Drew Baden, chairman of the physics department at the University of Maryland, said it is far more likely that there are measurement errors or some kind of fluke. Tracking neutrinos is very difficult, he said.
"This is ridiculous what they're putting out," Baden said, calling it the equivalent of claiming that a flying carpet is invented only to find out later that there was an error in the experiment somewhere. "Until this is verified by another group, it's flying carpets. It's cool, but ..."
Nope. I think that is a good idea to just wait this out and see if the findings from CERN are verified. Even if it is, I see no reason to totally rewrite all of Physics.
The Associated Press: Roll over Einstein: Law of physics challenged
I think that is a good idea to just wait this out and see if the findings from CERN are verified.
ReplyDeleteOf course.
Even if it is, I see no reason to totally rewrite all of Physics.
And that's why you are not a scientist.
All we know of Physics is not dependent on special relativity.
ReplyDeleteStick to finance.
You'll embarrass yourself less....just a little of free advice.
ReplyDeleteYeah, no, you are right, general relativity only describes gravity and that has nothing to do with physics.
ReplyDeleteBut I'll trust Subir Sarkar, head of Oxford's Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics over a non-scientist apologist like you when he says "If this is proved to be true it would be a massive, massive event. It is something nobody was expecting. The constancy of the speed of light essentially underpins our understanding of space and time and causality, which is the fact that cause comes before effect. The key point underlying causality is that the laws of physics as we know them dictate that information cannot be communicated faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Cause cannot come after effect and that is absolutely fundamental to our construction of the physical universe. If we do not have causality, we are buggered."
But that's cool, Marcus doesn't see any reason, if this is proved to be true, to rewrite physics. Don't worry everyone! Why am I not surprised that your view of science is consistent with your dogmatic, self-severing view of religion?
#1 - I said "Special relativity" because special relativity is about light.
ReplyDelete#2 - Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity can be completely wrong and it would not affect or change how we deal with Classical physics.
#3 - An example of what I'm talking about is how much does speed of light play into the ideal gas law? Or howabout the momentum of billiard balls on a pool table? or what about calculating kinetic energy of a moving car? Y'know? The rest of Physics.
#4 - I have not written anything conflicting with Subir Sarkar or any of the Professors that I studied under at UC Berkeley when we discussed these very possibilities back in the 1990's!
#5 - I clearly stated that I was referring to classical physics - which we still have not figured out how to combine Quantum Mechanics, Classical physics, and General/Special relativity together - the point of the Grand Unifying Theory.
#6 - This isn't going to change how we talk about air in a balloon or building bridges or anything on the scale or speeds at which we normally live. I'm talkling about the day-to-day problems solved through engineering and modeling the world that we can't do without Physics.
#7 - Calm down.
#8 - What's "self-severing view of religion"?
#9 - How is denying the Bible's validity as a staring point (without any reason) for how you reason any less dogmatic than accepting it's validity? News Flash: It's not.
#10 - God loves you even though you have no idea what you are talking about.
Nice try, but don't give up that day job.