Brennan Hooper

Truth ,

This conversation is closed.

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.

  • thumb
    Oct 3 2011: Einstein's theory (of relativity) might at worst be incomplete.
    The level of incompleteness is for normal humans almost unnoticeable.

    Aside from GPS, we can use Newton's gravity theory as a good approximation... not wrong either... just incomplete.
  • thumb
    Sep 28 2011: Interesting link I found on reddit while I was lookiing around, basically what I thought to be honest... http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ksv4l/iama_physicist_who_attended_the_presentation_of/
  • thumb
    Sep 28 2011: Let's not jump the gun on what CERN has found, the reason they opened up their results to the world is so that other institutes could test it out. Despite the sensationalist media frenzy (typical), nothing is certain yet.

    Also, let's remember that science is not a cult of personality. We don't listen to what Einstein said because he was smart, we listen to what he said because it fits. In asking "what if Einstein was wrong?" you're assuming that everything he ever said was right and that if there's some discrepancy somewhere at all, the whole edifice of science falls. We know for a fact that he wasn't always right as he vividly rejected quantum mechanics for its strangeness. We also know for a fact that he can't be entirely wrong about everything! There are real word applications to special and general relativity. Nature does not follow Man's whims, but its own, so you cannot fool nature into adopting a false theory. This should be so clear cut to people, but yet everyone seems to struggle with this notion. The only thing Einstein's work is, is incomplete and that is no secret to anyone who knows that quantum mechanics and relativity have yet to be reconciled.

    By the way, I don't see much science in your post below. Science isn't philosophy, it isn't an exercise of pure thought. Ask yourself if you sincerely think you can outsmart Einstein simply by thinking about the nature of the world in your mind.
    • thumb
      Sep 29 2011: Absolutely! this is purely a hypothetical question. I read that the actual clocked speed beat the speed of light by next to nothing. It will be very interesting to see if the results pass the test of time! I agree, i actually need to iterate that by wrong i meant he didn't have the complete answer only a partial one. Theres gotta be a way to satisfy everything with relativity. I agree we didn't listen to him because he was smart. I believe he was actually quoted as saying that his intelligence and education actually hindered him in his work! I know i didn't use classically defined science. Mine is based more rather towards logic and paradoxes. Just a fresh perspective. I just try to look for a way to make sense of it. I really didn't try to think to hard about my idea it just sorta came to me in random bursts of inspiration throughout the day on last monday kinda silly i guess. Though it actually was rather surprising to me! It made sense so i decided to write it down. I dont believe i could ever outsmart Einstein; i just think he was thinking too hard. Science is the observation of the present to collect data. With that data you can start to ask questions. The key is to ask the right questions though. If anything though this is still something that is a tremendous achievement for people!
    • thumb
      Sep 29 2011: Matthieu, you put it very clearly!
      I just have a comment, you say that "he vividly rejected quantum mechanics" What I know is that he was perplexed, could not explain it -alone or in collaborative work- and humbly acknowledged it.
      • thumb
        Sep 29 2011: Yes, you're right to mention that he did eventually acknowledge it given that it was shown to be scientifically sound. 'Rejected' is, in retrospect, not the right word to use.
    • thumb
      Sep 29 2011: QUOTE: "Let's not jump the gun on what CERN has found, the reason they opened up their results to the world is so that other institutes could test it out. Despite the sensationalist media frenzy (typical), nothing is certain yet."


      Actually one thing is certain: they got the results they got. They have just not been replicated yet.

      That's still pretty cool.

      They were quick to say they did not want to presume what the impact will be (if their findings are verified.)
  • thumb
    Oct 1 2011: It seems that the speed of light can be slowed down under certain circumstances.
    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html
    Perhaps it can be speeded up by other circumstances ?
    As the universe is winding down to eventual heat death in keeping with the 2nd Law, would it be surprising if light was slowing over the long term, similar to earth rotation, magnetic field, solar diameter, etc ?

    :-)
    • thumb
      Oct 2 2011: The speed of light in a vacuum does appear to be the speed of light's limit. Light is slowed down when it passes through matter. Thats why i say use the vacuum as the constant not light. Its the same number; as a vacuum can only appear as fast as the matter is expelled from it. This is true the universe will eventually probably collapse back in on itself and restart. Though this will happen on a timescale that is almost incomprehensible to us. Time will reveal all though; thats the beauty of it!
  • 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.
  • thumb
    Sep 29 2011: That's what science is about.
    Nobody is prophet in science, that's what I can say , even not being expert in physics, cosmology or astro-physics.
  • thumb
    Sep 29 2011: I just thought this was an interesting similarity to the three principles i stated that define existence. All naturally occurring protons and neutrons are composed of 3 quarks, 2 up quarks and 1 down quark. The individual colors are not important but all three must exist and be must be different(when diagramed they are shown to have 3 separate colors). They are interchangeable.This is the same with the principles of logic i stated. It doesn't matter which side one assigns the three principles too, only that all three exist and that two are roughly similar the nothing and everything principle. The last completely separate principle; the DNE(does not exist) one binds the other two together and defines them. Each separate piece depends on the other to be true; they depend on one another equally to define. I dont really know much about quantum physics or mechanics but i find it to be an interesting comparison. Anyone think the similarity is interesting or do i just not have any idea what im talking about? Im not afraid to be wrong that is how you learn.
  • thumb
    Sep 28 2011: Yeah, I heard about that! Wasn't it a particle that acclerated faster than light? But only by a very small amount? (please correct me if I'm wrong I don't know alot about advanced science). If this is true it really turns the tables on alot of Einstiens theory but then again after I watched "The World On A String" It looks like Quantam Physics is a whole new realm of possibilties too. Strange world.
    • thumb
      Sep 29 2011: This would indeed be what transpires from the data, but it has to be confirmed by being reproduced in other labs. The opinion given by the scientist in the link I provided below says it all. Einstein's theory would remain accurate for the most part. Quantum mechanics is another realm that so far only really concerns subatomic particles and smaller objects such as the hypothesised vibrating strings.
    • thumb
      Sep 29 2011: Yes the scientist at cern clocked a neutrino moving just above the speed of light. It will have to be verified. It will be very interesting if the results can pass the test of time!
  • thumb
    Sep 28 2011: I personally believe Einstein was wrong. Here is my evidence to support my thought. Einstein himself thought the universe was infinite but he over thought his whole theory. I believe it is really very simple matter that connects the universe and keeps it from collapsing. He limited an infinite universe which is completely illogical. Something cant come from nothing unless everything is nothing and nothing is everything. Only that which is, exists; only truth is exists. Three principles govern all of creation: that which is, that which is not, and that which is nothing. Nothing is the empty vessel which truth fills. It is the very same principal that determines your ability to read my text. The contrast of black and white shows you the text. One cannot exist without the other. People ask which came first the egg or the chicken. The only true answer is they are one in the same. Because, how can one exist without the other True or false? Unicorns do not exist. Horses do but without an empty space of nothing the horse wouldn't exist either. You need three legs to become completely stable this is why 3 leg chairs never wobble or that the triangle is a natural sturdy shape and is used to many high strength tension bridges. Am i on to something? I hope to revolutionize the way people think. Simple things often seem complex until you understand them this is why many people have trouble with mathematics.
    • Sep 28 2011: Brennan -
      Pleased to see a fellow Carolinian participating in this forum. I bet Pisgah is beautiful right now. As you have grown up in the same culture as I have I am sure you are going to understand there is no malice in my straight talk -

      TruthContest.com is NOT an example of educated analysis. It does NOT contain any evidence to back up it's claims. It's contributors are NOT on the same level as those of us on TED and it is certainly NOT the TRUTH. From a quick reading of several posts on there and your profile and comments here, I am pretty certain the ideas contain an amalgamation of Coral Castle Code, an over-projection of an incomplete understanding of esoteric thought and a lot of pot-induced babble. You are going to have to find a more intelligent guru than a rag-tag assembly of college kids if you are looking to find ULTIMATE TRUTH. (which may or may not exist)

      I do not see where you present any 'evidence' for your 'theory.' Nor am I entirely certain what your theory ultimately entails -

      "Something cant come from nothing unless everything is nothing and nothing is everything. Only that which is, exists; only truth is exists. Three principles govern all of creation: that which is, that which is not, and that which is nothing. Nothing is the empty vessel which truth fills."

      And....? At least Einstein gave us a scientific theory and not a metaphysical one. In what practical ways would your 'theory' change the way someone looks at the world?

      SEP
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2011: I can see where you come from but if you do not read the whole book you have no clout in a debate about it. I recommend you read it ALL. You can see the theme everywhere; in all religion and in all inspiration. The person who wrote it is not a college pot head either. The evidence is merely in the truth of the statement. Evidence is truth. Those three things define everything do they not? You would be false to say it doesn't. Name something that is not defined by those three things and ill change my mind. It allows someone to live fully at the very least. My life is infinitely more full than it used to that is a fact. Everyone i know can attest to noticing the positive changes that have occurred in me. We are all still learning my statements may not be perfect but unless we discuss all possibilites we only limit ourselves.
        • Sep 29 2011: Brennan -

          "Name something that is not defined by those three things..."

          Can you define these three things in any other way than 'that which is, that which is not, and that which is nothing'?

          AND

          "It allows someone to live fully at the very least"

          How so? And even if this is true, it does not prove the overall claim of the argument. There are a lot of assumptions and judgments we make which are false but preferable, even necessary. Have you read Nietzsche on the subject?

          SEP

          P.S. Do you have Duke Energy up in Brevard? They are trying to raise their base electric rates by 15 percent down here. If you are affected, what are your thoughts?
      • thumb
        Sep 29 2011: I can define them as: things that are true( things that do exist), things that are false(things that dont exist), and nothing or empty space. All things fall in these categories yet each one restrict define and manifest the others. I am familiar with Nietzsche actually; what an interesting man he was! To live fully one must embrace only that which is true (the present, not the past or future). One second spent in the latter two, either wanting the future to be now or wishing the present was still like the past, is one second you dont truly or fully live. If you embody the present fully no matter how bitter or how sweet it is; you live fully. If you spent your life chasing the horizon your whole life you will only end up where you started with the horizon still taunting in the distance. I live in Boone the mountains are always beautiful though it has rained a lot and destroyed many of the leaves fall colour. Im fairly certain Duke does do the energy there. Hmm that is quite outrageous in my opinion i dont see why they dont invest in solar power for energy and use it for hydrogen electrolysis it would pay for itself in no time and it would free oil companies to process oil for products that we will always need such as plastic. Why must we burn such precious resources up into our atmosphere and poison our lungs?
        • Sep 29 2011: I,t too, am familiar with Nietzsche and can almost hear the menacing laughter with which he would respond to

          "I can define them as: things that are true( things that do exist), things that are false(things that dont exist), and nothing or empty space. All things fall in these categories yet each one restrict define and manifest the others"

          This is not a definition, it's more of a tautology. Something either exist or it doesn't - I am not quite clear on the need for a category for 'empty space'. I also am failing to see the correlation between these 'three principles' and the practice of living in the present. How are the two concepts at all related?

          SEP
      • thumb
        Sep 29 2011: Think of it in numbers there is 0 (nothing) a vacuum emptiness a single constant of infiniteness, all real numbers(infinite as well) and imaginary numbers which dont technically exist but can still be conceived in the mind. There is no number that would not fall in one of those three sections. 0 is not a real number nor is it imaginary therefore is deserves its own category. The present the the point where nothingness and everything meet; limited by DNE. It is the absolute truth; in reality there is nothing else but the present. The future has not happened and the past is already done; the past is now intangible to the present.