This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result

Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result - Comments

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 1 by Neodarwinian

" The idea that nothing can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. "

So, let us see how these neutrinos preform in a vacuum!

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 21:46:43 UTC | #891668

masubi's Avatar Comment 2 by masubi

Does the direction the Earth is rotating matter in this experiment?

Live a good life,

Masubi

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 21:56:53 UTC | #891670

robaylesbury's Avatar Comment 3 by robaylesbury

I think it's magic. Isn't that what we ascribe it to when we don't understand?

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:22:03 UTC | #891671

Quantum Zombie's Avatar Comment 4 by Quantum Zombie

I reckon it's a plot concocted by those damn underpants gnomes.

Phase 1 - Collect neutrinos

Phase 2 - Exceed light speed

Phase 3 - ?

Phase 4 - Profit

But seriously, this is an interesting and exciting development. I'll be waiting for the results of the other tests with bated breath. Pity it's going to take so long though.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:47:06 UTC | #891674

Sjoerd Westenborg's Avatar Comment 5 by Sjoerd Westenborg

Comment 1 by Neodarwinian :

" The idea that nothing can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. "

So, let us see how these neutrinos preform in a vacuum!

It's an ambiguous sentence, if I understand physics correctly, (which would be a miracle!) they mean to say: The idea that nothing can exceed the speed that light traveling through a vacuum has.

Edit: Oops, it was a joke, right?

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:49:46 UTC | #891675

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 6 by Neodarwinian

@ Sjoerd Westenborg

Somewhat a joke ( play on sentence ), yes, but then again it is more a call to have all experimental variations exhausted, though my physics is not good enough to say what those experimental variations would be.

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 23:38:55 UTC | #891684

mmurray's Avatar Comment 7 by mmurray

The idea that nothing can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum forms a cornerstone in physics - first laid out by James Clerk Maxwell and later incorporated into Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity.

What ?

A better report is here

http://www.nature.com/news/neutrino-experiment-replicates-faster-than-light-finding-1.9393

Michael

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 23:47:32 UTC | #891686

Kim Probable's Avatar Comment 8 by Kim Probable

Comment 7 by mmurray :

A better report is here

http://www.nature.com/news/neutrino-experiment-replicates-faster-than-light-finding-1.9393

Michael

Thanks, Michael - I'll add that link.

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 00:03:12 UTC | #891688

Quine's Avatar Comment 9 by Quine

All the reporting about this is on the edge of what the press can manage to explain to the public, and on one level it is disappointing in their attempts to sensationalize in the face of inaccuracy, but I think it is just the best they can do within the constraints of their job. It will be better when enough work has gone into replication of the results in other labs, and if it is replicated, when the theoretical folks figure out what it means.

P.S. Notice the press has not taken any pains to let people know that the observed 60ns lead is only a quarter of one percent of one percent of the calculated (not measured) photon arrival time.

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 02:44:14 UTC | #891700

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 10 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 03:12:45 UTC | #891701

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 11 by rod-the-farmer

Should we build a Dyson Sphere to test speed in a vacuum ?

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 03:13:59 UTC | #891702

Quine's Avatar Comment 12 by Quine

The test in a vacuum is cheap and easy, we just shoot a nuke off into space, away from earth, and light it up. The photons, and neutrinos, and all else will have a direct race back here. Unfortunately, the political problems in doing that experiment are probably insurmountable.

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 03:30:23 UTC | #891703

Mike Kemp's Avatar Comment 13 by Mike Kemp

Comment 12 by Quine :

The test in a vacuum is cheap and easy, we just shoot a nuke off into space, away from earth, and light it up. The photons, and neutrinos, and all else will have a direct race back here. Unfortunately, the political problems in doing that experiment are probably insurmountable.

I thought that test had already been done. Observations of distant supernovae have not yet found an instance of neutrinos arriving before the light. I expect people will start looking harder next time though.

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 07:13:24 UTC | #891716

Quine's Avatar Comment 14 by Quine

I thought that test had already been done.

Yes, and that is why there is so much skepticism. Unfortunately you can't control a supernova the way you can a thermonuclear blast where all the distributions of particles are predictable. The important thing, at the moment, is to get to the bottom of what is happening between CERN and Gran Sasso.

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 07:33:43 UTC | #891717

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 15 by Steve Zara

Comment 13 by Mike Kemp

Observations of distant supernovae have not yet found an instance of neutrinos arriving before the light.

Yes, and that's a very serious problem for the validity of this new finding. If neutrinos really could travel faster than photons, the neutrinos from a distant supernova would arrive long before the light: The minute time difference supposedly found in this new research would be hugely magnified by the astronomical distances. But we don't see such time differences with supernovae. This is why many people are extremely skeptical of this suggestion of faster-than-photon neutrinos.

I have done a quick calculation to get some idea of the effect on a supernova observation. If the same neutrino speed excess had taken place with the observation of supernova 1987a, the neutrinos should have arrived here roughly two weeks before the light flash! What was actually seen was neutrinos a few hours before, because the process of neutrino production comes before the flash.

So, this new result just can't be right.

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 07:44:41 UTC | #891719

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 16 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 07:55:37 UTC | #891721

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 17 by Premiseless

Being still stuck in school concepts, this is my comprehension:

The article seemed to be suggesting to me that since there is no real vacuum in the universe, due energy or matter being everywhere, the effects in any space of the one (energy) over the other (matter) are far less inhibiting upon light speed, though not necessarily neutrino speed. Furthermore, the exact extent to which the energy /matter ratio effects all light speed at various points in the universe is not known. Extremes for example exist insofar as the gravity of a black hole will even suck in light, and how 'visible light' will not pass through matter, but how this interferes with light speed per se, at all points in the cosmos, is less clear. Due the above, the value we all have for light speed is probably too low, which may enable the behaviour of neutrino speed to appear slightly larger due its properties being slightly less inhibited in some way by peripheral energy /matter ratios. In actual fact it is thought that if a true vacuum, absent all energy and matter, could ever be got, the speed of light would be true and could not be exceeded by neutrinos.

If this is bullshit I confess to not knowing one way or the other!

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:01:48 UTC | #891722

Quine's Avatar Comment 18 by Quine

Steve: So, this new result just can't be right.

That is what makes the puzzle so captivating.

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:27:24 UTC | #891724

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 19 by Schrodinger's Cat

The discrepancy with supernova observations could be explained if the neutrino faster than light speed duration is only a brief phase following the creation of the neutrino. That would lead to a prediction......namely that if the detectors were moved closer together the neutrinos would appear to be travelling even faster.

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:44:26 UTC | #891725

justinesaracen's Avatar Comment 20 by justinesaracen

The complexity of the physics notwithstanding, I will not be surprised at the first claims by the religios "See, science is sometimes wrong. Nothing is absolutely correct but the word of (my personal) god."

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:26:20 UTC | #891727

mmurray's Avatar Comment 21 by mmurray

Comment 15 by Steve Zara :

Comment 13 by Mike Kemp

Observations of distant supernovae have not yet found an instance of neutrinos arriving before the light.

Yes, and that's a very serious problem for the validity of this new finding. If neutrinos really could travel faster than photons, the neutrinos from a distant supernova would arrive long before the light: The minute time difference supposedly found in this new research would be hugely magnified by the astronomical distances. But we don't see such time differences with supernovae. This is why many people are extremely skeptical of this suggestion of faster-than-photon neutrinos.

I have done a quick calculation to get some idea of the effect on a supernova observation. If the same neutrino speed excess had taken place with the observation of supernova 1987a, the neutrinos should have arrived here roughly two weeks before the light flash! What was actually seen was neutrinos a few hours before, because the process of neutrino production comes before the flash.

So, this new result just can't be right.

Are you sure about the two weeks? This blog claims years. Not that it matters as it only reinforces your point. The same blog does say

But perhaps we should resist being naive; the SN 87A events were electron neutrinos, not muon neutrinos, and they were at substantially lower energies. If neutrinos do violate the light barrier, it’s completely consistent to imagine that they do so in an energy-dependent way, so the comparison is subtle.

Michael

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:27:01 UTC | #891728

seals's Avatar Comment 22 by seals

Another opportunity to display my ignorance here ;) Is it possible that any neutrinos arriving "early" from a supernova would not be associated with the supernova here on earth, simply because they were not expected so early, and they were therefore not measured or recorded? If the only way of detecting a distant supernova is via the light arriving (I don't even know if this is the case), and the neutrinos arrived before that, would anyone be looking out for what would be - at that time - an apparently random burst of neutrinos? Is there is a constant background level of neutrino arrival which would suddenly peak, or are there random peaks and fluctuations at all times?

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:36:21 UTC | #891729

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 23 by Stafford Gordon

It's a great shame that Richard Feynman is no longer with us. I bet he'd have found a unique way of examining the findings.

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:41:03 UTC | #891732

mmurray's Avatar Comment 24 by mmurray

Comment 22 by seals :

Another opportunity to display my ignorance here ;) Is it possible that any neutrinos arriving "early" from a supernova would not be associated with the supernova here on earth, simply because they were not expected so early, and they were therefore not measured or recorded? If the only way of detecting a distant supernova is via the light arriving (I don't even know if this is the case), and the neutrinos arrived before that, would anyone be looking out for what would be - at that time - an apparently random burst of neutrinos? Is there is a constant background level of neutrino arrival which would suddenly peak, or are there random peaks and fluctuations at all times?

I think this is a good question. If the FTL story is true then the neutrinos from the 1987 super nova would have arrived in 1983. Not sure if anyone was looking for neutrino peaks back then. They did detect neutrinos though

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] At 7:35 a.m. Universal time, Kamiokande II detected 11 antineutrinos, IMB 8 antineutrinos and Baksan 5 antineutrinos, in a burst lasting less than 13 seconds. Approximately three hours earlier, the Mont Blanc liquid scintillator detected a five-neutrino burst, but this is generally not believed to be associated with SN 1987A.[8]

Although the actual neutrino count was only 24, it was a significant rise from the previously-observed background level. This was the first time neutrinos emitted from a supernova had been observed directly, which marked the beginning of neutrino astronomy. The observations were consistent with theoretical supernova models in which 99% of the energy of the collapse is radiated away in neutrinos. The observations are also consistent with the models' estimates of a total neutrino count of 1058 with a total energy of 1046 joules.[11]

Michael

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:54:49 UTC | #891735

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 25 by Premiseless

Are there such things as gregario particles or slipstream effects or slingshot techniques utilised by small particles and waves?

Also is there a wake behind any of these particles/waves that leaves a temporary trail of real vacuum?

I also wonder why there aren't neutrino detectors at opposite faces of the Earth so time/particle graphs can be compared for the neutrinos hitting each detector and superimposed as to time differences respecting all particles? Is this because it's hard to detect the incoming direction of neutrinos due their passing through all matter?

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 11:33:28 UTC | #891738

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 26 by Premiseless

Also, since particles/waves interact with space time around them, are there some particles/waves which are more interactive with the entropy of pseudo-vacuum space than others, that render their path more a meandering one over vast distances i.e. increasing their space time period?

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 11:57:30 UTC | #891742

Adrian A Bartholomew's Avatar Comment 27 by Adrian A Bartholomew

Dumb question alert: If true could this just mean that the speed of neutrinos are the speed limit of the universe and not photons? What makes light so special (other than the fact it's easier to experiment on)?

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 12:43:45 UTC | #891749

mmurray's Avatar Comment 28 by mmurray

Light isn't special in this context other than by being massless. The speed limit for the universe is the speed at which massless particles travel.

Michael

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:11:08 UTC | #891752

Adrian A Bartholomew's Avatar Comment 29 by Adrian A Bartholomew

Well that's what I thought. Is it possible that this result says something about light more than it says about the model which has used light as the default mass-less particle so far? Or maybe it says something about the level of interaction a particle is capable of having an effect? Hell I need to reread some more basic physics books me thinks.

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:22:36 UTC | #891756

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 30 by Premiseless

Comment 29 by Adrian A Bartholomew :

Hell I need to reread some more basic physics books me thinks.

I grew up with the notion the world I am in loves to be equitable, share information honestly and simplify everything for the benefit of everyone else. Something about science seems to request this of you, is how I perceived things. It's a pity that the potential humanity has, to teach each other everything in the most concise terms possible and plausible, isn't the remit of every venture. Obviously the current markets would dissolve under such a practise!

This is one strange feature of the world we are in. Who, knowing they are at the leading edge of something, is willing to share their findings ad hoc for the pure interests of the general population? Who, on discovering cures is willing to have it manufactured globally for the benefit of all humanity? Who wants to teach others for the pure art of it?

Lesson:

Whoever tells you clear and rational communication does not have a financial or kudos based motive is probably too honest to ever become successful enough in a capitalist society to be regarded as worth taking much notice of. It's a repeat irony loop I don't ever see breaking down.

It's perhaps why the "Neo" that you are is likely to defer to "Smyths" more often than you otherwise would choose to.

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:44:09 UTC | #891757