Particles found to break speed of light?

[RegieRocker]

The status quo are hoping this isn't correct. The crashing of the house of science is about to begin.

(Reuters) - An international team of scientists said on Thursday they had recorded sub-atomic particles traveling faster than light -- a finding that could overturn one of Einstein's long-accepted fundamental laws of the universe.

What? How can that be? It can't be true, it's a theoretical fact!

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

The arrogance and ego of man never ceases to surprise me. Mankind doesn't know jack. Let it flow.

[malaise]

1. Hubby is still in shock

how dare anyone challenge the theory of relativity. This was shocking news on BBC this morning.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Oh for me it was...grand new vistas

This is how science works...and it might be a paradigm shift

Your hubby needs to read Kuhn on this...


http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083

[joshcryer]

7. This explains it more like:

[RegieRocker]

11. Go ahead and explain how science works. Enlighten us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Paradigms get supresceeded all the time

If anything that has accelerated over the years. One that is easy to understand. T-Rex has gone from slow and meandering to fast, agile and maybe some feathers. Oh an your chicken is a distant descendant of t-Rex. One thing Thst does not exist is dogma like thinking, and the few who are, are few.

[RegieRocker]

24. I hope that is the case. I however do not find that to be the

case with most people. I find hard cemented beliefs no matter what the side of the aisle.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Why I suggest readying khun

Hard readying on the philosophy of science...but this is the field where people admit mistakes the most. Hell, Hawkings recently admitted defeat in what happens to info that goes into a black hole. It took twenty years and the implications were as big as this. (Assuming they confirm it...Com'on Fermi, will take a little while). But that s also why they went...here the experiment, recreate it, please prove us wrong. That is the implication.

[RegieRocker]

33. It will be the next book I read.

[malaise]

31. I agree 100%

but more than a few folks are waiting for more tests.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. As it should be

:-)

[Warpy]

20. I've been waiting my whole life for this one

because the speed of light being the absolute speed limit in this universe just never rang particularly true to me. Or maybe it's just because I've always been a contrary sort with a lead foot.

If anything could be measured as exceeding the speed of light, it would have to be a neutrino, the weirdest of a whole host of weird subatomic particles.

What slays me about this is that they don't know if the neutrinos exceeded the speed of light or if they managed to create some sort of bubble in which the laws of normal space/time don't apply.

This one is going to be great fun to watch.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. They have been working on a strange

Theory called variable speed of light...it is like a tad fringy and all, as one way to explain inflation...but if this is confirmed it just got a boost.

[malaise]

67. The truth is that as technology improves

so does accuracy in science.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. You really do not understand how science works

If you think they are trembling. In fact a few Cosmologists are reentering values into equations seeing if things don't collapse. Might even be great for the grand unification theory. Oh did I mention FTL? oh the possibilities to further understand this...

[RegieRocker]

9. It is you who doesn't understand, because if you did

you wouldn't make that statement.

Why?

"I just don't want to think of the implications," he told Reuters. "We are scientists and work with what we know."
He doesn't know understand science either right? LOL

or this article

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-really-really-fast-show-that-has-blown-physics-apart-2360094.html

If proven to be factual it IS a big deal.

I am a big fan of Quantum Theory. I find the Bose Einstein Condensate completely fascinating and the string theory.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Structure of scientific revolutions

People will move on and continue to work. A few will deny it to their last breath. Hell even Einstein refused to accept Quantum Mechanics, god does not play dice with the Universe, after all. Alas god does. You'll see. No mass suicides or witch hunts.

[RegieRocker]

30. I didn't expect that. Hell no. I find it good for mankind if this

is proven true.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. This is about your inability to accept evolution.

Just admit it, already.

[RegieRocker]

109. No, it's about my ability to understand that in science, there

are no absolutes.

[Warren DeMontague]

117. No, it's about your inability to accept evolution, and to try to draw some goofy parallel

between this and evolution.

Let's be clear: Evolutionary theory is well-proven on multiple fronts. There are mountains of evidence -fossil, geologic, genetic, etc- confirming evolution. IT IS A FACT, and the FACT that it is a FACT bears repeating especially because people with clear agendas that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with sabotaging scientific understanding because scientific understanding conflicts with their theological conceits are continually trying to pretend that there is 'scientific debate' over evolution when there ISN'T.

However, IF evidence came along tomorrow that re-wrote the evolutionary story or even, somehow, contradicted the entire idea (don't get excited, it won't) then SCIENTISTS would do exactly what they're doing with the CERN results- talk about them, question them, double-check them, and if confirmed work to understand them in the context of SCIENCE. I've said elsewhere, creationist bobbleheads and Catholic Church "scientists" like the Discovery Institute waterheads could disprove evolution REAL fuckin' easy. Find, say, a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian layer. They won't. Know why? BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS A FACT, IT IS TRUE, AND IT IS A WELL AND REPEATEDLY VALIDATED SCIENTIFIC theory.

Likewise, relativity is well-validated by numerous different types of experiments, which is why the CERN results are so interesting (which you seem to think means 'threatening' :rofl:) to actual, real scientists. Here are some additional quotes from the articles you linked, maybe you just missed them in your misplaced excitement over "the house of science" starting to "collapse" or whatever.

"We have high confidence in our results. We have checked and rechecked for anything that could have distorted our measurements but we found nothing," he said. "We now want colleagues to check them independently."

(Isn't that the same thing the Pope says, every time he issues some authoritative statement about how "God" doesn't want people to fuck for fun? Oh, no, it isn't.)

"In science we are always looking for things that go against the rules we have set, so in that sense I am very happy to get something we don't expect"

"I bet these scientists would have liked to have been able to sit on it until they'd got independent verification. Lots of things like this happen and don't turn out to be true. There are many more false alarms than truths."

You apparently only understand science to the point of really, really, really wishing it would go away.

[RegieRocker]

132. You' re way out there and you show that clearly. I can see the similarities

though between wizard of oz and your repitition stating it is a fact over and over again. Try out again with some ruby red slippers. Give me an example of a new specie being created from another specie that the transformation has been observed. Not mutation our adaptation but a completely new specie that it's profoundly different from the specie it was created from. You don't understand all the complexities of evolution. There are many things you don't understand so if you can't produce concrete evidence then I am done with you.

[Motown_Johnny]

4. give it time to be verified

If it turns out to be true then it may be that neutrinos have negative mass. This may not violate Relativity since negative mass was not considered.

It may also be that some variable was not taken into account, although this seems unlikely.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and we may not be there yet.




I give it 90 days.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Fermi said last night they're spinning it up

The experiment that is

[Motown_Johnny]

8. it will be interesting to see their results

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Yep, they confirm it, variable speed of light just got a boost

[Eddie Haskell]

41. Seems to me there are other variables.

How do we know that time is a constant? Until recently, radioactive decay (half-life) was considered to be constant.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. This will lead to a lot of theoretical work

If this is confirmed. On the bright side Adam Greene will have a new book to write!

[bluestate10]

49. I agree. I have thought for a long time that the charged particle energy forbidden band

would some day fall. It scientists and engineers figure out how to overcome man's interpretation of nature, the positive and potential negative outcomes of the discovery will be limitless. The offerings of the first person or group to figure out the breach will be rudimentary yet astounding in it's reach, similar to Bohr's description of atomic structure.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Yup, a few years back I went with Bryn on how my theoretical

Sci fi FTL would work, he got excited. He said I might be onto something. He does both physics and sci fi.

When I read this last night, the possibility of an actual FTL drive comes up, beyond corny sci fi. With that colonization and species survival beyond sol. Oh and neither of us will see it. The pesky energy requirement is there. I mean I can freely ignore it, but real life physics can't. "Neutrinos using a shortcut in a higher dimension..." String theory quickly came to mind.

[Motown_Johnny]

71. do you have a link?

Please?!?!?

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. One slightly morevtechnical than usual suspect

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/c.pdf

[Motown_Johnny]

79. I meant one where Fermi confirmed the measurements

Your link explains how and why c is a constant. I am already comfortable with that concept and am not willing to jump on the bandwagon for these new observations which seem to question that.


Confirmation would help.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. The paper was posted here on this thread

As to Fermi, they just got the experimental design. They are in line to confirm. It will take upwards of two years. I don't think anybody who understands the process is jumping on any bandwagon...but I am sure a few people are playing with Tge equatios as a what if.

[Motown_Johnny]

101. So they did not confirm the findings, and the variable speed has not gotten a boost.

They are just confirming that they are going to reproduce the experiment.



You can see how your post "yep, they confirmed it variable speed of light just got a boost" was misleading.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. Ok let's be more precise for your sake

Right now there are, count them, three people working on variable speed of light theory...

As of this result this gives a chance to their idea instead of cosmological inflation. It also seems to confirm a few ideas about 'branes. This is science though., so for completeness sake the result will have to be confirmed by a few other labs, and Fermi is on tap. But you can bet some people are doing really exotic math, while they wait for confirmation. This is the way science works.

[Warren DeMontague]

120. I wonder if & how Kaluza-Klein or 'brane dimensions would explain the effect

being present over short distances (i.e. as in this experiment) but not showing up over very large distances (i.e. Supernova 1987)?

That's not to imply anything about the results, I'm just wondering out loud, in particular to you b/c you seem to be doing some real thinking on the subject. :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. On a science fiction perspective

It makes the techno babble that much easier

:-)

At least for the Brane drive

[Motown_Johnny]

125. one more way science works is that an aberration is not considered conclusive

I was simply commenting on how poorly phrased your post was


Fermi has not confirmed anything and the variable speed of light has not gotten a boost, other than from CERN


If neutrinos traveled 0.0025% faster than c then we would have neutrinos from supernovas reaching us years before the light from the same events. This isn't the case.


I am keeping an open mind but still consider CERN's results unlikely.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. I never said it was

So forgive me if you misunderstood

[joshcryer]

6. It's an interesting result, but it's likely wrong.

The "status quo" would be utterly ecstatic if this was correct. It would be mind boggling awesome!

[JHB]

34. +1

"If I'm ever wrong, I'll be too excited by the new physics to notice the loss"

[MatthewStLouis]

44. I'd bet there is a tiny detail, variable or effect that has been overlooked. n/t

[matt819]

10. The dominoes begin to fall

What's next? The theory of gravity? evolution? string?

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Actually this makes string even easier as well as grand unification

Theory.

[anarch]

46. what theory of gravity?

nobody has ever been able to adequately explain it to me. Oh, they can describe its effects and all, but there doesn't seem to be any real "theory" of gravity. It's just kind of...there.


anyways, we shall see how things pan out with this latest science news. there are a great many things we don't really know that much about, no matter how smart we as a species would like to think we are.

[bluestate10]

50. I would say the spacial relationship of charged particles, or the law of

magnetism. The two are inter-related and the dagger that fells one, will drop the other.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. Either you're kidding

or

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're kidding. Good one!

[RKP5637]

12. I hope this doesn't mean I have to take all of my physics courses over again, I'm

too old now to go back to school again!!! LOL

[RegieRocker]

13. Are you employed in the physics field?

[RKP5637]

15. Retired now. I worked in high energy physics a little years ago. n/t

[RegieRocker]

19. So if this is proven factual what do you think?

[RKP5637]

28. I think it's going to throw a lot of wrenches into a lot of gears. Certainly a lot

of theoretical constructs are based on the speed of light as a given/constant. To me at least it's hard to think of anything that could have wider implications. The ramifications seem endless.

[bluestate10]

51. Actually, I think a significant revision or dis-proof of Pauli's exclusion principle

would have a more profound impact. May be my view the revision of Pauli's principle in more profound comes about because I have never been a big disciple of Einstein, even as brilliant as he was.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Paper was posted on line

If you want to have some fun.

[RKP5637]

25. Thanks, I'll look for it. High energy physics has always intrigued me. Maybe I can

find possible miscalculations they made. LOL :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. I have on my Mac if you want it

[RKP5637]

36. I think this is it here ...

http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Yep...will load it on the iPad

The math will be beyond me, I am sure.

[madinmaryland]

22. Well, I guess that finally proves Intelligent Design.

:hide:

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Thumbs up

LOL.

[RegieRocker]

26. You disprove that..

:)

[Warren DeMontague]

119. He effectively skewered the crap out of your op in just 8 words.

Seems pretty intelligent, to me.

[RegieRocker]

122. I lambasted in 3 words. Doing it in 3 trumps 8.

[Warren DeMontague]

131. No

okay, I just did it in 1.

[amerikat]

35. This post is brought to you by the electron theory.

Think about it. But think fast.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Oh lord

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[bluestate10]

52. It's gone. The heat from brains thinking at fault. nt

[RegieRocker]

60. This reply brought to you by someone who doesn't understand

it was neutrinos not electrons. Maybe poster needs an electrical charge.

[amerikat]

62. neutrinos are parts of atoms.

I'm neutral on this issue.

[amerikat]

63. The simple atom seems to be getting more complex

I'm neutral on this issue.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Neutrinos are part of atoms

In fact electron neutrinos are but one of the sub partivpcles inside an atom. Leptons, quarks and the rest really gets weird.

I like particle physics, as much as I van understand it, but it really gets weird.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. By the way, this is getting so weird

That is mostly beyond the reach of most people. "Magic" does indeed come to mind.

[amerikat]

42. I once flew across a continent in an aluminum tube

It was way faster than than a wagon. Light years ahead of
walking.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Thanks for the laugh

Last night the twitter was buzzing with jokes about this.

[bluestate10]

53. Magic, if one is Palin or Bachmann.

Science, by nature is an eternal search deeper into the makings of our universe and other universes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Yeah, but it s getting harder to understand

Oh and why I used quotation marks. It is not magic, or faith, by any stretch.

[Wounded Bear]

74. Was it Arthur C Clark?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinquishable from magic."

:)

[Warren DeMontague]

94. Clarke-with-an-e, but yes.

The thing is, indistinuishable to whom? It depends on how 'sufficiently advanced' technology A is from distinguisher B. I look at ipads sometimes and imagine seeing them in Back to the Future II in 1987 or whenever, and yeah, they're completely "future". To someone in the middle ages? A caveman? They would absolutely look magic.

But the important thing is, we understand it IS technology, and not magic. Unfortunately there are people among us who think things were simpler in the dark ages, would like everyone to go back to them, and love to say shit like "it's so complicated, we can't possibly understand it, God must have done it"

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/frickin_electricity_how_does_i.php

[johnd83]

47. The media is why people don't trust scientists

If you read the actual release by the scientists, they say their data is giving a strange result and asking for verification. It is quite possibly an instrumentation error, or an effect they didn't take into account. Some writer sees it and decides that the scientists have broken the speed of light and leaves off the "maybe". Two months or so later, the scientists will find their error. The scientific community will shrug and move on. The non-scientists will lose faith in science because they think the scientist are making stuff up and can't be trusted. Science (actually everything) is a very subtle topic, and the media seems to lose the complexity with this type of shock headline.

[joshcryer]

48. Yep, agreed, see post #7, and the actual paper at post #36...

The paper ends with:

Despite the large significance of the measurement reported here and the stability of the analysis, the potentially great impact of the result motivates the continuation of our studies in order to investigate possible still unknown systematic effects that could explain the observed anomaly. We deliberately do not attempt any theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of the results.

[bluestate10]

58. Josh, isn't what you posted commonplace for honest scientists? nt

[joshcryer]

69. Not commonplace. Required to pass any sort of peer review, imo.

[bluestate10]

56. It is common for a lab that has what is a ground breaking result to

ask for verification or de-construct by other labs. Nothing different in this case other than if it happened 70 years ago, we would not have heard of it until it was well verified or completely de-constructed.

[johnd83]

59. Right, of course

that is the basis of the scientific method. It takes time to verify, and publishing the results allows others to investigate. Unfortunately a reporter desperate for a shock story got their hands on it.

[RegieRocker]

61. 70 years ago most didn't have TV's. News however did travel fast

and much of it was sensationalism. Today's media is nothing different from yesteryears. The only thing different is the mediums. Still propaganda and hype.

[joshcryer]

70. Yep. Relativity was not a big deal until it was proven by measurements.

Likewise these measurements will not be a big deal until they're reproduced and no explanation is found in the short term.

But that will only result in people trying to find an explanation. And Relativity will not be rendered wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Actually it reflects how illiterate most people are

I read that and went...who's on tap to confirm? Answer, Fermi labs and will take longer than two months.

But both the reporter and most readers do not know how to interpret this. For the record, we used to.

[Posteritatis]

81. The journalists generally don't *want* to interpret that

The whole "news has to be accessible to a third grader" thing or whatever it is these days forbids any kind of nuance, which of course demolishes science journalism.

I'm still getting over the astonishment of BBC articles actually linking to the publications whenever they mention research.

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. Yeah it used to be fifth grader

I know.

[Posteritatis]

80. Yep. (nt)

[Hugabear]

64. And people can make cold fusion in their homes

And alien microbes were found in a meteorite from Antarctica.

I'll chalk this up to over-exuberant media reporting until it's repeatedly verified by independent sources.

[Warren DeMontague]

95. Cold fusion no, the jury's still out on the micro-fossils on the Martian meteorite.

I don't think we'll settle the microbes on Mars thing until we actually get a sample return mission there.

[Rex]

66. Well there those particles are!

Found them!

[BlueMTexpat]

68. I must admit that I know literally nothing about physics,

nuclear or otherwise. But I remain amazed that, even without all the technologies that are available today, Einstein's theory was only nanoseconds off. That's pretty darn good, IMO.

And once the results have been independently verified elsewhere, it may turn out that he wasn't wrong at all. But it is fun to think about.

I hope that it shakes up the Scientologists ... wasn't L. Ron Hubbard originally a SF writer? If this is true, won't it throw all his theories off? LOL

[Motown_Johnny]

72. nanoseconds over 730 km, it would be 3.2 years from supernova 1987A

which was around 168,000 light years away


The variance seems to be 0.0025%, but that isn't the point.



The idea that nothing with mass can travel as fast or faster than pure energy (which has no mass). If something with mass (muon neutrino) can travel faster than pure energy then the theory is flawed.



I am not buying in yet. There seems to be to much evidence contradicting these findings for me to get excited...... yet.

[BlueMTexpat]

99. They're all pretty staggering concepts to me.

And yes, the jury is still out.

But CERN is, after all, an organization that helped us all to communicate as we are doing now. I don't understand that either. But I am very glad that someone does. And, best of all, I am glad that it works! :-)

[jberryhill]

73. What "arrogance"?

Who built the machines to conduct this experiment?

What knowledge was needed to build them?

Why are these "arrogant" scientists conducting experiments which test the limits of their hypotheses in the first place?

[RegieRocker]

75. Try again. "arrogance of man" which does include some scientists

undoubtedly but the statement was about man in general.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. Man. As opposed to...

let me guess.

:eyes:

[johnd83]

76. I think it is arrogant to claim scientists are arrogant while typing on a device using principles

that scientists spent generations figuring out. The fact that a computer works at all is pretty good evidence scientists know quite a bit. New science is not always correct right away; it takes time to figure stuff out. In our insta-gratifaction world we expect things extremely quickly, but historically new theories takes decades to figure out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. And in this case it will take upwards of two years for Fermi

They got all the experiment design and all that, so life is good

[Warren DeMontague]

98. Electricity! No one understands it! It's fucking MAGIC, from JESUS!

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/frickin_electricity_how_does_i.php

[johnd83]

104. Kinda like the tides, right?

They go in and out! I heard somewhere that 10% of Americans don't believe the earth revolves the sun. I don't know if that was actually a correct statistic, but after the last few years I don't really doubt it.

[RegieRocker]

111. Like Thomas Edison?

Who never went to college? How well do you think the "No college" would bode today? Would that person be accepted? Are they?

[johnd83]

112. That is actually a very complex question

Edison used trial and error to design his devices. These days we have reached a technological complexity that requires a great deal of mathematical understanding. All the easy mechanical gizmos have been invented. Edison's work with electricity was also extremely primitive. The real genius of that time was Nichola Tesla, and a lot of our modern electricity knowledge that is assumed to be because of Edison was actually due to Tesla. Tesla was a college educated engineer.

[johnd83]

114. Also Edison ripped off most of his ideas

He was just interested in fame.

[Warren DeMontague]

82. "The crashing of the house of science is about to begin." YAY! JESUS IS COMING! I TOLD U!!!1111!!!!!

No, Not even close.

The fact that you're getting all worked up thinking this is some kind of vindication of what I can only assume is some ridiculous set of sunday school theological conceits, proves that you know zip diddly squat about science (as if your evolution denial didn't do that already)

This is an interesting result. It will lead to MORE science, not "the crashing of the house of science". There are a bunch of possible explanations, but what you're witnessing here is scientists talking about the result and questioning it and looking at what it might mean, because THAT'S HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

There are a lot of possible scientific explanations for this, and not one of them is "Man didn't evolve from other monkeys and Jesus is pissed because you've been touching yourself again". One explanation could be that the neutrinos were taking 'shortcuts' through extra kaluza-klein dimensions. That would be a fascinating result which would not "crash the house of science" but would, instead, provide experimental validation for one or many current cosmological theories which currently don't have evidence backing them up.

Unlike, say, evolution, which DOES HAVE FUCKING MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE BACKING IT UP.

Relativity, likewise, has been experimentally verified many times. It's also worth noting that neutrinos from supernovas; like the one in 1987; did NOT show up significantly earlier than we would have expected them to, not to the magnitude that would be expected had these results carried over to those larger distances and scales.

But to understand that, you need to understand SCIENCE, not sit around in church praying that someday it will go away.

[jberryhill]

85. The principle of convergence doesn't mean much to some people

If you have something as simple as Maxwell's equations, you cannot avoid the problem with speed of light measurements in reference frames of relative motion.

But what kills me are the folks who act as if "Newton was wrong" in failing to anticipate variable mass in expressing force as mass times the integral of velocity over time, instead of as the integral of the product of mass and velocity over time.

Most of the time, it doesn't matter, and Newton pretty much got us to the moon and back using paper, pencils and slide rules.

So, I now have to get ahold of my mom before this news reaches her, to once again assure her that the Large Hadron Collider isn't going to blow up the earth.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. No shit.

It's also worth noting that relativity has been experimentally validated repeatedly.

I'm not a theoretical physicist, nor do I even pretend to play one on tv, but I was rather pleased with myself that my initial reaction upon hearing these results (assuming they're validated) was to wonder whether this might be evidence for some of the extra dimensions postulated in String Theory or some of the other interesting cosmological conjectures we've seen in recent decades.

Seems some of the real scientists doing actual thinking about this had the same thought.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. Ah memory lane

Maxwell a classic in experimental design...thanks for those memories.

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. Oh thanks. Just spent a while on Kalisz Klein

No, not the wiki...head hurts. But it is possible.

[Warren DeMontague]

97. It's one of the fundamental tenets underlying string theory, among other ideas

ideas which, at least in the case of string theory, have the potential to be mathematically interesting in terms of solving out for certain variables in our universe, but given that string theory can also solve out for an extremely large other number of potential mathematical combinations AND the fact that, at least currently, we don't or haven't had methods of experimentally testing yes or no for string theory... so many theoretical physicists have given to calling it an interesting idea but nothing more until there's more data.

At least, that's as far as I understand it. If these results could be shown to be somehow related to neutrinos traveling through extra dimensions (similar in the way that some theorists have hypothesized that the additional unaccounted for "dark matter" gravity in the universe could actually, instead of being exotic undiscovered matter in our own universe, be due to gravity leaking through from nearby brane universes) and that's a pretty big "IF" then obviously it would provide a big boost for string theory or whatever other related extra-dimensional cosmological theory the data matched up with.

The thing about the 'curled up' extra dimensions is hard to get the old head around. I have trouble with the "every point in the universe" existing on one of these curled up little dimensions, because what's a "point", really? Although I suppose everything exists in 3 dimensions, so the concept of a point works for that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. Yeah I read a few books on them

But never bothered with that math...oh boy.

That is until yesterday.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. So does the evolution church meet on Thursday?

I need to know? And what are the tenets of the faith that require faith like I don't know, the bible was written by God and given to Israel at Sinai and it is a document that is the way it is...or The other favorite... The Christ was born from a virgin woman impregnated by the holy spirit?

If you are comparing those articles of faith that can't be proven, to scientific empirical enquiry, forget Khun...truly forget it...keep to your (Insert religious day to attend temple/mosque/church here) up. I mean you really are the one with the sixteenth century dogmatic thinking.

By the way there is no conflict truly. You should go speak to a few Jesuits for example. They might be able to explain this to you.

But now I fully understand why you think the way you do, and it ain't pretty.

[RegieRocker]

105. I don't go to church so how would I know.

You can believe in something and worship it without going to church. Although you're not the example of what I was talking about, you do however, show the ugly side of your beliefs. You mock peoples beliefs (The Christ was born from a virgin woman impregnated by the holy spirit) and expect to not be mocked in return? You're not in control of your emotions and that is because of your worship of evolution, science or both. No where did I compare religious faith to evolution. You did that. How could I? I stated I was an agnostic. Do you know what that means? I make it quite clear that if a person doesn't think like them (atheists) they are labeled as quacks and that isn't right. If I were to take sides on the issue it would be with religious people because they do not call atheists quacks. They are a much higher quality of people. I on the other hand, am open to everything except absolutes. I simply do not believe fully in anything. I feel man has only scratched the surface to what can be understood in this universe (could be more). Quite frankly, you understand nothing about me at all. Yes I am fully aware that evolution does not necessarily contradict the bible. There is a reason my signature is as such. When I do argue against something it doesn't necessarily mean I fully oppose the idea. Most of the time it means I don't like what I see in the demeanor of the person posting and the hatefulness of labeling an opposing viewpoint in a vile way. Some times it is a test. You failed and it wasn't pretty. I will read what ever I want to read. What a shame, I thought better of you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. I used an article of faith

Which you either believe in or not... It is that black and white...

Science ain't that way. There is no dogma and sacred cows die regularly as more research evidence comes in. That is the major difference between dogma and science. Here is a huge clue for you...there are mature people out there that can hold both in their minds, no contradiction.

[RegieRocker]

108. I am not in opposition with those people.

I made it clear who my opposition is. I believe in freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I would be just as much against the burning of atheists by religious zealots. I stand on neither side. It is only perceived that I stand on a side by shallow minds. I only stand on what is right and against what is wrong. Too many times I see the labeling of religious people in a vile way. Unfortunately that isn't the only subject matter I see ugly behavior in. It simply isn't acceptable to me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. So using an example of an article of faith is ugly?

For completeness sake let's use one from Islam. Allah is god...

Should I use Shiva, the destroyer of worlds?

I used to have very deep philosophical discussions with a Jesuit Seminarian. As I said, at least his order sees no contradiction between the evolution of life, even humanity coming from ancestors to both humans and chimps, and the idea that a god created the world. That's the kind of evolution, no pun, major sections of western religions need to do. As is, I am sure this will be a surprise, religion might be an evolutionary matter and yes, there is a "god" spot in the brain. Not everybody has it, but religion, until now, offered adaptive advantages.

[RegieRocker]

115. It didn't seem like you were using the "article of faith" in a good

faith manner. Maybe I took that out of context, maybe not. Religion has done some very horrible things and I'm not sure what you mean by "offered adaptive advantages". The list of elements has grown and today there are 118. Everything is made from some of these elements. So since everything regarding evolution is about items from this planet they would have to be similar. Related so to speak. That comes as no surprise to me. The issue of whether we and chimps came from a common descendant is of no consequence to me. We do not know what that descendant was. My whole point of this post was "observation". It can be wrong and without it nothing can be proven. That is why so many are stating that many other tests "observations" and calculations need to be done before it can be verified. Many things in the evolution theory are and will not be observable. You can't have it both ways and be honest. Either you need observation or you don't. In science observation is needed. I find it completely arrogant to say something is a fact when the scientific method has not been completed. That being said, I do believe in evolution for which that has been proven. It is far more encompassing than "we came from chimps" or "we didn't come from chimps". The lumping of evolution into a "one belief" either you believe it fully or you don't believe it at all is what I disagree with. I am open to the possibility that other outside influences could alter life forms on the planet other than evolution. What ever those influences may be.

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. We have seen evolution in action though

Not just with bacteria, but birds.

As to adaptive advantage...makes you part of group, the tribe, that takes care of you, allows to pass genes and so it goes. People whoare not, are out of the group, deviants, shunned. Less chance to pass on genes.

[Warren DeMontague]

118. Guess your post got Raptured, there.

Maybe it was magic!

[jberryhill]

121. That happens to Ignored a lot, lol

[RegieRocker]

124. If I was on your ignored list then you wouldn't know that. Tell some more

false stories. Roflmao.

[RegieRocker]

123. Obviously partiality is running the show. I'm not the only

one who has recognized this. Yahweh followers are the craziest ones right? The old testament is the greatest fictional story ever told.

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. Well the history behind it is far more fascinating

Than even the songs of songs...originally Egyptian.

[Warren DeMontague]

129. Just like there's an inherent bias in science towards facts & away from unsubstantiated bullshit.

it's like, totally unfair, man.

[Warren DeMontague]

130. You made a transparent attempt to slam evolution via some totally unrelated experimental results

people spotted it, and called you on it. All your goofy statements about the 'house of science collapsing' or whatever have been refuted. All your assertions about how scientists are cowering in terror instead of treating this as interesting data that needs to be verified; have been shown to be false.

This is not a victory for Ken Ham, The Discovery Institute, the Kansas School board, Homeopathy, or any of the other anti-science cranks out there. Pack it in and move on.

[Warren DeMontague]

84. "Even the OPERA team isn't entirely convinced they're right;"

"they're putting their work out there and basically asking their colleagues to poke holes in it"

(Do the so-called "Creation Science" outfits do that? No, because they're not real science organziations. They're an arm of the Catholic Church that thinks if only they could get evolution out of schools, people would stop fucking before marriage.)

http://news.discovery.com/space/reality-check-what-are-those-naughty-neutrinos-really-up-to-110924.html

Another objection: "In a way, this experiment has been done," according to Marc Sher, a particle physicist with William & Mary College. We can look to the neutrinos detected from Supernova 1987A, which arrived roughly three hours before the light from the exploding star reached the detectors. But that's not because neutrinos traveled faster than light. Rather, they were able to pass right through all the material forming an envelope around the dying star, whereas photons would have to work their way through.

Physicists did the calculations and expected a three-hour delay, and that's exactly what they observed with the neutrinos from SN1987A. However, as Sher (and many others) have pointed out, if the OPERA result is real, those neutrinos should have traveled much faster, so much so that they would have arrived even sooner -- say, in 1984. I think physicists probably would have noticed.

"Supernova neutrinos are known, experimentally, to travel at the same speed as light to better than a part in a trillion," Sher emphasized. "The OPERA claim is that they are traveling faster than light by a part in 30,000." And, well, that's problematic.

[jimlup]

88. Don't put too much stock in this ...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and this has not been independently verified.

If so - yes it is extraordinary and would in a sense be a hint of how to lift some blocks that have been preventing further understanding in physics - but honestly that is probably wishful thinking. I bet this is just a missed systematic uncertainty.

I have a Ph.D. in heavy ion physics and when I was a graduate student in the early '90s I recall a paper alleging a weakening of gravitation on a spinning object. It was published in the very respected Physical Review Letters and it had been reviewed by the likes of John Wheeler. Nevertheless it turned out to be wrong and the observed effect was due to an unexpected systematic uncertainty in the instrumentation. Experience tells me that the same will likely be true here.

[jberryhill]

89. Damn

[SidDithers]

107. ITT: a whole bunch of people who don't understand how science works...nr

Sid