# What do “tachionic” neutrinos mean for QG?

Reading about the spectacular Opera claim, Im (again ;-P) wondering if a confirmation of superliminous neutrinos could help settle some still open quantum gravity issues ...?

In this post, Lumo explains why tachyons should better be bosonic if they exist, making use, among other things, of some string theoretical considerations.

So what would a confirmation of the claim mean for string theory?

On the other hand, would a confirmation of superluminal neutrinos and a corresponding incompleteness of GR (and allowance to violate Lorenz Invariance?) lend some "updraft" to other QG theories like LQG, spin foams, spin networks etc or even provide some positive hint of them?

-
Take it to chat, please. The site is not well served by numerous subtly distinguished duplicates when the odds are this all blows over in a few months. –  dmckee Sep 23 '11 at 18:25
@dmckee What I wanted to know is NOT addressed neither in any of the others similar questions nor in the corresponding answers and discussions. So can I edit and try again or is it completely pointless? –  Dilaton Sep 24 '11 at 14:11
I've asked the other mod to review my actions. My position would be that every modern theory needs tearing up and rebuilding from the ground, so the impact is the same on them all, but perhaps the theorists feel differently. –  dmckee Sep 24 '11 at 14:33
@dmckee Ok thanks, Im very interested in what different theorists have to say (this was the goal of my question). And I exchanged a tag; I mixed up general physics and general relativity. What I wanted to attach was general relativity of course ... –  Dilaton Sep 24 '11 at 14:56
I think it's fine to have a question that focuses on quantum gravity specifically, especially now that the news is no longer immediately current. There's a lot of physics that has been more-or-less directly confirmed by measurement, so even if relativity breaks, we wouldn't necessarily have to start from scratch with everything. –  David Z Sep 24 '11 at 20:04