Post a comment
Your Information
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Dang.
Dang!
What the heck is going on?
Posted by: Craig | 11/19/2011 at 10:10 PM
I certainly don't know. You can take heart from the fact that there's at least one explanation which still hasn't been discounted--some complex (obviously) thing involving a discrepancy in determining the time at the two points. I would bet that eventually the finding will prove to be erroneous.
I don't delight in this out of any desire to see physicists vexed, by the way. Fundamentally I just like the idea that there is always another mystery around the bend.
Plus starships, of course.
Posted by: Mac | 11/19/2011 at 10:31 PM
Did you hear that, about the time discrepancy, from me, or from somewhere reputable? I'd like to know whether they worked that effect into the most recent analysis. I hope not. If so, they'll have to find another problem somewhere.
Posted by: Craig | 11/20/2011 at 08:32 PM
It wasn't you, though I don't know how reputable it was. It was within a week or so after the first announcement, several weeks ago. Although it's a little like someone who's nearly blind trying to describe a robbery suspect, I don't think the description in the article I linked to here of the adjustments made in the new experiment involve the same question as the thing I read. I want to say GPS was involved in it somehow.
Posted by: Mac | 11/20/2011 at 08:55 PM
Be ye comforted.
Posted by: Mac | 11/21/2011 at 01:10 PM
Ah, that does make me feel better. Thanks.
Posted by: Craig | 11/22/2011 at 08:29 AM