E=Mc2 Disproven?

[Zakuska]

It's not just that the energy and mass of the particle goes to infinity. At its most basic form, the special theory of relativity is simply the observation that the speed of light in a vacuum, c, is a constant in all circumstances, no matter how fast you are going. So even if it seemed to an outside observer that you were approaching the speed of light, it would not seem that way to you. No matter how fast you are going, light would still be traveling ahead of you (from your perspective) at the speed of light, and there would be no room from your perspective for light to build up and create something that looks like a sonic boom. You could never get close enough to the speed of light so that one more little "jolt" might put you over the top.

But what if you arnt emmitting any light? then there would be no light traveling ahead of you.

[wenglund]

Wait, who disproved Kerry Shirts?

That would be Kevin Graham, of course, and he was able to do so at faster than the speed of light..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zakuska]

That would be Kevin Graham, of course, and he was able to do so at faster than the speed of light..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh yeah, Well Chuck Noriss could take out Kevin Graham in a heart beat.

[shalamabobbi]

This is pretty cool. Reminds me of Orson Scott Card's Children of the Mind. And of course Mormons have always believed in FTL communication of some sort or another.

One thing: why, why, why must we continue to play into the unnecessary conflict posited between science and religion? Let's not forget that if "science" (as if it were a monolithic entity) were as dogmatically close-minded as some religionists claim, then it would not have discovered this in the first place, and would have preferred to maintain the sanctity of the dogma as a "mystery", as many religions still do when their incoherent bits become inconvenient.

Joseph Smith was deeply influenced by Enlightenment philosophy. Just as science is never finished, neither is continual revelation. We don't believe in immaterial material, thus making us perfectly compatible with materialist science (though not "materialism" as a voracious consumerist "philosophy", of course - quite the opposite.) We believe in embodied deities (a God who could not "create" Himself, etc) which organized preexisting materials, thus doing away with most of the lame theological arguments for the "necessity" of the "first cause" of a disembodied God.

We believe in errant scriptures that must be studied in their historical context because those who don't have the "learning of the Jews" simply won't understand those written by that people, meaning that if the Flood didn't literally cover the entire world, we don't have to chuck out the entire Bible, since we already know it's filled with flaws aplenty (unless God really did send bears to eat children who teased a bald dude, in which case, that is a scary-*** God).

One of the most influential early Mormon works was Key to the Science of Theology. We've had eminent scientists who were also Prophets. The Glory of God is Intelligence (I know, that's talking about the uncreated soul, not sheer braininess, but hey, we also believe that "a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge," so it's a useful shorthand.)

We have continual calls in the D&C to seek out knowledge from the best books, and the Book of Mormon says that both Jew and Gentile are alike unto God, meaning those atheistic scientists are just as entitled to revelation even if they're not sure where exactly it's coming from. Worlds without number in an uncreated universe means that we can embrace geology unashamedly and not pretend that everything was created from zilch in six days. Heck, we believe that we're of the same "species" as the physical Gods who live somewhere in the real universe, and that they've promised to help us "evolve" to the next phase of existence.

It seems to me that we are deeply equipped, as few religions - which emphasize "transcendent" spirituality in their eagerness to dematerialize everything into unimpeachable moral allegory - are to embrace the findings of science, given our premises. Indeed, you could say (as the aforementioned OSC did in the Alvin Maker books) that Joseph Smith was himself a kind of scientist combating the incomprehensibility of "old sectarian notions" before the word "scientist" was even coined (around 1833, fyi), what with his insistence that we "study things out" in our minds in order to avoid a stupor of thought while determining whether or not a text was true by performing an experiment of faith which could be replicated by anyone.

"I beg leave to say unto you, brethren, that ignorance, superstition, and bigotry placing itself where it ought not, is oftentimes in the way of the prosperity of this Church; like the torrent of rain from the mountains, that floods the most pure and crystal stream with mire, and dirt, and filthiness, and obscures everything that was clear before, and all rushes along in one general deluge; but time weathers tide; and notwithstanding we are rolled in the mire of the flood for the time being, the next surge peradventure, as time rolls on, may bring us to the fountain as clear as crystal, and as pure as snow; while the filthiness, floodwood and rubbish is left and purged out of the way." - that ol' ignint farm-boy Joe Smith

Yep, I just had my nm girlfriend convinced that Mormon's weren't anti-science, then she saw this thread and said "see!" and canceled her forth coming discussion with the missionaries..

[wenglund]

Yep, I just had my nm girlfriend convinced that Mormon's weren't anti-science, then she saw this thread and said "see!" and canceled her forth coming discussion with the missionaries..

Perhaps if Jeremy were to show her a painting of Joseph with his face in a hat translating the Book of Mormon, that might bring her back around?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Facsimile 3]

In all seriousness though, it would be pretty cool if this holds up. We may end up requiring a new scientific vocabulary.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Facsimile 3

[shalamabobbi]

Perhaps if Jeremy were to show her a painting of Joseph with his face in a hat translating the Book of Mormon, that might bring her back around?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Couldn't hurt at this rate.. back to the thread,

If E=mc^2 is false then there is no need to worry about Iran's nuke program and nuclear explosions simply don't occur at all.

Chemical reactions also don't really occur. There is of course in reality a small mass difference between products and reactants that obeys the E=mc^2 formula.

If the speed of light barrier is no barrier, why is it that particle accelerators since their inception have observed this limit upon the speeds of all accelerated particles? No matter how much extra energy is pumped into the particles they can't quite reach the speed of light limit.

Decades of data that obey this rule. But no, it's not really a rule.

Most troubling for OPERA is a separate analysis of a pulse of neutrinos from a nearby supernova known as 1987a. If the speeds seen by OPERA were achievable by all neutrinos, then the pulse from the supernova would have shown up years earlier than the exploding star's flash of light; instead, they arrived within hours of each other. "It's difficult to reconcile with what OPERA is seeing," Ellis says.(from post #21)

In other words most likely a systemic error that hasn't been chased down yet.

Related stories:

Another Benefit of Smoking Weed? It Might Be Able to Cure PTSD.

http://gizmodo.com/5842919/another-benefit-of-smoking-weed-it-might-be-able-to-cure-ptsd

[Zakuska]

All the skepticism and reaction is quite entertaining...

Wall Street Journal

Roll over Einstein: Law of physics challenged

<snip>

Fermilab team spokeswoman Jenny Thomas, a physics professor at the University College of London, said there must be a "more mundane explanation" for the European findings. She said Fermilab's experience showed how hard it is to measure accurately the distance, time and angles required for such a claim.

Nevertheless, Fermilab, which shoots neutrinos from Chicago to Minnesota, has already begun working to try to verify or knock down the new findings.

And that's exactly what the team in Geneva wants.

Gillies told The Associated Press that the readings have so astounded researchers that "they are inviting the broader physics community to look at what they've done and really scrutinize it in great detail, and ideally for someone elsewhere in the world to repeat the measurements."

Only two labs elsewhere in the world can try to replicate the work: Fermilab and a Japanese installation that has been slowed by the tsunami and earthquake. And Fermilab's measuring systems aren't nearly as precise as the Europeans' and won't be upgraded for a while, said Fermilab scientist Rob Plunkett.

Drew Baden, chairman of the physics department at the University of Maryland, said it is far more likely that the CERN findings are the result of measurement errors or some kind of fluke. Tracking neutrinos is very difficult, he said.

"This is ridiculous what they're putting out," Baden said. "Until this is verified by another group, it's flying carpets. It's cool, but ..."

So if the neutrinos are pulling this fast one on Einstein, how can it happen?

Parke said there could be a cosmic shortcut through another dimension — physics theory is full of unseen dimensions — that allows the neutrinos to beat the speed of light.

Indiana's Kostelecky theorizes that there are situations when the background is different in the universe, not perfectly symmetrical as Einstein says. Those changes in background may alter both the speed of light and the speed of neutrinos.

But that doesn't mean Einstein's theory is ready for the trash heap, he said.

"I don't think you're going to ever kill Einstein's theory. You can't. It works," Kostelecky said. There are just times when an additional explanation is needed, he said.

If the European findings are correct, "this would change the idea of how the universe is put together," Columbia's Greene said. But he added: "I would bet just about everything I hold dear that this won't hold up to scrutiny."

http://online.wsj.co...0951b36b35.html

"Its too hard to make accurate measurements."

If its too hard how can we trust measurements from other areas such as Carbon dating?!

Oh yes... It's got to be a worm hole that is doing this! And Einstien was wrong and the space time continum isn't flat and smooth! That's the ticket!

When Holy Cows are approached by the unwashed masses... all Heck breaks loose!

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[TAO]

I just wanted to tell you guys... this isn't the verse time a particle has been observed going faster than the speed of light. Actually... a university got light itself to go faster, if I remember correctly (I may have to do a bit of digging for the source though).

In terms of what is causing the 'drag'... perhaps it would be the light being emitted by the object itself, getting 'cone-ified'?

Also... Vance... even black holes emit radiation =P. So almost everything... or at least that which we can observe... emits light... or something similar to it.

EDIT: Also zak, at that speed it IS hard to take accurate measurements. The theory goes that the more accurately you try to measure position, the less accurately you can measure speed. However, I am not sure if that would apply to this scenario. But it is true that care must be taken, and inaccuracies can be big... if errors are made.

I am still hesitant to call this an error though. Let us wait and see what goes on.

Edited September 23, 2011 by TAO

[Zakuska]

EDIT: Also zak, at that speed it IS hard to take accurate measurements. The theory goes that the more accurately you try to measure position, the less accurately you can measure speed. However, I am not sure if that would apply to this scenario. But it is true that care must be taken, and inaccuracies can be big... if errors are made.

I am still hesitant to call this an error though. Let us wait and see what goes on.

Oh I agree we should wait. However... Im still going to join the Peanut Gallery and be entertained in the mean time.

The Lab you were refering to is in the last article I linked from the Wall Street Journal. It was in 2007 and was shot down as a fluke because the margin of error was way to great . This one the margin of error is within 10%, using the most advanced technology available, which according to the Articles is in Scientific terms a certianty. And its hilarious to see all the Skepticism! Sacred Cows and all.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[TAO]

Oh I agree we should wait. However... Im still going to join the Peanut Gallery and be entertained in the mean time.

The Lab you were refering to is in the last article I linked from the Wall Street Journal. It was in 2007 and was shot down as a fluke because the margin of error was way to great . This one the margin of error is within 10%, using the most advanced technology available, which according to the Articles is in Scientific terms a certianty. And its hilarious to see all the Skepticism! Sacred Cows and all.

Haha, yeah, I will wait in the peanut gallery too.

Although I think people are being extraordinarily skeptical right now... I guess they are a bit justified. But I would hope that they'd do some analysis of the data methods before they dismiss it off as 'a fluke' quite yet =P. Meh, I guess you can't have everything though.

What will be interesting is... this will destroy a bunch of theories... as there won't be any 'local' variables anymore =P. Shall be interesting! =)

[shalamabobbi]

If its too hard how can we trust measurements from other areas such as Carbon dating?!

Umm, by counting tree rings and lake varves and seeing that they agree with one another and other events of known age.

Carbon dating accurately dated the tunnel dug to bring water into Jerusalem during the siege of Hezekiah. Maybe we should throw that data point out?

And what does this have to do with carbon dating??

Discovery in science refines our understanding of the working of God's laws of nature it doesn't throw previous knowledge out the door. Newton's laws of gravity are still sufficiently accurate to use to send a rocket to the moon.

Eat your popcorn and don't worry about damaging that brain of yours with the oily butter..

[Bond...James Bond]

I'm guessing scientists will admit they were wrong with this new data before Christians who claim young earth, global flood, creationism, etc, admit they're wrong in the face of irrefutably demonstrative evidence that proves them wrong.

[Cobalt-70]

But what if you arnt emmitting any light? then there would be no light traveling ahead of you.

There would always be some light, at least in the infrared, because you would be pretty hot if you were traveling that fast and colliding with all the interstellar hydrogen.

[Cobalt-70]

In other words most likely a systemic error that hasn't been chased down yet.

I agree. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so it's right to be skeptical of something like this. One experiment is not enough to establish something that would be so revolutionary. It's most likely a systematic error, but if it isn't, then someone deserves the Nobel prize.

[elguanteloko]

All the skepticism and reaction is quite entertaining...

What did you expect? Acceptance based on easily questionable methods?

oh wait......

If its too hard how can we trust measurements from other areas such as Carbon dating?!

What kind of argument is this?

Person 1: "I can't fix an airplane."

Person 2: "How am I going to trust you to fix my car, then?"

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

When Holy Cows are approached by the unwashed masses... all Heck breaks loose!

...when Mormons agree to make the temple rituals (Mormonism's 'Holy Cows') fully open to conversation, then you can come back and say something like this without being inconsistent. In religion such questioning is a disadvantage while in science this is at its core.

Edited September 23, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

One thing: why, why, why must we continue to play into the unnecessary conflict posited between science and religion?

That's easy to answer. Because the METHOD and pre-scientific assumptions of science go directly against the methods of religion.

We don't believe in immaterial material, thus making us perfectly compatible with materialist science

Every time I see Mormons say this they forget to mention that Joseph Smith simply changed the name of "immaterial matter" for that of "pure or refined matter" which are equally as mysterious. Your proposed 'compatibility' isn't anything more than a result of a play with words that are equally as senseless.

Or can you tell us what "pure or refined matter" is supposed to be? If not, you might as well remain with the "immaterial-material"-lists for all the world of seriousness cares.

thus doing away with most of the lame theological arguments for the "necessity" of the "first cause" of a disembodied God.

...thus creating more questions than does its rival "lame theological arguments" of the first cause.

We've had eminent scientists who were also Prophets.

Most scientists don't even know what science is anyways. We shouldn't expect Prophets to know it any better so as to realize their deep inconsistency.

The rest of your post is as far from making sense as it has been up to this point, so I won't answer it all.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I KNEW IT!!!!

Warp drive, here we come!

Beam me up Scottie.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

Incorrect.. Anyone who is willing to pay the price can become a scientist, AND anyone who is willing to pay the price can come to the Temple. Further sometimes it is the same person.

Edited September 23, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Vance]

Also... Vance... even black holes emit radiation =P. So almost everything... or at least that which we can observe... emits light... or something similar to it.

Excuse me, but I never said otherwise.

[thesometimesaint]

Tao:

It's a bit more complicated. http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1813.html

[Zakuska]

I agree. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so it's right to be skeptical of something like this. One experiment is not enough to establish something that would be so revolutionary. It's most likely a systematic error, but if it isn't, then someone deserves the Nobel prize.

One experiment? There were 16000 experiments over a 3 year period. And thats why they are asking others to confirm or disprove.

Plus theres the experiments in the US back in 2007, with a larger margin of error granted.

The Japanese partical excelerator is down or uncompleted because of the Tsunami. Theres only 2 others that can confirm but they have older equiptment.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[Questing Beast]

E=Mc2 Disproven?

Absolutely. Enjoyment is not a double cheeseburger from McD's....

[Tarski]

I got a chuckle out of that line.

The chuckle of the uninformed and inexperienced.

Zak has a history of this.

The supposed discovery of faster than light particles has happened over and over for decades. In each case it has turned out that there was some confusion or error.

Not only that, the sense in which the speed of light is supposed to be an upper limit is subtle. For example, there are three different notions of velocity:

phase velocity, group velocity, and signal velocity.

Experimentalists sometimes get confused about which one they are measuring.

Signal velocity (often coinciding with group velocity) is the one that cannot exceed the upper limit c.

Classical information cannot travel faster than light and so it is for massive particles (not virtual particles) --or at least not unless they were always going faster (the possible but unlikely Tachyon).

In fact, faster than light travel of information or massive bodies threaten serious logical paradoxes concerning causality. This is because faster than light travel implies the possibility of traveling into the past. If I could do that I could kill my father and then what? Would I have been born and if not how could I travel back in time to kill him?. Better examples exist. So we are in a world of trouble should a real violation of relativistic causality be found.

One can chuckle with Zakuska or one can try to learn some science and something about the philosophy of science.

Aside: I have been watching Zakuska's misguided anti-science campaign for some time and it has started to occur to me that he is so obsessed exactly because he has a lot of suppressed anxiety about science as a threat to his religion. On some level his is actually worried. One gets the sense of a bubble about to pop.

Not a diagnosis of course but just a guess.

Tachyons have never been consistently confirmed. But their existence does not directly violate relativity.

There are quite a few more subtleties that create confusion but that have been understood by the educated for a long time.

For an explanation see here: http://math.ucr.edu/...fLight/FTL.html

Finally, it is beyond weird that Zakuska thinks there is some great shock, hilarity, or lesson to be learned when unexpected results really do force modifications of theory.

It happens all the time.

Usually, the old theory remains true in it's domain. This is the true for classical mechanics--it is superseded by relativity and quantum mechanics but it still got us to the moon and is still used in traffic accident reconstruction and in engineering.

Zakuska doesn't know what science really is, or what we should reasonable expect from it. For this reason he has an inappropriate glee when he reads something like this article.

By the way, news articles about physics almost invariable screw up the story and exaggerate both the significance and the degree of confidence.

I don't know how many times I have seen news articles that purport that an experiment has provided evidence for String Theory. It was never true in the way the news article stated. Usually, the experiment is explainable also in terms of Standard Particle Physics. The history of such news articles is chronicled at my friend Peter Woit's Blog:

http://www.math.colu...woit/wordpress/

Edited September 23, 2011 by Tarski

[Zakuska]

Experimentalists sometimes get confused about which one they are measuring.

16000 carefully monitored experiments over a 3 year period using the most advanced and sensitive equiptment online to date and the Scientists were "cofused in what they were measuring".

Do they have a brain in their head Tarsk? Why are my tax dollars being granted to these bafoons if they can't even get their measurments right?

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska