It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


'Faster than light' scientist steps down

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:14 PM
I think that they might want us to discuss the subject as you say because if we make a faux pas, better we step down than the head of CERN.

So politics being what it is, you need to get all the facts and suppositions out in the open for all to see and then as they do their thing, they will be cautious to preserve their high esteem within the community.
(They are a huge employer of physicists and they do really help to keep people graduating into the field and to give graduates a chance at a career)

And essentially to really understand where we are in terms of progress in physics you need to use a simpler model than the standard model because so much work has gone into the field and it becomes difficult to keep up with all the discoveries and what they mean.

So the standard model then becomes the warehouse, where the knowledge is stored, and if you walked into a warehouse, and went over there to a group of boxes, and you examined their contents that group of boxes would have things in it that are related and you could say well that is an order for a certain type of shop.
But take 3 different groups of boxes together and all of a sudden, that unit seems to have no coherence.
You will sort it out though if you get enough information and time. So then take the whole warehouse.
And lets suppose its not an electric engineering supply warehouse, lets suppose it has everything under the sun in it. It only makes sense as a broadly defined universe of stuff. We don't have the unifying principal down yet that might categorize it all and make it all organized.

Now then you could walk into that warehouse, have a lot of things on your mind and not be able to remember where the light switch is. Tripping over boxes, trying to remember what you were saying, and then say something off the top of your head, like "We measured it the second time, and it wasn't faster than light"

As one of his colleagues said to the press. So,
are they doing this on purpose? Stepping in it on purpose for publicity? Well they are smart people and the second is backing up the first, as a good colleague, and covering for him and saying it was just experimental error. The real error having just been explained elsewhere which was that they were thinking Cherenkov radiation travels faster than light, that is why it is blue shifted.

This is a mine field. Why is it blueshifted? Shorter wave length higher frequency. So the error was merely speed of light in a vacuum vs speed of light in water or Chlorine. Anyway its witty if you know what I am talking about the fact that the second colleague tried to fix it by sacrificing himself as well. So why are they doing all that? Well they are excited about the news and want to share it with others. The news that they can send and receive neutrinos when for the longest time they were just trying to detect them.

And the ramifications are fantastic, that you could x-ray the earth, or, wait for it, the moon.

edit on 3-4-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:29 PM
I'm guessing he was pressured into resigning. Maybe not, but there does seem to be this unwritten rule in science and academia that any failure permanently reduces one's capability to do anything but fail in the future. People make mistakes, all the time. There was obviously at least one mistake in the experiment, which can happen.

The error made by this person of publishing too early is understandable in this day and age, but that doesn't equate to them being a bad scientist. Bad science doesn't even equate to being a bad scientist, because as I said, humans, no matter how well-trained, are fallible.

He may have resigned of his own accord, without pressure from above or from his colleagues, just out of sheer embarrassment. If that is the case I think he is being too hard on himself. I blame other people for making some people feel this way, because there are people out there who will continue to nag him about this, and will be critical of any future work because of this incident.

There can be some humanity in science, and some in the discipline need to learn that in my opinion. But maybe I am wrong, in which case it doesn't really matter. Humans are fallible. I am a human. Therefore......

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:02 PM
By Jove I've got it, we can x-ray the moon using neutrinos from the sun. In that way we will be able to extract the sunbeams from the cucumbers.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:43 PM
I am faster then the speed of light

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:58 PM
I wonder why there was no fuss made when twin particles/entanglement/teleportation was verified - SUPERLUMINOSITY is already a given in the quantum world!!!!!!!!!!!

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:49 PM
reply to post by Kalki11

I wonder why there was no fuss made when twin particles/entanglement/teleportation was verified - SUPERLUMINOSITY is already a given in the quantum world!!!!!!!!!!!

A fuss was made over it. No-one was forced to resign, no-one was murdered by ninjas from CERN. Quantum entanglement is a verified phenomenon, and is consistent with the current model. The issue with superluminal neutinos is that they would have to have negative mass in order to exceed the speed of light. That is what didn't make sense.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:23 PM
reply to post by RSF77

Great finding's have been .... Found.... On a wrong premise.

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:17 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

Interesting posts. I don't know what most of it means, though.

Could we compress the human mind further than what we see in a human brain?

That would speed up the process you're talking about if possible.

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:11 PM

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by petrus4

Find a single scientist or became a household name, who wasn't considered fringe at best, or a complete outcast at worst, by the "mainstream scientific community," in their own time.

Einstein. von Neumann. Bohr. Planck. von Braun. Pauli. (could go on for quite some time)

You see, in most cases actual real science produces results that others can replicate, test, and falsify.

Or they make conjectures - this seems to be true but I can't find a proof.

Bedini, Bearden and to a big extent Tesla were or are not scientists. If that's the sort of person you think of when you use the word, that might be the problem.

When I tried suggesting that Tesla did nothing for science in another post, I was immediately shouted down by multiple fanboys. I pointed out that unlike Maxwell & etc. we don't have a "Tesla Equation" that we can use to do the engineering & science with.

That is probably because his were stolen and have some other guys name on it.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in