Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55

Thread: CERN discovered that neutrinos can be xtremely faster than light!

  1. #1
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    791

    CERN discovered that neutrinos can be xtremely faster than light!

    A fundamental pillar of physics — that nothing can go faster than the speed of light — appears to be smashed by an oddball subatomic particle that has apparently made a giant end run around Albert Einstein's theories.

    Scientists at the world's largest physics lab said Thursday they have clocked neutrinos traveling faster than light. That's something that according to Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity — the famous E (equals) mc2 equation — just doesn't happen.

    "The feeling that most people have is this can't be right, this can't be real," said James Gillies, a spokesman for the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, outside the Swiss city of Geneva.

    Gillies told The Associated Press that the readings have so astounded researchers that they are asking others to independently verify the measurements before claiming an actual discovery.

    "They are inviting the broader physics community to look at what they've done and really scrutinize it in great detail, and ideally for someone elsewhere in the world to repeat the measurements," he said Thursday.

    Scientists at the competing Fermilab in Chicago have promised to start such work immediately.

    "It's a shock," said Fermilab head theoretician Stephen Parke, who was not part of the research in Geneva. "It's going to cause us problems, no doubt about that - if it's true."

    The Chicago team had similar faster-than-light results in 2007, but those came with a giant margin of error that undercut its scientific significance.
    null
    AP
    FILE - In this Tuesday, March 30, 2010 file... View Full Caption

    Outside scientists expressed skepticism at CERN's claim that the neutrinos — one of the strangest well-known particles in physics — were observed smashing past the cosmic speed barrier of 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second).

    University of Maryland physics department chairman Drew Baden called it "a flying carpet," something that was too fantastic to be believable.

    CERN says a neutrino beam fired from a particle accelerator near Geneva to a lab 454 miles (730 kilometers) away in Italy traveled 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light. Scientists calculated the margin of error at just 10 nanoseconds, making the difference statistically significant. But given the enormous implications of the find, they still spent months checking and rechecking their results to make sure there was no flaws in the experiment.

    "We have not found any instrumental effect that could explain the result of the measurement," said Antonio Ereditato, a physicist at the University of Bern, Switzerland, who was involved in the experiment known as OPERA.

    The CERN researchers are now looking to the United States and Japan to confirm the results.

    A similar neutrino experiment at Fermilab near Chicago would be capable of running the tests, said Stavros Katsanevas, the deputy director of France's National Institute for Nuclear and Particle Physics Research. The institute collaborated with Italy's Gran Sasso National Laboratory for the experiment at CERN.

    Katsanevas said help could also come from the T2K experiment in Japan, though that is currently on hold after the country's devastating March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

    Scientists agree if the results are confirmed, that it would force a fundamental rethink of the laws of nature.

    Einstein's special relativity theory that says energy equals mass times the speed of light squared underlies "pretty much everything in modern physics," said John Ellis, a theoretical physicist at CERN who was not involved in the experiment. "It has worked perfectly up until now."

    He cautioned that the neutrino researchers would have to explain why similar results weren't detected before, such as when an exploding star — or supernova — was observed in 1987.

    "This would be such a sensational discovery if it were true that one has to treat it extremely carefully," said Ellis.
    source here.
    another source

    Interesting stuff!

    here's a link to the website for the experiment OPERA
    a link to the white paper of the observed situation
    Last edited by antiacid; 09-22-2011 at 07:05 PM. Reason: adding links

  2. #2
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Shimla , India
    Posts
    2,631
    I would not say 60 nanoseconds faster as xtremely faster than light. I kinda remember that neutrinos are suppose to be time travelers so that means they are faster than light "Because you need (SN>LS)`E to travel in time" i am a bit confused as to why people are amazed is it because there is a scientific backing for it now.
    Coming Soon

  3. #3
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    235
    Since when would 0.0025% faster be "Xtremely" faster?

    It's not going to happen. Every year you see experiments with small measurement
    errors that happen to go away over time and turn out to be false alarms.

    Regards, Hans

  4. #4
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    791
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans de Vries View Post
    Since when would 0.0025% faster be "Xtremely" faster?
    You do realize that the speed of light is the upper bound on the speed for everything...?

    Hence, going even 0.0001% faster means that something is quite not all right.

    It's not going to happen. Every year you see experiments with small measurement
    errors that happen to go away over time and turn out to be false alarms.

    Regards, Hans
    Yep, they tested 15000 times and got the same statistically significant difference. So now they hope that someone else can re-do the experiment to see what's up.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by antiacid View Post
    source here.

    Interesting stuff!

  6. #6
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,141
    I thought our fundamental understanding of quantum physics stated that we cant know the exact point that something like that neutrino could be, and thus we have "quantum tunneling". It is statistically probable that we cannot know with absolute certainty the location of a particle (like a neutrino) and since we dont know exactly where the particle is, parhaps it was farther away or closer than we thought and the difference in distance that we are unable to know with absolute certainty puts it just behind the speed of light? Its hard to explain what I mean, but hey its quantum physics. Its supposed to be hard.
    Rig 1:
    ASUS P8Z77-V
    Intel i5 3570K @ 4.75GHz
    16GB of Team Xtreme DDR-2666 RAM (11-13-13-35-2T)
    Nvidia GTX 670 4GB SLI

    Rig 2:
    Asus Sabertooth 990FX
    AMD FX-8350 @ 5.6GHz
    16GB of Mushkin DDR-1866 RAM (8-9-8-26-1T)
    AMD 6950 with 6970 bios flash

    Yamakasi Catleap 2B overclocked to 120Hz refresh rate
    Audio-GD FUN DAC unit w/ AD797BRZ opamps
    Sennheiser PC350 headset w/ hero mod

  7. #7
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,488
    EniGmaA1987, the uncertainty should be contained within the 10 nanoseconds:
    CERN says a neutrino beam fired from a particle accelerator near Geneva to a lab 454 miles (730 kilometers) away in Italy traveled 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light. Scientists calculated the margin of error at just 10 nanoseconds, making the difference statistically significant.
    This should be viewed with a bit of skepticism though. Going to the press before publishing generally isn't a good sign. Think cold fusion. It would be an amazing result though, if true. It would mean rewriting much of modern physics.

  8. #8

  9. #9
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,488
    By publishing I meant in a peer reviewed journal, not an un-reviewed whitepaper.

  10. #10
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    613
    Oh I'm sure... I just thought people might find it interesting.

  11. #11
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    2,267
    Clearly folks here have more credibility than scientists working on the project; thus their skepticism or "down talking" has merit.

    Who are any of you to say that this isn't an infinitely small step toward smashing relativity to pieces? After all, Blazars pump jets into space that appear from here to be traveling over 5 times the speed of light. Talk about cosmic piledriver. Unfortunately, we can't sample it from here. However, maybe it isn't a mathematical error at all.

    The point is, I don't understand how anyone here thinks they have credibility to call these people incompetent or liars. If they turn out to be wrong, it doesn't mean you were right. Skeptics love to pat themselves on the back when they happen to guess correctly.
    Last edited by Stewie007; 09-22-2011 at 06:26 PM.
    Regards, Stew.....

    - This message brought to you by Frank Lee E. Snutz

  12. #12
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    800
    Quote Originally Posted by Stewie007 View Post
    Clearly folks here have more credibility than scientists working on the project; thus their skepticism or "down talking" has merit.

    Who are any of you to say that this is an infinitely small step toward smashing relativity to pieces? After all, Blazars pump jets into space that appear from here to be traveling over 5 times the speed of light. Talk about cosmic piledriver. Unfortunately, we can't sample it from here. However, maybe it isn't a mathematical error at all.

    The point is, I don't understand how anyone here thinks they have credibility to call these people incompetent or liars. If they turn out to be wrong, it doesn't mean you were right. Skeptics love to pat themselves on the back when they happen to guess correctly.
    Not to be a CERN worshipper or anything, but they also have some of the best and most sensitive equipment in the world for these experiments. LHC anyone?

    If there's anyone credible in this matter, it's CERN.

  13. #13
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by blindbox View Post
    Not to be a CERN worshipper or anything, but they also have some of the best and most sensitive equipment in the world for these experiments. LHC anyone?

    If there's anyone credible in this matter, it's CERN.
    I edited and bold/underlined the key word that I edited. In my haste, I missed the fact that I put is instead of isn't. The next sentence was a bit contradictory.

    My point was not to criticize CERN or the OP's posting of it. Funny how one word can change the meaning.
    Last edited by Stewie007; 09-22-2011 at 06:27 PM.
    Regards, Stew.....

    - This message brought to you by Frank Lee E. Snutz

  14. #14
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Stewie007 View Post
    Clearly folks here have more credibility than scientists working on the project; thus their skepticism or "down talking" has merit.
    It has merit, for one, because the scientists involved and in the field are treating it skeptically:

    "The feeling that most people have is this can't be right, this can't be real," said James Gillies, a spokesman for the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, outside the Swiss city of Geneva.

    Gillies told The Associated Press that the readings have so astounded researchers that they are asking others to independently verify the measurements before claiming an actual discovery.

    "They are inviting the broader physics community to look at what they've done and really scrutinize it in great detail, and ideally for someone elsewhere in the world to repeat the measurements," he said Thursday.
    [...]
    "It's a shock," said Fermilab head theoretician Stephen Parke, who was not part of the research in Geneva. "It's going to cause us problems, no doubt about that - if it's true."
    [...]
    University of Maryland physics department chairman Drew Baden called it "a flying carpet," something that was too fantastic to be believable.
    [...]
    He cautioned that the neutrino researchers would have to explain why similar results weren't detected before, such as when an exploding star — or supernova — was observed in 1987.

    "This would be such a sensational discovery if it were true that one has to treat it extremely carefully," said Ellis.

  15. #15
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    2,267
    You realize that confirmation is part of the scientific process, right? Scientists do not put their titles on the line without confirmation of some sort. Duplication and consistency in observation is a corner stone of scientific research. If the results cannot be duplicated, then fact cannot be claimed. That doesn't mean that they are skeptic. Its part of the scientific

    Sure, some scientists are undoubtedly skeptic. However, to say "I don't know why anyone is amazed" seems kinda funny to me. Or just the overall "Hey, big deal" type of vibe I'm getting from around here. Its not so much the skeptic scientist Dr Baden.

    Nahh, its just relativity. Ain't no biggie.
    Regards, Stew.....

    - This message brought to you by Frank Lee E. Snutz

  16. #16
    c[_]
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    18,728
    Hmm... last time I said the speed of light wasnt the top speed I sure caught heck about it..

    All along the watchtower the watchmen watch the eternal return.

  17. #17
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    799
    The Cliff's Notes of this whole issue is some scientists at CERN said "Holy CRAP! We repeated this experiment and we found something going fractionally faster than the speed of light. But... that would rock the foundation of all modern theoretical and applied physics... so can someone check our math on this???"

    That's it.

    They're admittedly not making a claim to discovery. They're justly concerned that what they have is an error in calculation or measurement, so they're openly submitting their results for peer review. It's only a big deal if they're findings are accurate.

  18. #18
    I am Xtreme zanzabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SF bay area, CA
    Posts
    15,871
    Quote Originally Posted by STEvil View Post
    Hmm... last time I said the speed of light wasnt the top speed I sure caught heck about it..
    the relative speed of light in a vacuum is supposed to be the top speed, but if u follow the m theory or super string theory or the multi verse theory then u could travel faster than the observed speed of light by using 4+ dimensional times-pacespace, and since it was a highly charged sub atomic partial we dont really have anything to base behavior on.

    also it was in the margin of error to be non FTL
    5930k, R5E, samsung 8GBx4 d-die, vega 56, wd gold 8TB, wd 4TB red, 2TB raid1 wd blue 5400
    samsung 840 evo 500GB, HP EX 1TB NVME , CM690II, swiftech h220, corsair 750hxi

  19. #19
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by zanzabar View Post
    the relative speed of light in a vacuum is supposed to be the top speed, but if u follow the m theory or super string theory or the multi verse theory then u could travel faster than the observed speed of light by using 4+ dimensional times-pacespace, and since it was a highly charged sub atomic partial we dont really have anything to base behavior on.

    also it was in the margin of error to be non FTL

    In fact if I'm not mistaken the cherenkov radiation is due to some particles travelling faster than light in water, is this correct?

  20. #20
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans de Vries View Post
    Since when would 0.0025% faster be "Xtremely" faster?

    It's not going to happen. Every year you see experiments with small measurement
    errors that happen to go away over time and turn out to be false alarms.

    Regards, Hans
    Compare the energy levels needed for light speed traveling and for speeds 0.0025% faster and you'll see that it's extremely faster since time stands still at these speeds. If you are travelling 99.99999% of the speed of light then the light would still be immensely faster from your point of view.

  21. #21
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    324
    They might have overclocked the speed of light, give them some creds.

  22. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Italy, Milano
    Posts
    5
    May i ask where is Sheldon Cooper when we need him???
    MOBO:Asus M3N-HT Deluxe Mempipe CPU:Phenom II 940 @3700Mhz Cooled by CoolIT ECO A.L.C. RAM:2x2GB OCZ ddr2 1066 Platinum Edition VGA:2xGeforce GTX 570 @SLI PSU:Cooler Master Real Power M1000W Modulare CASE:Cooler Master HAF 922 MONITOR:LG 2234S 22' OS:Vista Home Premium 32 (Sp1) - Win 8.1 Pro 32 & 64

  23. #23
    Xtremeish
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by El Maño View Post
    In fact if I'm not mistaken the cherenkov radiation is due to some particles travelling faster than light in water, is this correct?
    Something like that, but I am having a hard time understanding the theory of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or Čerenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through a dielectric medium at a speed greater than the phase velocity of light in that medium.
    Last edited by Kallenator; 09-23-2011 at 01:36 AM.
    Aber ja, naturlich Hans nass ist, er steht unter einem Wasserfall - James May
    Hardware: Gigabyte GA-Z87M-D3H, Intel i5 4670k @ 4GHz, Crucial DDR3 BallistiX, Asus GTX 770 DirectCU II, Corsair HX 650W, Samsung 830 256GB, Silverstone Precision -|- Cooling: Noctua NH-C12P SE14

  24. #24
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by Eson View Post
    They might have overclocked the speed of light, give them some creds.
    +1
    Quote Originally Posted by Movieman
    been lots of years since I played with an AMD and this is just an hour so bear with me..
    My first thoughts on it is that it's fast, it's smoothe and it's fun.
    Quote Originally Posted by Movieman
    Yes, the i7 does have the edge in pure grunt but then again the AMD has that little something I can't quite put my finger on except to use that word 'smoother" and that will get me flamed faster than posting kiddy :banana::banana::banana::banana: on the Christian networks site.
    Main Rig: Phenom II 550 (x4) @3.9Ghz - Gigabyte 6950@6970 - Asus M4A-785D M Pro - Samsung HDs 2x2TB,1x1.5TB,2x1TB - Season X-650 | OpenCL mining rigs: 2x Phenom II 555(x4) - 1xMSI 890FXA-GD70 - 1xGB 990FXA-UD7 (SICK ) - 1xHD6990 - 1x6950@70 - 6x5850 - 2xCooler Master Silent Pro Gold 1kW

  25. #25
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    800
    Quote Originally Posted by Stewie007 View Post
    I edited and bold/underlined the key word that I edited. In my haste, I missed the fact that I put is instead of isn't. The next sentence was a bit contradictory.

    My point was not to criticize CERN or the OP's posting of it. Funny how one word can change the meaning.
    Actually, I was quoting you because I was supporting you. I realised my tone doesn't go that way, but I didn't bother thinking of something to change it to, since in the end, we're still saying the same thing.

    I didn't notice that mistake of yours.
    Last edited by blindbox; 09-23-2011 at 02:46 AM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •