News Speed of light broken?

River Crab

SpaceX Cheer Captain
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
945
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Location
Washington, D.C. area
Sep 22, 6:39 PM EDT


Roll over Einstein: Law of physics challenged
By FRANK JORDANS and SETH BORENSTEIN
Associated Press


GENEVA (AP) -- One of the very pillars of physics and Einstein's theory of relativity - that nothing can go faster than the speed of light - was rocked Thursday by new findings from one of the world's foremost laboratories.
European researchers said they clocked an oddball type of subatomic particle called a neutrino going faster than the 186,282 miles per second that has long been considered the cosmic speed limit.
The claim was met with skepticism, with one outside physicist calling it the equivalent of saying you have a flying carpet. In fact, the researchers themselves are not ready to proclaim a discovery and are asking other physicists to independently try to verify their findings.
"The feeling that most people have is this can't be right, this can't be real," said James Gillies, a spokesman for the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, which provided the particle accelerator that sent neutrinos on their breakneck 454-mile trip underground from Geneva to Italy.
Going faster than light is something that is just not supposed to happen according to Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity - the one made famous by the equation E equals mc^2. But no one is rushing out to rewrite the science books just yet.
It is "a revolutionary discovery if confirmed," said Indiana University theoretical physicist Alan Kostelecky, who has worked on this concept for a quarter of a century.
Stephen Parke, who is head theoretician at the Fermilab near Chicago and was not part of the research, said: "It's a shock. It's going to cause us problems, no doubt about that - if it's true."
Even if these results are confirmed, they won't change at all the way we live or the way the world works. After all, these particles have presumably been speed demons for billions of years. But the finding will fundamentally alter our understanding of how the universe operates, physicists said.
Einstein's special relativity theory, which says that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, underlies "pretty much everything in modern physics," said John Ellis, a theoretical physicist at CERN who was not involved in the experiment. "It has worked perfectly up until now."
France's National Institute for Nuclear and Particle Physics Research collaborated with Italy's Gran Sasso National Laboratory on the experiment at CERN.
CERN reported that a neutrino beam fired from a particle accelerator near Geneva to a lab 454 miles (730 kilometers) away in Italy traveled 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light. Scientists calculated the margin of error at just 10 nanoseconds. (A nanosecond is one-billionth of a second.)
Given the enormous implications of the find, the researchers spent months checking and rechecking their results to make sure there were no flaws in the experiment.
A team at Fermilab had similar faster-than-light results in 2007, but a large margin of error undercut its scientific significance.
If anything is going to throw a cosmic twist into Einstein's theories, it's not surprising that it's the strange particles known as neutrinos. These are odd slivers of an atom that have confounded physicists for about 80 years.
The neutrino has almost no mass, comes in three different "flavors," may have its own antiparticle and has been seen shifting from one flavor to another while shooting out from our sun, said physicist Phillip Schewe, communications director at the Joint Quantum Institute in Maryland.
Columbia University physicist Brian Greene, author of the book "Fabric of the Cosmos," said neutrinos theoretically can travel at different speeds depending on how much energy they have. And some mysterious particles whose existence is still only theorized could be similarly speedy, he said.
Fermilab team spokeswoman Jenny Thomas, a physics professor at the University College of London, said there must be a "more mundane explanation" for the European findings. She said Fermilab's experience showed how hard it is to measure accurately the distance, time and angles required for such a claim.
Nevertheless, Fermilab, which shoots neutrinos from Chicago to Minnesota, has already begun working to try to verify or knock down the new findings.
And that's exactly what the team in Geneva wants.
Gillies told The Associated Press that the readings have so astounded researchers that "they are inviting the broader physics community to look at what they've done and really scrutinize it in great detail, and ideally for someone elsewhere in the world to repeat the measurements."
Only two labs elsewhere in the world can try to replicate the work: Fermilab and a Japanese installation that has been slowed by the tsunami and earthquake. And Fermilab's measuring systems aren't nearly as precise as the Europeans' and won't be upgraded for a while, said Fermilab scientist Rob Plunkett.
Drew Baden, chairman of the physics department at the University of Maryland, said it is far more likely that the CERN findings are the result of measurement errors or some kind of fluke. Tracking neutrinos is very difficult, he said.
"This is ridiculous what they're putting out," Baden said. "Until this is verified by another group, it's flying carpets. It's cool, but ..."
So if the neutrinos are pulling this fast one on Einstein, how can it happen?
Parke said there could be a cosmic shortcut through another dimension - physics theory is full of unseen dimensions - that allows the neutrinos to beat the speed of light.
Indiana's Kostelecky theorizes that there are situations when the background is different in the universe, not perfectly symmetrical as Einstein says. Those changes in background may alter both the speed of light and the speed of neutrinos.
But that doesn't mean Einstein's theory is ready for the trash heap, he said.
"I don't think you're going to ever kill Einstein's theory. You can't. It works," Kostelecky said. There are just times when an additional explanation is needed, he said.
If the European findings are correct, "this would change the idea of how the universe is put together," Columbia's Greene said. But he added: "I would bet just about everything I hold dear that this won't hold up to scrutiny."
Thoughts? :huh:
 

ky

Director of Manned Spaceflight
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
1,409
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Boynton Beach
Just heard this on the news. Einstein must be turning in his grave hearing this.
 

fort

Active member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
20
Points
38
" it is maybe that the light was a little tired that day "

I'm sorry: i've not find, yet, something in english, about. I must say that i've not made a deep search. But i think that on google or babylon or elsewhere...

I have no advice on that news but i wanted to give it to your malice considering a remarquable comment ( the last part of it ) coming with the article by a user:

Vronski 22/09/11 - 22h12

Why should speed limit be a speed-constant limit rather than fluctuating? What is it that compulsive taste for the immobilized, the stopped, the set ( fixed ) ? And then, it is maybe that the light was a little tired that day. She was beaten by the neutrinos on the arrival line.

( Pourquoi la vitesse-limite devrait-elle être une vitesse-limite constante plutôt que fluctuante ? Qu'est-ce que c'est que ce goût invétéré pour le figé, l'arrêté, le fixé ? Et puis, c'est peut-être que la lumière était un peu fatiguée ce jour-là. Elle a été battue par les neutrinos sur la ligne d'arrivée. )

Particles measured to a speed surpassing the the one of the light

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/artic...passant-celle-de-la-lumiere_1576530_3244.html

:tiphat:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jarvitä

New member
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Serface, Earth
I expect them to publish a paper about measurement errors and deeply apologise for publicising without trying very hard to find the mistake first.

Then again, I'm extrapolating from all the previous "We broke c!" claims. Could be they've really done it. In that case, I wish the physicists of the world plenty of fun in re-doing the work of the last two centuries of their esteemed predecessors.

Don't get me wrong, there have been plenty of radical advances of physics in the course of history. It's just that none of them have ever proven everything we thought we know up to that point to be completely and entirely wrong. I think I'm not overreacting when I assign a far higher probability to this being a measurement error than it being physically possible.
 

RisingFury

OBSP developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
6,427
Reaction score
492
Points
173
Location
Among bits and Bytes...
Could be they've really done it. In that case, I wish the physicists of the world plenty of fun in re-doing the work of the last two centuries of their esteemed predecessors.

Ha! You mathematicians! So bound to equations that when one doesn't work, you do it all from scratch :lol:

No, even if this turns out to be correct and there is some way that neutrinos can apparently break the speed of light, it won't have an impact on Einstein's theory of relativity. It'll be an exception to the rule... and I must say lots of people are looking for this exception.



Don't get me wrong, there have been plenty of radical advances of physics in the course of history. It's just that none of them have ever proven everything we thought we know up to that point to be completely and entirely wrong. I think I'm not overreacting when I assign a far higher probability to this being a measurement error than it being physically possible.

I'm skeptical too. Quite a few thing could go wrong here:
1.) You have to time neutrinos at the start and finish of the trip. That means you need two clocks that are synchronized. A 60 ns gap would be unusual if they're using atomic clocks, but it could happen.
2.) The distance between the labs could be measured incorrectly. Though that would mean the distance is 18 m shorter than measured.
3.) They don't measure the time it takes for each individual neutrino to fly from one lab to another, but they time a whole bunch of them. So you can only get the average departure and arrival time and that can vary, because not all neutrinos fly in the same direction and at same speed. A high number of experiments will all for better statistics, but none of that is 100% certain.

These are just the reasons I can think of off the top of my head.
 

Jarvitä

New member
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Serface, Earth
No, even if this turns out to be correct and there is some way that neutrinos can apparently break the speed of light, it won't have an impact on Einstein's theory of relativity. It'll be an exception to the rule... and I must say lots of people are looking for this exception.

Except in physics, an "exception" usually indicates a flaw in the theory itself. Mercury's orbital precession was considered an exception to Newtonian gravity, only to be explained by relativity when Newtonian kinematics as a whole turned out to be a special case thereof.
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
86
Points
48
Location
Here and now
While I'm far from convinced, let us assume for the moment that C has been broken. This does NOT negate or disprove Einsteinian relativity.

When Einstein published his theory of relativity, many assumed it contradicted Newtonian laws. Eventually, we came to understand that it actually supports and extends Newtonian physics.

I'm sure that no matter what "theory" or "law" we invent to explain how particles can break C will eventually be understood to support and extend relativity. This doesn't prove Relativity is wrong - only that it's incomplete.
 

MaverickSawyer

Acolyte of the Probe
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
5
Points
61
Location
Wichita
:blink:
Wow. What next, Neutrino Drives?
I'll be watching this with interest...

:coffee:
 

RisingFury

OBSP developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
6,427
Reaction score
492
Points
173
Location
Among bits and Bytes...
Except in physics, an "exception" usually indicates a flaw in the theory itself.

Possibly, but not necessarily. Nuclear physics is full of examples where laws apply to particles, but certain interactions and certain particles prove exceptions to the rules:
- Parity violations (parity conserved by strong interaction, electromagnetism and gravity, but not by weak interaction)
- Strangeness, Charm, Topness, Bottomness conserved, except for weak interaction.
- Lepton numbers conserved, except for neutrino oscillations
and so on...


This could indicate that we have a very poor understanding of what's going on and that there's a more general law governing all of the above, where everything makes sense, but given what we've already figured out, that seems unlikely. Even if it did, we wouldn't throw our current knowledge away. We're perfectly happy with Newtonian mechanics, even though we know it's incorrect and special relativity is a much better law...
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
86
Points
48
Location
Here and now
It's hard to see a neutrino drive - simply because neutrino's have such a slight mass. Even if we had breakthroughs that allowed us to make accelerators small and light enough to be practical, I suspect you can get more "push" from a different substance at lower velocities.

However, understanding how things can exceed C could lead to new technologies that can provide the kind of thrust and velocity we hardly dare to dream of (or ways to sort of travel "around" space instead of "through" space, or somesuch).

That is, of course, assuming that this isn't just a measurement error or something.
 

fireballs619

Occam's Taser
Donator
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
788
Reaction score
4
Points
33
I, too, am a bit skeptical of this.

What about those neutrino emissions from SN 1987A that they detected before it's light reached us? That's about 168,000 light-years away from earth. What was the distance in this experiment- 730 km? So if neutrinos gain 60ns for every 730 km... well lets see:

[math] \frac{1.588×10^{18}km}{730 km}[/math]
so that comes out to

[math]2.206*10^{15}[/math]
Now, if we multiply that by the 60ns to find the time they would have gained

[math](2.206*10^{15})*60ns[/math]
[math]1.324*10^{17} ns[/math]
Thats about 4.1 years- yet we only detected them 3 hours before hand? Surely there must be some explanation for this, if the initial result is found to be true.
 

RisingFury

OBSP developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
6,427
Reaction score
492
Points
173
Location
Among bits and Bytes...
I, too, am a bit skeptical of this.

What about those neutrino emissions from SN 1987A that they detected before it's light reached us? That's about 168,000 light-years away from earth. What was the distance in this experiment- 730 km? So if neutrinos gain 60ns for every 730 km... well lets see:

[math] \frac{1.588×10^{18}km}{730 km}[/math]
so that comes out to

[math]2.206*10^{15}[/math]
Now, if we multiply that by the 60ns to find the time they would have gained

[math](2.206*10^{15})*60ns[/math]
[math]1.324*10^{17} ns[/math]
Thats about 4.1 years- yet we only detected them 3 hours before hand? Surely there must be some explanation for this, if the initial result is found to be true.

The universe isn't exactly a controlled laboratory either. Light may have been slowed down by traveling through material, so that speed of light was lower...
 

fireballs619

Occam's Taser
Donator
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
788
Reaction score
4
Points
33
The universe isn't exactly a controlled laboratory either. Light may have been slowed down by traveling through material, so that speed of light was lower...

True enough. I am still skeptical however- it is a very bold claim.
 

RisingFury

OBSP developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
6,427
Reaction score
492
Points
173
Location
Among bits and Bytes...
True enough. I am still skeptical however- it is a very bold claim.

Of course. It could have been just a coincidence that they measured neutrinos from another source, or that light was obscured for a few hours by another object.

There are many explanations that are fare more likely than neutrinos breaking the speed of light.
 

Polaris

New member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
239
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Lexington
Orbinauts, let's not forget that a version of this has been actually been photographed- it's called Cherkenhov Radiation. (It's that blue light you see in pictures involving nuclear waste being stored in water.)
 

RisingFury

OBSP developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
6,427
Reaction score
492
Points
173
Location
Among bits and Bytes...
Orbinauts, let's not forget that a version of this has been actually been photographed- it's called Cherkenhov Radiation. (It's that blue light you see in pictures involving nuclear waste being stored in water.)

No! Not by a long shot!

Cherenkov radiation happens, when a particle flies faster than the speed of light in a medium.

For example, in water, the speed of light is only about 2/3 c, so a particle can fly faster than that. But this alone won't produce any radiation. The particle also has to emit photons because of deceleration. Usually that happens because of collisions.


In this case, the research team claims that neutrinos flew faster than light in vacuum.
 

Artlav

Aperiodic traveller
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
5,790
Reaction score
780
Points
203
Location
Earth
Website
orbides.org
Preferred Pronouns
she/her
Two things to consider:
-First, if no error found - bigger experiment! Sent the neutrinos through the planet and clock them, that may reduce the uncertainty.

-Second, why is it at odds with any physics?
Fundamentally, the law is that there is no exchange of information faster than light.
Maybe the neutrinos can travel faster, but cannot carry information by that act?
Kind of like quantum entanglement or group velocities of waves.

Too early to claim anything on a large scale.

we only detected them 3 hours before hand?
Isn't supernova starts at the core of the star?
If so, the fusion would produce neutrino wave a few hours before it reaches the surface and flares in light.

And that we don't see neutrinos 4 years in advance does not really disprove this recent findings - they might have been produced or launched differently. Process matters.
 

markl316

XR2 Ravenstar Commander
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
450
Reaction score
1
Points
18
So what's the big deal? I break the speed of light all the time when I'm playing orbiter.
 
Top