Contested 'faster-than-light' experiment yields results

Nov 18, 2011
A researcher shows how events are reported and which bricks made collisions with neutrinos during a test made in March by the Oscillation Project with Emulsion-Racking Apparatus detector (OPERA) at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory (LNGS), located under the Gran Sasso mountain, on November 14.

A fiercely contested experiment that appears to show the accepted speed limit of the Universe can be broken has yielded the same results in a re-run, European physicists said.

But counterparts in the United States said the experiment still did not resolve doubts and the Europeans themselves acknowledged this was not the end of the story.

On September 23, the European team issued a massive challenge to by saying they had measured particles called neutrinos which travelled around six kilometres (3.75 miles) per second faster than the velocity of light, determined by Einstein to be the highest speed possible.

The neutrinos had been measured along a 732-kilometre (454-mile) trajectory between the European Centre for () in Switzerland and a laboratory in Italy.

The scientists at CERN and the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy scrutinised the results of the so-called for nearly six months before cautiously making the announcement.

In October, responding to criticism that they had been tricked by a statistical quirk, the team decided they would carry out a second series of experiments.

This file photo shows a layer of the world's largest superconducting solenoid magnet (CMS), one of the experiments preparing to take data at European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)'s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) particule accelerator, before its completion in 2007.

This time, the scientists altered the structure of the , a factor that critics said could have affected the outome.

The modification helped the team identify individual particles when they were fired out and when they arrived at their destination.

The new tests "confirm so far the previous results," the Italian Institute for (INFN) said in a press release.

"A measurement so delicate and carrying a profound implication on physics requires an extraordinary level of scrutiny," the INFN's president, Fernando Ferroni, said.

"The experiment OPERA, thanks to a specially adapted CERN beam, has made an important test of consistency of its result. The positive outcome of the test makes us more confident in the result, although a final word can only be said by analogous measurements performed elsewhere in the world".

Image: INFN

In France, Jacques Martino, head of the National Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics at the National Centre of Scientific Research (CNRS), said "the search is not over."

"There are more checks of systematics currently under discussion, one of them could be a synchronisation of the time reference at CERN and Gran Sasso independently from the GPS (Global Positioning System), using possibly a fibre."

A paper describing the re-run is published on Friday in the open-access Internet science journal, ArXiv.

In the United States, the famous US particle physics laboratory, Fermilab, said the experiment still failed to resolve questions as to whether the flight of the had been accurately timed. Just the tiniest error would skew the whole findings.

"OPERA's observation of a similar time delay with a different beam structure only indicates no problem with the batch structure of the beam, it doesn't help to understand whether there is a systematic delay which has been overlooked," said Jenny Thomas, co-spokesman for the Chicago-based lab's own neutrino experiment, MINOS.

MINOS uses a particle beam generated at Fermilab outside Chicago, with a detector at a mine in Minnesota.

Explore further: New etching process builds custom nanostructures for X-ray optics

More information: OPERA press release

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

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 ...

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

A new multi-bit 'spin' for MRAM storage

23 hours ago

Interest in magnetic random access memory (MRAM) is escalating, thanks to demand for fast, low-cost, nonvolatile, low-consumption, secure memory devices. MRAM, which relies on manipulating the magnetization ...

User comments : 123

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
4.9 / 5 (14) Nov 18, 2011
This gets more and more interesting. Next step should be over a smaller distance in a vacuum tube - so the neutrinos can race actual pulses of light. This would eliminate any dependency on clocks and the locally measured times (not that I think that they did anything wrong - but that the clock signal seems to be the part in the chain most critics have an issue with)
Skepticus
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2011
This gets more and more interesting. Next step should be over a smaller distance in a vacuum tube - so the neutrinos can race actual pulses of light. This would eliminate any dependency on clocks and the locally measured times (not that I think that they did anything wrong - but that the clock signal seems to be the part in the chain most critics have an issue with)

Is it possible to use entangled photons to help the timing problem? If one of entangled photon's state is changed at the same time as the start of the neutrino flight, then a measure of the other photon's state at the receiving end will give a mean of determining time of flight when the neutrino arrives.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2011
How so?

Changing the state of an entangled photon doesn't effect the other one (if it did then faster than light information transport were possible* - which it is not using entanglement).

Only measurement without prior knowledge of the state determines the state of the other one.

* If this neutrino thing holds up then we actually DO have (potentially) faster than light information transport.
Temple
5 / 5 (14) Nov 18, 2011
Neutrinos are a very tricky species.

It's all but impossible to detect a neutrino; one would merrily pass through a light-year of lead with only a 50% chance of interacting *at all*. That's spooky and cool, but makes building a detector capable of spotting a single neutrino impossible (at least under our current known physics).

What they do is build a detector that has a *tiny* chance of spotting a neutrino, then fire billions and billions of neutrinos at it, hoping that one hits and can be detected.

It's part of what makes this experiment so hard to confirm or deny. Those running it are fairly sure that there's a mundane explanation, they just can't find it, which is why they're looking for help.

The smart money is on sub-light neutrinos with an error in the experiment, but just about everybody would absolutely love to lose that bet!

If interested, I wrote more about it here:

Point-five Past Lightspeed
http://www.isthis...htspeed/

Cheers!
Parsec
2.7 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2011
This gets more and more interesting. Next step should be over a smaller distance in a vacuum tube - so the neutrinos can race actual pulses of light. This would eliminate any dependency on clocks and the locally measured times (not that I think that they did anything wrong - but that the clock signal seems to be the part in the chain most critics have an issue with)

The clock accuracy is probably one of the less contested issues. The amount of time they detected is at least thousands of times greater than the resolution of an atomic clock, and not being in sync by 60 nanoseconds between the 2 labs would be pretty suprising. Modern clocks measure time intervals with femtosecond accuracy.
Iljung_Jin
4.8 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
-I am not proficient in English, so my english can be wrong.

Excuse me. Is there anyone who knows when the paper describing is published in arXiv?

Wow... How tremendous CERN is...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
The amount of time they detected is at least thousands of times greater than the resolution of an atomic clock,

It's not the clock that is contested but the problem in ascertaining simultaneity. The clock sends out a signal, and that signal must travel, undistorted, to the origin of the neutrinos and the detectors.

If the two places reside in differently accelerated frameworks relative to the sattelite that houses the clock then you can get a distortion at one (or both) ends. Since both stations reside on Earth one would suspect that they reside in the same accelerated frameork. But gravity is equivalent to a constant acceleration - and the Earth is not a perfectly, gravitationally symmetrical ball (time moves at different speeds depending on how far down a gravity well you are).

So there are those who think there might be those kinds of influences.

Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (48) Nov 18, 2011
Is the 0.002% difference comparable to the expected margin of error?
Callippo
not rated yet Nov 18, 2011
There is still dozen of articles at ArXiv, which are explaining possible sources of errors, including various relativistic effects. Were they taken into account?

Article is here http://dl.free.fr...JHEP.pdf You will need to use the username and password "neuvel".
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
Is the 0.002% difference comparable to the expected margin of error?


If I recall correctly the original experiment showed a difference from the mean by six standard deviations.

This is a LOT in statistics. It means that the chance of this being a fluke (assuming that there are no systemic errors) is
0.0000002%
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2011
including various relativistic effects.

As noted relativistic effects only come into it if the two stations are in differently accelerated frames of reference. This does not seem to be the case to the extent required to cast doubt on the results.

For comparison: The expriment with the two B52 bombers and atomic clocks that flew around the world in opposite directions had about the deviation seen in the OPERA experiment due to relativistic effects.
So even positing different gravity situations at the two measuring stations the effect would be orders of magnitude smaller than needed to get that kind of discrepancy.

The error (if there is any) must be somewhere else.

On idea would be switches with different trigger characteristics in the measurement apparatus at both ends or something similar.
Mabus
1 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
This gets more interesting when you know the fact that these neutrinos don't travel through vacuum but through matter (neutrinos interact with the weak nuclear force).
So if anything, the data should of shown a very very small delay, rather than the opposite.
Only time (and more experiments) will tell.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Nov 18, 2011
As noted relativistic effects only come into it if the two stations are in differently accelerated frames of reference. This does not seem to be the case to the extent required to cast doubt on the results.
So are you saying, this article is wrong? You can publish your stance.

http://www.techno...v/27260/
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2011
The way I read it the discrepancy would come into play if we were to talk about subsequent ticks of the clock (i.e. the difference between one tick and the next), but I'm not sure that is the case here.

But hey - I'm no theoretical physicists. So let these boys figure it out. I'm guessing it will turn out to be nothing...but if it did it would be awesome.
Nerdyguy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 18, 2011
If interested, I wrote more about it here:

Point-five Past Lightspeed
http://www.isthis...htspeed/

Cheers!


Nice article!
Nerdyguy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2011
There is still dozen of articles at ArXiv, which are explaining possible sources of errors, including various relativistic effects. Were they taken into account?


Though this article didn't mention it, there have been several news sources that have said OPERA looked at all of the suggestions, narrowed them down to a short list, and proceeded to analyze each potential issue. Presumably, as of now, they're ruling out all.

The most obvious concern, and the one they mentioned they were most carefully evaluating, was calibration of the timing mechanisms.
Nerdyguy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 18, 2011
Can anyone enlighten me as to how OPERA could duplicate their test and publish the results in a little under two months, but Fermilab is saying it won't release it's findings on their evaluation until 2012? Is this just a matter of other priorities being in the way, is it a technical issue in regards to time needed to set up duplicate conditions, or something else?
Isaacsname
5 / 5 (1) Nov 18, 2011
Questions, questions.

How do they know it isn't geographical creep over the 700 odd kms ?

Could it be a steady slow creep of two land masses towards each other ?

Go ahead and laugh, you need it.
SeeShells
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2011
I think the answer as to why they appear to out speed light itself will be very eye opening and just plain exciting to watch. Guess what? They may never figure it out. Look at the Higgs boson, (the particle that gives everything its mass... they think), its still a hypothetical elementary particle we haven't found. Although they have spent billions finding it. I don't think the universe is stranger than we think, I think it's stranger than we can imagine.
javjav
2 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
Changing the state of an entangled photon doesn't effect the other one (if it did then faster than light information transport were possible* - which it is not using entanglement).


I agree with Skepticus, maybe it could work. The entanglement method would not involve to send any information at FTL speed, and it does not need to send clock signals:
- CERN send the neutrinos and start counting pulses their atomic clock.

When this clock reaches the time that is needed for the travel at light speed plus 30ns, the clock fire a detector and destroy the entanglement.
- Meanwhile, at destination you will simple measure your entangled particle at the exact moment that the neutrino arrives.
- Send the result back to CERN (clasical channel, no information will travel FTL) and then compare. If the measured states match the entanglement prediction then the neutrino has travelled faster than light. (repeat it until statistical certitude)

Make sense?
canuckit
1 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2011
Every discovery or experiment made outside the United States is deemed not credible.
javjav
2 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2011
Correction. CERN has to destroy entanglement at t - 30ns, not t 30ns. In this way there are still 30ns margin according with the experiment results (neutrino seems to travel 60ns faster tahn light).
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2011
How do they know it isn't geographical creep over the 700 odd kms ?

They actually take that into account:

http://parthdu.wo...gs-beam/

Look at section 4. They have a very good positioning (it's freaky how the Aquila earthquake shows up in that graph)

Meanwhile, at destination you will simple measure your entangled particle at the exact moment that the neutrino arrives.

The measurment event will always give you a classical result. Your setup would always give you a 'true' result, since it doesn't matter when you measure an entangled photon - it will always have the same outcome as its twin on th other side.

Every discovery or experiment made outside the United States is deemed not credible.

Then what is the point of the US having observer status at CERN?
bishop
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2011
Exotic particles, here we come!

A new law of physic is about to be written. Like Gravitation, Relativity is not absolute!

We had, do have and will have:
Law of Gravitation (I. Newton)
Law of Relativity (E. Einstein)
Law of "something else" (X)

Some theories called "exotic" are using particles faster than light, tachyons, that bypass the "forbidden" Einstein law of Relativity, having a non-zero mass, but so-called "imaginary".

kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
Particles are just standing waves. Matter is just localized energy in the packet. A superposition of incoming and outgoing. At some point people need to get beyond classifying different chunks of wave and examine the underlying perfect geometrical structures that support standing waves.
SeeShells
1 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2011
I keep imagining I'm at the head of a train going 99.999% the speed of light. I have a flashlight that I turn on and shine ahead. To me the c beam shoots out normally and lights the way ahead, because of my time dilation it seems to work normal. In my pocket have a special "flash light" that only emits neutrinos. When I turn it on they zoom away so fast from me I can't see them. I don't know they are there. Only when they slow down to c can I see them. Interesting thought that the neutrinos must "phase" in and out of our space-time. The equations still stand, Maxwell and Einstein can feel safe.
Isaacsname
3 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2011
How do they know it isn't geographical creep over the 700 odd kms ?

They actually take that into account:

http://parthdu.wo...gs-beam/

Look at section 4. They have a very good positioning (it's freaky how the Aquila earthquake shows up in that graph) "

..wow. Most of it's over my head, but thanks for the link.

George_Rodart
not rated yet Nov 18, 2011
Link to the article posted on the arXiv server Friday morning:
http://arxiv.org/...9.4897v2
IcePowder
4 / 5 (1) Nov 18, 2011
If true: Casimir Effect?...,
dschlink
4.5 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2011
It will be interesting to see what Fermilab comes up with by re-evaluating their 2007 results. A very different experiment that showed neutrinos exceeding C, but within the error limits of the experiment.
Nerdyguy
4.6 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2011
Every discovery or experiment made outside the United States is deemed not credible.


OPERAs results weren't really deemed not credible. The only question is: are we facing a new phenomenon OR are the results an anomaly of some sort. It's irrelevant as to where the experiment was conducted. Any challenge of this magnitude to traditional physics would be viewed as in need of replication by multiple groups. Even if the results are duplicated, there will still be an immense challenge in explaining what has been observed.
hard2grep
1 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
These particles do not have to travel the same distance due to influence of the gravitational field involved.I hope I am right in assuming that the colors and flavors involved in this portrait travel outside the gravity field induced by light and matter. They contain an expression of that dimensional aspect we cannot measure or react with. While still expressing a partial existence in the four dimensional world we experience (think about IcePowder's mention of the Casimir effect), The constituents of the particles can be different if they transmute to the right mix. This would be a very rare event.Therefore the constant is never broken and Einstein maintains his well-deserved ego.Our path is longer than that of these particles. Think of this. When the big bang happened, where did it originate?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2011
What if the neutrinos that are seen to violate relativity are instead being created by relativistic effects before the protons collide.

To explain what I mean: We have two protons. They dimple the spacetime they reside in. As they are accelerated the dimple around them becomes larger. Now here it is: the neutrinos are created before the protons physically collide. It is not the proton collision that produces the neutrinos. The neutrinos are created moments before the proton collision as a result of the colliding of the dimpled space between them.

The dimpled space of the proton impacts the dimpled space of another proton moments before the protons themselves collide.

If this interaction is real then this would be a measurement error. The neutrinos could be well on their way before the proton-proton collision.

If each proton dimples space accelerating it makes the dimple larger. If the dimple-dimple interaction produces neutrinos they are gone before the actual protons collide.
SeeShells
not rated yet Nov 18, 2011
George_Rodart thanks for the link. Heady reading.
Temple
not rated yet Nov 18, 2011
Nerdguy:
If interested, I wrote more about it here:

Point-five Past Lightspeed
http://www.isthis...htspeed/

Cheers!


Nice article!


Thanks, much appreciated!
Lee_Lofgren
not rated yet Nov 18, 2011
Accurate timing could be achieved by having a photonic trigger somewhere between the two sides that sends a start signal to both sides. Detection of circuit delay and speed changes do to gravity could be compensated for by sending a beam back from each side to the trigger at the detected start times. Having 2 signal beams from the emitter, one upon detection of the start signal and another upon launch would help compensate for delay in circuit reaction from trigger to execution.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2011
Same old gas. If the result does not fit the preconceived notion of the 'infallibiity of Einstein, well that is heresy and has to be tested and tested again until some scientific person with integrity for sale, a religoprostitute, declares that Einstein is now once again safe and all is 'right' in the world so that all our scaredycat scientists can stop worrying about their jobs. Hey the Brits and Canadians do similar things, if a person is 'imagined' guilty of something, they try him again and again for the same crime until they get the result they want even if it takes decades.
However, Albert Einstein WAS a real scientist, and would turn in his grave if he found out what was being done in his name. He would not sanction lies to cover up the truth. He left nazi Germany to get away from people that liked to do that! Instead of thinking up ways to prostitute themselves, folks should be thinking of ways to validate and use this new technology!!!
hard2grep
Nov 18, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Temple
5 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2011
Same old gas. If the result does not fit the preconceived notion of the 'infallibiity of Einstein, well that is heresy and has to be tested and tested again until some scientific person with integrity for sale, a religoprostitute, declares that Einstein is now once again safe and all is 'right' in the world so that all our scaredycat scientists can stop worrying about their jobs.


You're describing the Scientific Method. Attacking *every* theory and result, trying to disprove it from *any* angle, is what distills truth. Anything that withstands these innumerable attempts to disprove or find errors is called Science.

I laughed when you said "so that all our scaredycat scientists can stop worrying about their jobs"

Do you have *any* idea how badly scientists want this to be true?

Do you have *any* idea how much money would be available to research this new physics?

Neutrinos traveling FTL would be the biggest boon to physicists since Newton's apple.
javjav
3.5 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2011
What if the neutrinos that are seen to violate relativity are instead being created by relativistic effects before the protons collide.


To do that, the neutrino would need to appear and start travelling 60ns before the collision that is needed to create it. In that case, it would make the travel and appear in Italy even if you decide to interrupt the collision 40ns before it happens (just change the magnetic field and avoi the collision, when the protons are still many meters away from each other). When you interrupt the collision the neutrino would be already born and well on its way to Italy. This violates even more principles like energy conservation, causality, and other well established theories.
that_guy
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2011
I'd like to point out that these neutrinos weren't measured in a drag race against light.

*IF* these results turn out to be true and accurate, I have a hunch that the neutrinos didn't actually travel faster than a photon would - My guess is that they find a wrinkle in physics that the fabric of space and its interaction with matter or gravity is ever so slightly different than they thought.

IE - They may find something to the effect that the space inside the earth is slightly smaller than the diameter of the earth as measured from the outside.

In essence, I'm thinking that technically the neutrinos don't break the speed of light, even if it appears so from our measurements.
AuntieMatter
1.5 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2011
My thought? Tunneling. An electron can tunnel through a barrier and arrive faster - by the amount of time it would have taken to travel the distance of the barrier - than it would have if the barrier were not in place. Why not a neutrino?
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
Interesting thought that the neutrinos must "phase" in and out of our space-time. The equations still stand, Maxwell and Einstein can feel safe.
I wasn't referring to FTL, but more the stogy convention that matter is something special. All it is are phase waves moving inward and outward coherently. If the universe ceased to exist the matter would also cease, because no phase-conjugated phase waves are being reflected into the matter to support it's standing wave. Mach hinted as much. Now the interesting corollary is that only other matter reflects the phase waves. Is all matter equal or is there a tuning process at work? On one end of the extreme we have traverse waves [light] which are forbidden to penetrate the electron shell Faraday cage. On the other extreme we have longitudinal scalar waves which only interact with nuclei. Westerners have no instruments to detect longitudinal waves and the science is kept under tight wraps.

Anyhow phase waves go infinitely fast
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
And longitudinal scalar waves are also infinitely fast. Or at least many multiples of c.
Causality is not violated by FTL neutrinos. It simply means that the experiment is anti-casual. The causality is flowing backwards in a time-reversed manner. The very existence of antimatter demands that laws of nature and causality work for antiparticles as well as ordinary matter.

What this experiment demonstrates is that the old rule, requiring that the group velocity must always be less than c, has been broken definitively. The new rule that the front velocity must always be less than c may also have been broken. But Einsteins rule that the signal velocity must be less than c remains in place for the moment. Perhaps causality violation requires a time-reversed antimatter apparatus. However the operation of such might require some regauging so that nature's balance is preserved and the anti-causality is hidden from us or unable to disrupt our timeline by mobius loops.
hush1
3 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
The pending outcome's verdict harbors potential.
The potential of zero ambivalence.
An unconditional love of science.
Rare.
Ober
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2011
If interested, I wrote more about it here:

Point-five Past Lightspeed
http://www.isthis...htspeed/

Cheers!


Nice article!


My virus scanner claims there is a trojan coming from that site!!!!
Turritopsis
1.2 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2011
Another possibility is that the neutrino particles actually do interact with matter, just not observably.

The neutrinos could give the energy they carry to the atom they impact, however, at exactly the point of impact the atom gives out neutrinos equivalent to the ones it absorbed. When the neutrino impacts an atom it becomes extradimensional (non-existent to us dimensionally, virtual) while a new neutrino emerges 180 degrees from the point of impact on the atom.

This would cut out some distance every time the neutrino passes through an atom (not literally passes through - it is absorbed and its equivalent is emitted out on the far side of the atom.)
Turritopsis
1.2 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2011
To help understand the mechanics here is an anological representation.

Atom=Table. Neutrino=Brick.

You place a brick on the edge of the table. You then slide a second brick into the first bricks place. Now the second brick is on the edge, the first has moved. You slide a third brick on the table, it is now on the edge. You keep adding on bricks sliding them onto the table until the first brick reaches the opposite edge. Now at the speed of light slide one more brick behind the last one you put on. The first brick you put on the table will fall off the table in less time than it would take for light to reach the edge.

If it takes 10 bricks to cover the table adding the 11th causes the 1st to fall off 10 times faster than the speed of addition.

The neutrinos could be cheating by employing a ringer (another neutrino that continues its run). The neutrino enters an atom as another one exits(which can only be exactly the same as the one entering it without violating natural laws).
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2011
This is easily testable. Test the speed of the neutrino in a vacuum.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2011
The most likely reason for the FTL anomaly would be instrumental. The timing mechanism is most likely skewered. How could energy in its pure form (light) be surpassed?

The only realistic way is by understanding dimensions (physical scales).

The neutrinos we see as minorly interactive (if reactive at all with the matter we see) could be intricate componentry of the matter of other dimensions (other scales).

We are very spectrally limited in range. It is hard to prove alternate dimensions as the equipment required to detect it requires scale equivalent to the dimensional scale we are trying to observe. If the "object" we are looking to find is on the scale order of 100 universes our equipment would be required to decipher those physical dimensions.

Point being, the neutrinos could be traveling at (or even below) lightspeed but appear to travel faster because they reside extradimensionally only periodically intersecting our spectral dimensional view. Like skipping space-time.
scidog
1 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2011
maybe it should be changed to say "light under natural conditions" and not shot from a gun--so to speak..
Temple
1 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2011
If interested, I wrote more about it here:

Point-five Past Lightspeed
http://www.isthis...htspeed/

Cheers!


Nice article!


My virus scanner claims there is a trojan coming from that site!!!!


I think you need to double check your computer:

Norton's Websafe gives it the green light. There's no trojan there. Perhaps some bad puns, but no malware.

http://safeweb.no...speed%2F
douglas2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2011
I still see the same thing as in the first experiment. We know the distance between the two events, and the time between the two events, unfortunately, one of the events is the detection of protons, while the other is the detection of photons generated by the mesons, generated by the nuetrinos in the detector. Unfortunately we do not have two nuetrino detectors aligned to observe the same pulse of neutrinos.
DarkPaintball
4 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2011
Another possibility is that the neutrino particles actually do interact with matter, just not observably.

The neutrinos could give the energy they carry to the atom they impact, however, at exactly the point of impact the atom gives out neutrinos equivalent to the ones it absorbed. When the neutrino impacts an atom it becomes extradimensional (non-existent to us dimensionally, virtual) while a new neutrino emerges 180 degrees from the point of impact on the atom.

This would cut out some distance every time the neutrino passes through an atom (not literally passes through - it is absorbed and its equivalent is emitted out on the far side of the atom.)

I like this theory. But even if the neutrinos are part of the other dimensions, we are still able to detect them, even if barely. What about different flavors of neutrinos? has that been taken into account, that it is possible more than 3 types of neutrinos exist?
thuber
2.7 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2011
Ever think about the fact that violations of the speed of light for particles where dXdP < h/2 would not be observable? Not to mention the uncertainty in measuring the time at that scale. Personally I always believed the speed of light to be approximate, and I don't worry about causality violation other than at a mathematical level. Time after time, when people invoke mystical cosmic censorship they are wrong. A simple example was the physical detection of the magnetic vector potential via the Ahronov-Bohm effect. Prior to that, the magnetic vector potential was considered a mathematical abstraction with no physical meaning. Personally, I look forward to further experimental results from the European group.
Musashi
not rated yet Nov 19, 2011
If interested, I wrote more about it here:

Point-five Past Lightspeed
http://www.isthis...htspeed/


JS downloader agent
Kedas
not rated yet Nov 19, 2011
About a systematic delay error:
Scientist conversation in about a month from now "How do you mean you can add an correcting offset on this device?" ;)
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2011
Point-five Past Lightspeed
http://www.isthis...htspeed/


AVG reports 2 pages with active threats.

kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2011
Does anyone know if this experiment corrected for the anisotropy of speed of light in the direction of earth's own rotation?

AVG reports 2 pages with active threats.
Try a real operating system http://freebsd.org/
kochevnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2011
Gravity between planets also seems to be transmitted instantaneously. Were that not a fact, any two planets will spiral into each other. At a speed c when the force of attraction starts out to cross the gulf, the forces would give a couple. That couple will increase the angular momentum of the system. Over time the orbital periods of the planets would change.

Binary pulsars also show that the position, and velocity of each body is anticipated with much less delay than c. A lower limit to the speed of gravity is calculated at 2x10^10c.
Cave_Man
1 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2011
All this talk about the method of timing and clocking this experiment are interesting. What form of energy are they using to synchronize the time between experiments? If they are using electricity I can't even begin to describe how complicated it must be measuring the distance and calculating the small delay in transmission prob about 1/20th of a second?

But what if someone were to set up a neutrino beaming experiment similar to this but with the synchronization set up using another neutrino emission and receptor as clocking mechanism. Actually that seems fairly pointless except to show that the calculations for the original clocking were set correctly which im sure they have.

I think FTL neutrinos would be pretty mundane anyways since they are obviously one of the lightest quantum "particles" and it could just be a mass effect of the heavier electron and photon. I did always expect high and low frequency photons to have SOME difference.
Cave_Man
1 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2011
But yet another conundrum is the fact that if it really was a relativity and speed of light issue we should not even be able to detect it unless our understanding of the speed of light is a little flawed. The way I see light is that it's almost magical in the sense that time wouldn't pass for a photon. So assuming you are a photon, in this case a neutrino, and you are traveling backwards in time, if it really is the case that neutrinos are FTL. Well if something is FTL and travelling backwards in time it very well could have arrived sooner than light because it would literally SKIP a step or steps on its long march to the detector.

But assuming einstein was wrong and the speed of light is faster than we have observed due to mass effect or frequency dependent characteristics of photons, wouldn't that alter how we understand most everything from cosmology to quantum mechanical interactions?
Cave_Man
1 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2011
Maybe someone knows whether neutrino oscillation or speed of the neutrino has anything to do with Stephen Hawking's proposed Hawking radiation, because if time is reversed (which we will never be able to see because our cognitive processes are at the speed of electricity) wouldn't these neutrinos, even though we detect them in the present, be building up in the past. And therefore at the conclusion of the universe there would be a huge amount of energy following the current space time coordinate. Reminds me of Langoliers that dumb movie.

But anyways I'm all over the place today, I would really love to talk to a physicist to get an idea of how little I know.
Koen
1 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2011
I am not impressed by a superluminal neutrino. Much more impressed by Podkletnov's experiments, and Dayton Miller's light speed experiments (Miller's data has been destroyed by the fraud and plagiarist A. Einstein).
OganOcali
not rated yet Nov 19, 2011
Interesting indeed. The claimed speed difference apparently does not apply to supernova neutrinos through space. Supernova 1987A (168000 Light Years) neutrinos were detected only a few hours earlier than photon arrival. At that speed difference supernova neutrinos should have arrived years before (and would be probably missed or ignored).
Isaacsname
not rated yet Nov 19, 2011
Another question, if you will.

Why do this with one distance, 700 km's, as opposed to a set of varying distances ( I know it's more complex than throwing together Lincoln Logs and Tinkertoys ) ? Is there a point at which neutrinos would be accelerated that can be determined by testing this statistically at different distances ? Is there any specific statement or conjecture at what point in their journey they are exceeding the speed of light, ie, at the start or ending, or are they just seeing statistically some of them at some point are exceeding " light speed" ?
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 19, 2011
The first hypothesis would be that no acceleration takes place because it is the easiest hypothesis and we usually tend to go for Occams Razor before throwing in additional variables like (non-uniform) acceleration.

The path of the neutrinos passes straight through the Earth. So putting a detector somewhere in between is hard. It means you have to dig far down because of the Earth's curvature. And since the in-between part is mostly the Alps that's doubly difficult.

As you say: Setting up a detector isn't childs play (or cheap) and before we have exhausted any other possibilities we should check those that are easier to verify.
Temple
not rated yet Nov 19, 2011
@bluehigh:
Point-five Past Lightspeed
http://www.isthis...htspeed/


AVG reports 2 pages with active threats.



I found the hole and fixed it up. Thanks!
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2011
Dense aether theory models space-time with density gradient of particle environment. At the phase surface a pair of solitons is always formed: the slower than the speed of surface waves which results from mutual interference of surface wave with waves inside of more dense phase - and the faster one, which results from interference of surface wave with less dense phase.

In this model the neutrinos are supersymmetric counterpart of photons, i.e. the photinos. They're always moving with superluminal speed, until their energy is not lower, than the energy of CMBR photons. And the photons are always moving with subluminal speed, until their energy is not lower, than the energy of CMBR photons. Bellow this threshold, the roles of neutrinos and photons are exchanged.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2011
You can imagine the neutrino like the chiral vortex ring, which rolling beneath the water surface in similar way, like the Falaco soliton. At the moment, what the neutrino lose its charge due the quantum noise, it behaves like Majorana particle, i.e. sterile neutrino. Such neutral neutrino is propagating like the sound wave through underwater, i.e. in higher speed, than the surface ripples which are serving as an analogy of light waves. It will make a sudden jumps, which will allow it to move with superluminal speed.
sender
1 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2011
Boltzmann-einstein quantum relativity of semi-dirac processes should be easily mapped from the telemetric correlation of the experiments thus far.
rah
1 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2011
Has anyone mentioned the fact that since neutrino's have a non-zero mass that they cannot even match the speed of light, much less exceed it? Are these Italian scientists related to that other Italian scientist who is currently selling a cold fusion machine, the E-Cat?
spaceagesoup
not rated yet Nov 20, 2011
Turritopsis - interesting concept (longitudinal wave model / neutrino ringer effect) but there needs to be a mechanism to account for this. so far, no good as we don't see neutrino interactions with matter in most cases, and the known effects don't work in this way.
jmlvu
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2011
If neutrinos do travel faster than light then they can escape a black hole which would be really cool. Didn't some experiment notice an excess of neutrinos coming from the center of our galaxy where there is a massive black hole.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2011
Has anyone mentioned the fact that since neutrino's have a non-zero mass that they cannot even match the speed of light, much less exceed it?
You can imagine it like sound wave soliton spreading through underwater in speed higher, than the surface waves. This soliton makes the water more dense at the place, where it's spreading, so it behaves like massive body - but it still propagates faster, than the surface wave allows.
For example, you can imagine, the antimatter is formed with bubbles in vacuum (Dirac), so it should repel the normal massive body. But it has inverted time arrow at its surface (Feynman), so its antigravity is positive at the very end. The fact, it's a bubble manifests only during its acceleration, after then.
The neutrino are violating equivalence principle, because their inertial mass isn't equal to the gravitational one. Which is why the clouds of dense matter composed of neutrinos are violating equivalence principle too.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2011
If neutrinos do travel faster than light then they can escape a black hole which would be really cool.
I do believe, they're really doing it and we even have some indicia for it. Many massive black holes are emitters of neutrinos, through their polar jets in particular.

For example, the recent wave of global warming can be connected to the neutrino eruption from central area of Milky way. http://aetherwave...ves.html
Montec
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2011
The speed of light is dependent on the time rate within the path of said light. Are neutrinos also dependent on this time rate? If not then the neutrinos will travel at a faster rate/speed than light. So any difference would be a measurement of absolute time rates.
:)
tonche
not rated yet Nov 20, 2011
The earth has varing amounts of gravity at different regions of the globe the speed differential could be caused by gravity variations...
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 20, 2011
There is a time dilation effect due to different gravities at different locales. Being in a gravity field is the same as being in an accelerated frame of reference: different gravitational strength equals different frame of reference.

However that effect is very small between these two points (too small to account for this magnitude of difference).
Osiris1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2011
Many here make the statement about c being the so called speed of light in a vacuum. However, let us make first the statement about terminal velocity. That is terminal velocity of a falling object in our atmosphere, which is about one hundred and twenty miles per hour. The falling velocity is (-32 ft/(sec^2))(delta t[sec]) which after a few seconds seems to yield fantasyuntil we start to have to accept the reality that the acceleration forces are countered by the resistance forces in the viscous medium, air, through which any earthbound falling matter falls. Space is no different. Space is NOT empty, and has Reynolds, Froud, and other maybe undiscovered viscous resistances as well. There is no perfect vacuum.anywhere, so c really is an imaginary number. As lightspeed is variable depending on media, etc., so it can also be variable in supposed vacuums that are really highly dispersed plasmas, gases, liquids, and solids, and other states of matter yet undiscovered.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2011
Therefore what we perceive as 'c' is really an average of many differences on the resolution in multidimensional space of the discontinuous partial differential equations in many unknowns governing its travel from source to observer. Statistics! That is what has yielded what we popularly want to call 'c', because until we find something better, many of us 'want to believe' in Dr Einstein's work simply because it has worked well so far, and one never gets fired, loses tenure, loses professional face, or loses promotability...for continuing to robotically support his work. For all we know, the functions governing 'c' may be akin to the tangent ratio, hyperbolically tending to infinity as one approaches true vacuum through decreaingly positive values. Now of course if in space we could create a near vacuum in front of a craft using energy fields then we ..maybe..could see an 'increase' in 'c' depending on how efficient our field generators..and clear out impactors as well.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2011
ICARUS experiment rejects the OPERA findings

http://www.reuter...20111120

As I explained already here, the absence of Cherenkov pairs formation could serve as an evidence for sterile / Majorana particle model of superluminal neutrinos instead.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2011
The speed of light is dependent on the time rate within the path of said light. Are neutrinos also dependent on this time rate
IMO neutrinos cannot ignore the gravity field completely (or we couldn't observe them at all) - but they're fuck*ing it more, than the photons. After all, for photons all massive bodies pose a nontransparent trap, but the neutrino can pass through them (nearly) freely. So we could use them for observation of interior of stars or even black holes in distant future. For example, this is how the interior of Sun appear in the neutrino detectors.

http://atropos.as..._sun.gif
daywalk3r
3.7 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2011
After all, for photons all massive bodies pose a nontransparent trap, but the neutrino can pass through them (nearly) freely.

That's because photons (whose wavelength is usually many many orders of magnitude larger that the diameter of a neutrino) interact with electrons/shells, which again have many many orders of magnitude larger effective radius than that of the nuclei.

So "many many orders of magnitude" times "many many orders of magnitude" represents roughly the difference in probability between a photon interaction (getting absorbed) and a neutrino interaction (hitting the bullseye of a bullseye of a subatomic particle somewhere inside the nuclei, and causing some havoc) happening.

For example, take our Solar system, filter our every object smaller than Mercury, and replace everything that's left (every planet the Sun) with a grain of sand. Now send an H atom straight through at close to the speed of light..

What's the probability it will encounter one of the grains?
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
the resistance forces in the viscous medium, air, through which any earthbound falling matter falls. Space is no different.

Coparing an atmosphere to space is a bit of a stretch. Proof? If there is resistance then there is an energy transfer from the travelling object to the medium. No such transfer of energy has been observed in space or in any vacuum experiment.

Space is NOT empty, and has Reynolds, Froud, and other maybe undiscovered viscous resistances as well.

Again: Proof? has ANY lab experiment ever shown this?
MarcelF
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2011
I am wondering if they took into account the curvature of the earth. The neutrinos will 'fly' in a straight line from source to detector, and not follow the curvature of the earth. If the distance from source to detector (the 732 km) is measured over the surface of the earth, the calculated speed will be wrong.

A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation of the shortest route (straight line through the earth) gives a distance of 731.597 km. This is 99.95% of the mentioned distance of 732 km, and would result in a neutrino speed below c.

Just a thought...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2011
I suggest you read the original article. It is well explained what types of things were considered in it

And yes: curvature of Earth is most certainly considered. They use the straight line. These are scientists. They're not completely stupid. If they didn't figure THAT in they would have never gotten the beam to hit the detector at all.

As a first approximation assume that scientists are a tiiiiiny bit smarter than any and all posters on physorg - including yourself. The 'basement teen that suddenly finds a flaw in some scientist's argument with his brilliant counter-theory' is a myth. That has NEVER happened.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2011
I am wondering if they took into account the curvature of the earth.
This is just a problem of these experiments - they're not using the direct comparison of photons from targets with neutrinos coming from the same source. Their interpretation is based on more than dozens of corrections, many of them are much higher, than the time difference observed. Which is why most of people are taking these results suspiciously - including the people, who actually do believe in superluminal neutrinos from good reasons (like me).

IMO the most robust confirmation would be simulation of supernova event at free cosmic space.

It is well explained what types of things were considered in it
If so, where we can find the correction of error, which is referenced here, for example http://www.techno.../27260/? Please, quote exact sentence from the latest OPERA article, which explains it - no further handwaving around.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2011
Proof? has ANY lab experiment ever shown this?
So far we have many experiments, which are demonstrating the particle nature of vacuum with analogies of various phenomena in vacuum, for example the

1) izomorphism of Navier-Stokes equations and Maxwells equations
2) hydrodynamic analogy of Biot-Sievert law
3) hydrodynamic analogy of double slit experiment
4) hydrodynamic analogy of atomic orbitals
5) hydrodynamic analogy of quantum tunnelling
6) hydrodynamic analogy of Hawking radiation
7) metamaterial analogy of event horizon of black holes

After all, even the CMBR noise and of detection of virtual particles in vacuum has a good analogy in behaviour of particle environment (Brownian noise).

If something looks like the elastic fluid, walks like the elastic fluid, and quacks like the elastic fluid, it's a fluid - not an elephant. After all, I can ask you for experimental evidence, in which the vacuum DOESN'T BEHAVE like the surface of fluid, being observed with its own waves.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2011
No handwaving required. I had linked to the full article in a previous post on this thread already. But for your convenience here it is again:

http://parthdu.wo...gs-beam/

They use a geodetic reference frame (ETRF2000) as explained in section 4 (Measurement of neutrino baseline).

Read it. Pay attention to the following parts:
...and by transporting their positions with a terrestrial traverse...

The 20 cm uncertainty is dominated by the long underground link between the outdoors GPS benchmarks and the benchmark at the OPERA detector


Please note the words TRAVERSE and UNDERGROUND. Thank you.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
1) izomorphism of Navier-Stokes equations and Maxwells equations
2) hydrodynamic analogy of Biot-Sievert law
3) hydrodynamic analogy of double slit experiment
4) hydrodynamic analogy of atomic orbitals
5) hydrodynamic analogy of quantum tunnelling
6) hydrodynamic analogy of Hawking radiation
7) metamaterial analogy of event horizon of black holes

None of which have shown a friction analogy. I specifically asked for an experiment in which energy transfer from a moving entity into the 'ether' of space is observed.

I think you're taking your analogies WAY too far. You're trying to use higher level analogies to get a grip on fundamentals. This is a completely wron approach.
you might be inetersted in this interview by Feinman (especially the end of it), where he points out the problem with such an approach
http://www.youtub...PId_6xec
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2011
None of which have shown a friction analogy.

It belongs into 1) isomorhism of Navier-Stokes equations and Maxwells equations. For example the Lense-Thirring drag for gravitating bodies and Wayne drag for charged bodies. http://www.aether...hism.gif
vortex0
1.5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2011
Where does the idea that relativity does not allow tachyons to exist comes from?

The only such argument I can remember is a fallacy.
1. If a particle travels from A to B faster than light, then for some set of observers the particle arrives at B before leaving A (true).
2. If the particle is reflected at B and sent back to A, then the same rule is valid: for some set of observers it arrives at A before leaving B (true).
3. Therefore, for some observers the particle reaches back A before leaving A (false).
Why is the last statement wrong? Because there is no observer that can satisfy both 1 and 2. They are mutually exclusive.

AFAIK, nothing changes in relativity if we confirm that neutrinos can travel faster than light.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2011
Lens Thirring effect transfer any energy into the 'ether' (or whatever it is you are postulating). If it did then moving bodies in space would slow down and come to a stop on their own. This is not observed.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2011
Where does the idea that relativity does not allow tachyons to exist comes from?

There are solutions to the relativity equations which allow for tachyons. However, we should always remember that having a valid solution does not automatically mean that there has to be a real entity that conforms to that solution.

Theories model reality in SOME aspects. Reality does not have to conform to a theory in ALL aspects.

Or, to use the classic way of putting it:
"The map is not the territory."

Tachyons with color charge or electrical charge have already been ruled out (because they would be easily observable). This leaves weakly and gravitationally interacting tachyons. But we have no experiment, yet, that could detect them.

rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2011
This is not observed.
It was observed many times, for example at the case of slowing of fast rotating pulsars. For example the famous troll case: In 1974 Russell A. Hulse and Joseph H. Taylor located the slowing of PSR 1913 16, attributed it (incorrectly) to gravitational waves radiation and they even got Nobel price for it in 1993. Although whole this story is apparently just about Lense-Thirring drag inside of binary systems.

Relevant http://imgs.xkcd....inos.png
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2011
Where does the idea that relativity does not allow tachyons to exist comes from?
The relativity formally allows tachyons, but it becomes singular for the speed of light - so it cannot handle subluminal-superluminal transitions. In dense aether theory the gravitational waves and photons of wavelength longer than CMBR radiation are tachyons. They cannot be stable inside of 4D space-time because of their insintric antigravity and they're dispersing fast.
vortex0
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
There are solutions to the relativity equations which allow for tachyons. However, we should always remember that having a valid solution does not automatically mean that there has to be a real entity that conforms to that solution.


Of course. But the point is: detecting tachyons do not imply invalidating relativity, contrary to what some people are saying.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2011
But the point is: detecting tachyons do not imply invalidating relativity, contrary to what some people are saying.

It would invalidate causality (which is fundamental to Relativity - and most all other theories we have with the exception of QM).

So with faster-than-light particles (tachyons or the neutrinos from the article - if that pans out) we would not be dealing with a minor exotic/interesting effect, but with a major, MAJOR shift in scientific paradigm. This isn't good or bad per se. I would find it massively interesting to live in a time where such a shift occurs. But we'll just have to wait and see how the experiments turn out.

whole this story is apparently just about Lense-Thirring drag inside of binary systems

Note the word BINARY system. TWO objects working on each other. Not one interacting with the 'ether'.
vortex0
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
It would invalidate causality (which is fundamental to Relativity - and most all other theories we have with the exception of QM).

Would it? If you can prove that, for some observer, an effect would happen before the cause at the same point in space due to tachyon interactions, then I would agree. In my example, that would be something like A receiving a signal before sending it. That would be absolute violation of causality (all observers would agree on that). Isn't this version of causality enough for Relativity?
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
I'm no theoretical physicist so I'll just give my layman's take on this:

If there was a way to transmit information at superluminal speeds you could have different observers that disagree on whether something happned somewhere else simultaneously.

An observer could never be sure whether a cause precedes an effect (and thus causality would become dependent on your frame of reference - i.e. subjctive and not fundamental).

This corresponds to the third case in your post in which an observer could use the incoming signal to decide not to send the outgoing signal in the first place (sort of like killing your own grandfather)

There are ways of arguing around this (a multi-world hypothesis would be one) but they are even more problematic on their own because they require infinities.
vortex0
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
This corresponds to the third case in your post in which an observer could use the incoming signal to decide not to send the outgoing signal in the first place (sort of like killing your own grandfather)

My point was that AFAIK the third case does not happen even for superluminal signals. And I don't see as necessary that causality applies for space-separated events. But I'm open to be convinced otherwise.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
I was constructing an explanation and failed. Figured someone must have already got one and googled a bit (funnily the google led me to a link posted on the physorg physics forum):

This one seems pretty convincing to me:
http://www.thecul...089.html
ErnieP
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
Any chance that the opposite is happening? That is, the neutrino is actually traveling exactly at c, but it's the photon that is a bit slower than c. That could happen if the photon has a finite rest mass. I recall people trying to determine if a photon has a finite rest mass; best one can do experimentally is determine an upper bound (around 10E-50 grams). Maxwell's equations get modified slightly to Proca's equations. The consequences of a finite rest mass for a photon is that its speed depends on frequency (lower frequencies travel slower) and the inverse square law is not exactly "2" for the exponent. QED has major problems with a finite rest mass for the photon, however.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
That is, the neutrino is actually traveling exactly at c, but it's the photon that is a bit slower than c.

No photon was sent between the detectors. The time compared to was one how long a photon WOULD take if it WERE to be sent via the same route in a vacuum ('the same route' is through 730km of rock, so we can't really send a photon to check)
SeeShells
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
12.94 minutes is the difference in one light year neutrinos would exceed light speed. Why don't we see this in the real world when we observe a supernova? 1987A is about 168,000 light years from us, so working it out 12.94 x 168,000 = 4 years 1 month 19 days 6 hours. I believe for a supernova that's not that distant. Is my math correct? What am I missing?
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2011
"Why don't we see this in the real world when we observe a supernova?" - SeeShells

Perhaps not all neutrino's are alike. Perhaps the mechanism for their production in supernova is misunderstood. Perhaps the lab results of wrong.

On which side of the fence does your faith reside?

As a scientist, I have no faith.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
"That is, the neutrino is actually traveling exactly at c, but it's the photon that is a bit slower than c." - poopie doopie

What photon? This test wasn't a race.
SeeShells
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
Faith? (chuckling) For years I had my businesses in the cutting edge of engineering and science. I even built and designed imaging systems for the Super conductor super collider and consider myself very blessed to have had the career I've had. In answer to your faith question, if curiosity is a faith in itself, than I have it in spades.

From what have just read they have said that the neutrino's from a supernova are different in energy levels. Maybe, but questions still arise as to why we don't see this in nature.

I need to read some more. Thanks.
daywalk3r
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 21, 2011
Space is NOT empty, and has Reynolds, Froud, and other maybe undiscovered viscous resistances as well.

Again: Proof? has ANY lab experiment ever shown this?

He is however correct that space is NOT empty, and that there is NO perfect vacuum.

For example, there are heaps of photons (EMR) and neutrinos constantly flowing through even the most pure vacuum of (interstellar/intergalactic/etc.) outer space. This does also ultimately affect the speed at which light propagates through it, however the effect is so miniscule (relatively), that it is often neglected.

By accepting that perfect vacuum does not exist, it would be incorrect to assume, that there is no "energy-transfer" happening (or external forces exerted upon), when an object propagates through it. There is very little net effect, mostly due to much of the force mutually cancelling out and the relatively low mass of photons/neutrinos, but never zero, as neutrino flux and radiation pressure is localy never isotropic.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2011
"That is, the neutrino is actually traveling exactly at c, but it's the photon that is a bit slower than c."
It's actually quite relevant idea. The space-time isn't flat and it's full of tiny and subtle density fluctuations (space-time curvatures), which are manifesting like the CMBR photons. These density fluctuations are slowing the photons the more, the more their wavelength differs from the wavelenght of CMBR noise. The neutrinos lack the EM charge, so they don't interact with EM waves and photons so much, so they can move faster. On the contrary, the charged particle like the electrons are slowed down with this field quite apparently, when they're moving with the speed, which is close to speed of light. Because these density fluctuations are subtle, it explains, why the speed of neutrino doesn't differ from the speed of light too much.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
He is however correct that space is NOT empty, and that there is NO perfect vacuum.
No one is contesting this. Only the analogy that stuff moving through these zero point fluctuations somehow experience some kind of drag. The net impulse (indeed the net energy) of any such fluctuation is zero. So there is no way to impart a force on the moving object.

there are heaps of photons (EMR) and neutrinos constantly flowing through even the most pure vacuum of (interstellar/intergalactic/etc.) outer space. This does also ultimately affect the speed at which light propagates through it,

Photons do not directly interact with one another (however they do bend space - as do neutrinos). Light apparently slows down in a medium (gets absorbed and reemitted a lot - but travels at c in between these events). But other photons don't count as a medium since two photons will simply superimpose.

If you want to be pedantic the occasional atom in space could be considered a medium.
daywalk3r
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 21, 2011
No one is contesting this. Only the analogy that stuff moving through these zero point fluctuations somehow experience some kind of drag. The net impulse (indeed the net energy) of any such fluctuation is zero.

"Zero point fluctuation" is just the QM way on how to "explain" things. But when it comes to the explanation of WHY these "fluctuations" happen, all that QM has to offer are refferences to the uncertainty principle.. No offense to all the die-hard CI QM'ists, but allways when I see someone trying to put the HUP in the role of a fundamental law of the universe (using it as a base for building explanations on why the universe behaves like it does), it's double-facepalm time for me.

But ZPF/ZPE was not really part of the point I was trying to make, so back on topic..

Aswell as radiation pressure as neutrino flux DO impart a non-zero force on a moving object. The closer to the source (f.e. a star), the higher the intensity/flux, so the higher the net momentum transfer. >>
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2011
Neutrinos are relatively massless energy less mass. They are atomic ash. Photons could theoretically push the neutrinos in front of them as they spread (time) through space (3D).

Maybe it is possible for light to push atomic ash infront of it as it moves through space.

Light moves at speed of charge. Negative charge, positive charge, ....... Light is neutral em energy (both positive and negative).

Neutrinos don't have em. They're dead mass so they're not limited to speed of charge. They have so little mass that they can ride on light as it permeates space.

The light pushes the neutrinos out.

Test. Varied distances. If the time difference is equal at all distances then the neutrinos are just riding on light. If the time difference gets larger at greater distance and smaller at a lesser distance then it is a different effect.

If the time difference is always the same then the ash is getting pushed out through the lightbeam emerging just in front of the light always arriving early.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2011
This would have true dimensional implications had the neutrinos em energy. Electromagnetism is time. If charged particles moved at a speed higher than speed of charge they'd be charging. Reverse time. Instead of decaying the particle would be assembling. Em mechanism reversed. But em is time. So time would go backwards.

Since neutrinos are dead decay of particles they have no electromagnetic energy. (no forward, no reverse, time).

Particles with no em energy are not bound to lightspeed (photons are em force carriers).

This could materialize into the greatest finding in science. If there is a way to encase atoms in energyless pockets of space you can pass through 3dimensions with no em energy (time).
bluehigh
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2011
Even IF an effect could transmit a signal to an observer faster than its associated cause could send the same information, it in no way implies that the cause followed effect. Causality is a fundamental property of our reality and cannot be violated.

If there was a way to transmit information at superluminal speeds you could have different observers that disagree on whether something happned somewhere else simultaneously.

An observer could never be sure whether a cause precedes an effect ...


So what? Just because an observer cannot be sure of the timing information, in no way invalidates the fact that cause always precedes effect. Any reasonable observer, when faced with information that seems to violate causality would conclude that the signal has been corrupted and go searching for a reason.

antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 22, 2011
"Zero point fluctuation" is just the QM way on how to "explain" things. But when it comes to the explanation of WHY these "fluctuations" happen, all that QM has to offer are refferences to the uncertainty principle..

Isn't that good enough? If it can be shown that actually having absolutely 'zero energy' is entropically higher than having a small fluctuation then that is a pretty convincing argument (following from thermodynamics)


Aswell as radiation pressure as neutrino flux DO impart a non-zero force on a moving object.

Not on other photons.

Massive objects: Yes. But since the radiation is coming in from all sides almost equally (CMB) the net result is also zero impulse.

Close to a star that is a little different - but only a TINY fraction of space is so close to a star that it makes any difference. And once you pass the star it gives you all the impulse back it took you when you were heading towards it. Minus red/blue shift. But for that you have to go REALLY fast
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Nov 22, 2011
"...but questions still arise as to why we don't see this in nature." - SeaShells

Other than the results of a single supernova explosion, I don't think "we" have looked before.

Is that not one reason why "we" have not seen before?

Oh.. I forgot to include that perhaps Neutrino's moving through rock don't move like neutrino's that are moving through a vacuum.

Like you though, I expect to see an experimental error found.

rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2011
Neutrino's moving through rock don't move like neutrino's that are moving through a vacuum.
It seems, the neutrinos are moving faster in gravity field of Earth than through vacuum (supernova), which violates not only special relativity, but the general relativity too.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2011
"Maybe they are just moving faster because they are trying to get away from you Rawa?

Isn't that a violation of something or other?
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2011
Maybe... Do you feel violated somehow, Vendicar?
Otto_Krog
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2011
What if the speed of light isn't constant, as some physicists suggested recently?

What if the speed of light varies through time and space?

That would create some interesting theory. At least I think so.

Antimatter is the mind and consciousness of all living entities.

You are your own universe.

Reality is where the minds (antimatter) meets the physical universe.

Interested? Then read my philosophical multiverse theory.

Google crestroyer theory, and find it instantly.

DarkHorse66
1 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2011
@ErnieP
Any chance that the opposite is happening? That is, the neutrino is actually traveling exactly at c, but it's the photon that is a bit slower than c. That could happen if the photon has a finite rest mass. I recall people trying to determine if a photon has a finite rest mass...). The consequences of a finite rest mass for a photon is that its speed depends on frequency (lower frequencies travel slower).

In this (hyperthetical) case, the opposite would hold true. Frequency is treated in an equivalent way to mass.
Mass: the higher the mass of an object, the lower the terminal velocity.
Massless (assuming frequency determines a variable version of velocity of light): Frequency: the higher the frequency, the lower the terminal velocity. I would also recommend that you look up the definition of RELATIVISTIC mass, esp w.r.t. light. Best regards, DH66
DarkHorse66
1.5 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2011
P.s. Also, for the neutrino to be travelling faster than a photon, it would need to have a smaller mass than said photon. This particular scenario is EXTREMELY unlikely. Cheers, DH66