So, a scientific study was published saying we had neutrinos that were moving faster than the speed of light. That’s crazy right? I mean, seriously, all we’re trying to say is that Einstein was full of crap. If someone is going to try and change the way we think about fundamental physics, it’s got to be reviewed by the best in the field. Why else would journalists report on it?
As it turns out papers in physics, computer science, mathematics and a few other hard sciences are published in a way different from other science journals. It’s different because of arXiv. arXiv is a free and open, server run by Cornell University with the express purpose of posting scientific articles. Rather than subscribing to extremely expensive, niche journals, you can read hundreds of thousands of papers for free.
The problem is, arXiv isn’t peer reviewed before papers are posted to read.
Often, when there’s a newspaper story about something revolutionary in physics or mathematics, it’s usually because it hasn’t been brought forth in a peer reviewed journal. The paper authors were just posting their findings to arXiv for the scientific community to read and look for obvious faults. Basically, the authors of the neutrino paper posted it on arXiv to let other scientists know “Hey, check this shit out? Crazy right? Where did we fuck it up?” It’s much cheaper and faster to let other curious minds judge your paper, rather than to go through the lengthy, expensive peer review process of a journal.
There have been tens of papers criticizing the method, or trying to explain how neutrinos can go faster than light posted to arXiv. None of this has been through peer review. This is great, in a sense, because normal people have been able to see both the possibility of faster than light mass and the criticisms much, much faster than ever before. Granted, there’s a very good chance it’s all wrong, or there was a crucial error. The fact is, the wider information is available, the more opportunities we have for advancement.
Image via Wikipedia.
