Big story ....CERN scientists break the speed of light

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

Just wondering about how this will be tested? I read that scientists at Fermilab were preparing to test it, but could a different group of scientists not use the same equipment, and run it much sooner?

Japan would be our best bet. They have a similar neutrino experiment, and data from previous experiments could be comparable to OPERAS. It will only take a few months to see if there is a comparison.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Japan would be our best bet. They have a similar neutrino experiment, and data from previous experiments could be comparable to OPERAS. It will only take a few months to see if there is a comparison.

cheres.

but, is there a reason that a different group of scientists couldn't use the same equipment? This is based on reading about the Higgs; I'm just wondering if the Higgs were found would there be the need for independent verification also?

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

cheres.

but, is there a reason that a different group of scientists couldn't use the same equipment? This is based on reading about the Higgs; I'm just wondering if the Higgs were found would there be the need for independent verification also?

If it is a systematic error in the apparatus, a different group of scientists would still produce the same results. Basically, it needs to be shown that the result is not an artefact of their equipment. There is already a large discrepancy between their measurements and other neutrino measurements from supernovae.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

If it is a systematic error in the apparatus, a different group of scientists would still produce the same results. Basically, it needs to be shown that the result is not an artefact of their equipment. There is already a large discrepancy between their measurements and other neutrino measurements from supernovae.

can the apparatus not be checked for errors, and corrected, or are they fixed in that repsect?

Would the same apply to the Higgs then as well?

Curly Judge

This about sorry.
I've spent the day in a neutrino bar.
I'll have an awful head on me yesterday!

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

can the apparatus not be checked for errors, and corrected, or are they fixed in that repsect?

Would the same apply to the Higgs then as well?

They spent month checking and re-checking. But the standard of rigour in science is high.

The signature of the Higgs field will presumably be far more definitive. There will be less need for immediate repeatability.

del88

U.S.-based particle accelerator Fermilab said it would conduct tests that investigate whether neutrino particles can travel faster than the speed of light.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/26/u-s-lab-to-try-and-break-speed-of-light/

airsofter2012

how much does or will this affect us

AlmightyCushion

airsofter2012 wrote: »

how much does or will this affect us

You'll be able to buy a new neutrino based lightbulb that will turn on before you flip the switch.

msihl

Hi guys,

I'm new to this forum....I recommend the following blog posts by Sean Carroll over at Cosmic Variance:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/09/23/faster-than-light-neutrinos/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/09/24/can-neutrinos-kill-their-own-grandfathers/

I guess most people working in the field think that the result will likely not hold up....it would be extremely interesting though if it did. For example, Lorentz invariance could be spontaneously broken.

Also, space itself can expand faster than the speed of light (e.g. during inflation)

shizz

msihl wrote: »

Also, space itself can expand faster than the speed of light (e.g. during inflation)

This is only relative to the observer. The space itself is not expanding faster than the speed of light. IIRC

msihl

No, that is not correct! (Btw, what does the speed of sound have to do with anything???).
Read this:
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/inflation.html
There the effect on horizons (i.e. the boundaries of regions that are causally connected) is explained:

"A special feature of inflation is its effect on horizons. The horizon demarcates the boundary of causally connected regions, regions that light rays (which travel at the fastest speed that any signal can travel) can reach since the time of the big bang. These regions grow over time, as light has more time to travel, but the expansion of the universe means that over time there is more space to cross as well. When the universe isn't inflating, such as now, regions which are larger and larger come inside the horizon and become causally connected. During inflation, the expansion of the universe wins out. Regions which were causally connected are separated so fast by the expansion of space that a region once in causal contact can have parts of it "pushed out" of the horizon."

This is what people mean by "space expands faster than the speed of light".

shizz

msihl wrote: »

No, that is not correct! (Btw, what does the speed of sound have to do with anything???).
Read this:
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/inflation.html
There the effect on horizons (i.e. the boundaries of regions that are causally connected) is explained:

"A special feature of inflation is its effect on horizons. The horizon demarcates the boundary of causally connected regions, regions that light rays (which travel at the fastest speed that any signal can travel) can reach since the time of the big bang. These regions grow over time, as light has more time to travel, but the expansion of the universe means that over time there is more space to cross as well. When the universe isn't inflating, such as now, regions which are larger and larger come inside the horizon and become causally connected. During inflation, the expansion of the universe wins out. Regions which were causally connected are separated so fast by the expansion of space that a region once in causal contact can have parts of it "pushed out" of the horizon."

This is what people mean by "space expands faster than the speed of light".

Sorry I was doing an equation involving the speed of sound during reading this haha. I also didn't notice that you meant the initial inflationary period. I was referring to the expansion of the universe where the farther something is away from us that faster it seems to move away, with places apparently moving farther than the speed of light away.

Seifer

Possible explanation: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/

Iwannahurl

Seifer wrote: »

Possible explanation: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/

Super article, thanks.

As I was reading it I thought it made the OPERA experiment sound like an inadvertent confirmation of Relativity, so I was pleased with the last paragraph:

If it stands up, this episode will be laden with irony. Far from breaking Einstein's theory of relatively, the faster-than-light measurement will turn out to be another confirmation of it.

Capt'n Midnight

In the period that Einstein was active as a professor, one of his students
came to him and said: "The questions of this year's exam are the same as
last years!" "True," Einstein said, "but this year all answers are
different."

Iwannahurl

A theoretical physicist's wife found him in bed with another woman.

"Darling," he said, "I can explain everything."

Full.Duck

Just been keeping a lazy eye on this, skimmed through the thread. Most posts that give "possible" explanations. So i'm guessing there has still been no concrete proof what has happened here?

What is the most reasonable explanation so far?

Iwannahurl

Full.Duck wrote: »

Just been keeping a lazy eye on this, skimmed through the thread. Most posts that give "possible" explanations. So i'm guessing there has still been no concrete proof what has happened here?

What is the most reasonable explanation so far?

This is a good one, IMO.

Professor_Fink

Iwannahurl wrote: »

This is a good one, IMO.

No it isn't. The GPS system already corrects for such relativistic effects. The most likely explanation I have heard so far is that the fact that they only did the geodesy survey twice might fail to detect periodic changes in the earths shape (which do occur).

Anonymo

Professor_Fink wrote: »

No it isn't. The GPS system already corrects for such relativistic effects. The most likely explanation I have heard so far is that the fact that they only did the geodesy survey twice might fail to detect periodic changes in the earths shape (which do occur).

There are two explanations that I've heard that seem plausible. One is to do with the synchronisation of clocks. To do this you have them in the same place, synchronise and then transport the clocks. However during the transportation you will encounter relativistic effects (this is akin the the integrated sachs wolfe effect in cosmology where you move in and out of potential wells of changing sizes). I can't remember the arxiv reference now but it's by Carlo Contaldi of Imperial who is pretty good. This effect may acount for 20ns of the spurious 30ns.
The second effect is to do with the assumption that the final distribution of neutrinos is the same as the incident protons. While this is reasonable, the fact that you measure so few of the produced neutrinos means that you may be sampling from the tail of the actual distribution - i.e. the observed distribution is not the same as the actual distribution.

Curly Judge

Anonymo wrote: »

There are two explanations that I've heard that seem plausible. One is to do with the synchronisation of clocks. To do this you have them in the same place, synchronise and then transport the clocks. However during the transportation you will encounter relativistic effects (this is akin the the integrated sachs wolfe effect in cosmology where you move in and out of potential wells of changing sizes). I can't remember the arxiv reference now but it's by Carlo Contaldi of Imperial who is pretty good. This effect may acount for 20ns of the spurious 30ns.
The second effect is to do with the assumption that the final distribution of neutrinos is the same as the incident protons. While this is reasonable, the fact that you measure so few of the produced neutrinos means that you may be sampling from the tail of the actual distribution - i.e. the observed distribution is not the same as the actual distribution.

Those damned statistics again eh?

Iwannahurl

Professor_Fink wrote: »

No it isn't. The GPS system already corrects for such relativistic effects.

To what level of accuracy?

Anonymo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

To what level of accuracy?

It's really accurate. It definitely isn't the standard gps error (which they've accounted for in their error estimation by the way). They certainly wouldn't make that type of mistake.

WebGeek

Wasn't general relativity theory proven - I thought science was never wrong? I suppose you don't have all the answers after all.

Seifer

WebGeek wrote: »

Wasn't general relativity theory proven - I thought science was never wrong? I suppose you don't have all the answers after all.

Wow, that's embarrassing
The great thing about science is that it welcomes such questions with open arms. Events such as this provide either the chance to expand our knowledge or confirm what we already know.

Iwannahurl

Anonymo wrote: »

It's really accurate. It definitely isn't the standard gps error (which they've accounted for in their error estimation by the way). They certainly wouldn't make that type of mistake.

To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Professor_Fink

WebGeek wrote: »

Wasn't general relativity theory proven - I thought science was never wrong? I suppose you don't have all the answers after all.

You're wrong on so many levels. No science is ever "proven", there is simply more and more supporting evidence for a particular theory gathered. I don't know what it means for science to be wrong. Do you mean the scientific method? If so, this is hardly a counter example. If you mean instead GR, then firstly superluminal neutrinos don't disprove GR, and secondly no one credible ever said GR cannot be wrong.

Professor_Fink

Iwannahurl wrote: »

To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

That is for the GPS in a car. The GPS cards they used are far more accurate (go watch the CERN lecture, since they went through the GPS in excruciating detail), and use a multifrequency encoding the circumvent the usual limiting factor imposed by the state of the ionosphere.

Morbert

Looks like the result has survived the modified experiment, ruling out a few important sources of systematic errors. While I am not holding my breath, I am getting a little excited.