not threaten to get editors fired and withhold work from those journals who publish the other points of view.  You can see all of the open and honest work in the reporting on the Climategate scandal.  Oh...and it might be helpful if the scientists who believe in man made global warming didn't destroy their data to keep it from being examined by other scientists.  That might be another step in the direction of good science.  Once again you can read about the destruction of data in the climategate scandal.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 23, 2011)

Awesome news.  I really don't know the first thing about physics, so how staggering this discovery could be is something I really can't comment on.  I'm sure Einstein would be quite proud!  

As for the whole global warming comparison, I will only comment that the way this discovery is being handled...checking data, reviewing and re-testing, _inviting independent researchers to test the results_, is how the whole global warming theory should have been addressed.  Not by politicians or talking heads, but by scientists.  To that extent, Empty Hands pretty much already covered it.  

Regardless of that sidetrack, looking forward to reading more and thanks for posting!


----------



## Blindside (Sep 23, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Could the implications be tempered somewhat because neutrinos are mass-less particles?  It seems like that should make a difference, since they are already a special case.



I thought that there was a finding a couple of years ago that had found that neutrinos had a mass but they couldn't further study was needed to determine what the actual mass was.

edit: googled it, found a good link:
http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/neutrino/PhysicsWorld.pdf


----------



## elder999 (Sep 23, 2011)

Blindside said:


> I thought that there was a finding a couple of years ago that had found that neutrinos had a mass but they couldn't further study was needed to determine what the actual mass was.
> 
> edit: googled it, found a good link:
> http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/neutrino/PhysicsWorld.pdf



If the neutrino has mass (Standard Model says they don't, current theory says "small but not zero":0.28-1.5 eV, something like 2.450649299e-17 gram-force meters)-then that mass would increase at the speed of light-almost infinitely. We see these kinds of relativistic effects in accelerators: at LANSCE, we accelerated protons to 84.5% of c, and when we calculate energy, we find that the proton's mass has "increased." One would expect a neutrino traveling at greater than the speed of light to have passed the point of having infinite mass-it also would have to have had an infinite amount of energy expended upon it, which we can be fairly certain isn't the case..

*Infinite mass.Infinite energy.* Unless special relativity does not apply-well, it's pretty clear that_ if _the fellows at CERN are right _it doesn't._ :lfao:

On the other hand, the same rules should apply to the _photon_-thus the insistence-for years-that it truly has zero mass (though what's really been done is a constant recalculating:_ lowering _of the photon mass calculation's *upper limit*). This explains a bunch of stuff-or, at least, makes some calculations possible-like light having momentum, etc. (Interestingly, laser's have measurable "recoi"l when fired) Thus the insistence of some (myself included) that the photon has mass._ I_f a mass even as small as the neutrino can travel at greater than (or even *at*) the speed of light,and clearly without an infinite energy input and without an infinite mass increase, then the photon can have mass, and something is (as many have said) wrong with special relativity. 



cdunn said:


> I really expect this to vaporize on further analysis, but we'll see.



Not vaporize, necessarily-there are a lot of things that aren't being discussed here, Of course, their calculations could be in error-but that's part of why they recalculated them for _six months_, and part of why they went public. There could also be a number factors that make this a "special case," though, not the least of which is neutrinos themselves. 

Naturaly,, there's a physicist *or a hundred *somewhere who are already applying what I'll call, appropriately enough, the "climate denier" method to this, and refusing to look at the science-just looking for ways to disprove it.


----------



## cdunn (Sep 23, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Not vaporize, necessarily-there are a lot of things that aren't being discussed here, Of course, their calculations could be in error-but that's part of why they recalculated them for _six months_, and part of why they went public. There could also be a number factors that make this a "special case," though, not the least of which is neutrinos themselves.
> 
> Naturaly,, there's a physicist *or a hundred *somewhere who are already applying what I'll call, appropriately enough, the "climate denier" method to this, and refusing to look at the science-just looking for ways to disprove it.



Like I said, we'll see. I -want- this to be real, mind you, I just don't have a lot of hope.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 23, 2011)

I am interested in whether or not the neutrinos might be passing through other dimensions in order to appear to be moving faster than the speed of light.  From my extremely limited understanding, if the multiverse concept has any validity, then there are other ways to move than the 3 dimensions we know and the 4th, which is space/time.  In the example of a paper napkin folded in half, if a particle moves through the napkin at the fold, it will appear to beings living on the napkin as if it had simply disappeared from one location and appeared again at another, faster than the speed of light.  It really never exceeded that speed, it just moved through another dimension to get from one point to another.


----------



## cdunn (Sep 23, 2011)

It is possible. There are several other possible explanations, plus entirely New Physics possibilities. However, despite the rigorousness of the statistics, we need to make sure our ruler wasn't miscalibrated. Of the smallest case scenario of an arrival 0.00000005 seconds early, it may also be a geographical surveying error of 50 feet.... which is the average accuracy of a civilian GPS unit without ground based correction. 

It is a very extraordinary claim. Extraordinary skepticism is warranted, along with the admission that it may be true. And we need to find out.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 23, 2011)

cdunn said:


> It is possible. There are several other possible explanations, plus entirely New Physics possibilities. However, despite the rigorousness of the statistics, we need to make sure our ruler wasn't miscalibrated. Of the smallest case scenario of an arrival 0.00000005 seconds early, it may also be a geographical surveying error of 50 feet.... which is the average accuracy of a civilian GPS unit without ground based correction.



This is the first and most obvious possibility-and probably just one of the the things several people have examined over the last 6 months before making this announcement. While it may be something _like_ this, in the end, it probably won't be that obvious and embarassing. 

As for the entire interdimensional travel premise, while it's another possibility, I'm willing to bet that it's just some bit of oddness-some sort of interaction with the material they were passing through, or some sort of quantum entanglement-neutrinos leave point A, and _other_ neutrinos on their path arrive at the detector at point B ahead of them displaying the same energy and spin. 

In fact, the more I think about it, the more that that's what I'm betting......equally embarassing, perhaps, but understandable:

_These are not the neutrinos you're looking for. Move along, move along...._ :lfao:


----------



## cdunn (Sep 27, 2011)

http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf  - The paper. I would like to retract my statement about it possibly being a GPS error, if they really can _use their system to watch_ _the continental drift_.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Sep 27, 2011)

Carol said:


> I'm just wow'ed by all of this.
> 
> I love that we can perform experiments such as beaming neutrinos for hundreds of miles through the earth's crust.
> 
> ...




What the purrty lady up here said^^^!!


----------



## ATACX GYM (Sep 27, 2011)

elder999 said:


> This is the first and most obvious possibility-and probably just one of the the things several people have examined over the last 6 months before making this announcement. While it may be something _like_ this, in the end, it probably won't be that obvious and embarassing.
> 
> As for the entire interdimensional travel premise, while it's another possibility, I'm willing to bet that it's just some bit of oddness-some sort of interaction with the material they were passing through, or some sort of quantum entanglement-neutrinos leave point A, and _other_ neutrinos on their path arrive at the detector at point B ahead of them displaying the same energy and spin.
> 
> ...




Now THAT mess is funny!


----------



## elder999 (Sep 27, 2011)

ATACX GYM said:


> Now THAT mess is funny!



Yeah, except I was being serious-in my usual "don't take it seriously, it's only the internet" way.:lfao:

Quantum entanglement.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 18, 2011)

And apparently, the neutrinos stubbornly resist following the speed of light.  Scofflaws!


http://www.nature.com/news/neutrino-experiment-replicates-faster-than-light-finding-1.9393


> Neutrino experiment replicates faster-than-light finding
> 
> Latest data show the subatomic particles continue to break the speed limit.
> 
> ...


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 18, 2011)

Wow I just read this whole thread and there are some smart people on this board.  I have no clue what any of this crap means.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 18, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And apparently, the neutrinos stubbornly resist following the speed of light.  Scofflaws!
> 
> 
> http://www.nature.com/news/neutrino-experiment-replicates-faster-than-light-finding-1.9393



Well give this theory a few more years, and some will break down neutrinos and see those particles not obeying the laws of gravity or light as we know them. Possibly having us rethink an expanding universe and what dark matter is or isn't.  The way science constructs popular theories are locked in relationship in a ying and yang  (polar opposites) format and cycle. One theory proves the opposite of the other. Like, the universe is shrinking by one theory, then comes along another to say it is expanding. Another thing like this is theories on Black Holes.  I see these theories as 2-D, but is there a possibility for another theory that is 3-D aside from the polar opposite theory dance science does? Do neutrinos absorb space and or light (what ever you define space being nothingness or something - there is that polarity again) for example, and in fact are doing something we can't comprehend within the familiar way we see things in a bi-polarilty, i.e. action and non-action.  Maybe we will just never be able to completely comprehend the universe. That, that knowledge is outside our grasp. And _no _I am not trying to prove the existence of God. Though our great desire to know something we can't possibly know, does satisfies some with an answer that God does exist and does understand it, i.e. as he made it. Therefore, it is knowable and comprehendible, no longer an unsolvable mystery. We humans have a hard time doing the zen thing. 

I know allot of people are excited that they have found particles that travel faster then the speed of light. Because that means it shuts up all the doubting Trekkies who say warp light speed isn't possible.


----------



## billc (Nov 20, 2011)

Here is some disagreement on the find...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/20/us-science-neutrinos-idUSTRE7AJ0ZX20111120?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&rpc=22&sp=true



> (Reuters) - An international team of scientists in Italystudying the same neutrino particles colleagues say appear to have travelled faster than light rejected the startling finding this weekend, saying their tests had shown it must be wrong.


I guess the next step in the scientific method research process is to name call the doubters, destroy data to keep it out of doubters hands, keep doubters out of peer reviewed journals and work to dry up their research grants.  That is the process isn't it?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2012)

Would you believe...loose cables?

http://gizmodo.com/5887398/a-loose-cable-caused-the-faster+than+light-particles-test


> We know that Einstein always has the last laugh, but this is hilarious: the faster-than-light particles that could have wrecked his relativity theory are no more. It was a mistake in the test results caused by a loose cable.
> 
> Didn't anyone from the Genius Bar tell them about the first rule of tech support? Check your cables first! Oh, scientists!
> 
> ...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 22, 2012)

Damn how did I miss this :EG:

Einstein was wrong you say

Well listen here mission control, EINSTEIN WAS WRONG


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 22, 2012)

If you think I am listening to Raven for any reason you've got another thing coming .


----------



## granfire (Feb 22, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> If you think I am listening to Raven for any reason you've got another thing coming .



yes, of course....


----------



## Carol (Feb 23, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Would you believe...loose cables?
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/5887398/a-loose-cable-caused-the-faster+than+light-particles-test




Waitaminit...my migraine-addled brain can't grok this at all.  I can understand how a lose cable could cause a 60 ns loss.  How exactly does a loose cable cause a 60 ns gain?


----------



## cdunn (Feb 23, 2012)

Carol said:


> Waitaminit...my migraine-addled brain can't grok this at all.  I can understand how a lose cable could cause a 60 ns loss.  How exactly does a loose cable cause a 60 ns gain?



I'm not sure what the actual set up is, but basically, one reference cycle was probably measured as 10 ns, while the real time it took was 10.1 ns or something like that.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 23, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> If you think I am listening to Raven for any reason you've got another thing coming .



awww come on... just the first part where they say Einstein was wrong.... that is all I'm asking


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 23, 2012)

Okay, just for you :lol:

And here is the BBC's report on the FTL neutrino opera ... see what I did there? ::angel:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17139635


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 23, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Okay, just for you :lol:
> 
> And here is the BBC's report on the FTL neutrino opera ... see what I did there? ::angel:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17139635



Thank You and that was a good article
Well I found my window... I'm leaving


See what I did there 
OK, Ill go now


----------

