Physicists: Did neutrinos break the speed of light?
November 23, 2011 By Linda B. Glaser
Professors of Physics Julia Thom-Levy and Eanna Flanagan prepare for an open discussion in Clark Hall about recent experimental results that suggest that neutrinos may travel faster than the speed of light. Photo: Lindsay France
(PhysOrg.com) -- The revolutionary news that an experiment measured particles traveling faster than the speed of light drew varied ages and backgrounds to a standing-room only physics department forum, "Faster Than the Speed of Light?," in Clark Hall at the Cornell University Nov. 17.
The experiment that triggered the excitement was simple: Scientists at the CERN accelerator in Switzerland fired a beam of neutrinos 730 kilometers through the mountains to the underground Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy and its enormous OPERA neutrino detector.
Neutrinos are expected to travel extremely close to the speed of light and would make it to Gran Sasso in 2.4 milliseconds, the time it takes a fly to flap its wings once, said Julia Thom-Levy, assistant professor of physics -- but the observation showed that they were 60 nanoseconds faster than light could have traveled.
Researchers calculated the speed by measuring the time difference between the neutrinos' departure from CERN and their detection in OPERA, with an accuracy within 1 nanosecond. Experimenters used a GPS satellite system, refined with Cesium clocks, for the timing, a procedure that is also used in radio astronomy.
But working with neutrinos is extremely difficult. Independent experimental confirmation is needed and will be provided by a similar neutrino experiment in the United States over the next few years. If OPERA's observation of neutrino speed is correct, said physics professor Eanna Flanagan, it presages a physics revolution and requires a new theoretical framework.
In the two months since the OPERA results were posted on the scientific database arXiv, more than 100 papers have offered explanations. But none of them satisfied physics professor Yuval Grossman. "Physics becomes more compact and more beautiful as we unify forces, and these explanations would make physics uglier," he said.
However, Grossman noted that while the commonly held understanding is that no object can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum (186,282 miles per second), what general relativity actually says is that there is a maximum velocity beyond which nothing can go. Since nothing has ever out-raced light, its speed has been assumed to be the maximum possible velocity. But what if neutrinos are faster?
"The laws of physics wouldn't change, only the universal constant," said Grossman.
One of the strongest arguments against OPERA's results is their conflict with the measurement of neutrinos emitted by Supernova 1987A. If neutrinos really traveled faster than the speed of light, the supernova's neutrinos should have arrived in 1983, not 1987.
But as one audience member pointed out, perhaps they did arrive in 1983 and no one noticed. Or perhaps the discrepancy of results is because OPERA's neutrinos traveled through solid rock, not the vacuum of space.
Still, while some current theories, such as those suggesting extra dimensions, might be able to incorporate neutrinos going faster than the speed of light, Grossman contended that they couldn't explain the amount of speed seen with OPERA.
Last month, OPERA researchers repeated the experiment with shorter neutrino bursts to eliminate one possible cause of experimental error; the neutrinos still arrived faster than they should have. The researchers subsequently submitted their paper to the peer-reviewed Journal of High Energy Physics. After the forum, many of the more than 150 attendees lingered, talking enthusiastically in small groups. Because despite all the reasons OPERA's results could be wrong, as one audience member said, "in physics, we never say we know anything absolutely because although it might have a low probability, that probability is not zero."
Provided by
Cornell University
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
4 comments
-
Why does a boiled egg rotates while a raw egg doesn't?
2 hours ago
-
Lightning strike in mindair
2 hours ago
-
Why does light move?
4 hours ago
-
How to calculate the repulsion force between a permanent and an electromagnet?
5 hours ago
-
Why does light allow us to see things?
5 hours ago
-
Room temperature superconductivity
5 hours ago
- More from Physics Forums - General Physics
More news stories
Is a classical electrodynamics law incompatible with special relativity?
(Phys.org) -- The laws of classical electromagnetism that were developed in the 19th century are the same laws that scientists use today. They include Maxwell’s four equations along with the Lorentz la ...
Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed
(Phys.org) -- An international collaboration of scientists, including Thomas Blum, associate professor of physics, is reporting in landmark detail the decay process of a subatomic particle called a kaon ...
May 25, 2012 |
4.3 / 5 (22) |
52
|
Lying in wait for WIMPs: Researchers seek to dramatically increase sensitivity of Large Underground Xenon detector
Although it's invisible, dark matter accounts for at least 80 percent of the matter in the universe. No one knows what it is, but most scientists would bet on weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs.
May 23, 2012 |
4 / 5 (7) |
18
|
Hawaii lab turns laser-powered bubbles into microrobots
(Phys.org) -- A team of scientists from the University of Hawaii are working on microrobots created from bubbles of air in a saline solution. The bubbles take on their title of robots as a laser ...
Sound increases the efficiency of boiling
Scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology achieved a 17-percent increase in boiling efficiency by using an acoustic field to enhance heat transfer. The acoustic field does this by efficiently removing vapor bubbles ...
May 24, 2012 |
5 / 5 (2) |
2
Stunning image of smallest possible five-ringed structure
Scientists have created and imaged the smallest possible five-ringed structure about 100,000 times thinner than a human hair and you'll probably recognise its shape.
'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...
Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study
At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...
Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture
When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if it will be an expensive undertaking.
T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows
By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...
Land and sea species differ in climate change response: study
(Phys.org) -- Marine and terrestrial species will likely differ in their responses to climate warming, new research by Simon Fraser University and Australia’s University of Tasmania has found.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Not just because of the GPS satellite correction, maybe the earth's gravity is slightly different at each location, causing time to warp slightly.
What do I know, I'm just a computing student with an interest.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
Or they haven't correctly measured the delay between the sensor being triggered and the time being logged.
If the research is correct, and the neutrinos did make it from A to B faster than light, then I think there is a possibility of some quantum effect being involved. The neutrinos may have tunnelled part of the distance.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (7)
-- James Ph. Kotsybar
Oh, little neutral one of tiny mass,
who flies anomolously from the sun,
you zip through matter photons cannot pass:
Could this explain the races you have won?
From Einstein, few believe that it could be
that any mass can go as fast as light --
its deemed complete impossibility,
assuming Relativity is right.
If proved, the implications terrible,
will give complacent physicists a scare.
In terms that twist the ancient parable
its you thats tortoise; the photons the hare.
It seems, though steady, light cant keep up pace.
You oscillate, and yet you win the race.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (11)
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
The main trick is, at the phase interface of supercritical fluids a two kind of solitons is always spreading. These solitons result from interference (coupling) of transverse waves and longitudinal waves. We have only one phase interface, we can have only one kind of transverse waves. But because we have two phases, we get two kinds of solitons here. One type of solitons will usually move in slower speed, than the speed of ripples at the phase interface and it corresponds the photons, the another one will move in higher speed, than the transverse waves and it corresponds the neutrinos.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (10)
http://cr4.global...EF89.jpg
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (9)
http://www.youtub...wZ39EDmw
Because the Falaco solitons are underwater density solitons, they tend to move with speed of underwater sound waves, which is much higher, than the speed of surface ripples. But because they're attached to surface, they cannot move too fast, so they propagate just with slightly higher speed, than the speed of capillary waves at the water surface (21 cm/second, or so).
The vortex model is good for illustrative explanations of neutrino oscillations and Majorana particle model, which plays the crucial role in superluminal motion of neutrinos. The underwater vortex are chiral, but their helicity is very subtle, so it can be switched with random fluctuations
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
But if it turns out that the detector simply is 18 meters off its spot on the blueprint...
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (9)
Because neutrinos are ignoring the EM charge of atoms and their virtual photons which are mediating it, they ignore the CMBR noise, which means, they can move a bit faster through it. The ignorance of neutrinos has therefore wide implications, because the weak fields of vacuum are of the same nature, like the stronger fields inside of matter. If you ignore one, you cannot not to ignore the others.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Agreed. I would love if a new area of physics opened up, but I just can't muster enough optimism to counter my common sense in this area.
c is a value which pops out of Maxwell's basic equations on electromagnetism. Much of modern physics, tested to a high degree of accuracy, is based on mathematical derivatives of those equations.
The equations break horribly for values greater than c. It's hard to imagine how they work so well when applied to all manner of different physics (Relativity, etc), and yet are fundamentally broken with regards to c.
Especially with the measurement being ever so slightly greater than the *exact* value of c we expect, I'm betting on sub-light neutrinos.
I wish that's wrong though!
More here if interested:
Point-five Past Lightspeed
http://www.isthis...htspeed/
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
1) According to Grossman, "...what general relativity actually says is that there is a maximum velocity beyond which nothing can go. Since nothing has ever out-raced light, its speed has been assumed to be the maximum possible velocity... The laws of physics wouldn't change, only the universal constant." This point is absolutely right.
2) Temple states that "c is a value which pops out of Maxwell's equations." (See Above) This is true. Maxwell, however, only states this to be the speed at which light travels. He says nothing of it being a "universal speed limit." Lorentz/Einstein made that assumption in writing gamma as sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). If there's a faster speed, it'd replace "c" the equation.
3) Similarly, throughout QED the "new" maximum speed would be added in place of "c." Trouble is, QED is accurate to within a hair's width relative the width of the continental US. A change in any way would diminsh the theory's accuracy. Where this leaves us, weiss ich nicht.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
But Einstein said electromagnetic energy can matterialize, and the reverse, that matter can dematterialize into pure energy.
The neutrino would flip Einstein on his head. Here we have a mass (however negligible) that is not energetic, but how can this be if e=mc^2? According to this nothing without energy can be massive.
The neutrino proves the physicality of matter. Disproves the electric universe. There is a physical mass gradient. We know Einstein is correct up to a point. The more energy that bit of mass acquires the more massive it becomes.
The takeaway? No charged particles can surpass lightspeed.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
It can't be. The two are polar opposites. The photon is energetic and massless while The neutrino is energyless and massive.
What is complexing to me is the mechanism that accelerates them to such great speeds. They aren't charged so the accelerant is not em energy. Weak nuclear force doesn't exist. The lack of strong nuclear force means the nuclear force is weakened (weak force). Neutrinos are resultant particles of weakened nuclear force.
This leaves the strong force (nuclear gravity). Gravity must propagate space at a greater speed than em energy.
It is only logical that space grows faster than light fills it. If space didn't expand faster than light there would be no space for light to spread into.
Gravity (which is the effect of strong nuclear at distance) reaches further than light in same time. Space grows faster than light.
There must be a gravity wave acceleratin
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
The universe had to grow faster than light or light wouldn't have anywhere to travel.
The speed space spreads is greater than speed of light.
Neutrinos aren't restricted to lightspeed because they aren't electromagnetic.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
An anology would be a rotating car wheel. Start the rotation and it is going clockwise. When the speed of rotation exceeds your ability to process the visual information the tire starts going counterclockwise. Now this is due to your ability to intake visual information. The tire is still going clockwise your brain is getting bits of information and drawing an image of what is happening.
If charge exceeded itself it wouldn't be an illusion such as the tire spinning in anti time (counterclockwise). The charge would get into a spot in space before itself. It would literally arrive in the past. Arrive before arrival.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
Gravity is faster than light. The graviton beats a photon in a race. Wager on that.
Nov 23, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
Nov 24, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
The release of strong nuclear force causes gravitational release (the particle dematerialized, nothing there to be attracted to). Gravity is reversed and is driving decay away from the dematerialized particle.
Antigravity causes distance between particles to increase. Dark energy causes distance between particles to increase.
Dark energy may be accelerating these neutrinos.
Dark energy is antigravity IMO.
Nov 24, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
The neutrino fits the criteria.
Nov 24, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
The inflationary period post Big Bang is said to have exceeded lightspeed. What can be learned here?
For starters, space is not restricted to lightspeed. :)
Nov 24, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Standard atomic clocks (cesium clocks) do not rely on gravity. The error bars for the clocks and the physical locations of the detector and emitters are the very first thing that would be checked. The chances this is the source of the error (and having not already been accounted for in the published 1 ns error bar) is so low as to be negligible. That's not where the problem is.
Nov 24, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Nov 24, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Nov 24, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Interesting from an existentialist POV. But I notice your examples are "either/or, one-or-the-other" - ish. What about a NUMBER of factors being part of the equation? Kind of an 'either/and/both/something-else' type of situation (sorry, thaty's the closest my cognitive abilities can come to describing my meaning).
Regardless, I am keen on the informed energy concept. It implies an "Intelligence" imbued in - everything - from the smallest nuclear particle to galaxies and beyond. It leaves me - breathless - in awe.
I want to establish that I am NOT a creationist or "intelligent designer". More that the "universe makes it up as it goes-along" thinker. with just a few simple rules to guide it... Gonna be funny when that "intelligence" decides to change the rules (if it hasn't already)...
Nov 25, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
http://www.youtub...wZ39EDmw
Try to imagine, you're a silly bubble, which is sitting at the water surface and all information, which it can detect is mediated with the surface waves only. Each soliton will make the water surface undulating and more large actually, so it would behave like area of space-time, which is slowing the another waves, travelling through it. From this perspective, both surface solitons, both underwater ones will behave like the particles exhibiting gravity and inertia. But their behaviour with respect to speed of surface wave spreading will be quite different. The surface solitons will always recede the surface ripples, whereas these underwater ones will tend to advance them.
Nov 25, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
http://www.aether...cal1.avi
The formation and spreading of surface solitons inside of such 3D surface will be much more complex, than at the free water surface. I presume, it's a much closer to the actual behaviour of simplest particles, like the photons and neutrinos. In particular, it would enable to model the chirality and spin for both types of solitons, while it still remains classical system.
Nov 25, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Nov 27, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
It seems to me that Einstein had it right and all you have to do is change space to change the maximum speed. Gravity bends space and there is definitely a bit of gravity and matter when traveling through the earth.
Nov 27, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
1) The first explanation says, the neutrinos in OPERA experiment are moving faster, because they're moving through (gravity field of) rock, at presence of which the difference in speed of neutrinos and photons becomes more pronounced
2) The second explanation says, the neutrinos in OPERA experiments are moving faster, because they're of higher energy, than the supernova neutrinos. I do prefer the second explanation, because of AWT and some (though still quite sparse) experimental support.
http://cr4.global...EF89.jpg
Apparently, both hypothesis can be distinguished easily in the future experiments.
Nov 27, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
.....and probably will. I suspect that Einstein simply grabbed the photon because nothing else was then available.
Nov 30, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
"The Neutrino as a Tachyon," Phys. Lett. B 150 (6), 431-435 (1985)
Nov 30, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
http://www.actaph...0113.pdf
http://www.tachyo...rino.pdf
And neutrino isn't really a tachyon, it cannot move with arbitrary speed, being attached to our space-time brane in similar way, like the Falaco soliton at the water surface. The example of true tachyons are gravitational waves/gravitons, which manifest with CMBR noise. They're traveling with speed at least ten thousand times higher, than the speed of light.
Dec 04, 2011
Rank: not rated yet