CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'

[ggreg]

no sh**. but does it actually void the theory of relativity? mmmmm
not my game but im curious o the implications
sip
does it mean ill be able to sip fine scotch before i sip it?
mmmmm

You cannot void a theory.

We've seen that with the theory of evolution.

They'll just claim the Neutrinos are tunnelling through another dimension.  Some scientists are such bullshitters.

Einstein is their God.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15034852

You only have to study the Schroedinger's cat bullshit to know these idiots are making it up.

[Tim]

This is right there in my favorite bug a boo. My fave weird scientist is Newton. He said that if you can not quantify it you do not know it. This is the part I find so humorous. When faced with an observed fact which blows their theory to hell, they don't flinch and make up some more horsefeathers, just like Ggreg has pointed out. When I took chemistry and physics we use the planetary model, and there was no muon, gluon, F*U on or off. We had shells and exchanged ions and it was all very understandable. Now these things have colour, and charm. What does that mean ? If you can not explain it and people can not understand it , it is horsefeathers. We have problems out the kazoo and these guys bull sh** each other.
tim 

[Walty]

You only have to study the Schroedinger's cat bullshit to know these idiots are making it up.

That's one thing that has never made sense to me.

[cgraye]

This is right there in my favorite bug a boo. My fave weird scientist is Newton. He said that if you can not quantify it you do not know it. This is the part I find so humorous. When faced with an observed fact which blows their theory to hell, they don't flinch and make up some more horsefeathers, just like Ggreg has pointed out.

What do you expect them to do?  They just found out about this, and they haven't even verified it yet.  You can't start revising things without something a little more substantial.

When I took chemistry and physics we use the planetary model

Which doesn't work, because there is no way to explain why the electrons do not spiral into the nucleus.

and there was no muon, gluon, F*U on or off.

There is direct experimental evidence of muons and gluons, so...what do you want us to do?

We had shells and exchanged ions and it was all very understandable.

We still have that.

Now these things have colour, and charm. What does that mean ? If you can not explain it and people can not understand it , it is horsefeathers.

Color charge is a property for the strong force that works like electric charge for the electromagnetic force.  It can be explained and understood.

I don't see what the problem is here.

[cgraye]

no sh**. but does it actually void the theory of relativity? mmmmm

It would certainly require changes to it.  Anything that assumes C is a speed that cannot be surpassed would have to be modified.  But that doesn't mean what we already know is wrong.  The development of Relativity did not mean Newton was wrong - in the cases he was examining, he was perfectly right.  It just showed us that there was more to it, and Newton's theory was incomplete.  The same would be true here of Relativity.  But we already knew it was incomplete in a sense because we hadn't yet been able to reconcile it with Quantum Mechanics.  Science is always a process of making new discoveries and modifying our models as a result.

[devotedknuckles]

its kinda cool. seems int he end there is no barriers. every time we think there is one we eventually break it. sound is a good example.
neat
if true
maybe its just a mistake. i guess they need to do allot of repeated experiments ot see
i wouldnt know a gluon from a ding dong. but neat

[Someone1776]

The historian Thomas Kuhns has a thesis that science is advanced in paradigm shifts. That is when science advances it does not do so in gradual steps but in massive revolutions. I think we might be on the verge of such a paradigm shift.

According to Kuhns what you see happens in the sciences is that someone comes along with a revolutionary theory that just completely shatters the understanding of the field. And thus this theory creates a new paradigm. But as time goes by flaws begin to emerge in the theory. But as the theory is central to the field one can't just dismiss it. So scientists begin to offer explanations that explain the flaws. After time the flaws are so large that the explanations for these flaws become ridiculously convoluted (see String Theory) that some scientist realizes that the whole system is flawed and offers a paradigm shifting theory that revolutionizes the field. And then the process repeats.  

[devotedknuckles]

yes ive read that one. i even have the book someplace.
a good one

[Tim]

Someone 1776, I believe you're on to something, across the board. All of the so called working theories have become rube goldberized. They have so many appendages neces

[cgraye]

No, I'm old and tired.  And also not a physicist :(