Einstein is rolling over in His Grave, or Cern makes a big mistake

Hi cavediver, ... but a possibility. It's not a major con-Cern, but I agree that the caution and the request for independent verification is the proper course to take.Enjoy.

xkcd: Neutrinos Enjoy

Hi cavediver,What I don't understand is why the speed of light is not adjusted to this new experimental result. All previous experiments on the speed of light have resulted in adjustments to the known value, adding greater precision: why is this different?CERN Explains The Big Fuss Over 'Neutrino' Findings

quote:

---

... And what they appear to be measuring is that the neutrinos are arriving early. Only very slightly early -- it's a 20 part per million effect, but early nevertheless.

---

It would still have the neutrinos arriving earlier than photons from supernova, wouldn't it?What does that do to current understanding?If I had to bet on the outcome I would (a) not be surprised that this was confirmed, and (b) expect that the "answer" explanation is to adjust the speed of light.Enjoy.

Hi kbertsche, But if this new experimental result is just a refinement of the actual speed of light what happens?Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : subtitle

Hi cavediverRAZD is still fine. Good ol' SN1987A! So if c is accurate to 2 parts in 10^9, the delta observed is like 10,000 (1x10^4) times the current uncertainty in measured c? Okaaaay.So we have light, e-m waves and neutrinos -- what is different?Do neutrinos travel faster inside gravity wells? Is there a slight relativistic effect due to being sent through the earth? Or is there some tunneling phenomena that is happening here?Presumably they've checked the distance to the same accuracy.Thanks everyone.Enjoy.

Hi AZPaul3Thanks, that makes sense:If we are measuring departure time from the peak production max point in the starting bell curve, and the arrival time from the peak detections max point in the arrival bell curve ...AND the arrival bell curve is significantly smaller (both lower and thinner) than the departure bell curve ...THEN it could logically be displaced anywhere along the range of the departure that it fits under the departure bell curve and still be a sampling of the departed neutrinos.

              __
/    \
/      \
/        \
/          \
/            \
/         _    \
/         / \    \
_ /       _ /   \ _  \ _

It could be earlier, it could be later, or it could be about the same time.One test for this would be the spread of the detected bell curve -- if it is the same width as the production bell curve, then we could assume that it is random sampling from the production of neutrinos, whereas if it is narrower then that could indicate biased sampling.And given that the result has been repeated quite a number of times already, that would be another indicator of bias in the sampling.* The questions then become (a) what makes one type of neutrino more detectable than another type of neutrino and (b) how do they become sorted in this test.** This could also be tested by varying the distance between production and detection: if the variation is constant it likely indicates bias but if it varies with distance then not so likely.Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : questionsEdited by Zen Deist, : *'s added by edits * and **