for science?
Okay LJ, I'm confused... So people have likely heard of the Nutrinos at CERN that have - allegedly - broken thge speed of lightIf this result is true, they say, then time travel may no longer be a theoretical impossibility. I shall now quote from an article from the BBC
The speed of light is the cornerstone in Einstein's theory of special relativity, which is what gives us the concept of causality: causes precede effects, wherever you are.
Remove that requirement, and time becomes a much more fluid thing than the one-way arrow we think it to be.
If an effect can precede a cause, showers of neutrons might arrive here on Earth before a supernova actually kicks off on the the other side of the galaxy.
Now focus on that last sentence. Am I correct in thinking that that is, in fact, complete bollocks? All that would happen, if these results are correct and it isn't an experimental error, is that the shower of nutrons would arrive here before the light from the supernova does, so we'd get the nutrinos before seeing the cause. The cause still precedes the effect though, whatever happens.
Am I correct in thinking that the BBC is just spouting nonesense or have I missed something?
The speed of light is the cornerstone in Einstein's theory of special relativity, which is what gives us the concept of causality: causes precede effects, wherever you are.
Remove that requirement, and time becomes a much more fluid thing than the one-way arrow we think it to be.
If an effect can precede a cause, showers of neutrons might arrive here on Earth before a supernova actually kicks off on the the other side of the galaxy.
Now focus on that last sentence. Am I correct in thinking that that is, in fact, complete bollocks? All that would happen, if these results are correct and it isn't an experimental error, is that the shower of nutrons would arrive here before the light from the supernova does, so we'd get the nutrinos before seeing the cause. The cause still precedes the effect though, whatever happens.
Am I correct in thinking that the BBC is just spouting nonesense or have I missed something?