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.

stargazine_ep8_banner.thumb.jpg.7fc4114c7705b14c0786cf342cea1f9c.jpg

ncjunk

Neutrinos moving faster than light?

Recommended Posts

Jim Al-Khalili has blogged a lot of common sense on this.

Indeed so. :)

I have been prompted to write this blog, instead of chilling with a glass of wine...

It’s entirely my own fault. After the first announcement back in September I volunteered on Twitter...

Ah, the chagrins of today's "popular scientist"... :cool:

Without such qualification, I suspect this (effect) will "go away" though? :)

Edited by Macavity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there are no errors in the experiment then maybe, MAYBE...

c is the limit within 4D spacetime

and

neutrinos tunnel through higher dimensions, thus perceived to appear to travel faster in our spacetime, but in fact define their own limit in a higher dimensional spacetime.

It just defies belief how a particle with some minimal rest(Invariant) mass, negilgible though it may be, can travel faster than c in vacuum in 4D spacetime

You can only achieve c for massless particles, is that not so?

NeutrinoWave, I think your wormhole for neutrinos is in the 6th space time dimension. I have done a thread 6 degrees of separation that you may find interesting. I'd be interested in your thoughts...Whether the thread is total rubbish, or not. It is a bit out there but if you read it a couple of times you may get the gist of it. I value your comments.

Cheers, NeutrinoWave

Oh,interesting that Jim Al Khalili doesn't like the thought of wormholes in a higher dimension . Does that mean it is a possible candidate for this faster than light measurement?

Edited by DarkStar7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Neil DeGrasse Tyson said on Twitter yesterday:

"Three options:

1) Mistake in the data.

A VERY DISTANT 2) New particle travelling backwards through time. No need to modify relativity.

AN EVEN MORE DISTANT 3) Need to modify Relativity."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As Neil DeGrasse Tyson said on Twitter yesterday:

"Three options:

1) Mistake in the data.

A VERY DISTANT 2) New particle travelling backwards through time. No need to modify relativity.

AN EVEN MORE DISTANT 3) Need to modify Relativity."

Option 4] AN EVEN FURTHER MORE DISTANT?

If Data is Correct then can Neutrinos tunnel through higher dimensions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Option 4] AN EVEN FURTHER MORE DISTANT?

If Data is Correct then can Neutrinos tunnel through higher dimensions?

Assuming you're referring to the idea of the "sterile" neutrino, that would probably come under Option 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way, it's not quite true that Einstein said that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. It's more accurate to say that nothing can cross the c barrier.

Nothing with mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OPERATIC CONCERN

-- James Ph. Kotsybar

Oh, little neutral one of tiny mass,

anomalous traveller from the sun,

you fly through matter that photons can’t pass:

Could this explain the races that you’ve won?

Since Einstein, few have believed it could be

that any mass can go faster than light --

deemed simply an impossibility,

for Relativity has to be right.

If true, the results are quite terrible,

and give complacent physicists a scare.

In terms of a modern day parable,

you are the tortoise; the photon’s the hare.

Though steady, light (it seems) can’t keep up pace.

Your oscillation is what wins the race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
understand generally how (neutral!) neutrinos

could "Bremsstrahlung" away energy as e+ / e- pairs tho'.

loadBinary.aspx?filename=450700FG0010.gif

neutrinos are electrically neutral but they do have a "weak" charge so they can couple to electrons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see (to be slightly pedenatic?), the Cohen - Gell Mann paper describes:

muon-neutrino --> [same] muon-neutrino + e(+) + e(-)

But I guess, if you rotate the neutral current (lowest Z0 one) thru 90 deg?

P.S. Not being confrontational, just revisiting stuff I (did/didn't?) know. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there been any comment from theorists yet as to the implications that these results would or could have on String Theory? It just seems ambiguous when taken in the context of a theory that allows for such unobservable dimensions that could facilitate such "short cuts", but also doesn't ST very much incorporate general relatively and the notion of c as a cosmic speed limit?

Or does the travel across dimensions implicate that indeed light speed is not being broken, rather space itself has been manipulated?

Forgive the elementary nature of my questions guys, I'm still relatively new to all of this :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has there been any comment from theorists yet as to the implications that these results would or could have on String Theory...
I think it intriguing that there has been little (definitive, precise theoretical) comment. Science publicisers and internet Tweeters are "betting their underpants" (no disrespect) etc. - Physics forums are in tumult, but... :(

It's still a new era for MAJOR discoveries (or not) in particle physics. Previously (before wider internet use) researchers kept "odd" results (informally) confidential within the community. Now everyone has to make an immediate media statement. "Glasnost" is fine, but I'm not sure some of this stuff is such a good thing... :)

On a brighter note, maybe it shows that things are not so "standard"

and there is still room for (wild) ideas beyond previous models. :)

P.S. I sense I got Glashows confused with my Gell Manns in

some of the above. LOL. Not quite sure why, but... :)

Edited by Macavity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or does the travel across dimensions implicate that indeed light speed is not being broken, rather space itself has been manipulated?

Forgive the elementary nature of my questions guys, I'm still relatively new to all of this :)

I'm with you on this higher dimensional tunneling hypothesis, IFF the data is correct and the measurements had NO errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amidst the "general hollering", one physics forum yielded:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.6562v1.pdf

(The Cohen & Glasow paper)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3763v1.pdf

(The ICARUS paper)

I did want to understand generally how (neutral!) neutrinos

could "Bremsstrahlung" away energy as e+ / e- pairs tho'. :)

The predicted consequences of Cohen & Glashow's idea weren't detected by the OPERA or ICARUS experiment, but I'm not sure if they were designed to detect in the first place - else if it's correct I wonder if it could be evidence that the neutrinos weren't actually superluminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only just heard this, I thought it was great.....

The Barman says, " I'm sorry we don't serve Neutrinos"

A Neutrino goes into a bar.

Edited by wiseman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys one silly question

Did they measure speed of light by using the exactly same method ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - there are lots of ways of measuring the speed of light, but neutrinos are not a good way.

Firstly they shouldn't travel quite at the speed of light anyway, and second they are very hard to detect. Real light is much easier to detect and measure, although it does go awfully fast so you need precise equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh somewhat familiar with all that Juliano what i ment by my question is.

If they suspect mistake in system ( measurment method ) why not measure speed of light by same method and see if they are actually faster or not ... Maybe the same mistake ( if there is any ) ll show that light is faster then light :) if that makes sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well principally because they are firing neutrinos through the alps, Italy and Switzerland, which is - to say the least - opaque to light...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah right that would explain then why they didnt :) thought its going thru some tube or something ... excuse my ignorance ... had that hadron collider in mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if...

The neutrinos are entangled together like connected on a long string or rope... Heard that one before...

What if...

The neutrino had never moved but was two aspects of the same particle...

What if...

Both statements above were both true and both equivalent to one another.

Edited by DarkStar7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if...

The neutrinos are entangled together like connected on a long string or rope... Heard that one before...

Is this a travelling rope, or a rope between CERN and Rome? Why would they be entangled? They are produced by discrete protons hitting targets, in a pulse. So I think of it like shotgun pellets all hitting a target. Yes they were all together at one time, but they all travel separately and interact with the target independently. Or are there lots of ropes? Either way it seems to be needlessly complicating things.

What if...

The neutrino had never moved but was two aspects of the same particle...

Well - they see the events that produce the neutrinos, a short time later they detect the neutrinos, the simplest scenario is that they have travelled. You could say they were a long thin stick stretching between CERN and Rome, and that if you bang it in CERN you see it move a short time later in Rome, in which case the neutrino is the shockwave. Its just simpler to think its a moving thing though.

What if...

Both statements above were both true and both equivalent to one another.

Go on then - what if?

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.