# Neutrinos faster than light confirmed?!

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by Loppan Torkel, Nov 18, 2011.

1. ### SamezION GUNNER

Joined:
Jan 31, 2005
Messages:
1,534
Location:
center of nowhere
Well I guess with infinite mass you will have some kind of singularity where the space time continuum is so distorted that faster than light won't make any sense at all.
For faster than light you should be neither particle nor wave.

2. ### ParadigmShifterRandom Nonsense Generator

Joined:
Apr 4, 2007
Messages:
21,810
Location:
Liverpool, home of Everton FC
Guessing is not a good way to solve the equations

As your speed tends to c, your mass tends to infinity. The only way to go faster is to make your mass imaginary (i.e. proportional to the square root of -1). Then you can't go slower, though. Having complex mass may help

3. ### GoodGameRed, White, & Blue, baby!

Joined:
Dec 17, 2004
Messages:
13,725
What part of our mass would you suggest is 'imaginary'?

4. ### ParadigmShifterRandom Nonsense Generator

Joined:
Apr 4, 2007
Messages:
21,810
Location:
Liverpool, home of Everton FC
None of it?

5. ### SamezION GUNNER

Joined:
Jan 31, 2005
Messages:
1,534
Location:
center of nowhere
I was assuming we have infinite mass and are not approximating it. With infinite mass, space time continuum should be so distorted that the classical definition of speed dx/dt won't make any sense.
Just a guess, as the mathematics of Lorentzian manifolds (non euclidean) are currently beyond my abilities.
You are right about guessing not being a good method for solving scientific problems but sometimes you have to start there

6. ### TerxpahseytonHow much Parmesan to put on your umbrella?

Joined:
Sep 9, 2006
Messages:
10,124
So we "simply" need to put a stop the gravitation of an object? Or is that a different force?

7. ### uppiDeity

Joined:
Feb 2, 2007
Messages:
4,575
An object with infinite mass would just create an infinitely large black hole. Nothing suggests that black hole physics should not hold any more and black hole physics is described by General Relativity. GR excludes faster than light speeds for objects with real mass, so I do not see a reason why anything should be faster than light there.

8. ### emziewicked witch of the North

Joined:
Jul 5, 2004
Messages:
20,721
Location:
Ottawa, Ontario
My torso.

9. ### GoodSarmatianBlackpilled Idealist

Joined:
Apr 25, 2006
Messages:
9,359
Gender:
Male
Mistery solved.
It was a loose cable.

Spoiler :

Not so fast!

An experiment that appeared to show matter could travel faster than the speed of light - flying in the face of Einstein's theory of relativity - may have been flawed, the journal Science reported.

In the original experiments, subatomic particles called neutrinos blasted from CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva, traveled 450 miles to Italy 60 nanoseconds faster than a beam of light.

But researchers revealed that a fiber-optic cable connecting a GPS receiver and a "master clock" computer may have been loose, Science reports.

Probably the disappointment of the year for the science world.

10. ### GoodGameRed, White, & Blue, baby!

Joined:
Dec 17, 2004
Messages:
13,725
Yeah I posted that a page ago. Are they sure the atom clock timing was off yet?

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-02-24/news/31092982_1_neutrino-experiment-cern

11. ### bombshooNever mind...

Joined:
Jan 7, 2003
Messages:
5,160
I seem to recall someone on the forum actually called that as the exact problem back when this story was new. I can't remember who it was for the life of me though.

12. ### ParadigmShifterRandom Nonsense Generator

Joined:
Apr 4, 2007
Messages:
21,810
Location:
Liverpool, home of Everton FC
Probably uppi?

13. ### uppiDeity

Joined:
Feb 2, 2007
Messages:
4,575
Yes. But my guess was not exactly right. I suspected a wiring issue in the timekeeping right away and posted that in the thread in the off-topic forum. That guess was a bit lucky, but that is the kind of subtle error that you expect in such a measurement and that are very hard to detect. And that's why we physicists always want to see an independent confirmation for results of this impact before believing anything.

And although the error is a bit embarrassing, I cannot blame the scientists involved (except maybe for going to the mainstream media to soon, but the media stories were probably inevitable). To get the timing issues exactly right is a huge challenge, especially when there is no way to do cross-checks.

Joined:
Mar 11, 2004
Messages:
4,775
Gender:
Male
Location:
MinneSNOWta

15. ### uppiDeity

Joined:
Feb 2, 2007
Messages:
4,575
Why the angry faces? That was the expected result, especially after OPERA found timing errors in their measurement.

16. ### VyliniusCollege Student

Joined:
Jun 30, 2008
Messages:
534
Gender:
Male
Location:
The Apartment of Janky Wifi
I think he's mad about the fact that the speed of light wasn't broken.

17. ### DisgustipatedDeity

Joined:
Nov 14, 2006
Messages:
11,156
Location:
Las Vegas
I'm happy it wasn't broken. It would shatter my beliefs about many things. Okay just a couple of things. Namely that space travel between galaxies is impossible.

18. ### OlleusDeity

Joined:
Oct 30, 2005
Messages:
6,478
Location:
England
The lead researcher at Opera said that he had "lost confidence in the original data", which pretty much means he admits he was wrong. Not surprising of course, every single physicist in my university department was deeply sceptical of the results.

"Never believe an experiment until it's predicted by theory" - Can't remember who said that

19. ### uppiDeity

Joined:
Feb 2, 2007
Messages:
4,575
Probably a theorist without a clue.