Einstein in error?

[johncorrigan]

Neutrinos are parts of an atom - rather like electrons that have no charge - usually produced by radioactive decay. We're in the realms of quantum physics here, and very peculiar things happen. They've discovered particles that appear very briefly in two places at once, and others that can move between A and B without ever crossing the space in between. All very weird.

I recall a few years back Michael Rosen on R4's 'Pick of the Week' talking about some of these particles - he was reviewing a programme that had been on during the week (quarks perhaps). If one of these particles came in contact with another one then subsequently, even if those particles moved thousands of miles apart, if something happened to one of the particles it affected the other. That sounded strange and yet something which sometimes seems to transfer to the macro world.

[french frank]

I've not seen anything, but it's very (very. very) unlikely to be anything greater than a very small amount. If it were, they'd easily tell if their maths is at fault.

I think I saw something like a few billionths of a second quoted. I supposing this is a bit like snooker. Miscalculate your shot by a tiny bit, if the ball is a long way from the pocket when it's struck it will miss by a metaphorical mile.

So you see these things do have practical importance

French Frank -

Neutrinos are parts of an atom - rather like electrons that have no charge - usually produced by radioactive decay. We're in the realms of quantum physics here, and very peculiar things happen. They've discovered particles that appear very briefly in two places at once, and others that can move between A and B without ever crossing the space in between. All very weird.

I read the very fascinating biography of Paul Dirac last year. Sometimes - as with A Brief History of Time - I felt I was following the explanations. And then ... . But the anecdotes were good!

[aeolium]

So you see these things do have practical importance

In any case, I think there's something to celebrate in any increase in knowledge, even if it's the knowledge that something you believed to be incontestably true may now be disputable.

[David Underdown]

One of the results I saw quoted one of the scientists involved as stating the result had been repeated enough times with the anomalous result for it to be statistically significant, which is why they'd gone public. That said, I got the feeling that they don't really believe it, and think it's more likely there's an as yet overlooked basic error in the calculations or experimental set up which would explain it (and by making the results public it makes it more likely that someone will spot what it is)

[aeolium]

Jim al-Khalili seems to be pretty sure it is a mistake.

[johnb]

This reminds me of a comment I heard Professor RG Chambers make in the 60's, he was then Professor of Low Temperature Physics at Bristol:

In fifty years time the leading edge of the bookshelf containing volumes of "Physics Review" will be travelling faster than the speed of light, but it won't contradict Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity as, by then, it will not be carrying any information.

(An 'in joke'.)

[Pabmusic]

Jim al-Khalili seems to be pretty sure it is a mistake.

An enjoyable little article that gives a good answer to the original question. I agree that this is a nice example of science in action.

[vinteuil]

... like others, I expect that this will turn out to be an error in calibration rather than an overturning of such a central postulate of modern physics.


And yet, and yet... at some stage we are going to encounter - going to have to encounter - some or several unexpected physical phenomena that will lead to - among other things - the finding of a theory that will encompass the currently-contradictory world-views of relativity and quantum-physics - and the beginnings of explaining the missing - what is it? - 93% of the universe.

But I suspect this is not it...

[umslopogaas]

A couple of mentions of quantum physics have reminded me to recommend John Gribbin's 'In Search Of Schrodinger's Cat' (Corgi paperback 1985). Its probably not in print, and apparently the Corgi was a pb of the Wildwood House edition of 1984, which might be obtainable through a library. He does a pretty good job of explaining it all, though as a non-physicist I still found it quite hard going!

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

.... Pro al-Khalili's Everything & Nothing on BBC4 was pretty good too

[Quarky]

The best explanation of the special theory of relativity, is given by Einstein himself in his original paper:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The concept of synchronisation of clocks is key to his theory - takes a lot of "thinking about" - but then so does some modern music.

[Simon]

The ludicrous idea that anyone, however competent a scientist, can make sweeping statements about what is or isn't possible in the universe, always makes me grin. The sheer arrogance of it... !

We're human. Most of us have reasonable intelligence, and our brains are indeed amazing. We have discovered some amazing things about the world we live in and how things work, and even a few things about the universe - whatever that is.

And the more we discover, the more, it seems, there is to know. That's one of the things, in my view, that makes life so fascinating.

The concrete, practical laws of science that we have learned, and see time and time again to be working, are unlikely to prove false. The theoretical ideas, such as relativity, are likely to change as our experience and knowledge grows. The fantasy ideas, such as creating a unified theory to explain everything, are simply manifestations of scientists being very silly.

[tony yyy]

The ludicrous idea that anyone, however competent a scientist, can make sweeping statements about what is or isn't possible in the universe, always makes me grin. The sheer arrogance of it... !

I don't think many scientists would make such statements without qualification.

The concrete, practical laws of science that we have learned, and see time and time again to be working, are unlikely to prove false. The theoretical ideas, such as relativity, are likely to change as our experience and knowledge grows.

Many of the predictions of relativity are now a matter of practical routine. That doesn't mean that it won't be refined or superseded but it's hardly purely theoretical.

The fantasy ideas, such as creating a unified theory to explain everything, are simply manifestations of scientists being very silly.

No they aren't.

[amateur51]

The fantasy ideas, such as creating a unified theory to explain everything, are simply manifestations of scientists being very silly.

Care to explain in what way very silly, Simon?

No, I thought not

[Pabmusic]

Simon's response suggests a misunderstanding of how scientists work (I don't know if this is you, Simon, but your post certainly suggests it might be). No scientist worth their salt makes 'sweeping statements' without either justifiable evidence, or else a prediction that evidence will be found. Other scientists can then test that evidence or that prediction.

Both the Special Theory and the General Theory of Relativity were backed up by evidence when they were published - in both cases by a lot of very complicated maths - but many experiments (for instance, measuring the way that light is affected by gravity) have been carried out since then that produce results predicted by Einstein's maths. Some of them have broadened the theory as well. Therefore, it's wrong to regard Einstein as making 'sweeping statements' (by which I suppose is meant either 'too general' or 'ill-thought-out') since, if he had done so, he would have been exposed some time during the last century. Many things - good and bad - have happened (space travel and exploration, GPS devices, and the atom bomb, for instance) that could only have occurred because Einstein was right about Relativity - it is one of the "concrete, practical laws" of science - whatever that means.

Now we have news that, perhaps, the Special Theory doesn't cover all possible circumstances after all, since neutrinos may sometimes travel at 60 billionths of a second faster than the speed of light. If that really is true, it's important, but it doesn't disprove Relativity, which probably remains good for almost every conceivable circumstance. Newton's law of gravity is still good enough for almost all our earthly needs, though Einstein's is more accurate. Now, perhaps, we'll need someone else to come up with an even more accurate law. But there are no sweeping statements, and no arrogance.