I just think that...future traveling may jus bcom possible...its going to be a great contribution to qauntum gun method.

will this theory affect the very basic concept of quantum electrodynamics and other theories lyk GTR?

Einstein's GTR was devised to reduce to special relativity over small regions, so if special relativity turned out not to be correctly modeling the rules of conventional motion, we'd need to take another look at general relativity, too.

Then again, general relativity already has some severe problems, from needing arbitrary retrofits to make it fit galaxy-scale and cosmological-scale data (dark matter, dark energy), to its fundamental structural incompatibility with some of the predictions of quantum mechanics (Hawking radiation, black hole information paradox).

And since QM is arguably based on very general statistical rules like thermodynamics and information theory, it could be argued that the current structure of GR appears to be inconsistent with some very basic laws.

So perhaps all of this badly needs an overhaul anyway (QM is probably fine because of its extreme and abstract generality, but classical theory is probably overdue for a major root-and-branch rewrite).

I think that they will soon announce what was wrong with the experiment.

Well, maybe ... But we have to remember that this class of behaviour does appear in the "other", curvature-based approach to relativity theory that a number of major researchers kept attempting to build in the C20th, but which kept being considered a failure because nobody could work out how to make the thing fully compatible with special relativity.

It might be that the curvature-based approach was right all along, and that when the associated math and geometry and logic kept telling us that special relativity had to be wrong, that we should have listened.

"Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result", BBC, 18 Nov 2011:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236

It's still too early to tell if the experimental result is correct, but if you look back at the subject's history, there /is/ actually an explanantion available for this sort of outcome, and if we'd been more serious about how we tested current theory, perhaps this sort of outcome should have been on our watchlist of effects to look out for.

Thanks for pointing this out (I'm too young to remember this :-) but yours truly remains skeptical until further proof. However, we should all keep in mind that physics is an empirical science (by definition) and thus it's experimentalists that rule, not theorists.

All of u i beg your pardon but i think travelling faster than light is impossible and i would like to share two links with u ppl !

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/21/us-science-neutrinos-idUSTRE7AJ0ZX20111121?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=309301

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcommentisfree%2F2011%2Fnov%2F23%2Ffaster-speed-of-light-boxers%3Ffb_ref%3DU-ZyGxkaGNk2wb4L0NINmG2b-CFCONX02FBS-33tfxXXX%26fb_source%3Dgroup&h=ZAQF7VV-KAQGVuTMaYw7EXgcie70kaTRgQDkqBjU7SJMgGQ

Hi Taipo!

Yep, I agree, we need to stay healthily sceptical. But we shouldn't be pathologically sceptical. These sorts of unexpected revolutions do have a habit of happening in the history of physics.

Our profession does have a habit of being caught out by things that, with hindsight, we should really have been more prepared for. This may or may not be one of those times. But it's fun to have people doing experiments without knowing in advance what the results are supposed to be, it puts back that element of danger and excitement.

Lorentz transformation (it can be also derived using postulate of STR) is based on the assumption that there is only one absolute speed i.e. independent of time and inertial frames. It so happens that the speed of light coincide with that absolute speed.

STR classifies particles into three categories called Tardyon (speed less than the speed of light), Luxon (speed equal to the speed of light) and Tachyon (speed more than the speed of light) and it does prohibits crossing of speed of light dynamically as a result of acceleration or de acceleration. No doubt the particle having speed more than the absolute speed gives some wizard results.

Experimentalist required to explore whether the velocity of neutrino is frame independent, if so than within what accuracy. The speed of light is already established as frame independent velocity within some accuracy. However, there cannot be two frame independent velocities. One has to accept that speed as a frame independent which has higher accuracy and it will replace c of STR.

If the speed of neutrino is frame dependent and more than c, than it is nothing but the tachyon and it’s speed could be increased (by running after) or decrease (by running away) – just opposite of our daily experience; the remaining task will be to give proper explanation to those wizard results.

If the STR is in problem than the Maxwell’s equations will also be because STR is the direct consequence of Maxwell’s equations.

I think no scientific theory is definitive and certainly before leaving a theory it is necessary to proceed warily. At present Einstein’s Relativity Theories are open to criticism because of result of Cern-Lngs experiment which in any case must be confirmed yet: by the way I think neutrinos have just the speed of light. The problem nevertheless is independent of this experiment and is above all theoretical: Lorentz’s transformations represent the problem in Special Relativity. Lorentz calculated them empirically in order to save the ether; Einstein proved them mathematically in order to save the principle of relativity: but these transformations are wrong. For example Einstein in his proof maked use of the mathematical expression “c-v” that after he will prove to be wrong: the error therefore is methodological. With regard to General Relativity I don’t see errors but I think GR isn’t a theory of relativity. In fact relativity is based on the principle of invariance of all physical laws with respect to inertial reference frames. GR is based instead on a principle of covariance and from my viewpoint it is rather a theory of equivalence between accelerated motion and gravitational motion than a theory of relativity. At last in Maxwell’s equations the relativistic speed and not the physical speed has to be considered when the reference frame changes as per the Principle of Reference.