In “Neutrino watch: Speed claim baffles CERN theoryfest” ( New Scientist, October 2011), Lisa Grossman reports,
Even a meeting of elite minds at Europe’s top particle physics lab couldn’t do it: reconciling neutrinos that appear to break the cosmic speed limit with the laws of physics is still beyond us. However, a paper on the speeding neutrinos has been accepted for publication and the first preliminary results from a comparable experiment are out.
“For the moment, there is no explanation that works,” says physicist Ignatios Antoniadis, who helped to organise the meeting at CERN near Geneva, Switzerland, last Friday.
Papers are in progress, offering various perspectives.
Relax guys. It just means physics is a science. After all, Unlike Darwin, Einstein can be wrong. We have confidence in you because you are not trying to claim that the old egghead had foreseen and allowed for stuff he wouldn’t have imagined.
Can we say that any discipline whose iconic figure can’t be wrong should be reclassified as a religion? Thoughts?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Darwin was wrong on a lot of details, as was Newton and so was kelvin.
But of course you aren’t really interested in clarifying details. You want Darwin to be wrong on the cousin relationship of eukaryotes.
Or am I wrong about this?
You’r quite wrong on that. Many of us are offended by the constant Darwin worship of the most conventional evolutionary biology news, which detracts from the impression of science.
(What is a cousin relationship among life forms that do not reproduce sexually, as most assume was the case with earliest ancestors? For many of us, mapping our cousins is a case of following the equals signs in the family tree. Old-fashioned, maybe. )
The physicists offer a refreshing break for all that.
Incidentally, about what do YOU think Darwin was wrong?
Irrelevant. Mis-posted?
Darwin was wrong about the nature of inheritance. His theory of “Pangenesis” was wrong, along with his concept of “gemmules”.
See Pangenesis
Darwin worshipers only exist in your imagination “news”.
Well, not quite. This was posted a couple days prior…
Elburg’s solution doesn’t work for several reasons.
a) satellite trajectories don’t follow his simplistic case
b) mapping to the satellite frame was not the problem produced by the geodesy model used
Furthermore, Glashow argued that superluminal velocities would produce Cerenkov radiation, which has not been observed, nor has the spectrum of neutrinos shown that it occurred somewhere else.
So we are still at square one. An observation that was made in 2007 at Fermilab, confirmed in 2011 at Gran Sasso, but has no other confirmations or theoretical explanation. This is not exceptional in science, but does show that sometimes a great number of good minds and lots of money cannot crack the mind of God.
We should all take a humility pill and spend some real effort thinking about this before we publish any more trash.