Einstein Wrong? A Faster Than Speed Of Light Particle?

groveChuck

U-matic Member
http://news.yahoo.com/challenging-einstein-usually-losing-venture-214054440.html

GENEVA (AP) — Betting against Einstein and his theory of relativity is a way to go broke.
For more than a century, everyone from physicists to the Nazi Party — which encouraged the publication of the tract "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein" — has tried to find cracks in his work. And all have failed.

On Thursday, the world's biggest physics lab unveiled a shocking finding: that one type of subatomic particle was clocked going faster than the speed of light. If true — a big if, even the scientists there concede — it could undercut Einstein's theories. Physicist Michio Kaku of City College of New York called it "the biggest challenge to relativity in 100 years."
Antonio Ereditato, who participated in the European experiment as head of the Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics in Bern, knows what is at stake. After his team fielded two hours of technical questions, some a bit sharp, from a skeptical audience Friday, Ereditato had a beer in hand and was asked about the idea that his work was challenging the secular saint of modern physics.
"Yes, that's why I'm concerned," he said with a laugh.

There's a long history of experimental results that at first seem to contradict relativity, only later to be found to fit neatly with the theory Albert Einstein loved for its simplicity and elegance.
"It's dangerous to lay odds against Einstein," said Rob Plunkett, a physicist at the Fermilab near Chicago who has tried similar speed-of-light experiments and will now try to test the new findings.

Even Einstein himself was wrong in 1929 when he called his cosmological constant his "biggest blunder." He introduced the constant in his general relativity theory as a force that keeps the universe from collapsing. In 1998, new findings showed that the universe is accelerating and that in general Einstein's "blunder" wasn't a mistake.
Harvard University science historian Peter Galison said Einstein's relativity theories have been challenged and "pushed on as hard as any theory in the history of physical sciences ever" and they have survived.

The elegance of Einstein's theory and its proven track record are why nearly every one of the more than a dozen physicists contacted by The Associated Press about the new findings has been cautious, skeptical or downright disbelieving.
The research is the result of a collaboration between France's National Institute for Nuclear and Particle Physics Research and Italy's Gran Sasso National Laboratory.

The scientists fired a beam of neutrinos 454 miles (730 kilometers) underground from Geneva to Italy. They found it traveled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. That's 60 billionths of a second, a time no human brain could register.
"You could say it's peanuts, but it's not. It's something that we can measure rather accurately with a small uncertainty," Ereditato told the AP.
On Friday, hundreds of scientists packed an auditorium at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, on the Swiss-French border to hear the details. Physicists on the team said they were as surprised as their skeptics about the results, which appear to violate the laws of nature as we know them.

Going faster than light is something that is just not supposed to happen, according to Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity. The speed of light — 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second) — has long been considered the cosmic speed limit.
"If you find some matter particle such as the neutrino going faster than light, this is something which immediately shocks everybody, including us," Ereditato said.

The experiment needs to be independently reviewed — most likely by teams in the U.S. or Japan.
"If this result holds, and I kind of doubt it, it means we'll have to rewrite all of modern physics," said Kaku, author of the book "Physics of the Future" and host of a Science Channel television show. "Einstein has come out ahead every single time. However, this time you're talking about the largest particle accelerator in the world registering a significant deviation in relativity."
Columbia University physicist Brian Greene said he would "bet just about everything I hold dear that this won't hold up to scrutiny." But even if the results are confirmed, Einstein's theories will need more of a patch than anything else, he said.
Ereditato agreed.

"When Einstein did his relativity, it didn't destroy what Newton did. In fact, Newton explains 99.9 percent of what is happening around us. But still, in some special conditions of matter, you are forced to use special relativity," Ereditato said. "Now suppose we would find one day that under extreme conditions you have to take into account corrections to what we know now. This doesn't mean that Einstein's wrong."
And this is the glory of science, said Don Howard, who lectures on Einstein and heads the Reilly Center for Science, Technology and Values at Notre Dame University. Experiments are allowed, even encouraged, to challenge pillars of science.
"Everything is up for grabs," Howard said. "Even a genius like Einstein."
 
there was already known results/experiments to show that "faster" than light is possible (and not relying on speed calculation, that is a a concept full of hole, simply because
the fact to say "lightspeed" (in fact C constant) is set from speed of photon could be dead wrong if neutrino are faster, that could simply mean real lightspeed is the one from neutrinos).
This is particularly true since Einstein never speaks directly about light, he speaks about mass and energy.
Basically he says Energy and mass are closely related and you can calculate Energy from mass, using the c constant (E=mc2). C constant was not set as speed of light but was explained as it should be found from the speed of a particule that has no mass.
But at that time, photon was the only know particle to be fast and light enough to be considered as "no mass", and perfectly fitted the role.
So photons were source of light, then the reference speed C they were looked after was adopted as "speed of light".
So neutrinos are lighter than photons, and obviously, since that rule, they are supposed to go faster. No magic here, just give back to Cesar...

It is really strange that this concept was not "shaked" before, because Astronomers knows since a long time that light can be bend by very heavy object.
So it means that photons, as light as they are, still have a mass, and makes them unable to claim to be the "C" particle. Possibly , there is even no particle
associated to the C constant, even neutrinos could be the wrong one. Knowing that some force are left out from the great unification that einstein was looking for (like Gravitation that has no associated particle), it could be possible that C constant is a number close to light speed but really has nothing to do with it..
the problem is not to get it. It is what to do with it ?
It is very possible that many calculations were the anonymous C constant was blindly swapped with photon's speed can give very different expectations under this new point of view.
 
Last edited:
Einsteins general theory of relativity was based on a sophisticated 4 dimensional geometry that was incomplete at the time he first published. The differential geometry needed to produce a truly valid unified field theory did not exist for more than a decade afterwards. Errors in Einstein's math have been known for decades but the standard model practice has been to work around them with ad hoc modifications rather than correct the underlying mathematical structure until 2005. No physics theory is absolute and there is no such thing as only one correct theory. They are mathematical metaphors for reality subject to change with experimental data. Different mathematical theories can be used to describe the same physical data accurately, but relativity is still the gold standard for the simplest most complete theoretical model for describing most known physical experimental data.
There is nothing about the theory of relativity that says speeds faster than light are impossible. Einstein used light speed as his reference constant because the speed of a standard mass photon in a vacuum was, and still is, one of the most accurately measurable constants in physics. It is accurate to about 17 decimal places and calculates the same within a couple of points at the 17th decimal for all valid mathematical models in physics.
 
Last edited:
that is the problem with " gold standard ", you can hardly put them back on the workbench, and even if they are usefull, at a certain time, they can become toxic.
sun spinning around the earth was a great model for very long and pleased many scientifics and still 18% americans believe this among other silly things.
 
"My fingers smell like my cat's Breath" Ralphie, "the Simpsons"

I think Ralphie was a brilliant, misunderstood genius. He was referring to Schroedinger's Cat and the experiments using wave theory.

Actually I found this article to be very intriguing, should it prove true. Which got me to thinking more about Einstein's TOR. If his calculations were flawed, then what is to say there is not a downstream effect? One of the given reasons "time travel" is not feasible, uses Einstein's theories.

Yes, they are "elegant" to a point. But if there is a flaw in the theory, then the whole equation is like a house of cards waiting to collapse (using a pure mathematics mindset). As to the speed of light being a "constant", I would agree that may be true in a natural state. But since it can be affected ( http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html ) by external sources, that theory may have some holes in it too.

That's why I like studying quantum physics, it gets pretty strange at the sub-atomic level.

Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
nope there is no flaw in the theory. The problem just lie in the fact that physicians are looking to unify all the forces in one formula (preffered a simple one).
Then come Einstein with a very nice formula (only 3 parameters E, m, c) that proved to be very effective. But if you look closley to his formula, he just put all what was disturbing into
a constant c (and square it). So really his formula says Energy=mass multiplied by something. The something can be replaced by C2 (and could be incredibly complex and even not constant ), but presented
like this, so simple and elegant, you can hardly resist. and if you go even further and extrapolated that C could be easily replace by speed of light (and still works well), then it looks genius.
The good thing is if you believe that c is not just a constant and certainly not speed of light, the formula stays eligible to be a good candidate for the ultimate
formula (the one that describes all the forces we know). so einstein was not right, but probably on the right way.
for instance, according Einstein, we get as unique elements (means they cannot be split or reduced to something else) Energy and Mass and a constant.
the constant must be something including speed to make the formula work.(and speed include reference to movement, then dimension, then space , time etc...) and einstein needed at least 10 complexe equations to describe space and time.
So , it is like to take a cookbook and summarize all recipee by saying, you need water, salt and something else, the resulting beeing a nice meal.
Well, it is clear with that kind of formula you can't be wrong....
What makes usually formulas toxic, is they are one way. In that case Energy is calculated from mass and a constant.
But what is really energy ? Einstein got no way to prove his theory by measuring the energy given by his formula, so it is like saying
"take one pound of matter, multiply by some number and you got another number as output."
Knowing that most of the mass of the universe is missing or we are unable to observe it, and we can imagine that we know very few about all forms of energy.
so, multiplying mass by anything and getting a result is ok, but if you do not really master 2 terms of an equation that has only 3, well.....
So the day we wil be able to reverse the formula and create mass from energy for example, then we will see (and for instance this does not work, because
the only field where it is possible does not really match einstein physics since quantum mechanics is very far from einstein).
So you can say that in Cern, they are working everyday with things that does not fit AT ALL with einstein discovery.
 
Last edited:
If I remember well from my University textbooks, the popular E=mc2 is a bit misleading. The correct formula is a bit more complicated than that.
In fact, based on the full formula, relativity theory does not exclude mathematically that a particle can travel faster than photons.
It just implies that such particle should have a negative mass.
Interesting times.
 
Back
Top