question is: are we sticking with Einstein?

Oh! Wouldn't that be sad? All that effort just to find out the number was wrong all the time.

Never thought about that as a possibility before.

-jim lee

 

What seems to be missing here is an better understanding of the fundamentals, which honestly is pretty complex. I've had more then a passing interest since high school, when quarks were imaginary, but theorized bits and waiting for a neutrino to react in an impact in a huge pool or pure H2O was just a fantasy. Both are now confirmed.

The majority of folks see time and distance as linear, but they're not. This causes untold difficult trying to get your head around this stuff, much like Einstein's revaluations about Newtonian physics.

And like Einstein was to Galileo and Newton's theories, he will be supplanted, possably soon, as despite the elegance of E=MC squared, it's a flawed formula and why he spent the remainder of his life unable to develop a satisfactory quantum mechanics theory. This is because the "constant" also isn't linear, let alone constant. A photon can travel faster and slower then 671 million MPH at times.

This description of mass energy equivalence (E=MC2) and the subsequent acceptance of the incomplete special relativity promotes a belief ,that the universe is a disorderly place with no absolute principle, except for the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum. Additionally, the way special relativity deals with mass, or more precisely the way we weigh it, causes problems. Topping it all off, is the current understanding that the speed of light has likely changed over time, which goes a long way toward the next step and unseating E=MC2 as the premeditate explanation and understanding the expansion of the universe, from our time/distance window.

This sucks more then you can realize, as I'm probably a lot like Tom and fairly conventional, so having to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity with several additional dimensions is tough to grasp. At present I'm a supersymmetry type 1 kind of guy (I think), but have trouble with many portions of it, though no difficulty at all with tachyons, though the theory is a sans tachyon debate. Maybe this means I'm a Bosonic theory guy, but I have enough trouble with the ten dimensions of supersymmetry, compared to the 2 dozen of Bosonic.

 

They could have fixed the Eurozone debt crisis with the dosh spent on that LHC, so they better find something interesting.

 

Despite it's popularity, I have a gut feeling multiple universes and supersymmetry are incorrect.

Both seem to be like taking a jigsaw and cutting out one large, complicated piece to fill in the part if your puzzle with the missing pieces.

Very messy stuff. Unification needs to be much more simple.

 

To retain the "boating" context, - it seems Neutrino drive will get you there faster than Photon drive? - - - Sadly may not work on boats that travel on top of a body of water in a gravity equivalent to Earth.... - And since space is not a pure vacuum, not there either? - - - Thus some device like the Tardis, may be all that is viable? - moving via improbability drive to keep the language simple and broadly accepted as science fiction and therefore non-threatening to understand, because all that is needed then, is to accept it...

M-theory... Just imagine meeting several frosty's and several masalais... Aaahhhhhhhiiiiiiii........ Time travel is convenient sometimes - Posted Sunday 19:30H

 

Unlike the beauty of Einstein's mass–energy equivalence formula, the reality of quantum mechanics and general relativity reconciliation will undoubtedly be complex. String theory is the next step, even if 26 dimensions have to be accepted.

String theory allows for the consistent combination of quantum theory and general relativity, it agrees with accepted understanding in quantum gravity and has passed scrutiny in testing, though no substantive predictions have yet come forth, this is just a matter of time (figuratively). Stephen Hawking is on board with "M-theory", though I'm not yet, he's a wee bit above me in this regard. This theory in a nut shell, is the Mother of all string theories. It's 10 additional dimensions (11 including this one, except the one Frosty is in ) is easier to swallow, but requires acceptance of duality.

 

Sounds like a terrific way to bring on a migraine.

 

Well, I've read in this morning's papers that GPS was involved in the distance measurement during this experiment so I would not give up on old Einstien too soon.

 

Is it simply that through Earth's gravitational environment and not in a pure vacuum, Neutrinos can travel faster than Photons anyway?

 

I think leaving it to the boffins on the payroll to nut it out would be the best plan.

 

Don't give too much credit to what can be read in the newspapers. The first accounts of this discovery was talking about neutrinos speed being 60 nanoseconds higher than the speed of light. Evidently in those journalists' world the road speed limits are expressed as "max. 1 minute", "max. 3 minutes" etc.

Those guys at CERN (hundreds of scientists from all over the world) have checked their methods and accuracy extremely well, before coming out with such sensational data.

By the way, in this pdf of one of the latest seminars regarding OPERA experiment: http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it/IMG/pdf/seminar_opera.pdf you can admire in awe (or at least, I did) the complexity of the experimental work and apparatus used in those laboratories.

Here is the official technical report of the experiment: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

Cheers

 

My comment was tongue-in-cheek. I'm sure they know what they're doing,I certainly don't.

 

It's pretty thick stuff, but if you have an interest you can get a grasp and then it's not so mind boggling. Abstract for sure, but not as much as Bolger's ideas of aesthetics, on his box boats.

 

LOL!!!

 

HMMM, There is a "speed of light",

But gravity is INSTANT ?