|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] Speed of Light
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...no-result.html -- Davey Crockett Flying the Flag of the English The Flag of Hengest and Horsa http://azurservers.com:7080/rbr/englishdragon.jpg |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] Speed of Light
In article ,
Davey Crockett wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...no-result.html An experiment was performed. What reliable inferences can be made remains to be seen. A better expression of the speed of light as an upper limit is that information cannot transfer in an inertial frame of reference faster than c. Building a neutrino radio poses a severe challenge. -- Michael Press |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] Speed of Light
On 20/11/2011 20:10, Michael Press wrote:
In , Davey wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...no-result.html An experiment was performed. What reliable inferences can be made remains to be seen. A better expression of the speed of light as an upper limit is that information cannot transfer in an inertial frame of reference faster than c. Building a neutrino radio poses a severe challenge. Well yeah except that neutrinos have mass so we are not talking about just information, we are talking about something with actual mass that *appears* to be able to travel c. If this turns out to be true (we are still far from establishing that for sure) then some brand new physics is gonna be needed. -- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] Speed of Light
atriage a écrit profondement:
| On 20/11/2011 20:10, Michael Press wrote: | In , | Davey wrote: | | http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...no-result.html | | An experiment was performed. What reliable | inferences can be made remains to be seen. | A better expression of the speed of light as an | upper limit is that information cannot transfer | in an inertial frame of reference faster than c. | Building a neutrino radio poses a severe challenge. | | Well yeah except that neutrinos have mass so we are not talking about | just information, we are talking about something with actual mass that | *appears* to be able to travel c. If this turns out to be true (we | are still far from establishing that for sure) then some brand new | physics is gonna be needed. I want to wait and see what Penrose has to say about it. But in all probability the community is going to split between the pro-Einsteinists and the New-Science factions with the arguments going on for decades. -- Davey Crockett Flying the Flag of the English The Flag of Hengest and Horsa http://azurservers.com:7080/rbr/englishdragon.jpg |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] Speed of Light
On 20/11/2011 21:33, Davey Crockett wrote:
atriage a écrit profondement: | On 20/11/2011 20:10, Michael Press wrote: | In , | Davey wrote: | | http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...no-result.html | | An experiment was performed. What reliable | inferences can be made remains to be seen. | A better expression of the speed of light as an | upper limit is that information cannot transfer | in an inertial frame of reference faster than c. | Building a neutrino radio poses a severe challenge. | | Well yeah except that neutrinos have mass so we are not talking about | just information, we are talking about something with actual mass that | *appears* to be able to travel c. If this turns out to be true (we | are still far from establishing that for sure) then some brand new | physics is gonna be needed. I want to wait and see what Penrose has to say about it. But in all probability the community is going to split between the pro-Einsteinists and the New-Science factions with the arguments going on for decades. Physicists *really* don't want this result to stand. Physicists hate tachyons because the retro-causality found in quantum physics would suddenly get upgraded to *real* world status. This is not something physicists like. -- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Light
On Nov 20, 2:43*pm, atriage wrote:
On 20/11/2011 21:33, Davey Crockett wrote: atriage a écrit profondement: | On 20/11/2011 20:10, Michael Press wrote: | *In , | * *Davey * wrote: | | *http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s.../Speed-of-ligh... | | *An experiment was performed. What reliable | *inferences can be made remains to be seen. | *A better expression of the speed of light as an | *upper limit is that information cannot transfer | *in an inertial frame of reference faster than c. | *Building a neutrino radio poses a severe challenge. | | Well yeah except that neutrinos have mass so we are not talking about | just information, we are talking about something with actual mass that | *appears* to be able to travel *c. If this turns out to be true (we | are still far from establishing that for sure) then some brand new | physics is gonna be needed. I want to wait and see what Penrose has to say about it. But in all probability the community is going to split between the pro-Einsteinists and the New-Science factions with the arguments going on for decades. Physicists *really* don't want this result to stand. Physicists hate tachyons because the retro-causality found in quantum physics would suddenly get upgraded to *real* world status. This is not something physicists like. --- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The physicists I know don't get emotional about these kind of discoveries. As the late great Richard Feynman said, if you don't like the way physical reality works (quantum lecture), then go and find something else to do. Phil H |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] Speed of Light
On 20/11/2011 20:21, atriage wrote:
If this turns out to be true (we are still far from establishing that for sure) then some brand new physics is gonna be needed. Maybe it's because I'm not a scientist, but it has always seemed obvious to me that there can be no "laws" of physics, nature, whatever, because we know very little about anything, not even ourselves. Of course, mankind being inherently stupid, always think they do despite generations of change. You can extrapolate all you like on seemingly irrefutable evidence but the odds are you'll be proven wrong one day. The "laws" of physics are simply more evidence of man's immaturity and lack of understanding. OTOH, who gives a ****? None of it's real... UD |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] Speed of Light
On 20/11/2011 22:21, Uncle Dave wrote:
On 20/11/2011 20:21, atriage wrote: If this turns out to be true (we are still far from establishing that for sure) then some brand new physics is gonna be needed. Maybe it's because I'm not a scientist, but it has always seemed obvious to me that there can be no "laws" of physics, nature, whatever, because we know very little about anything, not even ourselves. Of course, mankind being inherently stupid, always think they do despite generations of change. You can extrapolate all you like on seemingly irrefutable evidence but the odds are you'll be proven wrong one day. The "laws" of physics are simply more evidence of man's immaturity and lack of understanding. The Laws of Physics are an interesting discussion...where do they exist?...when were they created or are they prior to time?...why do they exist?...When will the Jan Ullrich verdict be reached...all these are seemingly unanswerable questions. OTOH, who gives a ****? None of it's real... It's all in the eye of the beholder...as they say. http://www.oikos.org/radcon.htm -- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Light
On Nov 20, 3:21*pm, Uncle Dave wrote:
On 20/11/2011 20:21, atriage wrote: If this turns out to be true (we are still far from establishing that for sure) then some brand new physics is gonna be needed. Maybe it's because I'm not a scientist, but it has always seemed obvious to me that there can be no "laws" of physics, nature, whatever, because we know very little about anything, not even ourselves. *Of course, mankind being inherently stupid, always think they do despite generations of change. You can extrapolate all you like on seemingly irrefutable evidence but the odds are you'll be proven wrong one day. *The "laws" of physics are simply more evidence of man's immaturity and lack of understanding. OTOH, who gives a ****? *None of it's real... UD Dumbass, Yes, I think it's because you're not a scientist. Laws are descriptions of natural phenomena, not rules of a game. They''re known to be incomplete. When some anomaly happens that breaks the previously known laws, that's when we learn something new. This is as distinct from, say, the UCI, who find a way to outlaw the anomaly (example: Graeme Obree). I think many physicists still suspect this neutrino result is likely to be a subtle problem with the timing (like synchronizing the timing at the two locations, which is non trivial since they're both moving). This isn't because scientists wish it would go away and stop distracting us from our lunchtime training rides, but because extraordinary discoveries require extraordinarily good evidence. Fredmaster Ben |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Light
On Nov 20, 3:21*pm, Uncle Dave wrote:
On 20/11/2011 20:21, atriage wrote: If this turns out to be true (we are still far from establishing that for sure) then some brand new physics is gonna be needed. Maybe it's because I'm not a scientist, but it has always seemed obvious to me that there can be no "laws" of physics, nature, whatever, because we know very little about anything, not even ourselves. *Of course, mankind being inherently stupid, always think they do despite generations of change. You can extrapolate all you like on seemingly irrefutable evidence but the odds are you'll be proven wrong one day. *The "laws" of physics are simply more evidence of man's immaturity and lack of understanding. OTOH, who gives a ****? *None of it's real... UD UD, what a sad take on science. It strives to understand how the universe works so it can predict outcomes; a very important ingredient to technological development. Rather than being proved wrong, often a more inclusive truth is discovered. In the case of Newton's laws of motion, they work very well at lower velocities but not at velocities approaching the speed of light. Hence Einstein's more inclusive special relativity. Phil 'I give a ****' H |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Speed of Light | [email protected] | General | 42 | May 2nd 07 04:50 PM |
does a light bike equal more speed for a heavy rider? | [email protected] | UK | 47 | October 19th 06 05:13 PM |
High-end Single Speed Mt. Bike - Ventana "El Toro" - Super Light! | ClimbTheMtns | Marketplace | 0 | April 30th 06 05:02 PM |
Speed of light cycling | elyob | UK | 20 | May 19th 05 01:59 PM |
Polar Power: Cadence light works, no data to monitor (Speed works) | Andrew F Martin | Techniques | 9 | February 20th 05 06:24 AM |