Italian scientists break the speed of light?

[ComradeMan]

Caution with this one... like so many other breakthroughs in the past it could turn out to be flawed but if it isn't we are going to have to rethink physics.


http://notizie.it.msn.com/approfondimento/fisica-superata-la-velocita-della-luce

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html

[Smyg]

Dupe thread, I'm afraid.

[ComradeMan]

Dupe thread, I'm afraid.

Well OI-ers can dicuss science too.... :crying: Apart from that some people here may have a "metaphysical" outlook on this too.;)

[Smyg]

Dammit, no rights for political dissidents I say. :tt2:

[Revolution starts with U]

This is how it was explained to me. Im just a physics hobbyist, so I cannot verify the validity. But...


The Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source. wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity) That is a quote from Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler (1992). Spacetime Physics: Introduction to Special Relativity. W. H. Freeman. ISBN 0-7167-2327-1.

In layman terms, that means if it has mass and wasn't traveling at the speed of light at the inception of the universe, it ain't going faster than the speed of light now. It doesn't mean nothing goes faster. When they can accelerate a particle to faster than the speed of light, rather than have recorded subatomic particles travelling faster than the speed of light, which is what the article states, then they'll have something to yell about.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm not sure why this is in the Religion forum. Are we proposing a Mass for photons?

[Revolution starts with U]

OP cannot post in the Science forum, and likely also believes this is further evidence of G-d or w/e (as if he wouldn't think any evidence is further evidence for G-d :rolleyes:)

[ComradeMan]

OP cannot post in the Science forum, and likely also believes this is further evidence of G-d or w/e (as if he wouldn't think any evidence is further evidence for G-d :rolleyes:)

Will you stop deciding what people's motives are for posting? Or have you OD'd on douche pills this week? :lol:

[Ele'ill]

I don't exactly know what's going on in here but legitimate science threads can be posted in the main OI area.


Edit- oh is this Comrademan saying something along the lines of 'we find new things out about science every day- god exists.' I certainly hope not. I'm also drunk right now so take this edit well salted. Also stop the name calling it just isn't nice unless you're clever about it.

[ComradeMan]

I don't exactly know what's going on in here but legitimate science threads can be posted in the main OI area.

Edit- oh is this Comrademan saying something along the lines of 'we find new things out about science every day- god exists.' I certainly hope not. I'm also drunk right now so take this edit well salted. Also stop the name calling it just isn't nice unless you're clever about it.

Why don't you read the thread- all eight short posts before asking what it's about? :thumbup1: Great that mods are modding whilst drunk.... :laugh:

[Revolution starts with U]

I was just kiddin Comrade :lol:
My main point was to point out that you are restricted and can't post in science.:thumbup1:

[Ele'ill]

Why don't you read the thread- all eight short posts before asking what it's about? :thumbup1:

Why don't you read my one and only post again and ask yourself (out loud) 'Did Mari mean she didn't understand the topic of this thread or did she not understand the name calling, animosity and seeming linkage to some previous discussion somewhere else?'

Then forever sit and think about it and not respond even if you have discovered the answer.



Great that mods are modding whilst drunk.... :laugh:

I KNOW how careless- someone might get killed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The results (which have yet to be confirmed) are "no cause to dispute Einstein" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/no-cause-to-dispute-einst_b_982429.html), at least according to Victor Stenger, a physicist who's worked in neutrino physics for thirty years.

It's an interesting article, but since this is the Religion forum, I'll post this quote from it:

"So, if confirmed, the reported result from CERN or any future observation of superluminal motion will not lead to the overthrow of Einstein’s theory of relativity. Its significance will be to overthrow the distinction between cause and effect. At the worst, Einstein might be faulted for taking causality a little too seriously.

Finally, you might want to ponder what effect the demise of causality would have on the notion of God as the ultimate cause of all there is."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because fuck it, why not: Alom Shaha points out why the "Faster than light story highlights the difference between science and religion" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/sep/28/faster-than-light-science-religion). The important elements are doubt, replication, and hesitancy:

"But the recent fuss over the possible existence of faster-than-light neutrinos illustrates precisely how different science and religion are when it comes to questions of “belief” or “knowledge”. . .

One of the things that appeals to me about science is that, unlike religion, science is not dogmatic. It does not say: “This is the way things are, and it can be no other way.” Instead it says something like: “Based on the evidence we have so far, this is how things probably are; if clear and solid evidence is discovered that shows this is not how things are, then we will need to change our minds.”

Science can seem rather weak in comparison to the certainties religion offers. But it is this very “weakness”, this refusal to issue absolute statements of truth, that allows science to progress, and to come up with increasingly better ways of explaining the world."

This is basic stuff but it simply cannot be repeated enough in public these days. Religion not only offers no certainties, but offers no knowledge, either.

[ComradeMan]

...

I agree, the results look good so far but until they are confirmed we should be cautious in jumping to conclusions. At the same time it's still exciting when new discoveries/advances like this are made due to all of the theoretical possibilities that suddenly open before us.

[Aspiring Humanist]

I'm not sure why this is in the Religion forum. Are we proposing a Mass for photons?

Photons have no mass :p

[ComradeMan]

Photons have no mass :p

Yes and err..... they aren't so sure- it's all theoretical at this
and I believe there are some alternative theories.

You are right of course, photons according to theory are predicted to be without mass, yet they do have momentum E2 = m2c4 + p2c2. Nevertheless inside a superconductor photons (may) display the effects of a non-zero effective rest mass.

We get into all kinds of "theory" about relativistic mass and rest mass etc and as I understand there is no firm demonstration of any of this because the experiments would be difficult to achieve.