Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos: OPERA Confirms

[Nekhetyo]

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...ra.html?ref=ra

It seems the guys who discovered this in the first place have tested again and got roughly the same results.

[goki]

Skeptic until further experiments.

[Drashar]

Pretty awesome if it's real. I don't know what they changed to make it more accurate than the first test but pretty exciting news for the scientific world either way.

[Marooned]

Oh Thats huge I guess, I don't understand quantum physics well but from what I had understood the reason there couldn't be speeds more than speed of light was there could be no such force possible to push particles faster than speed of light. Maybe they have find a way to generate such a force!

[Nekhetyo]

Oh Thats huge I guess, I don't understand quantum physics well but from what I had understand the reason there couldn't be speeds more than speed of light was there could be no such force possible to push particles faster than speed of light. Maybe they have find a way to generate such a force!

Einstein said that light-speed was the ultimate speed in the Universe. This was further explained in Stephen Hawkings book "A Brief History of Time". Apparently, matter gets heavier when traveling faster or some such. When the speed of the matter approaches light-speed, near infinite energy is needed to keep the matter in motion. To get to FTL, more than infinite energy would be needed. As you no doubt understand, everything would cancel each other out. The fact that something CAN indeed travel FTL is very huge indeed.

PS: If any of the statements I just said are wrong, please correct me. I haven't read the book in a while and I can't quite recall what was said, but I think it's pretty much accurate.

[abovebeyond]

Spin up the FTL drives, we're getting out of here!

[Deleted]

You realise all this could mean is that the ultimate, highest universe speed is the neutrino speed, not light speed? As in, all the rules about light speed and such aren't true, but are for neutrino speed. That changes... nothing really. At least for us all, for physicists it changes a bit, but not THAT much either I think.

What I mean is that FTL speed doesn't mean anything more than just that - there is another maximum universe speed. No time travel or so. Just a reaaaaaaaally slightly bigger number in physic calculations.

[ultimar235]

I think it's a mathematical error. A rounding issue or a fundamental flaw in the way we denote maths.

Our maths is 99.9% accurate IMO. To prove that consider a constant Pi which goes on forever. When a computer uses Pi it will calculate it to a certain value (as far as it can go) Whatever value it ends up with you cannot say is actually Pi, it's more of an approximation.

On the way to calculate not only speed of light but all the maths involved in detecting neutrino, etc. etc. It's hard to believe they will end up with a result that is 100% accurate.

[senshu]

I think it's a mathematical error. A rounding issue or a fundamental flaw in the way we denote maths.

Our maths is 99.9% accurate IMO. To prove that consider a constant Pi which goes on forever. When a computer uses Pi it will calculate it to a certain value (as far as it can go) Whatever value it ends up with you cannot say is actually Pi, it's more of an approximation.

On the way to calculate not only speed of light but all the maths involved in detecting neutrino, etc. etc. It's hard to believe they will end up with a result that is 100% accurate.

A rounding issue? In a world where 0.999... is equal to 1? NEVER!!!!

[Caiada]

I think it's a mathematical error. A rounding issue or a fundamental flaw in the way we denote maths.

Our maths is 99.9% accurate IMO. To prove that consider a constant Pi which goes on forever. When a computer uses Pi it will calculate it to a certain value (as far as it can go) Whatever value it ends up with you cannot say is actually Pi, it's more of an approximation.

On the way to calculate not only speed of light but all the maths involved in detecting neutrino, etc. etc. It's hard to believe they will end up with a result that is 100% accurate.

Their stated margin of error is less than the amount it was FTL. That still needs to be verified though, of course.

[Zemm]

I study a little physics in the university, so this is actually pretty exiting for me :P
If this is actually true and accurate it will shake the base of the physics world.
It's actually pretty funny, since i just studied about that speed of light, and how it is utilized for different measurements.
Will be pretty interesting to see how this will affect the physics world.

[Noakh]

Already explained. There is a systematic mathematical error in their model. One of the effects of special relativity was discounted and explains the 64 nanoseconds that are causing all the hubbub. Repeating such results is just a sensationalist attempt by the scientist to generate grant money.

[Poodles]

Einstein said that light-speed was the ultimate speed in the Universe. This was further explained in Stephen Hawkings book "A Brief History of Time". Apparently, matter gets heavier when traveling faster or some such. When the speed of the matter approaches light-speed, near infinite energy is needed to keep the matter in motion. To get to FTL, more than infinite energy would be needed. As you no doubt understand, everything would cancel each other out. The fact that something CAN indeed travel FTL is very huge indeed.

PS: If any of the statements I just said are wrong, please correct me. I haven't read the book in a while and I can't quite recall what was said, but I think it's pretty much accurate.

Correct. As you get closer to the speed of light, your mass gets bigger. At the speed of light, your mass would be infinite. E=MC^2

If neutrinos can go faster, than means E=MC^2 is wrong is some way, which will completely rattle the world of physics.

[Deleted]

Already explained. There is a systematic mathematical error in their model. One of the effects of special relativity was discounted and explains the 64 nanoseconds that are causing all the hubbub. Repeating such results is just a sensationalist attempt by the scientist to generate grant money.

Anywhere I can read more about this?

[Noakh]

Anywhere I can read more about this?

let me track it down for you. Give me a few minutes

---------- Post added 2011-11-18 at 11:06 AM ----------

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog...27260/?ref=rss is just article about it. I'll try to find the actual work of Ronald van Elburg.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...110.2685v3.pdf is the actual paper.

[Twoflower]

Get real, guys.

There are no mathematical errors. The guys doing these experiments are the brightest physicists on the planet. If you think you know better, apply for their job.

There are no systematical errors big enugh to make the results false. All systematical errors are in a well defined range which is way smaller than the result they got.

We will of course wait for further experiments, but this is the 3th time allready that independent laboratories all over the world get these results. How many more times do you want to test it ?

Yes, it is a very big deal. Stop doubting, start adapting.

I'll try to find the actual work of Ronald van Elburg.

This guy is one single nutter. About as scientificaly sound as the guy who tried to shut down the LHC because it will create black holes and destroy earth.

And yes, if you were to actualy check out what the guys at CERN did, they DID account for all effects of special relativity. They know of his arguments and they checked it. Ronald van Elburg got nothing. The big nada. Stop listening to weirdos.

[Noakh]

Get real, guys.

There are no mathematical errors. The guys doing these experiments are the brightest physicists on the planet. If you think you know better, apply for their job.

There are no systematical errors big enugh to make the results false. All systematical errors are in a well defined range which is way smaller than the result they got.

We will of course wait for further experiments, but this is the 3th time allready that independent laboratories all over the world get these results. How many more times do you want to test it ?

Yes, it is a very big deal. Stop doubting, start adapting.

Hmm? Independent labs? As far as I know, only one group has ever successfully performed this experiment. That is hardly peer review. When you claim to have negated the most fundamental facet of modern physics, the onus in on you to provide absolute proof of your findings. I only see publicity.

[Destruktion]

So either there was a single phenomenon that completely shattered quantum mechanics, or there was an experimental error.

The answer is in the razor. Occam's razor, that is.

[Activi-T]

It doesn't necessary mean neutrinos travel faster than light. They could have access to higher dimensions allowing them to appear to travel faster than light a la tachyons.

[Noakh]

It doesn't necessary mean neutrinos travel faster than light. They could have access to higher dimensions allowing them to appear to travel faster than light a la tachyons.

Tachyon is just an umbrella term for any particle that moves faster than light. They don't actually exist.