Science may not care, but scientists do. Even (or perhaps even especially) the real scientists. This may not be the appropriate place for it, but if you’d like we get get into more details on this subject one day.
Actually, I think we agree on this George. I created the problem when I said “real scientists.” That was a brain fart. What I meant was that since science doesn’t care, those who do science should not care, but of course that’s sky pie.
(I was curious as to the origin of that phrase, so I looked it up. I like this Joe Hill guy. LINK)
I’m not surprised. This is not the first time there has been a claim something moved through space faster than light speed but none of the claims have held up.
The very question here is whether the CERN measurements can be counted against Einstein’s theory. I had several friends who claim that there can be things that go faster than light. When, asked for evidence, they pointed to this CERN experiment. However, that is begging the question.
CERN scientists have toiled extensively for this experiment. So, it seems it is unfair to accuse them. However, our intuitions of fairness shall not interfere our pursuit of truth. It only took several nanoseconds for neutrinos to go from Geneva to Italy. So, when you are measuring something from nanoseconds, you need to measure the time needed for electronic signals to pass through computer chips. A slight error in these measurements can mess up the whole experiment.
If it takes infinite energy to accelerate a massive particle to attain speed of light (photon = 0 mass), and this new particle has “some” mass but is still able to travel at FTL, then where does the energy come from to dive this particle past SOL? CERN? Can colliding particles generate sufficient energy to drive a massive particle at FTL?
It just makes no sense. It seems mathematically and physically and energetically impossible.
Yes, it does, however, that’s within the present theories. If the results can be replicated and verified, it will mean that the mathematics defining the theory will have to be modified.
A new paper by Dutch researcher Ronald A.J. van Elburg lays out the case that the GPS satellite measuring the neutrinos’ movements was also moving relative to the CERN and OPERA facilities as it orbited the Earth. Briefly, van Elburg asserts that the effects of relativity as they pertain to the GPS satellite’s measurements require two corrections to the perceived time of travel.
Lo and behold, it turns out that applying that double correction shaves 64 nanoseconds off the neutrinos’ travel time, according to van Elburg, “[t]hus bringing the apparent velocities of neutrinos back to a value not significantly different from the speed of light.”
A new paper by Dutch researcher Ronald A.J. van Elburg lays out the case that the GPS satellite measuring the neutrinos’ movements was also moving relative to the CERN and OPERA facilities as it orbited the Earth. Briefly, van Elburg asserts that the effects of relativity as they pertain to the GPS satellite’s measurements require two corrections to the perceived time of travel.
Lo and behold, it turns out that applying that double correction shaves 64 nanoseconds off the neutrinos’ travel time, according to van Elburg, “[t]hus bringing the apparent velocities of neutrinos back to a value not significantly different from the speed of light.”
A new paper by Dutch researcher Ronald A.J. van Elburg lays out the case that the GPS satellite measuring the neutrinos’ movements was also moving relative to the CERN and OPERA facilities as it orbited the Earth. Briefly, van Elburg asserts that the effects of relativity as they pertain to the GPS satellite’s measurements require two corrections to the perceived time of travel.
Good find! But do not forget (from your link):
It’s too early to say whether that’s the final verdict on this story—the CERN scientists did claim to have accounted for such factors in their report.
Could the OPERA scientists have overseen this? Well, yes, what I heard about the experiment was that the research team was more or less forced to publish their results, as somebody was known to be ‘leaking’ about the presumed FTL speed. But they said themselves that they might have made some error, and wanted to evaluate their measurements before publishing them. But I must say, it is still funny that it is an outsider that must point to this.
.
