CERN claims faster-than-light particle measured

Originally posted by intrptr
In the realm that we can see and measure we have instruments made of men that observe for us the limits which we have placed upon our existence. We call this realm the "Known Universe". We know of spectrums beyond sight and sound because we have built instruments that can "see" beyond our innate abilities. Before, when we could not hear or see outside those limits we concluded that that was the furthest goal and set a blind there, imposing penalties if crossed (Here there be dragons). Even though the modern age of discovery has shown us that there appears to be no limits to the physical Universe, man still imposes speed limits on his imagination of such until proven otherwise. What happened to our imagination along the way?

Without scientific proof we cannot entertain the infinite? Or wonder about the unknown? I put it to you the reader that even with our vast knowledge base we have only begun to scratch the surface of understanding. Like plants in a garden trying to see and understand the gardener, we are far below the true hi water mark of the real.

Just peckin on the surface. Barriers... BAH !

THANK YOU! Beautiful, poetic and so true! You deserve a gold star for that post. People need to move on in science, to push forward, to push against the perceived boundaries. One would assume that we as a species should have learned from past experiences of arbitrarily placing limits upon thing's we hardly understand. Instead we keep doing the same old routine and attempt to make everything fit within that limited framework, never learning or understanding the true nature of our reality. Science today is nothing but a religion.

Hi. Just wanna share something with you.
I'm from country where Tesla were born.
I'v seen today in some newspaper, that Tesla was claiming there are faster then light particles.
It says: 1932. in an article in Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, Tesla was claiming that all his research indicate that there are particles which carry so little electric charge and they can move faster then light. He called them "neutrons", altought neither neutrons nor neutrinos were discovered that time.
Local director of Tesla's museum here says author of that article was John J. O'Neill (he also wrote a book: Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla)

p.s. sry for bad English

edit: i guess only way to confirm this is to check all archives from brookly new yourk eagle from 1932 year
(if that is the right newspaper at all)
www.fultonhistory.com...

Originally posted by sirnex
Relativity is founded on the very concept of a fourth dimension of temporal travel.

You really need to get your language straight. Relativity is not founded on the concept of "temporal travel". That sentence is just a case of verbal diarrhea.

This is something that has never once been tested, observed nor measured in any way shape or form to date.

Special relativity is being tested daily on a huge amount of data, in any high-energy experiment and in many in nuclear physics, etc.

There is no time dilation going on at all.

Then how come unstable particle have lifetimes depending on their velocity in the lab frame of reference?

THE MODEL IS WRONG! It has been the day that moron came up with it.

You are not the only one here on ATS that likes to call Einstein a moron. Must be a fetish. Thanks for the comic effect, though.

Originally posted by sirnex
Science today is nothing but a religion.

So, does a physics textbook look the same today as in 1910?

Does a catholic catechism read the same today as in 1510?

Which thing is different from the other?

Originally posted by sirnex

If confirmed this kills that notion entirely. Especially if they can further experiment and observe the nutrinos slowing down below C. Einstein was wrong, no big deal. Science is supposed to move forward right? New discoveries and understandings are showing that his hundred year old folly is just plain garbage.

Lies.

Einstein is not wrong. The anomalous magnetic moment of the electron has been experimentally proven to an extraordinary precision and this depends on Einstein being right.

If this result holds up, it will end up something like a higher-dimensional space is actually being probed by the ultra-high energy particles and the precursors to the neutrinos spend some distance (won't say time) in this space and then fall back to the space where relativity holds. People will still write down the Lagrangian density for the particles in Einsteinian 4-vector covariant form and assert this is the fundamental interactions in physics (you do realize that is what relativity is really, really about---the correct form in which to write authentic laws of physics).

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by sirnex
Science today is nothing but a religion.

So, does a physics textbook look the same today as in 1910?

Does a catholic catechism read the same today as in 1510?

Which thing is different from the other?

Text book has nothing to do with it. The science is still based on an archaic belief of time being a fourth dimension of temoral travel. The science is still hung upon the concept of a big bang that came from nothing. The science is still hung upon archaic concepts that do not depict reality in the slightest bit. Yep, just like religions of today.

Science should be moving forward, not attempting to hang onto an archaic belief system. It's not like it's a bad thing that Einstein was wrong, it's only bad when people take his word as holy script and absolute truth, sort of like a religious person would view the bible. Sorry, but the guy is just plum wrong and the math actually doesn't stand with many many many observations of our universe, which is why we REQUIRE the invention of many may many unobserved things (like a religion) to explain away and integrate those observations to fit with this Einsteinian religious dogma.

Originally posted by sirnex
The science is still based on an archaic belief of time being a fourth dimension of temoral travel.

Pray tell, what is "temporal travel" and why "travel" needs to have "dimensions"?

just an update, it appears as though the OPERA group has failed to take into account gravitational effects, as predicted by general relativity. Now they are back to the drawing board : www.nature.com...

Originally posted by Hellhound604
just an update, it appears as though the OPERA group has failed to take into account gravitational effects, as predicted by general relativity. Now they are back to the drawing board : www.nature.com...

Has anyone actually attempted to reproduce the experiment or they all just writing equations on paper?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by sirnex
The science is still based on an archaic belief of time being a fourth dimension of temoral travel.

Pray tell, what is "temporal travel" and why "travel" needs to have "dimensions"?

Einstein's fourth dimension of time, the dimension in which everything flows forward through his concept of time. A concept which has not actually ever been measured or observed. A clock doesn't measure this fourth dimension or a rate of flow through it. Time itself, as conceptualized by Einsteinian religion is false.

There is no basis for such a concept other than pure blind belief in its existence and a bunch of equations that don't match observations, hence the requirement to invent unobserved phenomena and new equations to make this archaic belief structure still stand.

I'm personally hoping further experimentation (instead of mathematical explanation) is done with this experiment in hopes that it proves Einstein was wrong about his coveted speed limit. Seriously, did we learn nothing with the whole speed of sound limit and the math that "proved" it was impossible to break? Science is supposed to move forward, not hang upon an over one hundred year old theory that just doesn't fit modern observations. Science should not be inventing unobserved phenomena to explain why the damn thing doesn't work and to make it work.

reply to post by sirnex


that is the beauty about science, and it's peer reviewed process .... They should have all the data, and they just need to take additional factors into account, no need to repeat it. You know, sometimes it takes a lot of money if you have to repeat an experiment, and if you have all the data you don't really have to repeat it. But I am sure some group will repeat it again. How do you think nuclear-weapons are tested nowadays???? By actually exploding one (ok, except for the odd small ones by countries that don't have all the data). Once you have gathered enough data, you can simulate your experiment to a great amount of success, without ever having to repeat the actual experiment

Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by sirnex

 

that is the beauty about science, and it's peer reviewed process .... They should have all the data, and they just need to take additional factors into account, no need to repeat it. You know, sometimes it takes a lot of money if you have to repeat an experiment, and if you have all the data you don't really have to repeat it. But I am sure some group will repeat it again. How do you think nuclear-weapons are tested nowadays???? By actually exploding one (ok, except for the odd small ones by countries that don't have all the data). Once you have gathered enough data, you can simulate your experiment to a great amount of success, without ever having to repeat the actual experiment

I'm sorry, but equations written on paper, even with one experiments worth of data can only get you so far. Again, I feel the need to bring up the speed of sound barrier and the so called sonic wall. Math is only useful to a point, observation and experimentation should be at the front of scientific progress. I will never trust anything that only exists on paper without experimental evidence backing it or its actual observance of existing. So the guy from the article says that gravity wasn't taken into account, what that means is they need to recalibrate their instruments, refine, re-tune, etc, and redo the experiment a few more times to validate the results or invalidate them. Good things cost money, progress is always good.

reply to post by sirnex


I agree with you, but normally in research money is a serious issue. I can remember doing some experiments costing lots and lots of money, so we were forced to make data-measurements way over the top, because there was no money to repeat those experiments. The actual experiment took like in a millisecond, but it costed millions, so we took as much possible data from that single experiment, and then we just had to work with the data, and refine our simulations, until we had a perfect match between the experiment and our simulations, and only then, could we apply for another grant to have the experiment repeat again. It was extremely frustrating, but we learnt to gather as much data as we could possibly need, (of course I won't tell you that during the first experiment, my software crashed, and almost NO data was gathered at all.....)

Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by sirnex

 

I agree with you, but normally in research money is a serious issue. I can remember doing some experiments costing lots and lots of money, so we were forced to make data-measurements way over the top, because there was no money to repeat those experiments. The actual experiment took like in a millisecond, but it costed millions, so we took as much possible data from that single experiment, and then we just had to work with the data, and refine our simulations, until we had a perfect match between the experiment and our simulations, and only then, could we apply for another grant to have the experiment repeat again. It was extremely frustrating, but we learnt to gather as much data as we could possibly need, (of course I won't tell you that during the first experiment, my software crashed, and almost NO data was gathered at all.....)

I suppose the point is, in light of the article given, if the guy is going to claim a fault, he should experimentally prove a fault does indeed exist. Regardless of money, the experiment needs to be redone with this new information in mind to determine what is actually going on. Paper is paper, we don't see real world applicable results from numbers on a piece of paper. We can use math to "prove" or "disprove" just about anything we want.

reply to post by sirnex


be patient, it takes a long time to sieve through all the data, add the compensations to your experimental data, change the software, get the money (and the time on the equipment) again ..... It will happen sooner or later, and after all, it is not a life-changing experiment, is it?????
The whole human race won't die off tomorrow if the experiment isn't repeated right away .....

Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by sirnex

 

be patient, it takes a long time to sieve through all the data, add the compensations to your experimental data, change the software, get the money (and the time on the equipment) again ..... It will happen sooner or later, and after all, it is not a life-changing experiment, is it?????
The whole human race won't die off tomorrow if the experiment isn't repeated right away .....

I don't want to and you don't know that!

And the barman said "We don't serve neutrinos here".

A neutrino walked into a bar.

Originally posted by sirnex
Einstein's fourth dimension of time, the dimension in which everything flows forward through his concept of time.

'Temporal travel' was confusing enough, but you are not the one to rest on your laurels! The dimension in which everything /flows/ forward? You like to give your writings an air of scientifically sound statements, but it really doesn't work.


A concept which has not actually ever been measured or observed. A clock doesn't measure this fourth dimension or a rate of flow through it. Time itself, as conceptualized by Einsteinian religion is false.

There is no basis for such a concept other than pure blind belief in its existence and a bunch of equations that don't match observations, hence the requirement to invent unobserved phenomena and new equations to make this archaic belief structure still stand.

Special relativity is tested every day, directly and indirectly, in multiple labs around the globe. What exactly do you call "false"? Or is it false because you don't get it?

Seriously, did we learn nothing with the whole speed of sound limit and the math that "proved" it was impossible to break?

I need a reference to the source which has the math, and that math proves that the speed of sound limit is final and impenetrable. Thanks in advance!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
And the barman said "We don't serve neutrinos here".

A neutrino walked into a bar.

Awesome.

And I really do hope they do the experiment again.

I was really excited when I first saw this thread. I hope science makes some really amazing discoveries to knock our socks off soon. I'll be praying.

reply to post by sirnex


Have you ever studied physics? Einstein's theories have been constantly validated by experiment. Many of today's technologies are based on the observations predicted by his theories.

just Sigh.