• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

CERN clocks faster-than-light neutrinos

Status
Not open for further replies.

RSP

Member
Space can collapse faster than the speed of light, right? Hence light getting 'trapped' in black holes, unable to escape.

Could it be that the Neutrinos ... have mutated?
 

Evolved1

make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
Lost Fragment said:
KJnrk.jpg

Oh man this got me... nice haha
 
So what's the state of this? Last I heard it was still in a 'jury is out' kind of state. Is that going to be resolved any time soon? I want to know if this is still worth getting excited about.
 

McNum

Member
Conciliator said:
So what's the state of this? Last I heard it was still in a 'jury is out' kind of state. Is that going to be resolved any time soon? I want to know if this is still worth getting excited about.
It's at "We found something weird, can anyone else verify or find what we did wrong?" state. So, it's worth a mild getting exited, but save the big stuff for if the finding gets verified. How long that takes? I'd guess a year or more. These are some mighty machines needed to pull off the experiment at a minute level of detail. It'll take time to replicate it elsewhere.
 

toxicgonzo

Taxes?! Isn't this the line for Metallica?
I'm still betting it was equipment error. However, it'll be interesting to see if other science labs can duplicate their results.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Could it be that neutrinos are simply released earlier than light itself is emitted? So light would still be faster, but neutrinos basically get a head-start by being released before light itself is emitted.
 

SRG01

Member
toxicgonzo said:
I'm still betting it was equipment error. However, it'll be interesting to see if other science labs can duplicate their results.

MINOS at Fermilab already had similar results years ago, but discounted themselves due to the large margin of error. Chances are that this effect is very real.
 
From what I could understand of the press conference, the lengths they went to calibrate the equipment was incredible. And at the questions at the end, the guy seemed to have an answer for everything, in terms of 'but did you consider this/that/the moon/aliens'.
 

Anthropic

Member
Ether_Snake said:
Could it be that neutrinos are simply released earlier than light itself is emitted? So light would still be faster, but neutrinos basically get a head-start by being released before light itself is emitted.

They weren't racing neutrinos and light next to each other. They were timing neutrinos along a measured course. The "course" they timed these neutrinos on was through 730KM of rock and earth.
 

pestul

Member
The one question that's always nagged me: If light is effected and essentially eaten/bent by the gravity of black holes and supermassive black holes (god knows what dark matter does to it), isn't everything that we attempt to study from the early universe meaningless? I mean, when we look at early galaxies from 10-13 billion years ago, that light could be so fucked up and distorted, that it doesn't resemble a shadow of what it did..

I don't know why I studied Kinesiology, since I absolutely adore astrophysics.
 

Orayn

Member
pestul said:
The one question that's always nagged me: If light is effected and essentially eaten/bent by the gravity of black holes and supermassive black holes (god knows what dark matter does to it), isn't everything that we attempt to study from the early universe meaningless? I mean, when we look at early galaxies from 10-13 billion years ago, that light could be so fucked up and distorted, that it doesn't resemble a shadow of what it did..

I don't know why I studied Kinesiology, since I absolutely adore astrophysics.
On the contrary, distortions from heavy gravity are actually highly useful when it comes to studying distant objects. Turns out that the bending can give us a rather clear image of stuff that would normally be extremely dim and hard to make out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
 
Byakuya769 said:
No one ever answered my prior question. So reposting -

Does Hawkings radiation from an evaporating black hole account for all the mass that the black hole pulled in throughout its life?


Fuck man, I just spent 10 interesting, brain hurting minutes on wikipedia.
 

dojokun

Banned
McNum said:
It's at "We found something weird, can anyone else verify or find what we did wrong?" state. So, it's worth a mild getting exited, but save the big stuff for if the finding gets verified. How long that takes? I'd guess a year or more. These are some mighty machines needed to pull off the experiment at a minute level of detail. It'll take time to replicate it elsewhere.
The CERN itself checked their findings for six months before deciding to announce it.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Orayn said:
On the contrary, distortions from heavy gravity are actually highly useful when it comes to studying distant objects. Turns out that the bending can give us a rather clear image of stuff that would normally be extremely dim and hard to make out.

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

Doesn't that mean that what appears to be in one place, might actually be at another? If light is bent during its course, it might appear to us as it is coming from a star that is nowhere near where it actually is.
 
Ether_Snake said:
Doesn't that mean that what appears to be in one place, might actually be at another? If light is bent during its course, it might appear to us as it is coming from a star that is nowhere near where it actually is.


Yup, that's how people tested general relativity originally- stars plus the sun during a solar eclipse. They knew where the star appeared to be before the sun cut in front of it, then they saw its light somewhere that only made sense if the sun's gravity was moving the light.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
fredrancour said:
Yup, that's how people tested general relativity originally- stars plus the sun during a solar eclipse. They knew where the star appeared to be before the sun cut in front of it, then they saw its light somewhere that only made sense if the sun's gravity was moving the light.

So our understanding of where things are in the universe, and hence when things happened as well, is entirely relative to the possibility that the light that reaches us has been bent by various bodies?

For example, the more a traveling light is bent by various bodies during its course, the slower it takes to reach us. So this affects our perception of how far, or how long ago something is or happened?

BTW: If the big bang, or whatever, was once a hyper-dense state, how did light ever come to escape it to begin with? How could anything manage to move away from something that is more dense than even a black hole?
 

Norml

Member
Ether_Snake said:
BTW: If the big bang, or whatever, was once a hyper-dense state, how did light ever come to escape it to begin with? How could anything manage to move away from something that is more dense than even a black hole?

I would guess because infinite energy beats infinite gravity. :D

One big bang theory that I like is where there are huge universes that are flat and wavy sheet like,but not separated by much at all and when the sheets touch,boom creates a new.
 

Joates

Banned
Norml said:
I would guess because infinite energy beats infinite gravity. :D

One big bang theory that I like is where there are huge universes that are flat and wavy sheet like,but not separated by much at all and when the sheets touch,boom creates a new.

Queue guy saying "M theory" 15 times...
 
Ether_Snake said:
BTW: If the big bang, or whatever, was once a hyper-dense state, how did light ever come to escape it to begin with? How could anything manage to move away from something that is more dense than even a black hole?
My understanding of this is that at the time of the Big Bang all matter was so evenly distributed that any particle that existed at that time would feel a gravitational pull from all directions at the same time and thus the effects of the gravitational force of all particle would cancen each other out
 

SRG01

Member
Pazuzu9 said:
From what I could understand of the press conference, the lengths they went to calibrate the equipment was incredible. And at the questions at the end, the guy seemed to have an answer for everything, in terms of 'but did you consider this/that/the moon/aliens'.

Yeah, without viewing the actual press conference, I'm presuming that they learned a lot from Fermilab's earlier experiment.
 
Orayn said:
Ideally, the evidence will bear out good science, even if it takes years to win people over and get them to look at things in a new light.

For sure and there are inherent mechanisms within science to facilitate it. But its not an objective process. Fundamental changes threaten everyone who has built their careers on certain areas. Ideally a man of science would be ecstatic about the new revelation but it rarely goes down like that.

Even if the new CERN discovery is repeatedly and demonstratively correct. It would will take decades before everything else adjusts. Initially it will be given a specific and ancillary "explanation" but that exception to all rules would eventual result in fundamental changes to science.

Any objective evidence contradicting linear causality would be a game changer I cannot fathom. The fundamentals of science itself tossed on its head.
 

Norml

Member
I thought this was good at explaining how it could be from other dimension.

One possibility is very intuitive: Our three dimensional universe may well be due to a three (or more) dimensional membrane inside a higher dimensional, so called bulk space. This is called “universe on a membrane” or short “membrane universe” (MU). This is a well known scenario in string theory but not restricted to string theory. In the MU scenario, our light velocity c is the maximum velocity of excitations inside the MU membrane, the latter being by the way the very reason for why the MU universe observes Einstein relativity inside of it. That velocity c may be very small compared to the maximum velocity of particles that are not bound to our MU membrane, those that speed freely through the bulk space.
In very high energy collisions, excitations may be shot out into the bulk space. They leave the MU, much like when rogue waves on the ocean hit each other and water splashes far above the surface of the ocean. The splashed water can travel much faster than any of the waves ever could inside the ocean. Our light velocity c, which is the maximum velocity for our universe’s “low energy” excitations in the MU, is much lower than the maximum for those particles that are not attached to the MU. That should not surprise: The maximum velocity for ocean waves is also much lower than the velocity of light c, the latter here being the maximum velocity for the splashed water that is not bound to the ocean. In fact, c is for all practical purposes infinite as far as ocean waves are concerned. In general ‘condensed state physics type’ of emergent gravity scenarios, a large difference between our c and the maximum velocity valid for the bulk space that contains our universe is expected (not in the string theory scenarios I have come across though).
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/neutrinos_can_go_faster_light_without_violating_relativity-82950
 
Ether_Snake said:
BTW: If the big bang, or whatever, was once a hyper-dense state, how did light ever come to escape it to begin with? How could anything manage to move away from something that is more dense than even a black hole?

When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was smaller, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from its white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, stable atoms could form. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog.

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

The short answer to your question is that it didn't until the universe expanded enough to allow for 'light to shine'. The cosmic background radiation is basically the remains of the first moment that the universe wasn't so dense that no radiation could escape it, so while the CMBR is the earliest possible 'image' of the young universe, the universe itself is about 380000 years old at that point.
 

Gorgon

Member
Noirulus said:
I'm going to assume that this is a joke post. You're discrediting some very massive science with some nice bullshit.

1. The concentric circles of variance that penrose found are to be taken with a grain of salt, as the effect is very small.

2. Brown dwarfs is the solution to dark matter? :lol: Scientists have tried to detect if brown dwarfs were the solution already, and found that they are not the missing puzzle behind dark matter. Look up the MACHO project.

The rest of what you're saying is pure non-scientific speculation. Please don't confused others in this thread with sensationalist "Lol our understand of cosmology is wrong!!" when all you're posting is bs.

The jury is still out there, which was the whole point of my post:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1011/1011.2530v1.pdf

From GHD one expects all galactic DM of earth mass BDs. This case is just allowed by the MACHO collaboration
(Alcock et al. 1997), but ruled out by EROS-1 (Renault et al. 1998). However, for observations against the Magellanic clouds,
the estimate for the radius of the BD of 2:6  1011 cm coincides with its typical Einstein radius, leading to the microlensing unfriendly
finite-source finite-lens situation (Agol 2002, Lee et al. 2010). Obscuration by BDs and refraction by their atmospheres
may have hindered the observation of Macho events.
For the BDs now predicted to be grouped in JCs, blind searching is not optimal. The JCs in front of the Magellanic clouds
can be identied from WMAP, Herschel or Planck imaging data. See them also in the DIRBE-COBE image of fig 3. They should
be a fertile ground for MACHO searches, but the observation cadence must be greatly increased because of the low mass of the
BDs. For a terrestrial mass MACHO passing in front of a small star the total event duration is approximately 3.5 hrs. For BD
microlenses clustered with properties measured for ordinary globular clusters, some 4,100 events should be visible per year by
a dedicated spacecraft that continuously monitors the stars behind any of the 3400 JCs in front of the MCs. The number would
increase if a clump of clusters as described below lies in front of the LMC. There should also be multiple events on the same star.

The direct search by Eros-I has concluded that the case of earth mass MACHOs is ruled out (Renault et al. 1998). However, for
our BDs the Einstein radius that describes the lensing is comparable with the physical radius of the lens object, which complicates
the lensing. This motivates new MACHO searches, which we plan to start in fall 2011, benefiting from the improvement of CCD
cameras and taking into account the finite–source and finite–lens size e ects. With the JCs in front of the Magellanic clouds
and the Galactic bulge to be identified first by the Planck mission, or the ones detected already as “cirrus clouds” by DIRBE,
BOOMERANG and WMAP, the task is reduced to searching lensing events by BDs in their JCs, a much more direct approach
than the blind searches performed till now.
The cold dark matter paradigm seems to be left with a bleak face. In our picture its purported elementary particle
has no reason to exist, because large scale structure formation can progress from gravitational hydrodynamics
alone (Nieuwenhuizen, Gibson & Schild 2009). Meanwhile the expected mass budget of the Galactic dark halo is well estimated
by our counting of cirrus clouds and our modeling of BD mergings as the observed radio events. For the extra-Galactic
situation, these findings are in line with the optical depth in quasar micro-lensing being of order unity. In line with this,
the recent Xenon 100 and CDMS cold dark matter searches have ruled out all previous detection claims (Aprile et al. 2010,
Akerib et al. 2010). Massive neutrinos pose an alternative DM scenario (Nieuwenhuizen 2009), which is cosmologically sound
(Nieuwenhuizen, Gibson & Schild 2009). Detection of the 1.5 eV neutrino mass in Katrin 2015 would solve the notorious dark
matter riddle in a dual manner, by dark baryons for the “Oort” galactic DM, cluster


Your accusation of non-scientific speculation is, quite honestly, unwarrented. In fact it's quite typical from researchers who don't like to have their cozy seats shaken too much.

If MACHOs are the answer or not, we still don't know. The FACT, however, is that there is no proof so far of dark matter and the observations can be explained by other causatorial elements. And the results of the MACHO project you mentioned are not final, as you can see from the article posted above. What we need is research and testing, and a desire for the truth, no the bulshit people spew forth just to maintain the status quo.

See also:

http://www.cosmology.info/2005conference/wps/burbidge.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0812/0812.0537v2.pdf

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/HONR219Q/anticosmology7.pdf

Science is science, with all its good and bad things. Just because you don't like certain evidence or its implications, it doesn't make them any less important to be researched. Don't be a tool, and be carefull when accusing other people of BS. It may come back later to bite your ass.

EDIT: Added more relevant links
 

Deku

Banned
This is what happens with the science worshipping mindset here. Each new amazing discovery is treated as fact until disproven, which is completely opposite of how the scientific principle works, that is, the existing framework will need to be rigorously disproven by the new findings before the new findings are accepted.

Many posts in this thread are already concluding faster than light travel is possible. We don't know that.

This will take years.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Okay, I was trolling the other day about this discovery proving that climate change is a myth, but unfortunately, some people think there's something to it:

The science is not settled, not by a long shot. Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might — repeat, might — travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein’s theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth’s atmosphere.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203388804576612620828387968.html

sigh
 

XMonkey

lacks enthusiasm.
To be a little fair, that's the moronic opinion of one guy, but yes the WSJ is pretty shit now. Especially after News Corp took them over.
 
Shanadeus said:
Assuming this is true:

Fuck yes, now there's no excuse for calling time the fourth dimension!

wut?

Even if this was true it would still take years before it was accepted and even longer before it was absorbed beyond some half assed "special rule."
 

Lord Error

Insane For Sony
So, the mystery might be solved, and in a most ironic way possible?

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/

Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity
The relativistic motion of clocks on board GPS satellites exactly accounts for the superluminal effect, says physicist.

It's now been three weeks since the extraordinary news that neutrinos travelling between France and Italy had been clocked moving faster than light. The experiment, known as OPERA, found that the particles produced at CERN near Geneva arrived at the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy some 60 nanoseconds earlier than the speed of light allows.

The result has sent a ripple of excitement through the physics community. Since then, more than 80 papers have appeared on the arXiv attempting to debunk or explain the effect. It's fair to say, however, that the general feeling is that the OPERA team must have overlooked something.

Today, Ronald van Elburg at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands makes a convincing argument that he has found the error.

First, let's review the experiment, which is simple in concept: a measurement of distance and time.

The distance is straightforward. The location of neutrino production at CERN is fairly easy to measure using GPS. The position of the Gran Sasso Laboratory is harder to pin down because it sits under a kilometre-high mountain. Nevertheless, the OPERA team says it has nailed the distance of 730 km to within 20 cm or so.

The time of neutrino flight is harder to measure. The OPERA team says it can accurately gauge the instant when the neutrinos are created and the instant they are detected using clocks at each end.

But the tricky part is keeping the clocks at either end exactly synchronised. The team does this using GPS satellites, which each broadcast a highly accurate time signal from orbit some 20,000km overhead. That introduces a number of extra complications which the team has to take into account, such as the time of travel of the GPS signals to the ground.

But van Elburg says there is one effect that the OPERA team seems to have overlooked: the relativistic motion of the GPS clocks.

It's easy to think that the motion of the satellites is irrelevant. After all, the radio waves carrying the time signal must travel at the speed of light, regardless of the satellites' speed.

But there is an additional subtlety. Although the speed of light is does not depend on the the frame of reference, the time of flight does. In this case, there are two frames of reference: the experiment on the ground and the clocks in orbit. If these are moving relative to each other, then this needs to be factored in.

So what is the satellites' motion with respect to the OPERA experiment? These probes orbit from West to East in a plane inclined at 55 degrees to the equator. Significantly, that's roughly in line with the neutrino flight path. Their relative motion is then easy to calculate.

So from the point of view of a clock on board a GPS satellite, the positions of the neutrino source and detector are changing. "From the perspective of the clock, the detector is moving towards the source and consequently the distance travelled by the particles as observed from the clock is shorter," says van Elburg.

By this he means shorter than the distance measured in the reference frame on the ground.

The OPERA team overlooks this because it thinks of the clocks as on the ground not in orbit.

How big is this effect? Van Elburg calculates that it should cause the neutrinos to arrive 32 nanoseconds early. But this must be doubled because the same error occurs at each end of the experiment. So the total correction is 64 nanoseconds, almost exactly what the OPERA team observes.

That's impressive but it's not to say the problem is done and dusted. Peer review is an essential part of the scientific process and this argument must hold its own under scrutiny from the community at large and the OPERA team in particular.

If it stands up, this episode will be laden with irony. Far from breaking Einstein's theory of relatively, the faster-than-light measurement will turn out to be another confirmation of it.
 

Lord Error

Insane For Sony
XMonkey said:
Maybe. CERN did say they accounted for relativistic effects, though.
I'd imagine something like this specific thing would have been described in their paper's methodology description. I'd think the fact that he bothered to carry the calculation would mean that there wasn't any mention of it in their paper.
 
I assumed the GPS software in the satellite already accounted for that...why wouldn't it? It knows its own speed, it knows Earth's rotation speed (so the relative speed of all stationary objects on the planet). The explanation seems a bit...unconvincing
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom