Update: Neutrinos Traveling Faster Than Light (NOT!)

[Mal12345]

Excerpted from: http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php

Here's the deal: neutrinos move very very fast (at or close to light speed, at least), and the distance that they traveled in this experiment was (to a neutrino) not that far, only 450 miles. This means that in order to figure out exactly how long it takes a given neutrino to make the trip, you need to know two things very, very precisely: the distance between the two points, and the time the neutrino leaves the first point (the source) and arrives at the second point (the detector).

In the original experiment, the CERN researchers used GPS to make both the distance measurement and the time measurement. They figured out the distance down to about 20 centimeters, which is certainly possible with GPS, and since GPS satellites all broadcast an extremely accurate time signal by radio, they were also used as a way to sync the clocks that measured the neutrino's travel time. The CERN team had to account for a lot of different variables to do this, like the time that it takes for the clock signal to make it from the satellite in orbit to the ground, but they may have forgotten one critical thing: relativity.

It's All Relative
Relativity is really, really weird. It says that things like distance and time can change depending on how you look at them, especially if you're moving very fast relative to something else. In the case of the neutrino experiment, we've got two things to think about: the detectors on the ground that measure where and when the neutrinos depart and arrive, and the GPS satellites up in space that we're using as a basis for these measurements. Since the satellites are orbiting the Earth and moving way faster than the detectors, we say that they're in a different "reference frame," which just means that the motion of the satellites is significantly different than the motion of the Earth.

Part of the deal with relativity is that neither of these reference frames are the "correct" one. From our perspective here on Earth, the satellites are whizzing around in orbit at about 9,000 miles per hour. But the perspective of the satellites, the Earth is whizzing around just as fast, and the difference in velocities between these two reference frames is large enough that some strange things start to happen.

(So RT is preserved - by RT itself - Mal)

 

[Qlip]

If this is the final word, and it looks like probably is... it's still a cool expiriment.

 

[Southern Kross]

You're joking! The world's most brilliant physicists perform the most complex series of experiments in history and they forget about relativity!

If only Einstein was around for this. I'm sure he would thoroughly enjoy it.

 

[Halla74]

Excerpted from: http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php

Here's the deal: neutrinos move very very fast (at or close to light speed, at least), and the distance that they traveled in this experiment was (to a neutrino) not that far, only 450 miles. This means that in order to figure out exactly how long it takes a given neutrino to make the trip, you need to know two things very, very precisely: the distance between the two points, and the time the neutrino leaves the first point (the source) and arrives at the second point (the detector).

In the original experiment, the CERN researchers used GPS to make both the distance measurement and the time measurement. They figured out the distance down to about 20 centimeters, which is certainly possible with GPS, and since GPS satellites all broadcast an extremely accurate time signal by radio, they were also used as a way to sync the clocks that measured the neutrino's travel time. The CERN team had to account for a lot of different variables to do this, like the time that it takes for the clock signal to make it from the satellite in orbit to the ground, but they may have forgotten one critical thing: relativity.

It's All Relative
Relativity is really, really weird. It says that things like distance and time can change depending on how you look at them, especially if you're moving very fast relative to something else. In the case of the neutrino experiment, we've got two things to think about: the detectors on the ground that measure where and when the neutrinos depart and arrive, and the GPS satellites up in space that we're using as a basis for these measurements. Since the satellites are orbiting the Earth and moving way faster than the detectors, we say that they're in a different "reference frame," which just means that the motion of the satellites is significantly different than the motion of the Earth.

Part of the deal with relativity is that neither of these reference frames are the "correct" one. From our perspective here on Earth, the satellites are whizzing around in orbit at about 9,000 miles per hour. But the perspective of the satellites, the Earth is whizzing around just as fast, and the difference in velocities between these two reference frames is large enough that some strange things start to happen.

(So RT is preserved - by RT itself - Mal)

Okay, so instead of picking apart the errors in the latest CERN experiment, what can be done to ensure the next experiment produces better results?

Surely there is some answer, maybe not a perfect one, but the road to progress at this level of competition is defined by small incremental forward steps at times until the desired result is finally achieved...

Good stuff to ponder on, thanks!



-Alex

 

[Mal12345]

Okay, so instead of picking apart the errors in the latest CERN experiment, what can be done to ensure the next experiment produces better results?

Surely there is some answer, maybe not a perfect one, but the road to progress at this level of competition is defined by small incremental forward steps at times until the desired result is finally achieved...

Good stuff to ponder on, thanks!



-Alex

You sound like a type 3. You DEFINITELY sound like a type 3: "produce better results," "competition," "desired result is achieved."

I'm not picking on you or "trolling" you, but I've been reading your posts for some time now. And if you're not a 3w2...

As for the article, the Italian physicists were not mindful of the effects of relativity in making their calculations. As physicists, they should have known better!

You're welcome, and thanks to your positive feedback I'll likely post more interesting tidbits like this one in the future.

 

[Mal12345]

I should mention that gravitational anomalies may also be a factor:

This is a picture of the Earth depicting differences in the force of gravity on the surface.

 

[Halla74]

You sound like a type 3. You DEFINITELY sound like a type 3: "produce better results," "competition," "desired result is achieved."

WOW! That is quite funny! I'm type 7w8 sx/so, actually.

Most likely the nature of what I do for a living has made me more centered on performance and metrics than your typical 7w8 would be.

"Engineer the most efficient and effective workflow, re-engineer dysfunctional workflows, optimize workflow and process flow systems," all of which is impossible without metrics, these are the things I do at the office everyday. This type of thinking was not "sexy" to me when I first had to learn it, but once I got it under my belt I appreciated what it can do when applied in the real world. Then I got back on my motorcycle and started hauling ass around town again.

For the last 17 years my occupation has been centered around software systems engineering, business analysis, health & human services policy development and program implementation analysis, setting capitation rates for HMOs, and contract management/project management.

But, all that hubbub aside, I'm a wild and crazy MoFo, believe it.

I'm not picking on you or "trolling" you, but I've been reading your posts for some time now. And if you're not a 3w2...

I know you're not picking on me or trolling me, no worries. It's likely that your typing ability is skewed due to our interacting via the Interwebz. Lack of non-verbal cues takes away huge elements of an individual's personality, don't you think?

It's interesting for me to hear your perception of me; no one has ever asked me if I'm Type 3 or 3w2 before. I'll film a video clip of myself soon just for kicks. Let me know what you think about that when it's up, Ok?

As for the article, the Italian physicists were not mindful of the effects of relativity in making their calculations. As physicists, they should have known better!

Muhahhaaa.
I love it when those who are so smart make the silliest errors upfront due to lack of a common sense "litmus test" of their entire model.
Whenever anything of this scale is pulled off, one or models should be built as a proof of concept. Then, those models should be opened up to people outside of the model's engineers and opened up for critical feedback. It's a hell of alot less expensive to find glaring flaws upfront that it is to blow an entire experiment of this scale. No one, especially the architect of a scientific project like this, will see all the flaws of their own creation. It is only natural, but it is not the most sensible or business savvy thing to do. :bookish:

You're welcome, and thanks to your positive feedback I'll likely post more interesting tidbits like this one in the future.

Absolutely, thanks very much for your reply, both regarding your perception of my Enneagram type and for expanding on your original post. I hope you do post more stuff like this in the future. I saw a newsclip about the initial experiment results but never did see the conclusion, so this has given me "closure" (LOL!) as to how things at CERN really went.

Have a great day!



-Alex

 

[Mal12345]

WOW! That is quite funny! I'm type 7w8 sx/so, actually.

Most likely the nature of what I do for a living has made me more centered on performance and metrics than your typical 7w8 would be.

"Engineer the most efficient and effective workflow, re-engineer dysfunctional workflows, optimize workflow and process flow systems," all of which is impossible without metrics, these are the things I do at the office everyday. This type of thinking was not "sexy" to me when I first had to learn it, but once I got it under my belt I appreciated what it can do when applied in the real world. Then I got back on my motorcycle and started hauling ass around town again.

For the last 17 years my occupation has been centered around software systems engineering, business analysis, health & human services policy development and program implementation analysis, setting capitation rates for HMOs, and contract management/project management.

But, all that hubbub aside, I'm a wild and crazy MoFo, believe it.



I know you're not picking on me or trolling me, no worries. It's likely that your typing ability is skewed due to our interacting via the Interwebz. Lack of non-verbal cues takes away huge elements of an individual's personality, don't you think?

It's interesting for me to hear your perception of me; no one has ever asked me if I'm Type 3 or 3w2 before. I'll film a video clip of myself soon just for kicks. Let me know what you think about that when it's up, Ok?



Muhahhaaa.
I love it when those who are so smart make the silliest errors upfront due to lack of a common sense "litmus test" of their entire model.
Whenever anything of this scale is pulled off, one or models should be built as a proof of concept. Then, those models should be opened up to people outside of the model's engineers and opened up for critical feedback. It's a hell of alot less expensive to find glaring flaws upfront that it is to blow an entire experiment of this scale. No one, especially the architect of a scientific project like this, will see all the flaws of their own creation. It is only natural, but it is not the most sensible or business savvy thing to do. :bookish:



Absolutely, thanks very much for your reply, both regarding your perception of my Enneagram type and for expanding on your original post. I hope you do post more stuff like this in the future. I saw a newsclip about the initial experiment results but never did see the conclusion, so this has given me "closure" (LOL!) as to how things at CERN really went.

Have a great day!



-Alex

Of course, the story is no longer newsworthy when the truth comes out that the thrill factor of an "exciting new discovery" is gone. I first read about the original "discovery" on the ScienceNOW facebook page, before seeing it posted here. Yesterday I posted the OP article to their wall, and someone deleted it. I just looked at their page and it doesn't look like the ScienceNOW people are going to post anything about the new findings.

Since you're a body-builder like the guy in this youtube video, I'd like to ask if you could type him for me. I have only guesses.

 

[Halla74]

Of course, the story is no longer newsworthy when the truth comes out that the thrill factor of an "exciting new discovery" is gone. I first read about the original "discovery" on the ScienceNOW facebook page, before seeing it posted here. Yesterday I posted the OP article to their wall, and someone deleted it. I just looked at their page and it doesn't look like the ScienceNOW people are going to post anything about the new findings.

What a bunch of sensationalist sissies.

Since you're a body-builder like the guy in this youtube video, I'd like to ask if you could type him for me. I have only guesses.

(1) I don't try to type people, whether via MBTI or Enneagram. I've learned about it for purposes of self discovery, and as a means of identifying how I could improve my style of communication with other people.

(2) I have sent the following online tests to all my friends and family so that I could find out what their MBTI/Enneagram types are, just out of curiousity:

Thompson-Maidenbaum Personality Inventory:
http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore/inventory.html

SimilarMinds.com Enneagram (Short/50 Question) Test:
http://similarminds.com/test.html

Of course, at the time I had formulated guesses as to what MBTI/Enneagram type each of my relatives/friends were.
Guess what?
I was wrong every time.
That's one reason why I don't try to type people.

(3) Here's another reason I don't try to type people. At this point I know several groups of people who all share the sameMBTI type.
Guess what?
Each of them is unique as night and day.
Even within a given MBTI/Enneagram type - there is ALOT of variation, so much that I feel knowing their MBTI/Enneagram type is only of limited value.

(4) I don't judge or like to be judged, and I read way too many posts on this forum where someone has read a few articles on some typological methodology and all of a sudden thinks they know everything about all of mankind, or just as bad, makes sweeping generalization (usually negative and derogatory) about people of certain MBTI/Enneagram types. I think it's much more important to interact with others according to your real world experience with them, and how they personify and carry out the core values that guide them through their lives.

(5) Here's what I can tell you about the gentleman in the video.

(a) He's one big motherfucker with less than 8% bodyfat.

(b) I think his hat is silly. If he's bald he should just show off the chrome dome.

(c) His backyard (or wherever he is filming the clip from) is pretty pimped out. He has what appear to be several mature specimens of Australian Tree Ferns, or maybe even Queen Sago Plams (which are actually Cycads, species of plants that have been around since the dinosaurs walked the Earth), in addition to several other varieties of smaller, yet very mature ground level ferns.

(d) Because of the vegetation he is either in a tropical/subtropical climate, as none of those plants do well in areas that have a "hard freeze" each winter. The only other option would be if the entire backyard were enclosed in a massive greenhouse, but that's not very likely considering the expense to create such a facility for non-commercial purposes.

(e) His guidance regarding the exercises is sound. It never ceases to amaze me at how many weightlifters I've worked with in my life, who have been doing a bunch of different exercises for many years, and that they still don't know exactly what the kinesiology behind them is.

(f) He appears to be putting alot of effort into maintaining a neutral tone of voice. I don't know if this is because he wishes to convey a demeanor that is more low key for purposes of filiming an instructional video, or if he has some other reason behind it.

(g) Based on how he said "Auf Wiedersehen" he is not a native speaker of the German language. I grew up in Germany, I spoke German before I spoke English, and to this day if I speak German, I sound like a local from Rheinland-Pfalz. This guy's German pronounciation and vocal inflection are typical of someone who spoke English before they learned German. He is not able, or not willing to engage in releasing the language with the sharp inflection it is known for.

(h) Outside of these basic observations, I have no judgements of this man. I think it's cool that he's taken time out of his life to educate others interested in weightlifting/bodybuilding as to how to further their progress.

If you have any other questions please let me know.

Just out of curiousity:

(A) What type (MBTI/Enneagram) do you think he is?

(B) Why?

(C) What is the importance of knowing such information to the casual observer of this person?



-Alex

 

[Mal12345]

[MENTION=6109]Halla74[/MENTION]

You certainly have a great communication style. (You are a type 3 in wanting to perfect all such elements of your personal appearance.) I usually shy away from longer posts but I found yours quite enlightening and non-egotistical. When it's 100% substance, it means I don't have to waste time wading through ego traps to try to find the substance.

If you were wrong about everybody else's type then you are probably wrong about your own. I know most people hate when I say that, but your type 3-ness comes across very powerfully to me. Okay, I'll admit that so far you're only a type 3 over the internet.

Scooby is quite strange but also very smart about weight-lifting. Sometimes he treats his personal opinion on the subject as fact, but he does it in such a calm way that no offense can be taken. I'd have to say he is a type 9. But he also uses a type 3 appearance orientation, as you pointed out when you talked about his controlled tone of voice.

One thing I noticed about his teaching technique is that it is extremely detailed. He will instruct on good form in doing overhead flies. But when he does so, he tells you to grimace while lifting, then he demonstrates how to grimace while lifting, and explains that grimacing is very useful for weight training. I have never seen anything like that on anybody else's weight-training videos.

 

[Mal12345]

[MENTION=6109]Halla74[/MENTION] "(C) What is the importance of knowing such information to the casual observer of this person?" I don't think the casual observer would care to know. I had my own devious purpose for asking you, but you didn't fall for it.

 

[Halla74]

[MENTION=6109]Halla74

You certainly have a great communication style.

Wow, thank you very much. I appreciate that. Your writing and communication style are also engaging and effective. Time for a hi-five!

(You are a type 3 in wanting to perfect all such elements of your personal appearance.)

Ahhh, that's interesting. My cousin Robert said something to me once along those lines, but it had nothing to do with my Enneagram type. We were eating dinner one night at Manuel's, in San Antonio Texas, I had not seen him for almost 20 years. We were just catching up and I said something to the effect of "I think I might have a touch of OCD" - his answer to that was to slap me on top of my head (to get my attention, LOLZ!) and replied with "Of course you have OCD. Look what you've done with your body and weightlifting." He didn't raise his voice, didn't get excited, in fact he smiled the whole time. That's my cousin!

I usually shy away from longer posts but I found yours quite enlightening and non-egotistical. When it's 100% substance, it means I don't have to waste time wading through ego traps to try to find the substance.

Again, thank you. Honestly, I don't try to have an ego about anything. I'm very opinionated, and I take great pride in my work, but I'm a creature of facts and reason. I don't get emotional about things, and I don't go off on ego-quests. That type of behavior has always irritated me when others have exhibited it. I'm glad my natural repulsion of it has kept me from developing that as any part of my demeanor.

If you were wrong about everybody else's type then you are probably wrong about your own.

Haaaa!!! :yim_rolling_on_the_ I never really thought of it like that!
Perhaps I just don't know a whole lot about MBTI/Enneagram? Or at least how to "apply them" via typing others?
As far as my type of 7w8 is concerned:
(1) I took a few online tests,
(2) I read a good number of Enneagram type descriptions, and
(3) I've watched some of the Ring 7/7w8 videos of people who are 7w8 (Iggy Pop is the one I remember most).

My test scores were consistently Ring 7.
Reading through the type descriptions of 7 vs 7w6 and 7w8, the one I identified with most was 7w8.
A few instinctual variant tests gave me the "sx/so."
The Iggy Pop video was interesting because while he and I are quite different in many ways, I am a bit of a renegade, I'm definitely blunt at times, and I'm certainly an adrenaline junkie.

Your guess of Ring 3 is interesting though, and I will read up on it, as I've never looked into that E-type.
Thanks for the heads up, I'll let you know what I discover.

I know most people hate when I say that, but your type 3-ness comes across very powerfully to me.

I'm not easily offended or irritated. You don't seem to be playing headgames with me so there's no reason for me to be annoyed by your observations. If anything, it seems to me like you know a few things about the Enneagram system that I do not, so I will take your feedback in and read up on it. What do I have to lose? I have no affinity for Ring 7 over Ring 3. It's just that all my discovery to date has leaned toward 7/7w8. That doesn't mean it was right though. We shall see!

Okay, I'll admit that so far you're only a type 3 over the internet.

Haaa! Maybe so. There are a few people on this site who have met me in person. Others I've talked to on the phone. I have not asked them what they thought my Enneagram type is though. I might just do that for grins.

Scooby is quite strange but also very smart about weight-lifting.

Agreed.

Sometimes he treats his personal opinion on the subject as fact, but he does it in such a calm way that no offense can be taken.

Exactly, that's how I perceived him. He delivers the information from the standpoint of "Fact as he understands from his own research and experience" and not like some jerk off in a TV as trying to sell you on his ideas for the sake of selling his ideas.

I'd have to say he is a type 9.

Interesting, a "Peacemaker."
My wife's E-type is 9w1, or at least so we think at this time...

But he also uses a type 3 appearance orientation, as you pointed out when you talked about his controlled tone of voice.

Interesting. I thought as such because it seemed to me that he was very intent on coming across as professional and in a positive manner to viewers of his video. If that is the essence of type 3 then it appears I might have guessed correctly out of "beginner's luck," - Yay!

One thing I noticed about his teaching technique is that it is extremely detailed. He will instruct on good form in doing overhead flies. But when he does so, he tells you to grimace while lifting, then he demonstrates how to grimace while lifting, and explains that grimacing is very useful for weight training. I have never seen anything like that on anybody else's weight-training videos.

This is a very astute observation you have made. Few people I've ever taken a course from of any kind have ever been so detailed as you describe. Doing so takes not only mastery of the material you are teaching, but also the desire to convey it as accurately as possible to those who are learning from you. His style is indeed devoid of ego, which I give him "two thumbs up" for.

[MENTION=6109]Halla74[/MENTION] "(C) What is the importance of knowing such information to the casual observer of this person?" I don't think the casual observer would care to know. I had my own devious purpose for asking you, but you didn't fall for it.

Haa Haa Haaa. My responses were genuine; I didn't answer your question with caution. As I have said to many before, I am veruy consistent, whether on the WWW, on the phone, or IRL. I am what I am.

Cheers, dude!



-Alex

 

[Mal12345]

[MENTION=6109]Halla74[/MENTION]
Re: Cousin Robert's OCD observation:

From http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/members/misid/1and3.asp
"Misidentifying Ones and Threes

Average Ones and average Threes [are you average? - Mal] are sometimes mistaken because both types are efficient and highly organized. If an isolated behavior is the only thing being considered (chairing a business meeting or planning a vacation, for instance), their organizational abilities are similar–hence the confusion between them. Both are highly task-oriented and tend to put their feelings on the back burner to get things done. Also, both share a desire to improve themselves and to meet high standards, although the basis of their standards and their key motivations are quite different in nature."

There is also a type 3 and 7 misidentification. Even though any type can be misidentified as being another type, certain ones are more common than others. Far more common.

If commitment to a goal is OCD, then more people have that disorder than anybody ever realized. (Then there is OCPD, the personality disorder, and they have some symptoms in common but they are not the same thing.) For 12 years I lived with a person who had OCPD (and Borderline Personality disorder).

Re: Scooby Videos

I think Scooby is an excellent instructor, but it's still necessary to get a second opinion on what he says to do. For example, he recommends only doing overhead flies to develop the pecs, but he lacks detail on the reasons. He just kind of pokes friendly fun at those who prefer using a different lift for each side of the pecs, and says that flies are the only ones you really need. But the overhead flies, I learned, only develop width.

Re: Grimacing.

This may come from Scooby's 30 years experience at weight-training. But in fact, a long time ago some study showed that grimacing while performing really heavy work actually does help get the job done.

 

[OrionzRevenge]

You're joking! The world's most brilliant physicists perform the most complex series of experiments in history and they forget about relativity!
...

It would be hilarious if true.

The Pro-GR retort is based upon a paper submitted to arXiv.org HERE By Contaldi

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Excerpt from a post of mine @ INTPc
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>The OPERA group at CERN spent months doing the CYA.

>>>Contaldi based a rebuttal on the syntax of the original paper.

The Jury is still out IMO.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/news.2011.575.html

Since the OPERA group's 22 September announcement, more than 30 papers attempting to explain the result using various exotic theoretical models have been posted to the physics preprint server at arXiv.org. But one paper2, posted on 28 September by theorist Carlo Contaldi of Imperial College London, bears the distinction of being the first to challenge the experimental calculations.

The OPERA team timed the neutrinos using clocks at each location that were synchronized using GPS (Global Positioning System) signals from a single satellite. Contaldi's paper says the group's calculations do not take into account one aspect of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity: that slight differences in the force of gravity at the two sites would cause the clocks to tick at different rates.

Because of its location relative to the centre of Earth, the CERN site feels a slightly stronger gravitational pull than Gran Sasso. Consequently, a clock at the beginning of the neutrinos' journey would actually run at a slower rate than a clock at the end. "It would reduce the significance of the result," Contaldi says.

Dario Autiero of the Institute of Nuclear Physics in Lyons (IPNL), France, and physics coordinator for OPERA, counters that Contaldi's challenge is a result of a misunderstanding of how the clocks were synchronized. He says the group will be revising its paper to try to make its method clearer. Autiero notes that OPERA has been careful to present its startling observations without concluding that the laws of physics have been upended. His e-mail discussion with Contaldi — being followed by dozens of other physicists — is ongoing.

 

[Mal12345]

It would be hilarious if true.

The Pro-GR retort is based upon a paper submitted to arXiv.org HERE By Contaldi

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Excerpt from a post of mine @ INTPc
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>The OPERA group at CERN spent months doing the CYA.

>>>Contaldi based a rebuttal on the syntax of the original paper.

The Jury is still out IMO.

I've already mentioned the differences in the force of gravity between the two sites. But I did not mention frame dragging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

Any or all of these causes could be a factor in the supposed violation of the laws of relativity.

 

[King sns]

You're joking! The world's most brilliant physicists perform the most complex series of experiments in history and they forget about relativity!

If only Einstein was around for this. I'm sure he would thoroughly enjoy it.

Lol!

"Say Joe, what do you think about the relativity part?"
"Oh yeah Sam, I see where you're going with this!"

(Furiously starts to recalculate.)

 

[Mal12345]

Lol!

"Say Joe, what do you think about the relativity part?"
"Oh yeah Sam, I see where you're going with this!"

(Furiously starts to recalculate.)

Isn't it a stretch to say that Italian physicists are some of the most brilliant in the world?

 

[entropie]

You're joking! The world's most brilliant physicists perform the most complex series of experiments in history and they forget about relativity!

If only Einstein was around for this. I'm sure he would thoroughly enjoy it.

Relativity and quantum physics isnt unified yet and are considered to be part of two different models. There are still a lot of questions to be answered before you can make any kind of assumptions.

I wouldnt believe everything mal reads in the yellow press.

 

[Mal12345]

Lol!

"Say Joe, what do you think about the relativity part?"
"Oh yeah Sam, I see where you're going with this!"

(Furiously starts to recalculate.)

Relativity and quantum physics isnt unified yet and are considered to be part of two different models. There are still a lot of questions to be answered before you can make any kind of assumptions.

I wouldnt believe everything mal reads in the yellow press.

Neither would I. That's why I didn't believe the original article which was published in the yellow press.

I subscribe to the Facebook page ScienceNOW, which provides links to ScienceMag.org. It publishes many of the more sensationalistic science headlines one of which prompted this thread. It published the original sensational article on neutrinos that travel faster than light, but typical of yellow journalism, it did not publish the more boring, far less sensational explanation of how the "brilliant" Italian physicists might be wrong in their figures. So which is the yellow journalism?

The speed of neutrinos traveling at relativistic speeds cannot be properly measured using r=d/t. Yet that's what the Italian physicists tried to do. That is not yellow journalism, that is scientific fact. It's that simple.

 

[Asterion]

Maybe he's wearing that hat to be sun smart?