[FOM] why should we, in computer science, be excited about the possibility of speeds exceeding speed of light

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

In many respects this conversation seems premature.

As I understand the OPERA results the recent update confirmed only that the error is not in the data at a higher resolution (shorter pulse length). They have certainly not addressed a number of outstanding questions.

There are several challenges by the physics community, including whether or not there is a systemic error in the calculations or in the various components of the experiment (notably the time at the start and end points of the distance traveled that is obtained via GPS). There is no independent confirmation of the results. 

Aside from this, there has been no suggestion whatsoever of a causal anomaly. 

Matt Strassler provides an accessible account of the status in a series of articles here: 

	http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/neutrinos-faster-than-light/opera-comparing-the-two-versions/

With respect,
Steven 




On Nov 24, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Richard Heck wrote:

> On 11/22/2011 08:43 PM, Kreinovich, Vladik wrote:
>> Sorry for not explaining these details. Here is a brief description of why motions faster than speed of light lead to potential time travel. For details see Thorne's book that I mentioned in my original email. Thorne is one of the world leading astrophysicist and a good writer. 
>> 
> The popular view of this I've often heard is: What's impossible is to
> CROSS the barrier of the speed of light. There can be things slower;
> there can be things faster. But nothing slower can become faster.
> Perhaps you can tell me (us) to what extent this conforms to current theory.
> 
> Richard
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
> http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom