So after skimming the article:

They're not saying: "Suck it, you're wrong. Here's why," they're saying "Wow, that's weird. We're betting you're wrong and will do some experiments to prove it. If you happen to be right, that would be awesome."

meyerkev: So after skimming the article:

They're not saying: "Suck it, you're wrong. Here's why," they're saying "Wow, that's weird. We're betting you're wrong and will do some experiments to prove it. If you happen to be right, that would be awesome."

As science ought to be.

Or as the fundies would say, "HAHA SEE YOUR PRECIOUS SCIENCE IS WRONG AGAIN!!1!"

If I remember the original article correctly, the authors thought the results were extremely odd and invited people to find the error(s) in the analysis. It is perfectly reasonable to say, "This is a really weird result. We can't make it go away. Help!"

Considering most examples of the Standard Model say neutrinos have no rest mass and experimental results (which have been confirmed) says they do; I think we have much to learn about them.

If this were correct, our GPS wouldn't work

Why do they keep saying this? Is it really true on its face or is this one of those situations where it could be that the GPS works "well enough" that nobody can notice at the small distances over which it is used? Kind of like how Newton's equations are technically "wrong" but they're close enough that they work for most practical purposes?

As pointed out, the article just quotes someone saying, "It can't be right!"

There's no "proof" included, nor even any good arguments that weren't already addressed by the original authors.

just cuz, you know.

Link

of course it pops. Why is there even an option to NOT pop? That shiat pisses me off.

Science will never prove religion wrong but that's sort of the point, very different fields. Which means religion can butt out of science as well.

meyerkev: So after skimming the article:

They're not saying: "Suck it, you're wrong. Here's why," they're saying "Wow, that's weird. We're betting you're wrong and will do some experiments to prove it. If you happen to be right, that would be awesome."

You missed the part where observations of Supernova 1987A have already demonstrated that neutrinos only travel at the speed of light.

If they didn't, the neutrino wave from the Supernova would have come much earlier than it did. (I'll leave the math on that as an exercise for the reader).

jvl:
If they didn't, the neutrino wave from the Supernova would have OF come much earlier than it did. (I'll leave the math on that as an exercise for the reader).

Come on now. This is fark. Speak proper-like.

Neutrinos ossilate in speed, alternately going faster and slower than light and over long distances averaging out to the same distance.

//actually, the effect they're observing is server lag.

jvl: meyerkev: So after skimming the article:

They're not saying: "Suck it, you're wrong. Here's why," they're saying "Wow, that's weird. We're betting you're wrong and will do some experiments to prove it. If you happen to be right, that would be awesome."

You missed the part where observations of Supernova 1987A have already demonstrated that neutrinos only travel at the speed of light.

If they didn't, the neutrino wave from the Supernova would have come much earlier than it did. (I'll leave the math on that as an exercise for the reader).

It would have been 4 years prior to the light from SN1987A. However, SN1987A neutrinos were at an energy level multiple orders of magnitude lower than the OPERA experiment.

The systematic error being the source of the discrepancy is the most likely explanation, but it is damned hard to find a source of systematic error an order of magnitude greater than all other sources of error combined. They've already ruled out the moving clock problem, which was the most likely explanation.

Kiz: Neutrinos ossilate in speed, alternately going faster and slower than light and over long distances averaging out to the same distance.

First, Oscillate.

Second, no, they don't. If they did, then the average of the arrival times would have still been coincident with c, because the initial velocities would have been random, and so some would start faster, some slower, and it would average out.

So I shouldn't have burned all of my physics books just yet?

Here's a better article.

Link (new window)

Atleast someone is picking up on doing the science that we consider socialismz/elitist.

Splinshints: If this were correct, our GPS wouldn't work

Why do they keep saying this?


Because it is true. If you don't use the equations of General Relativity to account for the effects of the earth's gravity on when you receive the timing signals from the GPS satellites you will be off by miles. It is no minor correction; GPS literally would not be possible without our current understanding of relativity.

Splinshints: If this were correct, our GPS wouldn't work

Why do they keep saying this? Is it really true on its face or is this one of those situations where it could be that the GPS works "well enough" that nobody can notice at the small distances over which it is used? Kind of like how Newton's equations are technically "wrong" but they're close enough that they work for most practical purposes?

The basic idea is that the faster you go the greater your mass. If it were possible to go faster than the speed of light your GPS would weigh too much for that suction cup to hold it to your windshield, and not work QED.

Cheron: The basic idea is that the faster you go the greater your mass. If it were possible to go faster than the speed of light your GPS would weigh too much for that suction cup to hold it to your windshield, and not work QED.

I initially intended to expand on this, but realized any attempt would fail in comparison.

LOL and +Many to you, sir and/or madam. Here's hoping you enjoy a fine weekend.

Splinshints: If this were correct, our GPS wouldn't work

Why do they keep saying this? Is it really true on its face or is this one of those situations where it could be that the GPS works "well enough" that nobody can notice at the small distances over which it is used? Kind of like how Newton's equations are technically "wrong" but they're close enough that they work for most practical purposes?

A lot of what makes GPS work relies on perfectly accurate time-synchronization.

natazha: Considering most examples of the Standard Model say neutrinos have no rest mass and experimental results (which have been confirmed) says they do; I think we have much to learn about them.

No, the Standard Model says neutrinos do have rest mass. Otherwise, they would not be able to oscillate between the different flavors (why this is so is left as an exercise for the reader), which is what OPERA was trying to measure in the first place when they stumbled over this anomaly.

jvl: You missed the part where observations of Supernova 1987A have already demonstrated that neutrinos only travel at the speed of light.

The supernova observations are strong evidence, but not conclusive. One possible explanation is that whatever we are seeing (if not systematic error as is most likely) is energy-dependent. This would not be unprecedented: for instance, some versions of loop quantum gravity predict an energy-dependent variation in the speed of photons. Something comparable could be going on with neutrinos.

Having said that, my money is still on experimental error.

Cheron: Splinshints: If this were correct, our GPS wouldn't work

Why do they keep saying this? Is it really true on its face or is this one of those situations where it could be that the GPS works "well enough" that nobody can notice at the small distances over which it is used? Kind of like how Newton's equations are technically "wrong" but they're close enough that they work for most practical purposes?

The basic idea is that the faster you go the greater your mass. If it were possible to go faster than the speed of light your GPS would weigh too much for that suction cup to hold it to your windshield, and not work QED.

I declare this thread over.

Seems like its just a league of distinguished scientists saying "your wrong and our math proves your wrong. now go back and figure out where you farked it up!".

The super nova example, and a lack of ftl neutrinos in nature, doesn't prove anything on its own.
When you do things unnaturally, unnatural things are bound to happen.

StrangeQ: Splinshints: If this were correct, our GPS wouldn't work

Why do they keep saying this?


Because it is true. If you don't use the equations of General Relativity to account for the effects of the earth's gravity on when you receive the timing signals from the GPS satellites you will be off by miles. It is no minor correction; GPS literally would not be possible without our current understanding of relativity.

Point of interest: the first generation of GPS satellites went up with the ability to switch between accounting for and not accounting for relativity, since it hadn't been proven as thoroughly at that point. It turned out that the with-relativity part worked correctly.

gunther_bumpass: of course it pops. Why is there even an option to NOT pop? That shiat pisses me off.

Hear, hear!!!

Currently, this is no more than an anomaly, albeit a very repetitive anomaly in the scope of the experiment in question. The researchers have openly stated that the readings make no sense, and they have entreated other researchers to try to reproduce the results to rule out erroneous data. Nothing has even been called into question at this point, much less proven or disproved;they're simply checking the data and confirming results at this stage. This is how science works.

StrangeQ: Splinshints: If this were correct, our GPS wouldn't work

Why do they keep saying this?

Because it is true. If you don't use the equations of General Relativity to account for the effects of the earth's gravity on when you receive the timing signals from the GPS satellites you will be off by miles. It is no minor correction; GPS literally would not be possible without our current understanding of relativity.

Disclaimer: I in no way mean to argue against the truthiness of either general or special relativity.

That said, "because it works" is a poor justification for defending established science, regardless of how well established that science is. Understanding of the universe at every level (forgive the drama) must always be open to challenge, lest it become dogma.

If our current understanding of relativity can get my GPS to send me accurately to my destination, what will new relativity get me?

Splinshints: If this were correct, our GPS wouldn't work

Why do they keep saying this? Is it really true on its face or is this one of those situations where it could be that the GPS works "well enough" that nobody can notice at the small distances over which it is used? Kind of like how Newton's equations are technically "wrong" but they're close enough that they work for most practical purposes?



For the supremely bored and qualified*.

*ie, not me

98% chance it's a systematic error

~2% chance it's a different error.

If it falls into that 2% (and 2% is a pretty large margin), the fact that a different error happened to NOT be systematic (in origin or implementation) but frequent?

That demands significant research on its own.

MIT Physics Professor Scott A. Hughes said, "Carl Sagan had this saying, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is not extraordinary evidence."



Would like a word with you.

Well, that article was a big waste of time. No new information either proving or disproving the faster-than-light neutrinos. Just more of the same speculation that's been going on since the neutrinos were announced.

Hurry up, science!

I don't think this "accidental" discovery is out to say every neutrino is FTL. So why people keep bring up that one star? It just seems stupid. Most if not all neutrinos from that explosion were detected as expected, but if there was a rare neutrino which is able to travel that trillion billionth of a second faster then normal, then how would we know or not know when we could expect for them to arrive to measure.

The margin of error when measuring a statistical error of 400 miles is gotta be big when trying to compare to an event with a travel of "lightyears" behind it.

Stupid article, even more stupid headline.

The supernova thing and the fact that GPS works don't say anything about whether there's a loophole that can permit neutrinos to FTL under conditions A, B and C, just that it isn't possible under the baseline conditions of the universe (and might never be possible outside a tightly controlled laboratory setting). If it turns out to be true, Relativity won't cease to be, we'll just know it's incomplete by some tiny fraction of a percent. Which is really no surprise, our equations are just approximations of the way the universe behaves anyway, there's bound to be an occasional error to very high numbers of decimal places.

raising questions about Einstein's purported speed of light is a minor necessity for a proper discussion. whether these results hold sway or no, there is faster-than-light interactions occurring at the quantum level. imparting the spin of one electron simultaneously must necessarily be passing something and when it appears to do so, it happens so quickly as to put the absolute limit of energy into the context of just being a meaningless barrier dimensionally.

I'm not satisfied with the way this is coming up. The Eienvalue is off. We're pulling away from our reference information.

minitrue noram: raising questions about Einstein's purported speed of light is a minor necessity for a proper discussion. whether these results hold sway or no, there is faster-than-light interactions occurring at the quantum level. imparting the spin of one electron simultaneously must necessarily be passing something and when it appears to do so, it happens so quickly as to put the absolute limit of energy into the context of just being a meaningless barrier dimensionally.

Every time somebody says something like this, it's like wearing a t-shirt that says "Ask me a physics question! I don't understand either relativity or quantum mechanics!"

In entanglement experiments, which I assume you're alluding to, one electron doesn't "impart" it's spin to the other. Something far more subtle is going on, and the fact that QM appears to be irredeemably non-local is something that frankly nobody properly knows how to interpret in macroscopic, classical terms; but nothing is "passed", certainly not energy nor information.

INeedAName: Science will never prove religion wrong but that's sort of the point, very different fields. Which means religion can butt out of science as well.

So what you're saying is that Earth really is the center of the universe?

Their clocks were probably wrong (new window)