×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Neutrinos Travel No Faster Than Light, Says ICARUS

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the do-you-know-why-i-pulled-you-over dept.

News 112

ananyo writes "Neutrinos obey nature's speed limit, according to new results from an Italian experiment. The finding, posted to the preprint server arXiv.org, contradicts a rival claim from the OPERA experiment that neutrinos could travel faster than the speed of light. ICARUS, located just a few meters from OPERA, clocked neutrinos traveling at the speed of light, and no faster, after monitoring a beam of neutrinos sent from CERN in late October and early November of last year. The neutrinos were packed into pulses just four nanoseconds long. That meant the timing could be measured far more accurately than the original OPERA measurement, which used ten microsecond pulses. The new findings are yet another blow to OPERA's results. Researchers there had announced possible timing problems with their original measurements. For many, this will pretty much be case closed."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

112 comments

Didn't they already find an equipment error? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39381381)

I mean, what kind of a bozo looks at an unexpected result, from an incredibly complex first-one, never-been-done before kind of a machine, and jumps to the conclusion "FASTER THAN LIGHT"!

I always assumes the faster than light shit wasn't an actual claim, just lazy reporters trying to hype up some attention and web clicks or what not.

I'm curious that neutrinos went the speed of light at all. IIRC, don't neutrinos have mass? Shouldn't it be impossible for anything with mass to go c?

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39381417)

Indeed. I doubt the team's findings made any kind of definitive statement of fact re: ftl neutrinos.

A little hyperbole might be a good thing, given the general disinterest in science... but getting silly about it probably doesn't help.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (4, Informative)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381603)

Neutrinos do seem to have mass, and thus do not actually travel at the speed of light. However, the mass is very small (and as far as I know still unknown), which means that since they are created with fairly large energies, they immediately start moving at extremely close to the speed of light. So close that we can't tell the difference.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382135)

I keep wondering about that. Can we infer from the neutrino oscillations what speed they're actually going at if we can't measure it directly?

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (4, Informative)

jfengel (409917) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382579)

Unfortunately, no. The neutrino oscillations tell us that mass must be present. That's the only way the mechanisms allow oscillations to happen at all. As long they can participate in mass interactions, they oscillate. But that's all we get out of it.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39382645)

Well that's not all they tell us, oscillation measurements also allow us to determine the mass difference between the neutrinos (in fact because we only measure mass differences one of the neutrinos could still be massless). Also we can measure how much the differnt types of neutrino mix i.e. how much the differnent types oscillate with each opther.

Measuring the time of flight of neutrinos with the opera and icarus experiments is a very basic and useful measurement but is not actually that competetive in terms of putting limits on the neutrino masses.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (3, Informative)

maugle (1369813) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383737)

Last I checked, their mass was thought to be somewhere between 0.25 and 3 eV. Which is amazingly small, considering electrons weigh in at 0.5 MeV.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (4, Informative)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381607)

I'm curious that neutrinos went the speed of light at all. IIRC, don't neutrinos have mass?

Yes, but it's very small. For example, while the electron has a mass of about 0.5 MeV, the neutrino upper-bound has been pushed down from 50 eV, down to the prediction that the combined mass of all flavors of neutrinos must be under 0.3 eV.

So, it's around less than a millionth the mass of an electron. This means that it can obtain much faster speeds with the same amount of force.

This means that it can obtain much faster speeds (1)

sugarmotor (621907) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382415)

Doesn't it also mean that it is very difficult to have a slow neutrino? You can hardly touch them and they're gone.

S

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39383219)

Energy, not force. You were doing so well until that point :)

(force relates to change in momentum, energy to velocity)

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383691)

Energy, not force. You were doing so well until that point :)

(force relates to change in momentum, energy to velocity)

So, if I apply force to an object, and increase it's momentum, it will not actually be traveling any faster?

F=-grad U, F=dp/dt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39385657)

force = -grad U
so
U = int F dx

F = dp/dt
p=int F dt

if the Force is changing linearly eg F=ax ... you would get something like p = 1/2 ax^2 = mv

v = 1/2 a/m x^2
v=dx/dt
Int dx/x^2 = Int 1/2 a/m dt = 1/2 a/m t
-1/x = 1/2 a/m t

x= -2m/at ? hmm where is the mistake /. ?

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381631)

I always assumes the faster than light shit wasn't an actual claim, just lazy reporters trying to hype up some attention and web clicks or what not.

Of course that was the claim, but in a sane science to layman translation it'd be: "We have this crazy result here with neutrinos that seem to go 60ns faster than light speed. Pretty much all of established science goes against this, but we've double checked our equipment and figures and can't find the error. So we're telling you about it so someone else can run this experiment and see if they get crazy results too, meanwhile we'll triple check our equipment and figures." There's not a single scientist surprised by this eventually being proven to be just a fluke. Nor by journalists hearing "blah blah blah neutrinos blah faster than light blah blah blah", lets make a headline. Absolutely par for the course, as far as science reporting is concerned.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39382087)

It still surprises me that the general public thinks they're getting the full story when the media boils down a study of a few hundred/thousand pages into a 30 second sound bite.
 
This is the most troubling form of ignorance of science by the public, IMHO.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (4, Informative)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382171)

It was mostly about metrology: "How could we have gotten this wrong?" They never raised the idea that Relativity might be wrong. The original paper was very clear and cautious about it.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (4, Insightful)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382729)

Relativity has a body of proof behind it. One strange result MIGHT invalidate it, but it's more likely that were these results valid that we would've had a clue that this *could* happen before it happened. The right way to approach it is to assume relativity -- which has evidence backing it up, experimental and theoretical -- is correct, and that there was some experimental error, something systemic.

Hey guys, this result doesn't agree with what we expected and believe true based on math and experiment. What did we do wrong?

Likely, something was done wrong.

In the unlikely case that nothing was done wrong and the results are reproducible, well.. THEN you start questioning relativity.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (1)

ediron2 (246908) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383537)

Relativity has a body of proof behind it. One strange result MIGHT invalidate it, but it's more likely that were these results valid that we would've had a clue that this *could* happen before it happened. The right way to approach it is to assume relativity -- which has evidence backing it up, experimental and theoretical -- is correct, and that there was some experimental error, something systemic.

Hey guys, this result doesn't agree with what we expected and believe true based on math and experiment. What did we do wrong?

Likely, something was done wrong.

In the unlikely case that nothing was done wrong and the results are reproducible, well.. THEN you start questioning relativity.

Bravo. Brilliantly put.

ObAsimov:
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka” but “That's funny...” —Isaac Asimov (1920–1992)

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382773)

Of course that was the claim, but in a sane science to layman translation it'd be: "We have this crazy result here with neutrinos that seem to go 60ns faster than light speed.

Shouldn't be mixing units. 60ns is time, c is velocity. That's like saying you were driving 3 minutes more than 55mph.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383511)

You never say person A beat person B by 6 cm/s you say person A beat person B by 6 seconds.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (3, Informative)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383659)

You never say person A beat person B by 6 cm/s you say person A beat person B by 6 seconds.

That's because the winners of races are based on time, not instantaneous or maximum speed. Drag races always spout speed data, but the winner is the one who crosses the finish line first, not necessarily fastest.

"60 ns faster than the speed of light" is meaningless. "The neutrinos arrived 60ns sooner than they would have if they were travelling at c" isn't, as long as somewhere you could find out how far they went and then back out the speed they were going.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383573)

Shouldn't be mixing units. 60ns is time, c is velocity. That's like saying you were driving 3 minutes more than 55mph.

Actually in this case it was intended to be a limit, not a velocity. "Usually I drive by the speed limit (55mph) but today I arrived 3 minutes late." is a perfectly reasonable sentence. Of course you can't from this alone say neither distance or velocity, but you can say it went slower than expected which was the essential point.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (1)

ediron2 (246908) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383493)

I used to love slashdot because it was common to have (computer, internet and geek hobby) stories done just this way; I keep hoping such a site will arise from the post-slashdot/post-reddit/post-fark/post-twitter ashes. Such a site truly would be 'news for nerds, stuff that matters', as opposed to 'lab breaks speed-of-light' and 'deals another blow' sensationalism even slashdot falls for.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (4, Insightful)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381655)

First, nobody (except for the press) claimed they saw faster than light neutrinos. You are right on that assumption. Opera basicaly said that they had an interesting result, and couldn't find where it was wrong, now, if anybody out there could help find the problem, they'd be glad.

Second, Opera found a problem, corrected it, but will only be able to state with certainty that this problem was the cause of the faster than light neutrinos once they run the experiment again. That will take some time.

Then, what you do when you get such an interesting result is to repeat the experiment. That is what was done here, and the result didn't repeat. That's science working the way it should, and the press working the way we all learned to expect.

About your question, the neutrinos aren't moving at the speed of light. It is just that their mass is so small that we can't detect the difference between their speed and c.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39381937)

Well, if you're going to make the claim that this was "the press working the way we all learned to expect" I would claim that the OP, as an AC ignoring all facts, reading no stories, jumping to a bunch of conclusions based solely on headlines and then using those conclusions to prove to the rest of us that he is the smartest man alive, is "Slashdot working the way we all learned to expect".

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (2, Funny)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383031)

Sorry, bet we have a consensus of the press who have reported that the neutrino travels faster than light. Since this is all that was necessary for Global Warming, it should be good enough for Faster Than Light speeds. Quit denying the facts, and start developing FTL vehicles.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39384509)

About your question, the neutrinos aren't moving at the speed of light. It is just that their mass is so small that we can't detect the difference between their speed and c.

If we can't measure the difference, then they actually could be going at c.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381901)

I mean, what kind of a bozo looks at an unexpected result, from an incredibly complex first-one, never-been-done before kind of a machine, and jumps to the conclusion "FASTER THAN LIGHT"!

That's what it takes to get First Post these days.

Re:Didn't they already find an equipment error? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39381977)

I mean, what kind of a bozo looks at an unexpected result, from an incredibly complex first-one, never-been-done before kind of a machine, and jumps to the conclusion "FASTER THAN LIGHT"!

If we ever create something FTL, it will be using an "incredibly complex first-one, never-been-done before kind of a machine".

Not surprising (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39381399)

If I remember my history correctly, they had a similar issue back in the 50-60's. In brief, some measurements they were making of neutrinos showed them traveling faster then light. Turned out to be time dilation on the part of the neutrinos that was screwing with the results.

"Another blow?" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39381415)

People keep phrasing this like OPERA came out with a headline like "Neutrinos Travel Faster Than Light, and If You Disagree, You're a Stupid Doodyhead."

That is not what happened. OPERA basically said "Hey, we have this anomalous result that we don't really think could be right, but we looked at all our stuff and couldn't find the problem. Please help us fix this. Thanks."

Re:"Another blow?" (4, Insightful)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381471)

People keep phrasing this like OPERA came out with a headline like "Neutrinos Travel Faster Than Light, and If You Disagree, You're a Stupid Doodyhead."

That is not what happened. OPERA basically said "Hey, we have this anomalous result that we don't really think could be right, but we looked at all our stuff and couldn't find the problem. Please help us fix this. Thanks."

Yeah but that does make a lousy headline, don't you think?

Re:"Another blow?" (5, Informative)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381575)

which neatly summarizes the difference between how science is actually done, and how the media, including apparently /. cover science.

In real science when you do an experiment you just have results. You may not like the result, you may not want that to be the result, and you may think there is something wrong with the results. But that's what you did, that's what happened and if you can't figure out why the results are the way they are, well then you need the broader scientific community to help, and you write it all down in papers so that other people can learn from what happened to you.

Re:"Another blow?" (1)

guises (2423402) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381585)

Yeah, I'm also confused. The funny measurement that OPERA got has already been explained, there's nothing left to debunk anymore. This is not a blow to anyone's results.

Re:"Another blow?" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39381763)

"Hey, we have this anomalous result that we don't really think could be right, but we looked at all our stuff and couldn't find the problem. Please help us fix this. Thanks."

As opposed to "Hey, we have this anomalous result that Conveniently bashes our political opponents. Please watch our movie about it"

Re:"Another blow?" (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382063)

Real Science vs. Popular Science (not the magazine)

The Popular Science treats Science like a religion which teaches "Ultimate Truth" That isn't Science. Science gives us the best/simplest explanation based on what we can observe.

Now It is possible that we (you) are a Brain in a Box being senses that actually do not exist in the universe, controlled by some higher power, that may be the ultimate truth. However, science doesn't allow this Idea because we cannot observe this effect, and it is a more complicated explanation of our observations then going with the idea that We exist in our universe and our senses are detecting the effects our our universe.

Real Science if you are wrong then you are wrong, Popular Science if you wrong then you must have done something bad and needs to be punished for pushing out lies.

Re:"Another blow?" (4, Funny)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383853)

somewhere, in a basement, a lonely teenager is writing in his blog: "just like in 1947, the truth got out, but now the coverup begins".

Anything new? (0)

Awol411 (799294) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381425)

Didn't OPERA say that a cable added the 60ns extra to the timing and that when it was fixed, the neutrinos didn't travel than c?? This is just another group verifying the same thing then.

Re:Anything new? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381659)

They said they found that cable problem, but actually getting new results would require re-running the experiment with the fixed equipment, which doesn't happen overnight, so they can't just fix their result just like that.

Why the agro? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39381457)

I like how the submitter has turned it into a war of claims and rival claims. I seem to remember that OPERA was pretty sceptical about its own result right from the start.

Re:Why the agro? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39381489)

Makes the story more exciting. Italian experiment finds you can't send neutrinos backwards in time doesn't sound as good.

Neutrinos *didn't* travel faster than light (2)

Rix (54095) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381465)

In that experiment.

Until we know why they were measured as travelling faster than light and can repeat it, the mystery remains.

Re:Neutrinos *didn't* travel faster than light (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39381539)

Already been done. IIRC a couple of weeks ago in fact. (as others have said here it was equipment malfunction)

Re:Neutrinos *didn't* travel faster than light (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381633)

Until we know why they were measured as travelling faster than light and can repeat it, the mystery remains.

That's not how science works, that's how pseudo-science and conspiracy theories work.

The burden of proof falls upon the person reporting results out of the ordinary - NOT on those hundreds or thousands of people whose results support the prevailing theory.

Re:Neutrinos *didn't* travel faster than light (2)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382737)

Until we know why they were measured as travelling faster than light and can repeat it, the mystery remains.

That's not how science works, that's how pseudo-science and conspiracy theories work.

No, he's right. The original results are still a mystery. Not a very big one, since they were obtained with faulty equipment, but as I understand it, the discovered faults don't exactly match the necessary cause of the results obtained.

This isn't a ground-shaking scientific mystery--more like a "why does toast land butter-side down" bit of trivia. But it's something that could be investigated and explained (as the butter-side down [physics.org] question was). Of course, unlike toast, it's likely only of interest to the folks at OPERA.

There's no ground-breaking, theory-shattering, fundamental-physics mystery here, but there's still a mystery. A mundane technical mystery of faulty equipment and its possible failure modes.

Re:Neutrinos *didn't* travel faster than light (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39383959)

That's not how science works, that's how pseudo-science and conspiracy theories work.

The burden of proof falls upon the person reporting results out of the ordinary - NOT on those hundreds or thousands of people whose results support the prevailing theory.

I don't think you understand. One of the most imortant parts of science is to challenge the prevailing theory. Of course you aren't a scientist just by claiming that everything is wrong, you have to point out why and suggest an alternative but a scientist who just accepts the prevailing theory is not doing his/her job.
If we just assume that the current models are correct we end up with odd handwaving explanations like dark matter to protect our flawed models when reality doesn't fit them.

Not exactly. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381645)

The current theory is that neutrinos do not travel faster than light.
This experiment failed to invalidate that theory.
Therefore, this experiment supports that theory.

In order for a "mystery" to exist the "faster than light" experiment has to be repeatable.

Re:Not exactly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39381947)

That's akin to saying, "I saw a bug crash this program but I cannot reproduce it, therefore it doesn't exist". Just because you cannot reproduce the experiment does not mean that something interesting did not occur, it may just be you haven't isolated the interesting variables (some of which we may not even know about).

Admittedly, at some point you have to conclude that the experiment was flawed (as was probably the case here) and that there probably is no further value in exploring the discrepancy.

Re:Neutrinos *didn't* travel faster than light (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382655)

We've already got suspicions in that regard as well, including a loose connector cable:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp [sciencemag.org]

In a perfect world they'd loosen the cable again to see if they can reproduce the same results, but I don't know if they can rustle up the funds for it. Some days, you just recognize that the bug is fixed, commit the code, and go home for the weekend.

Scientists or politicians (5, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381481)

OK, perhaps slight trolling, but this is an example of why, on everything from evolution to climate change, I prefer the views of scientists to those of politicians or the religious authorities. This is an example of research happening exactly as it is intended to. Initial unexpected result, investigation, experimental flaw, better experiment. It creates a warm glow in the callous, hardened bit of my brain that was once a young, enthusiastic researcher.

Re:Scientists or politicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39381623)

And everyone with an agenda breathlessly reports conclusions far beyond the current state of the science.

Re:Scientists or politicians (-1, Flamebait)

MickLinux (579158) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383145)

Ummm... this isn't a troll, or biting a troll, but *why* wouldn't you prefer the scientists' views on science, and the theologians' views on theology, and the political advisors' views on politics?

Or, even better, why wouldn't you maintain an interest in everything, and try to fit it together, yourself, into a world view that makes sense?

Actually, I kindof would expect you to.

For myself, though I allow for all things to happen, I nonetheless hate seeing religious belief in science or scientists. I hate hearing 10000 parrots all saying at once, "I think for myself", because that's the popular thing to say, as if other people who have different conclusions *don't*. I hate seeing people use scientific assumptions to try to deduce theology [where they don't apply] or vice versa, and in the process demonstrate that they don't have a grip on reason.

Give you an example: evolution. Religious faith in science says "Evolution is proven. Anyone who believes otherwise is batty." A more scientific viewpoint of it would look at the progression of evolution theory, and see that evolution is simply a pretty good theory that definitely has needed refinement, and almost as definitely will still need refinement. A person with that second viewpoint will look at creationists' arguments against it -- and they do have some good ones -- not as being batty, but actually as pushing the theory to account for holes that still exist.

Look at the creationists' arguments against evolution, based on the need for a massive ordovician disaster, or their arguments against the continents somehow just sitting still for a billion or so years, and then jumping into action. Or look at their arguments against the various isotope dating methods. Those are actually very good arguments. Rather than saying "oh, they're just batty", scientists should be looking at that as an opportunity to discover *why* the Pb/Pb isotopic dating disagrees with the U isotopic dating in [for example] the age of the moon rocks or the rock around the Hudson.

Let me assure you: it isn't that the creationists are wacko. It is that they've really found a flaw in the theory. That flaw means that there is a refinement out there in our understanding that *needs* to be addressed. When a valid answer is found, then the flaw will not be a flaw any more, it will be a new, key, important theory, that will then push our science forward.

Re:Scientists or politicians (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39383253)

Let me assure you: it isn't that the creationists are wacko. It is that they've really found a flaw in the theory.

I wish that was the case, but every creationist "flaw" I've seen has simply been a misunderstanding of some very basic concept. They aren't interested in understanding the theory they're attacking. For example many creationist are still attacking Drawin's original theses and ignoring decades of refinement.

Every time a missing link is found, creations say there are now two gaps in the fossil record instead of one. You're ridiculed, because you look stupid.

Re:Scientists or politicians (3, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 2 years ago | (#39384651)

Give you an example: evolution. Religious faith in science says "Evolution is proven. Anyone who believes otherwise is batty." A more scientific viewpoint of it would look at the progression of evolution theory, and see that evolution is simply a pretty good theory that definitely has needed refinement, and almost as definitely will still need refinement.

You picked a bad example. With everything from breeding dogs to bacteria developing immunity to various drugs to fossil record speaks in favour of evolution, I have a very hard time to believe that any arguments against are done in good faith.

A person with that second viewpoint will look at creationists' arguments against it -- and they do have some good ones -- not as being batty, but actually as pushing the theory to account for holes that still exist.

Creationists aren't making scientific attacks against any particular evolutionary theory, they believe that the Genesis is a literal depiction of events and that evolution - specifically, the concept that humans evolved - conflicts with this (ironically, a literal reading of Genesis would actually require evolution to happen afterwards to get from two humans to current multiple ethnicities), so they come up with (usually batshit insane) attacks against it (and science in general, since studying the world will pretty much inevitably lead to the concept of evolution), with the whole Intelligent Design thing being the latest.

Let me assure you: it isn't that the creationists are wacko. It is that they've really found a flaw in the theory.

Yes, they are. Specifically, they are starting with an unassailable preconception of reality - namely, that the Genesis is a literal depiction of events that took place 4000-10000 years ago - and fit all evidence into this framework. This, of course, results in an extremely twisted worldview. And the "flaw" in evolution is that it conflicts rather seriously with creationism.

None of this means that creationism is false, BTW; in other words, none of this proves that the world wasn't created 4000-10000 years ago (or last Thursday, for that matter). It's just that no one would look at all the available evidence and come to that conclusion without having an unassailable (by evidence) belief in it beforehand.

In other words, "creationism" is what happens when confirmation bias meets bad theology and crusader mentality.

Re:Scientists or politicians (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39384681)

Religious faith in science says

Science doesn't require faith, it requires proof. Religion requires faith without proof.

Disclaimer (1)

MickLinux (579158) | more than 2 years ago | (#39383337)

Just as a disclaimer: I *do* believe that God created the universe. I also believe that not only does He intervene, but He also holds the universe in existence, and is He intimately aware of everything that goes on.

I've seen enough evidence, for myself, that I couldn't believe otherwise. I've seen evidence that He actually loves his creation, and is Himself the definition of goodness. Proof? No. Evidence? Yes, though I won't go into it here.

But I also believe that our science is basically valid while at the same time being nowhere close to holding the complete truth. There's an eternity of digging yet to be done, and we still won't hold all truth. [That, by the way, is the Catholic definition of a Mystery. But I am saying that just as there is a terribly important Mystery of the Incarnation, there is also a much less important Mystery of God's Creation. Our search into that mystery is called Science, or sometimes Math. To be worthwhile, the search into the mystery of Creation has to be guided by insight, but limited by the rules of logic and reason: A goal, A Given, and {Statement/Reason]x N ]

This probably dates me, but... (3, Informative)

Biff Stu (654099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381551)

299,792,458 m /s. It's not just a good idea. It's the law.

Re:This probably dates me, but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39382287)

Well, from what I hear... the only thing faster than the speed of light is the speed of dark--when light reaches an object, the dark was already there.

Re:This probably dates me, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39382785)

According to this [harvard.edu], I drive at superluminal speeds every morning.

Didnt they already nullify their results? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39381571)

Could have swore a month or two later they came out and said it was an issue with their GPS timers. They fixed these timers and the next result came out right (slower then light)

Re:Didnt they already nullify their results? (1)

elgeeko.com (2472782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381773)

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe they've actually rerun the experiment since the issue was discovered, not even sure if the cable has actually been fixed yet.

Logged In Users Post No Faster Than AC, Says ANUS (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39381591)

The new findings are yet another blow to OPERA's results. Researchers there had announced possible timing problems with their original web browser. The latest benchmarks show it has abysmal performance and lacks the scalability and user friendliness of Internet Explorer 9. For many, this will pretty much be case closed.

Not so fast (2)

nirgle (554262) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381785)

...clocked neutrinos traveling at the speed of light, and no faster, after monitoring a beam of neutrinos sent from CERN in late October and early November of last year

Sent last year? I would say that puts the speed of neutrinos at considerably slower than the speed of light..

Wait, what? (timing) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39381847)

Aren't the GPS accurate to within 9ns? How can they be throwing out 4ns pulses?

OPERA was never certain (1)

Al in SoCal (2372960) | more than 2 years ago | (#39381903)

"The new findings are yet another blow to OPERA's results. Researchers there had announced possible timing problems with their original measurements." I remember reading after the initial results that they were not sure, but just divulging their findings. Not making a clear cut case that neutrinos did, in fact, go faster than light. They took great pains to open their research and look for alternative answers.

Gravity defiant? (1)

ehiris (214677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382001)

Since neutrino's are not affected by gravity, they could still redefine what a straight line is.
On long distances they could still prove to be faster as they don't curve around gravity fields.
The sun eclipse experiment done with neutrinos emitted by distant stars instead of photons would be interesting.

Re:Gravity defiant? (1)

expatriot (903070) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382147)

Everything is affected by gravity that has energy. Although the scientific way to say now is that everything exists and moves in a spacetime that is curved by massive objects (in both meanings).

Yeah! Causality is not violated! (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382141)

I'm headed over to Usenet right now to tell them top posting is still not OK.

Re:Yeah! Causality is not violated! (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 2 years ago | (#39384763)

What's wrong with top posting???

I'm headed over to Usenet right now to tell them top posting is still not OK.

Re:Yeah! Causality is not violated! (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39384785)

It can make a discussion hard to read when you only see a single post.

What's wrong with top posting???

.

How the mighty have fallen (1)

suso (153703) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382239)

How sad that its a big deal that the shuttles are meeting while switching buildings on the ground. If the space program in this country got the proper attention, we'd be making a big deal about two shuttles in space at once meeting with each other.

This is temporary setback (1)

Tyrannicsupremacy (1354431) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382255)

ICARUS is obsolete. After it has merged with DAEDELUS to become HELIOS, neutrinos will be properly calculated to move at super-liminal speeds.

Re:This is temporary setback (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382885)

God I hope you're joking! Unfortunately, Poe's Law [wikipedia.org] applies all-too-well here. But whether you meant it to be or not, that was pretty funny, so, if that was your intent, kudos!

(The actual definition of "liminal" adds to the piquancy of the humor.) :)

Seems kinda slow (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382451)

If they were sent from CERN in October and November and they just got to ICARUS today, isn't that kind of slow? Clearly I am being facetious and obviously IANAS.

Sounds a bit odd (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 2 years ago | (#39382523)

So did it just occurred to them to look at the data now? ICARUS has weighted in before on this but this is the first time they have a speed measurement, and they are saying it's from the prior runs data. Since the argument was always over the speed of the neutrino and not whether or not the neutrino was emitting the expected radiation if it was going FTL I would have expected them to look at the speed measurement first. We'll at least see in May what the mass of the neutrino really is rather than leaving it the the Non-Zero mass.

CERN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39382535)

Will we believe the lies from this instutution?

Fight for the future

El. Psy. Congroo!

Woah, woah, woah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39382717)

Maybe it just takes neutrinos a while to "get going," if you know what I mean.
You can't expect them to perform after just 4ns.

p.s. On behalf of neutrinos everywhere, I'm also compelled to mention the water-related "shrinkage" phenomenon. Does the experiment account for that?

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39382743)

24 ICARUS workers won the MEGA Millions jackpot yesterday. One worker was asked how they picked the numbers and they said "they just came to us"

Wait wait wait.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39383175)

"at the speed of light, and no faster" and "The time of flight difference between the speed of light and the arriving neutrino LAr-TPC events has been analysed. The result is compatible with the simultaneous arrival of all events with equal speed, the one of light."

For a non-massless particle, shouldn't travelling AT the speed of light still violate the formula? When v = c with mass, you're still dividing by 0.

Dated Mar 16? Not exactly "peer reviewed" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39383251)

Most people I know hadn't heard the faster-than-light neutrino story and when I told them, they said "No, that just can't be." I understand the jump to stand by this expirement, because for most of us it's like being told that the Sun doesn't rotate around the Earth. I'm a skeptic like all good boys and girls, so I think I'll wait wait a bit before jumping on any bandwagon. However, should superluminal neutrino believers begin to be burned at the stake, I will take a firm stand.

Re:Dated Mar 16? Not exactly "peer reviewed" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39385019)

Man, I understand the skepticism and all, but I truly despise how some people think that scientific theories are facts of the universe that can never be wrong. Indeed, to us, they're most likely true, but it's still possible that they're wrong.

Relative Speed of Light (neutrinos) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39384189)

Perfectly logical. Since the instruments they use are electronic based, they cannot capture any field effects of particles that actually do travel faster than the speed of light. Hence, they are limited by the current technology. Point to point time lapse testing is not sufficient.

It will require another Tesla to reveal any such field (e.g. hyperspace) and the appropriate prototyped technology. With our current political and educational system, that is unlikely. Tesla ignored the base curriculum at the Belgrade (or somewhere around there) Polytechnic University and reanalyzed the results of previous scientists/researchers a hundred before (Faraday especially) to come up with something more than DC and a new understanding of electrical current. You shouldn't need a PhD (Tesla didn't) to do this level of interesting inquiry.

Not what Icarus said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39384393)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3433

"The result is compatible with the simultaneous arrival of all events with equal speed, the one of light."

ie. They said they clocked neutrinos going at the speed of light. Objects with mass, going the speed of light. Hello?! Is this thing on?! Anyone else get it?

How boring. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39384717)

Would've been interesting if they did go faster than light.

Yawn...

Interesting story (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39384747)

"That meant the timing could be measured far more accurately than the original OPERA measurement, which used ten microsecond pulses."

To be fair OPERA had access to the same and the results were the same so there is really no point at all in bringing this up unless it is your goal to trick the reader into thinking something about the quality of ICARUS vs OPERA that just aint so.

Re:Interesting story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39385553)

The funny thing is that what Icarus actually said was that they had clocked Neutrinos traveling AT THE SAME SPEED AS LIGHT. If they have mass then that finding alone should not be possible. In my opinion they all but confirmed the impossible, not the other way around.

dipshit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39385597)

are you retarded?

OPERA announced more than 1 month ago that their wiring was faulty which produced a faulty result. Of course nothing can travel faster than light. Stop making media arousals just cus you want more research money to prove otherwise. dipshit

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...