Here, we still hold out hope that the faster-than-light neutrinos are an honest mistake. But the glory of real science is precisely that Einstein could be wrong.
“The scrutiny of the apparatus only occurred with divergent results, never with consistent results.”
Darwin demands a higher loyalty than physics; he costs you your integrity.
Physicists may learn a lot from the error, if that is what it turns out to be.
With lots of Worcestershire?
In “Faster-than-light neutrino claim bolstered” (New Scientist, September 23, 2011), Lisa Grossman notes, Representatives from the OPERA collaboration spoke in a seminar at CERN today, supporting their astonishing claim that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light. The result is conceptually simple: neutrinos travelling from a particle accelerator at CERN in Switzerland arrived Read More…
“Remarkable and worth watching” says a friend of Uncommon Descent.
Kelly Oakes here (September 23, 2011): While scepticism is necessary in situations like this — I’m sure we’re all aware of the famous Carl Sagan quote, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” — progress is not made by shouting down anything that does not fit within the current status quo. You never know, perhaps this result Read More…
” reached a level of statistical significance that in scientific circles would count as a formal discovery.”
When I was a kid and was bored in Chem classes I would occasionally daydream of a messenger arriving at the classroom door to tell the late, great, Fr Farrell of a scientific breakthrough. Of course, in later years, I always assumed that it would be years before a breakthrough would filter down to High Read More…
No scientific reason is cited for the change in the nature of the institution.
None was possible.
Physics is still a science if it’s still possible to imagine something that is not supported by evidence.
Physics a “hastily erected shanty-town,” not “a shimmering cathedral” – says Princeton physicist
Previously , I argued that not only may a universe with infinite probabilistic resources undermine ID, it will definitely undermines science. Science operates by fitting models to data using statistical hypothesis testing with an assumption of regularity between the past, present, and future. However, given the possible permutations of physical histories, the majority are mostly Read More…
If the infinite universe critique holds, then not only does it undermine ID, but every huckster, conman, and scam artist will have a field day.