True, we in the biophysics world aren't generally all that interested in the sub-atomic world, or the interstellar one for that matter (although random walks pop up in both cosmology and biophysics)... but that shouldn't stop us being interested in pure physics!
Of course, I am referring to the faster-than-light neutrino measurements made by the OPERA experiment. For those who haven't heard, the researchers at Gran Sasso (an underground lab in Italy) claim that neutrinos have broken the speed of light by around 20 parts per million.
If this is confirmed to be true then it will mean huge things for physics: not least because it goes against both general relativity and relativistic quantum mechanics!
Doing some reading around, it seems that their are two main competing refutations right at the minute. One is that people simply messed up the measurement by failing to account for the motion of GPS satellites relative to the planet: it would indeed be embarrassing if this turned out to be true. The second says that if neutrinos could exceed light speed they would be carrying so much energy that they'd release electron/positron pairs, creating light and slowing the particle down over a distance much shorter than that between CERN and OPERA.
There are also some string theory advocates out there.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out. In the meantime, I still haven't managed to go back in time and patent tomato sauce - perhaps I should work on a new theory of physics instead!
In all seriousness, I think the time for scoffing at the suggestion, if that time ever comes, is in the future when independent experiments have soundly trounced the idea of faster-than-light particle motion. Too often in the past have people been ostracised and ridiculed by the physics community, only to be proved correct a few decades down the track!
I agree, if there is some experimental evidence in support of a conclusion which contradicts our current understanding then it should be taken seriously and not ridiculed. String theorists please note my use of the words "experimental evidence", yours is a field fully deserving of ridicule. I'm only joking... (partially).
ReplyDeleteWhile the evidence needs to be taken seriously, that doesn't imply that every man and his dog should take the opportunity to put forward their own half baked theories to replace existing theories which are contradicted by the evidence. I think the impulse to shield our current theories from the assault of contradictory evidence is partially borne out of a legitimate defence against people who will jump on the anti-establishment bandwagon, but predominantly due to the uncomfortable feeling we get when it appears our view of the world could be incorrect.
Given the evidence thus far, if I were a betting man I’d put my money on round-off errors propagating through some aspect of their computation.