• 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.

Error Undoes Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Results

Status
Not open for further replies.

El Sloth

Banned
Science Insider
It appears that the faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame.

Physicists had detected neutrinos travelling from the CERN laboratory in Geneva to the Gran Sasso laboratory near L'Aquila that appeared to make the trip in about 60 nanoseconds less than light speed. Many other physicists suspected that the result was due to some kind of error, given that it seems at odds with Einstein's special theory of relativity, which says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. That theory has been vindicated by many experiments over the decades.

According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer. After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed. Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos. New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Edit: Looks like there were two possible errors made according to Nature News:
The OPERA collaboration, which made headlines in September with the revolutionary claim to have clocked neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light, has identified two possible sources of error in its experiment. If true its result would have violated Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, a cornerstone of modern physics.

OPERA had collected data suggesting that neutrinos generated at CERN near Geneva and sent 730 kilometers to its detector Gran Sasso National Laboratory were arriving 60 nanoseconds faster than a light beam would take to travel the same distance. Many physicists were skeptical but the measurement appeared to be carefully done and reached a statistically significant level.

But according to a statement OPERA began circulating today, two possible problems have now been found with its set-up. As many physicists had speculated might be the case, both are related to the experiment’s pioneering use of Global Positioning System (GPS) signals to synchronize atomic clocks at each end of its neutrino beam. First, the passage of time on the clocks between the arrival of the synchronizing signal has to be interpolated and OPERA now says this may not have been done correctly. Second, there was a possible faulty connection between the GPS signal and the OPERA master clock.

An anonymously sourced account on Science Insider today broke the news that OPERA may have made a mistake . That report says the faulty connection can account exactly for the 60 nanosecond effect. OPERA’s official statement stops short of that, saying instead that its two possible sources of error point in opposite directions and it is still working things out. Its statement reads in full:

“The OPERA Collaboration, by continuing its campaign of verifications on the neutrino velocity measurement, has identified two issues that could significantly affect the reported result. The first one is linked to the oscillator used to produce the events time-stamps in between the GPS synchronizations. The second point is related to the connection of the optical fiber bringing the external GPS signal to the OPERA master clock.

These two issues can modify the neutrino time of flight in opposite directions. While continuing our investigations, in order to unambiguously quantify the effect on the observed result, the Collaboration is looking forward to performing a new measurement of the neutrino velocity as soon as a new bunched beam will be available in 2012. An extensive report on the above mentioned verifications and results will be shortly made available to the scientific committees and agencies.”

Caren Hagner, a member of OPERA at the University of Hamburg in Germany, says “For the moment the collaboration decided not to make a quantitative statement, because we have to recheck and discuss the findings more thoroughly.”

At Fermilab, members of the MINOS collaboration (Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search) continue to try to make their own independent measurement of the speed of neutrinos, with initial results expected later this year.​


Welp.
 

KHarvey16

Member
The second article, and the accompanying statement from OPERA, makes a lot more sense than the original piece. In the original article it said there was a loose connection and tightening it caused the signal to arrive too early, which doesn't make much sense in this context(since we can assume the connection was loose when they ran the experiment, which by following the reasoning in the article wouldn't cause the 60ns discrepancy).

I'd suspect any cable issue is more than simply that it was loose, as an intermittent connection shouldn't merely slow the signal down. Some kind of signal degradation due to design error(s) sounds more likely. Clearly though the issues causing the signal to appear to arrive sooner overwhelm any contribution from the cabling and interface. An improperly designed, tuned or chosen oscillator could make all the difference in the world.
 

Chichikov

Member
So we're not going to get starships out of this, but just imagine the amazing breakthroughs in faulty wiring we're gonna see now.
 

El Sloth

Banned
The second article, and the accompanying statement from OPERA, makes a lot more sense than the original piece. In the original article it said there was a loose connection and tightening it caused the signal to arrive too early, which doesn't make much sense in this context(since we can assume the connection was loose when they ran the experiment, which by following the reasoning in the article wouldn't cause the 60ns discrepancy).

I'd suspect any cable issue is more than simply that it was loose, as an intermittent connection shouldn't merely slow the signal down. Some kind of signal degradation due to design error(s) sounds more likely. Clearly though the issues causing the signal to appear to arrive sooner overwhelm any contribution from the cabling and interface. An improperly designed, tuned or chosen oscillator could make all the difference in the world.
Well the first article was using a "source familiar with the experiment" which could be from anyone on the team involved with the experiment to the janitor who overheard them.
 

El Sloth

Banned
Where's that science reporting comic when you need it.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623#comic

4SCai.gif


BONUS
 
What a twist!

Seriously, glad they found the cause. There were only about 100 things it could've been, none of which were "relativity is wrong".
 

Tomat

Wanna hear a good joke? Waste your time helping me! LOL!
Government cover up.

Faster than light Neutrinos exist.

Believe.
 
Was going to make a topic about this, thank god for search, right?

Anyway, I don't know if I should be happy or not. I'm happy because Einstein was right all along and I'm sad because this makes time travel impossible again. :(
 

Angry Fork

Member
I hope they still continue a few tests after fixing the errors though, just to make sure obviously.

Was going to make a topic about this, thank god for search, right?

Anyway, I don't know if I should be happy or not. I'm happy because Einstein was right all along and I'm sad because this makes time travel impossible again. :(

Aren't there lots of theories that suggest it's possible but only into the future? And you would need things that we haven't created yet obviously but just in terms of possibility.
 

AAequal

Banned
Directly from CERN
UPDATE 23 February 2012

The OPERA collaboration has informed its funding agencies and host laboratories that it has identified two possible effects that could have an influence on its neutrino timing measurement. These both require further tests with a short pulsed beam. If confirmed, one would increase the size of the measured effect, the other would diminish it. The first possible effect concerns an oscillator used to provide the time stamps for GPS synchronizations. It could have led to an overestimate of the neutrino's time of flight. The second concerns the optical fibre connector that brings the external GPS signal to the OPERA master clock, which may not have been functioning correctly when the measurements were taken. If this is the case, it could have led to an underestimate of the time of flight of the neutrinos. The potential extent of these two effects is being studied by the OPERA collaboration. New measurements with short pulsed beams are scheduled for May.

So final confirmation in may.
 
Isn't a key part of scientific findings the ability to reproduce results in a different location? How can any announcements come out of this facility with out a different one to test it at?
 

AAequal

Banned
Isn't a key part of scientific findings the ability to reproduce results in a different location? How can any announcements come out of this facility with out a different one to test it at?

They did a finding and announced it and then the data and production methods were shared with 3rd party labs so they can reproduce it. Question is should they have gone public with the finding before it has been reproduced by 3rd party labs. Many of CERN's scientist felt that they shouldn't but in the end they did.
 
Isn't a key part of scientific findings the ability to reproduce results in a different location? How can any announcements come out of this facility with out a different one to test it at?

Yeah I'm pretty confused about this too. I always thought tools of measure were the first things to produce suspicions in science. I guess the Hadron Collider is too expensive to doubt.
 

AAequal

Banned
Yeah I'm pretty confused about this too. I always thought tools of measure were the first things to produce suspicions in science. I guess the Hadron Collider is too expensive to doubt.

Team behind the finding was suspicious about these neutrinos but they couldn't find a fault in their tests nor instruments so they went to 3rd parties for help. They even did second test with some different instruments and settings last year and again with same results. I guess the machinery at LHC are bit more complicated to check then your own computer :b
 

Emwitus

Member
Really dissapointing. Back to the world being Einstein's zombies for the next 50 years. No disrespect to einstein obviously just feel like physics has been rather stagnant in terms of groundbreaking discoveries. Its like all the smart people lived and died.
 

Emwitus

Member
They did a finding and announced it and then the data and production methods were shared with 3rd party labs so they can reproduce it. Question is should they have gone public with the finding before it has been reproduced by 3rd party labs. Many of CERN's scientist felt that they shouldn't but in the end they did.

They went over the results for months though. I'm pretty sure they were fairly confident about their results. Apparently not now.
 

AAequal

Banned
They went over the results for months though. I'm pretty sure they were fairly confident about their results. Apparently not now.

The original press is still out there and they weren't confident of their findings at all. They just ran out of ideas and man power to figure what's wrong.
 
Team behind the finding was suspicious about these neutrinos but they couldn't find a fault in their tests nor instruments so they went to 3rd parties for help. They even did second test with some different instruments and settings last year and again with same results. I guess the machinery at LHC are bit more complicated to check then your own computer :b

Ouch. Thanks for the dig.

Anyway, I guess it's a blessing we can check our errors faster. Some measurements took decades or centuries before we realized the tools were inaccurate.
 

Puddles

Banned
Fuck this shit. Seriously. Fuck this fucking universe; I fucking hate everything. There's no fucking point to any of this shit. You think you get a break, but no, some dumbshit connector wasn't working right. We're never getting off this fucking rock unless we send a stupid fucking generation ship where whole generations of children will be born and live and die without ever setting foot on solid ground.

This is the worst fucking universe ever; fuck off Einstein.
 

ezrarh

Member
Really dissapointing. Back to the world being Einstein's zombies for the next 50 years. No disrespect to einstein obviously just feel like physics has been rather stagnant in terms of groundbreaking discoveries. Its like all the smart people lived and died.

Are you completely ignoring quantum mechanics?
 
But relativity is wrong. Just waiting for someone to prove it wrong with the next new thing.

And then wait for that to be proven wrong, too.

It's not wrong, it's an effective theory in some limit of a larger theory.

Really dissapointing. Back to the world being Einstein's zombies for the next 50 years. No disrespect to einstein obviously just feel like physics has been rather stagnant in terms of groundbreaking discoveries. Its like all the smart people lived and died.

It is absolutely flabbergasting when people who know NOTHING about physics try to talk about physics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom