Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

ncjunk

Neutrinos moving faster than light?

Recommended Posts

I assume they state all assumptions in their press release so what they are looking for is any affect that they have not taken into account or any error they could have manually introduced but missed in their tests (or they have measured everything correctly and there is something new here that needs adding to Einsteins theory)

Anyone know what they think this 60ns value is acurate to?

60.7 ns ± 6.9 ns (statistical) ± 7.4 ns (systematic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks JulianO and jimmyjamjoejoe

Edited by ncjunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

forgive me if this is stupid question or is within the lengthy links posted (I don't have time to read them at the mo) but is it at all likely that neutrinos and light particles left the 'scene' so to speak at different times and hence the difference in arrival times? is it possible that some light particles were slowed by bouncing off e.g. gas clouds before hitting our detectors and thus traveled further?

this is a question borne out of an ignorance as to the reasons why photons hit the eyes and stay or bounce off something (if they even do this) to give colours but neutrinos just carry on through. perhaps the answer to that question from someone will answer my other question? as I typed this I am sure there's a fundamental flaw in my suggestions but I am edging very close to the cliff of ignorance at this point.

cheers

Shane

Edited by Moonshane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
forgive me if this is stupid question or is within the lengthy links posted (I don't have time to read them at the mo) but is it at all likely that neutrinos and light particles left the 'scene' so to speak at different times and hence the difference in arrival times? is it possible that some light particles were slowed by bouncing off e.g. gas clouds before hitting our detectors and thus traveled further?

this is a question borne out of an ignorance as to the reasons why photons hit the eyes and stay or bounce off something (if they even do this) to give colours but neutrinos just carry on through.

The thing is neutrinos hardly ever interact with anything, so scattering is very unlikely. The chance of them interacting once in their path is pretty unlikely, twice would be very rare.

They have to send large quantities just to detect any at all at the other end. There is a question about if its exactly the same place in the spray of neutrinos that is detected at the start and end points, but they have been very careful. After all its only about 30cm they need to be out by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my question was more, could the photons have been delayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be delayed they need to be absorbed and re-emitted - e.g., scattered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but that was my point that the photons (not the neutrinos as you state) would be scattered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean about the photons, they were only measuring the flight time of neutrinos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe I have the wrong end of the stick then. I thought this was a debate about neutrinos arriving before light from the same SN and therefore being deemed to travel 'faster' than light? sorry if I got this wrong - told you I was a numptie :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly it is about neutrinos arriving 60ns ahead of schedule on their travels from CERN to Rome. This is 60ns faster than the speed of light.

However supernova sn1987a was proceeded by a burst of neutrinos by about 3 minutes. This is inline with theory, as the light from the explosion takes a while to get out, getting absorbed and re-scattered and so on until it makes it out of the shell of material (incidentally it takes nearly a million years for light to get out of the inside of the sun).

Whereas the massive neutrino flux comes straight out of the SN without any noticeable interaction. If we saw the same sort of speed up as in CERN then the neutrinos would arrive some years earlier rather than minutes.

That's sort of the jist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah cheers Julian. so in a way I had the right idea but about the wrong argument!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't there an experiment a few years ago where they encoded a recording of Mozart into a digital signal and fired it via a laser through some glass and found that the light exceeded the 'speed of light' and arrived fractionally before it should have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we saw the same sort of speed up as in CERN then the neutrinos would arrive some years earlier rather than minutes.
Yes, I read the same,, but just by way of conversation,, was anyone watching some years ago when the super-luminal neutrinos might have arrived, not all types (3 + a sterile maybe) could be detected back then ?

So the 3min neutrinos that were detected and associated with the SN

may have been generated by another later mechanism (/clutching at straws:) )

PS. a good readable article (between the prof. papers and the Daily Rag) is in New Scientist last Th (dated 1 Oct) ed. .

Edited by Ptarmigan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have they made sure it isn't downhill?

Yes. They took account of the gravitational red shift due to different altitudes between departure and arrival, the computed effect of that was much much smaller than what they measured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. They took account of the gravitational red shift due to different altitudes between departure and arrival, the computed effect of that was much much smaller than what they measured.

:)

it was a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theories proposed so far to disprove faster than light.

1. Gravity at sites different therefore affecting the clocks measuring time at each site or;

2. Faster than light neutrinos 'should' radiate other detectable particles at faster than c, which has not been reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theories proposed so far to disprove faster than light.

1. Gravity at sites different therefore affecting the clocks measuring time at each site or;

2. Faster than light neutrinos 'should' radiate other detectable particles at faster than c, which has not been reported.

Add to this list the possibility of neutrinos tunnelling through higher\warped dimensions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By my calculations the neutrinos are travelling approx 16765 mph faster than c.

That is 96% of the speed of an object in low earth orbit..

Where was this satellite that syncronised the clocks again? :)

(I've sent an email to CERN notifying them of this 'co-incidence')

Edited by blackparticle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was surprised also by the announcement of faster than light particles. The speed of light is the maximum speed a stationary observer can perceive an EM wave travelling at. It is not a limit of speed in itself. In other words an object can accelerate indefinitely. Thing is , any object travelling faster than C is turned into a different plane from a stationary observers view, ie turned into the time dimension.From our point of view any object travelling faster than C would be travelling backwards in time. There is one phenomena that is missing from our theories, a phenomena that would also explain dark energy, a phenomena whose time runs opposite to ours and that is antimatter. I think that anti matter remains in a state of antimatter Neutrinos with negative mass that is unable to permanently bond into Baryons.Interestingly negative mass would give a repulsive force in the fabric of space and contribute to universal expansion. To answer why Supernova 1987a never produced faster than light Neutrinos we have to remember that it, before it exploded it consisted of only Matter atoms.As a side note to my thoughts, the Big Bang theory is always believed to have been a hot big bang because of the fact we have to accelerate matter to high energies to release the trapped energy within already produced matter atoms. In space this is not necessary as particles pairs are continuously produced out of the energy of nothing. The big bang may be a cold bang that is happening all around us today! Sounds crazy? Think about it antimatter and matter particle pairs add up to nothing. They on average neutralise. Any matter in the universe has to be cancelled out by the negative energy of antimatter.(negative energy behaves same as normal energy as it is simply angular momentum with opposite spin accept it has negative mass as time is reversed and so is repulsive relative to mass of normal matter)

Edited by DarkStar7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was surprised also by the announcement of faster than light particles. The speed of light is the maximum speed a stationary observer can perceive an EM wave travelling at. It is not a limit of speed in itself.

In relativity it is a speed limit, nothing can move through space faster.

In other words an object can accelerate indefinitely.

Well you can try, they try every day in places like the LHC, but they have never managed to get it to the speed of light, just very very very close. As you accelerate more, more of the energy goes into making it more massive and less into speed.

Thing is , any object travelling faster than C is turned into a different plane from a stationary observers view, ie turned into the time dimension.From our point of view any object travelling faster than C would be travelling backwards in time.

How do you know this?

There is one phenomena that is missing from our theories,

Just one? :rolleyes:

a phenomena that would also explain dark energy, a phenomena whose time runs opposite to ours and that is antimatter. I think that anti matter remains in a state of antimatter Neutrinos with negative mass that is unable to permanently bond into Baryons.

As far as we can tell time runs forward just fine for antimatter particles. All neutrinos, both regular and anti-neutrinos at the moment are thought to have a very small positive mass.

Interestingly negative mass would give a repulsive force in the fabric of space and contribute to universal expansion.

If you stick it into newtons gravitation equation then yes a negative mass would repel a positive mass. As no one has ever seen negative mass, this is supposition.

To answer why Supernova 1987a never produced faster than light Neutrinos we have to remember that it, before it exploded it consisted of only Matter atoms.

And that fixes the problem how? It might produce some anti matter in the explosion, but its still mostly matter.

As a side note to my thoughts, the Big Bang theory is always believed to have been a hot big bang because of the fact we have to accelerate matter to high energies to release the trapped energy within already produced matter atoms.

I think that's backwards, the big bang was very hot, so had enormous energy and as a result produced atoms. You don't release energy by accelerating atoms, unless you mean fusion, and that only works for certain atoms. Accelerating atoms consumes energy.

In space this is not necessary as particles pairs are continuously produced out of the energy of nothing. The big bang may be a cold bang that is happening all around us today! Sounds crazy? Think about it antimatter and matter particle pairs add up to nothing. They on average neutralise. Any matter in the universe has to be cancelled out by the negative energy of antimatter.

This is basically the steady state theory, and it doesn't square with a whole host of observations on the expanding universe.

Also anti matter doesn't really have negative energy, it has regular energy. Otherwise matter/anti-matter would cancel each other out with no resulting energy at all, and we know thats not the case.

(negative energy behaves same as normal energy as it is simply angular momentum with opposite spin accept it has negative mass as time is reversed and so is repulsive relative to mass of normal matter)

So if I spin a marble the opposite way I have created negative energy and things are repulsed by it?

I think you need to work on proof and experimentation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Juliano, Steady state is a theory that proposes that the universe is unchanging. My Hypothesis is a Universe that is changing, where Space expands and Masses increase over time. Yes the net effect is the universe always looks the same, but my Alternative to the Universe thread implies objects far away are very massive, quite different to Steady State

Juliano,it would be helpful if you tried to rubbish my posts with facts. Your not even reading my posts properly. No matter, Anyhow,

Positrons can be viewed mathematically as electrons with reverse time direction.

A space craft accelerated to say 299,000,000 m/s from Earth and then left to coast at constant motion, may appear to be travelling very fast from our point of view, but the passenger who has just woken up from a deep sleep in the cargo bay could still think the ship was stationary in dock! In which case he is quite right in thinking he could accelerate the space craft to 299,000,000m/s from this location again!

The speed of light is a limit to momentum in one plane.It is not a wall! One way to visualise it is imagining sitting in a rowing boat in the middle of the Pacific looking at the horizon. No matter how fast you row you will never get to the horizon.If you had a friend in another rowing boat you could only perceive him row a certain distance away from you, he would have a distance limit, yet from his point of view he could row indefinitely.

Positive criticism is very welcome. Negative bullying tactics are ignored.. I'm too old to be wound up, lol

Edited by DarkStar7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Juliano, Steady state is a theory that proposes that the universe is unchanging.

The original steady state had the universe expanding and the gaps constantly being filled with new matter. So it wasn't an unchanging universe, but one in a steady state between galaxies zooming away out of view and new matter forming to create new stars and galaxies.

My Hypothesis is a Universe that is changing, where Space expands and Masses increase over time. Yes the net effect is the universe always looks the same, but my Alternative to the Universe thread implies objects far away are very massive, quite different to Steady State

OK - I don't see the difference quite to the above, but no matter. I think - though I'm happy to be corrected, that distant galaxies on the whole look smaller in mass, which is in line with the merger theory of galaxy formation. So this somewhat conflicts with your theory, although as I said I don't have definitive info.

Juliano,it would be helpful if you tried to rubbish my posts with facts. Your not even reading my posts properly. No matter, Anyhow,

Sorry if it came across as harsh, but there did seem to be a mishmash of ideas and a number of them at odds with what I understand.

Positrons can be viewed mathematically as electrons with reverse time direction.

I believe thats true. I'm not too sure where it gets us though.

A space craft accelerated to say 299,000,000 m/s from Earth and then left to coast at constant motion, may appear to be travelling very fast from our point of view, but the passenger who has just woken up from a deep sleep in the cargo bay could still think the ship was stationary in dock! In which case he is quite right in thinking he could accelerate the space craft to 299,000,000m/s from this location again!

Yes he can, but he still won't exceed the speed of light. Right now as I sit here, I am going at 99.99% of the speed of light relative to some very distant galaxies. If I run across the room I still won't beat the speed of light though, even if I run at 99% of it. I'm not very good on relativistic maths, but I think this comes down to inertial frames of references, and how you would measure your velocity. You have to measure it with respect to something external, and I think thats where the catch is.

If you measure it by reference to nearby stars, I think you'll find they are distorted such that such measurements still leave you under the speed of light.

The speed of light is a limit to momentum in one plane.It is not a wall! One way to visualise it is imagining sitting in a rowing boat in the middle of the Pacific looking at the horizon. No matter how fast you row you will never get to the horizon.If you had a friend in another rowing boat you could only perceive him row a certain distance away from you, he would have a distance limit, yet from his point of view he could row indefinitely.

I'm not sure I follow this argument. What is the speed of light in this scenario?

Positive criticism is very welcome. Negative bullying tactics are ignored.. I'm too old to be wound up, lol

I'm sorry if I wound you up. I did read your message carefully several times, but there are definite holes in some of the arguments according to my understand of the current interpretation of physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.