Neutrino 'faster than light' scientist resigns
Source: BBC News
The head of an experiment that appeared to show subatomic particles travelling faster than the speed of light has resigned from his post.
Prof Antonio Ereditato oversaw results that appeared to challenge Einstein's theory that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light.
Reports said some members of his group, called Opera, had wanted him to resign.
Earlier in March, a repeat experiment found that the particles, known as neutrinos, did not exceed light speed.
Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17560379
Orrex
(63,216 posts)Two weeks ago.
Botany
(70,516 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)What's it supposed to depict?
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)A key concept in Einsteins theory.
SamG
(535 posts)we knew that the original data was flawed in the previous experiments.
The guy is gone, (or will be in the future, not sure which).
SamG
(535 posts)resigned, or will resign?
Sorry, I'm just having a glass of wine, so bear with me.
But I'll beer with you lol!
Bosso 63
(992 posts)Go figure.
hamerfan
(1,404 posts)Or have I thanked you already? Hmmmm....
On a related note, as I don't spend any time with science any more:
Have they ever figured out if neutrinos have mass? Back in the 1980s, yeah I'm an old fart, this was to be the determination if we have an open or closed universe.
School me, please.
On edit:
Do we know yet if tachyons travel faster than light?
boppers
(16,588 posts)1. It's no longer a question of whether or not things have mass, it's how much. Photons have a boundary of how *much* mass they have, and it's very tiny, so we keep trying to find better ways of measuring mass.
2. No, tachyons do not travel faster than light. Nothing does.... Except particles that cease existing in one place, and then exist in another, but they're not really travelling. It's more like teleportation.
Shit got really weird since the 80's, but hey, the 80's seemed weird compared to the 70's, and so on.
rayofreason
(2,259 posts)We have known that since 1998 from the data indicating flavor oscillation in solar neutrinos.
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/borexino/nu-mass.html
more here with heavier physics
http://www.fynu.ucl.ac.be/librairie/theses/gustaaf.brooijmans/node9.html
renate
(13,776 posts)I thought at the time the (wrong) results were released, the scientists involved were as cautious as anybody else, and encouraged people to try to duplicate the results because they didn't wholly believe them themselves.
This makes me sad. Science involves making honest mistakes sometimes--emphasis on the "honest," which is how this seemed to me.
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)real publicity hounds) or he was fudging or manipulating data, I think being forced to resign for overlooking some results (which in this case strikes me as an honest mistake) seems a bit much.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Pale Blue Dot
(16,831 posts)This is exactly how science is supposed to work. A scientist should only have to resign if he or she refuses to admit their conclusions were wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Lots of government types aren't going to know the first thing about any of this past what they read in often-quite-terrible science reporting; some senator or committee chairman or equivalent could easily have a hard time getting past "this guy was wrong and therefore incompetent." Something like that could pressure someone out quickly enough.
And a lot of academics know how quickly things can unravel when something innocuous gets blown out of proportion in the news; enough people only survive one encounter with the press in that sense that getting out while the getting's good is often a good idea. Anyone with that kind of position isn't going to have a problem landing something elsewhere, of course, and a new person at the helm might result in the group getting some breathing space.
It sucks, yeah, but the PR court has already crucified the guy in his current role.
slampoet
(5,032 posts)I'd still hire him if i could.
Ter
(4,281 posts)God forbid mainstream science be wrong. It's all a cover-up, just like the're now trying to say the repeat experiment didn't exceed it. BS.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Pale Blue Dot
(16,831 posts)Just because of all of their years in university learning about physics followed by years of practical experience?
Well, I skimmed A Brief History of Time and I smell conspiracy!
Ter
(4,281 posts)n/t
rayofreason
(2,259 posts)...you are one of these "We never went to the Moon" types.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)LOL, keeps it interesting...
See, just check out this thread Ter made for us
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1135620
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)You state it's all a cover-up. Based on what evidence? Oh never mind, I know you don't have any just your emotions and what you want to be true.
rayofreason
(2,259 posts)....or more likely incomplete (Newton was not wrong, just incomplete), then every physicists wet dream is to find it and win a Nobel prize.
Cover-up? Only in the mind of someone who does not understand how science works.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Concluding that a cover-up happened based on one individual being fired is, by its very nature, the logical fallacy, post-hoc-ergo-prompter-hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Which seems to me, to be a very unscientific methodology itself...
However, I would certainly entertain any relevant evidence that you may have inaverdently left out which does indeed, support your conclusion.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)It's not like he did it on purpose.
boppers
(16,588 posts)It wasn't the bad data, it was the huge stink, and press releases, and media appearances, over a bad cable.
Lucky Luciano
(11,257 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)That is how he describes his role on his homepage at the University of Bern.
http://www.lhep.unibe.ch/index.php?id=86&uid=4
rayofreason
(2,259 posts)...is a big deal in high-energy or nuclear physics. They work in big collaborations with clear hierarchies.
Stepping down in this case is like falling on your sword. He will still have a job, etc., he just won't be setting the agenda for the OPERA experiment anymore.
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)...would be too stressful on corporate science. They are already staggering back from the repeated blows of a citizenry rising up and insisting that things are not as they appear.
.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)rayofreason
(2,259 posts)...particularly when one has no clue.
"repeated blows of a citizenry rising up"?????????
Yep. Clueless.
jimlup
(7,968 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...so whether he actually did is beside the point.
RedCloud
(9,230 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)it is difficult to reproduce what is actually occurring. We can predict, have models etc. but there is still a lot we don't know and what we perceive. We'll look back on this in 30 years ( I won't be here) and laugh probably?
I wouldn't rely on GPS/satellites for this experiment (orbital motion and relativity?)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)"WHO'S YOUR GOD NOW, EINSTEIN?"