Theory of Relativity - Wrong?

[smoe]

Al Gore predicts as you approach the speed of light our Earth's global warming will slow down. And when you go faster than light our Earth's global warming will reverse. It is that simple.   

In my opinion, big bangs could ultimately be caused by bad warp drives, like the Star Trek ones. You never know, it could be true. The last big bangs could conceivably have been triggered by ancient civilizations experimenting with time travel/warp drives. 

[bozon]

Al Gore predicts as you approach the speed of light our Earth's global warming will slow down. And when you go faster than light our Earth's global warming will reverse. It is that simple.   

All my fears regarding global warming are becoming true. I do not mean the poles melting and bears falling out of the sky, I mean turning science into travesty.

[Melvin]

Uh Oh, something may be going on here.

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

http://news.discovery.com/space/faster-than-light-speed-neutrinos-re-run-111118.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/faster-than-light-neutrinos-opera.html

http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/opera_confirms_neutrinos_travel_faster_light-84763

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/11/18/new-tests-appear-to-confirm-claim-that-neutrinos-traveled-faster-than-light/


Many are still a bit skeptical.    Myself included.

[Dragon]

Rut row Raggy

[VonMessa]

Just wanted to mention that it s still the Theory of relativity, not the Law of relativity...

[Melvin]

Here's the official report. Perhaps some of you braniacs can translate this and interpret the results.

http://inspirehep.net/record/928153/files/arXiv:1109.4897.pdf?version=2

[Wildcat1]

Why would it be outlandish to think that the theory of relativity could be wrong? Just think of Galileo. For hundreds of years, it was widely accepted that the earth was the center of the universe, he proved it wrong, and we now go by his findings. The theory of relativity was based off of assumptions using brain and 1912 technology.

Who's to say these scientists are wrong if they've proven this twice now?

[Wildcat1]

Here's the official report. Perhaps some of you braniacs can translate this and interpret the results.

http://inspirehep.net/record/928153/....pdf?version=2

404 error

[Melvin]

404 error

Sorry about that, I fixed it.

 

[clerick]

I'm having to brush up on my physics here but, I seem to remember that relativity only addressed objects as they accelerate towards C and it's mute on objects that may already be traveling faster than C.

[PuppetZ]

The theory of relativity squarly state that the ultimate speed atainable by a physical signal is C. It's one of it's corner stone. Could be an effect of Heisenberg incertainty principle that some signal could indeed travel faster than C. Does not mean relativity is wrong. Only that it's not as precise as previously thought. And one paper does contain an edit by the author stating that if their clock reading is off by one tick, it could cause measurment discrepancy such as is seen. Add to that the fact that the findings were "confirmed" by the very same team that put out the first results and it make it all look very suspicious for now. We must wait for other teams to confirm or falsify their results before we can get excited. Results are not expected for another few months.

 

[RTHolmes]

[clerick]

The theory of relativity squarly state that the ultimate speed atainable by a physical signal is C. It's one of it's corner stone. Could be an effect of Heisenberg incertainty principle that some signal could indeed travel faster than C. Does not mean relativity is wrong. Only that it's not as precise as previously thought. And one paper does contain an edit by the author stating that if their clock reading is off by one tick, it could cause measurment discrepancy such as is seen. Add to that the fact that the findings were "confirmed" by the very same team that put out the first results and it make it all look very suspicious for now. We must wait for other teams to confirm or falsify their results before we can get excited. Results are not expected for another few months.

 

Relatively doesn't forbid faster then light speeds only that objects cannot accelerate to C and beyond. There are times where relativity can be satisfied when an object is moving faster than C (requires dividing one imaginary number by another  ).  IIRC it was even hypothesized in the 80's that neutrino's could exhibit tachyon behavior.  Dang I'm rusty on this though...

[PuppetZ]

Relatively doesn't forbid faster then light speeds only that objects cannot accelerate to C and beyond. There are times where relativity can be satisfied when an object is moving faster than C (requires dividing one imaginary number by another  ).  IIRC it was even hypothesized in the 80's that neutrino's could exhibit tachyon behavior.  Dang I'm rusty on this though...

All books I read on the subject says that C is the greatest speed attainable by any and all physical signal. It's one of it's premises. If signal can indeed travel faster than C, it'd cause all sorts of problem with causality. I'll have to read on the subject though. Seem interesting in it's own right.

[clerick]

All books I read on the subject says that C is the greatest speed attainable by any and all physical signal. It's one of it's premises. If signal can indeed travel faster than C, it'd cause all sorts of problem with causality. I'll have to read on the subject though. Seem interesting in it's own right.

There are a lot of weird things that start to pop up when you are looking at tachyons and the like.  For example, their energy must decrease as their speed increases. It's all theoretical of course but allowed by relativity none the less.