

Study rejects "faster than light" particle finding - Element_
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/20/us-science-neutrinos-idUSTRE7AJ0ZX20111120

======
jaylevitt
I don't really get the point of articles like these. I don't think anybody is
seriously arguing that the neutrinos were FTL. The real question is why the
_measurements_ showed that they were.

Declaring that the neutrinos weren't superluminal Because Of Science misses
the point.

~~~
sliverstorm
It doesn't just miss the point, it misses the point of Science. The day you
dispute a measurement on the grounds of Science is the day you have forgotten
how Science works. If Science disagrees with measurements, Science is wrong or
the measurement was taken wrong. Fix one, don't tell me that the measurement
is wrong because Science is right.

Aka you can't disprove reality with Science.

------
Myrth
> They argue, on the basis of recently published studies by two top U.S.
> physicists, that the neutrinos pumped down from CERN, near Geneva, should
> have lost most of their energy if they had travelled [sic] at even a tiny
> fraction faster than light.

So let me get it straight: it's clear that the observation is incorrect
because it can't be correct based on existing theories?

~~~
ajuc
Abstract: Assuming current theories are right, experiment that disproves
current theories is wrong.

------
DiabloD3
The fact this is a Reuters article notwithstanding, has anyone considered the
neutrinos move at the speed of light, and photons don't due to gravity's
effect on spacetime (ie, real speed of light vs relativity)?

~~~
jbri
The OPERA experiment wasn't a race between neutrinos and photons going from
one place to the other - the neutrinos travelled the measured distance between
the two detection points faster than _c_.

~~~
sliverstorm
His point as I gather is, what if c was incorrectly calculated, and photons
move at 99.9999% of c while neutrinos move at c. This would of course mean
"The Speed of Light" is a misnomer, but that could be adapted.

That would certainly be an interesting outcome that does not break the
existing understanding we have of c.

~~~
Locke1689
_That would certainly be an interesting outcome that does not break the
existing understanding we have of c._

It absolutely does. A massless particle moving slower than a particle with
mass is just as much a break in relativity as neutrinos moving faster than the
speed of light. In fact, they're equivalent. The speed of light isn't just
"the speed at which photons move," it's the speed at which photons move (minus
restrictions) _because they're photons._

Edit: I should say that this is all only true in the case of a vacuum.

~~~
sliverstorm
Naturally "The Speed of Light" is the speed at which photons move, photons are
light. But the stipulation being, what if there is some other constant "x",
and it's really e = m * x, and c =~ x? (When I say "c =~ x" I mean in a
similar way to how c(air) =~ c(vacuum)) Do we know that cannot be the case?

Alternatively, what if the speed of light in a vacuum is not actually the true
full speed of light? What if something else is acting on the photons that we
haven't thought about, such as gravity or charge?

