Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Possible Duplicate:
What would be the effects on theoretical physics if neutrinos go faster than light?

I don't know if it's been asked before, but I couldn't find a thread about it. I guess the news have spread to your ears already, but the speed of light has been broken with neutrinos and I can't come up with any scenario on the implications of this breakthrough. I suppose the 4 constants of the universe don't hold anymore, but I'm no physicist and would like the see your thoughts on the subject. What would Einstein think?? Sorry if this has already been answered.

share|cite|improve this question

marked as duplicate by David Z Nov 18 '11 at 23:43

This question was marked as an exact duplicate of an existing question.

I think your question is almost a duplicate of can neutrinos travel faster than light and if it turns out.... For now your statement "the speed of light has been broken" is still under heavy debate. Thousands of physicists are trying to figure out if it is really broken or not, so I guess you just have to wait and see. – Alexander Nov 18 '11 at 20:10
Einstein would think that Samuel Duclos is not a champion in search engine use. – Georg Nov 18 '11 at 20:11
Today's news is just that one possible error in the experiment has mostly been proven not to be a factor in the time difference. There are other things that could be the reason for the results. Also the results will have to be verified completely independently for it to get to any where near close to 'yes, it is possible for something to go a faster than the speed of light'. It will be a few months at least before other teams release their resultson the subject – Jonathan. Nov 18 '11 at 20:31

Until disproven, i'm holding into my (more likely) theory of conspirational nature, namedly, that a stuxnet-like virus has secretly been slightly altering GPS data. (in your nearest bookstore anytime soon!)

Seriously though, years ago, in the near post-cold war era, GPS data was known to be randomized on a 100 meter range. I don't know the current status of this but this is a far more likely scenario than neutrinos really going FTL all over our asses.

so my suggestion is to dismiss this as non-news, since what this "confirmation" experiment really confirmed, is that OPERA team is not to be taken seriously (i mean, seriously?, you don't have my GPS gauging measurements yet? oh thats ok, lets just publish that we are really good at collimating rays)

share|cite|improve this answer
GPS is quite accurate for the consumer these days, and for the scientific community and military the range is much more accurate. Really you shouldn't laugh this off, sure it will be probably turn out to be wrong, but not taking scientists seriously has been a mistake repeated many times in the past. (everything orbits the earth? Etc) – Jonathan. Nov 18 '11 at 20:37
Jonathan, my laugh is entirely nervous, i assure you that. However, the concerns regarding not hearing/seeing/disclosing the GPS calibration data is pretty serious though; it makes everyone think they didn't do any of that, because its the first thing that comes to my mind to see before believing any of this – lurscher Nov 18 '11 at 20:47
lurshcer, sorry I read the last part of your answer wrongly, it is indeed quite serious, – Jonathan. Nov 18 '11 at 21:42

Well, if this is proven to be correct, it does not neccecary mean that "our" physics are all wrong. My physics teacher puts it this way: If the neutrino is proven to have some kind of special ability, which allows it to move faster than c, we will probably have to add a few laws for this special scenario. This is quite similar to the relativity theory and newtons laws. Even though F=m*a, p=m*v etc. don't really work(as special relativity has shown), the difference is so insignificant when v < 0.1*c, and therefore they are still "valid".

share|cite|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.