Talk:OPERA experiment: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:19, 2 October 2011

Revision as of 23:21, 2 October 2011

Line 222:

:The content of the article by Glashow is a straightforward application of the theory of Lorentz invariance breaking developed by Glashow and Coleman in [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9812418 this article], and that article has been cited more than 700 times. So, I think we should explain the argument here in more detail, as it is based on a well developed field of physics. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 22:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

::Glad to hear you agree, Ajoykt. Count Iblis, I don't think anyone wants to dispute the validity of Glashow and Cohen's conclusion, and in hindsight, I see the Glashow article deserves a bit more weight in the article, perhaps. However, I believe we should give it that weight without going into too much detail, as complex, multi-paragraph refutations of the FTL thing are beyond the purview of the OPERA Experiment article. (As evidenced by the ongoing bloat of the FTL anomaly section in relation to the rest of the article.) We should mention and give due credence to such refutations, even go so far as saying "the whole idea of FTL neutrinos is bogus" once we have enough sources saying so. Perhaps we can compromise by including single sentence summaries of such papers by notable physicists in a dedicated paragraph? It would be particularly good for the article if we include all of that in the same paragraph as the discussion of SN1987A and so on, and restructure the discussion so we're not going back and forth in an "OPERA said, then other physicists said, then OPERA said..." way. In the future, as this whole situation gets sorted out, I think we ought to move the entire discussion of the FTL anomaly to its own article, and leave only a small paragraph here, as has already been done at [[Faster than light#Time of flight of neutrinos]]. Such a move would give us room to discuss such refutations to our hearts' content. (Though I don't think the time for that move is yet at hand.) Anyway, Count, if you have text which you'd like to put in, pleaseI dowon't so,take butexception. But be prepared for the possibility of my trimming it and fusing it into a single paragraph with the other counter-evidence material.--[[User:Grapplequip|Grapplequip]] ([[User talk:Grapplequip|talk]]) 23:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)