And of course there is replication of the measurements by different authors. I believe that some are in progress.
On Oct 15, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Jim Clark wrote: > Hi > > James M. Clark > Professor of Psychology > 204-786-9757 > 204-774-4134 Fax > [email protected] > >>>> <[email protected]> 15-Oct-11 10:10:45 AM >>> > On 15 Oct 2011 at 9:47, Mike Palij wrote: > >> Well, you can forget about them if re-analyses are correct. >> Here is one source that explains away the faster than light finding in >> terms of relativity and different frames of reference -- it is for a >> general audience: >> http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php > > Um, not so fast, relativity-breath. That headline which claims > "Speedy neutrino mystery likely solved, relativity safe after all" is > a tad too quick (and by more than 60 ns) to reassure us. A more > cautious (and preferable) headline is this one, "Faster-than-Light > Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity". > > With emphasis on "claimed". According to this readable article from > MIT, at http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/ , there are > now more than 80 papers which have attempted to debunk or explain the > phenonomenon. This is just one more, even if a worthy one. The > article goes on to observe, > > JC: > > I'm not sure I see a huge difference between "likely solved" in the original > headline and "claimed solved" in the second. > > Moreover, technically, shouldn't "mystery" and "puzzle" in both headlines > have some similar qualifier ("possible mystery" "likely puzzle" "potential > puzzle" ...) since there would appear to be strong reason (relativity theory > and its empirical base) to have some reservations about the reported finding? > > I wonder if this situation in physics is analogous to the Bem controversy in > psychology? We have some highly unlkely finding and numerous (80 papers > already according to the article Stephen cites) efforts to debunk it. What > should our current position be? To accept as valid until disproven the > finding or to be skeptical about it until it withstands all the criticism? > Tough choice, perhaps especially once we get outside our areas of expertise. > From Campbell's evolutionary epistemology perspective, "peer review" is NOT > the end of the process ... there will be a long period of reflection and > criticism through which the published results must pass before they should be > accepted into the mainstream. > > Take care > Jim > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a64900b&n=T&l=tips&o=13450 > or send a blank email to > leave-13450-13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a649...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=13451 or send a blank email to leave-13451-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
