Speed of Light still safe
Discussion
Article said:
It appears that the faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html?ref=hp#.T0U_N0pYVRc.twitterAlthough they do only say 'may' be to blame.
Edited by Oakey on Thursday 23 February 01:16
On the one hand I'm glad that the exisiting theories have (probably) been upheld, but on the other, it would have been more interesting to see what would have happened had the speed of light actually been broken. I would love to know how things would have progressed after that type of discovery 
Simpo Two said:
Are there any theories that suggest the speed of light can be broken?
There isn't a theory that says it can't be broken but it depends what's meant by 'broken'.There's nothing in special relativity that prevents faster-than-light speeds, only starting off slower and then accelerating through c. Or indeed starting off faster and slowing down through c. It's a barrier not a limit.
Simpo Two said:
Are there any theories that suggest the speed of light can be broken?
Seems that these days the theories come first and then you try to prove them, rather than the other way round.
Surely the theory has to be theorised before it can be proven?Seems that these days the theories come first and then you try to prove them, rather than the other way round.
That's what makes it a theory instead of fact.
Unless you mean that the theory gets bandied about willy-nilly before anyone's even attempted to prove anything?
Simpo Two said:
Seems that these days the theories come first and then you try to prove them, rather than the other way round.
Richard P Feynman. The key to Science....In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it.(Theory) Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.
callyman said:
Richard P Feynman. The key to Science....
In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it.(Theory)
You've inserted the word "theory" in the quote. Feynman didn't say that and never implied that a theory was a guess, as Creationists would like to believe when it comes to Evolution.In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it.(Theory)
BigMacDaddy said:
Simpo Two said:
Are there any theories that suggest the speed of light can be broken?
Seems that these days the theories come first and then you try to prove them, rather than the other way round.
Surely the theory has to be theorised before it can be proven?Seems that these days the theories come first and then you try to prove them, rather than the other way round.
That's what makes it a theory instead of fact.
Unless you mean that the theory gets bandied about willy-nilly before anyone's even attempted to prove anything?
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/faster...
Great quote from the CERNs director of research:
"I have difficulty to believe it, because nothing in Italy arrives ahead of time."
Great quote from the CERNs director of research:
"I have difficulty to believe it, because nothing in Italy arrives ahead of time."
PW said:
Tricky to prove an equation/theory correct if you don't have an equation/theory to start with.
Well, consider Mr Higgs and his boson. The maths said it probably existed, so they went and knocked some atoms together in a big round thing to look for it. Had it not been for the maths first, they wouldn't have know what to look for.I agree in science you'd normally do an experiment and then conceive a theory to explain the results, but in this case, because it's very mathematical and theoretical, I suspect it's the other way round.
I wish some people would learn the definition of a scientific theory. An idea, a guess, a hunch, conjecture is not a theory. A theory has foundations, it has stood up to scrutiny, it can make predictions, it is not speculative.
You don't come up with a theory then test it to see if it's true, that's impossible by definition. A theory only becomes a theory once the idea has been verified by rigorous scrutiny.
You don't come up with a theory then test it to see if it's true, that's impossible by definition. A theory only becomes a theory once the idea has been verified by rigorous scrutiny.
I'll ignore your wrath but:
You observe something, you come up with a theory to try to explain it, you test the theory, it is either proven correct or incorrect. Koch's postulates etc...?
Laplace said:
I wish some people would learn the definition of a scientific theory. An idea, a guess, a hunch, conjecture is not a theory. A theory has foundations, it has stood up to scrutiny, it can make predictions, it is not speculative.
If it is not speculative then is it not a 'fact'?You observe something, you come up with a theory to try to explain it, you test the theory, it is either proven correct or incorrect. Koch's postulates etc...?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff