Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Can Neutrinos Go Faster Than Light?  
User currently offlineGrahamHill From France, joined Mar 2007, 2869 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2289 times:

Some scientists in Lyon discovered that some particles were travelling faster than the speed of light. Those particles are neutrinos. On their way between France and Italy, they should have done 730 km in at least 2.43 thousands of a second. But they were 60 nanoseconds faster.

The experiment will need to be redone again and again to confirm whether this is correct or not.

However, some scientists already claim it is BS, like Chang Kee Jung, a neutrino physicist at Stony Brook University in New York who says the result is the product of a systematic error.

More here: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...trinos-travel-faster-than-lig.html

I won't go too much into the debate because I simply suck in science, but I would be interested to read your point of view. Do you stand by Einstein's theory and believe those scientists made a mistake, or do you believe it can be plausible to have a particle travelling faster than light?


"A learned fool is more foolish than an ignorant one" - Moliere
49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinesan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4967 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2268 times:

From what I take from the article, that 60 nanosecond figure is the average, with a reported 10 nanosecond uncertainty. Even if that uncertainty figure is not true, GPS signals (which are being used to measure the distances/times) have uncertainties still only in the 10s of nanoseconds.

Even with such margin of error, it appears entirely possible then that SOME (remember, this is an average from thousands of launches) of the neutrinos did travel very slightly faster than light. If such resulted can be affirmed and reproduced in another experiment, it would be one of the most important scientific discoveries in decades!



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3881 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2251 times:

Quoting GrahamHill (Thread starter):
Some scientists in Lyon discovered that some particles were travelling faster than the speed of light.

That's ludicrous speed!



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2249 times:

Warp speed, here we come!

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x54/TrueX-Ray/TNG%20Caption%20This/TNGCaption31a.jpg



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2155 times:

For quite a few years there was debate about whether neutrinos had any mass; massless particles necessarily move at the speed of light. In recent years the latest evidence seems to suggest that neutrinos in fact have a very small mass, which requires that their relative velocity never reach the speed of light (lest they achieve infinite mass). So if this is true, something has to break to allow a massive particle to exceed the speed of light. My bet would be on the systematic error thing -- maybe they forgot to account for the fact that the earth is revolving      .

User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7282 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2143 times:

Quoting san747 (Reply 1):
From what I take from the article, that 60 nanosecond figure is the average, with a reported 10 nanosecond uncertainty. Even if that uncertainty figure is not true, GPS signals (which are being used to measure the distances/times) have uncertainties still only in the 10s of nanoseconds.

Exactly what I was thinking. The margin for error still makes it seem that the results could be possible. Should be an interesting few weeks/months while they study this more.

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 4):
My bet would be on the systematic error thing -- maybe they forgot to account for the fact that the earth is revolving

Now that would be something.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2124 times:

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 4):
maybe they forgot to account for the fact that the earth is revolving

2.43 thousandths of a second = 2,430,000 nanoseconds = the speed of light for that particular distance. 60 nanoseconds would thus equate to a variance of 16,500 miles per hour, at the earth's surface. Circumference of the earth is 24,900 miles. That would indicate that the earth is rotating once every 1.5 hours.

Fun with physics...



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinesan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4967 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2083 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):

Nice job with that analysis! I figured the rotation of the Earth wasn't fast enough to account for the discrepancy.



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2073 times:

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 4):
maybe they forgot to account for the fact that the earth is revolving

I'll bet I know what caused them to go so fast; it was extremely windy that day........so they had a tail-wind !

( And I'll bet Einstein would agree with me too ! )

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlinesebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3682 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2064 times:

Quoting GrahamHill (Thread starter):
Do you stand by Einstein's theory and believe those scientists made a mistake, or do you believe it can be plausible to have a particle travelling faster than light?

Actually Einstein didn't say that a particle can't travel faster than light, but that it speed can't be higher than the speed of light (AFAIK).
If the particle actually travel in time, there's no contradiction ...


User currently offlinenighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5186 posts, RR: 33
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2062 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 8):
I'll bet I know what caused them to go so fast; it was extremely windy that day........so they had a tail-wind !

( And I'll bet Einstein would agree with me too ! )

Maybe French ATC were on strike, and the airspace was much clearer than average?   



That'll teach you
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10938 posts, RR: 37
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2036 times:

I posted on this on another forum.

I hope time travel will be made possible before I die.

I want to fly on Concorde (again)


        



Tiny Neutrinos May Have Broken Cosmic Speed Limit

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/science/23speed.html

The physics world is abuzz with news that a group of European physicists plans to announce Friday that it has clocked a burst of subatomic particles known as neutrinos breaking the cosmic speed limit — the speed of light — that was set by Albert Einstein in 1905.

If true, it is a result that would change the world. But that “if” is enormous.



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2023 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
2.43 thousandths of a second = 2,430,000 nanoseconds = the speed of light for that particular distance. 60 nanoseconds would thus equate to a variance of 16,500 miles per hour, at the earth's surface. Circumference of the earth is 24,900 miles. That would indicate that the earth is rotating once every 1.5 hours.


Interesting, I'm actually surprised that it's even in the ballpark of consideration -- 1.5h vs 24h means that it might account for a small part of the difference and would have been corrected for (and I'm sure they would have) -- and that's assuming that the a significant part of the velocity is along a path tangential to the rotation of the earth.

Looks like our best hope now is the tail wind !!!

[Edited 2011-09-23 03:34:29]

User currently offlineAustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1408 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1980 times:

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 12):
1.5h vs 24h means that it might account for a small part of the difference and would have been corrected for (and I'm sure they would have)

You don't have to correct for it. The speed of light is independent of the system of reference you are in (a weird byproduct of time dilatation and relativistic length contraction). Actually this speed of the earth was exactly what Michelson and Morley used to empirically corroborate the theory that c is independent of the system of reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment



WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1971 times:

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 13):
You don't have to correct for it. The speed of light is independent of the system of reference you are in (a weird byproduct of time dilatation and relativistic length contraction). Actually this speed of the earth was exactly what Michelson and Morley used to empirically corroborate the theory that c is independent of the system of reference.


The speed of light isn't the thing being corrected though, it's the speed of the neutrino relative to the detector that's being corrected. The speed of mass-less particles (e.g. photons of light) always move, well, at the speed of light and have that same speed relative to all observers. Particles with mass: electrons, neutrinos, etc. (at least up 'til now) could have differing relative speeds and therefore the speed of a massive object "depended" on the observer's frame of reference.

That is why, if this is true, it throws a great big monkey-wrench into physics as it's been known for the pat 100+ years.


User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1966 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 11):
Tiny Neutrinos May Have Broken Cosmic Speed Limit

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/sc....html


This is a pretty good synopsis, and it points out that a similar experiment was done at Fermilab a few years back and it's results were consistent with physics -- however the experiment wasn't conducted at the same level of accuracy as this latest experiment.

So they did what all good scientist do -- they publish a paper stating they've observed something that can't be explained using the current laws of physics -- it's an invitation for other scientists to refute or affirm their findings.

I think a lot of scientists are skeptical because 100+ years of experimental results have affirmed the current theories -- of course Newton had been "correct" for over 200 years before Einstein came along in 1905 and said -- "not quite right".


User currently offlinehomsar From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1216 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

The neutrinos took a shortcut through an extra dimension.


I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineAustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1408 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 1925 times:

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 14):
Particles with mass: electrons, neutrinos, etc. (at least up 'til now) could have differing relative speeds and therefore the speed of a massive object "depended" on the observer's frame of reference.

Now I'm feeling REALLY stupid and think I should consider stopping my PhD      .



WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
User currently offlineYYZatcboy From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1098 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1906 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting homsar (Reply 16):
The neutrinos took a shortcut through an extra dimension.

That might actually be a realistic possiblity. If there was a small warp in spacetime (like a worm hole or an extra dimentional shift) the nutreno might still be traveling at the speed of light but have only travelled a shorter distance.

Or perhaps they messed up in their observation.

Or perhaps Nutrenos can go faster than light. If they are massless then they really have not broken E=mc2 because their mass would not increase as their speed increases if they are massless.

It's going to be an interesting time trying to see what happened!



DHC1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30 B727 735/6/7/8/9 762/3 E175/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150. J/S DH8D 736/7/8
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4903 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1894 times:

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 15):

The big relativistic issue here is simultaneity. If a neutrino arrives faster than the speed of light at point A from point B, then it actually left point B earlier than it actually did as per Einstein. 'Now' to me at point A is actually distance/c displaced to a guy at point B.


User currently offlinesw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6372 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1877 times:

Quoting GrahamHill (Thread starter):
Do you stand by Einstein's theory

Theories are theories...practice is practice. Einstein could create as many theories as he wanted, but he simply didn't have the means to prove or disprove them. We are starting to have the means now...starting. I see no reason to stick to Einstein's unproven theories when we are starting to see evidence that they might (I stress might...could...maybe) be wrong.

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 4):
In recent years the latest evidence seems to suggest that neutrinos in fact have a very small mass

Yes, that was my understanding

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 10):
Maybe French ATC were on strike, and the airspace was much clearer than average?

If particles went faster every time France was on strike, god knows what we would have proven by now...


User currently offlinesan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4967 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1854 times:

Quoting sw733 (Reply 20):

Theories are theories...practice is practice. Einstein could create as many theories as he wanted, but he simply didn't have the means to prove or disprove them. We are starting to have the means now...starting. I see no reason to stick to Einstein's unproven theories when we are starting to see evidence that they might (I stress might...could...maybe) be wrong.

Well a theory is the best working explanation for a natural phenomenon we observe. I agree we will have to reconsider Einstein's theories if this is true (and believe me, I'm rooting for it because of the implications should it be true), but I don't think we should abandon those theories until such evidence against them can be corroborated independently.



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineiflykpdx From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 1838 times:

The skeptic in me is leading to the conclusion that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one: They made an error in measurement or calculation, or the instruments malfunctioned or were incorrectly calibrated. A challenge to such a mountain of evidence in favor of relativity has a damn high burden of proof to overcome.


Airport Management - UND
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7983 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 1827 times:

Quoting san747 (Reply 21):
and believe me, I'm rooting for it because of the implications should it be true

What are the implications? In simple English, please  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 1812 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 23):

What are the implications? In simple English, please

The implications would be that light speed is not an absolute limit, That something like "warp speed" might actually be theoretically possible.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
25 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : only if you're a neutrino I guess
26 sw733 : Well of course. But the idea that Einstein's once groundbreaking theory, years and years ahead of its time, could even possibly be proven wrong...wow
27 comorin : This discovery, if true, would also stand cause and effect on its head. In the world as we know, cause precedes effect, but at faster than light, effe
28 Post contains links flybaurlax : It's all very interesting and I'm patiently waiting further news on this. In the meantime, here's a funny comic about it. http://xkcd.com/955/
29 er757 : That's pretty mind-blowing stuff. But I'm not really sure about how it would work in practice. We might not see the cause before the effect but it wo
30 comorin : You're right. I once attended a lecture by two Nobel Laureates (Cosmic Background Radiation and Dark Matter) who said that we know nothing of 96% of
31 Post contains images NoWorries : This stuff is just darn tricky to think about -- so now I'm thinking correction doesn't make sense ... If I fire a gun from a moving car and observe
32 Post contains images mffoda : In regards to the title of this topic... This is A-net! I'm sure the average member should find this an elementary question!
33 Post contains images NoWorries : These kinds of thought experiments make my head hurt Cause and effect is at the core of classical physics -- on the other hand, quantum physics tosse
34 Post contains images vikkyvik : Not to be picky, but a parsec isn't a light-second (at least not in the same way as a light-year). Indeed, a parsec is much larger than a light-year.
35 Post contains images comorin : Sorry about that, that's a big boo-boo! I should stick to the troll threads....
36 Post contains images Pyrex : The funny thing is, they were still overtaken by some Italian drivers on their way back home.
37 Airstud : Neutrino. Who's there? Knock knock.
38 san747 : Oh absolutely. I love that we're in a position to make all these new discoveries. Science is all about updating our information and explanations for
39 NoWorries : Part of the problem is our ability to define space and time. Classical and quantum physics, for example, have somewhat differing views. Classical phy
40 Post contains images AustrianZRH : No, that's the easy classic stuff. If you fire a Steyr AUG from a car moving at 30 m/s and measure the muzzle velocity sitting in the car relative to
41 DeltaMD90 : Where did all you a.netters learn your physics stuff? Is there a website that breaks it down and takes you from square 1? It really interests me and I
42 Post contains links san747 : This is a good starting point, covers all the ideas of special relativity well without getting too technical and confusing: http://en.wikipedia.org/w
43 NoWorries : I don't think I stated that very well ... measuring velocity from the car perspective of a round fired from the car is the same as measuring velocity
44 NoWorries : Before delving into relativity or quantum, it's a good idea to have a good grounding in classical dynamics -- understand the difference between scala
45 Dreadnought : Does that apply to light? Speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. If you put a flashlight on the nose of a rocket travelling at 100,000 miles per
46 san747 : Correct. The speed of light is always the same value of ~186,000 miles/second no matter your speed or relative position compared to the light.
47 Post contains links NoWorries : The speed of light is constant in all frames of reference -- though the frequency shifts higher or lower depending on whether the observer is traveli
48 Post contains links NoWorries : An oldie but a goodie is http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html This isn't really a tutorial, but a nice frame of reference in which
49 Post contains links homsar : Old news. This kid already figured out that the cosmic speed limit was faster than the speed of light: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Carrier Pigeon Faster Than Adsl! posted Thu Sep 10 2009 00:09:43 by Andz
A Fate Greater Than Light Or Darkness posted Tue Oct 10 2006 18:05:31 by AerospaceFan
Big Brother, How Low Can You Go posted Sun Aug 28 2005 20:49:26 by BR076
How Long Can You Go Without Food? posted Sat Jul 9 2005 05:19:49 by Venezuela747
How Far Can Terrorists Go With Vatican Passports? posted Sun May 1 2005 18:54:42 by Swisskloten
Boy Swims Faster Than A Shark posted Sun Mar 7 2004 19:59:28 by Mrwayne
How Do I Make My Skis Go Faster? posted Tue Jan 20 2004 11:59:43 by UTa_FLYinghigh
Fake Letters From Iraq: How Low Can You Go? posted Sat Nov 8 2003 08:37:37 by Indianguy
US Economy Grows Faster Than Expected posted Fri Sep 26 2003 16:30:37 by RJ100
Finally Proven - F1 Way Faster Than CART... posted Sun Aug 25 2002 00:20:25 by Racko