Faster than light? Someone with a big brain can help?

[drawfull]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8783011/Speed-of-light-broken-by-scientists.html

If this is verified (as I said)...

[newmanfamilyvlogs]

I've read a bit of speculation in the past 20 or so minutes regarding this.. One comment that struck me was the suggestion that instead they have come up with a more refined definition for the speed of light. Most other speculation was measurement inaccuracies in the distance traversed, being that 60ns of lightspeed worked out to something like 30cm, which is around 4.15×10^7% of the total distance.

I'll really be interested when a third party transmits information this way.

[SavannahLion]

It's probably just proof of Schrödinger's cat. No laws were broken.

Just a thought. Since they were probably measuring at that precise moment, it probaly registered at that precise moment.

[Gatt]

It's not impossible that there's some other factor in play there that is yet undiscovered,  and Neutrinos would make sense as an object that would demonstrate the presence of the factor.

Neutrinos,  have very low mass,  and pass through objects with ease,  and are electrically neutral.  They're pretty different from the particles we know very well,  like electrons and protons.

Conceivably,  there could be some other factor that falls outside of our range of senses,  that functions as a constant on a macroscopic scale in our atmosphere and under our gravity,  but has a different value outside of it.  We have very little data,  if any real data,  outside of the realm of our solar system,  and precious little data outside of our planet.  We've made alot of assumptions that what holds true here,  holds true everywhere.  There's no reason the actual equation couldn't be E/X = MC^2 where X is some factor we haven't yet recognized.

Don't get me wrong,  Einstein was an unparalleled Genius I wouldn't compare to even if he were sleeping,  I'm just saying he made his discoveries based on what we know,  and there's no reason there couldn't be a factor that has remained constant in our experiments thus far,  but is actually capable of varying.  Something outside the realm of our senses,  and thus far undiscovered because we haven't had direct inference of it's effect yet.

[Donkbaca]

Conceivably,  there could be some other factor that falls outside of our range of senses,  that functions as a constant on a macroscopic scale in our atmosphere and under our gravity,  but has a different value outside of it.  We have very little data,  if any real data,  outside of the realm of our solar system,  and precious little data outside of our planet.  We've made alot of assumptions that what holds true here,  holds true everywhere.  There's no reason the actual equation couldn't be E/X = MC^2 where X is some factor we haven't yet recognized.

This is wrong.  We have not made "assumptions"  we have tested theories, there is a distinction in that.  The main reason we believe these things to be true is that these theories can be tested in a predictive nature, the whole "if x then y".  There is a great reason why E/X = MC^2, its the fact that if E=MC^2 then we shouldn't be able to control and predict things like nuclear reactions.  If there were no universal laws, then science wouldn't be worth studying because then everything would be a special case.

Its likely a measuring error, or something to do with the quantum nature of the particles, I doubt its a fundamental flaw in one of the cornerstones of physics, but hey, you never know.

[pinballwizard79]

Whatev

The expansion of our universe & everything in it (even my Cruis'n World arcade) currently outpaces light speed (relative to what is unknown) so obviouisly there are laws FROM other dimensions that influence ours.

We try to put rules & theories of how it all works or might work but at the end of the day we are here, not there, so its all for nothing.

Do you think CERN can build a working Star Wars controller & actually ship it?

[SuprSprint]

Its likely a measuring error, or something to do with the quantum nature of the particles, I doubt its a fundamental flaw in one of the cornerstones of physics, but hey, you never know.

I tend to agree.  The odds of an error in one experiment vs. the odds of a consistent error in all experimental data to date is significant. After all, experimentally measuring and calculating "c" is one of the first experiments done by a freshman physics student. My gut says additional energy or time dilation was not accounted for somewhere.

That said, it is not at all impossible that c is indeed variable but appears constant for our frame of reference. Once upon a time, we thought time was invariant....

[vcoleiro1]

Hopefully this will open the door for time travel so that you may one day travel back in time to your favourite arcade. Once there you will be able to shock and awe everyone with your amazing arcade gaming skills which unknown to them would have been gathered by you in there future.

[Crazy Cooter]

it could also be indicative of space warping so the neutrinos travelled AT the speed of light but travelled less distance than what our frame of reference (and our measuring points to calculate their speed) physically measured.

(think of contour lines and imagine a Doppler effect that the neutrino travels across but we are unable to measure/detect)

[Donkbaca]

What if WE all slowed down! Whoa! Pass the bong!

[pinballwizard79]

I'm starvin

http://www.chebahut.com/menu.html

[Gatt]

Conceivably,  there could be some other factor that falls outside of our range of senses,  that functions as a constant on a macroscopic scale in our atmosphere and under our gravity,  but has a different value outside of it.  We have very little data,  if any real data,  outside of the realm of our solar system,  and precious little data outside of our planet.  We've made alot of assumptions that what holds true here,  holds true everywhere.  There's no reason the actual equation couldn't be E/X = MC^2 where X is some factor we haven't yet recognized.

This is wrong.  We have not made "assumptions"  we have tested theories, there is a distinction in that.  The main reason we believe these things to be true is that these theories can be tested in a predictive nature, the whole "if x then y".  There is a great reason why E/X = MC^2, its the fact that if E=MC^2 then we shouldn't be able to control and predict things like nuclear reactions.  If there were no universal laws, then science wouldn't be worth studying because then everything would be a special case.

Its likely a measuring error, or something to do with the quantum nature of the particles, I doubt its a fundamental flaw in one of the cornerstones of physics, but hey, you never know.

Ah,  but we have made assumptions,  a great many of them.  We're assuming that we can see and/or measure everything that affects particles.  We state that "Nothing can move faster than light" because we're assuming we have all of the components of the equation,  and that it's not at all possible that there's anything in existance that could affect our equations that we are not aware of.  

We even have strong indicators that we are missing key pieces of equations,  we created "Dark matter" and "Dark Energy" to try and kludge in something to fit the results we think we should have,  rather than accepting that there's probably stuff we don't know of.  In no small part due to ego that drives us to refuse to admit there can be anything we don't understand.

There's no reason why there cannot be some things we are not aware of that have significant effects.  In fact,  to be honest,  it's *very* highly likely there are.  Because all of our efforts are focused on controlling and contemplating things that fall within our realm of senses,  that we may be akin to blind-cavefish,  lacking a sense to perceive an entire realm of physics,  never gets explored.

I mean,  2,000 years ago an Alchemist would've told you we knew everything there was to know about fire.  The idea of Oxygen,  Carbon Dioxide,  and Hydrogen would've been "Insane" to him.  Strike the stones together,  get fire every time.  It was reproducible.

[Donkbaca]

You would be right, it weren't for the fact that we can mathematically prove these assumptions and use them to predict real world outcomes, like nuclear energy.  Its possible we missed something consistently in the literally millions of applications in this theory. Or it's possible that this ONE expirenent is flawed. It just seems the later is more likely.

As for me I am rooting for the,"we are all slowing down " theory that I posted earlier. Who's on my bandwagon? I say we take that bandwagon to 7-11 for slurpees and doritos, then join up and herbally meditate some more

[HaRuMaN]

[Malenko]

"I pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in spaaaaaaaaaaccceeeeeee.....



cause I'm afraid that we've been cheated here on Earth."

[RayB]

It's incredibly complex but I'm sure the people involved have thought of the obvious things, like rotation of the earth on its own axis and around the sun. Think about it, neutrinos pass through most matter, but the emitter and the receiving sensor are both stationary and moving with the earth. Once the neutrino is "launched", the position of the receiver is not a straight line, but a curve to account for it moving with the planet's axis and its orbit around the sun AND the solar system's movement within the galaxy AND....  That's quite the complex equation so I am in the "there's been a calculation error somewhere" camp.

[Vigo]

Neutrinos, huh? So those hot rodding teenagers from Dimension X in the 80's TMNT cartoon broke the speed of light?

[newmanfamilyvlogs]

Hmm.. So the earth revolves around the sun at 28.9 km/sec, or  28.9 m/ms...

From Phil Plait:

The distance from the detector in Italy to the source in Geneva is about 730 km. The travel time at the speed of light is about 2.43 milliseconds, and the neutrinos appear to have outraced that speed by 60 nanoseconds.

The thing to do is to look at where this claim might have gone awry. First, the timing is interesting. They claim a measuring accuracy of 10 nanoseconds, so 60 ns would be pretty significant. However, my first thought is that light travels about 30 centimeters in 1 ns, so they need to know the distance between the source and the detector to an accuracy of 3 meters. If they are off by 20 meters, then we’re done; that would explain the difference entirely. I suppose this depends on how they measured the distance and the speed of the particles, too.

So the earth moved somewhere around around 70.2 meters in the period of time it took for the particles to travel the 730km. I'm guessing for that much movement, the neutrinos must have the velocity in that direction added to by the movement of the earth, wouldn't it miss the detector, otherwise?

[Mikezilla]

Neutrinos, huh? So those hot rodding teenagers from Dimension X in the 80's TMNT cartoon broke the speed of light?

HAHAHA I was waiting for someone to mention this! I was going to have to do it myself, if good ol Vigo didnt do it before me! Good job! 

[Sir Headless VII]

Sounds like a bunch of unicorn farts or something to me.

Shame to see educated people waste so much time studying things that will do absolutely nothing to improve our situation in the real world.

It's true science has never produced anything useful.

[Vigo]

HAHAHA I was waiting for someone to mention this! I was going to have to do it myself, if good ol Vigo didnt do it before me! Good job! 

You can count on me for that 80's reference, especially the TMNT references. 

[SuprSprint]

@Gatt - I'm not sure you could be more wrong.  True science is not only aware of variables beyond their control, it actively seeks to isolate and understand them. Take this experiment for example. The scientists involved are challenging the validity of a constant that has remained unassailed for over 100 years. They have published their findings are are actively soliciting scrutiny.

Regarding dark matter, that's not a kludge, it's a placeholder for an unknown/unobservable quantity (i.e. "dark").  It is not an attempt to ignore the unknown, but to acknowledge, quantify, and speculate what it it and how it affects the known.

For that matter, the entire LHC project exists solely for the purpose of probing for the unknown.

As for science not producing anything useful, I would suggest you open up the computer you are typing on and look at the CPU chip for awhile. Without science, semiconductors don't exist.

Once the neutrino is "launched", the position of the receiver is not a straight line, but a curve to account for it moving with the planet's axis and its orbit around the sun AND the solar system's movement within the galaxy AND....

Not unlike the electron beam in your CRT, the neutrino beam is guided to the target by man-made magnetic field. The effect of external forces is accounted for, but for all practical purposes the movement is one dimensional.



 

[Samstag]

</obligatory xkcd>

[SuprSprint]

Dark matter exists only because scientists all took the bait on "big bang" and didn't want to admit they were wrong as soon as the red shift data came back.

They were calling it "ether" 100 years ago.  Just as nonsensical.

Clearly you have the answers, so why don't you share your explanation with us? Perhaps you could even provide us with the word you use for these unknown quantities, so the rest of us will no longer sound "nonsensical".

That is unless you just wanted to thread crap...

[ark_ader]

Dark matter exists only because scientists all took the bait on "big bang" and didn't want to admit they were wrong as soon as the red shift data came back.

They were calling it "ether" 100 years ago.  Just as nonsensical.

Clearly you have the answers, so why don't you share your explanation with us? Perhaps you could even provide us with the word you use for these unknown quantities, so the rest of us will no longer sound "nonsensical". That is unless you just wanted to thread crap.

 

[Vigo]

I think the point is that dark matter is merely theory stacking. The empirical data didn't add up on the big bang theory, so rather than going back to the drawing board on it, they shove in dark matter to make it work. The problem is there is no direct evidence of dark matter, and it relies on the big bang theory to be held up to begin with. That in itself is a circular reference, and it goes against scientific method to still call them supported theories at this point.

[scofthe7seas]

Clearly you have the answers, so why don't you share your explanation with us? Perhaps you could even provide us with the word you use for these unknown quantities, so the rest of us will no longer sound "nonsensical".

That is unless you just wanted to thread crap...

He's not saying he has the answers, he's just saying that they don't have the answers yet. And I agree. So many scientific theories are accepted as scientific fact. It annoys the ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- out of me when someone uses scientific theory to "prove" a point.

[SuprSprint]

I think the point is that dark matter is merely theory stacking. The empirical data didn't add up on the big bang theory, so rather than going back to the drawing board on it, they shove in dark matter to make it work. The problem is there is no direct evidence of dark matter, and it relies on the big bang theory to be held up to begin with. That in itself is a circular reference, and it goes against scientific method to still call them supported theories at this point.

Sorry, but your reply shows a marked lack of knowledge of the theories in question, the process, and the scientific method itself. But for reference;

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

So many scientific theories are accepted as scientific fact. It annoys the ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- out of me when someone uses scientific theory to "prove" a point.

Like the Theory of Gravity, quantum mechanics, etc...

[Donkbaca]

I don't remember no dark matter being talked about in the good book!

[SuprSprint]

I don't remember no dark matter being talked about in the good book!

True. But it didn't mention color TV and microwave ovens either and I'm pretty sure they exist...

[Dervacumen]

Sounds to me like another example of the whole of science not being a perfect representation of actuality.  I mean, as a whole we're trying to make sense of the world around us and we construct these theories, test them and move on based on the result of the results.  Science isn't right or wrong, but it's undoubtedly the best thing we have going.  It just isn't perfect.  Philosophically speaking, you can never prove anything in science to be right anyway, only wrong.  And maybe this experiment proved the famous equation wrong.  Maybe there's another variable in there that holds the value zero in almost all instances.  Except this one.  But I'm kinda with Donk on this.  I think we had a crossover of different planes of existence at the exact moment the speed was attained.

[Vigo]

I think the point is that dark matter is merely theory stacking. The empirical data didn't add up on the big bang theory, so rather than going back to the drawing board on it, they shove in dark matter to make it work. The problem is there is no direct evidence of dark matter, and it relies on the big bang theory to be held up to begin with. That in itself is a circular reference, and it goes against scientific method to still call them supported theories at this point.

Sorry, but your reply shows a marked lack of knowledge of the theories in question, the process, and the scientific method itself. But for reference;

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

Your unnecessary jabs on me aside, I was really thinking that I might have missed something about dark matter when I read the title of this article you posted, especially considering the source was NASA. Maybe real direct proof of dark matter did exist. The article was over six years olds, and I remember reading about scientist trying to directly prove dark matter this year with no luck.

I then read the article and found it much more presumptive and faulty than the speed of light article. In short, the article is a NASA scientist claiming they proved dark matter because they observe a star cluster collision in space and it didn't collide the way they expected it to. They then turned that into "well, if there was dark matter there, that would probably explain why it acted that way. Zero proof, zero emperical data, just a hypothesis. A great example about how even "top scientists" abuse the scientific method. At least the speed of light article had empirical data backing it, even if that data could be wrong.

Also, I think you don't know the difference between dark matter theory and dark matter itself. Some form of matter that fits into the dark matter category exists. Neutrinos. We know they exist, but they do nothing to prove dark matter theory, that over 80-90 of the matter in the universe is composed of dark matter. The big bang theory was 80-90% off in its calculations, so they filled the mass end of the equation. Neutrinos are far too light in mass to be real candidates of the dark matter that would fill the equation.

[SuprSprint]

Your unnecessary jabs on me aside

I'm sorry you took it that way. It wasn't intended as a jab, but an observation based on some of your comments.

I think you don't know the difference between dark matter theory and dark matter itself.

The Georgia Institute of Technology does not agree with your assessment.

[danny_galaga]

Sounds like a bunch of unicorn farts or something to me.

Shame to see educated people waste so much time studying things that will do absolutely nothing to improve our situation in the real world.

It's true science has never produced anything useful.

Has anyone else read Timescape, by Gregory Benford. Now we can warn the past about heinous wrongs in the present, like Crocs

[SuprSprint]

Sounds to me like another example of the whole of science not being a perfect representation of actuality...

Exactly.  Science itself is the neverending quest for the perfect representation. Even 1000yrs from now, it will not be "complete".

I think we had a crossover of different planes of existence at the exact moment the speed was attained.

You don't even have to get that fancy.  You can change reference frames without changing dimensions.  As such, simple velocity dependent time dilation or spatial warping will satisfy the solution and maintain a constant C.

There's no monetary value in this discovery and millions are still dying from malaria.

Agree and disagree. That there is no value, disagree.  That it is a crying shame that we spend BILLIONS on political footballs, while just a few millions would saves countless lives from malaria, cholera, etc. is an travesty of criminal magnitude.

[Howard_Casto]

There's no monetary value in this discovery

Your point? 


It annoys the hell out of me when people want to put a price on everything.  Most things, the really important things, need to be done regardless of the cost. 

And it's a sad thing because a lot of people in the world today share this rather small, short-sighted view of the world. 

It is the reason our country is so politically divided anymore.

 Half of the country says:  "Man we have some serious social, environmental and economic issues that need tended to.  We should really buckle down and start writing policy to handle these things." 

While the other half says:  "Even though a fool could see that these problems are a reality, we have discovered that fixing these problems would cost a lot of money.  Therefore we will argue that they don't exist... ignoring reality."


Getting back on topic:

We cross over planes of existance daily.  100% of all possible realities are valid, as this is the only way to avoid the "grandfather paradox."  Therefore at the point before action of any maniplulation of our environment, either direct or indirect we are at the threshold of an infinate divergance of timelines.  Each timeline represents the possible actions and a whole mathmatical cascade of piled-on cause and effect realities.  Based on the action that actually occurs (in our reality anyway) we seamlessly pass through into the proper causality branch. 

This happens an infinate amount of times every smallest quantifiable passage of time. 

So in a sense we are all "sliders".  That means that in a sense I am Jerry O'Connell.  So I really need to get on the phone with my lawyer about those missing "My Secret Identity" royalities. 

[newmanfamilyvlogs]

[scofthe7seas]

Like the Theory of Gravity, quantum mechanics, etc...

Did you really just put the theory of Gravity(sic) next to the theory of quantum mechanics?

[SuprSprint]

Did you really just put the theory of Gravity(sic) next to the theory of quantum mechanics?

Yes, and your point is?

[scofthe7seas]

Did you really just put the theory of Gravity(sic) next to the theory of quantum mechanics?

Yes, and your point is?

You really really don't think they are different?

What with one being consistently proven and established, and the other being constantly modified, redefined, refined, and reexamined? No difference there?

Richard Feynman -  "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

[SuprSprint]

What with one being consistently proven and established, and the other being constantly modified, redefined, refined, and reexamined? No difference there?

What the average person knows as gravity (Newton's Law) is but a small piece case of a much broader theory of gravitation that depends on general relativity. i.e. the theory of gravity is also constantly in flux, you just don't hear about it. To bring it full circle to this thread, proof of ambiguity in the constancy of "c" would force us to re-examine everything we know about the theory of gravity.

That said, my point was that you used "theory" in the colloquial sense w/r/t someone presenting a scientific topic. They may be spelled the same but "theory" in general usage has a very different meaning than "theory" in the scientific vernacular. In general use a "theory" is little more than a hunch or best guess.  However, in scientific parlance a theory has been evaluated, critiqued, peer reviewed, found to be accurate, and while subject to improvement is widely accepted by the scientific community as fact.

Gravity is, and forever will be, just a theory. And as you pointed out about gravity, it makes no sense to rebuff a well established concept simply on the basis that it is a "theory".

[RayB]

+1 to the DooLittle man (your name is an understatement)

[Donkbaca]

I don't believe in gravity, my pastor said that everything is held together by His love.

[Vigo]

What with one being consistently proven and established, and the other being constantly modified, redefined, refined, and reexamined? No difference there?

What the average person knows as gravity (Newton's Law) is but a small piece case of a much broader theory of gravitation that depends on general relativity. i.e. the theory of gravity is also constantly in flux, you just don't hear about it. To bring it full circle to this thread, proof of ambiguity in the constancy of "c" would force us to re-examine everything we know about the theory of gravity.

That said, my point was that you used "theory" in the colloquial sense w/r/t someone presenting a scientific topic. They may be spelled the same but "theory" in general usage has a very different meaning than "theory" in the scientific vernacular. In general use a "theory" is little more than a hunch or best guess.  However, in scientific parlance a theory has been evaluated, critiqued, peer reviewed, found to be accurate, and while subject to improvement is widely accepted by the scientific community as fact.

Gravity is, and forever will be, just a theory. And as you pointed out about gravity, it makes no sense to rebuff a well established concept simply on the basis that it is a "theory".

Scofthe7seas was referring to it correctly, the theory of gravity has not really changed much since Einstein, and yes it is a specific scientific theory standing as a cornerstone of physics. Quantum mechanics is an entire branch of physics embodying a physics on the quantum level. While Quantum mechanics began with Heisenberg's "quantum field theory", the entire field of physics built upon it is opten referred to as "quantum theory", much of which is so hypothetical that it has not been backed by any majority of the scientific community nor accepted as remotely provable to begin with. Show me empirical poof of string theory, and we will talk. 

[Howard_Casto]

The problem about physics is 90% of it is impossible to prove, thus why we are always stuck in "theory land".  Mathmatical proof is usually the closest we can get. 

In the example of string theory, from what I understand the math is super high level.  Usually when something that's complex like that comes out it just takes a long time for the dumber scientists to "get it"  thus why it isn't widely accepted yet. 

I'm not saying that string theory is correct, I'm just saying... it's pretty new... lots of dumb scientists out there. 

[scofthe7seas]

Show me empirical poof of string theory, and we will talk. 

Vigo, per your request : The Imperial Poof of String Theory

[SuprSprint]

the theory of gravity has not really changed much since Einstein, and yes it is a specific scientific theory standing as a cornerstone of physics.

And yet it remains just a theory, and as such deemed by the OP to be unworthy of being used to prove a point.  QED

much of which is so hypothetical that it has not been backed by any majority of the scientific community nor accepted as remotely provable to begin with.

Having spent a *considerable* amount of time in the Department of Physics at major university, I can tell you that quantum theory is far from "not been backed by any majority of the scientific community".  But since you probably wouldn't recognize any of the local experts names, I'd suggest that you study the works of Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie, Schrodinger, et.al.  If you prefer more recent names, perhaps you would recognize Richard Feynman or Stephen Hawking.

Even going beyond names into specifics, the wave nature of matter has been tested and substantiated countless times. Wave-particle duality is demonstrable by any 1/2 decent high school student, and was debated for centuries before quantum mechanics provided a mutually inclusive solution.  Quantum tunneling forms the basis of the electron microscope, radioactive decay, and more recently quantum semiconductors and computing devices.

[Vigo]

the theory of gravity has not really changed much since Einstein, and yes it is a specific scientific theory standing as a cornerstone of physics.

And yet it remains just a theory, and as such deemed by the OP to be unworthy of being used to prove a point.  QED

I never said it wasn't a theory, I am just stating that is one very specific theory substantiated and used time and time again, where quantum physics is a branch of Science.

much of which is so hypothetical that it has not been backed by any majority of the scientific community nor accepted as remotely provable to begin with.

Having spent a *considerable* amount of time in the Department of Physics at major university, I can tell you that quantum theory is far from "not been backed by any majority of the scientific community".  But since you probably wouldn't recognize any of the local experts names, I'd suggest that you study the works of Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie, Schrodinger, et.al.  If you prefer more recent names, perhaps you would recognize Richard Feynman or Stephen Hawking.

Even going beyond names into specifics, the wave nature of matter has been tested and substantiated countless times. Wave-particle duality is demonstrable by any 1/2 decent high school student, and was debated for centuries before quantum mechanics provided a mutually inclusive solution.  Quantum tunneling forms the basis of the electron microscope, radioactive decay, and more recently quantum semiconductors and computing devices.

I think you are missing the forest from the trees in my point. I'm sure much of quantum physics is heavily backed and heavily substantiated. I only pointed out that much isn't. Quantum physics has become a big, wide open term covering A LOT of ground. No need to "cred flash" or whip out big names because I know this already. My point has always been my problem with the theories that are not based on any real world data, but based on computer models or mathmatical simulations with pre-existing notions built into the model. If there is no applicable way to test the hypotheses outside of the model, then according to scientific method it should never be considered theory. Period. If there is no applicable way to experiment yet, too bad.

The core problem with models is that is falls into an assumption based logic pitfall. e.g.: If the cat eats poison, he will die. The cat died, therefore he must have had eaten poison. While there may be a number of reasons that the cat could have died, the parameters set up allows one to only see the solution already proposed.

[SuprSprint]

I am just stating that is one very specific theory substantiated and used time and time again, where quantum physics is a branch of Science.

And I am stating that your impression that gravitational theory is unshakable, while quantum theory is ever changing and unreliable is simply inaccurate. That may be your view from the outside where fragments of research are released as news articles, but that simply is not reality. For example; the experiment that started this thread raises questions about the validity of the theory of gravity.

I'm sure much of quantum physics is heavily backed and heavily substantiated.

That differs quite a bit from your last post where you proclaimed;  "much of which is so hypothetical that it has not been backed by any majority of the scientific community nor accepted as remotely provable to begin with."

No need to "cred flash" or whip out big names because I know this already.

No disrespect intended, but your comments are typical someone with only a superficial knowledge of physics research. No one actually involved in the physics community would have ever tried to make an argument that quantum theory is; "not been backed by any majority of the scientific community nor accepted as remotely provable to begin with".

My point has always been my problem with the theories that are not based on any real world data, but based on computer models or mathmatical simulations with pre-existing notions built into the model. If there is no applicable way to test the hypotheses outside of the model, then according to scientific method it should never be considered theory. Period. If there is no applicable way to experiment yet, too bad.

First, "not based on any real world data" is more hyperbole just like your previous statement.  Furthermore, your assessment that there is "no applicable way to test" is indicative of what you don't know about the state of research.  Devices like the LHC (the subject of this thread) are specifically constructed to delve into the inner workings of sub-atomic particles, and thus test the predictions of highly complex theories.

The core problem with models is that is falls into an assumption based logic pitfall. e.g.: If the cat eats poison, he will die. The cat died, therefore he must have had eaten poison. While there may be a number of reasons that the cat could have died, the parameters set up allows one to only see the solution already proposed.

Grotesquely over-simplified, almost to the point of being a mockery of the process.

Because it is often impossible to directly validate a hypothesis at this level, real physics research typically doesn't test to see why the cat died, but rather why he didn't die. After many different researchers exclude thousands of other possibilities, the hypothesis that he died of poison is validated as a theory. And even after a theory is widely accepted as fact, it continues to be validated as it tenets are incorporated into other research, and that research yields the predicted responses. At any time if ONE of these thousands of tangential experiments produces anomalous results, re-evaluation of the theory begins.

FWIW, that is *exactly* what took place in the test that started this thread.  An accredited research facility studying sub-atomic particles came up with a data set that appears to show that a 100 year old theory may be flawed. They weren't testing the speed of light. They were testing something entirely different that depends on general relativity, which in turn depends on the speed of light. And that how many of these theories that you have deemed "not based on any real world data" are tested. And they are tested time and time again, you just don't hear about it because it's buried in the details.

In any case, you've already made up your mind that quantum mechanics, the Easter bunny, and unicorn farts are all fiction. You are grossly mistaken about the first one, but I'm not going to waste any more time trying to change that...

EDIT: Scof's criticism noted and childish comment stricken. FWIW, "unicorn farts" was PinballJim's choice of words, not mine.

[scofthe7seas]

See, you keep saying things like "No disrespect intended" but then you make snotty little comments like at the bottom regarding the Easter bunny and unicorn farts(?!?). I would ask if you knew how pretentious you were, but I'm positive you can't.
Nothing you have said has made my feelings on "theory" vs what is assumed as fact change. If anything, your ridiculous rants regarding everything ever being changeable and unproven backs up my statement. I'm not going to say I know everything ever (EVER! Apparently.) about physics. I'm willing to admit that (as I'm certain gives you a sense of satisfaction, a slight wiggle in your chair with a smirk). But I also know human nature. People like to believe they have "it" figured out. I'm willing to say we don't know. About a lot of things, and it annoys me that people like you can poop out reels of data "proving" your point, and in a year or two backpedal stating that we didn't know such and such at the time. Things exactly like the big bang theory, which for the longest time just = yes, and has been reverted to the status of = maybe? but was FERVENTLY insisted upon.
Like I said, I'm not going to get into a long and complicated discussion about these things, as I wouldn't know the half of it. But you know what? Neither do you.

You:

[Donkbaca]

To those new to the thread here is a summary:
Everyone: - Science is all pixie dust and make believe"
Pdoolittle: -  No its not, its actually a well thought out series of reasoned, provable thought
Everyone - Its all just theory, its a waste of time, we don't know anything and can prove anything
PD - Um, actually we CAN prove some stuff, and thanks to what we have grown to understand we have created things like that computer which you are using your clunky neandrathal hands on right now
Everyone - its all just opinion, nothing is real
PD - actually there is thing called the scientific method, and yes it is real
Everyone - what makes you think your opinions are better than ours?
PD - I am a scientist with hands on intricate knowledge
Everyone - I don't see how you can think your views are any better than mine
PD - but I am a scientist, its sort of my job to understand these things
Everyone - I think everyone's opinions should be treated the same
PD - But its not opinion, I am just trying to educate you people about what is going on
Everyone - we don't need no education
Everyone - Hey I love Pink Floyd!
Everyone - Pink is such a a lame-o color, and what is with the Wizard of Oz TOTALLY ripping off dark side of the moon, or something like that!
PD - (shakes head and walks away)

[Hoopz]

It's always a treat when someone says "I'm not going to waste any more time..." and then they post 25 more times before the thread goes to Post Hell.

 

[Vigo]

I have to laugh because pldoolittle is proving EXACTLY my point through his argument. My only point has been that there are crap theories out there that much scientific community bites on and calls a true theory even without any form of real proof, and if one questions these "theories", a belittling tirade will ensue from much of the scientific community. Dark matter theory being the biggest of these proclaimed theories. Time and time again they failed to find proof, yet call it a theory. I am not saying it is true or false, I am saying that that they are jumping the gun when calling it scientific theory. This is elementary science, you have to prove your hypothesis.

Instead of pldoolittle showing me scientifically how there is any proof showing that 80% of the universe is dark matter, he jumps on me, displays "superiority" by boasting his science skillz, takes my words way out of context, and rabidly insist that I am wrong to question the validity of this unproven theory...even though scientific method is designed to question everything. Yet in all this, he could have simply proved the theory to begin with, which he, nor any scientist can do. The one link mentioned earlier is not proof either. Speculation is not a replacement for prediction and observation. Hence the core problem, much of the scientific community does not follow the scientific method.

I'm not calling the data or research bad, these are good things. It's just presumptuous to call them "true until disproven" theories. In doing so it cuts down and belittle alternate ideas that arise, which is critical to scientific advancement.

[danny_galaga]

Meh, we coulda done this 20 years ago in America but Congress pulled the plug and devastated my town! 

There's no monetary value in this discovery and millions are still dying from malaria.  The Swiss should go back to making sour cheese.

To quote Benjamin Franklin- "what use is a new born baby?"

There is no reason why research can't be had in physics AND malarial issues. You haven't made a valid argument for anything since the two subjects aren't related- People are still dying in car accidents for lack of safety advances, therefore there should be no more development in the field of agriculture...

Seems to me we are going to hear that these results aren't what they first appeared to be. But all knowledge is valid.

[Ond]

To those new to the thread here is a summary:
Everyone: - Science is all pixie dust and make believe"
Pdoolittle: -  No its not, its actually a well thought out series of reasoned, provable thought
Everyone - Its all just theory, its a waste of time, we don't know anything and can prove anything
PD - Um, actually we CAN prove some stuff, and thanks to what we have grown to understand we have created things like that computer which you are using your clunky neandrathal hands on right now
Everyone - its all just opinion, nothing is real
PD - actually there is thing called the scientific method, and yes it is real
Everyone - what makes you think your opinions are better than ours?
PD - I am a scientist with hands on intricate knowledge
Everyone - I don't see how you can think your views are any better than mine
PD - but I am a scientist, its sort of my job to understand these things
Everyone - I think everyone's opinions should be treated the same
PD - But its not opinion, I am just trying to educate you people about what is going on
Everyone - we don't need no education
Everyone - Hey I love Pink Floyd!
Everyone - Pink is such a a lame-o color, and what is with the Wizard of Oz TOTALLY ripping off dark side of the moon, or something like that!
PD - (shakes head and walks away)

I enjoyed this summary more than I enjoyed this thread - more summaries please!

[Howard_Casto]

To those new to the thread here is a summary:
Everyone: - Science is all pixie dust and make believe"
Pdoolittle: -  No its not, its actually a well thought out series of reasoned, provable thought
Everyone - Its all just theory, its a waste of time, we don't know anything and can prove anything
PD - Um, actually we CAN prove some stuff, and thanks to what we have grown to understand we have created things like that computer which you are using your clunky neandrathal hands on right now
Everyone - its all just opinion, nothing is real
PD - actually there is thing called the scientific method, and yes it is real
Everyone - what makes you think your opinions are better than ours?
PD - I am a scientist with hands on intricate knowledge
Everyone - I don't see how you can think your views are any better than mine
PD - but I am a scientist, its sort of my job to understand these things
Everyone - I think everyone's opinions should be treated the same
PD - But its not opinion, I am just trying to educate you people about what is going on
Everyone - we don't need no education
Everyone - Hey I love Pink Floyd!
Everyone - Pink is such a a lame-o color, and what is with the Wizard of Oz TOTALLY ripping off dark side of the moon, or something like that!
PD - (shakes head and walks away)

I hate to burst your bubble, but in the rhealm of Astrophysics most things can't be proven according to the strictest definition of the scientific process.  You can't experiment and you can't test and repeat results.  Sure there are some very very basic things that you can do with super-colliders, but it's incredibly primative in terms of the data that can be understood and recorded from such experiments.  Physicists use math to help support their theories, but without physical, repeatable, observations, or lab experiments they can never be proven.  Some day many of the theories might be proveable but only when we have advanced to the point of which we would already know as common knowledge anyway.

Many of the "sciences" are like this.  Psycology comes to mind.  Aside from some rudimentary understanding of how the brain works and which areas of the brain (which is actually more related to other fields of science) we know absolutely nothing about the emotional makeup of a person and what effects it.  Almost anything we can prove is either really really basic stuff or stuck in "theory land" because we just don't have a core understanding of what we are trying to study. 

So long story short, we don't know anything, or rather we know very little. 


Let's use this example: 

Let's say you want to study an apple.  Easy right?  You can touch it, take photos, measure it's size and density.  You can cut it up take an analysis of it's composition ect... 

Now let's say somebody moves the apple two miles away before you ever lay eyes on it and you aren't allowed to get any closer. 

Things are considerably harder now, but you can still learn a little.  We know it's an apple, so we can compare it to other apples by viewing it via a high powered telescope.  We can establish a few facts, like the profile of the apple, it's color, ect.  Many things would be stuck as theories though.  We couldn't be sure of the density and size due to the inability to handle the apple.  Mind you the theories are pretty much fact due to studies on other apples, but we could never be certain. 


Now let's say that the apple is two miles away, but you don't know it.  What's more we don't even know what an apple is.  We MIGHT stumble upon the apple via observation, but it's unlikely.  Even if we do ther isn't any frame of reference so any theories would be rampant speculation with zero facts other than perhaps "there is something over there".

Taking those analogies into account this is how the sum of human knowledge breaks down: 

0.000000001% Is the apple in our hand. 

0.999999990% Is the apple two miles down the road.

99% Is the apple two miles down the road that we don't even know exists. 

And I'm being EXTREMELY generous with the first two. 

[Vigo]

KABLAM! CERN miffed it.

http://now.msn.com/now/0608-cern-admits-einstein-right.aspx?ocid=media_nowcontrol2


Einstein is still top dog and his redheaded step child is allowed back into the Burger King kids club. All is right with the world. 

[Samstag]

KABLAM! CERN miffed it.

http://now.msn.com/now/0608-cern-admits-einstein-right.aspx?ocid=media_nowcontrol2


Einstein is still top dog and his redheaded step child is allowed back into the Burger King kids club. All is right with the world. 

</obligatory xkcd>

Time to go collect my winnings!

[SithMaster]

Whatev

The expansion of our universe & everything in it (even my Cruis'n World arcade) currently outpaces light speed (relative to what is unknown) so obviouisly there are laws FROM other dimensions that influence ours.

We try to put rules & theories of how it all works or might work but at the end of the day we are here, not there, so its all for nothing.

Do you think CERN can build a working Star Wars controller & actually ship it?

Cern is too busy making jelly bananas unfortunately.

[fascco]

Conceivably,  there could be some other factor that falls outside of our range of senses,  that functions as a constant on a macroscopic scale in our atmosphere and under our gravity,  but has a different value outside of it.  We have very little data,  if any real data,  outside of the realm of our solar system,  and precious little data outside of our planet.  We've made alot of assumptions that what holds true here,  holds true everywhere.  There's no reason the actual equation couldn't be E/X = MC^2 where X is some factor we haven't yet recognized.

This is wrong.  We have not made "assumptions"  we have tested theories, there is a distinction in that.  The main reason we believe these things to be true is that these theories can be tested in a predictive nature, the whole "if x then y".  There is a great reason why E/X = MC^2, its the fact that if E=MC^2 then we shouldn't be able to control and predict things like nuclear reactions.  If there were no universal laws, then science wouldn't be worth studying because then everything would be a special case.

Its likely a measuring error, or something to do with the quantum nature of the particles, I doubt its a fundamental flaw in one of the cornerstones of physics, but hey, you never know.

I think you missed the point about "constants".
Let me rephrase what I believe he was trying to say...


There are assumptions, scientific community is split in at least two halves regarding many of the essential theories.

It's because more than one theory can explain the same phenomena, practically it's about constants. "Constant" is a number you look up in some table where other variables you get by taking measurements. Each constant potentially presents a whole world of complex interactions, but it also can be used to hide that complexity and so to simplify our equations, and then they are just substitutes for measured or deduced quantities of unknown origin or cause.

It's just that, there is only one constant. One universal. It is the only real truth. Causality - action, reaction. Cause and effect. It's what gives you that "if x then y", and what is called "exact science". Newton law of motion for example has no constants, only causality: F= m*a, and once you confirm it indeed describes (predicts) reality then you know that relation is the actual signature of a true physical law.

And then there is quantum mechanics, contradicting those basic laws of motions. However QM is not exact science to start with, it's "statistical science", and there is no more "if x then y", no more cause and effect, but it's all about chance, probability and likelihood. It's full of constants and look-up tables, no real equations since you are not supposed to even be able to make any proper measurements according to it. Still you can get working and useful equations, but you get lots of them, with lots of constants, lots exceptions and special cases, and it's ugly.

It's similar to fluid dynamics in some way, where even though the interaction on molecular scale is rather random and very complex there is some harmony emerging from within that chaos, so as a result you can simplify a lot of it and substitute with constants without any concerns about micro-dynamics going on deeper inside.


Although not as bad as QM there are lots of constants (unknowns) in General and Special Relativity as well, but the real point here is that all of these theories contradict each other, they only work within boundaries of their own domain. It is widely believed this disagreement means all of them are incomplete and so there is this quest to find "unified theory of everything".

Only, there is not enough money to test everyone's theory, so the sad story not many are aware of, even though it is well documented throughout the history of science, is that "scientists of old" are always holding onto their positions and reputations, to the extent they are willing to label everything else as a hoax, so the real truth may very well be with some poor guy locked away in asylum. What I am trying to say here is that history teach us we should never be too sure in our present theory, even if it works and explains. It's that skepticism towards your own believes that makes you keep trying, experimenting and discovering, finding even better theories. Otherwise scientists too could just write their own bible believing they already know everything and then that would be it, the end of science.