Ivan entrou no bolão e apostou comigo os R$ 100. O término do bolão ficou marcado para o dia 21 de dezembro de 2012. Caso você queira participar, inscreva-se abaixo. As opções são:
A. A anomalia dos neutrinos superluminais decorrem de um erro sistemático de natureza experimental não levado em conta pelos pesquisadores da colaboração OPERA.
B. A anomalia será explicada por uma aplicação não trivial de física teórica já conhecida (consensual).
C. A anomalia será explicada por uma proposta de física nova que não viola a simetria de Lorentz.
D. A anomalia será explicada por uma proposta de física nova que viola a simetria de Lorentz.
Façam suas apostas. Como na divisão do bolão o ganho é maior para quem apostar na hipótese mais improvável, uma análise de custo-benefício racional me diz que o melhor é apostar no item D. Está apostado!
Read more: “Neutrinos: Complete guide to the ghostly particle“
One of the most staggering results in physics – that neutrinos may go faster than light – has not gone away with two further weeks of observations. The researchers behind the jaw-dropping finding are now confident enough in the result that they are submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal.
“The measurement seems robust,” says Luca Stanco of the National Institute of Nuclear Physics in Padua, Italy. “We have received many criticisms, and most of them have been washed out.”
Stanco is a member of the OPERA collaboration, which shocked the world in September with the announcement that the ghostly subatomic particles had arrived at the Gran Sasso mine in Italy about 60 nanoseconds faster than light speed from the CERN particle accelerator near Geneva, Switzerland, 730 kilometres away.
Theorists have been struggling to reconcile the September result with the laws of physics. Einstein’s theory of special relativity posits that nothing can travel faster than light, and many physicists believe the result could disappear in a puff of particles.
The result also unsettled those within the OPERA collaboration. Stanco was one of 15 team members who did not sign the original preprint of the paperbecause they thought the results were too preliminary.
One of the main concerns was that it was difficult to link individual neutrino hits at Gran Sasso to the particles that left CERN. To double check, the team ran a second set of measurements with tighter bunches of particles from 21 October to 6 November.
In that time, they observed 20 new neutrino hits – a piddling number compared with the 16,000 hits in the original experiment. But Stanco says the tighter particle bunches made those hits easier to track and time: “So they are very powerful, these 20 events.”
The team also rechecked their statistical analysis, confirming that the error on their measurements was indeed 10 nanoseconds. Some team members, including Stanco, had worried that the true error was larger. What they found was “absolutely compatible” with the original announcement, he says.
That was enough for Stanco to put his name to the paper, although he says six or seven team members are still holding out. The team was planning to submit the paper to a European physics journal on Thursday.
They are still running other tests, including measuring the length of a fibre-optic cable that carries information from the underground lab at Gran Sasso to a data-collection centre on the surface. The team is also trying to do the same test using another detector at the lab called RPC. That test will take another several months.
Even though he agreed to sign the paper, Stanco says: “I’m not so happy. From a theoretical point of view, it is not so appealing. I still feel that another experiment should make the measurement before I will say that I believe this result.”