Superluminal neutrinos now 'pseudoscience'?

In summary, the initial results from the OPERA experiment that showed superluminal propagation of neutrinos were later found to be due to a bad connection in a circuit. This is a normal occurrence in scientific research and does not indicate pseudoscience. The issue was corrected and should no longer be used as evidence for superluminality. The wiki article and CERN press office provide more information on the correction.
  • #1
Pseudo Epsilon
103
0
are the supposed superluminal neutrinos at gran sasso now considered 'pseudoscience'?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Pseudo Epsilon said:
are the supposed superluminal neutrinos at gran sasso now considered 'pseudoscience'?

The OPERA physicists were certainly doing science with high standards for the scientific method and error analysis. Unfortunately a bad connection in a circuit existed and it took a long time for this problem to be identified. So the result and subsequent correction were not pseudoscience, but were a ordinary example of science and the way that errors are evaluated and corrected.

If you were to find someone still pointing to the incorrect initial OPERA results as evidence of superluminal propagation, then that would be an example of pseudoscience.
 
  • #3
thank you because my friend still uses that as an example of superluminality. Could you please provide a link to the bad circuit article fzero?
 
  • #4
  • #5
many thanks.
 

What are superluminal neutrinos?

Superluminal neutrinos are neutrinos, which are subatomic particles with no electric charge, that appear to travel faster than the speed of light. This phenomenon was first observed in 2011 by a team of scientists at the OPERA experiment in Italy.

Why were superluminal neutrinos considered pseudoscience?

Superluminal neutrinos were considered pseudoscience because their observed speed contradicted the well-established theory of relativity, which states that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. This caused skepticism among the scientific community and led to further investigation and scrutiny of the original findings.

What evidence supports the claim that superluminal neutrinos are pseudoscience?

Further experiments and analyses of the original OPERA experiment data showed that the observed superluminal speed was due to a faulty connection in the experiment's timing equipment. This error was not accounted for in the initial analysis, leading to the false conclusion of superluminal neutrinos. Additionally, no other experiments have been able to replicate the original findings.

Have there been any recent developments in the study of superluminal neutrinos?

Since the discovery of the faulty equipment in the OPERA experiment, there have been no further studies or evidence supporting the existence of superluminal neutrinos. The concept has been largely dismissed by the scientific community and is no longer considered a valid area of research.

What can we learn from the case of superluminal neutrinos being labeled as pseudoscience?

The case of superluminal neutrinos highlights the importance of thorough and rigorous scientific research. It also shows how even established and well-respected scientific theories can be challenged and questioned when new evidence is presented. The case also serves as a reminder to approach extraordinary claims with skepticism and to always seek multiple sources of evidence before accepting a new concept in science.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
8
Views
272
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
33
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
978
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
8
Views
1K
Back
Top