Einstein Got It Wrong?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
Paul98: There is a difference between having knowledge on a subject and being able to see if what someone is saying has any barring in reality.

M: I know. Your ignorance is self evident to me. You are what I'd call a stuffed cabbage.

P: And not knowing anything on a subject and just throwing out random speculation, where if you did have knowledge on the subject you would see where you are wrong.

M: It is not possible for me to be wrong or throw out stuff as random speculation. As I said, I was providing my friend with what I think are interesting ideas. As a born physics genius and deep speculator on the nature of reality, I find interest in things you may not be able to comprehend. At any rate, what I find interesting and what you think I should find interesting makes me laugh. I vastly prefer my opinions over yours. I see you as a self impressed egotistical fool and so I address you as one.

P: what are you talking about with this "flat earth" bs? Do you have scientific data that supported flat earth? Do you think I believe what I believe because of a consensus?

M: I think your failure to assess what I was doing and turn me into some backward hick speaks volumes about how lacking in insight you are. Perhaps you have one of the variations on autism that makes you people deaf. Who can say.

P: No I believe it because i have studied it, looked at the tests done, and how the speed of light works and how relativity works. If I have questions I get them answered, and figure out the explanation. If I don't understand a certain part or why something is the way it is I ask so that I understand the reasoning and data behind what I am learning. Continue to ask why not just get the answer but understand it. To a point where why is just an observed phenomenon such as the speed of light is constant to all inertial observers.

M: Hehehe You are almost as taken with yourself as I am. The only difference is that I don't believe in anything. I don't take theories to bed and make love to myself because I think they are deep and I understand them. I believe you blind yourself with your belief. You have become a worshiper.

But since you know so much perhaps you can tell me, what problems in cosmology present themselves if light speed is a constant.

If you study and understand something you can see where the weakness are, where more study needs to be done. Plus when reading these articles you can see if it's total nonsense or not.[/QUOTE]
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
I'm not familiar with this formula.

But as a layperson, this doesn't strike me as something much different than pointing out how Einstein's formula wouldn't be correct if the neutrino did in fact attain a hyper light speed.



OK. That seems easily understandable. Not sure what it's got to do with this subject though. Are you implying some error in measurement?



Please explain "violation of causality", what it means as regards the zippy neutrino..

TIA

Fern

A fundamental postulate of special relativity is that if - in an inertial reference frame - one event (X) occurs earlier in time than another event (Y) at the same location in that reference frame, then X will occur earlier than Y in ANY inertial reference frame. X is said to "cause" Y, and this postulate is what is known as "causality." Frankly, it's rather common sense.

But if faster-than-light speeds are possible, then as a consequence there will be reference frames in which Y will occur earlier in time than X. That is, causality will be violated.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
One of the reasons that the scientific community is so skeptical of faster-than-light speeds for particles with positive rest mass is that the Lorentz factor

1/SQRT(1 - (v**2)/(c**2))

which accurately predicts observed time dilations and moving masses, becomes an imaginary number if v > c.

The Lorentz factor is a direct consequence of one of the most famous (to physicists) postulates in physics: The speed of light is the same for all inertial reference frames. That is, if you are moving at constant speed relative to me, and we both measure (with perfect equipment and 0 experimental error) the speed of the same passing beam of light, we will come up with identical values. This will be true regardless of the velocity of your reference frame relative to mine - whether it's 5 MPH or 99% of the speed of light, it will make no difference.

This postulate and its consequences have stood the test of time. One consequence of faster-than-light speeds would be a violation of causality.

So it seems very, very unlikely that the reported result will be validated.

There are plenty of theoretical treatments of the breaking of lorentz invariance in special cases. Neutrinos are a good candidate for it.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
Paul98: There is a difference between having knowledge on a subject and being able to see if what someone is saying has any barring in reality.

M: I know. Your ignorance is self evident to me. You are what I'd call a stuffed cabbage.

P: And not knowing anything on a subject and just throwing out random speculation, where if you did have knowledge on the subject you would see where you are wrong.

M: It is not possible for me to be wrong or throw out stuff as random speculation. As I said, I was providing my friend with what I think are interesting ideas. As a born physics genius and deep speculator on the nature of reality, I find interest in things you may not be able to comprehend. At any rate, what I find interesting and what you think I should find interesting makes me laugh. I vastly prefer my opinions over yours. I see you as a self impressed egotistical fool and so I address you as one.

P: what are you talking about with this "flat earth" bs? Do you have scientific data that supported flat earth? Do you think I believe what I believe because of a consensus?

M: I think your failure to assess what I was doing and turn me into some backward hick speaks volumes about how lacking in insight you are. Perhaps you have one of the variations on autism that makes you people deaf. Who can say.

P: No I believe it because i have studied it, looked at the tests done, and how the speed of light works and how relativity works. If I have questions I get them answered, and figure out the explanation. If I don't understand a certain part or why something is the way it is I ask so that I understand the reasoning and data behind what I am learning. Continue to ask why not just get the answer but understand it. To a point where why is just an observed phenomenon such as the speed of light is constant to all inertial observers.

M: Hehehe You are almost as taken with yourself as I am. The only difference is that I don't believe in anything. I don't take theories to bed and make love to myself because I think they are deep and I understand them. I believe you blind yourself with your belief. You have become a worshiper.

But since you know so much perhaps you can tell me, what problems in cosmology present themselves if light speed is a constant.

If you study and understand something you can see where the weakness are, where more study needs to be done. Plus when reading these articles you can see if it's total nonsense or not.
[/QUOTE]

LMAO wow troll much?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126

LMAO wow troll much?[/QUOTE]

Of course, but you should call me a magician because my understanding transcends yours by centuries and the form of my thinking is too advanced for you to understand. I pity your religious piety but there's not much more that I can do. You are a true believer. A pity you will never make a good scientist. The greatest error a mind can make is to assume it understands what it doesn't understand at all. As I said, you would have been right at home thinking the earth was flat. Poor sad idolater.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
Of course, but you should call me a magician because my understanding transcends yours by centuries and the form of my thinking is too advanced for you to understand. I pity your religious piety but there's not much more that I can do. You are a true believer. A pity you will never make a good scientist. The greatest error a mind can make is to assume it understands what it doesn't understand at all. As I said, you would have been right at home thinking the earth was flat. Poor sad idolater.


You have yet to show a single thought of your own, or any basic understanding of physics... good show

Edit: You have yet to say anything other than insults, until you say something that shows your opinion matters I will continue to think that you have no grasp about what you are talking about or what these articles are talking about.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
Of course, but you should call me a magician because my understanding transcends yours by centuries and the form of my thinking is too advanced for you to understand. I pity your religious piety but there's not much more that I can do. You are a true believer. A pity you will never make a good scientist. The greatest error a mind can make is to assume it understands what it doesn't understand at all. As I said, you would have been right at home thinking the earth was flat. Poor sad idolater.


You have yet to show a single thought of your own, or any basic understanding of physics... good show[/QUOTE]

Where did you get the idea that I needed to understand physics to pass on a link to a friend? I told you I passed on what I thought he might find interesting. You seem not to have liked the content of the links I gave and that caused you to go ape shit like a little arrogant asshole. Who the fuck cares what you think. I intended my links for the person I addressed in each of them. Nobody asked for your fucking stupid opinion, you idiot. I explained that quite nicely the first time but you insisted on making a bigger ass of yourself than you already did. What kind of fucking moron thinks it's his job to evaluate the interest somebody I intended the links for might have. Me and Hay have talked physics in the past so I passed on some new things I've seen. And where's my list of problems in cosmology with light speed as a constant or do you not know of any? And do you have problems relating to people? I want to be very nice to you if you do. Your inability to grasp the context here and the emotional implications may not be your fault.

I remember long ago when I was a junior in high school in the senior physics class the only test question I actually conceptually missed. I was given the radius of a steam engine piston, the force exerted by the steam, and all the pertinent variables to compute the horse power of the engine but I got it wrong. Do you know why? I still kick myself today for missing the obvious. I assumed I knew how to solve the problem. What did I miss? I don't remember the formula now how to solve this and what you need to know but it involves the surface area of the piston.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
looks like your the only one atm. :whiste:

I don't give a fuck what he thinks, but that he dares to pretend to. He prostrated himself at my feet so I had to help him. I don't give a shit what he thinks but I care about him. I try never to let anybody wander away from me unimproved. I hope this corrects your false thinking.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I don't give a fuck what he thinks, but that he dares to pretend to. He prostrated himself at my feet so I had to help him. I don't give a shit what he thinks but I care about him. I try never to let anybody wander away from me unimproved. I hope this corrects your false thinking.

you're such a loon moonbeam
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
well I guess I will get back on topic instead of trying to deal with delusional rantings.

I really hope this isn't an "error in measurement", and it's figured out how and why they are moving faster than c. I will have to go through the setup and data in the near future. What I hope to see is some one try to get results that ether confirm or disprove the results.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
well I guess I will get back on topic instead of trying to deal with delusional rantings.

I really hope this isn't an "error in measurement", and it's figured out how and why they are moving faster than c. I will have to go through the setup and data in the near future. What I hope to see is some one try to get results that ether confirm or disprove the results.

Trying to claim something is delusional rantings without proof or demonstration IS delusional ranting. Such profound illogic is not befitting somebody who expresses an interest in science. It is totally unscientific. Real claims require proof of the kind I just provide you with. And I take it the obvious problem with the piston question escapes you. No matter.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
This is toooo funny... must.. resist.. urge.. to not provoke. Are you ever going to put forward a thought on this subject? How it might effect relativity, or if it's an error where they are coming from?

If this turns out to be true I would love to see some more tests on this. Like how would velocity addition work to bring something greater than c. Did we just a new upper limit? Is c the lower limit of neutrinos? Is it due to there lack of interaction that causes them to move the way they do? Is it there weird properties?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
Paul98: This is toooo funny... must.. resist.. urge.. to not provoke.

M: You long ago lost that battle.

P: Are you ever going to put forward a thought on this subject? How it might effect relativity, or if it's an error where they are coming from?

M: I put a few links to Hayabusa. That was my intention. I had no thoughts on the subject at first other than to point out how wrong your assumptions were after you started making them. I have no idea how something can go faster than light nor do I know if it can't. I am simply open to any possibility and interested.

P: If this turns out to be true I would love to see some more tests on this. Like how would velocity addition work to bring something greater than c. Did we just a new upper limit? Is c the lower limit of neutrinos? Is it due to there lack of interaction that causes them to move the way they do? Is it there weird properties?

M: Unlike you I don't like to trap myself with assumptions. I don't like to assume I have the right questions to ask. I believe the empty mind that holds no opinions is the mind that will answer this riddle if there is one.
 

sarsipias1234

Senior member
Oct 12, 2004
312
0
0
I think I follow you, but I'm arriving at a completely opposite conclusion.

I'll try to explain - The neutrino travels from point "X" to Point "Y". If it does so in .1 amount of time (from our perspective) it is traveling at exactly the speed of light. If it travels that distance in less time (it's perspective, time moves more slowly), it is traveling faster, faster than the speed of light.

So if time slowed from the perspective of the neutrino, yet it still traveled the same distance, speed increased from that perspective. Same distance, less time = faster speed.

Fern

I think you are getting the relative observations or perspectives confused.

Neutrino's Perspective: Shorter distance in less time equals the same speed according to neutrino.

At rest Perspectve: Same distance in same time equals the same speed according to at rest observer.

In other words, the two observations are "related" or "connected" by light.

Or, in other words, the observation from the perspective of the photon of light is that the photon is at rest and the rest of the universe is zipping around in such a fashion as to preserve correlation of observed events or to preserve cause and effect.
 
Last edited:

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
You have yet to show a single thought of your own, or any basic understanding of physics... good show

Edit: You have yet to say anything other than insults, until you say something that shows your opinion matters I will continue to think that you have no grasp about what you are talking about or what these articles are talking about.

Paul your viewing this form a perspective that is pure physics and that you can comprehend or formulate the ans. OK good for you . Moonbeem may not know physics as well as you do . But he does allow for something that you do not . No matter what you can formulate and comprehend of physics there is always one constant that can not be proven . and thats is there is always the possiability of an unknown . This possiability at this moment in time from our perspective is unknown . BUT in another time it is a known .

In another reply They were discusssing Casualities, were x+ beats x to z. Likely another value needs to be added frequency. will just call frequency Q If x+Q = xQ than they are in phaze and a casuality won't occur . IF xQ+< > xQ they are out fo phaze and a casuality will occur . Everthing depends on Frequency and flow. Moonbeem is likely correct and the unknown is known from another perspective
 
Last edited:

bradley

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2000
3,671
2
81
Time for the scientific communty to finally re/vist Tesla's criticisms of Einstein, if they are remotely curious in the truth.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I think you are getting the relative observations or perspectives confused.

Neutrino's Perspective: Shorter distance in less time equals the same speed according to neutrino.

At rest Perspectve: Same distance in same time equals the same speed according to at rest observer.

In other words, the two observations are "related" or "connected" by light.

Or, in other words, the observation from the perspective of the photon of light is that the photon is at rest and the rest of the universe is zipping around in such a fashion as to preserve correlation of observed events or to preserve cause and effect.
I think maybe we have been limiting ourselves by thinking of light in this way. It probably stems from our heavy reliance on our eye sight. But I'm probably just wrong.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
40,898
10,227
136
Mods, are these kinds of personal attacks allowed? It's totally uncalled for.
Dude, that's nothing. Have you checked this place out? I'd much rather have those kinds of statements perfectly permissible than start making people paranoid by putting the mods on watch for egregious slights. Check the First Amendment. The freedoms we have here are one of the reasons I like this place. There are plenty of other reasons, but freedom to speak your mind, be yourself, use "dirty" words, etc. are wonderful aspects of Anandtech Forums. Other places I have to be much more in self censorship mode, not very cool.
 
Last edited:

D1gger

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
5,411
2
76

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
:( There goes the excitement. Scientists can be such killjoys, with all their facts and stuff.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Einstein Got It Wrong?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44629271/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TnuzquzGAoM

IMO, not much cooler than going faster than the speed of light.

I hope Fermilab confirms this. Then I'm curious about the resulting impact on science and what will develop from this.

Fern

Fermilab was shut down when the U.S. lost out on the bidding for CERN.

The only staff left has been dismantling it.

The U.S. is a 2nd world country now in everything including science.

:(