# Einstein might have been stupid



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Okay, that headline is provocative, but scientists in CERN have apparently discovered particles that move faster than the speed of light. If confirmed independently, this would challenge Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and everything we know about the universe.

http://tinyurl.com/3qs2lud


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

Never doubt science fiction.


----------



## Michael Cargill (Sep 12, 2011)

He had awesome hair though.


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

We've known about neutrino's for a while, by implication and as a high probability. Not surprised - a speed limit for particles always struck me as a little unlikely. But then, faster-than-light = back-in-time always struck me as iffy, also. *shrug* But no one asked me, so...


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Chris Northern said:


> We've known about neutrino's for a while, by implication and as a high probability. Not surprised - a speed limit for particles always struck me as a little unlikely. But then, faster-than-light = back-in-time always struck me as iffy, also. *shrug* But no one asked me, so...


Neutrinos were discovered decades ago. But that they travel faster than light...that's new. Incidentally, to me traveling faster than speed of light = time travel works just fine, but only as a matter of perception. If you've moved ahead of speed of light, and look back, you'll see something that's in the past. Every star we see in the sky isn't how we see it now, but how it looked when the light we see left it. But again, that's only as far as perception goes. How traveling faster than speed of light would enable one to physically travel to another time I'm not sure I understand. And I've watched specials about it on the Science channel!


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

interesting,
I see a lot of head scratching and number crunching peer review coming up.
There are a lot of possible confounders, especially with such a small difference. I'm sure they've taken most if not all of them into account already, but I wonder if the rest of the community will find one they missed. 

Off the top of my head: standard "speed of light" is in a vacuum, gravity wells have a small effect (larger if it is a black hole, of course). 

I wonder if they bounced a laser the same distance or just calculated how long light would take? How many nanometers off on distance do you have to be to come up with that "billionth second difference?"


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

I'm not quite sure how having a theory proved wrong means that one is stupid.

Mike


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

jmiked said:


> I'm not quite sure how having a theory proved wrong means that one is stupid.
> 
> Mike


It's a joke.


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

Tachyons are a hypothetical faster-than light particle that were hypothetically proposed decades ago, but no real evidence of them has ever been found.

You can argue that science is just a repeated process of constructing theories and models that get closer and closer to understanding how the real world actually works. Merely because one model is replaced by a more accurate one doesn't make the earlier one bad. Sir Isaac Newton came up with the Laws of Motion that were revolutionary for their time, and are accurate enough to navigate a spaceship from Earth to Mars. Einstein came up with work that was more descriptive than Newton's work for describing what happens under some special conditions (such as what happens when you move faster than Newton could have conceived of). This didn't make Newton's work "wrong", though.

In an essay called "The Relativity of Wrong", Isaac Asimov had a killer quote on this:

_"When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."_

PS: I realize the original poster was just trying to make a provocative joke--But I never pass up a chance to quote Asimov!

PPS: The Hooded Claw goes on record here with a prediction that these measurements will end up being proved to be flawed, and Einstein will survive one more challenge. But I could be wrong. To quote Asimov again, _"The most exciting phrase in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!', but 'That's funny...'"_


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

They aren't making any claims yet, because even they seem baffled, but it seems like the folks at Cern may have made neutrino particles travel faster than the speed of light. The exciting part of this, assuming it's true which must be taken with several grains of salt, is that we could use this technology to sends messages back in time...

Now this got me thinking... okay, if we can do this then why don't we know about it already? But what if these messages could only be sent via some special device and had to be received by another device that we haven't invented yet. And what if all time travel is like that? Obviously we wouldn't have gotten any messages yet if we had no way to receive them. So does that mean as soon as we invent a means to receive messages from the future we'll be inundated with them? Kind of exciting, though again... we don't know if this has actually happened yet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

***two similar threads merged***


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Einstein's theory of special relativity does not actually say that nothing can go faster than light. It says that [normal] matter cannot be accelerated from a velocity less than the speed of light to or above the speed of light. So, if the results are accurate (far from certain yet), it still leaves open the _possibility_ that the neutrinos in question were somehow generated with a faster than light velocity from the moment of their inception, and thus were never actually accelerated from slower than light to faster than light. This would be somewhat analogous to the theoretical tachyon, which can never (in theory) be decelerated _down_ to or below light speed.

Also, while both special and general relativity have stood up marvelously to one experiment or another for many decades now (with perhaps quantum electrodynamics, QED, being their best competition for "most validated theory"), relativity starts getting "confused" as a theory when you get down to the Plank scale and the incredibly tiny world where quantum physics holds sway. Perhaps this apparent breaking of the speed limit (and note that it's only marginally broken, no "warp factor 9, Mr. Sulu" is in evidence here*) is indication of something "interesting" happening in the realm of the very small, where strange things like quantum tunneling occur and nano-wormholes are postulated amid the quantum foam.
____________
*Light travels about 0.01 miles in 60 nano-seconds, which means that if their measurements are correct, then the neutrinos went 500 miles in the time it would take light to go 499.99 miles: not exactly a big increase.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> They aren't making any claims yet, because even they seem baffled, but it seems like the folks at Cern may have made neutrino particles travel faster than the speed of light. The exciting part of this, assuming it's true which must be taken with several grains of salt, is that we could use this technology to sends messages back in time...
> 
> Now this got me thinking... okay, if we can do this then why don't we know about it already? But what if these messages could only be sent via some special device and had to be received by another device that we haven't invented yet. And what if all time travel is like that? Obviously we wouldn't have gotten any messages yet if we had no way to receive them. So does that mean as soon as we invent a means to receive messages from the future we'll be inundated with them? Kind of exciting, though again... we don't know if this has actually happened yet.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484


From some documentaries I've seen about time travel, you can only really time travel to a time that already had a time machine. Which means we couldn't travel back to 1911. Or even 2010. Or even back to 2011. Humanity could (if a time machine could be created) travel back to the first moment a time machine was created. At least that's what they say now!


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

NogDog said:


> Einstein's theory of special relativity does not actually say that nothing can go faster than light. It says that [normal] matter cannot be accelerated from a velocity less than the speed of light to or above the speed of light.
> 
> *Light travels about 0.01 miles in 60 nano-seconds, which means that if their measurements are correct, then the neutrinos went 500 miles in the time it would take light to go 499.99 miles: not exactly a big increase.


I just finished reading Neil DeGrasse Tyson's "Death by Black Hole" and he states several times that according to Einstein nothing can travel faster than light. Maybe he was simplifying the Theory of Relativity for people like me?


----------



## Cliff Ball (Apr 10, 2010)

I'm wondering when we can start work on the Warp 5 engine. Or, do we have to wait for WW3 in 50 years, and some guy named Cochrane to test fly the first warp ship, _The Phoenix_?


----------



## HappyGuy (Nov 3, 2008)

According to my understanding of the law of relativity the reason something can't travel faster than the speed of light is because as you approach the speed of light, mass increases toward infinity (but then, my understands could well be flawed). But what about something with no mass? E=MC(2)  With a 0 mass the equations balances out to 0 mass, C remains constant and E = 0 (kinda like me on a Monday morning!).


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

HappyGuy said:


> According to my understanding of the law of relativity the reason something can't travel faster than the speed of light is because as you approach the speed of light, mass increases toward infinity (but then, my understands could well be flawed). But what about something with no mass? E=MC(2) With a 0 mass the equations balances out to 0 mass, C remains constant and E = 0 (kinda like me on a Monday morning!).


Yes, the increase in mass as energy increases (in this case the energy is momentum) is the theoretical block to accelerating any normal matter to or past the speed of light. That's one of the reasons that photons (the "particles" of light) do, in fact, travel at the speed of light: they have zero mass. Neutrinos have very, very little mass, and when first postulated it was unsure if they did have any mass at all. For that matter, I'm not sure if there is 100% consensus (if that's not too redundant) concerning their mass (which may well differ depending on which type of neutrino we're talking about).

Perhaps this measurement is correct. If so, it might be an indication that something "interesting" happens when you combine relativity with the quantum theory -- a combination which to date have not played nicely with each other, so to speak, and which physicists are trying (without any clear success yet) to explain with hypothetical things like "strings" that exist in a ten-dimensional universe.


----------



## J.R.Mooneyham (Mar 14, 2011)

I've been seeing reports like this (about something breaking the lightspeed barrier) come out regularly for over 20 years now. So far they've always ended up not being true, for one reason or another. Plus, new experiments often reveal something that's theoretically interesting, but utterly worthless for any sort of real world usage (like building starship engines).


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

One of the theories is that the particles didn't actually travel faster than light but actually took a shortcut through space-time by traveling through other dimensions.  Another scientist put forth that maybe they traveled faster than light by interacting with an unknown field that lurks in a vacuum in space.  It's kind of crazy seeing scientists talking like this... it's a bit bizarre.

I think my favorite quote so far came from Subir Sarkar, head of particle theory at Oxford University, "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."


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

The issues with causality only arise if you assume relativity. So, relativity is wrong. Why the fuss?


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

And George W. Bush may have been a genius, a  Gandhi.

Only time will tell.

Poor G. W.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> One of the theories is that the particles didn't actually travel faster than light but actually took a shortcut through space-time by traveling through other dimensions. Another scientist put forth that maybe they traveled faster than light by interacting with an unknown field that lurks in a vacuum in space. It's kind of crazy seeing scientists talking like this... it's a bit bizarre.
> 
> I think my favorite quote so far came from Subir Sarkar, head of particle theory at Oxford University, "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."


They sound like science fictionists! And that quote is brilliant.


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

The Hooded Claw said:


> The Hooded Claw goes on record here with a prediction that these measurements will end up being proved to be flawed, and Einstein will survive one more challenge. But I could be wrong. To quote Asimov again, _"The most exciting phrase in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!', but 'That's funny...'"_


This isnt proof the measurements were flawed, but I smugly draw your attention to this unproven critique of the ftl neutrino measurements:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/

Excuse me, I gotta find a mirror to practice my smug look, just in case I need it soon....


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Man, that seems like one of the first errors they would have checked for. The basic illustration of relativity is the 2 clocks...one on Earth and one on a spaceship having different times because each observer has a different frame of reference.
Granted in this one the ship is not traveling at relativistic speeds and we usually ignore the small difference, but if the neutrinos are travelling at or near light speed and the measurement is very small, this would be a clear error.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Weeeeeeeeeeell...this "explanation" hasn't been confirmed yet.  It's just a theory!  There's still a few nanoseconds unaccounted for!


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

DYB said:


> Weeeeeeeeeeell...this "explanation" hasn't been confirmed yet. It's just a theory! There's still a few nanoseconds unaccounted for!


Technically its more of a hypothesis or application of the Theory of Relativity.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Can I direct you all to Bell's Theorem, which postulates a kind of universal energy that transmits across the cosmos almost instantaneously. And someone's already mentioned tachyons. The idea of stuff moving ftl is nothing new. And Einstein wasn't wrong ... he was simply human, and could not know what future discoveries would bring.


----------



## GerrieFerrisFinger (Jun 1, 2011)

Einstein believed in time travel and often expounded on the matter. It is amusing to think of there being a stop sign at the (arbitrary) end of light and if you continue to travel faster, you'd enter another dimension.
Time will prove Einstein's theories immature, but he was right for his time on the mechanics and building blocks of relativity.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

Even though I don't think this means Einstein was stupid, I wanted to say that it was a great title for a forum topic!


----------



## *DrDLN* (dr.s.dhillon) (Jan 19, 2011)

Einstein's contributions cannot be ignored as a scientist and as a spiritualist.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Well, they did the test again with some modifications, and got the same results!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236


----------



## *DrDLN* (dr.s.dhillon) (Jan 19, 2011)

Theories are good till these are challenged. But that in no way make Einstein or any other scientist stupid...lol


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

Curse that data getting in the way of a perfectly good theory. Now we'll have to re-think everything. Causality, out the window. ?It needs who. I mean, who needs it?

Interesting times.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

As I suspected all along (though was by no means sure), it looks to have been a case of experimental error, and the light speed limit appears to still be in place: Final Nail? Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos Aren't, Scientists Conclude.


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

The Hooded Claw said:


> PPS: The Hooded Claw goes on record here with a prediction that these measurements will end up being proved to be flawed, and Einstein will survive one more challenge. But I could be wrong. To quote Asimov again, _"The most exciting phrase in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!', but 'That's funny...'"_


Hooded Claw struts around a bit....


----------



## traceya (Apr 26, 2010)

This has certainly been a fascinating conversation, not that I'm sure I understand it all.  I find science to be one of the more arrogant disciplines in some ways - they rarely admit they're wrong, present 'theories' as 'facts' and don't seem willing to concede that every day there's something new to learn.  I could be wrong but that's the way they've always come across to me


----------



## Flopstick (Jul 19, 2011)

I wouldn't say Einstein was stupid, but he did think that because he had two cats he would also need two catflaps.  Or so the story goes.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

I have heard about this.  It is pretty exciting, to see theories change.  Einstein would probably have approved of it and marveled at the idea of humanity advancing its knowledge base.


----------



## *DrDLN* (dr.s.dhillon) (Jan 19, 2011)

This means words of wisdom last longer than scientific theories...No wonder I am doing what I am doing...lol

"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything." Einstein


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

traceya said:


> This has certainly been a fascinating conversation, not that I'm sure I understand it all. I find science to be one of the more arrogant disciplines in some ways - they rarely admit they're wrong, present 'theories' as 'facts' and don't seem willing to concede that every day there's something new to learn. I could be wrong but that's the way they've always come across to me


Scientists are people. There are open-minded scientists and close-minded ones, humble and arrogant, extremely talented and not so much, etc. However, what this particular situation demonstrates is that the scientific method, when followed, is self-correcting. It is not always error-free, and sometimes it takes awhile; but as long as things are kept in the open and proper peer-review procedures are followed, mistakes are discovered and much can be learned -- even from the mistakes.

As far as theories versus facts go: there is the common, everyday usage of the word theory (more or less synonymous with hypothesis or even hunch) and the more stringent usage which requires a certain amount of rigor (typically mathematical) before a hypothesis acquires the status of theory. And to show that scientists admit (at least in theory  ) that they never really "know" anything, even the most solidly tested theories remain just that: theories.* And when a theory is eventually determined to be "wrong," it is often only by a matter of degree: many of Newton's theories of motion, gravity, etc. were eventually found to be wrong, but wrong in a way that you and I will seldom, if ever, notice; as they only would fail noticeably (to us humans) when dealing with situations of very, very fast speeds and/or very, very strong gravity and/or very, very tiny distances.

Scientists may not be perfect, but I, for one, would rather trust the scientific method than anything I can think of that might replace it.
____________
* Aspects of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) have been tested to a ridiculous number of decimal places without failing, but it is still a "theory."


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Alright: Einstein 1, neutrinos 0.  Stupid neutrinos!!!!


----------

