I'm for neutrinos exceeding the speed of light

[Onlooker]

[ixion]

1. Need a "It doesn't matter what I'm for or not." option

because their behavior isn't going to change based on a poll.

[pokerfan]

9. this poll is anti-science

In fact, it goes against the entire philosophy of science.

In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.
--
Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (1965)

We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.
--
Feynman, commencement address at Caltech (1974)

[ixion]

10. I agree...

And I'm a big fan of Feynman, incidentally. :toast:

[laconicsax]

11. +1000

[pokerfan]

12. love your tagline

for obvious reasons

[bananas]

13. No, it's not anti-science; from your quote: "First we guess it" - which is what this poll is

Your quote also says "If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong",
well this result is consistent with neutrino mass measurements as well as previous velocity measurements:

"Curiously, when taken at the face value, all results point to a negative mass squared"
http://cupp.oulu.fi/neutrino/nd-mass.html

"In the early 1980s, first measurements of neutrino speed were done using pulsed pion beams ... This measurement has been repeated using the MINOS detectors, which found the speed of 3 GeV neutrinos to be 1.000051(29) c. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

[laconicsax]

15. It is anti-science.

That 11/18 respondents are "for" neutrinos being superluminal doesn't change the reality of whether they are, and science isn't a democracy. The minute you start rooting for a specific outcome, you lose objectivity, and good science can't be done without objectivity.

Nature doesn't care what we think of her, why should science?

[Confusious]

18. Can I still root and be disappointed later?

when its not true.

curiously, having the same view that it's NOT true has the same outcome as believe it IS true.

only matters what the data says.

not to be an ahole or anything.;)

[laconicsax]

21. You should be excited if it's not true, because The truth will be what remains. n/t

[pokerfan]

17. I see what you're saying

But I still see the poll as anti-science in the sense that no "true" scientist should have a dog in the fight, so to speak, which is what the poll suggests we do, i.e. choose sides. Yes, the beginning of science is an educated guess but that's just the starting point. It's not science until it's either confirmed by experimental data or not. A hypothesis either agrees with reality or it doesn't. Personal preference doesn't (or shouldn't) enter into it. But scientists are human (with silly little reptile hind-brains, hormones, superstitions, prejudices, et al) and they do tend to get emotionally invested in their own theories. Still, science as a discipline is intended to rise above these impulses and reflexive responses.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
--Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

Look, do I think the standard model, relativity and QM are the end-all and be-all of physics? Clearly not. Do I think there is much more to be discovered? Absolutely. I would file these results under "really interesting" and proceed with more experimentation. But polling? I don't see the point. It's not a horse race. And that is why I think the poll is anti-science.

I really don't think we are so far apart. Either way, confirmed or rejected, we are about to learn something. And that should be celebrated. I would hate to live in an epoch where everything was known. It would be rather boring. I embrace the fact that we don't know everything. If you ask me on any given day how much of the universe we understand my answer will bounce back and forth between 1% and 0.01%. Just don't ask me to choose sides ahead of time. I consider all scientific knowledge to be provisional.

I just want everything answered before I die. Is that really so much to ask? I'm in my fifties, so the clock's ticking, guys... :)

[Onlooker]

20. The poll was tongue in cheek ...

... since we all seem to have opinions on everything. At any rate, as I understand it, according to quantum physics our awareness alters things, so by wanting everything answered before you die, you might very well be changing the answers!

[bananas]

24. Maybe no true Scotsman scientist would, but other scientists choose sides all the time.

One physicist says "I will eat my boxer shorts on live TV" if it's correct,
another claims to know "intuitively" that it's wrong:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8785366/Science-world-in-shock-after-Cern-light-speed-claim.html

Science world in shock after Cern light speed claim
By Nick Collins, Science Correspondent
11:42PM BST 23 Sep 2011

<snip>

Prof Jim Al-Khalili, professor of Physics at Surrey University, said: "The scientists are right to be extremely cautious about interpreting these findings. If the neutrinos have broken the speed of light, it would overturn a keystone theory from the last century of physics.

"That’s possible, but it’s far more likely that there is an error in the data. If the CERN experiment proves to be correct and neutrinos have broken the speed of light, I will eat my boxer shorts on live TV.”

<snip>

But Dr John Costella, an Australian-based physicist, accused the researchers of making an "embarrassing gaffe" in their calculations.

In a paper published online yesterday, he wrote: "Any physicist worth even a fraction of their weight in neutrinos will be shaking their head, knowing intuitively that the OPERA result is simply wrong."

Michio Kaku describes scientists choosing sides, and chooses one side himself:
"Some physicists burst out with glee ... Others broke out in a cold sweat"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903703604576588662498620624.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

SEPTEMBER 26, 2011
Has a Speeding Neutrino Really Overturned Einstein?

<snip>

The CERN announcement was electrifying. Some physicists burst out with glee, because it meant that the door was opening to new physics (and more Nobel Prizes). New, daring theories would need to be proposed to explain this result. Others broke out in a cold sweat, realizing that the entire foundation of modern physics might have to be revised. Every textbook would have to be rewritten, every experiment recalibrated.

<snip>

My gut reaction, however, is that this is a false alarm.

<snip>

Another scientist expects Fermilab will get the same wrong result:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/superluminal-neutrinos-from.html

But it seems pretty likely to me that a Fermilab experiment will confirm the Opera result – either because there is new physics or, more likely, because it will be affected by the same glitch in the GPS system ;-) – and theorists will be increasingly pushed to give an explanation.

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. They should be named Tachyon Particles

Currently there is research from CERN and Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso suggesting the existence of tachyonic neutrinos.


Science Fiction first gave us the term to explain faster than speed of light.in order to get past Einstein's speed limit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyons_in_fiction

[DetlefK]

8. Tachyons do exist: They are virtual faster-than-light photons.

There are also virtual slower-than-light photons, but I forgot what's their name.

[baldguy]

3. 186,000 Miles Per Second. It's not just a good idea - IT'S THE LAW!

[bread_and_roses]

4. yes yes yes

I think it will be wonderful if so - another example of how wondrous the universe is .... how little we know ...

(on edit - realize that probably sounds like I'm some sort of creationst or something - I just find discovery exciting, and the overturning of "the known" exciting - vistas open)

[newfie11]

5. I saw that CERN had the same results 15,000 times

Doesn't seem to be a one time incident. It will be fascinating to see what happens with quantum physics if this turns out to be proven true by others.

[Duppers]

14. If there is a systematic error

It doesn't matter how mant times it has been detected.

Besides, it wouldn't be QM that would be effected but general relativity.

I'm betting they've made some systematic error. Just wait.

[laconicsax]

16. If the results can't be replicated, it doesn't matter how many events they recorded. n/t

[MrModerate]

6. Because it's a big universe: a little wouldn't be enough. n/t

[laconicsax]

7. I'm for the truth.

If it turns out that the CERN results are accurate, that's fantastic and the new physics will be interesting.
If it turns out that the CERN results are inaccurate, that's good too.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Might explain some particles that we expect to exist

but cannot yet find.

[Odin2005]

22. The cosmic police need to arrest them for speeding.

[gtar100]

23. The law is the law and there are consequences if you break it.