Quote:
Originally Posted by Manichean
Speaking as a physicist, I'm pretty sure they really measured what they say they measured. Where the difference in times really comes from is another guess, though. I'd say the most probable explanation is that they overlooked some source of error. Looking at the paper, it can pretty much be summarized as "Huh. That's weird, anyone else seeing this?". It's being blown totally out of proportion in the media, if you ask me, which is a source of mild amusement, ("OMG EINSTEIN WAS WRONG!!! WARP SPEED HERE WE COME!"  ), but still... I'm not seeing a flaw in relativity yet, the supernovae, for example, have already been quoted, I'm seeing an unexplained measurement.
Essentially, you can tell by the intensity of the neutrino emission from a supernova when they were emitted. So I'm pretty certain that they only moved as fast as they should have.
As far as the light emission from a supernova goes: If one can observe the supernova, then one can also observe what's in the path of the light. Thus, you can know how light is going to disperse. |
if it were so easy there would be no need for the complications of tomography. The most accurate thing one can do is radiative transfer and that's pretty rough and inaccurate. (speaking as a specialist).
The neutrino people go to conferences (there was one in Athens this year) and they know each other personally so there is no real need for what you say. i tend to lean on my b) interpretation.