It’s hard to keep up with this snowballing subject so let me try and break it down a little.
Two separate tests have yielded the same result – neutrinos have seemingly acted outside of Einstein‘s theory of special relativity by travelling faster than the speed of light. It’s almost unbelievable and could detract significantly from what has been thought of as the corner stone on modern physics for over a century. There is a problem though – if anything can travel faster than light (and this may seem as petty as it does odd) how can you trust your SatNav?
Two similar results do not necessarily make an experiment successful. Imagine you are baking a cake, it’s the same cake you have baked in the same oven in the same way time after time but this time it comes out burnt. What happened? Obviously your first reaction would be to try again to see if the result was anomalous. You bake the same cake again and remarkably it burns again. What is this telling you? There are 3 possible reasons (actually there are loads but we’ll boil it down a bit):
- Something changed – Your oven has got hotter over time so gas mark 3 is now gas mark 4 or your scales are not giving accurate results any more.
- Your measurements are incorrect – perhaps you added 99g of butter instead of 100g – it can happen especially if your scales have degraded over time.
- Something remarkable has happened – perhaps your oven has reached a molecular resonant frequency which is causing the molecules to heat up much quicker internally than externally.
Clearly it would be unscientific to ignore the first 2 points and charge headlong to the third conclusion so it stands to reason that the experiment needs to be conducted a number of times before the results can be accepted as correct. The media, of course, will always head straight to option 3 even when the reason the results were published was so that they could be checked by other scientists (it’s why the internet exists dontchaknow)
And so we come to the crux of the matter – it turns out that proper scientists think about science properly (who knew?) and, far from throwing their hands in the air and prostrating themselves before their nearest deity, they have come up with a reasoned argument as to why the results are probably erroneous. And so I hand you over to the guiding hands of the aforementioned media so that you can make up your own mind



