Particles found to break speed of light

[Beekeeper]

This could prove interesting:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110922

[Sinera]

Maybe I get sth wrong here but I wonder why this is new(s) now. Isn't particle entanglement and 'action at a distance' already the breaking of SoL? It is of course because no 'speed' is actually needed as no 'real moving' takes place in non-locality. I thought that this wasn't just theoretical now but already common knowledge shown in other laboratory set-ups.

[Summerlander]

This could prove interesting:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110922

Neutrinos can travel faster than light? Einestein was wrong about the speed limit? This is brilliant!!! Absolutely fantastic!!!

:thumbsup:

[CFTraveler]

They've known this for years, however it doesn't break Conservation laws. I'll need to look for the reasons why.

[CFTraveler]

Actually, they're not claiming anything, they're just befuddled at the measurements they're getting.
Here's an interesting scientific forum's comments:

"I agree, it is unlikely that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light but I don't think we can rule out the possibility that the neutrinos measured weren't the ones generated. If you assume that there can be other forces (for lack of better word) faster than the speed of light, those forces would rarely interact with the physical universe governed by the speed of light, but when they do they could conceivably generate an interference pattern that could perturb other like particles across vast distances. So theoretically if the neutrinos generated at the source interacted with some faster than light force, the result could be perturbation of neutrinos close to the detectors, making it appear that the neutrinos actually arrived earlier than expected. I'm looking into this theory as a means of explaining black holes.
...
This headline is terribly misleading. No one is "claiming" faster-than-light neutrinos. They simply have time measurements that aren't making sense because they show the neutrinos arriving a couple billionths of a second faster than they should, and they are opening up the findings to the wider scientific community to try and explain the anomaly."




http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3027095

My comment is, if neutrinos don't interact with anything, how could they measure them reliably enough to know they're really getting the same ones they generated, and,
Maybe neutrinos can go faster than light because they don't interact with anything, even spacetime- and that's where the laws break down- although they have mass- and if they do interact with spacetime what the scientists are seeing is the warping of spacetime, and not the breaking of any speed limits.
Just my two cents, I really don't know enough to know what I'm talking aboutf (yet it's not stopping me from commenting anyway.) :-D

[Beekeeper]

The article's headline is sensational (Reuters) but I tend to find that works well in the forums too ;). My son and I found another article on his computer in Nature which wasn't so sensational but it was bedtime and I'd already shut down my computer. I figured the first article wasn't really making the claim in any case, just proposing it as a possibility.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html
(http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html)
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2011/09/faster-than-light-neutrino-observation-far-from-confirmed/

[mick]

what the scientists are seeing is the warping of spacetime, and not the breaking of any speed limits.
Just my two cents, I really don't know enough to know what I'm talking aboutf (yet it's not stopping me from commenting anyway.) :-D
I have seen this explanation mentioned also, also the two locations sync timewise using the GPS satellites which introduce relativity issues but sure they are aware of this. :)

Came across a related joke.

""We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here," said the bartender. A neutrino walks into a bar."

The Reference frame has a guest post or two as to reasons why there might be a false reading, it is also where the joke came from.
A few terms there for which I would like an explanation first though. :)

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/nir-shaviv-why-dont-i-believe-that.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lu bos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29

[CFTraveler]

Thanks for the link, Mick. I have some readin' to do. :-)

[mick]

I thought it might be an idea to check whether Fermi Lab are reporting anything as they pln to check the results but nothing as yet obvious on their front page.
http://www.fnal.gov/

Did come across this page that describes a test that they did that also indicate FtL speeds. They discounted the results for reasons explained.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/09/neutrino-experiment-sees-them-apparently-moving-faster-than-light.ars

Have added this link. http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/italian-out-of-tune-superluminal.html
The comments although heated at times might be of interest. Although much of it a foreign language to me. :)

So more reading. :)

[CFTraveler]

You may find this interesting.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/06/opera_and_general_relativity/

[mick]

That is an interesting aspect of the experimental set-up. There is another post at the same site that has focus on the GPS system and suggested that this is the cause of a timing error with an explanation as to the why. Others in the comments are not so convinced and one post outlines the timing methodology at this link. The mobile time reference is also mentioned. Interesting line of thought. :)

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/#comment-237252

[CFTraveler]

Like one of the subtitles said: "Take That, Einstein!"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/18/neutrinos_faster_than_light_confirmed/

[mick]

I read about this a few days ago at The Reference Frame. It seems it was thought an outlier by some as an explanation but something to be eliminated. The shape of the beam was changed to test detection of the neutrinos. The shape/duration of the pulse itself has been changed to test the detection accuracy.

From TRF.

"OPERA published a press release in which they tell us that they repeated the experiment with short, 3-nanosecond pulses separated by up to 524 nanoseconds. 20 clean neutrino events confirmed that the timing within the pulse is gotten with less than 3-ns error."

So, still waiting with bated breath. :)

[mick]

There is a further experiment conducted at the same site that suggests the neutrinos did not FTL.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/21/neutrinos_not_so_fast/

On another blog I came across a comment to the effect that if Neutrinos travel faster than light then this would be evident when observing Stars going supernova, the comment mentioned the recent one and noted that if the Neutrinos were travelling that much faster then they would have arrived three years ago but said they arrived simultaneous with visible light.

That said. The comments at the above link also keep the possibility of Neutrino FTL alive.

[Beekeeper]

Thanks for sharing. I enjoyed the last comment.:-)

[mick]

Reports are that the measured speed gain was/is due to a dodgy cable connection. It introduced a 60n/second delay in the timing system.
Further tests to be run.

http://www.nature.com/news/flaws-found-in-faster-than-light-neutrino-measurement-1.10099

As we were. :)

[CFTraveler]

Back to regular physics, folks.
:rolling: