With Einstein’s universal speed limit in a jumble after CERN did what it does best, it appears Nikola Telsa could have saved the international science organisation some trouble. It’s a well-known fact the Serbian engineer was way ahead of his time. But close to 80 years? That’s quite a prediction.
Personally, I’m holding out until the experiment is repeated. Einstein’s theories have stood the test of time remarkably well, so I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Nb
Sunday, September 25, 2011 at 1:52 PMWhat are you talking about? Neutinos (the subject of CERN findings) are sub-atomic and massless whereas neurons are atomic and relatively massive. Nothing to do with each other in this context.
Logan Booker
Sunday, September 25, 2011 at 2:05 PMFrom my understanding, neutrons and neutrinos were not clearly defined until 1934. In this quote from 1932, Telsa is actually referring to neutrinos, which are the smaller of the two.
Flux
Sunday, September 25, 2011 at 4:31 PMYou’re right, Logan – though they were theorised in the 20s, neutrons were only properly observed in the 30s. The term was about as up for grabs when Tesla wrote this as ‘wormhole’ is today; everyone knows kinda what one is, but as they’ve never been actually seen different theories abound about exactly what they might be or do…
My question would be whether Tesla meant faster than c, or faster than the speed of light in a medium like air or water. Tesla surely knew that electrodynamic theory defines c as a cosmological constant independent of actual light, so I wonder whether he was actually talking about finding some form of extremely penetrating radiation which travels through a medium faster and further than light (not sure about the comparison between the speed of neutrinos and light in glass/water/something).
But then why not say that? He coluld have been more direct if that was what he was talking about. I’d love some context for this quote, if you’ve got any – I’m speculating pretty wildly…
ozoneocean
Sunday, September 25, 2011 at 2:48 PMNeutrinos apparently DO have mass.
Carl
Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 12:14 AMYes, neutrinos do have a tiny mass. If they were massless they wouldn’t be able to oscillate between the various “flavors” of neutrino — which, incidentally, is precisely what this experiment was set up to measure when they accidentally came across this result.
Dan
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 9:54 AMNeuTrons (which ARE sub-atomic), not neurons, which are cells.
cgb
Sunday, September 25, 2011 at 2:58 PMbut how fast could a tribble travel ??
:)
EckyThump
Sunday, September 25, 2011 at 4:14 PMBloody hell people! It’s not like Logan wrote the the thing! Let’s wait to see if the experiment actually pan’s out, before we start getting overly exited, eh!
Otacon
Sunday, September 25, 2011 at 8:12 PMThat’s Nikola Tesla’s sex face.
light487
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 8:52 AMI’m still waiting for the global, wireless, energy grid. :)
rom
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 9:47 AMHaven’t we known that Chuck Norris can run faster than the speed of light for ages?
Oh no!
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 5:48 PMTrue, but he doesn’t need to. Light slows down in his presence.
Lillee
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 9:51 AMNo disrespect to great minds of our time, but we are hopelessly arrogant if we think we understand all of what the universe has to offer from our small point of view from our small blue and green planet in our insignificant corner of our tiny galaxy…
It’s the equivalent of an Ant in the middle of a park looking out of his telescope and saying “I comprehend combustion engines”.
Lets me honest with ourselves.
Mike
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 12:23 PMNobody ever said we think we understand everything. Obviously we don’t yet, but maybe someday we will. Is that a hopelessly arrogant statement? If so, why?
Lillee
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 3:33 PMNothing arrogant about optimism. I am just stating the fact that there is much left to discover…
Norgan
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 10:16 AMLOL@Otacon and Lillee I love your analogy :)
It is true that we have much more to understand but we are still allowed to speculate and be excited when the previous deductions are blown away.
Darwin said that science is provisional, it is only the best conclusion drawn from the current known facts! Smart cookie he was ;)
Austin
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 12:24 PMI have mass, therefore I am.
Michael
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 6:49 PM“Einstein’s theories have stood the test of time…”
Time is relative.
Arthur
Monday, September 26, 2011 at 11:22 PMCan I please get a source on that quote? What book of text is it from etc? This is the only place I have found it, and I’m not sure of the quotes validity.
Danny Allen
Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 12:19 AMBrooklyn Eagle Newspaper, July 10, 1932
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1932-07-10.htm
Arthur
Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 11:09 AMThank you, it’s good to be able to reference it properly. Nothing worse than quoting something and not being able to cite the source.
Shommy
Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 8:17 AMEinstein’s theories have stood the test of time but tesla gave us light and radio and xrays and much more than einstein did. His time is coming and it is well deserved…
Alexander
Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 9:52 AMFuck Einstein! – Love Mileva.
mutahor
Thursday, September 29, 2011 at 11:36 PMyea big deal, what is neutrino what is neutron…is hier in mongolia not importent. importent is faster than ligth particles in 1932!!!
johnm
Sunday, October 2, 2011 at 8:26 PMEinstien thought he was wrong[well incomplete] thats good enough for me. Most of Teslas work is still classified, and the people who keep it classified haven’t wasted money on accelerators for years. http://www.smphillips.8m.com/occult-chemistry-07.html
http://www.smphillips.8m.com/news.html
neutrinos are the nearest thing to nothing we’ve found and nothing goes faster than light.
LawrenceN
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 4:45 PMAll that I am interested in is whether we could travel faster than light. Its a no-brainer that Einstein was obviously wrong on the speed limit and the repeat of this experiment will show exactly that! The existence of the known universe proves that matter has traveled faster than light. How? If the big bang happened 13.7b years ago wouldn’t the farthest particle from us be just 27.4billion light years away? tahts assuming we are at the edge of the universe. But this is not so as although the farthest known so far is 13.2bly its simply the limit of our telescopes and we cannot say for sure its the farthest! Particles have obviously moved faster than light only that we have not been able to see or identify them
Oh no!
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 5:59 PMHaving no background in physics whatsoever, I think I can field this one. It’s an excellent observation too by the way (silly Einstein!). The fact (and by “fact” I mean something I read on a magazine cover) that the known universe is approximately 42 billion light years across 13 or 14 billion years after the big bang is due to spacetime itself expanding faster-than-light. Not the matter, but the toybox in which it all sits. Like when you pull the tablecloth away and all mom’s best china goes with it! I hope this helps. Geez…someone stop me!
Mike MacDonald
Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 9:03 PMDial the words into Google — lots of results for the quote eg http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1932-07-10.htm
Nothing stands the test of time!
Think about it
Shawn Allen DeBoard
Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 1:54 PMin Quantum physics the third law states if you know an objects speed you cant know its location.at the same time As normal I look at all laws of science and attempt to find holes in there logic as I look at Quantum physics laws I place my self on a train with a tracking computer on board with me as I look at the gauge that says I am going 50mph I also look at the computer that has where the train is located from this I know the speed and exact location of the train Logic always overpowers science once again if I am wrong please explain why this is or change the law of Quantum physics!
Cullain
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 11:13 AMIn theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.
steve
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 3:02 AMTesla ftw!