Faster than the speed of light?‎

[AYOUB]

^ So the BBC's Science web page is sensationalist pop media? If it's BBC itself you have issues with, why did you post its video clip in the first place? Hypocrisy at its worse.

 

Pop media or not, the people quoted in hundreds of articles are not "faithful" nobodies as I'm happily branded by the Godless. Nor are they "Science Donkeys". They're famous renown Physicist (not some SoL guy who claims knowing what he's talking about) who made up their position clear should the results be confirmed. Like it or not, that's how things are.

 

PS Your "knowledgable" SoL lines are direct quotes from the same news articles so give it a rest.

[Prometheus]

Garnaqisow, kan yar ee caadifaddu heyso wuxuu mooday in diin la caayay, oo rag iska celi buu is leeyahay, oo ma innagaa diinba soo hadal qaadnay? Waxaan xusuustaa beri uu xaqiirku khuraafaat nagu afuufay oo wuxuu na yidhi "Golden Ratio" waa mucjiso weyn oo cadaynaysa inay Makkah tahay meel muqaddas ah. Dee wuxuu lasoo shir tagay xisaab ay xitaa dhallaanku ku qosli lahaayeen. Laakiin safiih maxaad ku taqaan: waabuu khashuucay intuu sidaa madaxa u foorariyay. Waar kani xitaa fractions isuma geyn karo, kolkaasaad doonaysaa inaad u sharaxdo theory of relativity iyo Newtonian mechanics. Maahmaahyada dameerada iyo suuradda maroodiga uunbuu yaqaan ee waxba wakhti haysaga lumin baan ku odhan lahaa.

[Garnaqsi]

Prometheus, that made me laugh! I'm not surprised that I have been trying to be reasonable with someone who believes that Mecca is the centre of the Universe. It was weird when he started talking about donkeys with books and science donkeys, but that explains it.

 

AYOUB;748945 wrote:

^ So the BBC's Science web page is sensationalist pop media? If it's BBC itself you have issues with, why did you post its video clip in the first place? Hypocrisy at its worse. Pop media or not, the people quoted in hundreds of articles are not "faithful" nobodies as I'm happily branded by the Godless.

I'm not relying on the video to support a point of mine, so it's not hypocrisy; on the other hand, you relied on the concerned articles in your futile attempt to make the state of affairs look as if the foundations of physics would go bonkers if this result gets confirmed. Most of the experts questioned expressed shock and surprise (which they should) and how big deal this is (and it is); however, pop media articles really blew it out of proportion. For example, in the BBC article Dr Ereditato says the result would have 'a potentially great impact on physics', but the article began with the ridiculous premise of one of the pillars of modern science tumbling down.

 

It's extraordinary to claim that special relativity -- a theory that, as Prometheus said earlier, was supported by hundreds of experiments, many of which were far more sensitive than this one -- will simply tumble down. The idea that light might have a mystery mass, the one that I was referring to earlier, and the one that neutrinos might after all be tachyonic particles, are all far more likely than special relativity simply 'tumbling' down. In speaking of the last one -- surprise! -- modern physics allows particles that travel at faster than light-speed -- that's exactly what tachyons are. It was, in fact, posited that neutrinos are tachyons as far back as in 1986.

 

If this result is true, theory of relativity, like many other theories in physics, will have to be 'revised', but it's unlikely that these theories are 'wrong' in the very sense of the word. For example, if it's that photons have an undetected mass, then the revision suffices to replace c by some large enough number, call it α, such that the speed of all massless subatomic particles is invariant in all inertial frames of reference at α. On the other hand, if it turns out that neutrinos are in fact tachyonic particles, then you don't need to do anything at all -- relativity stands untouched. The only time I can imagine relativity being torn apart is the event of α turning out not to exist at all, a suggestion over which the world waking tomorrow on Helios driving the chariot of the sun across the sky is more likely.

 

So I was probably unkind to relativity earlier when I suggested that this might limit the domain of validity of the theory, which is what you mistook for, strange enough, 'down-playing' the significance of the discovery. That being said, it's clear that explaining all this is a pointless exercise in futility, as it will probably go over your head, as it has been for a page and half of this thread. Hence I think it's best of interest for you to abandon this and find something you understand and are good at -- if there really is such a thing! If that happens, then I don't have to waste time trying to explain physics to someone with theocratic agenda who lacks the very basics.

[sharma-arke451]

It is perspicacious to think, that science is imperfect, as its source is limited. the coming up of this theory ''that sub-atomic particles called neutrinos can travel faster than light,'' is a major blow to the Einstein's theory of relativity.

 

"If this measurement is confirmed, it might change our view of physics," said CERN research director Sergio Bertolucci.

 

since when will your views on physics keep changing??????????

 

so, there's no point for physics student's (a noble assumption i am making) to shun the opinion of others and take positions,as if they are scientist.

The finding could force scientists to rethink the fundamentals of physics

[Garnaqsi]

sharma-arke451;749086 wrote:

It is perspicacious to think, that science is imperfect, as its source is limited.

That's a non-point -- one that's often made in the theological folly of mistaking absolutist dogma for epistemological perfection.

 

the coming up of this theory ''that sub-atomic particles called neutrinos can travel faster than light,'' is a major blow to the Einstein's theory of relativity.

That's not true. As I've said in the above post, to say this would be a blow to relativity amounts to say, among other things, that relativity wouldn't hold if the so-called gauge invariance is lost, which is ridiculous. I'm sure most physicists would agree with me.

 

"If this measurement is confirmed, it might change our view of physics," said CERN research director Sergio Bertolucci.

 

since when will your views on physics keep changing??????????

For as long as we have that wonderful procedure called the scientific method. If our views would remain stagnant, physics would be dull, boring, and unenlightening that it would, in fact, border religion. Lack of changing views is really tantamount to lack of progress.

 

so, there's no point for physics student's (a noble assumption i am making) to shun the opinion of others and take positions,as if they are scientist.

The finding could force scientists to rethink the fundamentals of physics.

When the scientifically illiterate try to throw around baseless and outlandish claims of the implications on an experiment in science, I would go so far as to say there is moral obligation on all students of science and scientifically literate laypeople to shun such claims.

[Garnaqsi]

As the scientific spirit is, here is some back up for some of the things that I've stated in the last two posts:



I got this from the book Energy and Mass in Relativity Theory by Lev B. Okun, where the paper got republished in 2009.
It explains what I've been trying to explain about the loss of gauge invariance (i.e. replacing c with α) more succinctly.

[sharma-arke451]

Garnaqsi;749151 wrote:

That's a non-point -- one that's often made in the theological folly of mistaking absolutist dogma for epistemological perfection. .

~~An indication of floccinaucinihilipilification. to be more precise, you sound existentialism. indeed, a militant atheism.

 

That's not true. As I've said in the above post, to say this would be a blow to relativity amounts to say, among other things, that relativity wouldn't hold if the so-called gauge invariance is lost, which is ridiculous. I'm sure most physicists would agree with me.

is a major blow ≠ wouldn't hold. language matters, my learned, scientist friend.

 

For as long as we have that wonderful procedure called the scientific method. If our views would remain stagnant, physics would be dull, boring, and unenlightening that it would, in fact, border religion. Lack of changing views is really tantamount to lack of progress.

at least you testify the feeble building blocks of some scientific theories. knowledge needs concrete and unshakable facts, not wrong assumptions, that need adjustments from time to time. imperfection in action.

 

When the scientifically illiterate try to throw around baseless and outlandish claims of the implications on an experiment in science, I would go so far as to say there is moral obligation on all students of science and scientifically literate laypeople to shun such claims.

self proclaimed. indha adkaa ninku/naagtu, hadbo kii sax ah.

[AYOUB]

Prometheus;748956 wrote:

Garnaqisow, kan yar ee caadifaddu heyso wuxuu mooday in diin la caayay, oo rag iska celi buu is leeyahay, oo ma innagaa diinba soo hadal qaadnay? Waxaan xusuustaa beri uu xaqiirku khuraafaat nagu afuufay oo wuxuu na yidhi "Golden Ratio" waa mucjiso weyn oo cadaynaysa inay Makkah tahay meel muqaddas ah.

Dee wuxuu lasoo shir tagay xisaab ay xitaa dhallaanku ku qosli lahaayeen.

Iska hadal ileen beentan xaaraan kaa ahayn. You know I never said such thing, then again; amber juice might be to blame for the confussion.

 

Waar kani xitaa fractions isuma geyn karo, kolkaasaad doonaysaa inaad u sharaxdo theory of relativity iyo Newtonian mechanics. Maahmaahyada dameerada iyo suuradda maroodiga uunbuu yaqaan ee waxba wakhti haysaga lumin baan ku odhan lahaa.

Anaa waalnaa markaan nin aaminsan inuu daanyeer ka faracme aan afka la galayay.

 

 

Qaraqsi

We've all got interest, agenda and position to defend. Your interest are such you'll even present the changing of e=mc2 as something minor.

[Prometheus]

Not surprising.