Some years back, the problem of the Sun’s energy output rate was troubling theorists: Measurements of the Sun’s neutrino output, as associated with its energy production, yielded only about a third of what was expected. The solution was determined to be “neutrino oscillation.” Neutrinos are of three kinds, but they are not interchangeable in their interactions. So they oscillate between types, do identity flips, and only one-third reach Earth as the type expected. This discovery we attribute to “Wizards A.”
To “oscillate,” (as one might guess from the word itself) time must exist for the moving neutrinos. But at light speed time ceases to exist. All eternity is collapsed into an instant. So, it is reasoned, neutrinos must not travel at light speed as previously thought, they must travel slower. This requires that they have mass.
Now, in September 2011, we are informed by another group, we’ll call them “Wizards B,” that neutrinos have been clocked at a speed greater than that of light. If special relativity is to retain any meaning, there’s a gross contradiction here between these two results. They are incompatible. To oscillate, neutrinos must have mass; to travel faster than light they must not have mass..
The contradictory conclusions of Wizards A and Wizards B are likely the result of exceedingly poor quality, “noisy” data. Computers can handle the tremendously depressing odds against drawing the needles out of Mount Everest sized haystacks, it is argued. A tacit assumption in both cases is that all pseudo events, instrument signals that look like needles but aren’t, have been accounted for.
Wizards A were first to achieve the requisite ballyhoo, and their conclusions supported anticipated results, probably decisive factors for the time being. Wizards B are in big trouble, not just with special relativity, but more importantly because of the momentum achieved by the earlier work. However, they have behind them the world’s greatest machine, the LHC.
This is a great opportunity to see how the situation plays out. I’m personally betting they’re both wrong; computers can’t substitute for minds.
