New theories emerge to disprove OPERA faster-than-light neutrinos claim

Oct 06, 2011 by Bob Yirka weblog
Schematic view of the Opera Detector

(PhysOrg.com) -- It's been just two weeks since the Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (OPERA) team released its announcement claiming that they have been measuring muon neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light, causing an uproar in the physics community. Since that time, many papers (perhaps as many as 30 to the preprint server arXiv alone) have been published seeking ways to discredit the findings. Thus far though, only two seem credible.

The first is by Carlo Contaldi of Imperial College London. He says that it’s likely the OPERA team failed to take gravity into their math equations and its effect on the clocks used to time the experiment. This because the degree of gravity at the two stations involved in the experiment (Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy and the CERN facility in Geneva) were different, thus one of the clocks would have been running slightly faster than the other, resulting in faulty timing. If this turns out to be the case, the OPERA team will most certainly be embarrassed to have overlooked such a basic problem with their study.

The second is by Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glashow, who together point out that if the in the study were in fact traveling as fast as claimed, they should have been radiating particles as they went, leaving behind a measurable trail; this due to the energy transfer that would occur between particles moving at different speeds. And since the OPERA team didn’t observe any such trail (or at least didn’t report it) it follows that the neutrinos weren’t in fact traveling as fast as were claimed and the resultant speed measurements would have to be attributed to something else.

Neither of these papers actually disproves the results found by the OPERA team of course, the first merely suggests there may be a problem with the way the measurements were taken, the second takes more of a “it can’t be true because of…” approach which only highlight the general disbelief in the physics community regarding the very possibility of anything, much less the speed of neutrinos traveling faster than the , messing with Einstein’s most basic theories. The first can be addressed rather easily by the OPERA team if it so desires, and the second, well, if the neutrinos did in fact travel faster than the speed of light and did so without leaving a trail, a lot of physics theory will have to be rethought. Though that may not necessarily be a bad thing, physics is supposed to be about finding answers to explain the natural world around us after all, even if it means going back to the drawing board now and then.

Explore further: Single laser stops molecular tumbling motion instantly

Related Stories

3 Questions: Faster than light?

Sep 26, 2011

The news media were abuzz this week with reports of experiments conducted at the Gran Sasso particle detector complex in Italy, apparently showing subatomic particles called neutrinos had traveled from th ...

FTL neutrinos (or not)

Oct 03, 2011

The recent news from the Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (OPERA) neutrino experiment, that neutrinos have been clocked travelling faster than light, made the headlines over the last week ...

CERN neutrino project on target

Aug 16, 2005

Scientists at CERN announced the completion of the target assembly for the CERN neutrinos to Gran Sasso project, CNGS. On schedule for start-up in May 2006, CNGS will send a beam of neutrinos through the Earth to the Gran ...

Green light for the neutrino beam from Cern to Gran Sasso

Sep 12, 2006

The delivery of the neutrino beam (Cngs) from Cern and the beginning of a new generation of experiments were officially celebrated today at Infn (Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics) National Laboratories of Gran ...

Recommended for you

Single laser stops molecular tumbling motion instantly

3 hours ago

In the quantum world, making the simple atom behave is one thing, but making the more complex molecule behave is another story. Now Northwestern University scientists have figured out an elegant way to stop a molecule from ...

What time is it in the universe?

Aug 29, 2014

Flavor Flav knows what time it is. At least he does for Flavor Flav. Even with all his moving and accelerating, with the planet, the solar system, getting on planes, taking elevators, and perhaps even some ...

Watching the structure of glass under pressure

Aug 28, 2014

Glass has many applications that call for different properties, such as resistance to thermal shock or to chemically harsh environments. Glassmakers commonly use additives such as boron oxide to tweak these ...

User comments : 96

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jaeherys
3.4 / 5 (18) Oct 06, 2011
Forgot to take into account gravity... Really!? That just sounds like such a ridiculous statement. How could they all forget about gravity? That's like forgetting 1 1=2.

I might be wrong here but wouldn't the fact that we think nothing can go faster than the speed of light make predicting how a particle behaves FTL sort of an oxymoron?

To me it sounds like physicists who don't want to accept that this might be true. It's sort of disappointing.
Nanobanano
2.7 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2011
This because the degree of gravity at the two stations involved in the experiment (Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy and the CERN facility in Geneva) were different, thus one of the clocks would have been running slightly faster than the other, resulting in faulty timing. If this turns out to be the case.


I considered this as well as changes in gravity field due to the neutrino passing "through" the earth, it would have a lower gravity field as it went through lower levels of the earth, since by shell theorem it feels no net acceleration from shells above it. Of course, the earth is not uniform eithe, so that changes things.

However, when considering gravitational time dilation, that does NOT help explain the measurement.

Why? Because it turns out, in Relativity, there is no time dilation condition which allows a particle to travel faster than light.

So the only "mistake" that could have happened is an error of instrumentation: Time or distance in it's own fram
Nanobanano
2.7 / 5 (14) Oct 06, 2011
If the gravity is different at the two stations, it could explain a difference in observed velocity BELOW he speed of light, but it could NOT explain away a velocity GREATER than the speed of light, because no time dilation formula in relativity EVER produces a velocity greater than "c", no matter what.

So you can't use a special or general relativity derived formula to disprove an observation that says a particle moved faster than special or general relativity allows.

Facts first.

Formulae and Theory are supposed to be derived from facts, to help explain facts and make predictions; NOT the other way around...
moosefoot
4.8 / 5 (23) Oct 06, 2011
@Jaeherys - It's just normal scientific scrutiny, nothing that should be percieved negatively. New thing pops up - everybody tries to falsify it. The OPERA guys did it in the first place, by conducting experiments to see if they could poke holes in something. Now others are seeing if they can poke holes in what they found. Acceptance comes where acceptance is due, e.g. when holes can not be poked. Time will tell.
Isaacsname
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2011
Of course, it's always something simple.

Now where did I leave my glasses..?

*glasses on head*
ZachB
not rated yet Oct 06, 2011
Looky here... Just get the math folks stop what they are doing, plug in the new numbers, and see what they come up with!?... I'm pretty sure that's what Albert would be doing.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2011
thus one of the clocks would have been running slightly faster than the other, resulting in faulty timing.

This should be easy to check established using the geoid data from the GOCE mission last year.

And a theory doesn't 'disprove'(or prove) anything. Only a theory and a successfull test may do so.

The gravity effect should be checked - but the effect shouldn't be that much.

The atomic clock experiments with airplanes (Hafele-Keating experiment) showed that the effect is on the same order of magnitude (tens of nanoseconds) but for much larger changes in altitude and much larger distances/relative motions.

The OPERA guys did it in the first place, by conducting experiments to see if they could poke holes in something.

The 'faster than light' neutrinos were not the object of the experiment. OPERA was set up to test neutrino oscillations. The FTL findings were just a chance by-product of the data gathered.
Gezza
2.5 / 5 (13) Oct 06, 2011
Could the movement of the earth through space account for the 60ns difference? Rotation of earth, solar system, galaxy and possibly the universe. This was a one way measurement of speed. As far as I'm aware, light is measured in as two way. Bounced of a mirror back toward the source where it is measured. Giving an average of the two directions. Earth is moving pretty fast through the cosmos. If the finish line is moving toward the start line then this could account for the 60ns.
moosefoot
not rated yet Oct 06, 2011

The 'faster than light' neutrinos were not the object of the experiment. OPERA was set up to test neutrino oscillations. The FTL findings were just a chance by-product of the data gathered.


And I didn't explicitly say that, either. I just wrote about basic science in simplified terms. They were testing something, poking around. Whatever the findings are, whether or not they were expected, whether they were by-products or exactly what they were looking for, it's still a typical example of science refusing to stop questioning. Thus it naturally follows that all of that in turn is being questioned. That's what I meant.
ant_oacute_nio354
1.7 / 5 (16) Oct 06, 2011
There are almost ten experiments measuring things faster than light speed. All have been censored.
The reality is wrong and Einstein is correct.
jamesrm
5 / 5 (17) Oct 06, 2011
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'
Isaac Asimov
Resonance
5 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2011
Well we should find out whether or not the other neutrino experiments account for this as well.
baudrunner
1.4 / 5 (16) Oct 06, 2011
The speed of light is not a constant. Photonic wavelengths slow down through a dense medium and speed up in a vacuum. It is also affected by the amount of energy which sources the photons being observed, so it doesn't surprise me that these observations have been made. A neutrino's inertial properties are eclipsed by those of all those larger particles. Nothing surprising here.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2011
The speed of light is not a constant.

When we talk about speed of light being constant we always talk about speed of light in a vacuum.

A neutrino's inertial properties are eclipsed by those of all those larger particles.

Photons aren't 'larger particles' than neutrinos.

Nothing surprising here.

Then you haven't grasped what the measurements seem to indicate.
Isaacsname
not rated yet Oct 06, 2011
So in the first possible cause mentioned, basically it says they forgot to take into account possible Bouguer anomalies ?

http://en.wikiped..._anomaly
Nanobanano
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2011
Could the movement of the earth through space account for the 60ns difference?


No, because both stations are in the same inertial reference frame.

It is possible to define a reference frame in which the stations do not move relative to one another (neglecting seismic events).

Therefore, the time it takes for the neutrino to move from one station to the other would be the same regardless of which station makes the measurement.

Even if we were using Newtonian dynamics, the motion of the Earth(it's rotatin, orbit, etc,) would not have any effect on this measurement, again, except seismic events, i.e. if there was a minor earthquake in the fraction of a second between the neutrino leaving one station and arriving at the other, etc. I'm sure they control for this.

Even still, these measurements, even if valid, do not entirely disprove the Einstein equations.

They would only prove that "c not equal speed of light", but that "c" yet may or may not be a finite limit.
Nanobanano
1.8 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2011
Einstein's equations, if extrapolated beyond the vertical assymptote at v equal c, predicts that a FTL particle should have an entirely imaginary gamma component in it's measures, and no real component. for example, sqrt(-1)...

However, it is conceivable that nature "somehow" removes the imaginary component and produces a "real" component instead during the creative event that produces the Neutrino (or any other tachyon).

I would not know how to postulate why or how that would happen, but suffice it to say that if you multiple two imaginary numbers you get a negative real number. But in nature "negative" and "positive" are arbitrary, that is, relative to the frame of reference, when it comes to velocity.

A negative mass and negative momenta may be indistinguishable from a positive mass and a positive momenta.

So it's conceivable that if the neutrino was CREATED in a nuclear reaction and had a v > c to begin with, then maybe nature "somehow" converts the "i" to a real...
rawa1
4.4 / 5 (18) Oct 06, 2011
You cannot disprove the experiment with theory, only with another experiment - or the physics is just an esoteric philosophy.

Richard P. Feynman: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong".
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2011
Time dilation components should also become "imaginary" in the gamma function for v > c.

So you would need first of all:

1) a lot more observations of FTL neutrinos and other particles.
2) a theory of why some particles apparently obey Einstein's relativity equations and others do not.

After all, the equations make predictions to within margin of error above many gravitational phenomena.

3) a mathematical explaination of the physics of FTL particles, particularly mass, momenta, time dilation, etc.

4) consequences of "communication" within the universe. Does the future change the past? Does gravity move faster than light after all? etc...
yoatmon
1 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2011
These results remind me of "cold fusion".
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2011
You cannot disprove the experiment with theory, only with another experiment - or the physics is just an esoteric philosophy.

Richard P. Feynman: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong".


Yes, but "wrong" comes in degrees.

You can be anywhere from "wrong and ridiculous" to "wrong, but we can fix it with some more observations and equations or exceptions, etc"
rawa1
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2011
These results remind me of "cold fusion".

All experiments violating existing paradigms are accepted less willingly, than those, which are supporting them. It's an analogy of surface tension for ideas in causal space-time. Occasionally this stance can go into extreme, when huge amount of money is involved. Mainstream physics will spend all its money in gravitational waves and Higgs boson research in colliders, whereas it will ignore the research cold fusion findings - albeit just this research could bring a new money into science. In this cases the intersubjective belief becomes selfdestructive.
but we can fix it with some more observations and equations or exceptions, etc
When the scepticism exceeds certain critical level, such misunderstanding cannot be fixed anymore, because just this disbelief prohibits the people in doing of another experiments. For example the finding of cold fusion at nickel is ignored with mainstream physics for twenty years.
ant_oacute_nio354
1 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2011
c^2t^2 - x^2 = S

S = 1.91 x 10^-34 m^2

Neutrinos are related with longitudinal waves that have speeds greater than light speed.
Neutrinos have imaginary wavelength = S^0.5
Nanobanano
2.9 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2011
These results remind me of "cold fusion".


The problem with Cold Fusion is that you need to not only prove it exists, but prove it can be made economically viable.

Rossi has his work cut out for him, next month I think.

However, if Cold Fusion does exist, it could be viable for reasons other than energy production, if you can make it work for the right materials.

Imagine if you could find a way to make rare elements through cold fusion (modern alchemy). If the energy cost was reasonable, it would be economically viable even if it was endothermic. Imagine if you could mass produce Gold, Platinum, Iridium or some other rare element from common elements? At existing market prices, It would be worth it even if it was a "slight" net negative energy... I'm not talking about particle collisions.

Of course, that is pure speculation, but you know what I'm saying.
rawa1
4 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2011
Neutrinos have imaginary wavelength = S^0.5
Why not, but its postdiction, not a prediction. We need robust theory, which would actually predict it, not just fit the data.
rawa1
1.6 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2011
The problem with Cold Fusion is that you need to not only prove it exists, but prove it can be made economically viable
The science doesn't use such a silly criterion. Or we could close most of HEP research immediately. It's evident, this research has no economically viable application to the end of this century.

But as I told before, the problem with cold fusion is, it's actually economically less significant business, than the fossil fuel business. Because I you find the very cheap process, which produces energy and it's very easy to imitate, you cannot make too much money about it - it's like the selling of bottled air.

In this way, our civilization could die of energy starvation, albeit we are sitting on the pile of energy, because we have no economical mechanisms, how to motivate individuals in its utilization. The fact it will help all people as a whole plays no role for selfish individualistic civilization.
rawa1
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2011
The application of cold fusion could indeed help many people a lot, but it will harm the most influential lobbies by now. Just because these lobbies are powerful by now, they have no economical interest on cold fusion utilization.

http://pesn.com/2...s_E-Cat/

Would you support the cold fusion research, if you would have all money invested into fossil fuel or even nuclear industry? Me not.
gopher65
3 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2011
rawa1: That's wholly untrue. HEP has made an enormous number of economically viable contributions to the commercial sector.
hard2grep
1 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2011
Consider this; A sub-particle with less mass does not have as far to go. Of course the distance is the same physically, but doesn't mass stretch out time? My guess is that the measurements could very well be right yet not destroy that great and famous e=mc.
I would guess that since this is the first direct proof, we do not have all the cards in the game yet.
hard2grep
1 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2011
like every accurate equation, you have to use the right numbers. We are inside of a field taking measurements of a sub-particle that may not react to it. It would be easy to forget gravity's role in such a situation where the fringes of mass lie.
Koen
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2011
The first 'explanation' can be disproved, by first synchronizing the atom clocks in the middle of the 'neutrino path', then bring the two clocks to the begin- and end-point of the neutrino path, bring the clocks together again after a while, and observe that these clocks are still in synch.

The second 'proof' has nothing to do with physics or logic. It only suggests the measured neutrino speed result can't be true according to the standard physics model, therefore the science-team who published this "crazy" result "made an error", but of course standard theory can be false as well.

This reminds me of Einstein's fraud by disregarding and down playing Dayton Miller's variable non-constant light-speed measurement results. Miller used the best measurement device with the highest resolution to date, much better than the device used by Michelson-Morley, and cabable of detecting light speed variations in vacuum. Even Michelson's final conclusion was: light speed is variable.
exBrit
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 06, 2011
via my sister:

... and the barman says:'We don't serve neutrinos". A neutrino walks into a bar ...
Isaacsname
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2011
You cannot disprove the experiment with theory, only with another experiment - or the physics is just an esoteric philosophy.

Richard P. Feynman: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong".


Yes, but "wrong" comes in degrees.

You can be anywhere from "wrong and ridiculous" to "wrong, but we can fix it with some more observations and equations or exceptions, etc"


Don't forget " Not even wrong "

http://en.wikiped...en_wrong
brant
1 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2011
This experiment only adds to the significance of the previous 3 experiments. Look in wiki about neutrinos...
Nanobanano
2 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2011
Because I you find the very cheap process, which produces energy and it's very easy to imitate, you cannot make too much money about it - it's like the selling of bottled air.


Yes, you are correct, but who says "money" is good for civilization?

As a medium of exchange, yes, but unfortunately, the accumulaton of wealth is bad for a civilization.

The increase of individual profits is a parasite to humanity. The fact that a corporation made 25% profit, and an individual CEO made $100 billion income, etc, shows that they took in that much more "wealth" than they produced.

In a fair civilzation, when people trade things: goods, currency, etc, they would recieve amounts of things having equal values, and therefore individuals such as CEOs or corporations would not be hoarding all the wealth.

If energy was "almost free" then the monetary price of everything else would be geometically cheaper...
Nanobanano
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2011
Some things have the cost of energy applied to their shelf price multiple times in their life times:

Milk energy costs:
cost to transport the cow
transport the milk
transport feed and medicines
pasteurize the milk
refrigerate the milk

Some of those also have multiple energy cost applications hidden within them: energy cost of making the tools and machines involved in each step, etc.

---

Anyway, I don't know at this tiem what application we might have for FTL neutrinos, since they don't interact very well it seems not so useful in computers.

maybe long-distance communications, if you can come up with a system of redundant signals so that you make up for the fact of weak interaction....maybe...

But, at least in this experiment, it doesn't seem that much faster than light to justify the trouble of making such a system...
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2011
HEP has made an enormous number of economically viable contributions to the commercial sector.
It's still economically inefective. The last particle, revealed in colliders, which has some practical usage is neutron, revealed in 1935. All particles revealed later have no usage and they will not have it during next fifty years. Whereas the could fusion is ignored obstinately and it can bring the profit right now. Why we should pay for research, which could wait another fifty years without problem and why we don't invest into cold fusion research, which could even pay all this infective research comfortably? The attitude of physicists has no logics = it's driven with religion.
Truthforall
1 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2011
The clocks if they do run on different observed rate would have done so before , during and after the experiment. The time difference will increase with time. This can easily be checked and is very unlikely to have been missed by the team given that they did spend some time in scutinizing their finds before going public.
A more plausible, not likely, explanation is that a gravitational wave happened to hit at the right moment and mess up the time calculation.
Callippo
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2011
if the degree of gravity at the two stations involved in the experiment were different, thus one of the clocks would have been running slightly faster than the other, resulting in faulty timing
Not if they were synchronized from single source.
since the OPERA team didnt observe any such trail it follows that the neutrinos werent in fact traveling as fast
The fact I'm not observing the Sun right now doesn't mean, the Sun doesn't exist. How such opinion can be ever considered credible?
Yevgen
5 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2011
Forgot to take into account gravity... Really!? That just sounds like such a ridiculous statement. How could they all forget about gravity? That's like forgetting 1 1=2.

The correspondent is oversimplifying things here. The original
paper (see link above) is talking about relativistic corrections that are needed to move travelling Time Transfer Device from source of neutrinos to the receiver. Corrections are very complex, depend on the path that device is taken and give errors in the order of many nano-seconds (bigger than alleged FTL difference). Since this correction is not discussed, it appears that it was not made. Fascinating reading, btw.
PaulRC
not rated yet Oct 06, 2011
There was a webcast about OPERA experiments the other day, and they said the clocks were from GPS satellites that both sites could see...i.e. They used a common source to synchronize with each other. They only used GPS satellites the could both see at the same time.
yyz
4.8 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2011
"The last particle, revealed in colliders, which has some practical usage is neutron, revealed in 1935. All particles revealed later have no usage and they will not have it during next fifty years."

You seem to equate scientific knowledge with monetary gain. As one example, I presume the antineutrinos detected from SN1987A have no practical usage since antineutrinos have no monetary value?
omatumr
1.8 / 5 (20) Oct 06, 2011
New theories emerge to disprove OPERA faster-than-light neutrinos claim


In honest science, government-funded theories do NOT suddenly emerge to disprove experimental observations.

Experimental observations have, however, disproved many "politically-correct" theories that were championed by world leaders and their armies of government-funded scientists:

a.) Big Bang Origin of the Universe
b.) CO2-Induced Global Warming of Earth
c.) Dark Energy-Induced Expansion of the Universe
d.) Bilderberg Model of the Sun as a Steady H-fusion Reactor

Society's main concern now is the return of:

e.) Citizen control of Governments

. . rather than, . .

f.) Integrity to Government science.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
_nigmatic10
4 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2011
trying to disprove raw data with speculation and conjectures is nothing short of a witch hunt.
PaulRC
not rated yet Oct 06, 2011
while both sites were using common source for timing, the electronics doing the work were in different ref. frames. I do not see that as a problem, so 'theory 1' above seems false....BUT, OPERA guys and gals could swap the synch hardware from each site, and repeat the experiments.
TheWalrus
1 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2011
Wouldn't neutrinos (or anything with mass) going faster than light have infinite mass?
pauljpease
5 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2011


However, when considering gravitational time dilation, that does NOT help explain the measurement.

Why? Because it turns out, in Relativity, there is no time dilation condition which allows a particle to travel faster than light.

So the only "mistake" that could have happened is an error of instrumentation: Time or distance in it's own fram


Not sure what you're trying to explain here. The criticism is not trying to say that the particle didn't travel faster than light because of variations in gravity at the different locations. They're saying that the clocks weren't properly calibrated because of the gravitational effects. Since the speed "measurement" was really a measure of distance and time, if the clocks weren't calibrated, the measured time was wrong, so the measured speed was wrong. It's really simple.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2011
Jesus Christ
If the gravity is different at the two stations, it could explain a difference in observed velocity BELOW he speed of light, but it could NOT explain away a velocity GREATER than the speed of light, because no time dilation formula in relativity EVER produces a velocity greater than "c", no matter what.
Because, after all, you ARE a trained physmatist who is familiar with ALL such related things.

This enables you to say things such as
A negative mass and negative momenta may be indistinguishable from a positive mass and a positive momenta.
Because you know exactly what you are talking about.

You can even do celestial mechanics
No, because both stations are in the same inertial reference frame.
-Even though the last time you tried you only demonstrated you don't know how. This warrants such boldness as
I don't know at this tiem what application we might have for FTL neutrinos
Do let us know when you find out ok?

Are you by chance Napoleon?
Silverhill
5 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2011
TheWalrus:
Wouldn't neutrinos (or anything with mass) going faster than light have infinite mass?
The Lorentz equation properly applies only to nonzero-rest-mass objects at speeds less than c. At v=c, the multiplier for the mass becomes infinite. At v>c, the multiplier becomes imaginary and loses meaning w.r.t. ordinary spacetime and kinematics. (It's like saying that the mass becomes "more than infinite" -- meaningless.)
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2011
Resolving eight OPERA problems with superluminal neutrinos

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0736
xponen
5 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2011
The new neutrinos measurement contradict with previous measurement obtained from supernova. http://www.scient...p;page=2
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (17) Oct 06, 2011
You cannot disprove the experiment with theory, only with another experiment - or the physics is just an esoteric philosophy.

Richard P. Feynman: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong".


That is exactly right!

Even Big Brother cannot disprove experimental observations with models, theories and predictions.

Al Gore, the UN IPCC, the US NAS, the UK RS, Nature, Science, PNAS, MPRS etc are losing control of information as free books and journals become available on-line [1,2].

E.g. Proceedings of the 1999 ACS Symposium on the Origin of Elements in the Solar System [1] that Nobel Laureate Glenn T. Seaborg and I organized in 1999 and 2011 articles in the Journal of Cosmology [2]

1. http://ebookee.or...099.html

2. http://journalofc...102.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

omatumr
1.8 / 5 (16) Oct 06, 2011
You cannot disprove the experiment with theory, only with another experiment - or the physics is just an esoteric philosophy.

Richard P. Feynman: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong".


That is exactly right!

Even Big Brother cannot disprove experimental observations with models, theories and predictions.

Al Gore, the UN IPCC, the US NAS, the UK RS, Nature, Science, PNAS, MPRS etc are losing control of information as free books and journals become available on-line [1,2].

E.g. Proceedings of the 1999 ACS Symposium on the Origin of Elements in the Solar System [1] that Nobel Laureate Glenn T. Seaborg and I organized in 1999 and 2011 articles in the Journal of Cosmology [2]

1. http://ebookee.or...099.html

2. http://journalofc...102.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
jsdarkdestruction
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2011
Oliver, do you not know of phase 2 of the plan? see kissinger and nixon knew about neutron repulsion and it being the main source of the suns and the universes power but chairman mao did not. as the world all followed their lead in the conspiracy they said it was to prevent nuclear war. however under the guise of that the united states had different reasons. as the climatoligists/scientists destroy our economy and power while funneling money to third world nations for supportung the scam the chinese will soon grow too strong and overpopulated for anyone but the us to even have a chance of stopping the chinese from taking over the world, at that moment neutron repulsion will be officially "discovered" and cheap easy neutron repulsion energy will be used both to power production of weapons and supplies and as weapons of mass destruction themselves in neutron repulsion bombs. saving the united states and allowing us to finally take over the whole world without looking like the bad guys...
Bear2
5 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2011
The timing was corrected by 10000 ns.
The discrepancy was 60 ns.

As an experimentalist, I have found correcting
measurements by large amounts tends to be unreliable.

I prefer more direct measurements or measurements that
do not require large corrections. I have found those
to be much more reliable.

- Mike Peralta (Ph.D. Physics, Univ of Ariz, 1999)

nsgaga
not rated yet Oct 07, 2011
I might be wrong here but wouldn't the fact that we think nothing can go faster than the speed of light make predicting how a particle behaves FTL sort of an oxymoron?


...exactly - it's sounds so ridiculous - that
a) don't believe in it, FTL particles, and we know nothing about it - then
b) they 'prove' it it can't be so, as those 'non-existing' particles must 'surely' 'shad energy' - that's the basic 'math logic' as you said.
by some logic and experience - every new theory cannot be 'proven' by the 'old theory' - as then the old theory would be still good, right? some fresh Math graduate could get this 'proven' I guess...
This all doesn't mean that Opera is true - but we're going nowhere like this, true or false.
Burnerjack
1 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2011
"...We're so sorry, Uncle Albert. But we haven't proved a bloody thing all day..."
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2011
...The Lorentz equation properly applies only to nonzero-rest-mass objects at speeds less than c.

Neutrinos violate Lorentz invariance, if that means anything for propagation speeds.

Neutrinos oscilate between three different types (flavors) during propagation. So you can't ascribe a particular speed to any one particular type. In otherwords what you send at the source may not be what you find at the detector.
Mou
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2011
Why is it so hard to believe that neutrinos may be able to travel faster than light? Quantum physics has already showed us non-locality, which demonstrates instant changes between any distance. We already know that the universe is expanding at ever fast rates and that the speed of light has not always been the same. These things should point out that the cosmic speed limit is arbitrary.
GuyGordon
4.5 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2011
@Nanobanano "Facts First"

But as Einstein told Heisenberg: "theory determines what one can observe."

You don't have direct access to 'facts' -- only observations. Theory determines your experimental setup, what observations you attempt, and most importantly, how you interpret them.

The old view that one observes 'facts' and forms theories to fit them is naive. Experiments do not *determine* the theory -- theory determines the experiments.

MorituriMax
1 / 5 (1) Oct 08, 2011
Um, as to "The First" didn't they send lots of test neutrinoes/particles, etc? Wouldn't the fact that they didn't take gravity into account also skew all those test results?
Grizzled
5 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2011
I might be wrong here but wouldn't the fact that we think nothing can go faster than the speed of light


This statement is actually incorrect. What we think is that nothing can cross the speed of light ... either from below or from above it. See "tachyons" for further discussion. Those are some mighty odd beasts if they exist but, so far, their existence hasn't been outruled.

In that light, another question about OPERA experiment would be - did they observe tachyons (which is staggering in itself but NOT breaking the relativity) - OR - did they actually observe something crossing the speed of light barrier?
tkjtkj
5 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2011
Forgot to take into account gravity... Really!?


I did read the full paper and recall that gravity *was* considered. Further, the cesium clocks were calibrated and found to be possibly responsible for perhaps a few nanosec's velocity difference: far far from the 60 nsec result.

Contributors here ought to read the paper first.

SeeShells
1 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2011
@Bear2, Very good point. When numbers are corrected by 10,000 nanoseconds which to my thinking is a large red flag that the 60 nanoseconds is very much in question. My goodness the 60 nanoseconds could be off by 60 or by 10,000. One thing sticks in my mind as a question though. How can quantum entanglement between two particles show an effect that seems to act FTL? I'm so confused and agree with Einstein it's spooky.
Shell
SeeShells
5 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2011
http://xkcd.com/955/
Pretty much sums it up... By permission of the author.
rwinners
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2011
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'
Isaac Asimov

So true. 90 percent of new science is discovered via experimentation rather than computation.
nononoplease
not rated yet Oct 09, 2011
"The fact that a corporation made 25% profit, and an individual CEO made $100 billion income, etc, shows that they took in that much more "wealth" than they produced."

No it doesn't. "Wealth" is not a conserved quantity. It is created and destroyed by human action.

Apple has record profits. According to you this is bad. However they created far more wealth than they obtained in profit. This is true of most companies (otherwise they go out of business).
Onceler37
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2011
They will do anything to protect Einstien whose theories have been patched more times than Windows.
Zed123
4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2011
Quantum physics has already showed us non-locality, which demonstrates instant changes between any distance.


Non-locality does not imply FTL travel. One of the key properties of non-locality (as we currently understand it) is that no actual information can be transferred. Information is equivalent to energy and energy = mass therefore no actual "thing" has traveled FTL. This is of course our current understanding and COULD be updated pending new discoveries.

We already know that the universe is expanding at ever fast rates and that the speed of light has not always been the same.


Yes the expansion of the universe is accelerating. But the varying speed of light throughout the history of the universe is a hypothesis. Nothing more. At this stage all currently accepted wisdom points to c being a universal constant.

I'd love the FTL neutrinos result to be proved correct, but the smart money says its measurement error.
SeeShells
not rated yet Oct 10, 2011
http://johncostel...e-sense/

Nice article and it makes as much sense as some of the other theories.
taka
1 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2011
There are two facts: Neutrinos are faster then light in vacuum in earth and they are not faster then light in the outer space. The earth is rather special place and most logical conclusion is that light speed in vacuum measured on earth is not real lightspeed but lower. Light speed inside matter is known to be lower, consequently should light speed close to matter (fields influence?) also be lower. So simple it is.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Oct 10, 2011
On the First in the article. Don't we use atomic clocks these days? Why would gravity have any effect if so? Further, he should maybe read their equations used, before guessing, that's usually a good idea...

Second. Even if they didn't think to measure for one, doesn't mean it wasn't present. However, it's a good measure to check by if you rerun the experiment. It should continue to produce faster neutrinos under repeat experiments if it is in fact faster.
SeeShells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2011
"One thing sticks in my mind as a question though. How can quantum entanglement between two particles show an effect that seems to act FTL? I'm so confused and agree with Einstein it's spooky."

On entangled particles according to most, no energy or matter is transmitted or used from point A to B that causes entangled particles to seem to be linked to each other, that allows linked effects miles apart to happen 1000's of times faster than the speed of light. To me this is a FTL action is very similar to the neutrino's plight or flight? So do we need to look at the neutrino for some period of time it has no mass or no energy from its point A to B travels?

I'm such a novice but I still have questions.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2011
On entangled particles according to most, no energy or matter is transmitted or used from point A to B

Also no information is transmitted. This is crucial because entangelement cannot be used to send information faster than light (thereby potentially creating an information paradox as you could react to an event prior to its effect on your local position)

FTL neutrinos, howevere, could be used for such an effect. That's why such a finding - if true - would be utterly revolutionary. Our entire concept of causality would need replacement.
At the very least causality would need to be looked at as an emergent property and not in any way fundamental (we're already halfway there because of quantum mechanics, but for macroscopic systems causality has still been one of THE fundamentals).
Silverhill
not rated yet Oct 10, 2011
taka:
Light speed inside matter is known to be lower [than in vacuum]
This is because of the nonzero time required for photons to be absorbed and (very soon) re-emitted by various electrons in the matter. Also, there is some randomization of the photons' paths, which causes longer paths and therefore greater travel times. The photons' speed *between* interactions with electrons is still c.
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2011
Conspiracy theories and neutron-repulsion...the troll has reawakened. Sigh.
Peace and quiet. Un-hijacked discussions. R.I.P.
DH66.
molinaro
not rated yet Oct 11, 2011
Nanobanano, you seem to have misunderstood. It has nothing to do with time dilation of the neutrinos causing the faster than light measurement. To do this experiment 2 clocks were synchronized at one location. Then they were put into position, one at the neutrino origin, the other at the detector location. The difference in the gravitational field at those two locations causes them to tick at a different rate (also their particular accelerations while being moved). This causes an error in the timing measurement, such that the travel time is thought to be less than it actually was. That results in a faster travel time being calculated.
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2011
Conspiracy theories and neutron-repulsion...the troll has reawakened.


1. This 1998 CSPAN recording:

www.youtube.com/w...IFmZpFco

2. The 2009 Climategate e-mails:

http://joannenova...imeline/

DOCUMENTED Dr. Michael Michael Crichton's concerns in his speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco (23 September 2003):

The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformationage) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

http://scienceand...hes.html

Our government manipulated information on:

a.) Earths heat source the Sun and
b.) Earths temperature, respectively.

OM

barakn
4 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2011
Considering that this is one of the experiments that has recently confirmed the oscillation of neutrinos (muon to tau), I wonder if Oliver is going to claim the data was faked.
omatumr
1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2011
I wonder if Oliver is going to claim the data was faked.


Instead of dragging in new government "data", let's address

1. This 1998 CSPAN recording:

www.youtube.com/w...IFmZpFco

2. The 2009 Climategate e-mails:

http://joannenova...imeline/

Two indelible records that DOCUMENT the validity of Dr. Michael Michael Crichton's accusation:

The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformationage) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

- Dr. Michael Michael Crichtons speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco (23 Sept 2003)

http://scienceand...hes.html

OM
rwinners
3 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2011
Does the good doctor have two heads???
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2011
Considering that this is one of the experiments that has recently confirmed the oscillation of neutrinos (muon to tau), I wonder if Oliver is going to claim the data was faked.


Barakn:

1. Do you work for NASA?

2. Did you work for NASA?

3. Why did NASA hide, manipulate or ignore data on:

_a.) Earth's heat source, the Sun and

_b.) Earth's global temperatures?

4. How much public funds were spent to acquire data from

_a.) The Apollo Mission to the Moon?

_b.) The Galileo Mission to Jupiter?

_c.) Analysis of meteorites, solar flares, solar wind, asteroids, comets?

5. Why did NASA adhere to the Bilderberg model of a H-filled Sun, steadily generating heat by H-fusion "in equilibrium" [a], after 40 years of measurements falsified that dogma?

Reference: a.) The Bilderberg solar model, Solar Physics 3, 5-25 (1968):
http://adsabs.har....3....5G

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
gopher65
5 / 5 (1) Oct 13, 2011
It's still economically inefective. The last particle, revealed in colliders, which has some practical usage is neutron, revealed in 1935.

Most of the applications that HEP has created haven't been in related fields, but in unrelated fields like medicine. Ever had an X-ray? A CT scan? An MRI? Without HEP research, none of those things would exist.

In a similar way, the first modern digital camera was created specifically for the Hubble Space Telescope. Without that telescope, there would be no iPhone:P. Or at least it would be a lot crappier than it is.
Nerdyguy
3 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2011
So, there's no way to get psycho trolls like omatumr off these posts?
DarkHorse66
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2011
@Nerdyguy: Only by downranking and reporting as abuse. (and perhaps complaining to the moderators directly.) Apart from that, not much can be done. But I think that you will find that you are not alone in your wish. Btw, 'psycho-troll' is quite a good descriptor, especially in light of the repeated equivalent of rave parties that he likes to hold at every chance he gets. Cheers, DH66
rawa1
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2011
Whereas I'm rather convinced supporter of superluminal neutrino model, it's true, the OPERA experiments are based on dozens of corrections, many of them are much larger, than the difference observed. But we shouldn't forget, to impeach experiments is always a much easier, than to replicate them. As one of indicia, that the OPERA results cannot be ignored so easily, can serve the fact, these experiments fits quite well the previous results:

http://www.scienc...ini2.jpg

My explanation of superluminal neutrinos is based on water surface analogy of space-time. The particles are spreading along it like the soliton wave, which makes more dense/curved both the water surface, along which such soliton is rolling, both the underwater. The exception of neutrinos consist of the fact, they're very weak and subtle solitons, so that accidental fluctuations of underwater can occasionally wipe out the effect of surface deformation.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2011
Under such a rare moments the neutrino vortex propagates like pure underwater wave, i.e. like the sound wave, which is moving with much higher speed, than the surface ripples. Under such a situation the neutrino is moving like chargeless, still massive particles, so-called the Majorana particle woth superluminal speed.

These moments are indeed quite rate for low energy neutrinos, but with increasing speed/energy they occur more and more often and after then the neutrinos are moving with substantially higher speed, then the speed of light - they're doing literally a jumps through space-time. But they still don't violate the causality, because the neutrinos aren't directly observable during their Majorana state and we are perceiving it like neutrino oscillations from particle state into antiparticle state.

It means, most of these mysterious effects observed with neutrinos could be observed even with solitons spreading along water surface through underwater, like the Falaco solitons.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2011
If you take a look to this video, you would see, how the shape of Falaco soliton undulates during its travel along water surface. It's because every vortex exhibits some chirality and this chirality can be switched from left-right hand symmetry to the right-left symmetry and back again. I presume, this situation correspond the sterile (Majorana) oscillations in neutrino physics, when neutrinos are oscillating between particle-antiparticle states.

http://www.aether...tric.gif

Another way, in which vortexes can oscillate is the undulation between generations, as illustrated on the following picture. This undulation is known as so-called Widnall's instability and it could correspond the colour (charge) oscillations of neutrinos.

http://www.aether...ex1r.gif
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2011
...I see, I forgot the link to the video http://www.youtub...wZ39EDmw You can find an explanation of this feature here: http://www22.pair...fre3.htm
loipwarp
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2011
i have a theory that can reconciliate the OPERA Superluminal Neutrino with the Standard Model

see hal-00630737 or viXra:1110.0033 on Google
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2011
I'm not sure, whether Standard Model considers elementary particles as a tiny warp drives in the same way, like you do...;-)
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 23, 2011
rawa1:
... The exception of neutrinos consist of the fact, they're very weak and subtle solitons,

I saw a picture of a soliton (so now I'm an expert) and it looks like an amplitude-modulated signal which has to have a wavelength greater than the carrier. So what would the carrier be in this case if that makes any sense?
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2011
what would the carrier be in this case if that makes any sense?
Z/W bosons mediating weak lepton charge of neutrinos. The Z bosons are just relevant in sterile neutrinos. In dense aether theory all particles of nonzero rest mass are solitons.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2011
Callippo:
... In dense aether theory all particles of nonzero rest mass are solitons.

I'd think a particle would have to be propagated to be a soliton.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2011
I'd think a particle would have to be propagated to be a soliton.
And the particles are doing it. They undergo a neverending quantum motion in curved space-time, which they're doing with their motion. They're bouncing back and forth between their potential walls like the solitons on the string. The membranes of space-time foam play the role of the string for particle solitons. This is essentially the leading idea of string theory too. In this theory the particles aren't strings, they're excitations of strings. The M-theory considers the higherdimensional surfaces (foam M-embranes) in the role of strings too, not just two-dimensional strings.

The more exact name for soliton representing the observable particles would be an anyon. The anyon is a soliton attached to space-time membrane. It does allows it a free motion in the scope of this space-time, yet this soliton appears fixed from higher-dimensional perspective, so it undulates at place from higher dimensional perspective.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2011
Callippo:
...They undergo a neverending quantum motion in curved space-time

Certainly true, but doesn't seem to fit the description of solitons at http://en.wikiped...Soliton.