CERN confirms neutrinos don't break light speed
Faulty fibres flamed for fatuous FTL finding
Neutrinos are most definitely not faster than light after all, says CERN.
The laws of physics got the good news last Friday at the 25th International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics in Kyoto, in a talk titled “The neutrino velocity measurement by OPERA experiment”.
Slides (PDF) accompanying the talk say the faster-than-light results generated in 2011 were likely the result of “Faulty connection of the optical fibre to the Master Clock artificially increasing the neutrino anticipation by ~74 ns.” The slides also say OPERA had another problem, namely “Internal Master Clock frequency off by Δf/f = 1.24x10-7 (124 ns/s) artificially decreasing the neutrino anticipation by ~15 ns.”
The conference also heard about four experiments - Borexino, ICARUS, LVD and OPERA - on neutrino velocity, the results of which all re-instate the speed of light as neutrinos’ upper limit.
CERN Research Director Sergio Bertolucci said, in a press release, that ”Although this result isn’t as exciting as some would have liked, it is what we all expected deep down.”
“The story captured the public imagination, and has given people the opportunity to see the scientific method in action – an unexpected result was put up for scrutiny, thoroughly investigated and resolved in part thanks to collaboration between normally competing experiments. That’s how science moves forward.” ®
Re: Try that with mythology (aka Religion)
"... and have little to do with science, and in which science is powerless.. "
But 'science' never claimed to have 'power' in dealing with moral and existential questions; wheras religion claimed to have ultimate power to answer questions such as whether the sun revolved around the earth, or vice versa. The religious method of 'proving' assertions involved harassment, torture and execution of dissenters. While they were busy advancing these religious theories of astronomy (and the vitally important theory about eating meat on Fridays), did they consider the moral or existential aspects of what they were doing? Or, is it the case that morality has changed as far as religion is concerned and so the religious people have changed their methods?
I suggest that the 'religious method' changes the fundemental principles of its own beliefs in order to make itself appear valid within whatever society it exists. This would be the equivalent of scientists changing the speed of light, or the mass of the proton, to make science more relevant to society. As we know, this is impossible, because scientists don't create their own fairytale world.
Re: "as long as you can be smug, why would you care?"
"the issues which agitate human society and civilization are moral and existential, and have little to do with science, and in which science is powerless"
Many people are unhappy with the efforts of the religious to interfere with the areas of human endeavour in which science and education can benefit us; this sort of wilful interference despite hundreds of years of effort to separate church and state are bound to generate a little bad blood, wouldn't you say?
And that leaves aside the fuzzier issues where the morals of one group conflict with the desires of another. Dogma is a religious concept, and utterly inflexible rules benefit no-one and yet we continue to have them imposed upon us.
So, as unpleasant as the loudmouth, smug atheists are, unlike the smug apologists they are merely a symptom of the problem, not part of the problem itself.
Try that with mythology (aka Religion)
“The story captured the public imagination, and has given people the opportunity to see the scientific method in action – an unexpected result was put up for scrutiny, thoroughly investigated and resolved in part thanks to collaboration between normally competing experiments. That’s how science moves forward.”