What is "truth" - COULD Einstein Have Been Wrong?

AGuest

May you all have peace!

Just came across this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44629271/ns/technology_and_science-science/?gt1=43001

I realize that perhaps it's too early to say Einstein was wrong regarding his theory of E=mc 2 ... and that "nothing travels faster than light"... (nor am I even saying that - heck, I don't know)... but this article does make one wonder. We shall have to wait a bit more to see, of course, but... assuming for a second that what they NOW "think" is indeed the case, what does that mean as to what we "know"? If they currenting thinking proves to be wrong, would this new understanding be... well... "new light" (i.e., new understanding), per se? If it is true, what does that say about other things we think we "know"... are SO sure of... but perhaps don't/aren't?

I also realize that knowledge of the physical world is progressive; however, again, it seems to ME that what is "true" really is more about what [we think] we know at a given time... versus what really IS true (even though WE don't know it, yet).

I guess I just get a little... ummmmm... "itchy"... when I hear proponents of science declaring, without exception and unequivocally, that something is absolutely what they think it is. Like religion, the history of science's understanding of the physical world seems to be progressive... based on CURRENT knowledge... and current means/tools for obtaining knowledge. As it progresses, both understanding and knowledge change. Not that that's a bad thing... but should ones REALLY say "There is NO... this" or "It IS like that..." or "It just cannot be because... NOTHING travels faster than...", etc.

Not trying to provoke, truly. Don't wanna get into a on-running discussion/debate about physics, etc. Just thought the article and its insinuation was interesting. It's speculative at this point, yes, which is another thing that sometimes confuses me... in light of what some believe about religion (and its "progressive" understanding of "truth"). Personally, while I do have more "faith" in science than in religion... BECAUSE science can at least show HOW they believe the things they currently do (while religion, particularly "christianity") often goes against what they say they believe... or the writings they say they follow, etc., and often cannot even give a reasonable "why"... they really don't SOUND that different... in the way they present what they "know"... to ME.

It's just perplexing to me... how folks define what we "know" to be "truth"... without the caveat that it's really limited... to what we UNDERSTAND... NOW.

Anyway, just something on my mind. Again, no provocation... and no invitation to debate/discuss physics, evolution, religion, etc. Just some things on my mind... why certain things "confuse" ME. You may not agree, they may not confuse YOU... and that's entirely okay. But I thought the article interesting... and perhaps thought-provoking for someone other than myself. My comments, therefore, are as to what we believe to be TRUE... versus what may actually BE... true.

Again, peace to you all!

A slave of Christ,

SA

garyneal

Faster than fright? Faster than blight? Faster than, ... oh whatever.

In accords with the formula:

E = (mc^2) / Sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

Accelerating a particle to the speed of light would require infinity energy.

E = (mc ^ 2) / Sqrt (1 - c ^ 2 / c ^ 2)

E = (mc ^ 2) / Sqrt (1 - 1)

E = (mc ^ 2) / Sqrt(0)

E = (mc ^ 2) / 0

E = infinity

But if a particle is traveling past the speed of light, you end up with a square root of a negative number in the denominator.

garyneal

Of course, if the numerator is also zero, how would the math work out?

E = (mc ^ 2) / 0

E = (0c ^ 2) / 0

E = 0 / 0

It is theorized that photons (particles of light) travel at the speed of light (c) but have zero rest mass. It's energy is determined by its wave length.

garyneal

I'm sorry, my math is wrong. I forgot the extra (- m c ^ 2) for the remainder of the energy formula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_mass_energy

$E_k = m_0 ( \gamma -1 ) c^2 = \frac{m_0 c^2}\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} - m_0 c^2,$

tec

But if a particle is traveling past the speed of light, you end up with a square root of a negative number in the denominator.

Back to the Future type stuff! Okay, really, I have no idea ;)

Interesting article, Shelby. I look forward to hearing more about it; even if it was just an error. New stuff, new understanding, and the closer we get to the truth of scientific discoveries, the closer we get to knowing the truth of HOW God created, and how a spirit realm might... um... work (scientifically), for lack of a better word.

The two (God and science) are not in conflict. (I know you already know this) Only we, with our (mis)understandings and limited knowledge of one or the other, put them into conflict.

Peace,

Tammy

tec

Also you have a pm :)

garyneal

Back to the Future type stuff!

That has been suggested actually though the math is inconclusive. To see that effect, you need to look at the time dilation formulas which also has the square root of 1 - v ^ 2 / c ^ 2 in the denominator. Since the denominator becomes imaginary when velocity exceeds light speed, it is suggested that time would go backwards for individuals travelling this fast. However, an imaginary number is not negative on the number line but instead moves up and down the imaginary axis. This could suggest the possibility of breaking into an alternate reality but this too is a mere speculation.

tec

Gary, what you just wrote is MUCH MORE FUN to read, when I imagine it in Christopher Lloyd's voice.

(sorry, Shelby and Gary... in a silly mood; but seriously, try reading it in Lloyd's voice, picturing his wide eyes and upstanding white hair)

Peace,

Tammy

garyneal

At any rate, if indeed these neutrinos did indeed break the light speed barrier then we'd have to develop new theories to fit this phenomena or somehow extend existing theories.

worldtraveller

I am fascinated that one could travel faster than light because, in theory, traveling the galaxy faster than the speed of light, one could, in theory, live forever. Imagine going faster than the speed of light and curing death.

But how can one prove this theory? One can travel faster than sound, but I bet it won't cure defness! An old Outer Limits episode touched on this theory a bit. I believe the guinea pig in the episode was Bertram Cabot Jr.

As a lover of math, I find these equations interesting because the left side of the equation must equal the right side to be true.

Mr. Spock would be fascinated.

What is "truth" - COULD Einstein Have Been Wrong?

Share this