Written by ???, 26 September 2011 10:53
"Of course, the speed of light isn't speed at all, but the proper conversion factor between time and space when constructing a space time continuum. The fact that massless particles must go at that speed is a by-product of the architecture of modern physics. There are so many long standing results that would have come out differently, that the chances of this being real are pretty small. It is interesting that GPS has all kinds of anomalies that really don't show up because the system is so much more accurate than anything that came before. For example the prime meridian at Greenwich England is actually 100 yards off of the original standard. My understanding is that has something to do with the aspheric shape of the planet. Since we're only talking about 45 feet here, that's where I suspect the answer lies: in the calibration software inside the GPS system.
Written by DDT, 26 September 2011 02:07Supernova 1987A, in the Large Magellanic Cloud at a distance of 168,000 light-years, was the first to be detected by virtue of its neutrino emission, on Feb. 23, 1987. Dedicated optical measurements of the light curve began the next day. If all neutrinos moved at 0.0025% faster than the speed of light, the light from the supernova should not have arrived until May 5, 1991. This is clearly not consistent with the results of the OPERA experiment.
However, there are neutrinos and neutrinos. The neutrinos used in the OPERA experiment are, I think, muon neutrinos (which may, or may not be their own antiparticles, which could be important because I don't know if the OPERA source selects for positively or negatively charged muons). The neutrinos produced in supernovae are almost certainly electron anti-neutrinos arising from beta-decay of high-N nuclei produced in the explosion. Furthermore, the OPERA neutrinos probably have GeV energies: those from the supernova will be in the MeV range.
Are these differences enough to explain why the OPERA and SN1987A results are inconsistent? I don't know, but if I had to bet, I'd bet they're not, and that the OPERA result is wrong for some as yet unknown reason. It'll be interesting to follow this, though!"
Finsler geometry interesting if the GPS explanation proves wrong - doubtful in my opinion. I remember a post-doc from Iran at Birkbeck in 1971 in Bohm's group who talked about using Finsler geometry to extend relativity. He drove me around London in a marroon XKE coupe.