“Tiny Neutrinos May Have Broken Cosmic Speed Limit” by Dennis Overbye (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/science/23speed.html?src=me&ref=science)
This article explains the possibly controversial findings of a group called Opera (Oscillation Project with Emulsion-Tracking Apparatus), which researches subatomic particles. While performing tests on neutrinos (a type of subatomic particle) as they traveled through a particle accelerator, researches found that the neutrinos were able to exceed the speed of light. The neutrinos, which traveled over a distance of 450 miles, clocked in 60 nanoseconds faster than light. These findings could have a profound effect on the basis of modern physics and may even disprove Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Many scientists are skeptical, however. They see this find as “too big to be true”. Theorist Alvaro de Rujula says the correct way to approach this situation is to “ask oneself what went wrong”. Many scientists think that Opera made a statistical error in their data. The author also points out that past experiments involving the speed of neutrinos claimed that they were either consistent with or less than the speed of light. Further experimentation will occur in months to come to confirm Opera's claims.
Though there is much uncertainty that comes with Opera's findings, they have shaken up the world of physics (at least temporarily). If repeated testing comes up with the same data, scientists may have to shift their perspective of physics entirely. The author also hinted at time travel being a possibility with this finding. However this is only an “if”, and it seems likely that Opera produced some sort of error.
Although this article was about an interesting subject, the author was vague in some places. For instance, he did not go into any sort of detail about the likelihood of time travel. Nor did he give any explanation as to why it might be possible. Overall the article was well written and not in any way confusing to the average reader. I hope to read about further development in Opera's research in the future.
I thought Minah did a good job at discussing exactly what the article was about. She especially was efficient at explaining what exactly was being tested and what the find was. Additionally Minah did a good job at indicating all of the potential issues with the immense discovery. She explained how, although it was a substantial find, there are many different variables and possibilities that need to be tested and approved. I also thought that Minah did a good job in how she indicated how time travel, probably the most interesting part, wasn’t even mentioned in the article. I felt that Minah could have improved in providing more details in what the circumstances were under which the find was discovered. I also felt that at times MInah was confusing with how she wrote such as when she included after discussing time travel how Opera could have produced an error even though this had already been previously discussed. I felt that the most interesting thing about this article was how the speed of light could be possible to break, which is a sci-fi dream and could potentially have a major impact on so many things.
ReplyDeleteMinah’s review of “Tiny Neutrinos May Have Broken Cosmic Speed Limit” is well done and easy for readers to follow. Her writing is fluid and the language she uses is clear. Also, incorporating the full meaning of the acronym Opera and the definition of neutrinos is beneficial because it helps the reader better his or her knowledge of the project her article is on. Before reading her response I did not know that a neutrinos was a type of subatomic particle, and without this understanding I have been lost trying to read her review. The additional statistics were another nice aspect in her writing. It is truly hard to fathom anything going 450 miles in 60 nanoseconds.
ReplyDeleteTo improve her review Minah could have added statistics on what the record was before Opera’s neutrinos beat it. This would give readers a basis of comparison. Furthermore, if Minah went into more detail about Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity her review would be even better because becoming familiar with the Theory of Relativity would help readers understand how this new finding could disprove it. Although, Minah could expand her review in some areas these issues did not take away from shock value of the article, as well as her review.
I never would have expected a finding like this to become so publicly known. The data is very controversial and therefore, I would think that most scientists would want to cover it up until they cold do further testing.