Faster than 3x10^8 meters/second

AKA the speed of light, and no its not Thunderbolt.
Strange Particles May Travel Faster Than Light | Fox News

Ttaylor394 said:

AKA the speed of light, and no its not Thunderbolt.
Strange Particles May Travel Faster Than Light | Fox News

Click to expand...

The jury is still out on that one - but it's been interesting reading over the past couple of days. We'll see if it holds up to scrutiny.

I will admit to having been agnostic for many years on the tenet of the speed of light being the ultimate speed limit.
If confirmed, this will make things VERY interesting for the next decade or so in the Physics world.

Proving Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity wrong has been an effort of futility for many years by many "eggheads". Like Brian said: "The Jury is still out". Bets anyone?

I'll take that bet for just the reasons you state.

Given the high profile of the researchers (CERN) and the embarrassment if they are wrong, and the checking and cross checking they have done, I would be very surprised to find they had made a mistake.

A lot of food for thought how ever you cut it.. i wonder if Brian Greene will write a book about this topic?

Personally, I would rather talk about this coming to fruition out of CERN rather than the small chance they are creating a black hole that would consume the milky way. Go neutrinos!

I wouldn't take that bet, especially considering the units of measurement we're talking about in this case, you'd think here has to be enough uncertainty in the different variables of the experiment to cover those off - but, we'll see.

Faster than light finding faulted in new neutrino test - CBS News

Don't mess with Einstein...he's still the man

BrianLachoreVPI said:

Faster than light finding faulted in new neutrino test - CBS News

Don't mess with Einstein...he's still the man

Click to expand...

I read that, and other articles related. The problem as I see it is, though, is their refutation is based upon looking at the energy levels and seeing that they differ from what they would PREDICT they should be if FTL transit was involved.

QUESTION: How do you predict the energy state of something that you deny could even exist? Especially since the existence invalidates current models.

Not saying they are wrong and their cohorts are right, just that don't see this as a valid argument.

Well, I haven't read the paper, nor do I intend to, so I don't know. Even if I did read it, I don't have a PhD in physics so I'm not really qualified to make a judgement either way.

BrianLachoreVPI said:

Even if I did read it, I don't have a PhD in physics so I'm not really qualified to make a judgement either way.

Click to expand...

But you play one on television . . . right?

EDIT: I do have to respond seriously though. A PhD in physics is not a requirement for logical thought. In fact, the theory under fire here came from a man who at the time was a patent clerk.
Regardless, the issue I take with the refutation is the idea that you can extend a model into an area that the model holds as invalid. It becomes a circle chase.
If FTL exists the model is invalid, therefore predictions from that model are suspect and must be examined in light of the new data.

And that is really the key to my post . . . let the data speak!
Either the experiment is flawed and will eventually be discredited, or it is replicated and confirmed. In which case the models will be updated to include the NEW reality.

Great point razor.

Razormac said:

But you play one on television . . . right?

EDIT: A PhD in physics is not a requirement for logical thought.

Click to expand...

No kidding...?

BrianLachoreVPI said:

No kidding...?

Click to expand...

I would NEVER kid you . . . unless, of course, I thought I could get away with it.

Razormac said:

EDIT: A PhD in physics is not a requirement for logical thought.

Click to expand...

Ok – I’m not sure what part of my post warrants a statement like that. Nowhere did I make a statement that even remotely infers anything else – but it requires more than logical thought to REALLY understand this kind of physics. The fact that Einstein was a patent clerk really is immaterial to my point – that was simply because he couldn’t find a teaching job, he was already well on his way towards his PhD.

I'm not sure your 'refutation' makes any sense at all. You're questioning their use of energy levels - but that's exactly how the existence of the neutrino was postulated to begin with. See the 2002 Nobel prize for physics for information on that. Maybe you forgot what the e is for? Of course energy is relevant.

The reality is, to form an educated opinion on either of these positions, you really do need a deep understanding of the physics and the math involved as the equations developed and derived that predicted the neutrinos existence in the first place are tightly bound to those that look at mass and velocities, along with sooo many other physical characterizations. You can't ignore one and focus on the other. They all have to agree or something is wrong. There are multiple ways to characterize particle physics mathematically but they always have agreed with the fundamental postulate by Einstein and do not conflict with each other – this is sort of the checks and balances for physics. These scientists are absolutely right to look at other “known” behavioral aspects of the particle to see if it gels with the superluminal results.

Whether or not superluminal neutrinos exist or not, who knows, but you can’t just throw away other portions of quantum physics just because it doesn’t appear to agree with some ToF observations. You absolutely go and check other "known" aspects until you either find that you didn't know what you thought you knew or that the original results were wrong. There's a ways to go on either front still.

ICARUS Refutes Opera's Superluminal Neutrinos

Unfortunately, I don’t have time to read either of the actual papers in any kind of detail – and I’m also aware that while I have a VERY solid physics background, I recognize that even if I did read them, I wouldn’t be qualified render a judgement either way. In simpler terms - I'm smart enough to know...what I don't know or as Clint would say - a man has got to know his limitations.

BrianLachoreVPI said:

Ok – I’m not sure what part of my post warrants a statement like that.

Click to expand...

This part . . .

BrianLachoreVPI said:

I don't have a PhD in physics so I'm not really qualified to make a judgement either way.

Click to expand...

My statement was meant to be interpreted, "Don't sell yourself short . . . I know from your many previous posts that you have a logical mind, and a decent grasp of the sciences."

The only other point I was attempting to make, though I probably didn't word it clearly enough, is the discontinuity with expected energy levels can't, in itself, be proof of the negative case. In this case, that FTL does not exist.

It does act as additional argument against, provided the original model holds up.

I also agree about knowing our limitations, and that also feeds back into my point. The only way to advance in learning is to admit the possibility of error. Einstein understood this very well.
It may be we have reached the ultimate and the General Theory will stand forever. I personally hope not.

Not because I am waiting for FTL flight in my lifetime (though it would be nice) but because the truely exciting and new developments in science always seem to require the collapse of the current model.

Anyway, I agree, that it is most likely that the CERN observers have some nasty error plaguing their experiment. Still, it would be wonderful if it wasn't so. We shall see (I hope).

They have conducted a second test with the same results.

So now they have got to figure out what is happening.

I think the main surprise is that they fired the neutrinos from Switzerland to Italy, and now cannot figure out how anything, let alone sub atomic particles, can arrive in Italy early

louishen said:

they have conducted a second test with the same results.

So now they have got to figure out what is happening.

I think the main surprise is that they fired the neutrinos from switzerland to italy, and now cannot figure out how anything, let alone sub atomic particles, can arrive in italy early

Click to expand...

lolololol

louishen said:

They have conducted a second test with the same results.

So now they have got to figure out what is happening.

I think the main surprise is that they fired the neutrinos from Switzerland to Italy, and now cannot figure out how anything, let alone sub atomic particles, can arrive in Italy early

Click to expand...

Good one!

The next step is for them to set up the detectors in Stuttgart

If they fire the neutrinos from Switzerland to Germany, the particules are guaranteed to turn up bang on time