Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Issues With E = Mc^2

  1. Sep 27, 2011 #1
    First http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space"

    THEN

    http://www.rense.com/general28/erin.htm" [Broken]

    and NOW the super neutrino radiation evidence of faster - than - light motion.

    Should we have seen this coming?

    Also here's something I've always wondered, isn't a quantum leap techically FTL anyway? I mean if a particle of matter moves so quickly that it exists in multiple places simultaneously then is that not faster than light, which has a defined speed (or so we think) ?

    also doesn't schrodingers wave principle partially prove that reason that light operates as it does is, in fact because the mechanisms used to create it (proton waves/particles) moves at a greater speed than light itself (from one source to another)?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 27, 2011 #2

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    People have been saying relativity is wrong for 100 years and they were proven wrong every single time. I wouldn't see this as "shouldn't we have seen this coming". Even if what we find out is true at CERN, it's more of a broken clock being right twice a day than anyone actually predicting this.

    Of course, I heard a 14 year old say relativity was wrong a few years ago. Did he "see it coming" or was he just an ignorant child dreaming of academic immortality? Only if someone could give reason beforehand to think specifically neutrinos would do this (and explain why it's never been seen in any other experiment), then one can say they saw this coming.
     
  4. Sep 27, 2011 #3

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    I'm going to let this topic stand so that people can correct the tons of misconception you have in this post. However, no discussion on this apparent superluminal neutrinos should be carried put in this thread.

    Zz.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  5. Sep 27, 2011 #4
    I've course I've made misconceptions, I'm a 15 year old up at the early hour of the morning stringing to gather vague pieces of knowledge gathered from shady sources.

    You have a doctorate and some years of presumable experience under your belt.

    Rather than just superciliously claim that I'm a moron why not correct the misconceptions so i can further my understanding in physics? If every time someone with superior knowledge looked at a floored piece of work they just said 'yeah it's wrong' then science wouldn't even exist.

    And the 'apparent' superluminal neutrino would indeed be holey relevant to this thread, or am I wrong again?
     
  6. Sep 27, 2011 #5

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    We already have an ongoing discussion about the superluminal neutrino observation from the OPERA experiment:

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=532620

    Since this observation is as yet unconfirmed, we prefer to keep all discussion of it in one thread for now.
     
  7. Sep 27, 2011 #6
    True, I suppose.

    But 'ignorance' and a 'fresh perspective' are not necessarily mutually exclusive. To say somebody is ignorant because they scrutinize the way that science currently is, is in fact a fallacy in itself. Of course they me be ignorant to huge amounts of what science actually holds, but that's not to say that the scrutiny is the subject of their ignorance.

    And on the 'specific' nature of predictions I'm also not sure that I agree with you. Perhaps sometimes, in fact a lot of the time, there are coincidences that should be thought of as nothing other than as such - However that's not because of their non-specific nature so to speak. For instance if I were to say tomorrow it'll rain at 4 o'clock - and it does - then I have made a prediction, and it has been seen correct. Just because I don't specify the concentration of the precipitation doesn't make the prediction invalid.
     
  8. Sep 27, 2011 #7
    Thank you :)
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Issues With E = Mc^2
  1. E=mc^2 derivation (Replies: 10)

Loading...