Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

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


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110922



Hot damn. Hopefully their calculations are correct.

meh

I heard this earlier. Cool but obviously a discovery that violates all understanding of physics, should be repeated before we go all crazy.

Looking good so far.

I'll wait for someone else to do it before I go bouncing off the walls.

Oh, i'd be very happy if this turns out to be true; physics would have another boom dealing with such a huge problem. Who knows what kind of stuff we could figure out. I'm just keeping a cautious watch.

Good article on the implications, and many physicists explaining the call for caution:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/23/science-light-idUSL5E7KN33E20110923

I was talking about this with a lab mate, apparently the people who found the results assume there is a methodological problem in their analysis, since the result is so consistent.

Hopefully the American collider goes for the replication

This rustles my jimmies.

Originally posted by inimalist
I was talking about this with a lab mate, apparently the people who found the results assume there is a methodological problem in their analysis, since the result is so consistent.

Hopefully the American collider goes for the replication

I think it would be cooler if there was something odd about neutrino generation that no one knew about.

The most interesting idea I've heard is that because Maxwell's Equations (from whence comes the constant c) were pre-quantum physics they didn't account for the effects of vacuum energy on the electrical and magnetic constants.

I bet an Albicurre warp metric occurred.
Next: FTL combat reflexes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think it would be cooler if there was something odd about neutrino generation that no one knew about.

The most interesting idea I've heard is that because Maxwell's Equations (from whence comes the constant c) were pre-quantum physics they didn't account for the effects of vacuum energy on the electrical and magnetic constants.



"just-so" theories exist in physics then too?

It is interesting, I have no idea about physics at this level, so I can't really comment. It will be huge if it replicates, but one of the things I found really refreshing was talking about how the scientists presenting this data themselves talked about it. Apparently they released it in order to have someone figure out where they are wrong. After, iirc, 15000 trials or whatever, they are still incredibly skeptical about their results, whereas, it would be simple for someone without that level of hubris to just run wild with various theories. If it pans out, there is fame no matter what, but to see them choose to be skeptical in the face of such a potentially monumental discovery is, idk, praiseworthy?

Some are pooping themselves over information transmission into the past.


So much is wrong with that such as "where are the transmissions of stuff from the future?"

I heard the suggestion of "we already observed the maximum variance in information transmission into the past" and the collection and retransmission of that information takes longer than the net "gain" into the past that that information travels. Meaning, it will be impossible to chain up some transmissions to get a significant net gain to send stuff into the past.


For one, you'd have to have a machine already built to collect that information. If you send it into the past far enough...the machine never gets built. Someone has to be listening to get the information. So **** you time travel hopefuls.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So much is wrong with that such as "where are the transmissions of stuff from the future?"

Originally posted by dadudemon
For one, you'd have to have a machine already built to collect that information. If you send it into the past far enough...the machine never gets built. Someone has to be listening to get the information. So **** you time travel hopefuls.
Didn't this basically answer your own question?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Didn't this basically answer your own question?

???


That was...the entire point...because...it's not my own question.

who gives a shit? I'm more worried about the fact that Reese cups keep getting smaller. Maybe after someone cracks that mystery and returns my reese cups to normal size, then i can start caring about this

to be honest, most of your conversations are either too confusing to follow or i dont know enough about the topic for it too make sense. lmao, but it all sounds interesting.



Originally posted by dadudemon
???


That was...the entire point...because...it's not my own question.


isnt that why you had the question in quotes, cus it wasnt your own question? lol

Just saw more of this story on the news, and they brought to mind a good point: all prior challenges to special relativity have been proven wrong. So the track record for challenging Einstein is not a good one.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think it would be cooler if there was something odd about neutrino generation that no one knew about.
IIRC, some years ago, there was a problem involving solar emission of neutrinos: numbers weren't adding up, until it was discovered that neutrinos changed form (something like that). This "FTL" could be another neutrino trick.

I saw a report that speculated that these findings could be valid and still not contradict Einstein if we assume the existence of special pockets of space that neutrinos can 'zip through', IE some kind of slipspace.

Subatomic wormholes, perhaps?

Meps. Someone just probably spilled coffee on a crucial circuit.

Any word on an update for this? I was waiting to see if the findings could be confirmed or if it was another dud but I havn't heard anything yet.

afaik, there are less than half a dozen labs on the planet that actually have the technology needed to test the claims, and it costs millions to run the tests, and takes large amounts of time...

I wouldn't expect replications really quickly, idk for sure though

Let the temporal wars begin! Or would they already be on, yeah, that.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8783011/Speed-of-light-broken-at-CERN-scientists-claim.html


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110922



Hot damn. Hopefully their calculations are correct.

Simpsons did it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Some are pooping themselves over information transmission into the past.


So much is wrong with that such as "where are the transmissions of stuff from the future?"

I heard the suggestion of "we already observed the maximum variance in information transmission into the past" and the collection and retransmission of that information takes longer than the net "gain" into the past that that information travels. Meaning, it will be impossible to chain up some transmissions to get a significant net gain to send stuff into the past.


For one, you'd have to have a machine already built to collect that information. If you send it into the past far enough...the machine never gets built. Someone has to be listening to get the information. So **** you time travel hopefuls.

That's only if time is linear (which is isn't) and if there's only one time-line(which there isn't) and if the multiple time-streams aren't allowed to cross each other at points (they are).

There's a box; it's time you stepped outside of it, sir.

I like to come to know about it..!!

Originally posted by Robtard
That's only if time is linear (which is isn't) and if there's only one time-line(which there isn't) and if the multiple time-streams aren't allowed to cross each other at points (they are).

There's a box; it's time you stepped outside of it, sir.

There's so much wrong with what you said.


Time is linear.

There is only one time line.

And there is only one time stream.



Welcome to Quantum Physics because we are both right.


It depends on the lense you are using.




Based on this study, time would be linear...very much so. They setup the process assuming as such (because they did not expect information to travel back in time (or did they?))

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's so much wrong with what you said.

Time is linear.

There is only one time line.

And there is only one time stream.

Welcome to Quantum Physics because we are both right.

It depends on the lense you are using.

Based on this study, time would be linear...very much so. They setup the process assuming as such (because they did not expect information to travel back in time (or did they?))

Considering you took 4 days to respond, I am right; you are wrong on that merit along, but I'll indulge you nonetheless.

Time could not be linear.

There could be multiple time-lines.

There could be multiple time-streams.

But I am more right.

The multi-time dimensions don't care about your lenses.

This study needs to step outside the box too, cos Einstein just got smacked.

Originally posted by Robtard
Considering you took 4 days to respond, I am right; you are wrong on that merit along, but I'll indulge you nonetheless.

Originally posted by Robtard
Time could not be linear.

It is because their expirement resulted in a linear time transfer.

NEXT!

Originally posted by Robtard
There could be multiple time-lines.

Work with what is observed, not with what you theorize.

Originally posted by Robtard
There could be multiple time-streams.

Work with what is observed, not with what you theorize.


Originally posted by Robtard
But I am more right.

Actually, you would be less right. Yours requires additional information that does not exist or can presently be verified.

Two particles in two different places at once is not necessarily a time problem.

Originally posted by Robtard
The multi-time dimensions don't care about your lenses.

Except, of course, when it comes to real science.

Originally posted by Robtard
This study needs to step outside the box too, cos Einstein just got smacked.

Not really. By your own faith based theory (yes, you have faith in something that is not seen, but you hope is true...you jesus freak), Einstein could still be correct and light speed is still not violated.


You just got your ass thoroughly handed to you, btw. You probably will not realize how severely it got handed to you until about a year from now.


It will sink in.

There's a box; it's time your stepped outside of it. Time doesn't care about your narrow and limited views. Theories = science.

Next year, we'll work on you stepping out of the closet.

You just got your ass handed to you again; you know this but are too stubborn to admit.

Originally posted by Robtard
There's a box; it's time your stepped out of it. Time doesn't care about your narrow and limited view.

Next year, we'll work on you stepping out of the closet.

You just got your ass handed to you again; you know this but are too stubborn to admit.

I guess you didn't realize that all measures we do will be anthropic...so much so that even our measures of multi-temporal interactions will be reduced to something in our conscious plane of reference?




Shit, I gave away too much. You were supposed to figure some of that out on your own.


But I didn't give it all away.




There's also another theory that the multiple timelines is complete and utter bull-shit.



You do realize that I have both supported and not supported what you are saying, right?



And, I already came out of the closet: I do every day after getting dressed for work.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I guess you didn't realize that all measures we do will be anthropic...so much so that even our measures of multi-temporal interactions will be reduced to something in our conscious plane of reference?



Shit, I gave away too much. You were supposed to figure some of that out on your own.

But I didn't give it all away.

There's also another theory that the multiple timelines is complete and utter bull-shit.

You do realize that I have both supported and not supported what you are saying, right?

And, I already came out of the closet: I do every day after getting dressed for work.

That's a funny way of saying "Yeah, you spanked me, I should think outside the box more."

/)-

I've forgotten more than you'll ever know.

Exactly, more theories, but you're the one saying "this is right; this is wrong" as fact.

And I supported you supporting what I support.

Does the wife know?

Originally posted by Robtard
That's a funny way of saying "Yeah, you spanked me, I should think outside the box more."

Not really. Well, not at all.

Originally posted by Robtard
I've forgotten more than you'll ever know.

If I died when I was 5, that could very well be true.



Originally posted by Robtard
Exactly, more theories, but you're the one saying "this is right; this is wrong" as fact.

Am I, or are you? Go back and re-read our conversation. It will dawn on you...maybe.

Originally posted by Robtard
And I supported you supporting what I support.


You did not. You took my comments as being linear and single-pointed.

Originally posted by Robtard
Does the wife know?

Yes, that was the main reason she wanted to buy the house: the walk in closets.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not really. Well, not at all.


If I died when I was 5, that could very well be true.



Am I, or are you? Go back and re-read our conversation. It will dawn on you...maybe.

You did not. You took my comments as being linear and single-pointed.

Yes, that was the main reason she wanted to buy the house: the walk in closets.

Incorrect.

Incorrect and self-applauding.

^)>

Correct, you are.

Incorrect, I did.

Ghey.

Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect.

Incorrect and self-applauding.

^)>

Correct, you are.

Incorrect, I did.

Ghey.

It's correct.

Is it, or am I calling you weeeeeeeeeeaaaaak? Guess which one (You'll choose incorrectly, so I'll tell you: I was calling you weeeeaaaaak)

Nuh uhhhh!

I did not care where we moved: as long as I could repair stuff. I have before and after pictures of that stuff I have already done. You'll see.

Saw this a month ago on the net, and thought you know this will really float some boats on KMC. Surprised the thread has not grown much.

So Doc and Marty Mcfly's Back to the Future could turn Einstein into a dog. Oh, the irony.

Originally posted by YankeeWhaler
So Doc and Marty Mcfly's Back to the Future could turn Einstein into a dog. Oh, the irony.

Been awhile since I've seen those films, but I don't think a polymorph spell was part of the package.

i love star trek

all the talk about subspace, wormholes, time travel is all good fun

but in reality, it is all science FICTION

modern scientists of today hold on to pseudo holy grails of science, which limits their understanding of prevents true progression

take the big bang as an example, here is a "scientific" theory proposed by a catholic priest no less

most scientists blindly accept this theory as gospel, despite the fact that, when you actually think about it and use common sense, it is NONSENSE theory and no different than a creationist view of the cosmos

but people believe the theory because, well, everyone else does
why stray from the flock?

people coming up with all kinds of ridiculous excuses and trying to explain how this experiment might be wrong

maybe the simple truth is that.... einstein was wrong

are people scared of acknowledging this?

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
most scientists blindly accept this theory as gospel

No scientists said it was silly. Then someone made a prediction how the echo would look, cosmic microwave background radiation. It turned out to be the most mathematically perfect prediction in the history of physics.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Firas_spectrum.jpg

See the error bars on that graph? No you don't they're too small to be seen. You need to make them about a thousand times actual size in order to be visible.

http://www.xkcd.com/955/

Relevant.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No scientists said it was silly. Then someone made a prediction how the echo would look, cosmic microwave background radiation. It turned out to be the most mathematically perfect prediction in the history of physics.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Firas_spectrum.jpg

See the error bars on that graph? No you don't they're too small to be seen. You need to make them about a thousand times actual size in order to be visible.

where is the proof?

explain how you personally go from "look CMBR!" to "well that proves the big bang theory"

Originally posted by dadudemon
So much is wrong with that such as "where are the transmissions of stuff from the future?"


Silly, didn't you ever watch "L O S T"? You can't send things from the future because they change the past and/or create alternate realities - like when Biff ran the world when future Biff gave past Biff the gaming book.

C'mon, Doc drew that alternate future line on the chalkboard... It doesn't get simpler than that!

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
where is the proof?

If you take the math behind the Big Bang Theory and run it forward a few billion years you get CMBR of exactly the kind that we see. It predicts that a certain, incredibly precise, fact must be true. That fact turns out to be true and no one else can explain it. This make the BBT the best cosmological explanation we have.