Neutrinos faster than light confirmed?!

Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
4,756
Not confirmed exactly, but there's now more support for it...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236

The team which found that neutrinos may travel faster than light has carried out an improved version of their experiment - and confirmed the result.

If confirmed by other experiments, the find could undermine one of the basic principles of modern physics.

Critics of the first report in September had said that the long bunches of neutrinos (tiny particles) used could introduce an error into the test.

The new work used much shorter bunches.

It has been posted to the Arxiv repository and submitted to the Journal of High Energy Physics, but has not yet been reviewed by the scientific community.

The experiments have been carried out by the Opera collaboration - short for Oscillation Project with Emulsion (T)racking Apparatus.

It hinges on sending bunches of neutrinos created at the Cern facility (actually produced as decays within a long bunch of protons produced at Cern) through 730km (454 miles) of rock to a giant detector at the INFN-Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy.

The initial series of experiments, comprising 15,000 separate measurements spread out over three years, found that the neutrinos arrived 60 billionths of a second faster than light would have, travelling unimpeded over the same distance.

The idea that nothing can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum forms a cornerstone in physics - first laid out by James Clerk Maxwell and later incorporated into Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity.

Timing is everything

Initial analysis of the work by the wider scientific community argued that the relatively long-lasting bunches of neutrinos could introduce a significant error into the measurement.

Those bunches lasted 10 millionths of a second - 160 times longer than the discrepancy the team initially reported in the neutrinos' travel time.

To address that, scientists at Cern adjusted the way in which the proton beams were produced, resulting in bunches just three billionths of a second long.

When the Opera team ran the improved experiment 20 times, they found almost exactly the same result.

"This is reinforcing the previous finding and ruling out some possible systematic errors which could have in principle been affecting it," said Antonio Ereditato of the Opera collaboration.

"We didn't think they were, and now we have the proof," he told BBC News. "This is reassuring that it's not the end of the story."

The first announcement of evidently faster-than-light neutrinos caused a stir worldwide; the Opera collaboration is very aware of its implications if eventually proved correct.

The error in the length of the bunches, however, is just the largest among several potential sources of uncertainty in the measurement, which must all now be addressed in turn; these mostly centre on the precise departure and arrival times of the bunches.

"So far no arguments have been put forward that rule out our effect," Dr Ereditato said.

"This additional test we made is confirming our original finding, but still we have to be very prudent, still we have to look forward to independent confirmation. But this is a positive result."

That confirmation may be much longer in coming, as only a few facilities worldwide have the detectors needed to catch the notoriously flighty neutrinos - which interact with matter so rarely as to have earned the nickname "ghost particles".

Next year, teams working on two other experiments at Gran Sasso experiments - Borexino and Icarus - will begin independent cross-checks of Opera's results.

The US Minos experiment and Japan's T2K experiment will also test the observations. It is likely to be several months before they report back.

Why must specifically light be the fastest thing in the universe? I never understood that.
 
Here's a link to a series of blog entries that discuss the intial OPERA results:
http://blog.case.edu/singham/relativity/index

It's in reverse chronological order, so start at the bottom.

Here's how he might answer your question about the cosmic speed limit:
Mano Singham said:
If a particle has zero mass (as is the case with 'photons', the name given to particles of light), then according to Einstein's theory of relativity, it must travel exactly at the speed of light. If it has a mass, however small, it can approach the speed of light but never attain it because to do so would require an infinite amount of energy.

and also:

Supposing the CERN-Gran Sasso experimental result holds up and the neutrinos are in fact traveling faster than the speed of light. Does this mean that Einstein's theory of relativity is completely overthrown? No. Einstein's theory does not rule out particles traveling faster than the speed of light. Such particles, known as tachyons, have always been allowed by the theory but we have never confirmed their existence so far. There have, however, been various false alarms in the past, which is part of the reason for the skepticism about the present claim.

This is one of the things that I hate about the way science headlines are written. It's misleading sensationalism that leads too many people to think that science has no idea what it's doing, and things understood to be X one day are thrown out and thought to be Y the next.

I recommend reading the whole series, as he goes into some of the details that are left out in mainstream reporting.

Also good reading on this topic is Ethan Seigel's blog Starts With A Bang.
 
Confirmed is a much too strong word. Instead of taking all neutrinos and doing statistics on those, they now measured the timing of single neutrinos. The result is the same, so this confirms their statistical method.

But if there is an error, it would be much more likely to be systematic. That means that the error would be intrinsic to the experiment and could not be ruled out by the experiment itself. For example the OPERA experiment runs on a 20MHz clock, so if the clock was off by just one tick, the result would be off by 50ns and the effect could vanish (or almost double). But such an error would not be ruled out in any way by the new measurement.

For a real confirmation, a second experiment would have to measure the same result.


And science reporting in mainstream media is abysmal, but that is hardly new.
 
I'll hopefully put a thought-worm into people's minds.

If we find that neutrinos can go FTL, this information does NOT change the absolute value of all the other types of research we do. We're currently investing in a lot of different areas, and each are getting us bang-for-the-buck in their own unique ways. That said, the absolute value of 'neutrino research/FTL research' would obviously change. What this means is that more science funding is justified and not merely a redistribution. If research on bumblebee color vision was a good question today, it's still a good question tomorrow. In other words, a proper verification of this finding would justify making the science pie bigger and not necessarily sliced differently.
 
I'll hopefully put a thought-worm into people's minds.

If we find that neutrinos can go FTL, this information does NOT change the absolute value of all the other types of research we do. We're currently investing in a lot of different areas, and each are getting us bang-for-the-buck in their own unique ways. That said, the absolute value of 'neutrino research/FTL research' would obviously change. What this means is that more science funding is justified and not merely a redistribution. If research on bumblebee color vision was a good question today, it's still a good question tomorrow. In other words, a proper verification of this finding would justify making the science pie bigger and not necessarily sliced differently.

Ideally, that is how it should work. But in reality there is a limited amount of funding and if one area becomes more interesting, the funding is very likely to come at the expense of other projects.
 
In other words, a proper verification of this finding would justify making the science pie bigger and not necessarily sliced differently.

And this is why I'd be happy to pay more taxes!

I like to pretend that all the money taken out of my paycheck goes to NIH, NASA, NSF, and such.

In reality I know that's not true, that the DOD takes my money and converts it into dead civilians and rampant anti-US hostility. But we all have to sleep at night :)
 
Rather than neutrinos travvelling faster than the max speed of the universe represented by c, could this experiment be showing that some property of space is reducing the speed of light slightly below its theoritical maximum rather than neutrinos being above the theoretical maximum speed of light c
 
Ok, so it's not really the speed of light "c" represents and if speed of light is lower than "c", photons just gained some weight?!
 
Ok, so it's not really the speed of light "c" represents and if speed of light is lower than "c", photons just gained some weight?!
Yes, except that photons can't gain waight.

Also, when photons through something they seem to travel slower, but this is attributed to them not taking a direct path, or getting obsorbed and reemited along the way.
 
Also, when photons through something they seem to travel slower, but this is attributed to them not taking a direct path, or getting obsorbed and reemited along the way.
And in their experiment can they prove that this did not happen to the light?
 
You mean like light in empty space interacting with some omnipresent medium? I can't off hand think of a way to rule that out, but I suspect that it's not a possibility. If it is, it's a pretty radical idea that would need more proof.
 
Although the picture of light being slowed down by absorption and reemission is a bit too simple, it does convey one important point: Refractive index and absorption are related. With the Kramers-Kronig-relations, the absorption can be calculated from the refractive index.

So if there was an omnipresent medium that slowed light down by interacting with it, there has to be absorption associated with it, which we should be able to measure. As far as I know, nobody has ever seen such a thing, so it is unlikely to be true.
 
Just saw this today:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news...t-apparently-a-mistake-due-to-loose-cable.ars

But now, ScienceInsider is reporting that there was a good reason the measurements and reality weren't lining up: a loose fiber optic cable was causing one of the atomic clocks used to time the neutrinos' flight to produce spurious results. If the report is confirmed (right now, there's only one source), then it provides a simple explanation for the fascinating-yet-difficult-to-accept results. According to the new report, researchers are preparing to gather new data with the clocks properly hooked into computers, which should definitively indicate whether the loose connection was at fault.

The atomic clock had "loose" timing?
 
uppi said:
Instead of taking all neutrinos and doing statistics on those, they now measured the timing of single neutrinos. The result is the same, so this confirms their statistical method.

A timing issue seems consistent with the results of the follow-up. Hopefully loose-wire-gate will be confirmed to be the source of the discrepancy.
 
That's nice and all, but I want it to be true!
 
When will you all learn that the law is the law. You can't travel faster than light, especially when you have a finite mass.
 
When will you all learn that the law is the law.
This line of reasoning is why people think science is a pseudo-religion worshipped by closed-minded people :rolleyes:
 
You can't even travel faster than light with infinite mass.

You need imaginary mass.
 
Top Bottom