2014-06-18 12:50:29 UTC
the name "Faster than the Speed of Light?", so I had a look at it.
Seems that in 2010 or 2011 an Italian experiment codenamed OPERA
detected neutrinoes from CERN some 60 naoseconds before they "should"
have got there, and despite months of investigation and testing they
couldn't find sufficient error to explain the measurements, so they
published. Not with a bang. but with a whimper.
"Pretty please, where did we go wrong?"
Well, scientists all over the world had ideas on that, but at the
time the docco was made, none of those had panned out. Still, they
remain skeptical. Nothing massive can exceed the speed of light.
Einstein said so.
(Actually, his formulae do *not* imply that: all they imply is that
nothing massive can travel *at* the speed of light. But never mind
that. Can't expect physicists and mathematicians to get something
like that right *every* time, can we?)
If massive objects could exceed the speed of light, they say (which
they can't, they say), that would fracture the sequential nature of
the relationship between cause and effect, they say; we would be
able to alter our past, they say; we would have time travel.
So of course there *has* to be something wrong with the data.
Funny, I was taoght that in scientific methodology, experimental
results call theory into question, not the other way around.
These results and the experimental process that produced them have
been squeezed, crunched and picked over in every way that physicists
and mathematicians all over the world can dream up, and no flaw can
be found. But still they don't accept them.
Is Theoretical Physics a science or a religion?
There is a simple explanation, of course: they just haven't thought
of it for the last three centuries.