The observations are worth looking at. I could pull down a part of an article about CERN's 'faster than light' claim. Here it is;
"An American experiment involving Fermilab and a Minnesota mine showed the same thing back in 2007, but the results were within a margin of error that kept anyone from jumping up and down about it. (The CERN results are within a margin of statistical certainty that, were this not such an unexpected result, it would be considered a new discovery.) Now the team plans to update that experiment with about 10 times more data".
We can't rule out the possibility of an entirely new perspective on quantum physics. The tests are on and we can here a follow up story soon.
> Now the team plans to update that experiment with about 10 times more data
FYI, more data taken by the same experimental set-up isn't going to help. This is already a 6-sigma result, which means that a statistical fluctuation is ruled out as an explanation (~ 1 in a million chance). Instead, there's almost certainly a systematic error which is being made in the same way for every data point, so taking more data doesn't do anything.
Ahh, thanks. I just typed "six sigma" into google and pulled the number off the wikipedia page about that business practice. Should have gone with Mathematica.
