Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

[Bobby_Jim]

So how far off was it? Are we talking like 1% over the speed of light? Or like 10 times. Well the first thing these guys thought of was probably to check out the timing of their equipment…

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

So how far off was it? Are we talking like 1% over the speed of light? Or like 10 times. Well the first thing these guys thought of was probably to check out the timing of their equipment…

I think it is far less than 1%. I doubt timing is the issue, however. We’re really good at measuring that. I suspect it may be an error in the distance measurement.

 

[Rock_Happy]

bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

It does not quite upend physics. Einstein rejected the idea, coming up with his widely quoted statement… “God does not play dice…” But quantum teleportation has been a fact for more than a decade. The Einsteinian apologists always pointed out that the particle spin information could only travel and sublight speeds, therefore throttling things down to the speed of light.

 

[buffalo]

But how is Revelation revealed if not through some form of observation?

Indeed, we get it from observation and listening. When Christ came we observed and listened. He spoke with authority.

 

[didymus]

Potential mistakes in the Opera research

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[ProVobis]

Speed of light:

-]186,200 miles per second/-]

186,300 miles per second

Either that or the photon now has significant mass.

 

[Quarles47]

http://c.shld.net/rpx/i/s/pi/mp/143...89&d=a2dcb21493bfd0afada2e6a816aff550cbace9da

. . . . or maybe not

Wonder how fast light was able to travel before the law took effect

 

[ProVobis]

Wonder how fast light was able to travel before the law took effect

Way too slow apparently.

Now things cannot be faster than a neutrino.

 

[Darryl1958]

Indeed, we get it from observation and listening. When Christ came we observed and listened. He spoke with authority.

More than that, prophets have always listened to the still small voice that is there in the silence, young men have had vision, and old men have dreamed dreams.
The empirical knowledge that science bases itself does not define the limits of knowledge, but merely the limits of science.

 

[ricmat]

I think the difference between the approach towards knowledge by science and religion is that science (1) unrelentingly tries to disprove their theories and is built upon massive amounts of evidence, of all different types and that (2) they’re really willing to overturn even their most basic theories about how the world works. Religion doesn’t do either of those things.

It seems that you are trying to set up an either / or situation - science, or religion.

A question for you. Which knowledge is more important, scientific, or religious?

My answer would be that scientific knowledge, although interesting, and sometimes useful, is totally irrelevant in the end. In the end, science is irrelevant. Matter and energy are irrelevant. Anything that science told us about those things is irrelevant.

There is no science test to pass for admission to heaven.

Scientific knowledge is good, if it is used for the glory of God (and not man’s glory). It can be good if knowledge of it enhances our own understanding of God’s power and majesty. But at the end, it doesn’t matter.

No so divine revelation - the revelation that tells us that all things God gives us, science included, is to be used for His glorification.

So, my vote is for religious knowledge.

As to “which religious knowledge?” – that you’ll need to decide for yourself.

 

[Exalt]

It seems that you are trying to set up an either / or situation - science, or religion.

A question for you. Which knowledge is more important, scientific, or religious?

My answer would be that scientific knowledge, although interesting, and sometimes useful, is totally irrelevant in the end. In the end, science is irrelevant. Matter and energy are irrelevant. Anything that science told us about those things is irrelevant.

There is no science test to pass for admission to heaven.

Scientific knowledge is good, if it is used for the glory of God (and not man’s glory). It can be good if knowledge of it enhances our own understanding of God’s power and majesty. But at the end, it doesn’t matter.

No so divine revelation - the revelation that tells us that all things God gives us, science included, is to be used for His glorification.

So, my vote is for religious knowledge.

As to “which religious knowledge?” – that you’ll need to decide for yourself.

I’d be happy to answer your question. I think it’s obvious that I think knowledge gained by science is far superior to knowledge passed down through religions. As I said, where religion relies merely on holy texts and traditions, science relies on mountains of exhaustive evidence. Where religion never tries to disprove itself and often declares its knowledge to be infallible, science takes up a humble philosophy of skpeticism and sets out to prove itself wrong. (Which is the whole point of CERN’s experiment on Neutrinos, right? To try and see if a prediction made by Einstein’s theory of relativity was wrong. And it’s just one of hundreds of experiments that tried to do just that.)

Now (and this is the important part), what if the scientific method and rational skepticism conclusively demonstrated that a particular religion was right? In such a case, I’d absolutely believe it.

To your last sentence: That’s the important bit, right? Because your passage begins with the idea that a particular religious tradition is right to begin with, doesn’t it? Given that the Christian worldview is true, you say, then religious matters are more important than everything else. And I’d say you’re right, if the Christian worldview is accurate. But the problem is: How do you know that the Christian worldview is accurate? And that’s where skeptical inquiry and the scientific method come into play, I think. It’s to figure out which, if any, of the world’s religious traditions are true.

Doesn’t that make sense? Where is my thinking wrong?

 

[JackVk]

Wonder how fast light was able to travel before the law took effect

Those particles deserve a speeding ticket!

Oh wait, according to the US Constitution, one cannot be charged with a crime ex post facto.

 

[Dale_M]

Those particles deserve a speeding ticket!

Oh wait, according to the US Constitution, one cannot be charged with a crime ex post facto.

Ah, but the neutrinos were caught speeding between Switzerland and Italy, so the laws of those respective countries would apply.

I just hope it doesn’t become a diplomatic incident. - those Swiss Guard can be pretty nasty with their pikes and they are already well inside Italian territory.

 

[bellasbane]

These findings bring to mind one of my favorite quotes by Isaac Asimov:

"Everyone always think scientists love the “Eureka!” moment. “Eureka!” is fun, yes. But I prefer “Hmmm, that’s interesting…” because that’s gets us on the trail of a new discovery.”

These finding could turn out to be a dud, but they could also open up a whole new paradigm in physics. Wow!

 

[ricmat]

Doesn’t that make sense? Where is my thinking wrong?

Your thinking is wrong in that you believe that scientific knowledge is important “in the end.”

Unless your pursuit of scientific knowledge leads you to God’s Kingdom, then it is useless. And being the science expert after you actually get to Heaven - who cares? Nobody.

 

[centurionguard]

More than that, prophets have always listened to the still small voice that is there in the silence, young men have had vision, and old men have dreamed dreams.
The empirical knowledge that science bases itself does not define the limits of knowledge, but merely the limits of science.

And not that its really of any trivial importance, but even Albert Einstein`s Theory of Relativity is after all just a theory based on the limited faculties of human intellect and can be disproved or surpassed as God wills such science to be known.

IMHO such sciences do little to improve the human condition insofar in comparison with the human spirit’s evolutionary journey towards complete Spiritual Union in God.

 

[JackVk]

Ah, but the neutrinos were caught speeding between Switzerland and Italy, so the laws of those respective countries would apply.

I just hope it doesn’t become a diplomatic incident. - those Swiss Guard can be pretty nasty with their pikes and they are already well inside Italian territory.

Do Switzerland and Italy have extradition treaties with each other?

Or is this a violation of international law? Then wouldn’t they have to be tried by The UN, EU, or NATO? Or am I hijacking the thread by making this more of a big deal than it is?

 

[estesbob]

I’d be happy to answer your question. I think it’s obvious that I think knowledge gained by science is far superior to knowledge passed down through religions. As I said, where religion relies merely on holy texts and traditions, science relies on mountains of exhaustive evidence. Where religion never tries to disprove itself and often declares its knowledge to be infallible, science takes up a humble philosophy of skpeticism and sets out to prove itself wrong. (Which is the whole point of CERN’s experiment on Neutrinos, right? To try and see if a prediction made by Einstein’s theory of relativity was wrong. And it’s just one of hundreds of experiments that tried to do just that.)

Now (and this is the important part), what if the scientific method and rational skepticism conclusively demonstrated that a particular religion was right? In such a case, I’d absolutely believe it.

To your last sentence: That’s the important bit, right? Because your passage begins with the idea that a particular religious tradition is right to begin with, doesn’t it? Given that the Christian worldview is true, you say, then religious matters are more important than everything else. And I’d say you’re right, if the Christian worldview is accurate. But the problem is: How do you know that the Christian worldview is accurate? And that’s where skeptical inquiry and the scientific method come into play, I think. It’s to figure out which, if any, of the world’s religious traditions are true.

Doesn’t that make sense? Where is my thinking wrong?

To those who have Faith no explanation is necessary. For those who don’t no explanation will suffice.

In the far reaches of the future when science finally has the answers they will realize they now understand what people of faith have understood for over 4,000 years.

 

[Darryl1958]

Those particles deserve a speeding ticket!

Oh wait, according to the US Constitution, one cannot be charged with a crime ex post facto.

They are European neutrinos. There is no speed limits on the autobahn.

 

[SanAgustin]

I think it is far less than 1%. I doubt timing is the issue, however. We’re really good at measuring that. I suspect it may be an error in the distance measurement.

I’m wondering the same, I was also thinking how performing this experiment in space could improve the accuracy (although it would be more expensive).