[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

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

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.

--

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

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.

--

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

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


--

On Nov 20, 1:10*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
*Davey Crockett 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.

We'll know next Tuesday

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

On Nov 20, 5:33*pm, Scott wrote:
On Nov 20, 1:10*pm, Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
*Davey Crockett 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.

We'll know next Tuesday

You'll know next Tuesday, but I've made arrangements
with CERN to get the message on Monday.

Fredmaster Ben