test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Einstein may have been wrong..

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited February 2012 in Ten Forward
if this is confirmed. Ftl in normal space may be possible.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/science-light-idUSL5E7KM3UU20110922
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134567

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    Not a big surprise...

    Most sci eventually is prooven to be wrong to some degree.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    so if im reading that right he was off by 60 nanoseconds.

    tough crowd.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    I want a Neutrino cannon, you are death before you see me shoot !!
    Faster then light, so after we get a optic computer, we need to update it with a neutrino one, LOL
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    so if im reading that right he was off by 60 nanoseconds.

    tough crowd.

    The expected time is around 2464 nanoseconds, so 60 nanoseconds is fairly significant. At least when you're expected upper bound is literally written in stone.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    hevach wrote: »
    The expected time is around 2464 nanoseconds, so 60 nanoseconds is fairly significant. At least when you're expected upper bound is literally written in stone.

    i think i did misunderstand. yeah i guess that is pretty significant.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    So when do I get to warp faster then light in my own Enterprise?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    Ctrl255 wrote:
    So when do I get to warp faster then light in my own Enterprise?

    you'll need to find a steep slope first with plenty of runway.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    60 nanoseconds quicker than light over a 730km distance? I'm not going to crunch all the numbers out but that's insignificant.

    If you were riding on the neutrino you got there 60 billionths of a second faster than if you were riding on a light beam. The time difference is imperceptible.

    I suppose if you scaled that up to billion and trillion km distances, as we find in space, it might become significant at some point... but you'd have to be traveling to the other side of the galaxy for it to matter.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    Bone1970 wrote: »
    I want a Neutrino cannon, you are death before you see me shoot !!
    Faster then light, so after we get a optic computer, we need to update it with a neutrino one, LOL

    The only cannon that does Zero damage to it's target? :D lol
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    I've worked with what's called "fast electronics" in the past. The equipment these guys are using must be very carefully calibrated. The *length of the cables* connecting components comes into play. I think it's more likely that these guys just had a short cable somewhere. I'd wait until it's been independently verified a few times before rewriting all the physics books in the world.... :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    What Hort Said... I prefer my Science from Dr Professor Michio Kaku.. hes great and has a PC..Imagine if Einsteins Massively great brain ad a wing man.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    hort_wort wrote: »
    I've worked with what's called "fast electronics" in the past. The equipment these guys are using must be very carefully calibrated. The *length of the cables* connecting components comes into play. I think it's more likely that these guys just had a short cable somewhere. I'd wait until it's been independently verified a few times before rewriting all the physics books in the world.... :rolleyes:

    As exciting as the possibility is. This is the proper way of looking at it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    Hmmm well, my cable idea wouldn't account for 60ns unless it was 20 meters of cable. Oh well.

    Another fun thing to look at is the neutrino emissions from a supernova. SN1987A is a distance of 168,000 LY away. If you take the difference in speed the article from cern suggests and multiply, you get that you should receive a burst 4 years before the light arrives. BUT! The neutrinos ended up arriving the same day.

    (The neutrinos did beat the light by 3 hours, but that's another story....)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    The scary thing is - if this is correct, ALL light year measurements (ie how far stars are from Sol) wouldn't be accurate as the speed of light has been considered an absolute constant. That's a fairly significant "Doh!" if the findings hold up.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    Hey, let's not get excited. Even the scientists who released the results don't believe it and released the results specifically so other scientists can find the TRIBBLE up. This could be a "short cable" thing or it could be the real deal. Peer review is still needed.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    Ceases to amaze me that people are that arrogant to not want to prove them wrong. Science is usually about observation and what we observe so if that is alas true how can we know for certain. I for one am glad they proved that wrong. Small numbers or not it was still proven wrong.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    Ceases to amaze me that people are that arrogant to not want to prove them wrong. Science is usually about observation and what we observe so if that is alas true how can we know for certain. I for one am glad they proved that wrong. Small numbers or not it was still proven wrong.

    Actually, science isn't based on fact; it's based on repetition. Can I repeat your experiment and get the same results? It is scientific "fact" that water boils at 100 degrees C because no matter how many times you do the experiment, you get the same result (assuming all variables are equal).

    Theoretical science is just that, theoretical. Until there is a repeatable experiment to "prove" the theory, theoretical science will remain a theory. The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution remain theories because science has been unable to create a repeatable experiment to show those theories are true.

    To be honest, I don't think it'll fundamentally change popular science. I don't really care if neutrino's reach me a fraction of a millisecond faster than photons do. Neutrinos are getting into heavy science. Einstein's theories stood for 100 years because almost all experiments that took place backed up his assertions. Now we have an experiment that says he may be wrong. That is the nature of science.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    Actually, science isn't based on fact; it's based on repetition. Can I repeat your experiment and get the same results? It is scientific "fact" that water boils at 100 degrees C because no matter how many times you do the experiment, you get the same result (assuming all variables are equal).

    Theoretical science is just that, theoretical. Until there is a repeatable experiment to "prove" the theory, theoretical science will remain a theory. The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution remain theories because science has been unable to create a repeatable experiment to show those theories are true.

    To be honest, I don't think it'll fundamentally change popular science. I don't really care if neutrino's reach me a fraction of a millisecond faster than photons do. Neutrinos are getting into heavy science. Einstein's theories stood for 100 years because almost all experiments that took place backed up his assertions. Now we have an experiment that says he may be wrong. That is the nature of science.
    Gravity is also a theory. :o
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    Gravity is also a theory. :o

    Relevant SMBC
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    CapnBludd wrote: »
    if this is confirmed. Ftl in normal space may be possible.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/science-light-idUSL5E7KM3UU20110922

    This has jsut been mentioned on BBC news in th UK now. lol I hope so this would be cool and annoying and fun all at the same time as if it is possible to do ftl in noraml space, tha we may have to we re learn physic etc nd fun in coming up ways and understanding etc. Love science! :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    Right, time to design a real Starfleet with ships and stuff, I wanna get the heck off this polluted world of ours and explore the galaxy and conquer... err I mean meet other life and civilizations in (relative) peace.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    Ceases to amaze me that people are that arrogant to not want to prove them wrong. Science is usually about observation and what we observe so if that is alas true how can we know for certain. I for one am glad they proved that wrong. Small numbers or not it was still proven wrong.

    But a single observation is not sufficient to indicate anything. As every observation can include mistakes, repition or reproducability is important.
    So the goal is now to find out if the observation was correct. And if we can't find any clear evidence that it was, we need to repeat the observation.

    Basically, we can take this observation as a proof, we first have to prove the observation was correct.
    If that all works out, then we have to come up with a theory that explains the new observation.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    1.
    you'll need to find a steep slope first with plenty of runway.
    2. You'll need to turn yourself into a Neutrino.
    3. ???
    4. FTL.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    First CERN smashes string theory, then it throws the Higgs Boson into doubt, now neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light?

    Why do I find all this so exciting!

    I mean I know it still must be reproduced but just the notion is freaking awesome!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    piwright42 wrote: »
    First CERN smashes string theory, then it throws the Higgs Boson into doubt, now neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light?

    Why do I find all this so exciting!

    I mean I know it still must be reproduced but just the notion is freaking awesome!



    Yes this is very Awesome! :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    I'm still waiting for the CERN guys to produce the Black Hole that'll destroy the Earth :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    I'm still waiting for the CERN guys to produce the Black Hole that'll destroy the Earth :D

    science says its not possible. Like not traveling faster than light... err... nevermind....
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    I'm still waiting for the CERN guys to produce the Black Hole that'll destroy the Earth :D

    pfft those guys cant even make a doomsday device right. call them self scientists. :p
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    I'm still waiting for the CERN guys to produce the Black Hole that'll destroy the Earth :D

    You'll be waiting a while. Assuming science is wrong and those black holes don't dissipate faster than they can possibly absorb matter (and we've been observing them long enough that we can be pretty sure they do). I think it was Phil Plait who did the math, but I could be wrong. Anyway, if the LHC produces singularities with every collision and runs around the clock, after around ten thousand years it will drift out of tolerances and stop working.

    The sun will be dead and gone seven or eight times before they create a measurable gravitational anomaly, let alone destroy the earth.

    That's assuming they don't just dissipate, that is, which every one we've created did.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited September 2011
    Meynolt wrote: »
    Right, time to design a real Starfleet with ships and stuff, I wanna get the heck off this polluted world of ours and explore the galaxy and conquer... err I mean meet other life and civilizations in (relative) peace.

    These are the voyages of the USS Impertinent...

    It's mission, to spoil strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations... ... ... and meddle in their affairs.
Sign In or Register to comment.