Einstein was right, neutrino researchers admit

Jun 08, 2012 by Harumi Ozawa
Picture shows Albert Einstein at a press conference in 1950. A team of scientists who last year suggested neutrinos could travel faster than light conceded Friday that Einstein was right and the sub-atomic particles are -- like everything else -- bound by the universe's speed limit.

Scientists on Friday said that an experiment which challenged Einstein's theory on the speed of light had been flawed and that sub-atomic particles -- like everything else -- are indeed bound by the universe's speed limit.

Researchers working at the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) caused a storm last year when they published experimental results showing that neutrinos could out-pace light by some six kilometres (3.7 miles) per second.

The findings threatened to upend modern physics and smash a hole in Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity, which described the velocity of light as the maximum speed in the cosmos.

But CERN now says that the earlier results were wrong and faulty kit was to blame.

"Although this result isn't as exciting as some would have liked, it is what we all expected deep down," said the centre's research director Sergio Bertolucci.

"The story captured the public imagination, and has given people the opportunity to see the scientific method in action.

"An unexpected result was put up for scrutiny, thoroughly investigated and resolved in part thanks to collaboration between normally competing experiments. That's how science moves forward."

The neutrinos were timed on the journey from CERN's giant underground lab near Geneva to the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy, after travelling 732 kilometres (454 miles) through the Earth's crust.

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, the preliminary experiment had shown.

Researchers updated the science community on Friday at the International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics, being held in Japan's ancient capital of Kyoto.

"The previous data taken up to 2011 with the neutrino beam from CERN to Gran Sasso were revised taking into account understood instrumental effects," the team said.

"A coherent picture has emerged with both previous and new data pointing to a neutrino velocity consistent with the speed of light."

The initial findings had been greeted with a combination of excitement and scepticism, even from those involved in the experiment, who urged other physicists to carry out their own checks to corroborate or refute what had been seen.

"If this result at CERN is proved to be right, and particles are found to travel faster than the speed of light, 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: Information storage for the next generation of plastic computers

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 ...

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 ...

Recommended for you

How to test the twin paradox without using a spaceship

Apr 16, 2014

Forget about anti-ageing creams and hair treatments. If you want to stay young, get a fast spaceship. That is what Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicted a century ago, and it is commonly known as "twin ...

User comments : 81

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gmurphy
5 / 5 (16) Jun 08, 2012
According to the wikipedia page, the errors were caused by an improperly attached fiber optic cable and a fast clock oscillator. A painful mistake, my sympathies to the scientists involved, we've all been stung by false signals in the data, one way or another.
Origin
1.1 / 5 (30) Jun 08, 2012
I'm not very convinced with this outcome anyway. For example, there is a graph of all superluminal neutrino observations and these results fit the linear curve rather well. If there was a fixed delay caused with fiber optic instrumentation, it still doesn't explain the dependence of this delay to the energy of neutrinos observed at OPERA. We definitely need another experiments, but my qualified guess is, this dependency is real and it has a good meaning in context of dense aether model.

Albert Einstein: "When the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts".
Origin
1 / 5 (29) Jun 08, 2012
There is another indicia for superluminal neutrino behavior in dense aether model. Normally, the massive object spread slower than the speed of light due their charge, which interacts with vacuum environment. But the neutrinos are conjectured to form the neutral version of neutrino, so called the Majorana particles. Such a neutral particle would behave in similar way, like the graviton i.e. the soliton of gravitational waves (GWs), which are supposed to be highly superluminal in dense aether model. It's because the GWs correspond the underwater sound waves in the water surface model of space-time in AWT. The formation of sterile neutrino would therefore appear like less or more sudden jump through space-time, during which the charged neutrino will change into its neutral form during brief moment of time. These jumps will not violate the relativity, because we couldn't observe the neutrino during it.
Husky
5 / 5 (22) Jun 08, 2012
got to admire einstein for all those billion dollar experiments they didn't have in his time ultimately concluding that he was and is for the most part right all along, how many lightyears ahead of the crowd can you be?
jibbles
4.5 / 5 (23) Jun 08, 2012
origin, will you please give it a rest already? you aren't changing minds. you are only polluting the comment thread.
Origin
1.1 / 5 (35) Jun 08, 2012
you aren't changing minds. you are only polluting the comment thread
How could I pollute the Socratic discussion with logical arguments? On the contrary, it's just you who is polluting this thread with subjective ignorant negativistic opinions. We all know, what the relativity theory is saying, but the superluminal neutrino speed may be the quantum effect. The quantum mechanics is full of superluminal phenomena.
For example, when the first result of OPERA appeared, the mainstream press seriously speculated, such a finding could serve as an evidence of extradimensions. Are you smarter, than the physicists, who proposed such an explanation? If these results would be confirmed, then the media would be full of celebrations of "New Physics" adored just with trolls like you...
ant_oacute_nio354
1 / 5 (29) Jun 08, 2012
Neutrinos move faster than light.
This is the truth.

Antonio Saraiva
Kurt Nalty
1.2 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2012
Experimental evidence always trumps, but here is a persuasive line of argument for superluminal neutrinos.

We see only left-hand neutrinos, only right-hand anti-neutrinos. This means that we cannot shift velocity, and see a change in helicity distributions. This in turn implies neutrinos are moving at least at light speed. Now, we see neutrino oscillations. This implies neutrinos have mass. Having mass, they cannot travel at light speed, and from the first sentence, they must be travelling at or faster than light speed. Consequently, we find neutrinos must be superluminal.
MrGrynch
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 08, 2012
got to admire einstein for all those billion dollar experiments they didn't have in his time ultimately concluding that he was and is for the most part right all along, how many lightyears ahead of the crowd can you be?


Its far easier to theorize about a thing using abstract means such as mathematics. Its another to actually test them. Einstein didn't have those means, nor did the world-at-large at that time.
kris2lee
1 / 5 (1) Jun 08, 2012
Did they repeat the experiment with the fixed apparatus?
Origin
1 / 5 (19) Jun 08, 2012
Einstein didn't have those means, nor did the world-at-large at that time.
Special relativity says, we cannot observe the object moving with superluminal speed, but during experiments the neutrino isn't actually observed along WHOLE its path. Only if we would do follow the neutrino thoroughly, then we could say, that the superluminal result would violate the relativity.

Instead of it, we can for example say, that the neutrino annihilated in contact with some vacuum fluctuation and it materialized again after while at different place. So what we can observe during OPERA experiments may be actually two different neutrinos and the relativity theory wouldn't be still violated.
kaasinees
1.4 / 5 (16) Jun 08, 2012
Einstein certainly is a great inspiration for many people, however he was no math genius at all. It was just that he had help to convert his philosophy into predictable math.
Origin
1 / 5 (11) Jun 08, 2012
Did they repeat the experiment with the fixed apparatus?
I hope so. But I would prefer to have these results replicated with direct comparison of the speeds of the neutrino and photon jets in the same tube. The GPS based measurements may still introduce a bias into comparison of neutrino and light speeds.
R2Bacca
5 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2012
Only if we would do follow the neutrino thoroughly, then we could say, that the superluminal result would violate the relativity.


Not possible - Heisenburg Uncertainty Principal.

that the neutrino annihilated in contact with some vacuum fluctuation and it materialized again after while at different place. So what we can observe during OPERA experiments may be actually two different neutrinos and the relativity theory wouldn't be still violated.


Hyperspace is fun to think about, isn't it?
Origin
1 / 5 (14) Jun 08, 2012
Not possible - Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
This just illustrates, the quantum mechanics principles (not principals) enable to violate the relativity in small extent. Until the fluctuations of neutrino location will not exceed the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, then they can be cumulated along sufficiently long path of neutrino travel in such a way, the the speed of neutrino will exceed the light speed.

Hyperspace is contained even in water surface model of neutrino solitons, because the underwater is effectively a hyperspace for the water surface. When the quantum particle dissolves and condenses like this, it effectively travels in hyperspace back and forth along time dimension like the floater bounding at the water surface up and down.
jibbles
4.8 / 5 (21) Jun 08, 2012
dear physorg, am i the only one getting tired of having to wade through origin's fatuous filibuster of claptrap in order to find some insightful discourse?
Origin
1 / 5 (18) Jun 08, 2012
You're not required to read it or even see it. You can disable the downvoted comments from viewing at the private profile settings page. Anyway - as you can see - nobody opposes my points in logical way, so I don't think, they're wrong.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.1 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2012
Did they repeat the experiment with the fixed apparatus?
- kris2lee

kris, I thought the same things while reading the article. As far as I can tell, the results that they have are 1 positive and 1 negative. Going only by those results, they have come to a consensus without any further testing, I presume. Also, testing by any other scientific entity isn't going to have the same exact equipment used at CERN, and those other tests might also have faulty or defective instruments/equipment.
No, it's best that further testing should be done at CERN. Twice or 3 time more should be sufficient to determine what they hope to find.....or not.
After a few more tests at CERN, then and only then should others attempt to duplicate the results.
Origin
1 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2012
after a few more tests at CERN, then and only then should others attempt to duplicate the results
The science doesn't ask about order of experiment replication, until it's not driven with politics (after then it's not science anymore). CERN has no patent for its experiments, these tests can be done by anybody and anywhere and nobody should prohibit anybody in doing it. After all, CERN has made lotta tests with its technology already, and they remain controversial anyway, as you mentioned already.
Yirmin_Snipe
1.2 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2012
I've always been a bit confused on how someone could track or observe an object that traveled faster than light... if such an object did travel faster than light how exactly could you ever hope to prove it?

The whole concept of claiming nothing can travel faster than light always struck me as the same thing as a population of people without ears claiming nothing could create sound... if you can't actually observe something and everyone just assumes it doesn't exist, how could anyone prove them wrong?
Origin
1 / 5 (17) Jun 08, 2012
We actually observed many superluminal phenomena already (1, 2), so you can check for the corresponding methodology there.
baudrunner
2.1 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2012
While nothing in motion can exceed lightspeed, there is nothing to suggest that it is not possible to place an object at a distance quicker than it would take a photon wave to propagate there - "spooky action at a distance"; photon entanglement; etc.
Origin
1 / 5 (16) Jun 08, 2012
While nothing in motion can exceed lightspeed, there is nothing to suggest that it is not possible to place an object at a distance quicker than it would take a photon wave to propagate there
Placement always includes a motion. You should teleport such an object instead.
dan42day
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2012
Neutrinos move faster than light.
This is the truth.


Only the ones created by cold fusion.
Derek_TX
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2012
Origin, if you cant get published in journals... this comment thread is not the alternative.
Origin
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 08, 2012
Origin, if you cant get published in journals... this comment thread is not the alternative
I'm just proposing the alternative original way of thinking about this subject for laymans, who are visiting this forum - for scientists, who just need the continuation of their jobs and grants such an insights aren't useful at all - on the contrary. If they would, the physicists would consider the dense aether model before one hundred years already. But experts don't need the intuitive way of thinking about their secrecies for anything useful. From the same reason the alchemists published their findings in cryptic form, incomprehensible to laymans.
Hugo_Gasca
3 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2012
However, the theory of a expanding Universe implies light travels long distances faster then light does travel short distances.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2012
Derek, let him speak. I don't always agree with what Origin says, but whatever grain of truth he has to offer would have at least some value, my dear.
In the medical field, tests can sometimes result in false positives or false negatives, and the tests may have to be repeated many times along with other tests of a different nature to determine causes and methods of treatments.
There are guidelines in each as to how many times a test should be performed. There should also be more tests done at CERN, especially since they publish their results out to the public and you know how nervous the public gets. Look at the black hole eating up the earth crowd.
nano quantum
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2012
phew....i thought einstein was wrong........thank god.......he saved me
Origin
1.2 / 5 (14) Jun 08, 2012
Look at the black hole eating up the earth crowd.
The experiments with neutrinos at CERN have nothing to do with high energy collisions and they're inherently safe. IMO the microscopic black holes in the relativistic sense cannot exist and the other ones are already produced at CERN in form of atom nuclei. The strangelet subject is another matter.
gwrede
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2012
However, the theory of a expanding Universe implies light travels long distances faster then light does travel short distances.
Yes, if your reference frame does not expand with the universe.
rah
1.8 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2012
I said that they were wrong before finishing the first sentence when they first published and they're still wrong today, because the neutrino has a ghostly small mass. So its speed would be a shadow of a ghost slower than c.
brt
4 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2012
Origin, if you cant get published in journals... this comment thread is not the alternative
I'm just proposing the alternative original way of thinking about this subject for laymans, who are visiting this forum - for scientists, who just need the continuation of their jobs and grants such an insights aren't useful at all - on the contrary. If they would, the physicists would consider the dense aether model before one hundred years already. But experts don't need the intuitive way of thinking about their secrecies for anything useful. From the same reason the alchemists published their findings in cryptic form, incomprehensible to laymans.


Just because something is too complicated for you to put forth the minimal effort to understand, it doesn't mean it is cryptic. I don't know Spanish, German, most of the French language, or Chinese; but they are not trying to hide anything from me. You refuse to admit that you are too lazy to even try and understand.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (11) Jun 08, 2012
Einstein was right, neutrino researchers admit

Yes, it is o.k. But the remain problem is that his hypothesis about the speed of light is just an assumption, may be it would be better to know its mechanism which could explain why and how it is be so (in the paper below).
http://www.vacuum...id=20=en
brt
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 08, 2012
You know the problem I have with you Origin, You're just like every single other physics blog troll. You say that you're just explaining the alternatives for the layperson. YOU ARE THE LAYPERSON. It is the blind leading the blind. You spread conjecture rather than talk about how pre-aether, PRE-aether physics works. You refuse to learn anything about physics, yet when you read something online backed up by billions of dollars of research with the greatest mathematical,chemical, and physical minds in the world, and it doesn't fit into your view of physics as a person with their associates degree in business, you must flock to the least credible source of information in the world...the comments section of a website which takes decades of knowledge and sums it up into a few paragraphs that even a 5th grader could understand. You are crapping all over the purpose of this website. You are delusional if you think you are doing anything other than getting your say so in.
brt
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2012
And vacuum-mechanics, you moron. You're only slightly better by 1%. where in your paper, is any sort of mechanism for why the speed of light is the speed of light? Did you design an experiment to prove this? because hundreds of thousands of scientists have been doing it for decades. proving that the speed of light is the speed limit, that is.
Terriva
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 08, 2012
why the speed of light is the speed of light?
I don't understand your problem. The physics has some arguments for superluminal speed of neutrinos and I just adding few another ones based on water surface analogies, which are easy to imagine and understand. The AWT doesn't deal with the question, why the speed of light is 300.000 km/sec, because this speed is defined so in the SI. The fact, some theory cannot predict for example the boiling point of water doesn't render it useless in another areas.
..rather than talk about how pre-aether, PRE-aether physics works..
What the pre-aether physics is supposed to mean by you?
Burnerjack
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 08, 2012
I find the most striking aspect of this is the results of this experiment were announced to the world, refuting Einstein and possibly one of the key underpinnings of ToR, without retesting until all doubt was arrested. THAT in itself was the mistake. Technical problems happen all the time, they are called "flaws". This "mistake" was an agregious abbrogation of professional judgement. Would YOU (any of you?) make such an anouncement before you were sure, beyond even the slimmest shadow of a doubt?
The Beatles come to mind..."...Were so sorry, Uncle Albert..."
Burnerjack
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2012
brt, I understand and agree with you. It can be frustrating and annoying at times, but (remember, I'm on "your side"...) in the words of Bill Murray in the movie "Stripes"..."Lighten up, Francis..." "bigfoot's dick smells like cotton candy? F**kn hilarious! LMAO!
rwinners
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2012
Al holds the rights to this prediction now, but time will tell.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2012
Origin, I find your article about the "Castor Project" and Strangelets very interesting. Would you care to elaborate on how the dark matter would be produced at CERN and why it would cause earthquakes and the destruction of mankind? Also, does it have anything to do with aether wave theory?
TabulaMentis
1.2 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2012
If you want to travel faster than the speed of light then you will need to become a master of the first dimension. The second dimension and higher-dimensions are limited to the physics of the universe in which they dwell.

When I refer to the first dimension I am not referring to superstrings or M-theory because as we know those theories are limited to the speed of light.

Also, I will be glad when people stop referring to strings as subatomic particles.
Terriva
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 09, 2012
superstrings or M-theory because as we know those theories are limited to the speed of light
This is correct point, which reveals deep principal inconsistency of string theory, which is really based on Lorentz invariance postulate. Therefore the string theory cannot predict the superluminal neutrino speed even at the case, if it could prove the existence of extradimensions. By another words, the concept of special relativity and Lorentz symmetry of string theory and the concept of extradimensions are mutually exclusive. The string theory, which considers the both therefore can be never completely right and it leads to landscape of solutions.
This controversy can be understood easily with water surface model of AWT. If the (extradimensions of) underwater are involved, then the speed of water waves can never remain equal to the speed of surface ripples due their underwater scattering.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 09, 2012
Terriva, I kinda see where you're coming from. It's just that your analogy to surface ripples is a little daunting. Do you have any other analogy to use? Because now you're talking about "extra dimensions" where the neutrinos can move more easily without constraints? Is that it? What extra dimensions, and how do you know they exist? If neutrinos are moving through other dimensions, how many are there? I read in some threads that your universe is static and random? Could you explain that, please?
Oysteroid
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2012
I find the most striking aspect of this is the results of this experiment were announced to the world, refuting Einstein and possibly one of the key underpinnings of ToR, without retesting until all doubt was arrested. --- Burnerjack

But Jack, this is EXACTLY what they did. Give them some credit please - y'know, people working at CERN at the best (and costliest) equipment available today probably know what they are doing.

Specifcally: they waited for many months after initial discovery checking and re-checking everything they could think of but..when your results' confidence exceeds by two sigmas the standards required by the best scientific publications around...eventually it's time to call it.

Remember, from the very start they said they doubt their own results but can't find a fault with them - can you? Eventually someone did. Sounds fair to me. What would you say if they suppressed the results of their experiment and those results were later found to be true?
theon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
Incredible that the author does not mention the OPERA team. Not only should they take burdon of having been wrong (human as it may be), what do the other CERN teams have to do with this?
Osiris1
1 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2012
Of course those scientists want to keep their jobs, and the recantation of their work and prostitution of their ideals is clearly the path here to their own personal salvation from financial ruin at the hands of an establishment with money and contracts to protect. No one doubts Einstein publicly and survives professionally for long. No one! After all, the Emperor would not like it for his minions to tell him the truth, for then he would have to admit that he WAS naked!
MarkyMark
5 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
Origin, I find your article about the "Castor Project" and Strangelets very interesting. Would you care to elaborate on how the dark matter would be produced at CERN and why it would cause earthquakes and the destruction of mankind? Also, does it have anything to do with aether wave theory?

Lol love it when the crackpots here use alt accounts to create a 'debate' between there alts to create a false sence of achievement.
Terriva
1 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2012
What extra dimensions, and how do you know they exist?
In dense aether model the vacuum is behaving like the supercritical fluid which is full of foamy density fluctuations and the transverse waves of light are moving along surfaces of this foam, thus defining the 3D space. Whereas the longitudinal gravitational waves can pass through bubbles of vacuum foam directly, i.e. they can use shortcuts through additional dimensions and therefore they can move way faster. If the neutrinos are solitons of the gravitational waves, they could move slightly faster too.
other dimensions, how many are there
Aether Wave Theory based on dense aether model has no upper limit of extradimensions.
your universe is static and random? Could you explain that
This Universe model just uses the water surface analogy of space-time, again.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2012
Would you care to elaborate on how the dark matter would be produced at CERN and why it would cause earthquakes and the destruction of mankind? Also, does it have anything to do with aether wave theory?
Strangelets are concept of mainstream physics, and I didn't invented it, neither revealed its risk for collider experiments. In AWT all particles are glued together with low-distance analogy of Casimir force, which is similar to the surface tension of fluid. The force which are keeping the quarks together is known as an Yukawa force and the detection of Higgs boson is based on it. This force is responsible for formation of top-quark pairs (which would be otherwise unobservable) for example and so called glueballs.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2012
The general idea of strangelet formation is following: inside of small droplets the pressure of surface tension causes the huge compression of molecules, which could keep these molecules stable even if they would decompose in their free state. The neutrons may serve as a well known example of this stabilizing effects: they're unstable in their free state and they're decomposing with half-period of fifteen minutes. But being compressed inside of atom nuclei the neutrons are infinitely stable. Therefore it's speculated, the small droplets of quarks could stabilize the unstable heavy quarks inside of them up to level, these quarks would remain stable for a while.
Terriva
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
The combined results of CERN-italian experiments measuring the neutrino speed:
Borexino: t = 2.7 ± 1.2 (stat) ± 3 (sys) ns
ICARUS: t = 5.1 ± 1.1 (stat) ± 5.5 (sys) ns
LVD: t = 2.9 ± 0.6 (stat) ± 3 (sys) ns
OPERA: t = 1.6 ± 1.1 (stat) [+ 6.1, -3.7] (sys) ns
MINOS: t = -15 ± 31 ns
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2012
As expected from the analysis that showed exactly how they were wrong.

Did they repeat the experiment with the fixed apparatus?


I believe so. Mind, the initial paper where they found the error was so good that they didn't really need to. By furtitious circumstances they could check and correlate the timing chain (the erroneous part) with another experiment, and the period of wrong timing corresponded exactly to the after the fact discovered period of loose cabling and faulty oscillator. The new data is correlated by several other experiments data release at this time, showing relativity still rules, I believe.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2012
Not possible - Heisenburg [sic] Uncertainty Principal [sic].


Heisenberg's formulation of the uncertainty principle only describes position-momentum conjugate pairs. More generally, the uncertainty principle allows for imprecision in measuring conjugate pairs from wavefunction analysis. They do not allow for superluminal speed as such, and massed particles such as neutrinos must always propagate subluminally as per relativity.

@ Origin:

Anyway - as you can see - nobody opposes my points in logical way, so I don't think, they're wrong.


First rule of trolls, don't feed them. =D Second, empiricism isn't about "logic" but based on observation. And we all see the *logic* inconsistency here, as on the other thread you took every critical comment as supporting you. Here you take silence as supporting you. And no doubt you will take this comment as supporting you, which goes to "trolls, don't feed them".
astro977
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2012
Results of measurement:

Borexino: t = 2.7 ± 1.2 (stat) ± 3 (sys) ns
ICARUS: t = 5.1 ± 1.1 (stat) ± 5.5 (sys) ns
LVD: t = 2.9 ± 0.6 (stat) ± 3 (sys) ns
OPERA: t = 1.6 ± 1.1 (stat) [+ 6.1, -3.7] (sys) ns
MINOS: t = -15 ± 31 ns

is amazing all experiments except for MINOS give a value of
t> 0 which indicates that neutrinos are faster than light, yet as the measurement error is larger than the measured value OPERA physicists argue that neutrinos traveling below the speed of light which is an unconvincing conclusion is my opinion that it will take new measurements of the speed of neutrinos with a margin of error below the measured value to rule superluminosidad of neutrinos will also require a theoretical explanation of why the mass squared of neutrinos gives a negative value in many past experiments.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2012
kris, I thought the same things while reading the article. As far as I can tell...Derek, let him speak...my dear...Origin, I find your article about the "Castor Project" and Strangelets very interesting...
-The peculiar sucking sounds of the schizophrenic looking to glean favor and secure support. Outrageous. Greasy. Typical ritchieguy/russkiye/pirouette behavior.
In the medical field, tests can sometimes result in false positives or false negatives
-Says the phony nurse.
There should also be more tests done at CERN, especially since they publish their results out to the public and you know how nervous the public gets. Look at the black hole eating up the earth crowd.
-Say does that have anything to do with ritchies theory that all the matter in the universe will eventually become black holes, and that all these black holes will somehow reverse their accelerating dispersion to suck together into one massive black hole because, well, they are BLACK HOLES arent they?
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
Black holes are indeed a problem of steady-state Universe, because if the Universe would be infinite and the black hole wouldn't evaporate, then such an Universe would be full of black holes already. Instead of it, the black holes do form rather negligible portion of Universe matter and their amount doesn't increase with distance/age of the Universe significantly.

The superluminal neutrinos would help this conceptual problem significantly, because it would enable the black holes to evaporate faster, than the Hawking mechanism allows. So I'm rather dissatisfied with the above article even from cosmological perspective. I don't require the neutrinos to be a true tachyons, but at least slight superluminal bias in certain energy range would be welcomed.
Oysteroid
3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
Results of measurement:

Borexino: t = 2.7 1.2 (stat) 3 (sys) ns
ICARUS: t = 5.1 1.1 (stat) 5.5 (sys) ns
LVD: t = 2.9 0.6 (stat) 3 (sys) ns
OPERA: t = 1.6 1.1 (stat) [+ 6.1, -3.7] (sys) ns
MINOS: t = -15 31 ns

is amazing all experiments except for MINOS give a value of
t> 0 which indicates that neutrinos are faster than light --- astro977

No, they don't (and consequently - no, it doesn't).

Sorry, but your statement shows that you simply don't know how to read results like that. Basically, they say that we can't tell. Not on the basis of their results. All of their readings are compatible with FTL neutrinos and all of them are compatimble with Slower Than Light neutrinos. And now, Occam's razor comes into play...
LordKinyambiss
5 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
Orin.. in spite of the almost irresistible urge to insult you (you literally get on your knees and beg for it) I suggest that you go easy no the youtube science, smoke a joint and listen to sweet reggae instead buddy :)
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2012
Torbjorn
It's not fair to say that Origin/Terriva, etc. is a troll just because his views are different from yours, or mainstream physics. Give the devil his due. You'll never know....someday he might be proven to be right and you'll have to eat your words, dear.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2012
The general idea of strangelet formation is following: inside of small droplets the pressure of surface tension causes the huge compression of molecules, which could keep these molecules stable even if they would decompose in their free state. The neutrons may serve as a well known example of this stabilizing effects: they're unstable in their free state and they're decomposing with half-period of fifteen minutes. But being compressed inside of atom nuclei the neutrons are infinitely stable. Therefore it's speculated, the small droplets of quarks could stabilize the unstable heavy quarks inside of them up to level, these quarks would remain stable for a while.
- Terriva

Thanks for explaining. I like the strangelets and glueballs in mainstream physics.
So much to find out and so little time....LOL
I do appreciate your educating me, Terriva, even if I still don't agree with your random universe.
sirchick
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2012
This further makes me more impressed how Einstein managed to get these things so correct.

If only another Einstein would appear to further push and question our current knowledge and understandings.
jibbles
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2012
However, the theory of a expanding Universe implies light travels long distances faster then light does travel short distances.
Yes, if your reference frame does not expand with the universe.

while what hugo gasca says is effectively the case on vast cosmological scales, i wouldn't take it to be a fundamental law of physics. on the other hand, correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought inertial reference frames must always be taken to be local and flat and thus cannot "expand" as per gwerde. but then i don't know g.r. well enough to be sure...
jibbles
3 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
the grinding gears at the top of vacuum-mechanics' page says it all *lol*!

http://www.vacuum...id=20=en
Oysteroid
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2012
Grinding gears at the top of that page (^^^^^) are only an introduction. The really juicy stuff comes within. A fair warning though (or two...or three):

1. If you are a physicist or even a knowledgable amateur - have a good sense of humour up and running. That way you'll have fun.

2. If you are a psychatrist who accidentally stumbled upon this topic - have your pro skills up and running. That way you may find something of interest for you...professionally speaking.

3. For everyone else - have pity on your sanity and move on. Nothing to see there.
TabulaMentis
2 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2012
In order for religious texts to be correct a person needs to be able to communicate with the Gods a speeds faster-than-light or their prayers will never be answered.
ewj
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012
this experiment dates back to 1932 !! you cant move faster than spacetime is creating new space. This being the primary dimension Ut. In a book 'Absolute Relativity - theory of everything'. To have a box you need 3 dimensions. You can't have these 3 unless the primary dimension exists to enable space for them to exist. The primary dimension is creating new space second for second at the rate 300,000kms. THIS is what determines the speed of light. IF the primary dimension was opening faster - so would light....Forget this experiment and look for evidence in space for the Primary dimension such as simultaneous sun spots. If they are simultaneous THEN there is information between them. That will prove the existence of this most important dimension!
baudrunner
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2012
origin: Don't get me started on reading comprehension issues. I guess the ability to infer information is some kind of gift. Talk to Santa when the time comes.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2012
Inflatons are still to this day trapped inside each one-dimensional particle waiting to be unleashed.
Origin
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2012
Inflatons are problematic particles in theories, which aren't based on inflation.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2012
Inflatons are problematic particles in theories, which aren't based on inflation.
You may want to read this:
http://en.wikiped...Inflaton
Origin
1 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2012
I know, what the inflatons are supposed to be...;-) But in Big Bang theory the inflation is ad-hoced mechanism and there is no good reason, why the space-time should do such an extravagant things. Whereas in dense aether model the same scattering mechanism is responsible for both space-time "inflation" both for "subsequent" "expansion". Every can see, that the scattering of surface ripples accelerates itself with distance in avalanche-like mechanism, so that the speed of perceived water surface "expansion" would accelerate exponentially with distance from perspective of surface water observer.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2012
I do not normally give people a low vote, but Jibbles and Oysteroid deserve a low vote to match their low IQ and their lack of imagination.
AtlasT
1 / 5 (1) Jun 13, 2012
The imagination is not what counts in physicaly relevant discussions. The inflatons don't exist and they're adhoced in the same way, like the inflation concept itself. You shouldn't explain impossible process with nonexisting particles..;-)
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2012
The imagination is not what counts in physicaly relevant discussions. The inflatons don't exist and they're adhoced in the same way, like the inflation concept itself. You shouldn't explain impossible process with nonexisting particles..;-)
It will be centuries before humans will have an understanding of FTL. Inflatons are the best way to help explain FTL processes and I'm sure there will be changes to the idea over the next thousand years. I wish you good luck trying to convince the knowledgeable that inflation is incorrect. What you should be thinking about is what caused the big bang with such FTL force. Unfortunately, most of you believe everything came from nothing like your brains. Old Albert was wrong on this one; it is just a matter of time before he will indeed be proven wrong.
Maroci
5 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2012
What is it about physics that brings out the babbling idiots like Origin? Are chemistry forums full of lunatics claiming that "in layman's terms" water could be better understood to be H3O?
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2012
The contemporary physics operates with concepts, which aren't understood or even explained. Everything is some "particle" here: we (want to) have particles of light (photons), particles of inflation (inflatons), particles of gravity (gravitons) - but nobody understands, how these phenomena are working, how these particles are formed and what all these things are supposed to be. The not-understood phenomena are just "described" with another unexplained (usually unobserved) ones. It's not surprising after then, many people feel free to explain it. If the physicists wouldn't leave a logical holes in their theories, then the people like me wouldn never exist.
The fact, that physicists are feeling annoyed with these people is not surprising after then: even old theologists were upset with every attempt for explanation of God and God's intentions. Their theology worked only when these concepts were left unexplained as so-called dogmas.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2012
Agenda21
Agenda21
Ever notice how apples browser name, Safari, in the right font, looks a lot like 'Satan'? It does.

Youre not very skilled with sockpuppets either are you?

drneutrino
5 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2012
@Origin, please, stop. I'm sorry, I don't like calling people out, but what you say is not science. It's just nonsensical gibberish. Also to Kurt Nalty. And others that are just talking trash. Look, I know these results. I've spent years taking math and physics classes to be a professor of physics. As much as I wanted the neutrinos to have special superluminal speeds, it just didn't fit with the results from SN1987A. Anyway, it was a gross error which just happens sometimes in our complex experiments. It doesn't mean that we have tossed the scientific method (look it up please if you don't know it) out the window. The OPERA guys certainly did not throw it out the window.

Technically, it's allowed to have particles (we STILL don't know of any) that travel faster than the speed of light. They are called tachyons. By definition - they are NOT KNOWN PARTICLES. The problem comes when you try to cross the light cone, as that already takes infinite energy.
jibbles
not rated yet Jun 18, 2012
What is it about physics that brings out the babbling idiots like Origin? Are chemistry forums full of lunatics claiming that "in layman's terms" water could be better understood to be H3O?


i think it's the lure of the grandeur of cosmology and physics that just draws out the crackpots that tend to suffer from a complex of grandiosity or that fancy themselves great misunderstood thinkers whom history will vindicate.
TkClick
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2012
what you say is not science. It's just nonsensical gibberish
I don't insist, that what I'm saying is a science (it depends on how you define it), but you cannot call it a nonsense without proof. The proof of logical fallacy can be as coherent, as any other scientific argument and I don't waste my time with hypocrites, who even cannot argue logically, when calling my logic into question.
as I wanted the neutrinos to have special superluminal speeds, it just didn't fit with the results from SN1987A
If yes, why we aren't talking just about this particular galaxy? This galaxy was recognized just with observation of superluminal neutrino burst.

More news stories

Robotics goes micro-scale

(Phys.org) —The development of light-driven 'micro-robots' that can autonomously investigate and manipulate the nano-scale environment in a microscope comes a step closer, thanks to new research from the ...

Tiny power plants hold promise for nuclear energy

Small underground nuclear power plants that could be cheaper to build than their behemoth counterparts may herald the future for an energy industry under intense scrutiny since the Fukushima disaster, the ...

Hand out money with my mobile? I think I'm ready

A service is soon to launch in the UK that will enable us to transfer money to other people using just their name and mobile number. Paym is being hailed as a revolution in banking because you can pay peopl ...