It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It's nice to see that you and CLprime and a few others are skeptical, and even the researchers themselves are skeptical and say they make no claim that it's a valid result, and that it could be the result of systematic error they weren't able to find yet.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Before anyone starts (figuratively) patting Einstein on the shoulder in a condescending manner, and/or calls to break out champagne and usher in some new era in physics, it would be a good idea to take a look at the details of this measurement.
Maybe we'll hear more after that meeting tomorrow.
for now the most likely explanation by far is a systematic error. The rumoured “6.1 sigma” significance is probably a statistical error and it will be important to consider any systematic sources of error before coming to conclusions. For now we will need to wait for the official seminar at CERN on Friday to see what they have to say about that.
Originally posted by NewsWorthy
A neutron walked into a bar and asked, "How much for a drink?" The bartender replied, "For you, no charge."
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Arbitrageur
I'm always skeptical of any experiment that claims to violate one of the most thoroughly and accurately tested physical models we've ever had.
The layman is eager to see the downfall of this area of physics because the layman doesn't understand it, and, what the layman doesn't understand, the layman is afraid of.
The layman also doesn't understand that the successes of Relativity are so vast that they completely overshadow this single experiment.
I would actually bet my new MacBook Air that it's a systematic error.
Originally posted by Aim64C
He cautioned that the neutrino researchers would also have to explain why similar results weren't detected before, such as when an exploding star - or supernova - was observed in 1987.
seems that since the neutrinos travel faster than light perhaps they reached us long before the light from the supernova...prior to the time we had the tools to measure such things.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by buddhasystem
But in spite of all that, there do seem to be a fair number of ATSers figuratively jumping up on the table and pleasuring themselves at the thought of Einstein possibly being wrong.
can-neutrinos-be-superluminal
Well theres a strange mental image right there! I would think most scientists would be excited about the prospect of expanding the possibilities of their craft.edit on 22-9-2011 by Raivan31 because: srry messed up the quote again.....that last part was mine.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It's nice to see that you and CLprime and a few others are skeptical, and even the researchers themselves are skeptical and say they make no claim that it's a valid result, and that it could be the result of systematic error they weren't able to find yet.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Before anyone starts (figuratively) patting Einstein on the shoulder in a condescending manner, and/or calls to break out champagne and usher in some new era in physics, it would be a good idea to take a look at the details of this measurement.
But in spite of all that, there do seem to be a fair number of ATSers figuratively jumping up on the table and pleasuring themselves at the thought of Einstein possibly being wrong.
When other physicists say they'd bet their house it's a systematic error, I'm personally not willing to bet against them.
can-neutrinos-be-superluminal
Maybe we'll hear more after that meeting tomorrow.
for now the most likely explanation by far is a systematic error. The rumoured “6.1 sigma” significance is probably a statistical error and it will be important to consider any systematic sources of error before coming to conclusions. For now we will need to wait for the official seminar at CERN on Friday to see what they have to say about that.