I'm honestly not sure what you're saying. All classical mechanics inherently assumes a deterministic framework - or causal if you will.

''How's that about intuition?''

You confuse me now because I said:

'' you should have learnt to let go of your intuition long ago''

Moreover, that specific aspect IS intuitive, which makes your query even stranger(?)

Anyways, QM is not deterministic, i.e. you cannot know for certain what state a system will be in even if you have ALL the information about the system before hand. Insofar as I have seen QM is the only aspect of physics which isn't intuitive apart from the speed of light issue we have here.

But it is very important that direct consequenses of Einstein's theory have been verified again and again. We can literally see that matter  behaves in that way. And that's my point - if Professor Physicist is dumbstruck by this neutrino affair, then it is with good reason.

May I ask where you study?

Because of these events, someone or something may already be jumping back and forth thru time.

Never doubt Tesla

English isn't my native language so I may have misunderstood the phrase 'let go'... Which would definitely explain why you thought my query was strange. Never mind that.

I know quantum mechanics isn't deterministic (well, actually my guess is that it is deterministic if we know everything accurately enough but that's easier said than done, sounds impossible at the moment) and I don't see it as a problem. I guess I'll just have to wait to understand any actual details about it, and to actually be able to debate about whether it's intuitive or not. I hear it's a real pain though :P

And yes, I know relativity has been tested a lot and seems to be true in many cases. But it's still only a model that can probably be improved somehow. I too am quite doubtful that this faster-than-light case is real but who knows? Obviously they've done a lot to verify the results already, and the people working on it are supposed to be good at what they do which makes this sound a bit more plausible.

I study at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Why?

This isn't the first piece of evidence that has contradicted Einstein, and it will probably not be the last. Scientists have unfortunately gotten into a real bad habit of ignoring the unpleasant truth. Sometimes they want to preserve what they see as a sublimely beautiful theory so badly that they will go so far as to violate the basic principles of Science itself to maintain the theory of General Relativity.

Which is why we now have Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Stars moving faster then they ought to under the theory of General Relativity. No problem we will just say there is more stuff. You cannot see more stuff you say. Well we will say it is a new kind of matter that only exerts gravity, and is entirely invisible to detection. Just to make all the math add up just right. We will even say that there is three to four times of this new stuff then there is of stuff we do see.

What the Galaxies are moving away from each other faster rather then slowing down. Well we most certainly will have none of that defying General Relativity nonsense. Lets see oh how about we add another new fundamental force to the Universe, and its only job is to make the Universe expand faster. Oh since the whole dark naming has really captured our imagination. Why not just use that again. Nope they aren't related to one another at all. Just do whatever you have to do to make General Relativity work. The contradictory evidence be damned.

The reality isn't that General Relativity has been unassailed. It has countless times, and Physicists have gone to just plain ridiculous lengths to pretend it has not happened. Invoking cloaked matter, and entirely new forces are just the latest examples, and frankly they are unjustifiable under the scientific method. You cannot just fabricate some outlandish explanation in order to make the data fit a theory, and that is what these hypothesis are outlandish. To make a extraordinary claim you need extraordinary proof. Not a complete lack of evidence.

Personally I think the excuses have just become too much to swallow. When what the most logical conclusion is that there is indeed something wrong with the theory. We may just need to get comfortable with the fact that the theory is flawed, and the Universe just isn't that beautiful.

EXACTLY HOW I SEE IT. You sir, WIN.

The first time I heard about dark matter I was a kid and I thought, "Yeah that's cool". But now in university I read its definition, and IT'S QUITE LITERALLY just made up to account for a discrepancy between the prediction of certain phenomena according to the Theory of General/Special Relativity and what's actually observed.

During my free time once I basically developed Special Relativity over again in my head, assuming the speed of light is constant and nothing travels faster than it. That assumption needs to be let go though; at the very least, scientists should try to come up with newer, better explanations.

Whatever happens though, I don't think Einstein will be completely wrong. In fact, the irony is, in the scientific method doesn't work like that. Newton is good enough at low speeds and everyday life, Einstein is good enough at relatively fast speeds and big objects, but his theory becomes shaky in the even bigger picture. I believe that when (yes, that's a when not an if) the theory of General Relativity gets one-upped by a newer one, then it will just become a special case of the newest theory; in the same manner Newton's model is a special case of Relativity.

Interesting, I remember reading an article a few weeks back about Chinese scientist who claimed that time travel was impossible because nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. This completely spits on those claims if I understand correctly.

Suck it, time travel is possible ;]

No worries about the language barrier I'm English 2nd language myself, but I've kind of gotten over it over the last few years.

About your guess; I had the same guess before I started studying QM, but the truth behind the underlying mathematics is not so simple.  QM becomes an abstract Mathematical framework that is so complex that the physical interpretation becomes a little difficult to understand. Once you get how observable==Real Eigenvalue solutions, then the elegance of the mathematics becomes clear.

Then, after struggling through all of it for some years it becomes clear that there is no interpretation (as you suggest above) where there is more information we just don't know about and QM could be considered deterministic. IT CAN'T. QM is a strange thing, but it works incredibly well and no one really knows why. 

You will use Griffiths' ''Introduction to Quantum Mechanics'' no doubt, so I suggest getting a copy now and getting familiar with the concepts waaay before you start doing it at Uni, because its an absolute mind fuck at first. I can send you an e-copy by email if you want as well. If you know how to integrate and how complex numbers work then you can handle the mathematics I'm sure. 

What you should stay the hell away from untill you're post graduate is Quantum Chromo Dynamics - the rest is fine.

Any Scandanavian Uni is very good - I was just asking because the standards vary quite dramatically depending on where you study - I was just curious.

Care to back up your statements with a link?

Seems your logic trumps that of the greatest theoretical physicists in the world then.

Sorry for being the only asshole on the thread, but someone needs to be. Unless you have actually gone through the mathematics of GR, QM en SR then I'm of the opinion that the opinions you expressed are completely unjustified.

You are decrying scientists for sticking with an old model, but the fact is no-one has come up with a better model in the last 100 years.

People here should rather deflect their scepticism towards Nuclear Physics, since there is no nuclear theory at all and the strong force isn't understood at all. Herein lies the biggest problem with physics, not with Einstein.