Friday, September 23, 2011


I know that this isn't autism related, but scientists with the OPERA experiment are saying that they might have observed a small particle called a neutrino traveling faster than the speed of light.  If this result is true then it will overturn much of what we think we know about how the universe operates.

As astounding as that result would be if it were found to be true what I think is more astounding is how the scientific community is responding.  Here you have something that would overturn decades of dogma and challenge everything that we think we know and yet the reactions are cautious and balanced.

I haven't seen anyone spouting off about how we "know" this result can't be true or how this question has been asked and answered already.  No one seems to be launching personal attacks against the scientists involved.  And no one seems to be overselling the result or claiming that this result "proves" that all we think we know about physics is wrong.

In short, the parties involved seem to be acting in a rational, scientific manner.  They found a result that they didn't expect and are seriously examining it to see if it is true - even though it goes against everything that they think they know about physics.

Only time well tell if the speed of light isn't the absolute limit that we though it was but scientists acting like scientists is a nice refreshing change.

Now if only the world of autism could do the same.


  1. Even though the laws of Physics might still be intact, I'd like to share possibly the best joke I have heard about the news from CERN
    The barman said: "Sorry, we don't serve neutrinos." A neutrino enters a bar.

  2. FYI

    - pD

  3. Thanks pD. Now all I have to do is go back to school and get a degree in physics so I can understand all of the nuances of the discussion.

    For instance, how can there be theories about what a particle moving faster than the speed of light would cause/look like when nothing is supposed to go faster than the speed of light? And how can you use those theories about something that isn't supposed to exist under a conventional framework to say that actual experimental results are wrong?