Academia, Science

Bad Opera: Scientists Now Believe A Bad Oscillator May Have Slowed Speeds of Subatomic Particles

First, Einstein was right. Then he was wrong. Then he was right due to a loose wire. Now he may have been wrong due to an oscillator. Many of us would just throw up our hands and say everything is relative with Einstein, but scientists at OPERA say that a second equipment problem may have led to a too conservative reading of the 730-kilometer journey of the neutrinos reported by the European Organization for Nuclear Research or CERN.

The oscillator is used to provide time stamps to synchronize the GPS systems which measure the travel time. The scientists believe that the oscillator problem may have canceled out the cable problem . . . and that the little neutrinos did move faster than the speed of light — beyond the cosmic speed barrier of 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second). That would contradict Einstein’s theory. So I guess we have to treat Einstein like a big dummy again . . . absent another loose cable or spilled coffee cup.

I am just waiting for a finding that neutrinos are sentient with a wicked sense of humor . . . and hovering around 299,791 kilometers per second just to mess with us.
Source: CBC

342 thoughts on “Bad Opera: Scientists Now Believe A Bad Oscillator May Have Slowed Speeds of Subatomic Particles”

  1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, Bdaman.

    So far the deniers haven’t had any.

  3. For all who always say follow the money, practice what you preach.

    The Funding Imbalance
    Richard North at the EU Referendum blog provides some interesting comment regarding funding.

    While the warmists are successfully focusing attention on the minor-league operations of the Heartland Institute, with a total budget for all its issues, which include health care, education, and technology policy, of around $4.4 million, their own funding arrangements, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, are largely evading scrutiny.
    ….

    The Climate Works Foundation, though, is of special interest as it was in 2008, awarded $460,800,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a grant-making organisation with assets of $7.2 billion, which disbursed $353,400,000 in grants in 2011. It has made another grant to Climate Works only last week of $100 million – bringing the total grants to this organisation to just short of $600 million.

    Where such huge funding is devoted to global warming advocacy, and policy development, there must indeed be a distortion of the democratic process, especially where politicians are also being paid. These organisations must come clean about the sources of their money, and provide exact details of how much is paid to which organisations, for what purposes.

    Note that the latest grant of $100 million was made on the day after the hippies got all hot under the collar about Heartland’s ‘huge’ annual budget of $4.4 million

    http://mrworthing.blogspot.com/2012/02/funding-imbalance.html

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2012/02/wither-transparency.html

  4. Many scientist that are deniers would love to debate but the other team keeps saying there is no need. The science is settled.

  6. Here is MIT scientist Kerry Emanuel talking to students about the importance of debate in science. He is a Republican whose wife was threatened by climate change deniers after he spoke in New Hampshire in January.

    Here is Peter Glieck in 2006, there will be no more debate the science is settled. Fast forward 2012 he hopes that there is debate because it is what is needed for the greater good.

  7. By the way the person who wrote the article, Bill McGuire from the guardian
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/26/why-climate-change-shake-earth

    Critics have said that McGuire has sometimes made exaggerated claims, in the media and in popular science publications, about geohazard risks that are outside his field of expertise. In one such instance McGuire was criticized for highlighting Tenerife and the surrounding islands as prime candidates for a massive sector collapse, that would trigger a tsunami that would devastate the eastern coast of North America and the Caribbean. While there is a definite risk of collapse from these islands, there is evidence from scientists who specialize in this subject that the type of collapse would be gradual, not instantaneous. It is also argued that landslide-triggered tsunamis have a larger wavelength than earthquake-generated tsunamis, which suggests that the rate of wave dissipation is greater, leading to a much smaller impact.[5]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_McGuire_%28volcanologist%29#Criticisms

    But he’s not a denier so he understands the scientific process.

  8. ID707 you are mistaken

    Scientist now believe “Climate change will shake the Earth”

    A changing climate isn’t just about floods, droughts and heatwaves. It brings erupting volcanoes and catastrophic earthquakes too

    The idea that a changing climate can persuade the ground to shake, volcanoes to rumble and tsunamis to crash on to unsuspecting coastlines seems, at first, to be bordering on the insane.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/26/why-climate-change-shake-earth

    You can say that again cause it is. Anyone that believes that by reducing atmospheric CO2 and keeping it at 350ppm or lower will keep us safe from catastrophic earthquakes, floods, tsunami’s droughts, hurricane’s typhoons death and disease, wars, famine, sea level rise, dead trees, earths wobble, too much snow not enough snow, on and on and on is completely off their rocker but yet scientist believe this is a simple solution to a complex system. That is, IF YOUR NOT A DENIER, because those people regardless if they are a scientist, don’t understand the scientific process according to MS. Elaine but that’s because according to Gene it’s for the greater good.

  9. No surprise there. The smart money was always on there being some unaccounted for systematic error. All the hype was coming exclusively from the media and non-scientists who don’t know any better.

  10. Telling the difference between climate change and trends do to anomalies not understood is best left to climate scientists. No reverent tone here however. Our data collection is from limited (originally) locations and the time of collection is short. The interpretation of ice cores etc seem pretty clear however.
    Elaine M.,
    Read Bdaman’s last post. Sound like he made a mistake or he has converted to CC support.
    ???????????

  11. Hedgehog,

    We learn through our mistakes. As they say–“Nothing ventured…nothing gained.” There are many scientific Luddites living amongst us. Their minds are closed. They choose not to open them to new research findings and discoveries. They feel threatened by change.

  12. It’s shocking how many people use some of the most complex tools science has provided (computers and internet) to deny science. The OPERA scientists worked for quite a long time to try to find the source of the anomaly to no avail. So they published as a way of appealing for help. As a result, two things have happened: 1) the general public jumped on the bandwagon to note how stupid scientists are, and 2) several new experiments (including one at Fermilab in Chicago) have been started to try to validate or disprove the results.

    Science works in fits and spurts, and quite a lot of it makes science look bad. But, erroneous results are always corrected, and fraudulent results are eventually censured by peer review. Bluntly: the facts speak louder than the opinions about the facts – and that’s a good thing.

  16. Jessie climate science requires a special scientist. The earths climate is complex system and if you are a denier you just don’t understand the scientific process. Know this Jessie, earths climate is very very chaotic but the solution is simple. Keep atmospheric CO2 at 350ppm the so called safe zone and there will be peace on earth. All they want is to control the weather, not the people.

  18. Einstein *was* brilliant and we would not have many of the advances we have without him. That said it has long been accepted that he dropped the ball on quantum mechanics. His understanding of the new particles being discovered at the end of his life and career was very limited. He was a genius, not an omniscient god.

    He, and most scientists understand that. Those *horrible* climate scientists warning of anthropogenic climate change do not think they are infallible, they are telling us what the data tells them. I am curious what people think their big motive for “lying” to us would be. Money? I know a few environmental scientists, they live fairly spartan lifestyles b/c being a researcher pays not a lot, and frankly those grants they get, they’d get regardless of results. It’s about discovery not about promoting an agenda. Now ask yourself what the very small handful of people denying ACC might have to gain. Who pays their bills and why?

  19. Bdaman,

    Some people are already hobbits of the mind. It has nothing to do with environmental factors. It has to do with personal choice.

  20. Bdaman,

    With all of the scientific proof that you provide on a fault basis I am not sure why you are still ridiculed. They just don’t understand science. They can think what they think. You know the truth.

Comments are closed.