TED Conversations

Brennan Hooper

Truth ,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

What if Einstein was wrong?

Im sure many of you are aware of this but recently cern found possible evidence that the light barrier is not the true barrier for speed. What does this mean what are its implications? Its certainly something to discuss right? Einstein believed this constant was the one thing that kept the universe from collapsing.

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 29 2011: Wouldn't the darkness of space be a better constant for E=mc^2 than the speed of light in a vacuum? It has the same speed as the speed of light in a vacuum. Its just that it will always be a vacuum so the speed is always constant no matter what. Light speed varies depending on the medium it passes through. In E=mc^2 E is understood to be squared if you take the square root you yield +or- mc. same principle as saying 4^1/2 =+ or- 2 . This allows for two things to equal one. Perhaps this E=Sqrt(mc^4) would be even better? Someone that knows physics; blow me out of the water if im wrong.
    • thumb
      Sep 29 2011: E=mc^2 is a derivation, you cannot just arbitrarily take out the square at leisure. The speed of light here is a constant, so you would not get a negative even without the squaring. Finally E=mc^2 has been tried and tested. Stop the waffle. What you wrote about darkness makes no sense at all. This is science, not some art project.
      • thumb
        Sep 30 2011: Let me explain it better. What is faster: the light filling the room when turning it on or the darkness filling it when the light is shut off? Its the same speed its just the darkness is always there light just "gets in the way". It is a real constant. Light does have its speed limit but it is not a constant. Im not saying thats the right equation; it just yields the same answers. Einstein guessed himself; he started with e=mc^2 then showed the derivation worked. I understand it is a derivation. I just dont see how the acceleration of energy could only be 2? The universe is expanding faster and faster therefore the acceleration cant be constant. This is all just hypothetical were are just trying to come up with ideas. For every mistake you learn something new.
        • thumb
          Oct 1 2011: Darkness doesn't have an independent existence outside of your brain per se . Lights are photons. Darkness is just the absence of photons hitting your retina. Thus, without living organisms, darkness makes no sense.
      • thumb
        Oct 2 2011: The vacuum of space does exist independent of us. Just because something only appears when consciously observed, doesn't mean it isn't real or valid. If that was the case; one could argue electrons make no sense and dont independently exist. You cant name a single thing that would make sense, without something to make sense of it.
      • thumb
        Oct 2 2011: 5=/=1 true, 5=1+1+1+1+1. Darkness is a part of the vacuum of space. In your previous statement you equivocated the existence of darkness with something to make sense of it. What i said was based on what you said. You only invalidated your own argument. I dont see why you seem so set on proving everything I say to be wrong. What is next? What else do you have to say? We can go in this endless circle forever if you like?
        • thumb
          Oct 2 2011: I did not invalidate my own argument. Please take a moment to re-read and understand my words. In fact, never mind, take an even bigger moment to understand the equation E=mc^2, where it comes from, why it is how it is. There's even a bloody book called 'Why does E=MC^2'. Take another big moment to get to grips with the various bits and concepts you can honestly admit to yourself you don't fully understand.

          If you're honest in your search for truth, a truth that you get from the scientific methodology, you will try to poke holes in your own ideas until you find that idea that doesn't have holes to start with. Trying to continually revive the dead carcass of an idea won't bring you anywhere and nobody who understands the subject at hand will think of you as smart for your deepities. Maybe anything goes when you're talking about religion and spirituality but this is science.

          To me, suggesting the darkness of space as a constant for E=MC^2 is like suggesting the Avogadro constant should be a light shade of green or a B minor note played on the accordion.
      • thumb
        Oct 3 2011: E=Sqrt(mc^4) equals E=plus or minus (mc^2). E is understood to be squared in E=mc^2 to get the mc you would have to take the square root of E which also equals plus or minus mc. Its the SAME exact equation yielding the SAME exact numbers.If you dont believe me and need a visual put it in a simple graphing calculator.

        The speed at which the vacuum of space can appear can only be as fast as the matter that leaves it. In the case of photons it is the same speed as the maximum speed of light. Except the vacuum is always there. Im only saying the dark vacuum of space is truly constant and the speed of light may vary in what ever it passes through. Its ALWAYS there and therefore ALWAYS constant even if matter is in the way. It holds the universe together. It holds atoms together; as they are mostly empty space. Its the SAME exact C value. How is it not true? I dont see how it doesn't make sense or how i can explain it any better.
        • thumb
          Oct 3 2011: The constant C is a positive constant. So what if its square root of its square can be positive or negative? I got you the first time, I'm pretty familiar with mathematics. I just ignored that point because it's really really stupid.

          Here what you're purporting to measure is the speed at which things leave a vacuum, in essence you're measuring the speed of things, like everyone else, but focusing on some consequence it has because it makes you feel smart and deep. You're wanting to replace a perfectly sound defined constant by the same constant in a painfully convoluted form, as though simplicity was the enemy of science.

          So the speed at which light leaves some vacuum is constant and the existence of the vacuum is constant. Hurray! Two unrelated ways in which the vacuum of space is constant! So so deep!
        • thumb
          Oct 3 2011: Matthieu - perhaps he's simply exploring something that makes sense to him. Something you see clearly, and he's exploring it differently. I'm not seeing anything wrong, or stupid, about that - even if it turns out to be scientifically unfeasible. It's how we learn and understand....and come up with new ideas.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.