I thought I'd talk about something related to science because it is something that greatly interests me. No doubt you heard recently that scientists have made a particle go faster than the speed of light. The big deal in the science world is that Einstein's theory was that the fastest a particle could go was the speed of light. And since a lot of the physics we know today is based off this assumption, it's a really big deal.  You can read about the news when it first came out here.

I was skeptical for a few reasons, but I'll go into that in a little bit. Today, a group of scientists in Italy are claiming that in fact that the study is wrong and that it's not traveling faster than light.

But ICARUS, another experiment at Gran Sasso - which is deep under mountains and run by Italy's National Institute of National Physics - now argues that their measurements of the neutrinos energy on arrival contradict that reading. 

In a paper posted on the same website as the OPERA results, the ICARUS team says their findings "refute a superluminal (faster than light) interpretation of the OPERA result."
They argue, on the basis of recently published studies by two top US physicists, that the neutrinos pumped down from CERN, near Geneva, should have lost most of their energy if they had travelled at even a tiny fraction faster than light. 

But in fact, the ICARUS scientists say, the neutrino beam as tested in their equipment registered an energy spectrum fully corresponding with what it should be for particles travelling at the speed of light and no more.

I'm fairly confident that the Opera experiment (the group the found a particle faster than light) is wrong. I hate when the media gets ahold of science and related matters because you never get a full picture. You often only hear a conclusion on the study. Without an understanding of methodology used to achieve results, how can you really know what is going on.

In a world of 'nothing faster than light', you can't measure anything faster than it. It's not like they had a speedometer to measure such things because there is nothing in science that we know of that could possible measure that. This means there is another methodology and another form of measurement for this type of thing. In this case it's a basis of the particle energy, which also happens to be another type of assumption science (just as the nothing faster than the speed of light is).

I think when you hear about quantum physics (quantum mechanics), which is the physics of the subatomic, you should be skeptical. It's actually a very tough science that we frankly don't know much about. It's growing and I think the studies are important and the more we learn the better, but I just get annoyed with so called "findings". Especially the ones picked up by the media.

Things like string theory, which by objective standards is retarded, is picked up by media and made to shine. Though the real science establishment won't touch it.

So think people. Remember that quantum physics/mechanics is a tough science to do. There's a lot of promise in the subject, but it's tough to figure things out. The measuring is by far the hardest. I find what they do very interesting and if I could be involved in such scientific projects I would. But take what you hear with a grain of salt because the standards are just not the same.

----

Posted by Christopher | 9:30 PM | | 0 comments »


0 comments