

CERN Confirms Neutrinos Not Faster Than Light - sparknlaunch
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112551696/cern-confirms-neutrinos-not-faster-than-light/

======
simcop2387
While it's awesome that the experiment has been corrected and is now working
properly, it is a little disappointing to me that the answer isn't so strange.

I would have loved it if it turned out to be something real just because it
would have made some form of communication between planets without a delay
possible.

~~~
fusiongyro
It never made sense to me why they publicized the result, since it looked so
clearly like some kind of experimental screw up. All it could do is make them
look like amateurs when it inevitably came out that they bungled something.

~~~
okamiueru
I think they were aware of how it looked, as well as the most likely
explanation. However, if you have results you cannot explain, you show it to
your peers so they can find the error, or confirm the discovery. They never
went public and said "we made a discovery". They went public and said "this is
what we did, this is what we got".

~~~
fusiongyro
I question their ability to perform science if they have to rely on their
peers to find problems in their own equipment. When my car breaks down, I go
to a mechanic to have it fixed, but when my software fails, I don't publish it
and ask the community to figure out why it doesn't work.

~~~
ThePherocity
I question your understanding of how science works. Actually, I question your
ability to program also. I often go out to the community to find out if there
are other issues, or maybe something simple that I forgot. Using your peers
for help is not a weakness, it's a strength.

~~~
fusiongyro
Science is about performing experiments and replicating them, not about
debugging hardware. A friend of mine famously complained that his computer was
broken because his C programs weren't compiling. He had misspelled "include."
The "community" didn't need to step up and help him. He needed to learn how to
use his tools.

~~~
ThePherocity
Well, I wasn't sure before, but you've removed all doubt.

~~~
fusiongyro
You know, I'm not a scientist, so it's quite possible I've misunderstood the
situation here. But if nothing else, what I'm saying is exactly what you can
expect the average person with some education—albeit not a scientist—to think,
based on a casual knowledge of physics (the role of the speed of light, etc.)
reading these headlines.

I don't think I've been particularly discourteous to you, but if I have, I
apologize. It would be more helpful in the future to show me what I haven't
seen rather than simply insult me.

------
weichi
A very good post on this by Matt Strassler from earlier this year:

[http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-
phy...](http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-
basics/neutrinos/neutrinos-faster-than-light/opera-what-went-wrong/)

There were apparently two problems:

1\. An improperly calibrated clock 2\. A fiber optic cable was not fully
plugged in. This led to a little bit of light leaking out from the cable,
which lead to a (very small) delay in recognition of the arrival of a pulse on
the fiber.

Yes, modern physics experiments are pretty complicated and lots of things can
go wrong!

------
acex
end of the article "After months of investigation, physicists have ruled that
the speedy neutrinos observed were likely due to a faulty connection in an
optical fiber of the Master Clock." i really do wonder why negative attitude
to my "were likely goes both ways" - they have ruled (not proved) that
something is likely. please. either the article is stupid or those who have
ruled.

------
acex
were likely goes both ways.

------
keypusher
In other news: sky is blue, grass is green.

