question is: are we sticking with Einstein?

They have found something completely unexpected.
Now the choice was:
1) to share it with the rest of the world and humbly say "we believe our experiment was done properly, but we invite everyone to double and triple-check everything and possibly confute these results"
2) to hide it in a drawer, or burn the papers or just "correct" the numbers and pretend nothing has happened.
I approve and firmly defend their choice, which I find very honest - though risky for themselves.

None. The science is not in search of impeccable reliability. The science has historically always been a search for new proofs that the old theories are flawed. It is an animal who lives by eating it's own weak parts, dies sometimes but then resurrects stronger and bigger.

Those who need an absolute and immovable truth can find a comfort in religion.

Just few quotes form Albert Einstein:
- The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.
- Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.

Cheers

 

How reliable then, is a declaration from hundreds of scientists that their review of all the data and methodology is 100% thumbs-up in confirming the findings ? In the end, all we have is their word that there is no possibility an oversight has occurred. What scientific methodology exists that self-corrects collective 'blind spots' ? They may be completely convinced they have covered all bases, but I don't see ready acceptance coming for something that dismantles a century of physics.

 

If you just tried to read the technical report or any interview with scientists involved, you'd see that they are not "completely convinced". But they are fairly sure, after the internal checking of the method, hardware setup and synchronization, error analysis, time-delay correction factors and statistical methods used, that the experiment was done properly, hence the publishing of the data.

It goes without saying that these results have not yet been accepted by the scientific community. The process of critical review from independent scientists/groups starts from the moment the experimental data have been published, which was few days ago.

An excerpt from the OPERA-experiment Technical Report (the link can be found here):

"Despite the large significance of the measurement reported here and the stability of the analysis, the potentially great impact of the result motivates the continuation of our studies in order to investigate possible still unknown systematic effects that could explain the observed anomaly. We deliberately do not attempt any theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of the results."​

As you can see, they are very cautious about these results, though they did their best to eliminate every possible systematic error. I think it is a correct and professional way of handling such a surprising experimental result.

Another reading about this issue: http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/bre...t-sees-neutrinos-seem-to-beat-speed-of-light/

 

Whatever the outcome is when the verdict is reached by the wider scientific world, it is major news.

 

great discussion, without delving in too deep i noticed the only recently proven mass of neutrino's was mentioned above. see there are 3 type neutrinos now? there mass more illusive than quarks and non existant mass made me wonder before and now again tackling the m in E=mc2

but checking neutrino's mass seems to be discovered by Mikheyev, Smirnov and Wolfenstein with a springed pendulem showing oscilations in related matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein_effect i read however also neutrino masses has not been answered conclusively. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillations

only now read CERN's press release, amazing science is it not and keep spilling your thoughts

 

The scholars that work on the issues that surround these equations do one of two things; religiously hide their efforts and then eventually publish their findings. They covet their work initially, because they know if they have an "angle" on a problem, that others will also attempt the same approach, in an effort to beat them to the publishing punch. This is quite understandable and nothing that isn't done in just about every other industry or area of intense interest.

Once they've reached a point where publishing their findings is warranted, it's usually an event, such as speaking at a prestigious school or board of similar minded folks, where their possably radical ideas, will have understanding ears to fall on.

There's nothing new or unusual about this either. Mr. Efficiency seems to think that a radical departure from current thinking or understanding disavows previous findings and unqualifies huge sections of the scientific community's prior findings. This is further from the true then the radical concepts and precepts that might come from the finder.

Newton was wrong, Galileo was wrong, Einstein was wrong and this is normal in the evolution of discovery. Other wise, we'd all still think the world was flat, for fear of suggesting the previous scholars where incorrect and that if you mashed lead hard enough, you'd get gold. In different terms, it's precisely the same thing as suggesting the yacht America was a pig and that a better approach was possible, for a better outcome. Better yet would be that Nat Herreshoff's creations where that of a fool in comparison to current models.

Everything evolves. Herreshoff's work moved the scale forward many degrees, some radically, such as his cat. The winged keel was the end all of keels, in the mid 1980's. It's a good thing we all weren't of the mind of some here or we'd still have these abominations adorning our boats.

 

The news media were abuzz this week with reports of experiments conducted at the Gran Sasso particle detector complex in Italy, apparently showing subatomic particles called neutrinos had traveled from the giant particle accelerator at CERN, outside Geneva, to the Italian detector at a speed just slightly faster than the speed of light -- a result that, if correct, would overturn more than a century of accepted physics theory. Professor of Physics Peter Fisher, head of MIT's Particle and Nuclear Experimental Physics division, answered some questions about these new findings.

Q. If this result is confirmed, does it really undermine Einstein’s theory of relativity, as some news reports claim? And if so, is there a theory that’s been proposed that might account for it?

A. Einstein’s theory rests on two postulates, one of which is that electromagnetic radiation travels at the same speed (the speed of light, 300,000 kilometers per second) no matter how the observer moves. Light particles — photons — have no mass, so a consequence is that no particle with mass can move at a velocity greater than light. These neutrinos have a tiny, but non-zero, mass and hence should not be able to travel faster than the speed of light.

There are theories that predict particles moving faster than the speed of light, but, to my knowledge, none of them account for all the other phenomena we have measured experimentally since the time of Einstein.

Q. What kind of other tests or independent experiments would it take to confirm this result so that it would be widely accepted?

A. There are two other experiments that shoot neutrinos over long distances that may have something to say about this result. One experiment is in the U.S., and the beam goes from Fermilab, near Chicago, to a detector called MINOS in northern Minnesota. The other shoots a neutrino beam across Japan to an experiment in a mine called Super-Kamiokande. The energies of the neutrinos in these experiments are much lower than the CERN beam, but they may have something to say very soon.

Q. If this turns out to be some kind of unrecognized systematic error in the measurements, would that reflect badly on the scientists who reported it, or would it just be a reflection of science working as it’s supposed to?

A. I would say more the latter. I know a number of the people on the OPERA experiment [at Gran Sasso] and they are very thoughtful, careful people who would never publish a result like this unless they were certain there was no better explanation. I would bet that whatever the explanation is, it will be very interesting.


From:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-faster.html

 

Einstein isn't sticking with Einstein
check out why he wrote the field equations or what the cosmological constant is all about.

Then go look up Joao Magueijo and check out variable light speed theory.

 

It's going to be a cold winter.

 

Yes and the nights will be dark

 

Integrity is rare in our cover-your-*** societies where everyone seems to always looking for someone to blame for their mistakes, especially politicians. I strongly support these scientists in their honesty.

 

I wouldn't make too much of their integrity. The guy who decided to publish probably decided that it wouldn't be him teaching physics in Peoria if this turned out to be a cockup. These guys are politicians and they have a huge motivation to justify the expense of their work. The lesson of science is to be sceptical.

There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.
Brendan Behan
Irish author & dramatist (1923 - 1964)

 

Yeah, getting rid of the hot potatoes has become a science too nowadays:

 

Actually it would have changed by about 1/3 mm; just add another coat of paint and it will be back to the full 12 m again!

 

when I read the article I got a flash of the guy who presented cold fusion, twice, and was proven wrong both times. Kinda put a damper on his career. But if this other guys really baffled by his findings and he's honestly putting it out there for the community to examine themselves and come up with there own findings from the data then I suppose why not.

One issue I have with classical academia is this idea that a scientist can't ever be wrong. I've got several professor friends that are so "in the box" the only people that don't see the lack of creativity is themselves. We've had numerous conversations about the pitfalls of the educational process and its almost funny how the conversation breaks down at that point.

Oh well maybe this is something new and maybe it isn't but its interesting if for no other reason that some bit of anomalous data seems to cause such an uproar when there's so many other pieces to the puzzle that don't fit.

cheers
B