We probably won't know for months, at the earliest.

From blogs, etc., the "gut feeling" seems to be they didn't consider some variable, and there is no FTL neutrinos.

10/12/2011 11:35:03 AM

Fermilab has reviewed the paper and will be attempted to duplicate within a couple months.

10/12/2011 11:35:28 AM

i don't buy this bullshit

after all, there is a consensus that says otherwise

this is probably some Exxon-funded work

10/12/2011 11:41:05 AM

wat

10/12/2011 12:51:23 PM

Quote :

"Here you go again equivocating religious faith with inductive reasoning. "

but it's NOT inductive reasoning, that's my point. It's, essentially, "we don't know exactly what the fuck is going on, so here's a new fudge factor that makes our calculations work."

Quote :

"We admit that DM and DE are our current best guesses that fit our current understanding of cosmology and are subject to change given more information."

which is different than what someone else said. which was my point. doh!

Quote :

"But the same would never happen for religions and their deities."

irrelevant. That science would correct it is not the issue. I'm not making a values comparison. Funny how sensitive you people get when someone has the audacity to point something as simple as this out.

Quote :

"He's just trying to justify believing in something that has even less evidentiary support by asserting that no amount of evidentiary support is capable of justifying scientific belief. "

I couldn't have built a better man of straw if I tried. how about focusing on what I am actually saying and not on what you think a retard would say.

10/12/2011 10:47:25 PM

Why don't we take the ignoring a century of astrophysicist modeling and mountains of observational evidence supporting that modeling to The Soap Box?

10/13/2011 8:59:52 AM

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/

Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity
The relativistic motion of clocks on board GPS satellites exactly accounts for the superluminal effect, says physicist

10/14/2011 10:40:26 AM

seems like a pretty boneheaded mistake to me.

10/14/2011 11:11:39 AM

Quote :

"So from the point of view of a clock on board a GPS satellite, the positions of the neutrino source and detector are changing. "From the perspective of the clock, the detector is moving towards the source and consequently the distance travelled by the particles as observed from the clock is shorter," says van Elburg. By this he means shorter than the distance measured in the reference frame on the ground. The OPERA team overlooks this because it thinks of the clocks as on the ground not in orbit. How big is this effect? Van Elburg calculates that it should cause the neutrinos to arrive 32 nanoseconds early. But this must be doubled because the same error occurs at each end of the experiment. So the total correction is 64 nanoseconds, almost exactly what the OPERA team observes. "

lol, this sounds like the solution to an exam question from a physics class. you know, one of those puzzle solving questions.

10/14/2011 11:18:48 AM

Quote :

"Can apparent superluminal neutrino speeds be explained as a quantum weak measurement? Abstract Probably not."

LULZ

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1110/1110.2832.pdf

10/14/2011 3:52:55 PM

^^ Sounds like the light inside a moving train example I have seen to help explain the theory of relativity.

10/14/2011 4:54:45 PM

Quote :

"Why don't we take the ignoring a century of astrophysicist modeling and mountains of observational evidence supporting that modeling to The Soap Box?"

who was doing that? right. no one

10/14/2011 6:54:05 PM

^^^

yeah, that's pretty fucking funny right there

10/20/2011 1:38:07 PM

Quote :

"seems like a pretty boneheaded mistake to me."

Like I said on the first page, this is embarrassing whether the measurement turns out to be true or not. Supposedly the best physicists in the world analyzed this result for months before publicizing it, and yet the explanation seems to be something even I can understand.

10/20/2011 4:20:35 PM

^ Understanding an idea and coming up with an idea are two different things.

10/20/2011 4:30:04 PM

It's not clear to me the timing issue with the GPS is the problem. Here's an interesting post by a pulser astronomer that has a bit more on the metrology:
http://lighthouseinthesky.blogspot.com/2011/09/faster-than-light-neutrinos-keeping.html

I agree with her is it more likely the max. likelihood analysis the group did is suspect.
But the Cohen-Glahsow & ICARUS result makes this result seem a lot less likely:
http://profmattstrassler.com/2011/10/06/is-the-opera-speedy-neutrino-experiment-self-contradictory/

10/20/2011 8:15:48 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502223_162-57327392/2nd-test-affirms-faster-than-light-particles/

11/18/2011 11:28:45 AM

I still don't buy it, and neither does the rest of the scientific community.

11/18/2011 4:26:33 PM

They've only ruled out one possible source of error. I'm still wondering what they think about the clock proposal.

11/18/2011 4:42:54 PM

i don't fully understand the GPS error claim. if they had error due to GPS timing, it seems that it should be a wash, because they are subtracting from one measurement to the next. unless I am totally misunderstanding the error, it seems to me like it'd be like taking a ruler and measuring two things starting at the 1-inch line and then telling the difference in length between the two. sure, you started at the 1-inch line, but that inch gets subtracted out. or is this completely different?

11/29/2011 8:32:19 AM

The clock issue is that both sites, in order to have properly synchronized clocks to accurately time the travel of these neutrinos, referenced the time signal from a GPS satellite. However, as that satellite is moving at orbital speeds, the author is claiming that they need to, and did not, take into account the relativistic effects of that clock being in motion.

An example would be the astronaut thought experiment, if you've heard of it - you send an astronaut off at near the speed of light in a ship, have him travel for what he times to be a year, and he comes back and everyone else has aged 50 (or something) years due to the effects of relativity.

That is, the ticks on the high-speed clock are still one second, but they appear "slower" than the ticks in our non-moving reference frame, or the "fast-moving second" is longer than the "stationary second," and thus, it would imply that it took less time for the neutrinos to make the trip than they really did. If it appears they took less time, then it would imply they went at a higher velocity, and thus the results we're looking at now.

The real question at hand that I haven't seen a source of yet (please link if you have) is, did the scientists take this effect into account or not? The paper is written as if they didn't, but I haven't seen anything to confirm or deny that.

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 10:45 AM. Reason : ]

11/29/2011 10:43:10 AM

I can understand that, but the way it is explained above, it says they had to "multiply the error by 2" and it equaled the extra ~60ns. that is what doesn't make sense to me. I'm all about multiplying by two in a physics problem, but that one doesn't make sense

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 12:11 PM. Reason : ]

11/29/2011 12:11:02 PM

^I agree with you - I understand the grounds for the questioning, but I don't entirely understand the author's reasoning, or the "times two" for that matter.

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 12:37 PM. Reason : ]

11/29/2011 12:37:13 PM

Faster-than-light neutrino result reportedly a mistake caused by loose cable
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/faster-than-light-neutrino-result-apparently-a-mistake-due-to-loose-cable.ars

At first I was like

And then I was like

2/22/2012 7:32:57 PM

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre82t0ip-us-neutrinos/

4/3/2012 10:34:45 PM

4/5/2012 8:51:59 AM

every time i see this thread bumped, i get excited

and then i actually read what's posted and i'm no longer excited

4/5/2012 9:32:48 AM

yeah...me too

4/5/2012 9:36:30 AM