Reaction to Faster Than Light Claims Expose Anti-Skeptic Myth

From several years ago Speed Of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicist Suggests

We're still infants learning to walk when it comes to understanding the universe. There's plenty of room for Einstein's equations to remain on one level while we understand and apply new theories on many others.

but it does illustrate that science is open-ended and scientists are open minded, willing to accept change if proof is is provided, not close-minded like we see with the anti-science crowd!

True, FredC. I think (but I could be wrong) that most of the anti-science crowd in the USA are fundamentalist Christians who think scientists are just atheists trying to debunk their faith. Like Rick Perry -- who says he does not believe in evolution or global warming. The same crowd will run to the doctor at the first sign of sickness in themselves or their children, so not all science is looked at suspiciously -- just that which says their faith is misplaced.

It won't completely debunk it, it will just qualify it. Just like Relativity didn't debunk Newton (which is still studied), it just qualified it and set parameters as to where it is valid.

In addition Einstein did predict that there were 'entities' that did go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. (and yes, it is speed of light in a vacuum, not the speed of light on its own because the speed of light is not an absolute constant.

OldCM,

I think you're partially right, but I don't think all Christians distance themselves from science. "Real" Christians (which excludes most of the people who claim to be Christian) should embrace science; they have nothing to fear from it.

Charmonium,

I agree with you completely. That's why I referred to fundamentalist -- meaning those that believe that every word in the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and that therefore the universe was made in seven 24-hour days and evolution cannot be true. Thank you for pointing out that there are real Christians who try to follow the words of Jesus Christ and live by them.

Fufu, it's supposed to be the limit for any material object. But this is not the first time the notion some kind of faster than light phenomenon has come up. It's a very tough thing to prove though. See Quantum entanglement.

in my "laymans" observation, to avoid correction from the brainaics ....

one must remember,, the theory of relativity.. the relative part... light speed is not constant, but rather constant relative to a vacuum.. light in water is much slower, light near a gravitational source is distorted or in black holes.. stops and reverses direction.. electricity whose speed is relativity equal to light.. travels faster in orbit on satellites than on the earths surface.. interestingly this does not change ohms law or Kirchhoff's laws, as long as the scientist remembers what is is comparing relative to baseline data

slow slower than particle speed light ( faster than light particle ) does not invalidate anything, but suggests the researchers failed to quantify the relativity of their experiment

That's not the way I read the article at all, Wheel.

Come on, his second paragraph goes tangential into

that they refuse to acknowledge the existence of paranormal phenomenon (psychic abilities, ghosts, extraterrestrial visitors, etc

wheel,

well scientific proof did come out of research programs that my ex WAS faking it. Does that count?

She was only faking with you, ask your brother and best friend. :)

(teasing here, just teasing)

naw, my best friend in that clique wouldn't touch her with a 10 foot pole, or if I paid him money. His boyfriend would probably complain lol (yes it is true, a straight man can have a really good friendship with a gay man lol).

As for my brother, well you see, if that actually happened, I could accuse her of child molestation because my only brother is under 18 (yeah my father's been a busy guy hahahaha), though knowing the judge in family court that has been assigned to our case, she would probably just increase my alimony payments lol.

Phil Plait (who is not an expert in this field, but is in fact a physicist) had pointed out that the error bars are still pretty big on this data. What we need now is indeed replication. When Michaelson and Morely disproved the ether, leading to relativity, their data was repeatable.

On the other hand, Millikan just pisses me off. (That's just me grumbling about too many late nights trying to duplicate the oil drop experiment and never once getting his results.)

That's just me grumbling about too many late nights trying to duplicate the oil drop experiment and never once getting his results

LOL, Adipic. Were those late nights in the lab with or without beer?

If it makes you feel any better, my own replications of Milliken's work produced, shall we say, 'scattered' results ;-)

After all, we've been testing Relativity for nearly 100 years now - and never found a single violation

people seem to forget... the atomic bomb changed the theory into the therom of relativity.. since it was proved, more than once

No beer, but the amount of caffeine in my body may have made me a little shaky while manipulating the apparatus.

the atomic bomb changed the theory into the therom of relativity

I am curious what you mean by this. "Theorem" and "theory" are synonyms in the scientific hierarchy. The words are essentially interchangeable.

I refer to the mathematical use of therom to describe a theory which has been PROVED, and no longer a postulation e-MC squared WAS a theory, after it was used to split ATOMS the energy released PROVED the theory to be correct and true, predictable and repeatable..

every neuclear power plant also proves it to be a theorem also to a very precise accuracy of amount of fuel to KWH of electrial power

Again, you misunderstand what "theory" means. For one thing, relativity has not been disproved, but it cannot be proved in the sense that mathematics uses the term. No scientific theory can be. There is always the possibility that a piece of evidence (such as the observation noted in this article) will come along and force us to either re-work it or abandon it for something consistent with both its explanations and the new observations.

better said from wiki on what I mean, I'm just a lay person, not a scientist..

Theories vs. theorems

Theories are distinct from theorems. Theorems are derived deductively from assumptions according to a formal system of rules, sometimes as an end in itself and sometimes as a first step in testing or applying a theory in a concrete situation; theorems are said to be true in the sense that the conclusions of a theorem are logical consequences of the assumptions. Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered true. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true but expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. Sometimes theories are falsified, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental assumption or prediction of the theory, but more often theories are revised to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made. Sometimes a hypothesis never reaches the point of being considered a theory because there is no way to derive its assertions analytically or no way to test them empirically.

Thus there is no theorem of relativity. Physics is an observed, not formal, system.

physicist,

And isn't testing it the fun of science? I mean, without the tests, physics is just a bunch of guys in a room talking about philosophy. It is the tests that turn that philosophy into hard science.

(Apologies to all the fine women scientists for the exclusion, it was not intended that way).

Jonathan,

And isn't testing it the fun of science?

That's a huge part of it, definitely.

And the other (and, IMO, most rewarding part of the process) is trying to understand the underlying mechanism driving the results of those tests. That's where theoretical science really becomes exciting - when data yields the unexpected, or when calculations predict never-before-seen results.

(Apologies to all the fine women scientists for the exclusion, it was not intended that way).

I certainly knew many superb female physicists in my day. At the first American Physical Society meeting I attended, there were exactly 2 female physicists. Things have changed quite a lot since then.

well I guess that part didn't quite reflect what I originally wrote which was 'physics is just a bunch of old farts ...

Yes things have changed, for the better I might add, still lots of room to grow though.

Physics is an observed, not formal, system

uh huh, that's why engineers can use it formally??? /s

I guess my comment went "under your head" no argument here .. but you seem to have missed my point completely........ sigh.. peace..

A formal system has a very specific definition in this case. It is one where the conclusions are absolutely provable given the axioms. Reality actually has little to do with them. Physics, on the other hand is based on observed phenomena. In a formal system, conclusions contrary to the axioms are false. In physics, conclusions contrary to the axioms means the system is false.

Pure mathematics and mathematical logic are good examples of formal systems. It is inside that narrow field of endeavor where we can prove things absolutely, although they are subject to the limits of that system. For example, the Pythagorean Theorem only holds for the formal system of Euclidean geometry. In elliptic or hyperbolic geometries, it does not. The difference between the three is a single axiom that has little to do at first glance with right triangles at all. Examples of all three can be found in nature, so one can not actually call the Pythagorean Theorem proved in nature. It is only absolutely true inside the ideal world of the formal system it is part of.