Slashdot Mirror

First off, the slashdot summary is somewhat misleading, because the result is not new. Their result was announced in August 2010: http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907 . What is new is that they finally managed to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. You can't judge whether it's right or wrong simply based on whether it's been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peer review doesn't judge whether a result is right, or whether it can be reproduced. Peer review just tries to judge whether there are obvious mistakes, and things like whether it properly cites the previous literature. The fact that the journal is a prestigious one also doesn't mean it's right; it just means that *if* it were right, it would be of a high level of scientific importance.

Second, it's not really correct to say that the result is controversial. It's not controversial. It's wrong, and the fact that it's wrong is uncontroversial. Just because there's an overwhelming consensus that a result is wrong, that doesn't mean it can't be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Below is a FAQ entry I wrote about this stuff.

Has the fine structure constant changed over cosmological timescales?

It has been claimed based on astronomical observations that the unitless fine-structure constant alpha=e^2/hbar*c actually varies over time, rather than being fixed.[Webb 2001] This claim is probably wrong, since later attempts to reproduce the observations failed.[Chand 2004] Rosenband et al.[Rosenband 2008] have done laboratory measurements that rule out a linear decrease of alpha with time large enough to be consistent with Webb's results.

Webb et al. have recently made even more extraordinary claims that the fine structure constant varies over the celestial sphere.[Webb 2010] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and Webb et al. have not supplied that; their results are at the margins of statistical significance compared to their random and systematic errors.

Even if their claims are correct, this is not evidence that c is changing, as is sometimes stated in the popular press. If an experiment is to test whether a fundamental constant is really constant, the constant must be unitless.[Duff 2002] If the fine-structure constant does vary, there is no empirical way to assign blame to c as opposed to hbar or e. John Baez has a nice web page discussing the unitless constants of nature.

J.K. Webb et al., 2000, "Further Evidence for Cosmological Evolution of the Fine Structure Constant," http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0012539v3

J.K. Webb et al., 2010, "Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant," http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907

H. Chand et al., 2004, Astron. Astrophys. 417: 853, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401094

Srianand et al., 2004, Phys.Rev.Lett.92:121302, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402177

Duff, 2002, "Comment on time-variation of fundamental constants," http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208093

Baez, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html

Rosenband et al., 2008, 319 (5871): 1808-1812, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5871/1808.abstract

First off, the slashdot summary is somewhat misleading, because the result is not new. Their result was announced in August 2010: http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907 . What is new is that they finally managed to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. You can't judge whether it's right or wrong simply based on whether it's been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peer review doesn't judge whether a result is right, or whether it can be reproduced. Peer review just tries to judge whether there are obvious mistakes, and things like whether it properly cites the previous literature. The fact that the journal is a prestigious one also doesn't mean it's right; it just means that *if* it were right, it would be of a high level of scientific importance.

Second, it's not really correct to say that the result is controversial. It's not controversial. It's wrong, and the fact that it's wrong is uncontroversial. Just because there's an overwhelming consensus that a result is wrong, that doesn't mean it can't be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Below is a FAQ entry I wrote about this stuff.

Has the fine structure constant changed over cosmological timescales?

It has been claimed based on astronomical observations that the unitless fine-structure constant alpha=e^2/hbar*c actually varies over time, rather than being fixed.[Webb 2001] This claim is probably wrong, since later attempts to reproduce the observations failed.[Chand 2004] Rosenband et al.[Rosenband 2008] have done laboratory measurements that rule out a linear decrease of alpha with time large enough to be consistent with Webb's results.

Webb et al. have recently made even more extraordinary claims that the fine structure constant varies over the celestial sphere.[Webb 2010] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and Webb et al. have not supplied that; their results are at the margins of statistical significance compared to their random and systematic errors.

Even if their claims are correct, this is not evidence that c is changing, as is sometimes stated in the popular press. If an experiment is to test whether a fundamental constant is really constant, the constant must be unitless.[Duff 2002] If the fine-structure constant does vary, there is no empirical way to assign blame to c as opposed to hbar or e. John Baez has a nice web page discussing the unitless constants of nature.

J.K. Webb et al., 2000, "Further Evidence for Cosmological Evolution of the Fine Structure Constant," http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0012539v3

J.K. Webb et al., 2010, "Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant," http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907

H. Chand et al., 2004, Astron. Astrophys. 417: 853, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401094

Srianand et al., 2004, Phys.Rev.Lett.92:121302, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402177

Duff, 2002, "Comment on time-variation of fundamental constants," http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208093

Baez, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html

Rosenband et al., 2008, 319 (5871): 1808-1812, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5871/1808.abstract

First off, the slashdot summary is somewhat misleading, because the result is not new. Their result was announced in August 2010: http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907 . What is new is that they finally managed to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. You can't judge whether it's right or wrong simply based on whether it's been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peer review doesn't judge whether a result is right, or whether it can be reproduced. Peer review just tries to judge whether there are obvious mistakes, and things like whether it properly cites the previous literature. The fact that the journal is a prestigious one also doesn't mean it's right; it just means that *if* it were right, it would be of a high level of scientific importance.

Second, it's not really correct to say that the result is controversial. It's not controversial. It's wrong, and the fact that it's wrong is uncontroversial. Just because there's an overwhelming consensus that a result is wrong, that doesn't mean it can't be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Below is a FAQ entry I wrote about this stuff.

Has the fine structure constant changed over cosmological timescales?

It has been claimed based on astronomical observations that the unitless fine-structure constant alpha=e^2/hbar*c actually varies over time, rather than being fixed.[Webb 2001] This claim is probably wrong, since later attempts to reproduce the observations failed.[Chand 2004] Rosenband et al.[Rosenband 2008] have done laboratory measurements that rule out a linear decrease of alpha with time large enough to be consistent with Webb's results.

Webb et al. have recently made even more extraordinary claims that the fine structure constant varies over the celestial sphere.[Webb 2010] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and Webb et al. have not supplied that; their results are at the margins of statistical significance compared to their random and systematic errors.

Even if their claims are correct, this is not evidence that c is changing, as is sometimes stated in the popular press. If an experiment is to test whether a fundamental constant is really constant, the constant must be unitless.[Duff 2002] If the fine-structure constant does vary, there is no empirical way to assign blame to c as opposed to hbar or e. John Baez has a nice web page discussing the unitless constants of nature.

J.K. Webb et al., 2000, "Further Evidence for Cosmological Evolution of the Fine Structure Constant," http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0012539v3

J.K. Webb et al., 2010, "Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant," http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907

H. Chand et al., 2004, Astron. Astrophys. 417: 853, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401094

Srianand et al., 2004, Phys.Rev.Lett.92:121302, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402177

Duff, 2002, "Comment on time-variation of fundamental constants," http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208093

Baez, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html

Rosenband et al., 2008, 319 (5871): 1808-1812, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5871/1808.abstract

http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907 Looks pretty much like it, for anyone interested. And as always, extraordinary claims will require extraordinary proof, so we'll have to wait a bit.

I'm having trouble peering thru the journalist filter and not finding any other primary sources.

To a first approximation, the point seems to be that what we used to be able to do with bi-layer two layer graphene, we can now do with tri-layer three layer graphene. Um, OK, thats nice but not "new".

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.5213v1.pdf

So, aside from purely theoretical "thats interesting, just for the sake of physics", what is the point? More durable, better electrical properties, easier to make (thats hard to believe), stronger, easier to customize and control the above, or what? Someone with access to Nature-Physics to read the actual papers could probably respond?

The article is really poor because it tapdances around the important story which is what I list above.

The GR explanations have hardly been exhausted. One whole family of GR-based explanations that would be difficult to preclude involve the ultimate "democratization" of causal cones (paraphrasing R. Geroch) - each hyperbolizable first-order quasilinear system of PDEs can have within itself its own initial-values formulation, which must describe its own signal propagation. I believe Sean Carroll dealt with this recently on his blog. There is essentially no reason why any given object could not be assigned its own such system, nor any reason within GR why any object's system should have priority over any other.

Aha, here we go, after a bit of hunting: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.1614 and http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/09/24/can-neutrinos-kill-their-own-grandfathers/

So while the papers you pointed to effectively discuss ways in which we can fail to generate a metric that accords with observations, they do not really suggest that we *must* fail to generate such a metric, and I think it would not be easy to do so within GR. This would seem to weaken the utility of the SR approximation in the limit of low spacetime curvature where neutrino interactions may be non-negligible, which would annoy lots of HEP people. However surely GR people think that fields of synchronized clocks and relative velocities and all that stuff from SR is a fundamental misunderstanding of tangent vectors on the manifold? :-)

Funny, your engineer buddy's findings goes against the research that has been published about the protocol: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0412017

If neutrinos really went faster than light, then they would emit Cherenkov radiation http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6562...

That's not Cherenkov radiation. Only charged particles produce Cherenkov radiation, and neutrinos are neutral (hence their name). That paper describes some other sort of emission mechanism, though - a form of pair-production that I'm not familiar with.

if we assume that only muon neutrinos are tachyonic, there's a trivial explanation

This possibility has been investigated, and it doesn't work: if different neutrino flavors had different limiting velocities of propagation, then neutrino oscillations would go away when the neutrinos propagated over long distances, because the wave-packets would split up. http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5682 This is contrary to previous observations.

GR-based explanations (with or without extra dimensions) have been considered, and they don't work: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6312 http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5687

GR-based explanations (with or without extra dimensions) have been considered, and they don't work: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6312 http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5687

Every time this is discussed on slashdot, we get comments from people asking if neutrinos are tachyonic, why did the supernova SN 1987a ones not arrive earlier. The answer is very simple: neutrino oscillations, where only some (probably muon type) are superluminal. http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6055 PS I still think experimental error is the most likely explanation, but I'm tired of hearing the invalid criticism of the SN 1987a observations. Stop it, it's getting fucking annoying!

This is helpful but not that helpful. There are at this point a variety of potential explanations for what went wrong in the OPERA experiment. These include mismeasuring the tunnel length, issues with the clock calibration, and issues with the statistical analysis among other issues.

The distance measurement and clock calibration were initially proposed by people outside the calibration as simple explanations, but at this point it's clear that they are simply not credible explanations. Contaldi http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6160 suggested early on that the clocks could have been put out of synchronization by transport, but the OPERA team clarified that they were calibrated after transport, through GPS. Van Elburg, who is apparently completely ignorant of how GPS works, proposed that it could be a special-relativistic time dilation effect due to the orbital motion of GPS satellites relative to the lab frame. The distance measurement would have to be off by 20 meters in order to explain the 60 ns shift, and that's completely implausible.

All of the really obvious, stupid explanations have been ruled out -- which is not a big surprise, since 170 PhD's in the OPERA collaboration had their reputations on the line, so they were highly motivated to detect any really dumb blunders. So the remaining sources of error really are things in the general category you're referring to as statistical analysis. Some serious suggestions have been made that seem viable: (1) There could be a correlation between the direction of emission of the neutrinos and the time at which they were emitted during the 10 us beam pulse. (2) There could be a correlation between the distribution of energies in the neutrino beam and the time of emission. (3) There could be spillover from previous beam pulses. (4) There could be subtle effects in the electronics such as dead-time. Every single one of these possible errors is eliminated in the design that they're currently running, with 1- or 2-ns pulses instead of 10 us ones.

A better replication attempt is that which is being done by MINOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINOS [wikipedia.org], the equivalent experiment at Fermilab in the US. One reason that OPERA was paying careful attention to the arrival times (when their main interest was actually in measuring neutrino oscillation) was that MINOS had earlier reported data that tentatively suggested that some neutrinos might be going too fast. Now that OPERA has done their work, MINOS is working on doing a more detailed analysis that should be out by around February.

The trouble with MINOS is that (1) they have poorer statistics, (2) the energy is lower than the one used in CNGS (and the FTL effect, if real, is energy-dependent), and (3) OPERA's design was closely based on MINOS's, so subtle sources of error that are present in OPERA are likely to be present in MINOS as well. A better candidate for totally independent checking of the OPERA result is Tokai to Kamioka (T2K).

But, if the neutrinos traveled faster than light to the extent OPERA data suggests then SN 1987A neutrinos should have arrived years earlier.

If you believe both the OPERA result and other results at lower energy, then there is an energy-dependence in the speed that is different than that predicted by special relativity. (If neutrinos were tachyons, which is consistent with SR, then OPERA neutrinos would have been slower than SN1987A neutrinos, because tachyons go slower when you put more energy in them. This is the opposite of what is actually claimed observationally.)

There is essentially no hope for reconciling this observation with theory, unless we are in the middle of a major scientific revolution where everything is so weird that we just can't make sense of it yet -- which I don't find plausible. If neutrinos really went faster than light, then they would emit

There are already some explanations, of which the following one is the most notable explanation imho (and Prof. Dr. Viatcheslav Mukhanov): http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5685

They list 1318 firms, and then 147 super-connected...and then (arbitrarily) only list the top 50.

Their report is at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf

Why the top 50? Was there some discontinuity in control that made 50 a relatively discrete bunch? Is #51 significantly different than #49?

Where's the rest of the list?

I don't think there is any hidden purpose behind listing only the top 50. However, the paragraph preceding the list in the report says, in part:

... Finally, it should be noted that governments and natural persons are only featured further down in the list.

That begs the question: Which governments, and which natural persons, are listed past that first 50?

They list 1318 firms, and then 147 super-connected...and then (arbitrarily) only list the top 50.

Their report is at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf

Why the top 50? Was there some discontinuity in control that made 50 a relatively discrete bunch? Is #51 significantly different than #49?

Where's the rest of the list?

The actual paper is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2815

Here is a FAQ entry about rotation of the universe and how general relativity would describe it: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506988

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the idea. It's perfectly consistent with all the known laws of physics. There is in fact no well-established physical principle that should make non-rotation any more likely than rotation. There are other techniques for detecting rotation of the universe (see the references in the FAQ entry); their claim would become much more convincing if it could be confirmed by one of those techniques. If it's right, then it probably implies that inflation was an incorrect theory; I believe that in cosmological models that include both rotation and inflation, the angular velocity dies out exponentially, so it should be unobservably small today.

I read the pdf linked from the /. link. Despite the fact that the paper is full of technical jargon, I tried to sift through and glean some sense out of it, but I just can't figure out how they can reason that a galaxy has a "left" or "right" spin when such a determination is dependent on the observer's position relative to the galaxy.

The 2011 paper can be read here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1110/1110.2798.pdf
Bonilla's 1885 paper can be read here: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2096403/f351

The... interesting font choice and yahoo email address as primary contact do not instill a sense of confidence in the 2011 paper. That, and it doesn't appear to have been published anywhere other than arxiv.org. Maybe at least wait for it to make it through peer review before having big discussions about it? This is one of the problems with arxiv.org - it is an archive of preprints, which may or may not have gone anywhere. From arxiv.org:

Disclaimer: Papers will be entered in the listings in order of receipt on an impartial basis and appearance of a paper is not intended in any way to convey tacit approval of its assumptions, methods, or conclusions by any agent (electronic, mechanical, or other). We reserve the right to reject any inappropriate submissions. (Emphasis added)

So, until this actually appears in a journal it might be a bit premature for those of us not in the field to be discussing it (and some of the issues pointed out in Bad Astronomer and elsewhere probably mean that it won't be getting published, at least in the current form).

The 2011 paper can be read here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1110/1110.2798.pdf
Bonilla's 1885 paper can be read here: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2096403/f351

As a scientist, don't author your paper with the font set to Comic Sans.

But doesn't the term "Comic Sans" roughly mean "Without Humor" or "Not Funny" ?

Sounds perfect for a technical paper.

I saw a paper that proposed a correlation between the energies of the neutrinos and their superluminal velocity. A graph showed that there was a nice relationship possible.

It might have been this one - I honestly don't recall: http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0351

As a scientist, don't author your paper with the font set to Comic Sans.

In case you wondered this, check out what could be the world's greatest article abstract: Can apparent superluminal neutrino speeds be explained as a quantum weak measurement?

Seriously, it's worth clicking, and understanding the abstract doesn't require advanced physics knowledge.

Sigh... I don't think we're going to make any progress.

I've explained to you that in current physics, it doesn't make any sense to talk about "instant transmission" in the sense you're talking about. I've explained that in the current model for entanglement, there's no need or place for any such "instant transmission". Yet you keep insisting on a non-standard model for entanglement where information is sent faster than light, but "it's ok because you had to send the particles beforehand" (which, I have mentioned, is not only inconsistent with current physics but seems silly).

As I said, Scientific American is a magazine that does science popularization. While sometimes some articles are written by researchers, it's mostly written by journalists. If you're looking for papers with the current research on the foundations of quantum mechanics, you should check peer-reviewed physics journals; there's a nice compilation in Wikipedia. There's also Arxiv, but the papers there are not necessarily peer-reviewed.

I see a lot of talk about technical solutions, not using free email, et cetera. If you think things through, you will see that none of that matters at all. Firstly, it's a safe bet that someone in the US Government not hampered by even the pretense of following the law already had all Jacob's official correspondence, encrypted or not. As I've posted multiple times already (see my previous posts), AUSCANNZUKUS has had access to a production quantum computer system capable of cracking PKI for many years, running as a virtual quantum machine on a winner-take-all style recurrent topological quantum neural network based on a physical system composed of non-abelian anyons (e.g. solitons) in a two-dimensional electron gas (e.g. in a HEMT, now present in most computers). For insight into this little-known factoid, digest this published research. Presumably, someone tipped off DOJ that there was something in Jacob's correspondence worth looking at. For those of you not yet willing to believe that PKI was cracked long ago, it's also rather trivial to inject a key logger onto most anyone's system, which is just as good as cracking PKI and ALSO defeats synchronous shared-secret cryptography. Personally, I'm disinclined to believe in such things, but I saw indirect evidence of it and figured out (after years of monomaniacal research) exactly what it must be and how it must work. Email me for details, or wait for the book.

Second, to the silly posters who wish to teach Jacob security fundamentals, you should be aware that he MAINTAINS THE TOR PROJECT, and is a member of the cDc. He certainly knows more than you or I about security fundamentals, and I've been a CISSP for years, wrote banking software, and was a security lead for Symantec. Do you really think that the MAINTAINER OF THE TOR PROJECT does not know how to become anonymous online? Hacktivismo is a spin-off of the cDc, and Wikileaks is a Hacktivismo project. That detail still has not been in the media, as far as I can tell, but it is obvious to anyone who looks into the topic, and is certainly known to three-letter agencies. Just google for "disruptive compliance" and their mission statement floats right to the top (this is a Google hack, from the people who wrote Goolag). Consider Wikileaks, and then answer this question posed by that document in 2003 (the year the Wikileaks project began), "But what disruptively compliant, hacktivist applications shall we write?"

Third, in case this hasn't been pointed out before, Wikileaks did not break any laws. If they had, you can bet the US DOJ would have ALREADY charged someone with something, rather than trumping up a sex offense at just the right time. FYI, the Swedish attorney who charged Julian Assange with a sex offense is the SAME Swedish attorney who represented the CIA for the Extraordinary Rendition trials, which makes him a CIA asset by definition. What Jacob Applebaum did was travel to Iceland and meet with other Wikileaks people for a few weeks. It's safe to say there was online correspondence, too. It's also safe to say, unless someone was downright stupid, that any truly sensitive communication was done anonymously. The ENTIRE POINT of Wikileaks was to set up the document submission policy to keep submitters anonymous, to make it IMPOSSIBLE to pressure the Wikileaks journalists into revealing sources (as governments have done to so many journalists recently). You can't tell what you don't know! If a source (e.g. Private Manning) is foolish enough to REVEAL THEMSELF then they are going to get in trouble. Even then, one can make a VERY STRONG argument that the documents he leaked (assuming he did it) reveal WAR CRIMES, in which case he was morally AND LEGALLY required to leak them, given that the usual chain of command was CLEARLY n

http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.0115

Well, if velocity is distance/time along a direction, relativity just redefines distance and time and direction rather than saying the velocity has changed. Examples: the advance of the perihelion of Mercury - relativity says that there is a shorter distance around that orbit near the bottom of a big gravity well, so Mercury has less distance to travel, thus the planet's phase advances. Relativity also says that time runs more slowly close to a sun, and the space-time warp results in the observed bending of light. But the phenomenon is essentially indistinguishable from light moving through a region with a gradient of increasing refractive index matching the gradient of gravity, and increasing the refractive index is equivalent to decreasing the speed of light. Light does not move faster than it would in "empty, field-free space" (a favorite phrase of Einstein'd, BTW), but it does move more slowly in a gravitational field if we treat it as a euclidean rather than a warped space, and the answers come out the same either way. The refractive-index view is more easily visualized, and makes a good heuristic for teaching, and doing GR in a flat spacetime is even mathematically valid. (With a mixed-signature Clifford algebra, though.)

The arxiv blog recently had a roundup of papers discussing this: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27212/ They fall into three groups: (1) Suggestions of how the experiment might have given a wrong result. (2) Theoretical arguments that constrain the interpretation and make the result seem implausible if taken at face value. (3) Theoretical papers saying what it could mean if it really was new physics. The Nature article seems to show that the Contaldi paper was based on a misunderstanding of how the experiment was done. However, the Nature article points to a new paper by Henri that wasn't included in the arxiv roundup: http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0239

I'm certainly not disputing the legitimacy of science, but in this current age of misinformation, people need to realize that science is a discipline in constant flux. Nature and the Universe tend to stay constant, following their own laws--it's Man's perceptions and understanding that are continually changing. As we learn more and more, we tune our theories, hypotheses, and laws to better understand nature's hidden mysteries.

That the observation of a sub-atomic particle appears to confound or violate established scientific law really only means that it science has yet another mystery of nature that it does not yet fully understand. Maybe the methodology is flawed. Maybe the law is flawed. But that it happens at all should certainly not surprise any scientist--it should motivate to gain a better understanding.

Sure, and that paper obviously tries to get a better understanding by adding a theoretically known effect to the calculation which they think the experimentalists have neglected in their analysis, and found that it indeed seems to give subluminal speed.

Note that there is another paper today on archive which also tries to explain the result in current theory, but using relativistic quantum theory instead of general relativity. I don't know whether one, the other, both or none are correct. But people will check this, and if at least one of the papers is right, then no new theory is needed. You may wish for a new theory to be needed, and for the superluminal speed to be real, but science is not about wishes, science is about facts.

Two things: The one nearly ready is a new distance formula suitable for binary characters which evolve by a Dollo process, which (among other things) is suitable for DArT (diversity array technology) data. The other one, I'm more of a junior author, but it involves group theory, models of DNA evolution, and finding models such that if the model parameters vary with time, the overall process is still within the model. To give a counter example: generate two Markov matrices for the GTR model, with different parameters. Multiply them together (as would happen if your sequence evolves for a while under one model, and then evolves under the other.) The resulting composite Markov matrix will not (in general) be a GTR Markov matrix. We're looking at models which do not suffer this 'defect'. The senior authors have developed the models, but I'm implementing them to see how they go on real world data. The opening salvo of this project is http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.4680.

Relativity is based on the synchronization of clocks

This is an unfortunate and very common misconception. Most textbooks still follow the clock synchronization route to SR because that is how Einstein derived it in the first place. But as with most theories the oldest presentation and approach is usually not the best or most elegant one.

To derive SR all you need is some basic assumptions about space and time (homogeneity, isotropy) and one extra bit that you don't find in classical physics: The invariance of a particular speed in all inertial frames.

A nice presentation how this leads to SR can be found in this rather remarkable textbook that otherwise mostly deals with QM (Disclaimer: I am not the author nor do I know him or benefit otherwise from an endorsement).

Yet, there is even a more general approach to SR that can be taught on an introductory level. Here the assumption of an invariant speed is not required either and substituted by group law first principles that feel just as intuitively right as the assumption that space is homogeneous and isotrope. Namely we require that our transformations must always have an inverse one and a composition of them must result in the same class of transformations. Out pops SR.

This paper is really a thing of beauty. Professor who still teaches SR starting with clock synchronization should be punished to copy it by hand until their fingers bleed.

The sad thing is it has already been published 1976!

But to this day SR is still taught following Einstein's original convoluted path. Of course with the predictable results.

They already did the experiment, and actually found similar results but did not claim any significance. Of course they are going to repeat this, once they finish kicking themselves.

Don't you mean "They found similar results, and are about to do the experiment."

'we screwed up but we don't know why so look at these'

Really don' t think that is how they put it. But maybe you watched the CERN webcast and know something I don't.

My understanding is that they started looking for this effect because it was speculated about in this paper.

Some quantum gravity models allow for subliminal neutrino dispersion.

Yet, given how extraordinary this results is you certainly want to make sure every aspect of it is thoroughly scrutinized.

Quantum computing is adiabatic computing. I.e. fully reversible without entropy increase. Hence a complex quantum computation is theoretically not an my more energy intensive then a simple one. Entropy only increases at the end when the final measurement is performed.

What makes the process tricky is keeping quantum coherence over the length of the algorithm.
 

The current state of the field is advancing. The real problem as discussed in TFA is scaling quantum computers in a useful way that can still do error correction. Shore's algorithm which allows you to quickly factor numbers using a quantum computer requires on the order of n qbits to factor an n bit number. So if one wants to factor say a 300 digit number used in some public key crypto system you would need to control around 300 qbits. The technology for that is clearly very far. There's been recent work using superconducting systems and using quantum dots for qbits both of which look more promising than previous systems. (The first experiments were done with NMR systems which are clearly not very scalable).

From a strictly theoretical compsci perspective, the set of things it seems that quantum computers can do seems to be growing larger. Recent work by Scott Aaronson and others suggest that BQP (the set of problems which can be easily solved by a quantum computer with a low probability of error) may not lie in the polynomial hierarchy at all. http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4698. This is a much stronger claim then the claim that BQP doesn't lie in NP. This raises the hope that there may be some problems thought of as extremely difficult that lie in NP. However, trying to actually prove any strong results at this point is likely going to be really tough. At this point although many suspect that BPP (the classical analog of BQP) is equal to P, at this point we can't even prove that BPP lies in NP. In many ways theoretical comp sci is still very much in its infancy.

So even though they literally, by scientific standard, discovered FTL particles, they explicitly state that they don't actually think they did because it disagrees with existing theories. This is *biased* experimental physics.

Bullshit.

If there is a bias here it is a bias towards reality and away from hubris and blind self-importance. Read the paper. There's over 100 authors. This was a very big and very complicated experiment, measuring things right on the edge of what is measurable. It is possible the results of the experiment are correct but the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of there being some subtle systematic mistake in the experiment. The experimentalists know this. Very few (if any) physicists believe there was no mistake in the experiment yet even with the caveat the GP quoted, the media went nuts over this.

Perhaps xkcd said it best.

If they succeed in recreating the measurements, doesn't it just mean that c was set at too low a value, and that the true speed to light in a vacuum is slightly faster than originally thought?

No, probably not. Einstein came up with relativity after a thought experiment concerning what a light wave would look like if you were traveling at its velocity. Electro-magnetisim does not allow for a stationary vacuum solution, so he figured out that the way out was to have time stopped at the speed of light. If the speed of light isn't the speed of light, this problem reoccurs. Now, you could postulate a material (let's call it the... ether), so that light is traveling slow, while neutrino's bound on ahead, but that also would disagree with various experiments.

One way out is to have the neutrinos be tachyons, traveling faster than light, but that does allow for causality violations. (Read the link.) That is based on pretty basic stuff, so it's hard to escape it. That would trouble a lot of people, but it would allow for neutrino oscillations (changes from one type to another). You can't do that at the speed of light, as time is frozen there. (As oscillations have been observed, that is additional strong evidence that the neutrino velocity is not the new "speed of light.")

And, there is also the Supernova 1987a results, which conflict with these results (as the 1987A neutrinos do travel near c). Maybe there are oscillations between tachyonic neutrinos and non-tachyonic ones, which would be mind-blowing all by itself.

I think that a bunch of theorists will spin their wheels until this is better constrained experimentally.

Yes, I would agree. 184 coauthors can keep a secret, if 183 are dead.

Note that there is already a theoretical paper out on these results, so it has been percolating around a little. Note also that this paper says

The MINOS collaboration reported a measurement of the muonic neutrino velocities that hints to super-luminal propagation, very recently confirmed at 6 [sigma] by OPERA.

Do I smell a priority fight coming ?

They already did the experiment, and actually found similar results but did not claim any significance. Of course they are going to repeat this, once they finish kicking themselves.

Either the neutrinos travelled by road, or somebody does not know how to use any of the numerous mapping packages that feature a ruler tool, and has not read the paper or, indeed, the news. In this day and age, the latter seems implausible, so I suggest the hypothesis that superluminal particles can drive.

Better yet, put it on a preprint server such as the arXiv. That way, you also get a Linus-style backup of your thesis for free.

Look at Figure 7 in their paper - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf

They see (and account for) both continental drift and the L’Aquila earthquake.

http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf
They claim accuracy to within +-20 cm.

http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf They claim a measuring accuracy of +- 20 cm.

The original paper can be found on arXiv: "Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam" http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf

While you are right that SN 1987A puts strong constraints on such an effect, there is a huge difference in the energies of the neutrinos involved (~10 MeV vs ~10 GeV). Most models with corrections to Lorentz symmetry predict a linear dependence of the correction with energy, so this would become a matter of a day instead of several years. On the other hand, if one assumes a Planck-scale symmetry breaking as in doubly special relativity models,
this would require a ridiculously large prefactor to be observable on these scales.

I think I found it

Here is something that struck me - in that whole, huge, author list I did not see a single geodesist or clock comparison person. (I can't claim to know them all, but I did work in those fields and do know most of the major players, plus their institutions.) If it were me, I would have brought in an expert in both GPS geodesy (there is a strong group in Switzerland, and another in France, not to mention Italy) and clock comparisons (several strong groups in France) as co-authors before I published the paper.

Neither geodesy nor clock synchronization are trivial at the accuracy they are claiming over the distances they used - true, fairly routine now-a-days, but not trivial. Since the whole paper hangs on that, a few practiced eyes from those fields could not have hurt.

You can download the actual paper by the OPERA collaboration here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 They have measured the distance of 730km to an uncertainty of 20cm using GPS and a dedicated geodesy campaign. Of course, when they talk about their six sigma result, this uncertainty is already included. If this turns out the be a fluke, it will most certainly not be because they messed up their distance or time measurements in a trivial way.