Yes, I read that earlier. I'm leaning toward the idea there may have been an error in the neutrino experiment, but I haven't made up my mind. And let's not act as if this announcement were quack science --it was made by a distinguished group of something on the order of 150 physicists who made extremely careful measurements and then asked the rest of the scientific world to check their experiment. If there were any sneering headlines I didn't see them. Some scientists said if this were true, it wouldn't invalidate Einstein's theories, but require an extension for certain extreme conditions -- a patch. People with two great accelerators, in Japan and Illinois, are taking the discovery seriously enough to shift their attention to validating or invalidating it. When I read Glashow's analysis, I couldn't understand the math, of course, but my impression was that he said it couldn't be true because it couldn't happen. There are other strong arguments against it, but then there may be experimental evidence for it. So it's just not settled yet. Do not dump this experiment in the wastebasket of pseudoscience along with cold fusion. That's an insult to a great many scientists who spent years carrying out a sophisticated experiment with diligence, extremely precise equipment and careful double-checking. We should know within a couple of years if they were right; meanwhile, remember that America's own Fermilab had similar results years ago but lacked precise enough equipment to confirm them. -- Joe ________________________________ From: daniel turner <outwest112@yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos Sadly this is the part of the process that the media will not cover. Instead the public is left with the memory of the sneering headlines about Einstein rolling in his grave. The anti-science blowhards still believe that "it's all just a theory" and that no one actually has to learn anything because it will just be out of date soon anyway. The confused public will hear their viewpoint and give it respect that it just doesn't deserve. And it's been happening for a century now. DT ________________________________ From: Dave Gary <davegary@me.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 7:45 AM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Finally, a reasonable refutation of superluminal neutrinos Joe, Take a look at this article. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.6562v1 Basically, superluminal neutrinos radiating via the same mechanism as Cerenkov radiation. These authors calculate that neutrinos reaching the detector would have an energy of ~12.5 GeV. The OPERA scientists report an average energy at the detector of 28.1 GeV. For now, I’m going with Sheldon’s calculation because it requires no change in my thinking. I hate change. Dave _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php