E=Mc2 Disproven?

[Zakuska]

Well it looks like Hawking and others who Worship at the Altars of Science are going back to the drawing board once again...

Faster Than Light Particles Could Wreck Einstein’s Relativity Theory

This is extremely shocking: CERN scientists using a 1300-ton particle detector have measured particles travelling faster than the speed of light. If confirmed, this discovery could invalidate Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity and revolutionize physics.

Einstein's theory says that there's nothing in the universe that could travel faster than light. Now, CERN scientists believe this may be wrong according to their latest experiment.

The experiment timed about 16,000 neutrinos launched from CERN facilities in Geneva, travelling through Earth and arriving 2.43 milliseconds later to the subterranean facilities of Italy's Gran Sasso National Laboratory. There, the Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (the OPERA particle detector) recorded the hits.

When scientists discovered that the particles were arriving 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light—with only a 10 nanosecond error margin—they freaked out. I don't blame them. Imagine someone comes to you to tell you that a new observation shows that planet Earth is actually flat.

http://gizmodo.com/5...lativity-theory

Edited September 22, 2011 by Zakuska

[David T]

Fascinating. I'll be looking forward to seeing if this can be repeated and confirmed.

From the article:

The news are so extraordinary that other physicists are already saying that this is impossible. Chang Kee Jung—a neutrino physicist at Stony Brook University in New York—believes it's a systematic error. Jung's is the spokesperson for a similar project in Japan. Indiana University's physicist Alan Kostelecky believes that, while it may be possible that neutrinos can travel faster than light, the experiment needs to be repeated "by at least one and preferably several experiments." There are other facilities that could be used to run the same test, one of them is Fermilab in Chicago. The other one is the T2K experiment in Japan, the one in which Jung participates.

Edited September 22, 2011 by nackhadlow

[LeSellers]

I read it, too, and wondered how long it would be before it turned up here.

Science (from the Latin meaning :"knowledge") is not the be-all-and-end-all of human activity. Can't be, because it's never finished.

I liken science to a search for truth (substitute "reality" or whatever you think it is looking for) to the wanderings of a highly intelligent ant on the surface of a basketball, starting from the air valve and "trying" to get to the opposite end. Revealed religion is a straight-through-the-center approach, and apostate religion the travels of a moth on the inside. Neither the first nor the last will get to the goal nearly as quickly, nor as efficiently as the second. In fact, the last may never get there at all because it isn't really looking for the right goal.

Lehi

Edited September 22, 2011 by LeSellers

[Zakuska]

I read it, too, and wondered how long it would be before it turned up here.

Science (from the Latin meaning :"knowledge") is not the be-all-and-end-all of human activity. Can't be, because it's never finished.

i liken science to a search for truth (substitute "reality" or whatever you think it is looking for) to the wanderings of a highly intelligent ant on the surface of a basketball, starting from the air valve and "trying" to get to the opposite end. Revealed religion is a straight-through-the center apprach, and apostate religion the travels of a moth on the inside. Neithr the first nor the last will get to the goal nearly as quickly, nor as efficiently as the second. In fact, the last may never get there at all because it isn't really looking for the right goal.

Lehi

I agree with you. The only problem with Science, is when people abuse it and set it in cement and use the block as a weapon, to say see... the thinking has been done.

[diglot]

Funny, I thought that Einstein's ToR only postulated that a particle could not accelerate up to and past the speed of light; not necessarily that a particle could not travel faster than the speed of light.

Doesn't the Standard Model of atomic theory predict, or at least allow, for the existence of Tachyons (particles which always travel faster at the speed of light).

Interesting stuff regardless. Wish I had more time to keep up with the latest developments in atomic theory and quantum physics.

[Zakuska]

Fascinating. I'll be looking forward to seeing if this can be repeated and confirmed.

From the article:

The news are so extraordinary that other physicists are already saying that this is impossible.

I got a chuckle out of that line.

: I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Zakuska

[David T]

I read it, too, and wondered how long it would be before it turned up here.

Science (from the Latin meaning :"knowledge") is not the be-all-and-end-all of human activity. Can't be, because it's never finished.

i liken science to a search for truth (substitute "reality" or whatever you think it is looking for) to the wanderings of a highly intelligent ant on the surface of a basketball, starting from the air valve and "trying" to get to the opposite end. Revealed religion is a straight-through-the center apprach, and apostate religion the travels of a moth on the inside. Neithr the first nor the last will get to the goal nearly as quickly, nor as efficiently as the second. In fact, the last may never get there at all because it isn't really looking for the right goal.

Lehi

I find that the prophetic word (scripture), and the observations of the creation (science) are two channels by which Truth is reveled. Both, at times, need to be revised based on new understanding and interpretation.

Edited September 22, 2011 by nackhadlow

[diglot]

Also, if this measurement is repeatable and verified, I don't think it necessarily means E=MC(2) is disproven (as per the title of this thread).

[kolipoki09]

Wait, who disproved Kerry Shirts?

[The Nehor]

I KNEW IT!!!!

Warp drive, here we come!

[Zakuska]

Wait, who disproved Kerry Shirts?

[Cobalt-70]

Even if the physicists have discovered faster-than-light particles, this does not disprove Einstein's famous E=mc² equation. Einstein's theory never excluded faster-than-light particles. It only says that a particle with mass cannot travel at exactly the speed of light, because such travel would require an infinite amount of energy. But such faster-than-light particles have been problematic for other reasons, mostly having to do with information theory. If such particles are possible, you should be able to receive a signal from someone before they have sent it. But that would violate information theory.

This raises an important issue: to be reconciled with physics, Mormon theology would seem to require the existence of some sort of faster-than-light communication. The Mormon God (and particularly the Holy Spirit), being bound by the laws of the universe, has to be able to communicate with the far reaches of the galaxy by sending and receiving signals faster than the speed of light.

[Zakuska]

Also, if this measurement is repeatable and verified, I don't think it necessarily means E=MC(2) is disproven (as per the title of this thread).

That would be the articles title:

Faster Than Light Particles Could Wreck Einstein’s Relativity Theory

[Zakuska]

Even if the physicists have discovered faster-than-light particles, this does not disprove Einstein's famous E=mc² equation. Einstein's theory never excluded faster-than-light particles. It only says that a particle with mass cannot travel at exactly the speed of light, because such travel would require an infinite amount of energy. But such faster-than-light particles have been problematic for other reasons, mostly having to do with information theory. If such particles are possible, you should be able to receive a signal from someone before they have sent it. But that would violate information theory.

This raises an important issue: to be reconciled with physics, Mormon theology would seem to require the existence of some sort of faster-than-light communication. The Mormon God (and particularly the Holy Spirit), being bound by the laws of the universe, has to be able to communicate with the far reaches of the galaxy by sending and receiving signals faster than the speed of light.

I think that might just be an issue with the Math formula though.

I think the same thing can be demonstrated with a sonic boom. When a plane approaches the sound barrier a sonic boom is formed. Something pushes the Plane through the barrier but once past it the energy needed decreases and platues again.

So would it not stand to reason that as you approach the speed of light that some sort of atomic boom happens and accelerates you past that barrier as it seems is happening with these particles?

Edited September 22, 2011 by Zakuska

[diglot]

That would be the articles title:

Faster Than Light Particles Could Wreck Einstein’s Relativity Theory

Ah true, did not notice that.

I wouldn't trust Gizmodo for an accurate understanding of the implications of this possible discovery in regards to Einstein's ToR. I will have to scope out the interwebs and see what other sites are saying concerning the implications of this discovery.

And here I was thinking I would be able to get back to writing my essay on textual criticism and 1 Cor 13:3. Ah well, I do love to procrastinate things

[Zakuska]

Ah true, did not notice that.

I wouldn't trust Gizmodo for an accurate understanding of the implications of this possible discovery in regards to Einstein's ToR. I will have to scope out the interwebs and see what other sites are saying concerning the implications of this discovery.

And here I was thinking I would be able to get back to writing my essay on textual criticism and 1 Cor 13:3. Ah well, I do love to procrastinate things

Its actually a repeat of a Rueters report.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/idINIndia-59496020110922

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/post/cern-neutrinos-faster-than-light/2011/09/22/gIQAkxBOoK_blog.html

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

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

[diglot]

Its actually a repeat of a Rueters report.

http://in.reuters.co...-59496020110922

http://www.washingto...xBOoK_blog.html

Yea, I just noticed that myself!

It would be crazy and cool if this was verified again in another experiment. I wonder how they would reconcile it with all the evidence that has mounted over the decades which confirm that E=MC(2).

Personally, I think it is much more likely there was an error in the experiment that lead to this data. Though, apparently they have been testing the experiments parameters for months and have confirmed their findings are comfortably within a margin of error.

[Cobalt-70]

I think that might just be an issue with the Math formula though.

I think the same thing can be demonstrated with a sonic boom. When a plane approaches the sound barrier a sonic boom is formed. Something pushes the Plane through the barrier but once past it the energy needed decreases and platues again.

So would it not stand to reason that as you approach the speed of light that some sort of atomic boom happens and accelerates you past that barrier as it seems is happening with these particles?

At least according to standard modern physics, it doesn't quite work like a sonic boom. Something like a sonic boom would require the existence of a medium (like air) that can build up around the moving particle. But relativity does away with any such medium. Prior to Einstein, some physicists postulated that there was such a medium, called the aether, but experiments have been conducted that show that an aether does not exist.

[Vance]

Although interesting, I doubt that it actually disproves Einstein in the way you are thinking.

You, back in the late 40's and early 50's there was a phrase coined that you have probably heard.

"sound barrier".

It was thought by some that it would be impossible for an aircraft to pass through the "sound barrier" or better known as Mach =1. The reason was that the mathematics showed a singularity at Mach =1 for drag on the aircraft. In other word as you approached M=1 the mathematics predicted that the drag would approach "infinity".

The funny thing was, that at the time everyone, in the know, knew that rifle bullets commonly exceeded Mach =2. So they knew that it was possible to go faster than the speed of sound, but it took a lot of years, money and a few lives to get an aircraft to pass through the "sound barrier" without crashing.

The interesting thing is that the equations for the theory of relativity are of similar form to the equations for drag of an aircraft.

Edited to add,

It is because of those similarities that I have thought that faster that speed of light was possible.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Vance

[diglot]

Here is an interesting snippet from an article:

The researchers claim to have measured the 730-kilometre trip between CERN and its detector to within 20 centimetres. They can measure the time of the trip to within 10 nanoseconds, and they have seen the effect in more than 16,000 events measured over the past two years. Given all this, they believe the result has a significance of six-sigma — the physicists' way of saying it is certainly correct.

[mfbukowski]

Even if the physicists have discovered faster-than-light particles, this does not disprove Einstein's famous E=mc² equation. Einstein's theory never excluded faster-than-light particles. It only says that a particle with mass cannot travel at exactly the speed of light, because such travel would require an infinite amount of energy. But such faster-than-light particles have been problematic for other reasons, mostly having to do with information theory. If such particles are possible, you should be able to receive a signal from someone before they have sent it. But that would violate information theory.

This raises an important issue: to be reconciled with physics, Mormon theology would seem to require the existence of some sort of faster-than-light communication. The Mormon God (and particularly the Holy Spirit), being bound by the laws of the universe, has to be able to communicate with the far reaches of the galaxy by sending and receiving signals faster than the speed of light.

Sez you.

Heck, my wife can talk faster than that now!

[Zakuska]

At least according to standard modern physics, it doesn't quite work like a sonic boom. Something like a sonic boom would require the existence of a medium (like air) that can build up around the moving particle. But relativity does away with any such medium. Prior to Einstein, some physicists postulated that there was such a medium, called the aether, but experiments have been conducted that show that an aether does not exist.

Magnetic fields? Mas needs to turn to energy at some point.

[Zakuska]

Although interesting, I doubt that it actually disproves Einstein in the way you are thinking.

You, back in the late 40's and early 50's there was a phrase coined that you have probably heard.

"sound barrier".

It was thought by some that it would be impossible for an aircraft to pass through the "sound barrier" or better known as Mach =1. The reason was that the mathematics showed a singularity at Mach =1 for drag on the aircraft. In other word as you approached M=1 the mathematics predicted that the drag would approach "infinity".

The funny thing was, that at the time everyone, in the know, knew that rifle bullets commonly exceeded Mach =2. So they knew that it was possible to go faster than the speed of sound, but it took a lot of years, money and a few lives to get an aircraft to pass through the "sound barrier" without crashing.

The interesting thing is that the equations for the theory of relativity are of similar form to the equations for drag of an aircraft.

Edited to add,

It is because of those similarities that I have thought that faster that speed of light was possible.

I think thats what I was explaining with the sonic boom thing. There seems to be a point where the math works out to be infinity but we keep pushing past that.

[Cobalt-70]

It was thought by some that it would be impossible for an aircraft to pass through the "sound barrier" or better known as Mach =1. The reason was that the mathematics showed a singularity at Mach =1 for drag on the aircraft. In other word as you approached M=1 the mathematics predicted that the drag would approach "infinity".

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.