Particles break light-speed limit : Nature News
Page 1 of 13
Published online 22 September 2011 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2011.554
Updated online: 23 September 2011
News
Particles break light-speed limit
Neutrino results challenge cornerstone of modern physics.
Geoff Brumfiel
An Italian experiment has unveiled evidence that fundamental particles known as neutrinos can travel faster than
light. Other researchers are cautious about the result, but if it stands further scrutiny, the finding would overturn
the most fundamental rule of modern physics — that nothing travels faster than 299,792,458 metres per second.
The experiment is called OPERA (Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus), and lies 1,400 metres
underground in the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy. It is designed to study a beam of neutrinos coming
from CERN, Europe's premier high-energy physics laboratory located 730 kilometres away near Geneva,
Switzerland. Neutrinos are fundamental particles that are electrically neutral, rarely interact with other matter, and
have a vanishingly small mass. But they are all around us — the Sun produces so many neutrinos as a by-product of
nuclear reactions that many billions pass through your eye every second.
The 1,800-tonne OPERA detector is a complex array of electronics and photographic emulsion plates, but the new
result is simple — the neutrinos are arriving 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light allows. "We are
shocked," says Antonio Ereditato, a physicist at the University of Bern in Switzerland and OPERA's spokesman.
Breaking the law
Has OPERA found superspeedy neutrinos?
CERN
The idea that nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's special theory
of relativity, which itself forms the foundation of modern physics. If neutrinos are travelling faster than light speed,
then one of the most fundamental assumptions of science — that the rules of physics are the same for all observers — would be invalidated. "If it's true,
then it's truly extraordinary," says John Ellis, a theoretical physicist at CERN.
Ereditato says that he is confident enough in the new result to make it public. The researchers claim to have measured the 730-kilometre trip between
CERN and its detector to within 20 centimetres. They can measure the time of the trip to within 10 nanoseconds, and they have seen the effect in more
than 16,000 events measured over the past two years. Given all this, they believe the result has a significance of six-sigma — the physicists' way of
saying it is certainly correct. The group will present their results tomorrow at CERN, and a preprint of their results will be posted on the physics
website ArXiv.org.
At least one other experiment has seen a similar effect before, albeit with a much lower confidence level. In 2007, the Main Injector Neutrino
Oscillation Search (MINOS) experiment in Minnesota saw neutrinos from the particle-physics facility Fermilab in Illinois arriving slightly ahead of
schedule. At the time, the MINOS team downplayed the result, in part because there was too much uncertainty in the detector's exact position to be
sure of its significance, says Jenny Thomas, a spokeswoman for the experiment. Thomas says that MINOS was already planning more accurate followup experiments before the latest OPERA result. "I'm hoping that we could get that going and make a measurement in a year or two," she says.
Reasonable doubt
If MINOS were to confirm OPERA's find, the consequences would be enormous. "If you give up the speed of light, then the construction of special
relativity falls down," says Antonino Zichichi, a theoretical physicist and emeritus professor at the University of Bologna, Italy. Zichichi speculates that
the 'superluminal' neutrinos detected by OPERA could be slipping through extra dimensions in space, as predicted by theories such as string theory.
Ellis, however, remains sceptical. Many experiments have looked for particles travelling faster
than light speed in the past and have come up empty-handed, he says. Most troubling for
OPERA is a separate analysis of a pulse of neutrinos from a nearby supernova known as 1987a.
If the speeds seen by OPERA were achievable by all neutrinos, then the pulse from the
supernova would have shown up years earlier than the exploding star's flash of light; instead,
they arrived within hours of each other. "It's difficult to reconcile with what OPERA is seeing,"
Ellis says.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ereditato says that he welcomes scepticism from outsiders, but adds that the researchers have
been unable to find any other explanation for their remarkable result. "Whenever you are in
these conditions, then you have to go to the community," he says.
UPDATED:The OPERA collaboration has posted a paper describing their result.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html
9/24/2011
Particles break light-speed limit : Nature News
Page 2 of 13
Comments
If you find something abusive or inappropriate or which does not otherwise comply with our Terms or Community Guidelines, please select the relevant 'Report
this comment' link.
Comments on this thread are vetted after posting.
#26932
Both measurement error and faster than light speed seem unlikely in this case, but I consider faster than light travel the more unlikely of the two.
Report this comment
Posted by: Sander Heinsalu
2011-09-22 04:14:24 PM
#26933
If neutrinos are superluminical particles, what should we do with the CPT theorem?
Does it imply the fail of special relativity? Are we looking into new physics? Can we trust in this news?
Tomorrow we will see what happen in the conference about all this.
Report this comment
Posted by: Cuentos Cuánticos
2011-09-22 04:45:31 PM
#26935
Please note that the existence of neutrino oscillations indicates a difference between electroweak and mass states. The absorption and emmision of a neutrino is
defined by an EW state, but three mass states participate in the apparently tachyonic propagation. In other words, neutrinos are utterly unlike charged leptons, like
the electron, because the speed is associated to a state that we don't directly 'see'. Not at all unlikely then, especially in light of the non existence of God particles.
Congratulations OPERA!
Report this comment
Posted by: Marni Sheppeard
2011-09-22 05:15:04 PM
#26936
Sixty Nanoseconds corresponds to a distance error of only about 20 meters.
Given all the complexities of the problem (Rotation of the Earth, non-uniformity of Earths gravitational field, etc) I would imagine that it's very hard to actually
measure the shortest path over 730 km.
Show me a race between a photon and a neutrino. That's the definitive experiment.
Report this comment
Posted by: Erik Gross
2011-09-22 05:42:20 PM
#26937
Faster than light motion?
In a pig's eye!
Report this comment
Posted by: Robert L. Oldershaw
2011-09-22 05:53:54 PM
#26939
Wait and see. But I postulated the existence of particles able to travel faster than light already in 1995 (Rencontre de Moriond, January 1995) :
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9505117
See, for a recent review, my CRIS 2010 talk and the references therein concerning my work on the superbradyon hypothesis :
Nature
ISSN 0028-0836
EISSN 1476-4687
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html
9/24/2011
Particles break light-speed limit : Nature News
Page 3 of 13
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4889
Report this comment
Posted by: Luis Gonzalez-Mestres
2011-09-22 06:06:04 P
#269
I'm guessing, from the difficulty in even detecting neutrinos, that we're looking at pretty big packets of them here? Could this be a wave effect similar to superlumin
photon pulses in BECs?
Report this comment
Posted by: Geoff Robbins
2011-09-22 06:45:37 P
#269
The OPERA paper is online :
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897
Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam
Report this comment
Posted by: Luis Gonzalez-Mestres
2011-09-22 09:09:11 P
#269
Quantum tunneling?
Report this comment
Posted by: Seppo Sahrakorpi
2011-09-22 09:31:15 P
#269
Let's assume the experiment is correct. The difference between the speed of light and that of the neutrinos seems to be less than 2 parts in 100000. This is very clos
It seems to me that the light is failing to reach the maximum possible speed C because somehow is interacting with the vacuum or with matter. Neutrinos are less
interactive and may approach C more closely than the photons. I will not give up relativity so easily!!!
Report this comment
Posted by: Fernando Martin Maroto
2011-09-22 10:33:25 P
#269
Einstein's theories of relativity do NOT say that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. They say that nothing with non-zero rest mass can ever cross that
barrier; although, zero rest-mass particles can do so. The real problem here is the relation between local and non-local events, e.g.: the dynamics of universal
structure. Experimental tests of Bell's inequality have shown that microscopic causality must be violated; i.e.: there must be faster-than-light travel. In any physical
theory, we must assume that there is some kind of non-local structure – and this non-local structure itself violates causality – i.e.: it must assume faster-than-light
connections exist in order for it to exist and to validate any physical laws.
Report this comment
Posted by: Nicholas Hugh Bishop
2011-09-22 11:04:46 P
#269
This result is inconsistent with all modern physics, since Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905. It is also suspicious that such fast than light
neutrinos have not been detected before, as they have been studied extensively. Yet this is the first claim of faster than light data, from such an experiment which is
outside the errors of the experiment.
There are two possible outcomes to this experimental claim:
1) That the data is correct – which would need significant verification from several independent experiments, and all errors and systems would need to be checke
and rechecked for systematic errors. It would take some time to verify this to the point that physics accepted faster than light travel by a particle.
2) That the data is somehow wrong, and that verification cannot be found and that the results are a product of a flawed experimental setup or calculation.
The special theory of relativity has been the most tested theory in all of physics and has never failed till now – Occam's razor tells us that the simplest explanation
most often the correct one – and so it appears that someone is going to have egg on their face and it’s my best guess that it’s not Einstein’s theories.
Report this comment
Ab
t NPG
P i
Posted by: Estelle Asmodelle
li
N t
N
Ab
tN t
N
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html
2011-09-23 01:42:05 A
S
h
9/24/2011
Particles break light-speed limit : Nature News
Page 4 of 13
#269
This result is inconsistent with all modern physics, since Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905. It is also suspicious that such fast than light
neutrinos have not been detected before, as they have been studied extensively. Yet this is the first claim of faster than light data, from such an experiment which is
outside the errors of the experiment.
There are two possible outcomes to this experimental claim:
1) That the data is correct – which would need significant verification from several independent experiments, and all errors and systems would need to be checke
and rechecked for systematic errors. It would take some time to verify this to the point that physics accepted faster than light travel by a particle.
2) That the data is somehow wrong, and that verification cannot be found and that the results are a product of a flawed experimental setup or calculation.
The special theory of relativity has been the most tested theory in all of physics and has never failed till now – Occam's razor tells us that the simplest explanation
most often the correct one – and so it appears that someone is going to have egg on their face and it’s my best guess that it’s not Einstein’s theories.
Report this comment
Posted by: Estelle Asmodelle
2011-09-23 01:42:37 A
#269
I think it might be, think about parts that can move to faster than light, it is very quite fun. Some particles may be faster than light. To solve the mystery: Consider t
size of the incident wave.mystery may be hidden here. Thanks
Report this comment
Posted by: Ramazan SINEKOGLU
2011-09-23 02:56:36 A
#269
I think it is interesting to note that the speed difference (v-c)/c = 2.48e-5, corresponds to a speed of 7440 m/s faster than c. That is just (within the stated errors)
about the orbital velocity at the Earth's surface (~7900 m/s)...
Report this comment
Posted by: Matthias Meier
2011-09-23 03:03:19 A
#269
This reminds me vividly of claims a decade or two ago that quantum tunneling could send information ‘faster than light’. None stood up to scrutiny, usual
cause was confusing the notional 'group velocity' of a wave packet with the speed at which a signal can be transmitted.
Analogy for the present case: the wave train describing the neutrinos is a long surfboard, with a guy in a red suit at the front and one in a blue suit at the back. As th
board travels over the waves, not exceeding lightspeed, the red and blue guy are alternately visible (never both together). So at times the guy appears to change colo
and leap forward impossibly fast. But you cannot send an instant signal ‘from the back to the front’ of the surfboard or wavetrain, any more than you can us
EPR correlations to signal.
This particular case will likely come down to inexact definition of the time at which the 'original neutrinos' were deemed to be emitted.
Report this comment
Posted by: Colin Bruce
2011-09-23 03:44:27 A
#269
If it's true, it would only mean that we were wrongly thinking that optical photon is the fastest field construction.
They are made of EM field, while neutrino is mainly a construct of the field corresponding to the weak interaction – we know the speed of EM field propagation, bu
are there any experiments showing that weak interaction field has exactly the same propagation speed? (up to 1/40000 precision like in above experiment).
It is like we are sure of gravitational masses, but in fact we know them well only for basically uncharged matter – mainly nucleons. Was there any experiment
showing that it is in fact the same for a single electron? (hint: there wasn't Stern-Gerlach made for electrons...)
Report this comment
Posted by: Jarek Duda
2011-09-23 03:55:18 A
#269
Interesting points Colin, I have many questions myself but sounds like they ran 10,000 tests- I'm sure they must have thought of that. Anyway I'm glad 2 hear they
are finding something there as I've always known the Higgs-boson wouldn't be found as it doesn't exist.Lets get ahold of the data ourselves & see.....
Report this comment
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html
Posted by: louis patrizzi
2011-09-23 04:08:27 A
9/24/2011
Particles break light-speed limit : Nature News
Page 5 of 13
#269
Interesting points Colin, I have many questions myself but sounds like they ran 10,000 tests- I'm sure they must have thought of that. Anyway I'm glad 2 hear they
are finding something there as I've always known the Higgs-boson wouldn't be found as it doesn't exist.Lets get ahold of the data ourselves & see.....
Report this comment
Posted by: louis patrizzi
2011-09-23 04:15:09 A
#269
A possible explanation for the observed greater than light speed of neutrinos can befound in a discrepancy between refractive index for the neutrino particles throu
matter(1) and the time signal through the earth's atmosphere(>1).
Report this comment
Posted by: kees veth
2011-09-23 04:39:47 A
#269
In dense aether theory the neutrinos could really travel faster than light, because photons of light (heavy photons of gamma rays in particular) interact with CMBR
background slightly and they're moving along spirals trough vacuum, which makes their travel longer and as such slower. Such explanation even doesn't violate the
relativity in common sense, when subtle space-time curvatures caused with CMBR are taken into account. So it's not so strange, during supernova explosions some
neutrinos arrive sooner, than the gamma ray flash.
Briefly speaking, in completely flat space-time the neutrinos couldn't travel faster than light, but our space-time is not completely flat – everyone can detect with
microwave antenna, how it undulates. So we can observe various (subtle) violations of relativity too.
http://tinyurl.com/yk239q7
Report this comment
Posted by: Zephir Zephir
2011-09-23 04:46:40 A
#269
the question – as Maroto points out below – is what is the real speed of c (The maximal rate of transformation or the speed of time itself) and do photons move at
that rate – because photons interact with matter or energy they should move at a slower rate than do nutrinos which interact less with matter or energy – the real
question is what is the maximal rate of transformation and do photons move at this rate?
Let's assume the experiment is correct. The difference between the speed of light and that of the neutrinos seems to be less than 2 parts in 100000. This is very clos
It seems to me that the light is failing to reach the maximum possible speed C because somehow is interacting with the vacuum or with matter. Neutrinos are less
interactive and may approach C more closely than the photons. I will not give up relativity so easily!!!
Report this comment 2011-09-22 10:33:25 PM Posted by: Fernando Martin Maroto
Report this comment
Posted by: Peter WAY
2011-09-23 04:50:22 A
#269
Interesting. If I look up the distance measurement procedure, they use GPS established coordinates. I don't find the GPS definition, but they could be 3D coordinat
(Should, I would think.)
But presumably a light coordinate system would follow the geodesic gravity surface of the Earth. I get the discrepancy to ~ 22 m for an ideal Earth sized sphere. Or
about 60 ns, give or take.
Report this comment
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson
2011-09-23 05:16:42 A
#269
HTML fail. Let me try again: http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it/Opera/publicnotes/note132.pdf .
It also hit me that it could be the other way (GPS coordinates given with respect to the geodesic, for convenience). Anyway, the discrepancy is close to the missing 2
meters in light travel time, and the measurement procedure doesn't discuss what coordinate systems to use.
Report this comment
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson
2011-09-23 05:38:40 A
9/24/2011
Particles break light-speed limit : Nature News
Page 6 of 13
#269
So I found the GPS ITRF2000 description. It is a "space geodesic" (position and velocity) system, and it seems to me to be based on the geode.
So my initial hunch was backwards. And of course if the neutrinos travel line-of-sight and the distance is measured along the geode that would make the correct sig
of the discrepancy. Duh me!
Report this comment
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson
2011-09-23 05:55:03 A
#269
ITRF2000 info here:
http://www.iers.org/nn_11216/SharedDocs/Publikationen/EN/IERS/Publications/tn/TechnNote31/tn31,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/tn31.pdf
Report this comment
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson
2011-09-23 05:56:18 A
#269
If neutrinos can ignore the speed-limit set by photons, why to they choose to exceed it by such an annoyingly small and questionable margin@
Report this comment
Posted by: michael o'shea
2011-09-23 07:08:31 A
#269
Typos corrected: If neutrinos can ignore the speed-limit set by photons, why do they choose to exceed it by such an annoyingly small and questionable margin?
Report this comment
Posted by: michael o'shea
2011-09-23 07:38:40 A
#269
The news has already found its way to comics http://www.xkcd.com/955/
Report this comment
Posted by: Sander Heinsalu
2011-09-23 08:17:46 A
#269
There's a debunking paper from an Australian physicist, John P. Costella. See the Wikipedia article on neutrinos, subheading Speed. His critique is based on reduci
the six sigma to two sigma via an elementary statistical analysis. Instead of a variance of 7 ns, he posits more like 27 ns.
Report this comment
Posted by: Andrew Palfreyman
2011-09-23 08:19:14 A
#269
"Anyway, the discrepancy is close to the missing 20 meters in light travel time" versus "The measurement amounts to the neutrinos travelling faster than the speed
light by a fraction of 20 parts per million. Since the speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second, the neutrinos were evidently travelling at 299,798,454 metres p
second." Who is right? - one would expect the difference to be miniscule – there are two independent ways of measuring the absolute rate of transformation – the
299,792,458 metres per second of photons and the "acceleration" speed of matter at the Schwartzchild-Radius which one should be able to calculate in terms of the
earth's surface gravitational acceleration and its radius as measured in terms of S-Radii i.e. C/R2 – now there is the 299,798,454 metres per second of the Neutrino
are they all different?
Report this comment
Posted by: Peter WAY
2011-09-23 08:42:01 A
#269
It would be an interesting phenomena if neutrinos did not follow a geodesic path, and travelled in a straight line, therefore unaffected by gravity, and reaching
detination in a shorter time than light, even though it does not travel any faster.
Report this comment
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html
Posted by: Ben Dempsey
2011-09-23 09:05:37 A
9/24/2011
Particles break light-speed limit : Nature News
Page 7 of 13
#269
It should be noted that the light is electromagnetic vibrations emanating ether. Since neutrino oscillations do not generate any in ether, they can travel at a speed
different than the charged particles
Report this comment
Posted by: vytautas skaidra
2011-09-23 09:09:51 A
#269
Sooner than latter, this public announcement may turn out to be no way for the hallowed Nobel, but one of the cheapest and clumsiest attempt to gain instant fame
Supposed ``730 km'' on Earth need not mean precise ``730 km''; measured in ideal lab conditions. There could be so many other sources of uncertainty staring fro
seismic disturbances, temperature fluctuations.. Instead of claiming that a particle which may even have a tiny mass is moving super-luminally, the researchers
should have pondered on the reasons for the error in their distance and time estimates. However, such an honest attempt would not have been ``world news''
Report this comment
Posted by: Abhas Mitra
2011-09-23 10:38:17 A
#269
I love the self-assured skepticism and will love it even more when it is proven wrong – it is obvious with a photon's mass-energy that the speed of light in a vacuum
should be slightly less than c – the absolute transformation rate which represents the metric of all transformations and interactions – the photon should have some
inertia and more than likely neutrinos with their miniscule mass move also slightly slower than c but slightly faster than SOL – the question is what is c's constant
rate
Report this comment
Posted by: Peter WAY
2011-09-23 11:41:36 A
#269
I am not a physicist but would not particles such as electrons traveling faster than the speed of light explain the poppycock nonsense of electrons being in two place
at the same time as simply a case of not being able to predict/measure their actual speed. Please comment.
Report this comment
Posted by: jack knautz
2011-09-23 12:24:42 P
#269
does this mean the uncaused cause argument has legs now?
Report this comment
Posted by: Christian Banchs
2011-09-23 12:57:13 P
#269
Though two hours back, I rejected this claim outright, now it dawned on me that the claim might be just right given the myriads of ideas offered by present day
Theoretical Physics. For instance, particles are supposed to move with super-luminal speed inside the dreaded Event Horizon of Black Holes; this however is thoug
be perfectly OK because SPACE ITSELF IS SUPPOSED TO MOVE super-luminally inside the BH; as if space was some sort of aether. By the same token, space mig
be moving from CERN to Gran Sasso and the poor neutrinos just got carried away. Another possibility is that emerging gravity from the entropic forces interacted
with the entropy of the black hole at the center of our galaxy to cause additional ripple between the two same stations. Or else, there could be a primordial micro
White Hole trapped in earth's crust spitting out some moving space, and neutrinos got trapped.
It is also possible that in the backdrop of an accelerated universe driven by a Phantom Dark Energy having negative energy density, neutralino and axion Dark Mat
created additional acceleration for the neutrinos.
One of the curled up tiny spatial dimension of Theory of Everything (TOE) might have opened up by the effect of accelerated expansion of the universe; so the prop
distance between CERN & Gran Sasso might have increased by a tiny amount.
Wormholes are supposed to provide shortcuts for space travel. May be we have discovered an ANTI wormhole or White wormhole which has lengthened the actual
distance. Or may be jet arrising from the black hole black hole collision in one of the zillions of parallel universes discovered by the Landscape Scenario of TOE has
twisted the fabric of spacetime near Gran Sasso.
Report this comment
Posted by: Abhas Mitra
2011-09-23 01:12:36 P
#269
does this mean the uncaused cause argument has legs....lols?!?!
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html
9/24/2011
Particles break light-speed limit : Nature News
Page 8 of 13
#269
If only those bunches of neutrinos could have interacted with each other just a wee bit, AND we could observe whether their entropy increased or decreased along
their path.
Interesting idea (Maroto, above) that light interacts more with the vacuum than the neutrinos do, so that light is not quite moving at the speed of time, c, while the
neutrino speed is perhaps closer. We know the vacuum isn't — its full of virtual particles and fields popping in and out of real existence, also presumably full of Dar
Energy, certainly full of CMBR, and locally in our galaxy has some Dark Matter. But I think the light-interaction-with vacuum has trouble with the unbelievably
accurate ISOTROPY of light speed, and the very, very near sameness of the speeds of gamma photons, light photon, radio photons observed from hundreds to
thousands of light-years distant astronomical phenomena where bursts were presumably emitted simultaneously (at the same event in space-time).
Report this comment
Posted by: Stephen Hatchett
2011-09-23 02:23:57 P
#270
A possible explanation for both the supernova and the CERN results comes to mind. If light has to follow the curvature of space but neutrinos do not then in the loc
area of a star or planet contributes to the travel time difference but not really so much for the interstellar trip.
Report this comment
Posted by: Brian Chojnowski
2011-09-23 03:08:41 P
#270
This is a right result from my point of view. To my believe there is no fixed any value in nature. Everything is working with probability principle. I am very glad for
this result and hope ones we will prove that there is no fixed value: Only probabilities.
Report this comment
Posted by: Vard Antinyan
2011-09-23 03:18:26 P
#270
If indeed this is true (surely this is not the area of my expertise) it does not come as a surprise to me. Nature will always keep us busy unraveling her.
Besides, in my opinion there is only one law which is infallible: That every manmade law will eventually be broken. Science always remains dynamic.
Dr. Upinder Fotadar
Report this comment
Posted by: Upinder Fotadar
2011-09-23 04:09:41 P
#270
Usually we say that, according to relativity, nothing can move faster
than light. But, in fact, according to relativity, the only
requirement is that there is a speed limit, c. This speed may be the
same one that is observed for the propagation of light in vacuum, if
Maxwell's equations are correct (massless photon). Even so, there may
be corrections due to interactions of photons with matter, or e +
e-pairs from the vacuum. Perhaps neutrinos, even though massive, are
even more effectively faster than the fastest ever observed photon.
This is jsut a conceptual matter of principle. Probably the speed of
light is exactly the same as the speed limit. In this case, I would
say that the experiment has some problem of unknown systematic error.
Report this comment
Posted by: Frelsandi Kattarlegur
2011-09-23 05:47:24 P
#270
I think there is some experimental error in these results. We can't be sure now until other labs disprove it but we can't also deny the fact that the experiment in Italy
might just be a special case. Possibility is endless as there are much to know about these tiny particles. Einstein's theory seems solid for now but in near future the
concept of relativity might have branches on its own and this neutrino case could have made us think about it. In any case one thing is for sure. More people will be
interested in physics, and this subject and that's always a good thing.
Report this comment
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html
Posted by: Can Nerse
2011-09-23 06:24:29 P
9/24/2011
Particles break light-speed limit : Nature News
Page 9 of 13
#270
Is it possible that the general relativity geodesic distance could be slightly shorter than the euclidean distance since the neutrino flight is going through a gradient o
the earths gravitational field? Or, am I being completely naive?
Report this comment
Posted by: Bent Schmidt-Nielsen
2011-09-23 07:57:50 P
#270
I formulated my theory on the existence de speeds of some particles in the vacuum greater than c in my paper "Velocidades mayores que la velocidad de la
luz" ("Speeds greater than the speed of the light") published in 1969 in the newspaper "El Siglo" in Colombia. The present discovery on the speed of the neutrinos is
the beginning of the show of the speeds superluminaries.
Report this comment
Posted by: Alfonso Guillén
2011-09-23 08:26:23 P
#270
I formulated my theory on the existence de speeds of some particles in the vacuum greater than c in my paper Velocidades mayores que la velocidad de la luz (Spee
greater than the speed of the light) published in 1969 in the newspaper El Siglo in Colombia. The present discovery on the speed of the neutrinos is the beginning o
the show of the speeds superluminaries.
Report this comment
Posted by: Alfonso Guillén
2011-09-23 08:32:10 P
#270
This phenomenon, faster than light, was observed before, but probably overlooked:
Supernova 1987A from Magellanic Cloud (160,000 lj away) was detected in the deep mine neutrino detection facility in Japan 18 hours BEFORE it was observed
optically. That would mean 0.3852% faster than light. However, the event of creating the neutrinos MAY have happened before the increase of light, OR it was
observed later. But start of light-event can be calculated back from increase of light. Further study needed.
Report this comment
Posted by: Robert Brotherhood
2011-09-23 09:53:47 P
#270
Here is very interesting article about possible error sources:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/09/neutrino-results-depend-on-exquisite-measurements-of-time-space.ars
Good argument that neutrinos travels at speed of light is that while supernova they are observed simultaneously with photons ... however, there for example remain
possibility that neutrinos can be accelerated to larger velocities, but EM field quickly decelerates them to speed of EM field propagation (through kind of Cherenkov
radiation?).
Report this comment
Posted by: Jarek Duda
2011-09-23 10:10:18 P
#270
Further study done: I found more accurate data online:
• 7:36, 23 February 1987, neutrinos observed
• 9:30
o Albert Jones, amateur astronomer, observes Tarantula Nebula in LMC, sees nothing unusual
• 10:30
o Robert McNaught photographs LMC
o When plate is developed, SN1987A is there.
If we substitute 3 hours for the neutrinos to preceed the light increase, their speed was 0.0642% faster than light;
for 2 hours the speed is 0.0428% faster. getting closer to the Italian observation.
Report this comment
Posted by: Robert Brotherhood
2011-09-23 10:27:16 P
#270
I see way too many variable here that need to be taken into account. For one, is the distance between the CERN and the detectors known to within 20m? Has the
Sagnac effect been taken into account? (Matthias Meier's observation that the difference is comparable to the Earth's orbital speed raises this possibility. On the oth
hand, the Sagnac Effect is very diminished if you are standing on the rotating platform and only observing a small part of the orbit.) Have the effects of general
relativity been taken into account? (Light travels faster at higher potentials, but most of the time the course should be at lower potentials in this experiment.)
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html
9/24/2011
Particles break light-speed limit : Nature News
Page 10 of 13
My overall point is the the world line of the neutrinos needs to be well understood before any claims of superluminal propagation can seriously be made. At this tim
I doubt that any such study has been made.
Report this comment
Posted by: Edward Schaefer
2011-09-24 01:12:20 A
#270
On the SN1987a business: Do be aware that at the time of core collapse, there is no brightening of the now-doomed star. Instead a shock wave propagates outwards
and at "breakout" a few minutes later the star will shine more brightly for a few minutes. Then that effect will be gone, and the brightening of the star due to its
innards being heated will then begin. It still may be a few hours before the change is brightness becomes great enough to notice and then is noticed.
Report this comment
Posted by: Edward Schaefer
2011-09-24 01:21:33 A
#270
Does LIGHT travel faster than MIND?
Report this comment
Posted by: A J
2011-09-24 03:10:21 A
#270
I believe this finding proves the reason why we cannot prove the existence of dark energy / matter. From observations we know it exists (rapid expansion of Univer
but so far we cannot find it in experiments.
Einstein was not wrong, it was our interpiation of C; we see light particles in space time because they travel at C and not more than C. The neutrinos have mass, it h
already been thersied that that they "took a short cut through another dimension" i.e. the mass / speed took them out of our space / time but not enough to stay out
We can see that Gravity acts on dark matter (i.e. Universe expansion) so gravity brings them back to Space / Time.
Dark Energy = particles with mass travelling more than C
Report this comment
Posted by: Paul Coyle
2011-09-24 03:37:42 A
#270
The error is thinking that by definition "c" (time's absolute rate of transformation) must equal the speed of light – the speed of light might well equal "c" - if so the
neutrino results are wrong But more than likely the absolute rate at which reality transforms itself (c) is slightly faster than the transition rates at which photons and neutrinos move in space
299,792,458 meters per second and 299,798,454 meters per second.
Reality's rate of transformation must be very close to the transition rates of photons and neutrinos but could well be slightly faster – the universe is then slightly
bigger and slightly younger than we thought – or more is happening every second than we think!
Report this comment
Posted by: Peter WAY
2011-09-24 05:24:11 A
#270
It is necessary to wait for details from physicists from CERN, Fermilab etc. But, on the basis of B.Sc. Physics knowledge (which may be considered as the level of a
common reader), one can expect neutrinos to move with velocity greater than that of light. This is because neutrinos are mass-less and can not face the barrier of
relativistic mass increase – set by Albert Einstein.
Report this comment
Posted by: Dileep Sathe
2011-09-24 05:52:44 A
#270
Its a long time since my school years, but do i remember it correctly about einstein that in cases like this, to get the time measurement right, one has to take in
account the strengt of the gravity? And since the stream of neutrinos travelled through earths mass, is it necessary to think about the gravity of the earths mass abo
it aswell?
Report this comment
Posted by: Simon Suf
2011-09-24 07:50:54 A
#270
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html
9/24/2011
Particles break light-speed limit : Nature News
Page 11 of 13
If that is right, it's a good time to reform in physics. I've longed for this for a long time.
Report this comment
Posted by: Yunlong Liang
2011-09-24 09:59:45 A
#270
Re. Mr. Schaefer-s comment on SN1987A:
You are referring to the THEORY of supernova collapse to explain away the time difference between light and neutrino OBSERVATIONS (facts). Obviously the theo
needs updating. Theorists should be more flexible.
Report this comment
Posted by: Robert Brotherhood
2011-09-24 10:30:05 A
#270
OFF THE SCALE
-- James Ph. Kotsybar
The young lady known simply as Bright,
who could travel at speeds fast as light,
said, “While I’m never late,
I’m concerned that my weight
goes to infinite mass, though I’m slight.â€
Report this comment
Posted by: James Ph. Kotsybar
2011-09-24 11:19:06 A
#270
It's too early to bid goodbye to STR. Independent confirmations of superluminal travel of neutrinos are needed. Sensationalisation must stop.
Report this comment
Posted by: Swapan Sur
2011-09-24 12:25:29 P
#270
FANTASIA in action to make money. Since the Neutrino doesn’t exist as it is proved by Autodynamics, the Dr. Carezani New Paradigm in Physics-Cosmology, t
faster Neutrino is another fantasy to maintain the researchers jobs a time longer. See, please:
http://autodynamicslborg.blogspot.com/2011/06/never-any-detector-detected-any.html
No one will study an accept Autodynamics because they think that doing so will end their jobs, when really it is the contrary. New powerful horizons will start in the
Science of Physic and Cosmology to construct the basis for the next Paradigm.
Lucy Haye Ph. D.
SAA’s representative.
Report this comment
Posted by: Lucy Haye
2011-09-24 01:10:19 P
#270
Einstein's doubts about relativity
The faster than light observations must be decisively confirmed before they are accepted, but it is worth speculating that this is the first glimpse of what Einstein
came to suspect may ultimately replace relativity. "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In th
case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- Albert Einstein from Subtle is the Lord p, 46
Abraham Pais.
I recently published a paper, Emergent Properties of Discretized Wave Equations that shows that any fully discretized theory on a topologically regular gri
that approximates the wave equation must introduce nonlinearities and must allow some physical effects to propagate faster, perhaps much faster, than the velocity
of wave propagation. This opens the possibility that fundamental particles are stable dynamic structures that ordinarily approximate the wave equation to extremel
high accuracy but also undergo state transformations that are superluminal and nonlinear. The paper suggests that tests of Bell's inequality should look for any spa
time structure to quantum collapse and not focus only on the speed of light.
Report this comment
Posted by: Paul Budnik
2011-09-24 01:26:30 P
#270
Still think that is an experimental error. If it is not, I suggest the propagation speed of fields to be treated as a new parameter subject to renormalization just like th
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html
9/24/2011
Particles break light-speed limit : Nature News
Page 12 of 13
mass or the charge. The real value is hidden because of selfinteraction and interaction of the field with the vacuum. So, the effective propagation of a given field is
slightly inferior than c and depends on the field's lagrangian.
Report this comment
Posted by: Fernando Martin Maroto
2011-09-24 01:36:24 P
#270
Mr Abhas Mitra has a fine sense of humor.
Report this comment
Posted by: Fernando Martin Maroto
2011-09-24 02:40:54 P
#270
so what about the speed of force-interactions??..I personally think the gist lies in the answer...
Report this comment
Posted by: vyshaq bhudda
2011-09-24 03:03:12 P
#270
Special relativity can be shown to be a manipulation of Galilean Relativity, ascribing significance to a scaling parameter that doesn't actually have any meaning. On
can derive a form invariant system of Maxwells' equations in a Galilean framework that does not produce an "absolute" speed limit of c. Further, all experimental
"tests" of special relativity are easily supported in the same framework. The difference is that the Galilean framework also supports "faster-than-c" neutrinos and
provides an explanation as to why they are generally non-interacting with matter (as well as apparent mass increase in particle accelerators). Papers available at
renshaw.teleinc.com
Report this comment
Posted by: Curt Renshaw
2011-09-24 03:10:50 P
#270
I will wait for independent confirmation, but it is intriguing that non-locality requires superluminal connections that no one can understand. Maybe this will help,
and Clauser's comment, "Quantum mechanics and relativity live in peaceful coexistence."
I never believed this statement.
Report this comment
Posted by: Bryan Sanctuary
2011-09-24 04:11:05 P
#270
I will wait for independent confirmation, but it is intriguing that non-locality requires superluminal connections that no one can understand. Maybe this will help,
and Clauser's comment, "Quantum mechanics and relativity live in peaceful coexistence."
I never believed this statement.
Report this comment
Posted by: Bryan Sanctuary
2011-09-24 04:12:04 P
#270
If these results are right (and naturally we are all awaiting further experiment and data), then this is potentially very exciting indeed.
My initial instinct is that Einstein's theories are unlikely to be seriously threatened (particularly because general relativity allows the idea of shortcuts as many have
indicated), and we are going to learn a lot about particles and fundamental interactions from this.
I now would like to see some numbers attached to the theories. If neutrinos can take the shortest possible route in space-time, how much earlier would they be
expected to arrive? (Should be straightforward to calculate.)
How this number compares to 60 ns will tell us a lot.
I think it is irrational to suggest the route taken will always be the shortest possible because you have to know where you are going to take the shortest route. But th
is all tied up with causality so you can't rule anything out.
I prefer to think of the neutrinos travelling on 'an inside lane' - a 'surface' (volume really) parallel to the one where 'normal' matter exists.
If this is not numerically impossible, I immediately want to know how far away this 'inside track' is. (And is it the same for all flavours of neutrinos?)
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html
9/24/2011
Particles break light-speed limit : Nature News
Page 13 of 13
Here is a thought: neutrinos may exist in a space-time not very far away from ours (on the inside of gravitational curvature of course), and aren't all that different
from other particles. The weakness of their interaction with other matter we know about is because they only very rarely stray onto our plane.
Report this comment
Posted by: Ian MacDonald
2011-09-24 05:19:21 P
#270
Was the velocity of the neutrinos calculated using the geodesic distance measured along the earth's surface between two GPS positions OR the straight line distance
between these points ? Would the distance separation of 500 miles along the geodesic produce a reduced straight line distance, keeping the velocity of the neutrino
the same as the velocity of light ?
E J Dickens
Report this comment
Posted by: John Dickens
2011-09-24 06:33:35 P
#270
There must be some measurement error. The value should be less than 60 nanoseconds! Since Neutrinos have non-zero mass and can interact gravitationally with
other particles, we can believe that Neutrinos can also interact gravitationally with the Earth. Their speed should be 7.9km/s fatser than the light speed because the
experiments were conducted near the Earth surface.
Report this comment
Posted by: Hequan Sun
2011-09-24 09:53:00 P
#270
While the prudence is obviously incredibly important here, I have to say that the people dismissing the study without a specific critique of the experiment grow a lit
tiresome. The experimenters were exceedingly diligent. If errors occurred it's going to require more than an off-hand dismissal or a casual critique that the
experimenters already addressed in the study.
Report this comment
Posted by: Shrimpton McClams
2011-09-24 10:23:06 P
Add your own comment
This is a public forum. Please keep to our Community Guidelines. You can be controversial, but please don't get personal or offensive and do keep it brief. Remembe
our threads are for feedback and discussion - not for publishing papers, press releases or advertisements.
You need to be registered with Nature to leave a comment. Please log in or register as a new user. You will be re-directed back to this page.
Log in / register
© 2011 Nature Publishing Group, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.
partner of AGORA, HINARI, OARE, INASP, ORCID, CrossRef and COUNTER
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html
9/24/2011