Neutrinos observed travelling faster than the speed of light

BBC News - Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

Assuming this isn't some error that they couldn't figure out (the more likely explanation in my opinion) then that's mindblowing. It'll be very interesting if anyone can replicate it.


Those of you who don't know much about the scientific process: pay attention! This is what good and responsible science does: it tries to falsify the claim, is very cautious about announcing what would be a massive development, releases information on the experiment for peer review, and awaits replication of the results.

I saw this. Personally, I hope the people at Cern are just lol'd at. If it's true, then damn, that opens up a lot more to theorize about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Personally, I hope the people at Cern are just lol'd at.

---

Depends on the nature of the error, if it exists. Sure, if it's something really silly then fair enough, but if it's some very strange error that's not easy to find the cause of then that doesn't deserve scorn.

In any case, they're still doing the responsible thing by subjecting it to review and not making any groundbreaking claims at this stage.

Yeah, even the people who discovered it are essentially treating it as a mysterious systematic error at the moment. We'll have to wait and see.

It seems doubtful that the results are right though; if the light barrier doesn't exist at all, it seems unlikely that something exceeding it would only do so by a tiny fraction. And it would seem to directly contradict (rather than just refine) the current model; a model which has tonnes of experimental evidence and even keeps satellites in space.

I realize I don't know much, but I'm interested in what these potential serious consequences would be if it does turn out to be true.

Absolutely incredible. So if this replicable there might be some evidence to show that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light. Then this might pave the way for conceptualising new forms of travel methods.

As well, this would also prove Einstein's relativity theory partially incorrect as a large part of it is dependent on the fact that nothing can exceed the speed of light.

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Yeah, even the people who discovered it are essentially treating it as a mysterious systematic error at the moment. We'll have to wait and see.

It seems doubtful that the results are right though; if the light barrier doesn't exist at all, it seems unlikely that something exceeding it would only do so by a tiny fraction. And it would seem to directly contradict (rather than just refine) the current model; a model which has tonnes of experimental evidence and even keeps satellites in space.

---

Well, we will know for sure if this replicable. You are right though; eventually a new model will be needed then. However, I think this is just a flaw is the data as it will take much more than 1 tiny fraction of a second to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity.

Not really. It's dependent on light always moving at the same speed... and it does. It's been experimentally verified (in fact the experiments preceded Einstein's explanation).

Interesting. Here is a sciencemag.org article on the experiment: Neutrinos Travel Faster Than Light, According to One Experiment - ScienceNOW

It has some nice quotes that seem to put the event into perspective:

"Chang Kee Jung, a neutrino physicist at Stony Brook University in New York, says he'd wager that the result is the product of a systematic error. "I wouldn't bet my wife and kids because they'd get mad," he says. 'But I'd bet my house.'"

"Still, Kostelecky repeats the old adage: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even Ereditato says that one measurement does not extraordinary evidence make."

"I suspect that the bulk of the scientific community will not take this as a definitive result unless it can be reproduced by at least one and preferably several experiments," says V. Alan Kostelecky, a theorist at Indiana University, Bloomington."

Kind of obvious that this will need a lot more testing and review before it actually means much, but it has the potential to be BIG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Not really. It's dependent on light always moving at the same speed... and it does. It's been experimentally verified (in fact the experiments preceded Einstein's explanation).

---

Exactly, I know that.

However, I referring to the fact special relativity states that a particle with mass will need infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light. Since the energy is infinite nothing can exceed this speed.

Faster-than-light travel discovered? Slow down, folks | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Faster-than-light travel discovered? Slow down, folks | Bad Astronomy Astrology | Discover Magazine

---

:cheeky:

Likely an error, but if this result is replicated then HOLYSHIT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Personally, I hope the people at Cern are just lol'd at.

---

Fan of Fermilab, are you?

http://jaitra.srichinmoycentre.org/f...carl_sagan.jpg

very interesting!
i guess we wait and see, one thought though...
is it possible to replicate this without spending billions on another hadron collider?

Awesome stuff. Can't wait to see what further investigation tells us. :>

I think it would be pretty cool if they found out it was true.

saw this on the news today. they stated it as fact.

This is really cool. I hope it proves to be fact, and not an error. Because if it is fact, then I get to see a new theory about the university emerge. I want that :p

Just saw this on the news. I agree with everyone else. It would be totally insane if it turned out to be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

saw this on the news today. they stated it as fact.

---

Which is meaningless?

Which isn't to say it's untrue... But you should probably stake your conclusion on the peer reviewed article.

[edit] Nevermind, you live in the Netherlands, your news is probably 100 times more accurate than that of the U.S. I'm just used to bad media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Invader

Which is meaningless?

Which isn't to say it's untrue... But you should probably stake your conclusion on the peer reviewed article.

[edit] Nevermind, you live in the Netherlands, your news is probably 100 times more accurate than that of the U.S. I'm just used to bad media.

---

Depends, you get the world edition of CNN here. However, all the Dutch news channels are accurate.

This news would be a major discovery if true but I'm leaning toward a systematic error since trying to measure the time accurately is extremely tricky and dependent upon global positioning system which has at times displayed uncertainties in the 10's of nanoseconds. We'll just have to wait and see what the future data brings out.

Today's XKCD:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/neutrinos.png

Hah yeah... the Galileo people are almost as insufferable as the science-discovered-something-new-thus-invalidating-all-of-science people.

Brian Cox discusses the findings: BBC News - Brian Cox on Cern's baffling light-speed find

Brain Cox is the man I miss him rocking out on keyboards in D Ream :rockon: However, I'm definitely looking forward to what comes out of Fermi.

What I want to know is, assuming this evidence is factual, how does this affect the special theory of relativity? Even though the neutrino has surpassed the speed of light, the speed of light remains the same. Does this require the theory to be revised because I always assumed that the view that "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" is an assumption considering that it can always be falsified by future observation or experiments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

What I want to know is, assuming this evidence is factual, how does this affect the special theory of relativity? Even though the neutrino has surpassed the speed of light, the speed of light remains the same. Does this require the theory to be revised because I always assumed that the view that "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" is an assumption considering that it can always be falsified by future observation or experiments.

---

@neiltyson: Misbehaved neutrinos? Three options: 1) Mistake; 2) They live backwards in time -- okay w/ Einstein; 3) Extend Relativity

First, it's CERN, not Cern. FFS there's so many mistakes in "journalism" these days, I can't take anything seriously because it looks like some high-school kid has written it.

Second, does anyone know how the hell they're going to replicate it? lol

There's only one multi billion dollar particle accelerator, as they say.

It's already been replicated and falsified by that supernova observation that some people mentioned.

Nobody mentioned anything about supernovas...

I think cmind is talking about the recent supernova in which (if the neutrino observation is factual) we would have detected the neutrinos before the light from the supernova itself but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

@neiltyson: Misbehaved neutrinos? Three options: 1) Mistake; 2) They live backwards in time -- okay w/ Einstein; 3) Extend Relativity

---

I was hoping for a more in depth explanation considering I'm not too knowledgeable about particle physics or physics in general. What does it mean that "They live backwards in time"? So you think that relativity will still be valid (from 2] and 3] ) but possibly open to revision?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Nobody mentioned anything about supernovas...

---

Get your head out of your ass, Aspie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

I think cmind is talking about the recent supernova in which (if the neutrino observation is factual) we would have detected the neutrinos before the light from the supernova itself but that doesn't appear to be the case.

---

Yep, that's the one.

That is of course a different circumstance. The neutrinos at CERN have much higher energies than stellar neutrinos for one thing, which may be important for the anomalous effect. This won't be settled until the specific experiment is explained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

That is of course a different circumstance. The neutrinos at CERN have much higher energies than stellar neutrinos for one thing, which may be important for the anomalous effect. This won't be settled until the specific experiment is explained.

---

But if said neutrinos have a higher energy (and thus a higher mass) wouldn't it be harder for them to accelerate to the speed of light than stellar neutrinos? I was under the impression that neutrinos could travel close to the speed of light because they had little to no mass? Also what is the difference between a stellar neutrino and the one's at CERN? I'm guessing that the ones at CERN were created in the particle collider? Sorry for asking so many questions (if anyone has any literature or any lectures on the topic I would appreciate it very much).

What this actually means is that neutrinos can have more than infinite mass and are obviously the source of dark matter! lol No, but actually there's no problem with relativity if they were created going above the speed of light to begin with, they just couldn't decelerate passed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

But if said neutrinos have a higher energy (and thus a higher mass) wouldn't it be harder for them to accelerate to the speed of light than stellar neutrinos? I was under the impression that neutrinos could travel close to the speed of light because they had little to no mass? Also what is the difference between a stellar neutrino and the one's at CERN? I'm guessing that the ones at CERN were created in the particle collider? Sorry for asking so many questions (if anyone has any literature or any lectures on the topic I would appreciate it very much).

---

Apparently the particles at CERN have energies of the order of 1,000 times that of the stellar ones, which is ostensibly the major difference. Although the neutrinos are harder to accelerate, presumably the accelerator is sufficient, and what they were expecting to see was very close to light speed. Of course, if the result is correct then what we are talking about isn't acting in accordance with the current laws of physics, and would represent some kind of novel effect anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Apparently the particles at CERN have energies of the order of 1,000 times that of the stellar ones, which is ostensibly the major difference. Although the neutrinos are harder to accelerate, presumably the accelerator is sufficient, and what they were expecting to see was very close to light speed. Of course, if the result is correct then what we are talking about isn't acting in accordance with the current laws of physics, and would represent some kind of novel effect anyway.

---

So it is a law that nothing can travel faster than light (the validity of relativity hinges on this law?) and not just an inductive assumption? Hmm I wish I knew more about relativity perhaps the implications of this observation would sink in easier...

As far as I know (which is three or four lectures), special relativity is just a consequence of the constancy of the speed of light (and some obvious assumptions), which, regardless of any experiments on neutrinos, is an observed fact. This single fact directly implies a different model for space. It's worth bearing in mind through all of this that special relativity keeps satellites in space, so it will never be proven fundamentally wrong in any meaningful sense; at the worst it will be proven to have some additional features or caveats.

It's my belief that pretty much all knowledge is an inductive assumption, but physical theories are definitely all inductive, so the light 'speed limit' is certainly an inductive claim. But the thing is that the basis for this claim, which is the constancy of the speed of light, is always seen to be true, so it in the inductive model of truth it ranks extremely highly.

Every star in the night sky is proof that general relativity is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

Every star in the night sky is proof that general relativity is correct.

---

lol...except, it's the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

But if said neutrinos have a higher energy (and thus a higher mass) wouldn't it be harder for them to accelerate to the speed of light than stellar neutrinos?

---

I'm not really sure. But no thing can accelerate to the speed of light.
It has to always be going at the speed of light. Photons are always going ~3million metres per second (in a vacuum).

And as wayfaerer said, if the neutrinos created were instantly going at the speed of light or above, then it doesn't disprove anything.

I think. I'm not a professor or anything, just my laymen understanding of it.

Also, it could just be another case of needing a super special relativity. Like neutrinos obey some other law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Second, does anyone know how the hell they're going to replicate it? lol

There's only one multi billion dollar particle accelerator, as they say.

---

The neutrinos didn't come from the LHC. Several other locations are set up to replicate the experiment.

I have only heard of one place. And it is the CERN particle detector.

It is km's underground and filled with water. Afaik it's the only one of it's kind because of those factors that make it so hard/expensive to build.

Okay my mistake.... OPERA particle detector.

But the point is, I don't think anyone else has the equipment to replicate this;
The ability to direct a beam of neutrinos 730km to a particle detector under 1.4km of rock.

quantic inductions speed is infinite so that passes the speed of light

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

I have only heard of one place. And it is the CERN particle detector.

It is km's underground and filled with water. Afaik it's the only one of it's kind because of those factors that make it so hard/expensive to build.

Okay my mistake.... OPERA particle detector.

But the point is, I don't think anyone else has the equipment to replicate this;
The ability to direct a beam of neutrinos 730km to a particle detector under 1.4km of rock.

---

Well it doesn't have to replicate the experiment exactly, just the principle. CERN even asked specific laboratories elsewhere in the world to help out. Fermilab in the US and some place in Japan have run similar experiments in the past.

Hmmmm, fair enough.

Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Very interesting. Keep me posted Xei.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

What I want to know is, assuming this evidence is factual, how does this affect the special theory of relativity? Even though the neutrino has surpassed the speed of light, the speed of light remains the same. Does this require the theory to be revised because I always assumed that the view that "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" is an assumption considering that it can always be falsified by future observation or experiments.

---

SR most definitely does not rule out faster than light travel. It does specify three things:

1) no object can accelerate from less than the speed of light to lightspeed or faster .
2) no object moving faster than the speed of light can decelerate to the speed of light or slower.
3) an object moving at the speed of light in one reference frame will be moving at light speed in all reference frames, always.

Also, an object moving at faster than the speed of light will be viewed as moving backwards in time in some reference frames.

This will be really cool if it's true.

Looks like the time reference they used is in motion, and subject to relativistic effects itself.... Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity - Technology Review

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forsaken

Looks like the time reference they used is in motion, and subject to relativistic effects itself.... Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity - Technology Review

---

Followup: FTL neutrinos explained? Not so fast, folks. | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forsaken

Looks like the time reference they used is in motion, and subject to relativistic effects itself.... Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity - Technology Review

---

This is actually fairly simple, hard to imagine that they didn't take this into account. Expert physicists overlooking like the foundational structure of special relativity, lol. This is pretty embarrassing actually.

New test finds neutrinos still faster than light | Reuters :thumbup:

"(Reuters) - A new experiment appears to provide further evidence that Einstein may have been wrong when he said nothing could go faster than the speed of light, a theory that underpins modern thinking on how the universe works."
:facepalm: Fuck mainstream media.

I'm glad this is still holding up though.

Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity - Technology Review

did they resolve this yet?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...icleInline.jpg

Whaaaaaaat??

[rampentspeculation]

So now time "flows" both ways (because of faster than light travel and assuming SR is correct). I've always thought it was multidimensional as well. That's my next guess.

Fuck, I bet it's only a matter of time before someone figures out that Einstein's discovery that there is no "absolute" time has been misinterpreted to mean that there's no absolute 1-dimensional time. Convenient that the extra time dimensions would give all the alternate universes of many worlds someplace to live ...
[/rampentspeculation]

So as not to be considered one-sided:
Study rejects faster than light particle finding | Reuters

:-?

Quote:

---

But ICARUS, another experiment at Gran Sasso -- which is deep under mountains and run by Italy's National Institute of National Physics

---

I'm so sick of reading mistakes in news articles, from mainstream news outlets, no less.
Fucking illiterate cunts.

Ahem....

Anyway, my dad brought up a good point yesterday.... why don't they just shoot a beam of light at the same time and see which arrives first? That would basically remove every factor that physicists are saying could have caused the result they got.

This may sound cocky, but I wouldn't pay much mind to that paper; wait untill Fermilab has some results.

That is what I orginally thought as well Tommo. If you shoot light down the path, then compared the results to that, you would remove all the math and time calculations, and instead just be comparing the two speeds. If the speed of light is off, then you obviously forgot to factor something in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

IAnyway, my dad brought up a good point yesterday.... why don't they just shoot a beam of light at the same time and see which arrives first? That would basically remove every factor that physicists are saying could have caused the result they got.

---

Quite hard to shoot a beam of light through 732 Km of solid rock. ;)

So as not to seem too one-sided in my posting:
Study rejects faster than light particle finding | Reuters

:-?

Can't find it on youtube but I'm watching a doc called Faster Than The Speed of Light which goes into the details of the experiment for a layman's understanding. If you want to view it just PM me.

I guess it'll take them a couple years to cross check the experiment with Japan's hadron collider. In the mean time they're playing with thought experiments, assuming the calculations were accurate, that model the universe with exceptions to the speed of light.

One interesting thing the video points out that I think is very true is that our current model of the universe is and for a long time has been contradictory to logic. Introduced through math, many of the concepts we take for granted now were considered inconceivable at their birth and were only reluctantly adopted into our universal model due to uncomfortable sorts of mathematical confirmation. While it's important to check the measurements and rule out all possible error, in the end we're going to have to once again surrender our sensible view of the universe to make room for mathematical truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Quite hard to shoot a beam of light through 732 Km of solid rock. ;)

---

Yeah I thought about that, but isn't it actually a huge tunnel? Seems a bit big to build, but for some reason I wouldn't be surprised if it were.
I dunno I've never seen it lol And there's some pretty big particle accelerators which I wouldn't think would be built either.

'Course, you could always do it above ground with a powerful laser or something.

The Earth is only 40,000Km around. They'd have to dig about 10Km underground (I make it) to create a tunnel 732 Km long. So no, no tubes; they are literally firing neutrinos through the Earth.

You couldn't do it above ground because the whole point of the light beam was to send it along the same path as the neutrinos.

Get a laser which can burn through things, burn a hole all the way to the detector, and then you can fire a pulse through at the same time as the neutrinos. Too bad they had to position it with ocean in the middle.... that would've been cool.

Lol ok, maybe not such a good idea in reality. Theoretically I 'spose they could do it with a really long, small tube, it would just cost a lot.

Disproved. BBC News - Neutrinos clocked at light-speed in new Icarus test

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forsaken

Disproved. BBC News - Neutrinos clocked at light-speed in new Icarus test

---

One study??? Well HOLY SHIT, start the presses!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supernova

One study??? Well HOLY SHIT, start the presses!

---

It's been postulated (and to some degree, accepted) that the original result, i.e. showing neutrinos traveling faster than light-speed, was due to a measurement error.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supernova

One study??? Well HOLY SHIT, start the presses!

---

It's not a "study" it's a repeat of the experiment, without the suspected faulty equipment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supernova

One study??? Well HOLY SHIT, start the presses!

---

You could say the same to the first study.

^That's what I thinking. Still though, I'd be more comfortable with a precise cause.