dougsmith - 22 September 2011 03:18 PM

The ever-level-headed Phil Plait weighs in HERE.

He updated the article.

[UPDATE: The paper is now up on the arxiv preprint server. I took a look, and must say at first glance their reasoning looks solid. They appear to have the baseline distance nailed and the timing as well. However, the devil’s in the details, and this isn’t my field, so I’ll be very curious to see how the pros in this discipline react to the paper.]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

Not sure if this was there when you read the article you linked above, but he links to the paper in question. I wouldn’t understand it if I read it, but some of you might. It may be an error somewhere that caused this result, but I find the possibility of it being accurate fascinating. I don’t know, maybe it could possibly help explain why the large and the very small behave so differently.

So I pose the question: What if it is true?

Bring on the pseudoscience crackpot theories.

Earthdaddy - 23 September 2011 07:49 AM

So I pose the question: What if it is true?

Dunno. As Plait notes, previous interactions with neutrinos didn’t display any FTL capability (viz., in those detected from far away supernovas). So *IF* this result holds up, it would only be the start of some pretty extensive investigations to find out what made these neutrinos behave differently.

I expect the results won’t hold up, and we’ll stop hearing about this. But hey, it’d be cool if it were true ...

Live webcast from CERN right now discussing the findings.

http://webcast.web.cern.ch/webcast/

OMG! Cox speculates that reason why the neutrino might had been faster than the speed of light is exactly what I said: it might have taken a shortcut through another dimension. I know I am being very arrogant praising myself, but it just made my day! 

George, I am impressed .....Wow!

I’d be impressed too, George. If only I could believe in an unseen dimension (even time is serially observable)...

My calendar must be wrong.  It says today is September 23d when it is obviously really April 1st. 

Actually, I’m relieved.  I never understood special relativity anyway.  If it’s wrong I won’t need to!

traveler - 23 September 2011 09:11 AM

I’d be impressed too, George. If only I could believe in an unseen dimension (even time is serially observable)...

Well, if (if!) the calculations are correct then an explanation must exist. I imagine that the existence of another dimension sounds more plausible than the neutrinos traveling faster than light.

(And don’t forget, if I am wrong—and I am seldom wrong—about my first theory I still have my second one, with the neutrinos being too small to be detectable in some of the infinitive parts of the block universe. So there.  )

And if! the calculations are based on accurate data to sufficient precision.

traveler - 23 September 2011 10:00 AM

And if! the calculations are based on accurate data to sufficient precision.

Sure. But if all the data are correct then why not turn to the Atheist’s Bible and remember Carl 3:16?

“We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact. The cosmos is full beyond measure of elegant truths; of exquisite interrelationships; of the awesome machinery of nature.”

This is actually one of the problems I have noticed with the recent movement of the “rational thinking”: people are afraid to speculate not because they are afraid to be wrong but because they feel intimidated to be accused of irrational thinking.

Come on, guys, loosen up! If we are afraid to speculate we might as well all turn to writing for Wikipedia instead.

OK, so when are they testing the Warp 2.0 drive? 

psik

George - 23 September 2011 10:42 AM

traveler - 23 September 2011 10:00 AM

And if! the calculations are based on accurate data to sufficient precision.

Sure. But if all the data are correct then why not turn to the Atheist’s Bible and remember Carl 3:16?

“We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact. The cosmos is full beyond measure of elegant truths; of exquisite interrelationships; of the awesome machinery of nature.”

This is actually one of the problems I have noticed with the recent movement of the “rational thinking”: people are afraid to speculate not because they are afraid to be wrong but because they feel intimidated to be accused of irrational thinking.

Come on, guys, loosen up! If we are afraid to speculate we might as well all turn to writing for Wikipedia instead.

I love it! And agree with it. Awe is, well, awesome. Rational should never mean boring.

Universe is awesome. And so is Sagan. Every time I read that quote or hear him says it, I get goosebumps. I miss Sagan.

Ben Radford makes a good point.

dougsmith - 23 September 2011 12:30 PM

Ben Radford makes a good point.

Liked it, and left a comment. Thanks Doug.