Can particles travel faster than light ?

Ahh, but the theory doesnt require FTL travel at all then. You are assuming it must be an argument of if FTL is possible by the particle. If that is the case then they must be arguing the impossibility of all theories, such as concern boson, tacheon or string,et al, under investigation worldwide wouldn't you say? Mark

I think Stellar is referring to ``conventional'' FTL travel, where the line integral of the particle in 3+1 space-time is spacelike. This implies traveling continuously between two space-time coordinates. It is valid to describe FTL travel as simply going from point A to point B faster than light could travel the A to B geodesic by making use of extra-dimensional shortcuts. However making the claim that neutrinos are skipping through other dimensions is an argument that (just like claiming that they travel at FTL conventionally) needs to be very very carefully examined. Topologically speaking,... [More]

I think Stellar is referring to ``conventional'' FTL travel, where the line integral of the particle in 3+1 space-time is spacelike. This implies traveling continuously between two space-time coordinates. It is valid to describe FTL travel as simply going from point A to point B faster than light could travel the A to B geodesic by making use of extra-dimensional shortcuts. However making the claim that neutrinos are skipping through other dimensions is an argument that (just like claiming that they travel at FTL conventionally) needs to be very very carefully examined. Topologically speaking,... [More]

At this point there is no coup de grace for the not faster than light camp and while it seems all of the ones in that camp are solidly in that camp, they do not say 'see this is why you are off', they say 'we know somewhere, somehow, you made an error we just can't find yet'. I would think the "coup de grace" occurred in 1987, via SN1987a. That the neutrinos didn't arrive 4 years prior to the light, as would have been expected if they behaved the way the OPERA experiments measured, is a pretty strong indication that error has been introduced either into the experimental setup or collection of ... [More]

I would think the "coup de grace" occurred in 1987, via SN1987a. That the neutrinos didn't arrive 4 years prior to the light, as would have been expected if they behaved the way the OPERA experiments measured, is a pretty strong indication that error has been introduced either into the experimental setup or collection of data. What that error was or if it occurred, well have to wait and see. I wouldn't hold my breath though for FTL neutrinos. That isn't a final deadly play but rather, a personal obsevation tinged with a great deal of cynisim and hope that in the future there is a resonable exp... [More]

That isn't a final deadly play but rather, a personal obsevation tinged with a great deal of cynisim and hope that in the future there is a resonable explanation against such as may have happened. You mistake skepticism for cynicism--A pretty common thing for people outside of science to do. Unvetted results are just that: not yet vetted. You and many many others are of the same hope and this is why the results are so hotly debated; there is no proof against. All the arguments are based on the fact that if it happened it changes "everything". A weak argument at best. An equal argument would be... [More]

You mistake skepticism for cynicism--A pretty common thing for people outside of science to do. Unvetted results are just that: not yet vetted. Mark, you can stop amusing you know anything about me right now and save yourself the embarrassment of looking the fool. I've made no "weak arguments", the rest of your jumble here is a bowling ball aimed at a strawman, not really worth my time. Your reading comprehension problems, not mine. Science doesn't deal in proofs. I said that prior observations suggest that error resides in either experimental setup or data collection. As is often the case whe... [More]

Pardon me. It sounded greatly as if you were arguing the possibility rather than, as I do, view the results as a step worthy of discussion and further corroboration before anything is close to settled. My sincerest apologies on my misunderstanding. I do not and can not in good conscience argue against any opinion on this matter as I am skeptical at best on what has happened and how the results will test out in time. I do however, look on with disdain on arguments which presume to declare 'can not' when at best they should be saying 'it is too early to accept as proven' or 'I do not believe...'... [More]

post withdrawn- expired link makes it irrelevant.

No worries, its hard to read people sometimes online. I agree it would certainly be cool if this turned out to be true--Like I said, I have no vested interest in neutrinos not traveling FTL. I don't, as far as I can recall, worship Einstein or consider is "wisdom" inerrant. SR and GR have stood on their own two feet, when put to the test and that is the only thing modern science is beholden to them for. I agree that it is good to be skeptical (all science, we should be skeptical of). That is what I was trying to point out in my first post--Is that prior evidences, mean we should be skeptical o... [More]