21 Nov 11
It was widely reported earlier that the superluminal neutrino anomaly had been solved by correctly accounting for relativistic effects from the satellites frame. The OPERA collaboration, and I believe the physics community in general rejected this explanation. If all of this is true, can anyone link me to the OPERA team's response to this explanation?
21 Nov 11
Originally posted by amolv06I read the guys that said the experiment was faulty is because the neutrinos didn't lose energy as required if something travels faster than light. the fact that the neutrino energy signature was exactly as expected for something travel at lightspeed when it crossed the finish line is "proof" that they aren't travelling faster than light.
It was widely reported earlier that the superluminal neutrino anomaly had been solved by correctly accounting for relativistic effects from the satellites frame. The OPERA collaboration, and I believe the physics community in general rejected this explanation. If all of this is true, can anyone link me to the OPERA team's response to this explanation?
Seems a bit of a poor argument though. Just because you have no explanation, it doesn't mean the result is wrong.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by uzlessSounds like they are starting to clutch at straws.
I read the guys that said the experiment was faulty is because the neutrinos didn't lose energy as required if something travels faster than light. the fact that the neutrino energy signature was exactly as expected for something travel at lightspeed when it crossed the finish line is "proof" that they aren't travelling faster than light.
Seems a bit of ...[text shortened]... rgument though. Just because you have no explanation, it doesn't mean the result is wrong.
