Breaking The Law?

[fiat_knox]

Seems you can break the laws of physics, Scotty ...

"Action still resulted in an equal and opposite reaction, gravity kept the Earth circling the Sun, and conservation of energy remained intact. But for the tiniest fraction of a second at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), physicists created a symmetry-breaking bubble of space where parity no longer existed.

"Parity was long thought to be a fundamental law of nature. It essentially states that the universe is neither right- nor left-handed -- that the laws of physics remain unchanged when expressed in inverted coordinates. In the early 1950s it was found that the so-called weak force, which is responsible for nuclear radioactivity, breaks the parity law. However, the strong force, which holds together subatomic particles, was thought to adhere to the law of parity, at least under normal circumstances. ..."

 

[fiat_knox]

And there you all probably thought I was talking about crime here ...

 

[Easterner9504]

Right!

Instead I have no idea what your talking about.

 

[fiat_knox]

The physicists may have inadvertently broken a law of physics, even if only for a tiny moment. Something happened in their experiment that was weird beyond their expectations, and it looks as if they may have b0rked the universe.

 

[BlackBat242]

No... they just found another exception to the crude patchwork of assumptions, generalizations, and special-case "laws" that man has cobbled together to try to explain how the universe functions.

 

[Sackett]

The Genius of Science

Remember that all science states is valid till something better comes along.
So, global warming is real, and man caused it.... until we find out the truth.
C is the fastest there is.... till something faster comes along.
ad nauseum

 

[sabredog]

Remember that all science states is valid till something better comes along.
So, global warming is real, and man caused it.... until we find out the truth.
C is the fastest there is.... till something faster comes along.
ad nauseum

Ah-hem, actually all science has are theories, which are the best guess until validated by experimentation and then they are valid.

So, the theory that global warming as caused by humans is "real" only if you can prove there is no other reason for climate change. Until then the "consensus" is just bad science because it is based on the idea that a theory is a fact. But a theory has to be proven to become a fact. C may be the fastest light travels but workarounds may exist. However, that particular theory has been proven to be a fact, so a workaround will not change it as a constant - it will only open a new area of physics.

 

[fiat_knox]

From this site:

A hypothesis is an educated guess based on observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

 

[Easterner9504]

Got it, Global Warming causes warping of the Space Time Continuum!!!!!!!!!!

 

[sabredog]

Got it, Global Warming causes warping of the Space Time Continuum!!!!!!!!!!

Then bring it on so we can time travel! I'm going to let both the SUV's idle all night to help out. Everyone crank up the woodstoves so we can hunt dinosaurs!

 

[fiat_knox]

I just want to go to the universe where I have a beard, and steal the Tantalus Device.

 

[Peter Schutze]

>The physicists may have inadvertently broken a law of physics

nah they just found another exception .... like the big one they already had for the other force

 

[aramis]

From this site:

A hypothesis is an educated guess based on observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

Bad wording in that theory definition; "... that have been supported with...", should be instead "... that have repeatedly and consistently failed to be disproven in repeated testing and can be used to make accurate predictions of expected results."

 

[Commander Truestar]

C may be the fastest light travels but workarounds may exist. However, that particular theory has been proven to be a fact, so a workaround will not change it as a constant - it will only open a new area of physics.

Actually, according to physicists Günter Nimtz and Alfons Stahlhofen(engaged in research at the University of Koblenz, Germany), C is starting to look like "not" a constant. then again, much of what we assume is based on the Theory of Relativity(ToR). Which, while it is a great work on how the universe appears to work when sensed by Humans, is starting to look less like how the universe actually works. Indeed, many of our issues stem fro us refusing to recognize that the Universe does not care how we perceive it.
One example would be the inclusion of time as a real "thing" in our science.
Yes, every event has an event horizon. It elapses over the extent of that event horizon.
BUT... That elapsed occurrence is no different if you measure it in the currently recognized 24 hour Terran clock, the little remembered French Metric time system or the time system enforced by any of the other races that exist beyond our knowledge.

The fact is that time itself is nothing more than a system _we_devised_ to help understand the events we perceived. Admittedly, we can expect to perceive them in line with those predictions in the ToR, ..BUT.. how we perceive the occurrences does not mean that is what really happens at all. We may sense ourselves and our craft stretching out to infinity as we approach "C", but that sensation has nothing to do with the state of the ship in reality. So while we perceive it stretching to infinity, it is...in fact...not changing state at all. Given propulsion and control systems which can operate beyond "C"
(including sensors that can reach beyond reaction limits), it is easy to predict we will find so call Hyper-C as possible as violating the so called speed limit of light speed.
I am just saddened that research on such systems is dependent on overcoming our belief in the fairy tales that our perception molds the universe.

Marc