# IN YOUR FACE, Speed Of Light Nazis! **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [September 27, 2011, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753 "2011-09-27T10:40:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/21 "2011-09-27T19:54:23Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > Whoah, there hoss. The best possible interpretation on the Cern results right now is “Hey, we don’t understand this result we’re seeing – any of you guys want to take a crack at it and tell us if we’re doing something wrong?” > > It’s a far, far cry from saying that the speed of light has been exceeded for sure. Ahem. Objects with mass (granted, a mere smattering of mass) have been clocked going faster than the speed of light by the best tiny object clockers on Earth. As I said in my OP, it will take much confirmation before we have to rewrite the rule books, but just now, at this historical moment, you can’t say absolutely that the speed of light can’t be exceeded. Because there is experimental evidence that it can. Sorry about that, and all. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/22 "2011-09-27T19:57:12Z")
Well, there was experimental evidence that cold fusion worked, too. I’ll wait for independent verification. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/23 "2011-09-27T19:58:14Z")
> [@ministryman](#): > > It’s a big meh for me. > > I have known mathematically that FTL was possible. The proof of it is something that any college student, let alone a professor, could see. It is so obvious and so trivial that it is pooh-poohed and dismissed as fast as creationism is today. > > So I will laugh when it takes the vaunted poindexters of the world five more years to see what I saw over 30 years ago. > > Of course, if I could write and speak academician, I could probably qualify for some sort of honorary award or prize. > > So to my more erudite Dopers; I tell you the proof, you write the long and complicated requisite paper, and we’ll share the honor…you need first year college physics and math. nothing more. \*\*\*that’s \*\*\*how simple it is. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/24 "2011-09-27T20:01:36Z")
While some kind of error in measurement seems to be the leading contender for explaining the results, there are some alternatives proposed in the other threads, including a new particle called the _gremlion_. ---
**Author:** ![vd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b19c9b/32.png) [@vd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vd)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/25 "2011-09-27T20:04:14Z")
> [@ministryman](#): > > I have known mathematically that FTL was possible. The proof of it is something that any college student, let alone a professor, could see. It is so obvious and so trivial that it is pooh-poohed and dismissed as fast as creationism is today. Is this the proof? _d **x** /dt_ \> c ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/26 "2011-09-27T20:07:20Z")
Speed Of Light Nazis Must Die! ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/27 "2011-09-27T20:12:24Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > FTL travels suspends the laws of physics. And the laws of logic, and economics, and political science, and basic common sense. Upping the speed of light by an infinitesimal fraction of a percent doesn’t change that. At all. How does FTL travel in itself suspend the laws of logic and basic common sense? Certainly, you could write a perfectly coherent, ordinary, logic-and-common sense respecting story about FTL travel in a non-relativistic, largely Newtonian world, where light, I dunno, permeates through a background luminiferous aether at a constant rate in each direction, but is observed to move at different speeds by observers moving relative to the aether. The only thing wrong with this is that it doesn’t match what we’ve learnt over the past centuries by careful experiment. But it’s certainly a way a world could logically be, no? FTL travel + special relativity + light travels at c + “causality” cannot be reconciled. But FTL travel in itself isn’t so bad; it just means something goes off in the rest of it. Nothing wrong with, say, a world which doesn’t follow special relativity; it’s just a different sort of world (potentially one which is rather _more_ in keeping with “common sense”, depending on what it’s like). But I suppose FTL travel really means “faster than c travel, where c is the distinguished speed of relativity (regardless of whatever this has to do with light or any other such thing)”, such that it doesn’t really make sense to discuss it outside the context of relativity. In that sense, fine, I suppose the problems with circular causality are ones you may dismiss as contradictory to logic or common sense, though, again, I don’t think “common sense” ought be given much deference. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/28 "2011-09-27T20:13:49Z")
A question to resident physicists: the usual FTL travel method in sci-fi that supposedly does not break the laws of physics is a series of “jumps” that contract/expand space in the direction/counterdirection of travel. If such a thing is possible without breaking the current physics laws, the result is still de facto FTL travel - what does that do to causality? ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/29 "2011-09-27T20:20:44Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > And if you’re sticking humans on that ship, how do you keep them from being crushed into atom-thin paste by the acceleration? This part isn’t really a problem. Accelerating at one gravity would get you up to .9c in just over two years. You’re right to question the power source that could accelerate that way, though. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/30 "2011-09-27T20:23:23Z")
> [@ministryman](#): > > I have known mathematically that FTL was possible. The proof of it is something that any college student, let alone a professor, could see. So, what is it? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/31 "2011-09-27T20:31:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **ministryman** : > Of course, if I could write and speak academician, I could probably qualify for some sort of honorary award or prize. Well, the language most academics speak nowadays is English, and it looks like you’re already familiar with that language, so you can already go ahead and describe your idea. It sounds like you might be under the impression that jargon is intended as some sort of shibboleth, meant to distinguish “real academics” from lay folks, but really, it’s meant to make communication _easier_, not harder. If you can communicate your idea without needing jargon, that’s just fine. **Terr** , _any_ method of getting de facto FTL travel, whether it be warp bubbles or wormholes or “jumps” or whatever, if it follows the rules of special relativity, the same method can also be used to travel through time. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/32 "2011-09-27T20:36:39Z")
Meh. Scientists today aren’t what they used to be. In the past, they would inspire us by sayin how anything was possible; now, they only seem to be happy when telling people that something can’t be done. Albert Einstein wouldn’t have said that FTL is impossible, even though he proved it - all he would say is that he hadn’t figured out how to do it yet. That’s because Einstein was a visionary. Modern physicists are bookkeepers. They’re midgets standing on the shoulders of giants. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/33 "2011-09-27T20:37:32Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > **Terr** , _any_ method of getting de facto FTL travel, whether it be warp bubbles or wormholes or “jumps” or whatever, if it follows the rules of special relativity, the same method can also be used to travel through time. But if there is a conceivable “de facto” FTL travel method that does not violate the laws of physics as they are currently understood, and it leads to time travel, wouldn’t that mean that time travel is possible under the current understanding of physics? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/34 "2011-09-27T20:41:13Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I agree that having FTL is stories is enjoyable magic. But it’s simply magic. It gets you aliens and new planets and space battles and weird stars and other fun stuff, which is great … as long as you are aware that they are the exact equivalents of ghosts and goblins and unicorns and heaven and hell, and used in the same way for the same purposes. Um, no. FTL phenomena would have major implications for physics (like as said, time travel), but it isn’t “magic”. It’s just something that’s probably impossible according to our particular set of physics; that’s not the same thing as “magic”. If it turns out these neutrinos really are FTL, should the physicists generating them rename themselves sorcerers and go buy some wizard hats? ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/35 "2011-09-27T20:42:41Z")
Duran Duran - [del]_Rio_[/del] _[Faster Than Light](http://youtu.be/0TWR3u8shhg)_ ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/36 "2011-09-27T20:46:53Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Meh. Scientists today aren’t what they used to be. In the past, they would inspire us by sayin how anything was possible; now, they only seem to be happy when telling people that something can’t be done. Albert Einstein wouldn’t have said that FTL is impossible, even though he proved it - all he would say is that he hadn’t figured out how to do it yet. > > That’s because Einstein was a visionary. Modern physicists are bookkeepers. They’re midgets standing on the shoulders of giants. I suppose hypothesizing laws of physics is an unduly restrictive, unimaginative endeavor, not worthy of true science? It’s always possible that we’re wrong about what the laws of physics are. New experiments might show we had generalized incorrectly from past ones. But “anything is possible” is the opposite of gaining knowledge about how the world works… It’s the same as saying “I have no ability to rule out anything. The world might behave totally randomly, for all I know.” ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/37 "2011-09-27T20:52:15Z")
I disagree, vehemently. “Anything is possible” is the very cornerstone of science. We may not know _how_ it’s possible, but it always is. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/38 "2011-09-27T21:06:01Z")
The very cornerstone of science is that there are no nontrivial laws of physics which hold universally? It’s not possible for anyone to correctly hypothesize something like, say, “Momentum is always conserved” or “Two massive bodies always exert upon each other an attractive force proportional to their inverse squared distance” or such things? (Don’t bother telling me the particular examples I’ve chosen aren’t correct. The issue is whether even the very proposal of _any_ physical law is an anti-scientific, automatically incorrect position). Hypothesize, and then keep your eyes open for the possibility you were wrong. That’s the cornerstone of science. Seek new knowledge and seek to purge errors from old understanding. Both are important. But that doesn’t mean “Never even tentatively suppose something is impossible”. Knowledge that the world works is a certain way is knowledge that the world doesn’t work any other way; knowledge that certain things happen is knowledge that other things don’t happen. To suppose certain laws hold is to suppose that other things are impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/39 "2011-09-27T21:11:31Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Knowledge that the world works i **n** a certain way is… Typo corrected in bold ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753/40 "2011-09-27T21:11:36Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > But if there is a conceivable “de facto” FTL travel method that does not violate the laws of physics as they are currently understood, and it leads to time travel, wouldn’t that mean that time travel is possible under the current understanding of physics? Well, if time travel is possible, then FTL is trivial. Just travel to Tau Ceti at slower than light speed for 50 years, then travel back in time 50 years, and now you’ve arrived at Tau Ceti instantly. But why not arrive at Tau Ceti before you left? Then you can save yourself the trip. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-your-face-speed-of-light-nazis/597753.md?page=3)