Imoutgoodbye Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Wow....:eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 wtf.... D: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H&R Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Awesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 general relativity is old hat these days man. einstein is overrated. he gave it his best shot but general relativity theory is probably wrong, or at the least, very incomplete. feynman > einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 I'm actually expecting this to be a fluke measurement... neutrinos are notoriously difficult to measure accurately. Also, I find the reporting a bit puzzling... from my understanding, it is accelerating to the speed of light that relativity rules as impossible, not existing at or beyond the speed of light. And yes, relativity is an incomplete theory - if one requires a theory to explain all of physics to qualify as a complete theory. By that measure, none of our theories are complete ones. We've known this since the advent of quantum mechanics. I do find the idea that relativity is "old hat" and "probably wrong" a curious one, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 quantum mechanics and general relativity do not play nice with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimpni Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Warp Nine!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 quantum mechanics and general relativity do not play nice with each other. I'm aware, I just wouldn't describe either as "wrong" because of this - incomplete, certainly, but both are very much "right" when used in their respective arenas. They're models with known limitations - having limits doesn't make them wrong, just imperfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 einstein was a very vocal critic of quantum mechanics and his view of general relativity reflected that. if the two theories are ever reconciled, anything left of einstein's relativity would leave him rolling in his grave. that's why I say his theory will probably turn out to be wrong. Einstein: "God does not play dice with the universe." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 I don't disagree that Einstein was wrong about a lot. But I don't see that as much more relevant than saying Darwin was wrong about a lot. Modern science doesn't depend on what people in the past thought. Regardless, do you really think we'll be abandoning general relativity's understanding of gravity as a warping of space-time? From what I know, few physicists would agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cephirus Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 I am truly interested to see the results of the further tests. To speculate, it seems more plausible, that if something were able to pass the speed of light, it would be a neutrino. As they are able to pass through matter, and are electrically neutral, they are not being slowed by electromagnetic fields, nor matter, gives them basically open space to just run through. Much like many things in the universe, we can try our best to define it, but there always seem to be exceptions to the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 pali I feel like you are setting up strawmen for the sake of argument. my original post was in response to Valek's comment that e=mc2 may be wrong, when it has long been thought that it could be wrong/incomplete. feynman even had to modify this equation and add constraints to its use, and that was 20 years ago. you say you agree with this, so i'm not sure what you're argument is. as far as gravity and "warping of space-time", you should wiki quantum gravity. if it ever comes to fruition, then it will necessarily require a reevaluation of how we model gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Pali arguing for the sake of argument? This can't be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 as far as gravity and "warping of space-time"' date=' you should wiki quantum gravity. if it ever comes to fruition, then it will necessarily require a reevaluation of how we model gravity.[/quote'] A good point. Accepted. (Haven't been getting much sleep lately, sorry if I'm not making much sense... original question was really just a matter of phrasing, and I think I was talking past you there. Apologies.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 99% positive this NOT a fluke. My wording may not have been precise (similar to the articles) but that's because there's a fallacy in the thinking of most of America when it comes to the sciences. My only intent was to draw attention to the article and the possibilities. So, like, discuss the possibilities instead of Einstein! He was a thief like Edison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Science at its best. The criterion of falsifiability is a solution to this problem of demarcation, for it says that statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, observations. In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality. -Karl Popper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erana Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Mali: That makes sense to me...what is strange about it? general relativity vs quantum: just using different mechanics for different environments. To me, it can be compared to using different physics to model terrestrial and underwater movement. In this analogy, we have to consider that we can't perform many underwater experiments--can't do much at the quantum level--so it is hard for us to reconcile the two models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 The two statements seem to be looking at the plurality of truths and therefore perceptions. We don't get anywhere when everyone accepts one universal truth and sees everything the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyzarius Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Gene was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelion Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Gene was right. I agree: "Invention, my dear friends, is 93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% evaporation, and 2% butterscotch ripple." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Nothing strange at all about it. I am confirming the statement that good science is marked by the ability to be tested and falsified - even if current technology is not sufficient to perform the experiments necessary for falsification. In this case, it seems technology may have caught up with Einstein. It is therefore no surprise that elements of Einstein's theory are shown to be false, but rather a necessary step in the scientific process and part of an ongoing effort to understand the world around us. Anyone surprised by the discovery is too reliant on what they learned in grade school. Pioneers like Inscribed and I have known for some time that the speed of light is no barrier to man, but rather an old wives tale meant to keep children on their best behavior and to comfort those that feel safer with clearly defined boundaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazimer Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 + 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 + 1 I said it with less words and less pathos. Give me that ****ing +1 you newb!!!!!!! ;) EDIT: Seriously, though, I can only scratch the surface of imagining what this means because I don't have a good scientific background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindflayer Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 I was reading about this last night with some of my physics buddies. The margin of error was +/-10 nanoseconds on an 50nanosecond speeding ticket. CERN is the most advanced facility in the world for this type of research and it will be hard to complete this experiment with such precision elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyzarius Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 I am truly interested to see the results of the further tests. To speculate' date=' it seems more plausible, that if something were able to pass the speed of light, it would be a neutrino. As they are able to pass through matter, and are electrically neutral, they are not being slowed by electromagnetic fields, nor matter, gives them basically open space to just run through. Much like many things in the universe, we can try our best to define it, but there always seem to be exceptions to the rule.[/QUOTe'] it was sub-atomic neutrino's "Traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star, or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.