CERN Experiment Indicates Faster-Than-Light neutrinos

[Will H]

Yeah, my dad called me a few days ago to tell me that they debunked it. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

 

Both of them?

[Distracted]

Yeah, my dad called me a few days ago to tell me that they debunked it. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Source?

[Vezon Dash]

Yeah, my dad called me a few days ago to tell me that they debunked it. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Source?

 

He didn't really give me details, but he said that they were calculating the pathway wrong. So what appeared to be slightly faster that the SoL was actually slightly slower than the SoL.

[Distracted]

Well, kinda. I looked up to see if it had been debunked. Seems scientists did some science-y stuff that I don't really understand, and concluded that they only move at the speed of light. But even this conclusion seems to have opponents in the scientific world, so you still can't really consider it the conclusion for this.

 

Next year, a Japanese and an American group will be doing similar experiments. Wondering how those'll turn out.

 

Edit: did some more research, came upon a source which explained things more clearly. Basically, this one sentence sums up the counter-argument: "Cohen and I argue that superluminal neutrinos must produce electron - positron pairs. They do not ...Thus, we conclude that the neutrinos are NOT superluminal"

 

The logic seems a bit flawed on my part, but I'm no Nobel prize winner so what the hell do I know.

[Furah]

Here's an article rejecting it from Reuters.

[Flyingjj]

The articles posted recently which refute the findings rely not on disproving the measurements themselves, but make an argument that the particles couldn't be traveling faster than light because of such and such law of physics. But, as we should already know, these neutrinos are already supposedly doing something they shouldn't be able to, so why can't they be doing something else they shouldn't be?

[Jonanananas]

The articles posted recently which refute the findings rely not on disproving the measurements themselves, but make an argument that the particles couldn't be traveling faster than light because of such and such law of physics. But, as we should already know, these neutrinos are already supposedly doing something they shouldn't be able to, so why can't they be doing something else they shouldn't be?

 

Exactly. Making arguments why that shouldn't be possible is easy enough(for a good physicist :P) but so far, there's been no explanation of the error, and therefore this hasn't been debunked yet.

 

I'm also not quite why everyone thinks this will completely overthrow physics and be a headache to everyone...We're still doing a lot of stuff with Newton. If Einstein's theory is proven to be wrong, we'll still use his for most stuff, there just needs to be a new theory developed for the few exceptions. Of course this is huge news for scientiests, but it's not like it would overthrow[\i] a lot of things. Tbh, anyone who thought that Einstein was *correct* and that's it has a bit of a naive view anyway. We'll never know how exactly the world works, and every theory will eventually be replaced with a slightly more accurate one. We're just approximating to the raw truth :P

[The Dark Lord]

A physicist would probably rip your head off if you said that in front of them.

 

I don't know much about this area, but I agree that nothing's proven/disproven until other other experiments are ran elsewhere. Hell, it could be some strange exception to a rule or maybe allow scientists to have evidence of some strange phenomenon, or perhaps this somehow strengthens Einstein's theory. This experiment is not rubbish.

[miracleman58]

My understanding is that Einstein's theory still holds if we accept the Speed of Light does != C.

 

But the speed of light in constant, It has been measured and cannt be changed.

[Will H]

My understanding is that Einstein's theory still holds if we accept the Speed of Light does != C.

 

But the speed of light in constant, It has been measured and cannt be changed.

 

Well, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity says so. Rule one of the scientific process says that there is no such thing as absolute truth, just the best available hypothesis. Still, the, uh, 'constantness' of c has way more evidence behind it than the reliability of two experiments themselves or other bits of the Standard Model. We still haven't fully understood why mass occurs yet, so we were bound to come up with something that "wasn't quite right", the next step is to work out why.