Speed of light: Fastest speed in the universe or not?

[FlipMode]

Nah I did more research on it, I think you had it right. Still, the fact they knew there was a delay in the first place really discredits the results if you ask me...

[FlipMode]

Yeah I mean sometimes they get it right. I do love the way their headlines were "SPEED OF LIGHT BROKEn, EINSTEIN WRONG!"
And then in the articles in small print, explain how its only a possibility and unconfirmed lol.

[DGFone]

And another guy who studies Physics walks into the topic...

The test that showed that neutrinos are faster than C is effectively confirmed as false (note: not fake). For one thing, the lab that did the experiments had a notorious error in time keeping, where the error in time-zones between the two endpoints was more than the difference between the neutrinos and photons.

And there was third-part analysis that can get quite confusing, so I'll try and simplify it: A particle that somehow is traveling faster than the speed of light will actually emit other particles that are slower than C. And it will keep doing so until all particles, original and offspring, are all slower than C.

No, I don't know the exact physics behind it (think the cutting edge of quantum theory), but there was confirmed a lack of these "offspring" particles that should have been created by the neutrinos.

So in short, the past century of Physics, at least so far, is standing up to the test of experimentation.

[DGFone]

Also, keep in mind where this 'discovery' was found: Europe. Right now, the labs in Europe are facing a very tight budget and need all the grants they can get. And what a better way to get a few grants than to announce a Physics-breaking discovery? While I doubt that they did something intentionally wrong, it is easy to spot how they announced to the world what they found way before they can say that they conducted the experiments error-free.

Science is half-politics at the end of the day.

[Regulus]

^ That is very true, lol.

I still think it's possible, though. I don't know how we would ever accomplish such a feat, but let's not forget that just 400 years ago we didn't even know the world was round. In 400 years from now, our knowledge of theoretical physics will be far ahead of what it is now. There is a way around anything, it just needs to be found. In time, we will probably be able to "cheat" the system, in some way.

[DGFone]

^ I somehow doubt it. Because in science, existing knowledge is used to discover new things. And what you find nearly 100% of the time is that new discoveries only come to reinforce the old theories, along with introducing new things.

Such as, when the force of gravity was still in doubt, people used the planets of Jupiter to see how gravity works (moons behave just like planets around a sun). But for some reason, the timing was usually off by a very steady figure of about plus minus 8 minutes. When people saw this, they did not think that gravity was wrong, because all other proof was so conclusive.

And to answer this mistiming, the theory of the speed of light was created. So without the theory of gravity, we wouldn't know about the speed of light.

[Regulus]

I've postulated that the only reason why we experience time is because of the expansion of space itself.

But, how can space expand without time? Expansion is a rate, and a rate needs a unit of time to define it.

Geez, this is confusing.

[DGFone]

To add to Woeler's comment: Time is directly connected to the 'space-time continuum' which is effected by gravity. Lots of gravitational force effects time, which is why when you get really close to a black hole's center of mass, where gravity is nearing infinity, time, which is inversely related, halts to a near standstill.

And you can have rates not related to time, but that's a moot point.