Changes

#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.

#''Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity. The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement''.

#:This is an interesting observation.  The world's best scientific minds are looking into it.  That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.

#:This is an interesting observation.  The world's best scientific minds are looking into it.  That relativity is incorrect is not being taken seriously as a possible explanation.

#:'''Update:'''  The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit.  When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly.<ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>  The claims of faster-than-light neutrinos have now been refuted very thoroughly.<ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html</ref><ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html</ref>

#:'''Update:'''  The problem seems to have been caused by a faulty cable connection between a computer and a GPS unit.  When the connection was repaired, the travel time increased by 60 nanoseconds, which had been the amount of the anomaly.<ref>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/technology-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html</ref><ref>https://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/22/loose-wire-led-to-stunning-faster-than-light-particle-finding/?intcmp=features</ref>  The claims of faster-than-light neutrinos have now been refuted very thoroughly.<ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html</ref><ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/once-again-physicists-debunk.html</ref>

#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light.  Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 10²².  This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10⁻²⁴ seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself.  This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10⁻¹⁵ of a nanosecond.  The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected.  It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.

#:The objection has been raised that a recent news report from the BBC ("now we are 100% sure that the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos") is also contradictory, since neutrinos have mass and are therefore forbidden by relativity to travel at exactly the speed of light.  Since the neutrino energies were 17GeV, and the current estimate for the neutrino mass is about 0.25eV, the deviation from the speed of light would be about 1 part in 10²².  This means that the neutrinos would arrive at the detector about .26x10⁻²⁴ seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself.  This is one quarter of a billionth of a femtosecond, or about .26x10⁻¹⁵ of a nanosecond.  The accuracy of the GPS units and cesium clocks used in the measurement is greater than a nanosecond, so the discrepancy cannot possibly be detected.  It is unfortunate that the claim "the speed of light is the speed of neutrinos" was taken so literally.

#:::A "counter-rebuttal" has been made: ''The politicized rush to rehabilitate the Theory of Relativity was far from convincing, and the "resolution" was a clear statement that is flatly contrary to the Theory''.  Just what statement is being referred to as the "resolution" is not clear, but our best guess is that it is the statement by Sandro Centro, quoted by Jason Palmer in the cited BBC article.  As noted above, that statement is in error by about 15 orders of magnitude less than the resolution of the measurement.  None of the assertions of relativity denies that anyone could ever make a statement that is not precisely correct.

#:::A "counter-rebuttal" has been made: ''The politicized rush to rehabilitate the Theory of Relativity was far from convincing, and the "resolution" was a clear statement that is flatly contrary to the Theory''.  Just what statement is being referred to as the "resolution" is not clear, but our best guess is that it is the statement by Sandro Centro, quoted by Jason Palmer in the cited BBC article.  As noted above, that statement is in error by about 15 orders of magnitude less than the resolution of the measurement.  None of the assertions of relativity denies that anyone could ever make a statement that is not precisely correct.

#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)

#::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)

#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)  

#::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)  

#::: Source:  [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]

#::: Source:  [https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijpers 2008]

#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.

#:These error bars, and that of the relativity formula, all overlap.

#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed.  "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure.  The formula is

#:The formula for mechanics under general relativity is complicated, but it is not contrived or conformed.  "Conformed" suggests that it was somehow adjusted or "tweaked" to match the 42.98 figure.  The formula is

#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians.  There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible.  The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified.  It is an exciting field of research.  No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.

#:The topology of wormholes is an interesting topic, widely discussed among theoretical physicists and mathematicians.  There is much speculation about what they would be like (if they could exist at all under quantum gravity), and what kind of "cosmic censorship" or "chronology protection" theorems might make practical time travel impossible.  The nature of these theorems seems to be intertwined with theories of quantum gravity and "grand unification", so the exact form of the "cosmic censorship", if it exists, can't be known until quantum mechanics and relativistic geometry are unified.  It is an exciting field of research.  No one believes that the "cosmic censorship" will take the form of relativity not being a true non-quantum approximation to reality.

#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''

#''The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.''

#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics,<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref> most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref> The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.

#:Since the 70's much work has been done on the subject of black hole thermodynamics,<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973CMaPh..31..161B</ref><ref>https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9307035v1.pdf</ref> most notably by the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge [[Stephen Hawking]]. When quantum field theory is added to the analysis of black holes it is found that they do not possess "low entropy" (quite the opposite, in fact) and are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.<ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...7.2333B</ref> The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] article has labelled this work in a footnote as "[c]ontrived explanations", with no explanation for this characterization given.

#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''

#''Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.''

#:Please read the cited paper carefully.  It is a survey of their observations over a 30-year period.  They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants.  As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain."  The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."

#:Please read the cited paper carefully.  It is a survey of their observations over a 30-year period.  They point out that their data matches general relativity to within 0.2 percent, and is now down in the "noise" of other effects, such as lack of accurate knowledge of just how far away the pulsars are, and lack of accurate knowledge of galactic constants.  As they say in the abstract, "tighter bounds will be difficult to obtain."  The paper, written in 2004, also notes that, because the pulsar beams are slowly tilting out of the line of sight to Earth, "A core component [of the emission] is quite prominent in the data taken in 1980-81, but it faded very significantly between 1980 and 1998 and was nearly gone by 2003."