Einstein debunked?

[Digit]

http://news.sky.com/home/technology/article/16075434

This is not a great surprise actually, more a case of scientific dogma, much like OOA. The case against has been argued for many years.
Time will tell, as always.

Roy.

[War Arrow]

Well, I believe it has been known for some time that the speed of light may not be a constant (experiments where photons have been slowed down)... I don't see why poor old Einstein has to be tarnished with the dogma brush simply because people working nearly a hundred years later appear to have expanded upon his theories. Simply disagreeing with something does not mean it is dogma, just as an unpopular theory is not necessarily correct simply because it's unpopular with the >sigh< "club".

Anyway, very interesting stuff I thought.

[Minimalist]

Let's see if the results can be replicated.

[Digit]

I wish I had never posted this elsewhere WA, it has got quite heated as we have a particle physicist who rather objects to my point that E=MC2 is a mass/energy formula that does not actually state the C is the speed of light and that it does not actually forbid the existance of particles travelling at higher velocities.
His argument is that the Tacyon is theoretical, I put my boot in it by pointing out the sub-atomic particles were at one time theretical!
Ooops!

Roy.

[Digit]

I see one cosmologist has stated that if this proves to be correct he will eat his shorts on public TV. Should result in some interesting viewing figures I reckon!

Roy.

[War Arrow]

Take your point, Dig. It's difficult to tell quite where to draw the line between theoretical but probable and the wackier stuff, except I'm told that with quantum theory, or at least with some of the bizarre stuff like particles being in two places at once, the sums add up and somehow it can be tested (otherwise television would never have been invented... or something). I suppose the safest thing is to assume that the truth is in there somewhere, or at least something that looks like the truth.

Probably telling that I enjoy quantum theory (etc.) in the same way I enjoy the odd bit of Asimov.

Mind you, I have a feeling that string theory is a load of b***s... not that I'm up to arguing the point.

[Digit]

Another Asimov fan here WA.
Light speed as the ultimate velocity appears to me to one of those things that, 'everybody knows,' but is untraceable in origin.
Einstein's papers were published, IIRC, in German and his original equation was E=MV2.
Now the German for constant in 'Konstant' so he did not make the 'constant' claim, again AFAIk, that was Maxwell.
What Maxwell meant was that where ever you were the speed of light would be the same, (measured under specified conditions.)
E=MC2 works just as well at above theretical maxima, particals would simply have negative properties to balance the equation, the Tacyon.
Frankly WA I have never been able to locate any definitive statement accorded to Albert that C, or V, was the speed of light.
What the formula states is that a given mass has the potential energy times the unspecified Constant squared. The only way to prove that C is light speed is to convert a given mass into total energy, something that even our Isaac couldn't manage.
Einstein had come unstuck with his calculations once and I suspect he was covering his ass, (for you Yanks!) If this experiment proves correct, and Neutrinos obey physical laws, they will simply replace light speed as the understood standard C and Einstein will retain his crown.

Roy.