Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result

dlofnep

Looks like it isn't a freak accident or mistake afterall.

The team behind the finding in September that neutrinos may travel faster than light has carried out an improved version of their experiment - and found the same result.

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

Critics of the first report had said that the long bunches of neutrinos used could introduce an error into the test.

The new work, posted to the Arxiv repository, used much shorter bunches.

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

Wertz

Don't know if any of you were watching the BBC2 docu on this the other week, but one of the contributors cited observations of supernova 1987A that neutrino emmissions were detected 3-4 hrs before light reached earth...that happened at a distance of 168,000 light yrs...if the speed limit breaking difference noticed at CERN was scaled up, that neutrino burst should have been observed almost a week earlier (forget exact time mentioned).

emo72

waaahey..... forward to the next dimension. seriously though, if its true, well, its fantastic news? yea?

AlmightyCushion

Wertz wrote: »

Don't know if any of you were watching the BBC2 docu on this the other week, but one of the contributors cited observations of supernova 1987A that neutrino emmissions were detected 3-4 hrs before light reached earth...that happened at a distance of 168,000 light yrs...if the speed limit breaking difference noticed at CERN was scaled up, that neutrino burst should have been observed almost a week earlier (forget exact time mentioned).

I read an article comparing the two. The type of neutrinos in both were different and the experiment used higher energy neutrinos so it's not exactly a like for like comparison.

dermiek

Can I have a pint of Guinness, please?

A neutrino walks into a bar.

A Primal Nut

It's interesting. But isn't it possible that the speed of light is simply close to the maximum speed possible? Therefore special relativity wouldn't fall apart? I never understand why Einstein said "speed of light" = "speed upper limit"

A Primal Nut

A Primal Nut wrote: »

It's interesting. But isn't it possible that the speed of light is simply close to the maximum speed possible? Therefore special relativity wouldn't fall apart? I never understand why Einstein said "speed of light" = "speed upper limit"

Long story short it's because light/photons have no mass.

Long story long according to special relativity the faster you go the more mass you have. Eventually you get so much mass it requires an infinite amount of energy to accelerate you any further, which is impossible. The point at which this occurs is the speed of light in a vacuum, hence you are able to get close to the speed of light be never actually get to the speed of light.
But since photons do not have any mass to start with they do not run into this barrier and are able to travel at this speed.

The problem which these results yield (if they are true and not the result of an error somewhere) is that we know that neutrinos have a mass. We don't know exactly how much mass, but we know it's non-zero. Previously all the times neutrinos have been detected they were travelling very very very near the speed of light, but not quite.

So then if true this means that a massive particle is somehow able to travel faster than a massless particle, which doesn't make sense in special relativity.

Wertz

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I read an article comparing the two. The type of neutrinos in both were different and the experiment used higher energy neutrinos so it's not exactly a like for like comparison.

makes sense...one lot travelled a few hundred miles after a high energy collision and the other lot have been traversing the galactic void for 168K yrs...even with a supernova behind you something with mass has to loose some of that momentum over such a vast time/distance.
thing is though the neutrinos from 1987A still got here hours before the light...was this not seen as unusual up until now?

maddragon

Neutrino.


Knock, Knock, who's there?

Wertz

Wertz wrote: »

makes sense...one lot travelled a few hundred miles after a high energy collision and the other lot have been traversing the galactic void for 168K yrs...even with a supernova behind you something with mass has to loose some of that momentum over such a vast time/distance.
thing is though the neutrinos from 1987A still got here hours before the light...was this not seen as unusual up until now?

Well according to wiki the neutrinos most likely were emitted before the light was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A#Neutrino_emissions

Approximately three hours before the visible light from SN 1987A reached the Earth, a burst of neutrinos was observed at three separate neutrino observatories. This is likely due to neutrino emission (which occurs simultaneously with core collapse) preceding the emission of visible light (which occurs only after the shock wave reaches the stellar surface).[10]

Cú Giobach

Wertz wrote: »

makes sense...one lot travelled a few hundred miles after a high energy collision and the other lot have been traversing the galactic void for 168K yrs...even with a supernova behind you something with mass has to loose some of that momentum over such a vast time/distance.
thing is though the neutrinos from 1987A still got here hours before the light...was this not seen as unusual up until now?

The collisions that produced the neutrinos in Switzerland had more energy (on a much smaller scale) than a supernova, a bigger small bang if you will, they were given a bigger kick.

WalterMitty

Soo universe may not be wholly deterministic?

Cú Giobach

WalterMitty wrote: »

Soo universe may not be wholly deterministic?

What? Two events, both with different starting conditions and having different results = Randomness ??
A neutrino burst precedes the emission of visible light in a SN, here.

WalterMitty

Cú Giobach wrote: »

What? Two events, both with different starting conditions and having different results = Randomness ??
A neutrino burst precedes the emission of visible light in a SN, here.

events may not always causal in classical spacetime i think i mean

Cú Giobach

WalterMitty wrote: »

events may not always causal in classical spacetime i think i mean

Why do you say that?

Capt'n Midnight

Maybe the Luminiferous aether really exists.

Has anyone repeated the Michelson–Morley experiment recently ?


http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v80/i10/e105011 only on part in 10^-17

Rubecula

We know anti matter exists. So a silly question (cos I really don't know) Is it possible to have a particle with anti mass?

AlmightyCushion

Rubecula wrote: »

We know anti matter exists. So a silly question (cos I really don't know) Is it possible to have a particle with anti mass?

I remember reading somewhere else that this was a possible explanation.

Cú Giobach

Rubecula wrote: »

We know anti matter exists. So a silly question (cos I really don't know) Is it possible to have a particle with anti mass?

Sounds like something Richard Dawkins would celebrate around Dec 25th.

AugustusMinimus

Rubecula wrote: »

We know anti matter exists. So a silly question (cos I really don't know) Is it possible to have a particle with anti mass?

Negative mass is a possibility.

A particle with negative mass would

1. Always travel above the speed of light
2. Would be repelled by matter of positive mass
3. Would accelerate in the opposite direction of force being applied to it.

AlmightyCushion

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Rubecula wrote: »

We know anti matter exists. So a silly question (cos I really don't know) Is it possible to have a particle with anti mass?

Negative mass is a possibility.

A particle with negative mass would

1. Always travel above the speed of light
2. Would be repelled by matter of positive mass
3. Would accelerate in the opposite direction of force being applied to it.

So in this case it isn't responsible?

AugustusMinimus

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

So in this case it isn't responsible?

It's been fairly much proven that Neutrinos have a very small but positive mass so I would guess this isn't responsible.

Capt'n Midnight

Anti matter as we know it is affected by gravity in the same way as normal matter.

IrishMark

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Negative mass is a possibility.

A particle with negative mass would

1. Always travel above the speed of light
2. Would be repelled by matter of positive mass
3. Would accelerate in the opposite direction of force being applied to it.

a) To what extent do these three points accurately describe Tachyons and;
b) I also saw that BBC documentary a couple of weeks ago and I remember a part of it concentrated on the possible role Tachyons may have played in the findings. I can't remember exactly what it said, but I was wondering what role ye all think Tachyons may have played. Any suggestions?

slade_x

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Anti matter as we know it is affected by gravity in the same way as normal matter.

Anti matter and a concept of anti mass would be entirely different things

Both matter and antimatter of the same mass (their antimatter counterpart) even though one has a positive charge and the other a net negative charge they are both theorised to have positive mass. meaning acceleration is in the same direction as the force applied; they attract eachother as does matter on matter (easily thought of in classical physics, kick a ball the ball is accelerated forward with the force applied from your foot minus the force applied back to your foot. the ball accelerates from your foot and vice versa for your foot)

In the same application with negative mass the ball would accelerate in the opposite direction of the force applied and your foot would have a slight knock forward as opposed to backward. Which would be odd

Kind of like discovering instead of the expansion of the universe slowing down its actually speeding up, actually working against gravity.

Without knowing exactly what gravity is, if its the product of a particle or a force applied by an energy, Since whatever it is thats behind it remains unknown as of yet, gravity seems to be a product of mass and space. Would antimass cause antigravity. Is dark energy antigravity and dark matter really the product of antimass



Any one interested in such notions as antimass if they havent already found the following may be of interest:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100412084525.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

http://www.concentric.net/~pvb/negmass.html

Rubecula

slade_x wrote: »

Anti matter and a concept of anti mass would be entirely different things

Both matter and antimatter of the same mass (their antimatter counterpart) even though one has a positive charge and the other a net negative charge they are both theorised to have positive mass. meaning acceleration is in the same direction as the force applied; they attract eachother as does matter on matter (easily thought of in classical physics, kick a ball the ball is accelerated forward with the force applied from your foot minus the force applied back to your foot. the ball accelerates from your foot and vice versa for your foot)

In the same application with negative mass the ball would accelerate in the opposite direction of the force applied and your foot would have a slight knock forward as opposed to backward. Which would be odd

Kind of like discovering instead of the expansion of the universe slowing down its actually speeding up, actually working against gravity.

Without knowing exactly what gravity is, if its the product of a particle or a force applied by an energy, Since whatever it is thats behind it remains unknown as of yet, gravity seems to be a product of mass and space. Would antimass cause antigravity. Is dark energy antigravity and dark matter really the product of antimass

Your final points there are what prompted me to ask the question, at least partly. Thanks for your insight. Oh and thanks for those very informative links.

Cork boy 55

opps
What might have been the biggest physics story of the past century may instead be down to a faulty connection.
In September 2011, the Opera experiment reported it had seen particles called neutrinos evidently travelling faster than the speed of light.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17139635

Capt'n Midnight

It's cold fusion all over again.

Did anyone else claim to have detected faster than light neutrinos ?