'Faster-than-light' particles fade after cross-check

Mar 16, 2012
A scientist looks at computer screens showing experiments at the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) near Geneva, Switzerland.

Neutrinos do not go faster than light, according to fresh measurements of a test last year that had suggested the particles broke the Universe's speed limit, CERN said on Friday.

The new measurements were made by a team working independently from the scientists who had made the tentative but hugely controversial claim about "faster-than-light" particles.

Their findings "indicate the neutrinos do not exceed the speed of light," the European Centre for (CERN) said in a press release.

CERN said last month there may have been technical hitches that had skewed the initial measurements, something that critics of the findings said they had always suspected.

The controversy began last September, when CERN's so-called OPERA team cautiously announced that called neutrinos had travelled some six kilometres (nearly four ) per second faster than the velocity of light, described by Einstein as the in the cosmos.

The neutrinos were timed at their departure from CERN's giant underground lab near Geneva and again, after travelling 732 km (454 miles) through the Earth's crust, at their arrival at the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy.

To do the trip, the neutrinos should have taken 0.0024 seconds. Instead, the particles were recorded as hitting the detectors in Italy 0.00000006 seconds sooner than expected.

Knowing their findings would stir a storm, the OPERA team urged other to carry out their own checks to corroborate or refute what had been seen.

Visitor to the CERN watch a projection at 'Universe of Particles' exhibition in Geneva in 2011. Neutrinos do not go faster than light, according to fresh measurements of a test last year that had suggested the particles broke the Universe's speed limit

As part of this verification, an experiment called ICARUS at the Gran Sasso Laboratory took a separate look at the flight of seven that had also been recorded by the OPERA team.

It used a new measuring technique, called a time projection chamber.

"ICARUS measures the neutrino's velocity to be no faster than the speed of light," said Carlo Rubbia, a Nobel winner and spokesperson for the ICARUS project.

But he and CERN Research Director Sergio Bertolucci stoutly defended the rights of scientists to make exceptional claims and to the rights of others to verify them.

"Whatever the result, the OPERA experiment has behaved with perfect scientific integrity in opening their measurement to broad scrutiny and inviting independent measurements. This is how science works," said Bertolucci.

Rubbia added: "These are difficult and sensitive measurements to make and they underline the importance of the scientific process."

In February, CERN said that the OPERA team were verifying a cable connection and a timing instrument called an oscillator that may have flawed of the neutrinos' flight time.

Strengthening this scenario, Bertolucci said on Friday "the evidence is beginning to point towards the OPERA result being an artefact of the measurement."

But he said further verifications were being made, including new experiments with particle beams in May, "to give us the final verdict."

When the OPERA team went public with their findings, they predictably unleashed a barrage of tough questions.

Particles that travel faster than would smash a hole in Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity, a cornerstone of modern physics.

"If this result at is proved to be right, and particles are found to travel faster than the , then I am prepared to eat my shorts, live on TV," Jim Al-Khalili, a professor of theoretical physics at Britain's University of Surrey, declared at the time.

Explore further: Experiment with speeding ions verifies relativistic time dilation to new level of precision

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

'Faster-than-light' particles spark science drama

Dec 09, 2011

Oh Albert. Did you get it wrong? In 2011, physics was shaken by an experiment which said the Universe's speed limit, enshrined by Einstein in his 1905 theory of special relativity, could be broken.

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 ...

Recommended for you

How Paramecium protozoa claw their way to the top

Sep 19, 2014

The ability to swim upwards – towards the sun and food supplies – is vital for many aquatic microorganisms. Exactly how they are able to differentiate between above and below in often murky waters is ...

User comments : 50

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HROLLER
Mar 16, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dschlink
4.7 / 5 (21) Mar 16, 2012
It certainly was fun while it lasted. But that's how science works.
Kedas
4.4 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2012
Einstein probably rolled some dices in the path of the neutrinos to slow them down to light speed. ;)
supercat765
3 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2012
Just because it could "put a hole" in Einstein's theory does not mean that the rest of the theory will unravel.
There can be ways for neutrinos to be faster than Einstein's speed of light.
Like light in a quantum vacuum may travel slower than light without the quantum vacuum and Einstein used the first but the real limit is the second one. Thus letting neutrinos travel faster than light and still be lower than the cosmic speed limit.
javjav
4 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2012
light in a quantum vacuum may travel slower than light without the quantum vacuum

This is a nonsense. Either quantum vacuum theory is right or it is not. Both concepts can not be real at the same time.
Jason Chapman
1.5 / 5 (22) Mar 16, 2012
Its a shame scientists easily reject something that could benefit the human race in ways that we cannot imagine.

My question to the scientific community is this; what is the point of having the Kepler space telescope discovering all these new planets, if we will never be able to get there. Its like the Wright Brothers saying, weve built this machine that can fly but were never going to fly it because the skies belong to the birds. Stop dangling that carrot for your own self amusement will you.

Bunch of namby pamby defeatists if you ask me.
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (20) Mar 16, 2012
It certainly was fun while it lasted. But that's how science works.
The real fun will still begin, because I'm convinced, that the superluminal neutrino is real. Many deniers will be forced to retract their retraction.
Its a shame scientists easily reject something that could benefit the human race in ways that we cannot imagine.
This fast denial is undoubtedly politically motivated (the string theorists in particular don't like any violation of Lorentz symmetry, because their theory is based on it) - but I don't think, the superluminal neutrinos would have some usage in next fifty years. This effect observed was too minute to be utilized.
powerup1
4.3 / 5 (23) Mar 16, 2012
Its a shame scientists easily reject something that could benefit the human race in ways that we cannot imagine.

My question to the scientific community is this; what is the point of having the Kepler space telescope discovering all these new planets, if we will never be able to get there. Its like the Wright Brothers saying, weve built this machine that can fly but were never going to fly it because the skies belong to the birds. Stop dangling that carrot for your own self amusement will you.

Bunch of namby pamby defeatists if you ask me.


Wishing does not make something true. This is the difference between science and magic or religion. Something has to be proven correct by the data, or it has to be thrown out. It does matter how much you want it to be the way that you want it to be. This is what is known as the real world.
kochevnik
2 / 5 (12) Mar 16, 2012
"Particles" moving near lightspeed will experience drag effects when the doppler shift of forward and backward phase waves exceeds the plank scale. The integrity of the particle begins to unwind, which in general relativity is explained as a "mass increase." The theories are in perfect agreement.
Bunch of namby pamby defeatists if you ask me.
Physicists are hobbled by the Standard Model. That said it's one thing to know your computer is a clunker, and quite another to build a better one.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (17) Mar 16, 2012
what is the point of having the Kepler space telescope discovering all these new planets, if we will never be able to get there

Who says we'll never get there? Finding where to go is the first step of the journey. Without that even thinking about a journey (given the vastness of the universe) would be pointless.
Callippo
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 16, 2012
Wishing does not make something true. This is the difference between science and magic or religion.
In history of science we experienced a temporal decline of evidence of uncomfortable findings many times. They were usually confirmed few generations later.
gmeisel
4.6 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2012
Just because it could "put a hole" in Einstein's theory does not mean that the rest of the theory will unravel.
There can be ways for neutrinos to be faster than Einstein's speed of light.
Like light in a quantum vacuum may travel slower than light without the quantum vacuum and Einstein used the first but the real limit is the second one. Thus letting neutrinos travel faster than light and still be lower than the cosmic speed limit.


Also, this has a lot to be with string theory and M-theory. Another way neutrinos could travel faster by light, is by taking shortcuts in one of the eleven dimension that supposedly exist on this theories. Neutrinos can go faster than light without violating relativity by going outside our "universe on a membrane" and coming back inside.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (12) Mar 16, 2012
Somebody makes a clean discovery that benefits mankind by overturning a theory that has far outlived its usefulness except to wall street bankers and other groups with axes to grind of their own, like some republican favored religions, then the liars move in and crank up the propaganda machine. Notice the agency now running away from the truth and trashing their own people. Fact is fact, and the walking corpse of the 'speed of light speed limit so lets revert to medieval societies on earth' idea will rot and stagger on for a while until some foreign group not beholden to politics or religion or hero worship will forever consign this false idol to the dustbin of history along with flat earths, phlogiston, four elements, and others. Old Albert himself was not an idol worshiper, and would probably welcome the enabling of interstellar travel and communication. Take the Chinese to develop the hardware and the new theory.
Callippo
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 16, 2012
this has a lot to be with string theory and M-theory. Another way neutrinos could travel faster by light, is by taking shortcuts in one of the eleven dimension that supposedly exist on this theories
The neutrino case just illustrates the conceptual controversy of string theory. The same phenomena, which could confirm the existence of extradimensions violates the fundamental postulates of special relativity, on which string theory is based too.
From perspective of dense aether analogy of space-time with water surface it's rather easy to understand, the existence of (additional dimension of) underwater manifests itself just with phenomena, which do violate the absence of reference frame for surface wave spreading (i.e. with dispersion, quantum noise, etc.). We cannot have background independent space-time and some extradimensions observable in it at the same moment.
vacuum-mechanics
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2012
May be understanding what really the light wave is, why its speed is constant and how it has no rest mass (in the paper below) could guide the way to know better why and how neutrino cannot move faster than light!

http://www.vacuum...id=20=en
MarkyMark
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2012
Wishing does not make something true. This is the difference between science and magic or religion.
In history of science we experienced a temporal decline of evidence of uncomfortable findings many times. They were usually confirmed few generations later.

Callipo wishing for Cold Fusion is just that, a wish!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2012
Also, this has a lot to be with string theory and M-theory.

How so?
Another way neutrinos could travel faster by light, is by taking shortcuts in one of the eleven dimension that supposedly exist on this theories.

That's the problem with M-theory. There is no verification (or even test) of it, yet. So wether a shortcut even exists is still very much an unknown.
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2012
ICARUS measures the neutrino's velocity to be no faster than the speed of light
It's important to understand the subject here. ICARUS didn't actually measured the neutrino velocity, it tried to measure Cherenkov radiation which the superluminal neutrinos should produce. But Cherenkov radiation is predicted with theories based on invariant speed of light. If superluminal neutrino would violate these theories, it will probably do it just with violation of their predictions.

In AWT (based on dense aether model) the neutrinos are behaving similarly to so-called Falaco solitons at the water surface. They exhibit a pretty oscillations in similar way, like the neutrinos. And they don't generate a wake wave during this, which is the analogy of Cherenkov radiation at the water surface. The internal spin of vortex contributes to its speed in such a way, the vortex doesn't spread a waves around itself, being a completely still.
Callippo
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2012
ICARUS experiment enables to measure the energy of products resulting from collision of neutrino with extreme precission, which enables to measure energetic spectrum of OPERA neutrinos. In this extent it's a useful complement of OPERA experiments. But the ICARUS finding is nothing new in this context. We known from many other neutrino experiments (SuperKamiokande, IceCube), that the neutrinos itself don't lose any perceptible energy during it motion through space at any energy, no matter how high their energy is. We knew it many years before, so that the number of arguments against superluminal neutrinos actually didn't increase, as the uninformed reader of this article may understand it.
Turritopsis
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2012
Neutrino: mass - small, but non-zero; spin - 1/2; charge - 0

If neutrinos really have no charge they don't interact ElectroMagnetically. This means that the EM speed limit (lightspeed) does not apply to them. Also, Cherenkov radiation applies to EM particles, no EM energy, no cherenkov radiation.

Get it straight. Either state that neutrinos are charged particles - and EM rules apply, or that they aren't - and EM rules don't apply (and neither do Einsteins laws).

It can't be both ways. They can't have no EM interaction AND be bound by laws that pertain to EM quanta.

I'm not sure whether neutrinos are charged particles. If they aren't they're exempt from Einsteins laws.

Since neutrinos are created when leptons emerge from atomic nuclei during nuclear reactions you can say that the acceleration of neutrinos stops at the leptons max speed (lightspeed). This is no different than stating that your cars max speed is 200 km/h, but, strap a rocket to your car and goodbye 200km/h max.
brt
2 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2012
It would be nice if those publishing these articles would go into furer depth. Imagine you receive a nobel prize for your work on something based strongly on the speed of light being absolute; how far would a person go to defend their reputation? pretty far. give us as much info on the subject as possible.

Once the source of error is found,they should be able to replicate the mistake in order to prove that they found it. In my view, to say you did another test which was "a far more simple and cleaner experiment" as Rubbia stated, means that you reduce the level of precision; in which case, of course it would show they did not exceed the speed of light...because the measurement was an approximation. For the same reason that Relativity Theory is not a theory of everything, it's an approximation.

Turritopsis' comment also makes a good point that everyone is overlooking:if neutrinos possess no charge,then they are not subject to the laws of relativity rooted in electrodynamics
Jotaf
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2012
Turritopsis: I don't see how having no charge leads to not being subject to the c limit. There are plenty of macro structures with net charge of 0.
apkrishna
4.5 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2012
I read that loose joints of GPS system and optic fiber cable is the reason for the whole dilemma. I could not understand that in what way this is the responsible? Also I read in another article that if this is the case then neutrino actually move still faster than light. Which one is correct? confused. OK, ICARUS experiment failed to show Cerenkov radiation. But as far as my knowledge goes, for this the medium is required. In the medium not only neutrino, even light moves slower. That means in the experimental medium are they expecting neutrino to move with velocity greater than the expected velocity of light in the medium? How it can becoming a proof for the fact that neutrinos will not travel with velocity greater than light velocity in air or vacuum?
rah
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2012
In fact, neutrino's do not move at the speed of light, but a small fraction SLOWER! I got a surprising amount of online hate at the time, for stating the basic facts of physics. Since the neutrino seems to have a small mass (which has not been nailed down yet)in the range of 1.5 electron volts, it cannot possibly match the speed of light. I expect heartfelt apologies (or cash) now, from anyone who sent me any guff previously.
tkjtkj
3 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2012
..But he said further verifications were being made, including new experiments with particle beams in May, "to give us the final verdict."


It's interesting that the author commends the OPERA team on its adherence to basic principles of the scientific method .. and then continues, violating terms of the method him/herself! There is no 'final' word in science! Any discovery and its alleged proof are always .. as in: "ALWAYS" open to question... even a 'proof' that disproves a 'discovery' can never be considered 'a final verdict'. I'm sure the author of the above understands this and I offer this comment to suggest we must be ever vigilant in such matters.
(What a wonderful opportunity now for me to voice my own 'pet peeve': the tendency of scientists to mislead laypeople by referring to viruses as being 'alive' !! They are not! , by any standard. Nor are they 'organisms'. It saddens me to see biologists making this error!)
antialias_physorg
2 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2012
If neutrinos really have no charge they don't interact ElectroMagnetically. This means that the EM speed limit (lightspeed) does not apply to them.

Photons don't have a charge, either - yet are limited to light speed. I think you need to revisit your textbooks to find out what 'electromagnetic' and what 'charge' means.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2012
Photons do have an oscillating charge perpendicular to the direction of light wave propagation. Secondly, photons are bosons, neutrinos are not.
foofighter
Mar 17, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2012
Photons don't have a charge, either - yet are limited to light speed. I think you need to revisit your textbooks to find out what 'electromagnetic' and what 'charge' means.
In dense aether model the neutrinos are photinos, i.e. supersymmetric partner of photons. They always move with slightly superluminal speed (with exception of the lowest and highest energy neutrinos) in dual way, like the photons which are always moving with slightly subluminal speed (with exception of photons of low energy).
vega12
5 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2012
Photons do have an oscillating charge perpendicular to the direction of light wave propagation. Secondly, photons are bosons, neutrinos are not.

The speed of light limit is a feature of space-time being Minkowskian, and is not a feature of electromagnetism. Light goes at that speed only because it is massless. If the name "speed of light" is confusing you, then call it the "universal speed limit" for all I care.

Callippo, I surely hope you are getting paid for your spamming.
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2012
The speed of light limit is a feature of space-time being Minkowskian, and is not a feature of electromagnetism.
Actually not, as the speed limit has been derived a ten years before Einstein just from Maxwell's equations. Richard Feynman used this derivation in his lectures too. Because Maxwell's equations are aether model based, it means, the aether model could be used for derivation of constant speed of light instead of just assuming it in special relativity.

It's quite easy to understand it, because the light waves in Maxwell's theory are transverse waves of aether and the speed of all transverse waves is invariant with respect to their environment. The transverse wave doesn't interact with its environment in any way, so it cannot "know" about its absolute position and speed. The capillary ripples at the water surface are driven with surface tension only instead of gravity, so they're behaving so in this extent.
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2012
I surely hope you are getting paid for your spamming.
I would rather say, I'm just the only person on the world, which actually UNDERSTANDS this subject at its fundamental geometric level, so it's able to provide the geometric, particle based or social analogies for it. For example, the opponents of mainstream opinion tend to refer about events, which are supporting their individual stance, before all other people in advance, so they're behaving like the neutrinos in this extent.
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2012
Light goes at that speed only because it is massless.
Light (i.e. the abstract pure harmonic wave without beginning or end) is massless - not the photons itself, which are spatially limited and isolated particles. Actually, thanks to quantum noise of vacuum (which leads to the illusion of the Universe expansion) even the harmonic waves are slightly massive, so that the observable Universe is not infinite. Photons are solitons of harmonic waves and so they're (nearly) always slower than these waves and always of positive surface curvature and massive. Only photons of wavelength lower than the wavelength of the CMBR noise can occur like particles with zero or even slightly negative mass.
CardacianNeverid
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2012
I would rather say, I'm just the only person on the world, which actually UNDERSTANDS this subject at its fundamental geometric level -ClappoTard

The magnitude of your psychosis is enough to keep a small army of shrinks employed for years, if not decades!

See here for definition
http://www.ncbi.n...0002520/
5thabove
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2012
CERN's neutrinos exceeding the speed of light @ v-c/c=2.48 sec in 453.6 miles is an exact match with Stanford's SLAC E158 weak force asymmetry value showing the cause of 2.48e-5 is not the politics of a "loose fiber optic cable" checked countless times with the same "gain in space" shown by FERMI Lab's neutrinos supporting an observation that goes back to 1947 and is summed up in 2007 by G. Nimtz and A. A. Stahlhofen who also thought it occurs outside the bounds of SR [arXiv:0708.0681v1] not aware of the simple explanation E158 data provides with direct proof provided by SLAC's E158 data exposing a gain in 453.6 miles also @ 2.48e-5 with a .20 harmonic comma as I predicted for the needed asymmetry in the reverse arrow/phase of time the calculations reveal changing physics. SLAC's data comes from the distance light travels in 1000 years at the speed of light in a ratio to a 1 hour SOL gain making this comparative measurement the most spectacular ever made in physics.

John F. Hendry^^
5thabove
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2012
Einstein was right: there are no dice and {a} adds the cosmological constant needed to balance "H". But remember we are dealing with concepts built out of time so you can't have two sides of one concept at the same exact time. You can't put up where down goes, or movement (velocity) with non-movement (position). But since you can't have nothing (no Observer) without something (the Observer) to create the concept of nothing this logic creates an arrow to put a concept in an information frame whereas one side will tell you the other side. God plays cards to say "I Am" and slip us a new card in the middle of saying it.

Here is an important example of {a] in use.

Low to high entropy, E=h {a-lesser diesis}c/wavelength.
High to low entropy, E=h {a}c/wavelength. The lesser diesis is named Einstein's comma, but here it's Maxwell's Demon and it cannot be in two places at the same time/size.

"Relative to an Initial Inertial Frame of Reference there is only One Observer". Time separates us
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2012
is not the politics of a "loose fiber optic cable" checked countless times
The objections of ICARUS experiments against OPERA experiment existed already from the whole beginning. It's not new stuff at all http://www.scienc...os-83684

But these opponents were rather quiet/ignored when the whole world experienced first OPERA hype. Now the reliability of OPERA experiments was impeached (without publishing of official study though), so that the ICARUS people collected their courage and they decided to release their publication. But what actually changed during this? We know already, that the ICARUS experiments aren't consistent with OPERA experiments, until we interpret them with theories based on Lorentz invariance.
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2012
If you have look at the motion of Falaco solitons at the water surface, you can find a solution of this controversy even without direct measurement of the neutrino speed, because the Falaco solitons are moving with speed higher than the surface wave in wide range of energies - they simply cannot move in slower way. In special relativity the speed of massive objects converges to the speed of light by well known function and the neutrinos must violate this function in very pronounced way - even the lightest detectable neutrinos will remain superluminal with imaginary term of mass, they will never become subrelativistic. So that even measurement of the function of neutrino speed by energy should be enough for confirmation of imaginary mass of neutrino. The ultimate experiment would consist of observation of nuclear explosion at distant space. We could connect such test with attempt for some asteroid destruction, the only problem is, such experiment will violate the Outer Space Treaty.
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2012
If you look at the function of imaginary neutrino mass versus energy, you will see, that this function is pretty linear, which cannot be a coincidence. http://cr4.global...EF89.jpg Why the neutrinos aren't losing their energy with increasing speed if they've a positive rest mass? From this reason I've good reason to believe, the superluminal speed of neutrino measured with OPERA experiment is enabled just with absence of Cherenkov radiation, observed in ICARUS experiments. Actually, it's as strange behavior, as the observation of superluminal speed. In this sense, these experimental results don't violate mutually, but they're complementary instead.
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2012
In addition, the observation of superluminal speed of neutrino plays well with the whole neutrino oscillation stuff. During these oscillations the neutrinos effectively disappear from our sight. What they're doing during this? And how is it possible, we cannot detect them during this? In strictly deterministic physics such a ghostly behaviour is as strange as the superluminal speed itself. The most trivial explanation is, both these phenomena are deeply connected instead: we cannot see the neutrino during quantum oscillations, just because they're moving with superluminal speed during this, thus violating the causality based on radiative time arrow of special relativity. Without it we should find some other explanation for periodic disappearance of neutrino.

In this perspective, the periodic disappearance of neutrino just saves if not confirms the relativity: well, the neutrino CAN move superluminaly, but we CANNOT see it during it - so that everything actually remains perfectly OK.
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2012
The last argument for superluminal neutrino comes from search of Majorana i.e. sterile neutrino. The neutrino without any charge will propagate trough vacuum like graviton (Goldstone boson) or gravitational wave, which are supposed to propagate superluminaly in dense aether model. It means, the moment when the neutrino disappears during neutrino oscillations can be just the moment, when it converts itself into Majorana particle. This interpretation has been supported recently with finding of new mixing angle for neutrino oscillations in Daya Bay Nuclear Power Plant. It would mean, during at least 6% of life time the neutrino could propagate with superluminal speed like the particle, which remains unobservable due the relativity.

http://www.physor...ino.html
rolo7
3 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2012
The speed differential between of the two demonstrate that the neutrino is heavier than light, we already knew!
Callippo
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2012
The speed differential between of the two demonstrate that the neutrino is heavier than light, we already knew!
If the space would be fully flat, then the nonzero rest mass would always lead to the subluminal speed with no mercy.

But the vacuum is not completely flat - it's full of quantum noise. After then, the speed of light is not defined with speed of light propagation through flat space, but just with the speed of light spreading in this inhomogeneous environment.

After then following situation will occur: the sparse bubble will use the more sparse places of vacuum preferentially, it can travel across narrower space than the light itself, which would allow it to propagate in slightly superluminal speed. But because the inertial mass of particles is given with the whole gradient at the surface of bubble, then the whole bubble will still remain of positive rest mass. It will just exhibit the negative gravitational charge.
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2012
The concept of negative gravitational charge can be understood easily with using of water surface model of space-time. When the water surface is not flat, then every deformation slows down the spreading of surface waves - no matter, whether it is positive or negative (picture). It means, even the place, where the potential of gravity field is actually decreasing will have larger gravitational mass. It will just exhibit the less or more pronounced antigravity - but its inertia and lensing effects will remain exactly the same, like those of normal massive bodies.
thomowen20
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2012
This settles it for me. They did another experiment to confirm or refute the anomolous experiment. This is what I was waiting for.
Callippo
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2012
This settles it for me. They did another experiment to confirm or refute the anomolous experiment. This is what I was waiting for.
The results of this experiment were known already before the whole OPERA case started. http://www.scienc...os-83684 In this sense it's not new experiment in any way. And it's NOT the replication of the OPERA experiment in any way. It's quite different experiment, which can be interpreted both like the confirmation of OPERA experiment, both like the refusal of it. You apparently have no idea of what the replication of experiment actually means. Actually, neutrino physics is full of such anomalies already. For example, in Standard Model the neutrinos should be massless, yet they do oscillate. This is an anomaly by itself, which actually plays well with another anomalies observed.
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2012
This settles it for me. They did another experiment to confirm or refute the anomolous experiment. This is what I was waiting for.

Callippo happens to be correct. The conditions under which this experiment was done, are completely different. The key criteria for proving or disproving any initial results (assuming of course that the experiment was valid in the 1st place) are to replicate the original conditions, with the same methods and be able to get consistent results. ICARUS used an entirely different method. The two are not directly comparable. The only thing that has been achieved is that there is now some additional information for the researchers to puzzle over. It is a bit like taking a plane from New York to Amsterdam,then repeating the trip by boat. I will have proven that one journey is slow and that the other is quick (different speeds/results disagree). But the different methods will tell me,......cont
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2012
cont... that both trips make it possible to travel this route and get there (same routes/results agree). This might be a loose analogy, but it does kind of describe the nature of the differences between the two experiments. The only real difference is that we don't really know what the key item was that yielded the new results, or if this was even a suitably 'definitive' experiment. The only thing that we can really do, is wait for OPERA to finish their examinations and analysis - or for another facility to carry out a true replication. Best Regards, DH66
Pet_mar
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2012
I believe that we were not able to measure greater than light speed
because of the electromagnetic "nature" of the strongest forces we use.
The waves propagate with the speed of light.
Like a footbal - its velocity is approx. like the velocity of the player.
But the player can kick the ball.
We should try to make a similar experiment.
A beem of protons shoud be accelerated in CERN.
Then a beem of neutrons could be sent perpendicularly or at such angle
to not slow down the protons.
So we get a nuclear synthesis.
Will it get the nesessary kick?
Will some particles exceed the speed of light - in the direction
of the proton beam?
Pet_mar
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2012
A footbalplayer can accelerate a footbal by giving it a kick.
But it doesnt mean that te same footbal can reach any speed.
Lets try it to mount it in front of an Airbus.
Probably the football will collapse before the aircraft will reach
its march speed.
It can happen that mattery wil not tollerate any acceleration/speed.
May be elementary particles wil collapse like the footbal.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2012
Whole business is politics. Disagree with Einstein and your career is cooked like a maraca on a Mexican sidewalk food stand. It will take a foreign result in a lab whose funding is from real people unbiased by politics or the oil lobby. Look for this from China. They know how to take prudent risks and care nothing for moneyed 'opinion'. Alcubierre's ship will probably be built by them.
Terriva
1 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2012
Look for this from China. They know how to take prudent risks and care nothing for moneyed 'opinion'. Alcubierre's ship will probably be built by them.
I don't believe too much in it, because the 1) Alcubierre's ship is fringe concept based on misunderstanding of relativity 2) the Chinese are even more collectivist society, than the society of physicists. The China is pragmatic country and it parasites to all achievements of Western world with pleasure - but it's the cradle of most collectivist and dogmatic regimes in history too. For example, I never met with some evidence of some parallel scientific research dedicated to cold fusion, free energy or antigravity in China. Regarding its energetics it's still traditional country oriented to coal burning. IMO the cold fusion could lead to such energetic independence of individuals, it could destabilize whole this centralist system, so that the government of China will never allow it willingly.