It's light Jim, but not as we know it...

[TimberWolf]

Paper here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf

a lot of people were working on it.

It has the snappy title of "Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam".

Surely if they had cajones and conviction it would have been titled something like "Faster than light travel. Bwahahah. Roll over Einstein. na na nana na"?

[xoggoth]

Those neutrinos have been taking illegal performance enhancing drugs I reckon.

[Mich the Tester]

Subir Sarkar, head of particle theory at Oxford University, said : "Cause cannot come after effect and that is absolutely fundamental to our construction of the physical universe. If we do not have causality, we are buggered."


I knew he was going to say that.

So did I; Bob's always whingeing about the specifications.

[TimberWolf]

So did I; Bob's always whingeing about the specifications.

His name is not Bob, it's Subir Sarkar.

[Mich the Tester]

His name is not Bob, it's Subir Sarkar.

No need to be Sarkarstic.

[TimberWolf]

No need to be Sarkarstic.

So solly <wiggles head>

[PAH]

Sorry, Dave, I can't do that.

I agree with Nick.

[Mich the Tester]

Ah, I see these were Italian neutrinos.

No, they'd be neutrini. Neutrinos are Spanish.

[NotAllThere]

New Scientist points out that if neutrinos really did travel faster than light, then the neutrinos detected in a recent supernovae, would, with the same discrepency over the far longer distance, have arrived five years earlier, instead of three hours earlier than the photons.

(The reason they arrive three hours earlier than the photons is that the photons interact with the matter of the exploding start, and the neutrinos don't).

[d000hg]

If things like transport medium and spacetime curvature are involved, it probably wouldn't be as simple as that - but yes other observations should confirm it or disprove it.

However they still have to find the reason, just in case!