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

Either this is a very biased article, or the interviewed physicists are being extremely polite. The odds of finding new phenomena aren't bad, happens all the time in physics, but of overturning Einsteinian physics? Not very likely, in my opinion.CERN's reputation for quality research is well deserved, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if the results were replicated, but I'm expecting an eventual explanation consistent with Einstein. This has the same feel as that discovery a decade or so ago of light packets that could arrive before they departed.Also, given that Fermilab is scheduled to discontinue operation at the end of this year, they might not have sufficient time to do the necessary setup work to their neutrino facility, and experimenters currently on the schedule through the year's end will fight hard to maintain their place.--Percy

Score! Me in Message 3: AbE: Turns out it was about five years ago, I found the thread, start here: Message 227--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.

Geez, the explanation is even more mundane than we guessed, different reference frames. Found several articles:

• Speedy neutrino mystery likely solved, relativity safe after all
  
• Physicists Offer Mundane Explanations for Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos
  
• 'Special Relativity' May Clear up Faster-Than-Light Neutrino's Mystery

This proposed solution has yet to be vetted, but I bet it sticks. Faster than light particles, physics overturned, physicists baffled, science in an uproar: sheesh! --Percy

Sometimes one comes across a piece of writing so exceptional it almost makes one weep. I came to this article via Google News and didn't pay any attention to the source or the author. I clicked because I was interested in checking in on the latest news about the CERN neutrino experiment, so I began reading, fully expecting that within a minute or two I'd be on to the next Google News article.After a couple minutes I looked at the scroll bar and saw I was only a third of the way through the article. "Who is hosting such a long article?" I asked myself. Glancing at the top the page I saw it was Scientific American. Of course, who else?So I fetched a fresh cup of coffee and a snack and sat down to enjoy the rest of the article. About 2/3 of the way through I was so boggled by the clarity and quality that I had to know who wrote it. Turns out it was Tom Levenson, Professor of Scientific Writing at MIT.Those of you who feel like you haven't really understood the science will almost be convinced that you do. Those of you who believe you do understand the science (and at least a few of us are right) will receive the benefit of examples of explanations that seem like gifts from God.Read and weep: I’m Shocked! Shocked! to Find There Are Neutrinos Going On Here--Percy

Hmmm - I didn't reach the same conclusion that he'd jumped onto that bandwagon: But even if he had gone all wild-eyed and giddy over the Elburg argument it wouldn't change how outstanding an article it is. From general descriptions about the nature of science to specific applications of science to areas like global warming, I just found it exceptionally exceptional.--Percy

If the supraluminal transmission results prove out it will be absolutely mind-blowing to science and probably initiate a period of both new theory and new discovery. I personally don't believe they'll prove out, but if they did, wow!This love of new discovery is what creationists think is absent in science. They see science as paranoidly defending the status quo when all we're really doing is following the evidence trail. We would love it if actual scientific evidence were uncovered of a young earth or a designer. It isn't these ideas in themselves that we decry but the lack of evidence.--Percy

Not so fast: Second experiment refutes faster-than-light particles: --Percy

From Page Not Found | Reuters: Seems a bit of an overreaction. Mistakes are part of science.--Percy