Skip to main content

High-speed Neutrinos

     On September 23rd researchers at CERN, Europe’s main physics laboratory, announced that subatomic particles called neutrinos had apparently sped from the lab’s headquarters near Geneva, through the Earth’s crust, to an underground detector 730km (450 miles) away, around 60 billionths of a second faster than light would take to cover the same distance. If this observation turns out to be true, it will mean that Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which sets the speed of light as the limit of velocity in the Universe, is in need of tweaking.
     According to the Special Theory, traveling faster than light would open the possibility of travel through time, which would lead to several paradoxes. For example:
There was a young lady named Bright,
Who could travel faster than light.
She took off one day,
In a relative way,
And came back the previous night.
Could a person travel back in time and kill his grandfather before the time-traveler's father was conceived?
And a joke brought on by the neutrino finding:
The bartender says, “Sorry, but we don't allow faster-than-light neutrinos in here.”
A neutrino walks into a bar.
(You can't kick a neutrino out of a bar he has not yet entered.)
     But I digress. Although it could be that the neutrinos took a short cut through another dimension, interacted in an as yet unknown manner with the matter through which they passed, or any of several other exotic possibilities, the smart money is that a more mundane error will be found, e.g., in the synchronization of the clocks used in measuring the velocity.
     Whether or not this discovery turns out to be correct, the whole episode is a beautiful example of the way science works.
     Whenever a new scientific theory is suggested, scientists around the world immediately attempt to confirm or disprove it. Since 1905 Einstein's Special Theory has been confirmed in millions of observations, but as the neutrino finding suggests, scientists are still subjecting it to scrutiny. If even one confirmed result were to contradict the theory, the theory would be expanded to accommodate the finding, or in the extreme case, abandoned and replaced by a new one.
     In this case, it is highly unlikely that the Special Theory will need to be abandoned. Just as it expanded Isaac Newton's theories to accommodate new findings, the Special Theory will probably be adjusted to include the new discovery.
     Although science is built upon a foundation of prior discoveries, it is primarily a method of inquiry – not a structure. It will always be tentative – always subject to correction. Contrary to the other system, religion, for understanding the Universe, that is its strength. Science asks questions that may never be answered – religion gives answers that may never be questioned.
******
     My books, “There Are Only Seven Jokes” and “The Spirit Runs Through It” are available in paperback, or at the Kindle Store.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

There Are Only Seven Jokes - Introduction

      The statement “There are only seven jokes – all the rest are variations,” has been around for a long time, but no one ever seems to know what the original seven are. I think I have found the solution to the mystery.       The answer is to be found in an article published in the New York Times on May 2, 1909. Entitled “New Jokes? There Are No New Jokes, There Is Only One Joke,” it goes on to say that all jokes are a distortion, and lists seven categories of distortion. Supposedly every joke will fit into one of the categories. I believe that repetition changed the seven categories into the seven jokes.       Each of my next seven blogs will be devoted to exploring one of the categories. In addition, I shall attempt to give an example or two of jokes which I think fit the category.       You must realize that this article appeared over one hundred years ago, so most of the jokes appearing therein are so out-of-date that modern readers wouldn’t even understand them. For example,

By Today’s Standards Many of my Teachers Would be in Jail

I started school in a two-room building: grades 1 to 4 in one room; grades 5 to 8 in the other. One teacher in each room taught all four grades. I don’t remember first grade very well – the teacher left at the end of the year. I am pretty sure it was not my fault. Now keep in mind that reading the Bible every morning was the standard for all grades at that time. But my teacher in grades two to four went a little above and beyond the normal practice. As a member of a “plain” sect, she considered it her duty to lead the little heathens to Christianity. She offered a free Bible to all students who managed to memorize 20 verses. I memorized my verses – “Jesus saves” was my favorite because it was the shortest – and got my Bible with my twenty underlined in red. That would be illegal today (not the underlining), and rightly so. Teachers may not teach religion, although contrary to what many folks seem to think, students may bring their Bibles to school, read them, and pray their
The National Anthem I have a somewhat minor pet peeve. I say minor because in the grand scheme of things neither I nor society will do anything substantive about it, so my best bet is probably to suck it up and move on. Perhaps after writing about it I can lay it to rest. It came up recently while I was working out at our Wellness Center. A program on television was playing America The Beautiful , and I remarked to a lady I have known for 40 years that I thought that should be the National Anthem instead of The Star Spangled Banner. She replied, rather huffily, I thought, “Some people think God Bless America should be the national anthem.” At that point I decided, wisely, I think, to back off before an argument sprang up. Now I realize that The Star Spangled Banner is a very nice, patriotic song, but an anthem it is not. According to Wikipedia, “ An anthem is a  musical composition  of celebration, usually used as a symbol for a distinct group, particularly the  nationa