Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

Dancing David said:
Ah, so you don'rt know the possible sources of error and assert that c is not invariant?

It is on average invariant, HUP does enter the picture.
Click to expand...

The scientists at CERN have looked for alternative explanations for three years. That makes the finding scientifically solid. They have most likely indeed found particles traveling faster than the speed of light.
 
sol invictus said:
That's kind of true, but it gives the wrong impression. If the findings (which are not really "at" CERN, they're based on detections at a lab in Gran Sasso) are correct, it really does overturn a huge chunk of modern physics. Faster-than-light particles cause what seem to be insurmountable theoretical difficulties in relativistic theories. And relativistic quantum mechanics does not allow FTL signals.

There are ways in which this might be consistent with some speculative theories, but those theories are not relativistic (SR is only an approximation according to them).
Click to expand...

I think (and this is from the viewpoint of an armchair physicist) that at worst this could result in an extension of relativity the same way that relativity extended Newtonian physics. Accurate in most, but not all, situations.

But who cares what I think?

I'm not convinced there's not a measurement problem here. But only because that's currently the simplest explanation. I don't know all the issues involved.
 
Anders, have you yet managed to read that article on relative velocity transformation?
 
aggle-rithm said:
It's all relative.
Click to expand...

It's true that even mainstream physics professors are like morons compared to those who have the real knowledge hidden from the public. They even claim that you can speed up the entire universe by traveling in a rocket near the speed of light. Not the brightest candidates selected for the public levels of knowledge obviously.
 
Anders Lindman said:
It's true that even mainstream physics professors are like morons compared to those who have the real knowledge hidden from the public.
Click to expand...

Evidence for this "real knowledge"?

They even claim that you can speed up the entire universe by traveling in a rocket near the speed of light. Not the brightest candidates selected for the public levels of knowledge obviously.
Click to expand...

Who claims this? References?

Remember, you're on a skeptics forum. You're expected to demonstrate that you're not just making this up.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Anders, have you yet managed to read that article on relative velocity transformation?
Click to expand...

I haven't read that paper but I have read about how the relative velocity is calculated in SR. It's so obviously a false theory so I don't know why I even bother to discuss it. He he.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Evidence for this "real knowledge"?



Who claims this? References?

Remember, you're on a skeptics forum. You're expected to demonstrate that you're not just making this up.
Click to expand...

I have heard conspiracy researchers talk about that (such as Alan Watt if I remember correctly). And it does make sense. By hiding the real knowledge from the public they (the shadow powers) can keep and expand their own power.
 
Last edited:
Vorpal said:
I'd like to know what a 'photon' even is in a universe that's not relativistic.

It's not a dig against the current discussion (that's bonus)... I'm actually curious as to what extent fields on a Galilean background can be quantized and what physical properties would pop out.
Click to expand...

You can certainly quantize fields in Galilean spacetime - for example in condensed matter physics you don't usually need to worry about relativistic effects, so you can start with a Galilean-invariant Lagrangian and proceed from there. In some cases (like graphene) you can even end up with an approximately "Lorentz" invariant theory (describing electrons or phonons for example) with a massless dispersion relation, but with a speed less (typically much less) than c.

More typically you'd get a massive, non-relativistic dispersion relation for the excitations (i.e. the energy isn't zero at zero momentum, and the dependence of energy on momentum isn't linear).
 
Anders Lindman said:
I have heard conspiracy researchers talk about that (such as Alan Watt if I remember correctly). And it does make sense. By hiding the real knowledge from the public they (the shadow powers) can keep and expand their own power.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy "researchers" are a poor source, because they make things up. There is no evidence for these "shadow powers". If anything, this claim is even more ridiculous than your attempts to lecture us on physics.
 
sol invictus said:
You can certainly quantize fields in Galilean spacetime - for example in condensed matter physics you don't usually need to worry about relativistic effects, so you can start with a Galilean-invariant Lagrangian and proceed from there. In some cases (like graphene) you can even end up with an approximately "Lorentz" invariant theory (describing electrons or phonons for example) with a massless dispersion relation, but with a speed less (typically much less) than c.
Click to expand...
Now that sheds some (dim) light on what some theorist I've come across was talking about in the possibility that (the spacetime) Lorentz symmetry being a kind of frozen-in effect that turns Galilean at higher energies.

I'll have to look into that a lot more, but at least now I have some idea of where to even start. Thanks.
 
Vorpal said:
Now that sheds some (dim) light on what some theorist I've come across was talking about in the possibility that (the spacetime) Lorentz symmetry being a kind of frozen-in effect that turns Galilean at higher energies.

I'll have to look into that a lot more, but at least now I have some idea of where to even start. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'm very skeptical that any such theory can work. In the examples I mentioned, the "Lorentz" symmetry is approximate. Actually there's a very simple example - take Einstein's 1905 paper on electrodynamics and go through it, everywhere replacing "light in vacuum" with "sound in air at STP". You'll see that you can replace standard Lorentz invariance with sound-Lorentz invariance, where the speed is the speed of sound instead of c.

The problem is, interactions do not respect sound-Lorentz invariance - not even interactions between sound waves, and certainly not between sound waves and other things.

But we know that all interactions in nature are Lorentz invariant to an extremely high degree of accuracy. So you'll need to find a Galilean (or other) theory that reduces to a theory in which not only are all dispersion relations relativistic, but so are all interactions. That sounds extremely difficult to me.
 
Vorpal said:
I'd like to know what a 'photon' even is in a universe that's not relativistic.

It's not a dig against the current discussion (that's bonus)... I'm actually curious as to what extent fields on a Galilean background can be quantized and what physical properties would pop out.
Click to expand...

Quantization of space at Planck scale cutoff gives a tremendously high energy value for so-called 'empty' space. And actually, such quantization is needed for the quantum mechanics equations to work without nasty infinities. This field, this zero-point field, or vacuum energy, is what matter and energy is 'made' of. We can even say that the vacuum energy constitutes an absolute frame of reference rendering Einstein's relativity theories completely obsolete without needing to point out that they are false.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
On the contrary. You are not up to speed. Consider the topic. Science has found that particles can travel faster than the speed of light. So Einstein's theory is obviously false. And wouldn't that explain the messy attempts of finding a 'unifying' theory? Or would you rather ignore these new findings and continue to support further study into superstrings and membranes and umpteen dimensions?
Click to expand...

Oh, when I say 'up to speed', I mean up to speed about your understanding of the theory of relativity.

Your understanding of relativity is zero. You freely admit to being a poor physicist, you're here, arguing with people who understand the maths and can give you all the sums with all the little squiggly lines and everything and yet you insist that, somehow, you know better than they do. How can you possibly hope to debunk a theory that you don’t understand?

In the real world, relativity is well researched and subject to practical experiments involving very accurate clocks in spaceships and any number of other ways. These are real world experiments. Not thought experiments, but things that people have actually done.

Now, either you design and construct a competing theory that more accurately reflects reality, being sure to incorporate an equal or better explanation for all the observed relativistic effects we can actually measure, showing your working and everything, or you accept that you simply lack the mental toolkit to have this discussion and you slope off with your tail between your legs.

If you don’t want to look like a complete idiot you either gain a good understanding of a thing before you start arguing about it, or you accept that you don’t have an understanding and when people kindly point out that you are wrong and show you how you can discover this by yourself you say ‘thank you’ and toddle off looking for confirmation that they are right. What you don’t do is (metaphorically) stand in the middle of the room with your fingers in your ears shouting ‘LA LA LA, you’re all wrong and I’m right because I’m so smart and you’re so stupid’ because that makes you look like a petulant ignorant child.

Go away and learn something. Educate yourself. Accept that, although you may be pretty smart amongst the people that you associate with, you’re on another level here and all the people offering advice on how you can improve yourself and learn a little are probably smarter than you and certainly better educated in this field.

If you want to debunk a theory, first you have to understand it, and your understanding here is zero. Do yourself a favour and rectify that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom