We have new information, but my position on the OPERA experiment’s FTL neutrino measurement hasn’t changed.
First, here’s what we know. Members of the OPERA experiment has been working diligently to improve their measurement, better understand their uncertainties, and look for errors. Yesterday, the discovery of some possible problems was leaked anonymously (and vaguely) in Science Insider. This compelled OPERA to release a statement clarifying the status of their work: there are two possible problems, which would have opposite effects on the results. (Nature News has a good summary here.)
The important thing to learn here, I think, is that the work is actually ongoing. The problems need further study, and their overall impact needs to be assessed. New measurements will be performed in May. What we’ve gotten is a status update whose timing was forced by the initial news article, not a definitive repudiation of the measurement.
Of course, we already knew with incredible confidence that the OPERA result is wrong. I wrote about that last October, but I also wrote that we still need a better understanding of the experiment. Good scientific work can’t be dismissed because we think it must have a mistake somewhere. I’m standing by that position: it’s worth waiting for the final analysis.
Tags: faster than light, neutrinos, OPERA
This is history repeating itself: physicist panicking over data not fitting within acceptable theory standard. First indicator that a paradigm shift is building tension.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awwOtEk7hQ0&sns=em
“Of course, we already knew with incredible confidence that the OPERA result is wrong”
Yes, you seem to be a BIG scientific.
‘Of course’.
Please, detach your Ethernet wire from your PC, and after, over 3 years, over 15.000 times, try to connect to a web that test your link speed.
“Of course”, your PC, with the Ethernet wire in your hand, “Would connect”.
And “Of course”, this ‘stupid and wrong methodology”, would give you a speed rate of 60 nanoseconds, ALWAYS over the speed you have signed with your Internet Provider.
And After, please, go to your University, and say this, to your students.
And suspend those students that do not accept your BIG scientific explanation.
“Of Course”.
Javier.
Madrid.
Spain.
(The west world is going just to the hole with so many stupid).
Best Regards
Euclid is rigorous but not sacred. Non-Euclidean geometries have richer postulates. Euclid is violated but not contradicted. Contradicting relativity is a bad thing. Sloppy connections happen. Correction and notification are ethical and laudable. However, theorists abundantly “proved” the absurd, on arXiv. Theory needs pruning.
To criticize is to volunteer.
Relativity is rigorous but not sacred. Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama gravitation ignores the Equivalence Principle. EP = true is relativity. EP = false has testable EP violations. One ECKS emergent observable is newly interactive: physical chirality. Relativity has no defense – violation without contradiction.
Crystallography illuminates. Chemically and macroscopically identical single crystals in enantiomorphic space groups are EP-violations: gamma-Glycine [space groups P3(1) versus P3(2)] or alpha-quartz [space groups P3(1)21 versus P3(2)21]. Good observation prunes theory. What fun there could be within 70-year old classical theory! Somebody should look.
I love seeing a consistently sober voice somewhere. It’s a nice antidote to the rest of the internet.
See what I mean?