Calm down dear, it's just a subatomicparticleand has yet to complete peer review. Probably just some factor they didn't take into account during the experiment that buggered up readings.
(
Tribs 🦇 ↓ dn ʎɐʍ sᴉɥʇ ↓🦇,
Fri 23 Sep 2011, 21:45,
archived)
HahaThe stuff about sterile neutrinos is still only suggestive, too. The rest of it's true -- neutrinos have a small, but non-zero mass (or, at least, the sum of the masses of the three types of neutrino is non-zero so *at least one type of neutrino* has a mass), and that fucks up the standard model right away. This is a good thing because it means we may all still be employed in twenty years time. Well, those of us who are physicists, anyway.
(
boris the spider,
Fri 23 Sep 2011, 21:50,
archived)
If these faster than light neutrinos turn out to be trueyou can pretend you believed in string theory all along.
(
Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango,
Fri 23 Sep 2011, 22:15,
archived)
I'd be more convinced if it had been a clear prediction of string theoryI'd be more convinced of someone finding a way of showing it from standard QM field theory. There's actually no requirement for a massless quantum particle to travel at the speed of light - that's a classical notion. (And there isn't even the requirement in general relativity for massless particles to travel at the speed of light except over very small distances, but that's getting very fiddly pedantic.) Of course, doing that might be a lot trickier. Me, I just work in classical physics at the minute so I'll leave that to everyone else :)
( boris the spider,
Fri 23 Sep 2011, 22:33,
archived)