Einstein was wrong? Subatomic particles move faster than light?

[BballTim]

 The speed of light can vary as light goes through different mediums (such as air, glass  or water). It can also vary (or at least appear to vary) due to gravity. But people need to consider how this affects the argument in question. If you really wanted to measure how long it takes something to get from point A to point B you have to have extremely accurate measurements in distance and 2 clocks that are in almost perfect lockstep. But in this case the distance measured is 454 miles and the clocks are that far apart.

Just a random addition... you'd need 2 points considerably high off the ground to have a straight line distance of 454 miles away from eachother considering the curvature of Earth.

  I think it's a tunnel, so the middle would be fairly deep as opposed to the ends high, but good point.

So, a colleague explained to me today that neutrinos can travel through matter, so both of our points are irrelevant.  Wikipedia confirms "Being electrically neutral, it is able to pass through ordinary matter almost unaffected, 'like a bullet passing through a bank of fog'"  So neutrinos could travel right through the Earth when traveling that large distance. 

  It's true that neutrinos can travel through the earth but the article said there was a tunnel. Not to mention, they'd want to send other things than neutrinos over that same path. And, again, I don't think there's any real way to accurately time events that happen hundreds of miles apart.

[guava_wrench]

First, it is premature to draw any conclusions from this. One measurement is just one measurement. There are so many variables when making observations that it will take some corroboration. Additional experiments will be devised to test this, just as past experiments have been done (which validated that claim neutrinos are bounded by the speed of light).

Second, new findings will not make Relativity irrelevant regardless of how revolutionary they may be, just like how Einstein did not make Newton irrelevant. We still have satellites in orbit that rely on Relativity to work correctly. Relativity has resulted in so many practical applications, that there future models (such as one that incorporates Quantum Mechanics) will also incorporate the realities uncovered by Relativity.

Even if we learn that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light (still unlikely) we still know that math of Relativity is used daily in real world applications that would fail if Relativity wasn't for the most part correct (and if Newton were incorrect in a few points).

[Lucky17]

Hold up.

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/23/oops-speed-of-light-may-still-be-the-limit/?hpt=hp_t2

[Fafnir]

A loose cord and a set of clocks that didn't synch with perfection and bam, 60 nanseconds off.

Physics at this level is crazy detail orientated.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Again, if true, it proves once again that just because there's a scientific consensus about something, it doesn't necessarily mean it's proven.

Exactly (re: evolution).

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Again, if true, it proves once again that just because there's a scientific consensus about something, it doesn't necessarily mean it's proven.

Exactly (re: evolution).

What?

[indeedproceed]

SCIENCE IS A LIE!

[Kiorrik]

[Lucky17]

http://cocktails.about.com/od/embellishments/p/maraschino_cherry.htm

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Again, if true, it proves once again that just because there's a scientific consensus about something, it doesn't necessarily mean it's proven.

Exactly (re: evolution).

What?

Meaning, I believe evolution, which is a "scientific consensus," to be wrong, and that there's plenty of evidence for my position.

[Edgar]

I wonder why they didnt ask me

time wasting...

[Kiorrik]

Topic about Science and of course religion is being dragged into it. Dang. Really?

I wonder why they didnt ask me

time wasting...

Quoted for truth.

[indeedproceed]

   Meaning, I believe evolution, which is a "scientific consensus," to be wrong, and that there's plenty of evidence for my position.         

A) there is not 'plenty of evidence' that the theory of evolution, ie, that organisms change over time, is wrong. At least not compared to the examples of 'evidence' that support the status quo. We may not completely understand how, why, or what drives evolution, but it's pretty clear it happens. That's why it's a status quo, and why it's a scientific consensus...because there are so many examples of it.

2) this thread is not about evolution. If you want to start a thread about evolution and how you think it's a load, do so, but don't discuss it here.

#2 is an official warning.

[Celtics4ever]

Didn't a loose cable affect the outcome?  Man is prone to error and that even includes a great mind like Einstien.  But it is just as likely that the loose cable by some knucklehead skewed the experiment.

Science at least tries to find answers.  Evidence can be interpreted to sway things one way or the other and so sometimes it is flawed.   I can say the same of religion but it doesn't try to get answers but rather provides them in dogma.  Both sometimes take faith in things we can't see.  I am not trying to sway the topic to religion but they do have some similarities is all I am saying.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Direct violation of a warning.