Speed of light exceeded by 60 billionths of a second

[luckytxn 2,264]

There have been a few observations in astrophysics that require some major shoehorning to make them fit within Einstein's theories. It turns out extremely massive objects are just as reluctant as small particles to obey the laws of relativity. I am sure scientists will make the same effort here.

Everything has fit so far. Sometimes an observation has been made and announced and after further looking into it the answer appears and the theory held. Not long ago and again some astrophysicist said he had found objects in the universe was going faster than the speed of light and after looking at it by other scientists it wasn't. Nothing has dis proven Einstein so far. This is a curious thing this observation from Cern and needs to be looked at further.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

When and if something goes faster than the speed of light it is supposed to create a black hole. That is actually only one thing that is supposed to happen. It is also supposed to consume all the matter in the Universe.

That would blow a hole in one of Stephen Hawking's hypotheses on whether singularities could actually exist as a single point. Does mean he is wrong about God, too?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Everything has fit so far. Sometimes an observation has been made and announced and after further looking into it the answer appears and the theory held. Not long ago and again some astrophysicist said he had found objects in the universe was going faster than the speed of light and after looking at it by other scientists it wasn't. Nothing has dis proven Einstein so far. This is a curious thing this observation from Cern and needs to be looked at further.

In their spare time, they must promote Global Warming...

[luckytxn 2,264]

That would blow a hole in one of Stephen Hawking's hypotheses on whether singularities could actually exist as a single point. Does mean he is wrong about God, too?

As my step father used to say about Hawking. He is very good and it sounds good but he is sucking on the azzhole of Physics. It is well and good to come up with all these new theories but PROVE IT.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ah, the sound of denialists discussing science like armchair quaterbacks.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Well when I was going to University I was taking physics and planning on getting my degree in it. I even worked for my step father at the Johnson Space center for quite awhile. Now again what do you bring to the table?

And please don't say you watch the discovery channel or listened to an Al Gore speech.

Ah, the sound of denialists discussing science like armchair quaterbacks.

Edited September 23, 2011 by luckytxn

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well when I was going to University I was taking physics and planning on getting my degree in it. I even worked for my step father at the Johnson Space center for quite awhile. Now again what do you bring to the table?

And please don't say you watch the discovery channel or listened to an Al Gore speech.

Don't discount Steven. He almost got an AA in something.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well when I was going to University I was taking physics and planning on getting my degree in it. I even worked for my step father at the Johnson Space center for quite awhile.

And that somehow qualifies you to dismiss real scientists, true experts in their field as not being as smart as you. You're a real armchair quarterback of science, that's for sure. Go on and please share some more of your wealth of scientific knowledge oh wise one.

[luckytxn 2,264]

And that somehow qualifies you to dismiss real scientists, true experts in their field as not being as smart as you. You're a real armchair quarterback of science, that's for sure. Go on and please share some more of your wealth of scientific knowledge oh wise one.

I constantly share my knowledge now constantly. You want me to do so even more?

Edited September 23, 2011 by luckytxn

[scandal 951]

Speedy neutrino mystery likely solved, relativity safe after all

Those weird faster-than-light neutrinos that CERN thought they saw last month may have just gotten slowed down to a speed that'll keep them from completely destroying physics as we know it. In an ironic twist, the very theory that these neutrinos would have disproved may explain exactly what happened.

Back in September, physicists ran an experiment where they sent bunches of neutrinos from Switzerland to Italy and measured how long the particles took to make the trip. Over 15,000 experiments, the neutrinos consistently arrived about 60 nanoseconds early, which means 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light. Einstein's special theory of relativity says this should be impossible: nothing can travel faster than light.

The fact that the experiment gave the same result so many times suggested that one of two things was true: either the neutrinos really were speeding past light itself and heralding a new era of physics, or there was some fundamental flaw with the experiment, which was much more likely. It's now looking as though the faster-than-light result was a fundamental flaw, and appropriately enough, it's a flaw that actually helps to reinforce relativity rather than question it.

The Experiment

Here's the deal: neutrinos move very very fast (at or close to light speed, at least), and the distance that they traveled in this experiment was (to a neutrino) not that far, only 450 miles. This means that in order to figure out exactly how long it takes a given neutrino to make the trip, you need to know two things very, very precisely: the distance between the two points, and the time the neutrino leaves the first point (the source) and arrives at the second point (the detector).

In the original experiment, the CERN researchers used GPS to make both the distance measurement and the time measurement. They figured out the distance down to about 20 centimeters, which is certainly possible with GPS, and since GPS satellites all broadcast an extremely accurate time signal by radio, they were also used as a way to sync the clocks that measured the neutrino's travel time. The CERN team had to account for a lot of different variables to do this, like the time that it takes for the clock signal to make it from the satellite in orbit to the ground, but they may have forgotten one critical thing: relativity.

It's All Relative

Relativity is really, really weird. It says that things like distance and time can change depending on how you look at them, especially if you're moving very fast relative to something else. In the case of the neutrino experiment, we've got two things to think about: the detectors on the ground that measure where and when the neutrinos depart and arrive, and the GPS satellites up in space that we're using as a basis for these measurements. Since the satellites are orbiting the Earth and moving way faster than the detectors, we say that they're in a different "reference frame," which just means that the motion of the satellites is significantly different than the motion of the Earth.

Part of the deal with relativity is that neither of these reference frames are the "correct" one. From our perspective here on Earth, the satellites are whizzing around in orbit at about 9,000 miles per hour. But the perspective of the satellites, the Earth is whizzing around just as fast, and the difference in velocities between these two reference frames is large enough that some strange things start to happen.

A Satellite's Perspective

To understand how relativity altered the neutrino experiment, it helps to pretend that we're hanging out on one of those GPS satellites, watching the Earth go by underneath you. Remember, from the reference frame of someone on the satellite, we're not moving, but the Earth is. As the neutrino experiment goes by, we start timing one of the neutrinos as it exits the source in Switzerland. Meanwhile, the detector in Italy is moving just as fast as the rest of the Earth, and from our perspective it's moving towards the source. This means that the neutrino will have a slightly shorter distance to travel than it would if the experiment were stationary. We stop timing the neutrino when it arrives in Italy, and calculate that it moves at a speed that's comfortably below the speed of light.

"That makes sense," we say, and send the start time and the stop time down to our colleagues on Earth, who take one look at our numbers and freak out. "That doesn't make sense," they say. "There's no way that a neutrino could have covered the distance we're measuring down here in the time you measured up there without going faster than light!"

And they're totally, 100% correct, because the distance that the neutrinos had to travel in their reference frame is longer than the distance that the neutrinos had to travel in our reference frame, because in our reference frame, the detector was moving towards the source. In other words, the GPS clock is bang on the nose, but since the clock is in a different reference frame, you have to compensate for relativity if you're going to use it to make highly accurate measurements.

Not So Fast

Researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands went and crunched the numbers on how much relativity should have effected the experiment, and found that the correct compensation should be about 32 additional nanoseconds on each end, which neatly takes care of the 60 nanosecond speed boost that the neutrinos originally seemed to have. This all has to be peer-reviewed and confirmed, of course, but at least for now, it seems like the theory of relativity is not only safe, but confirmed once again.

[mawilson 2,133]

Oh well.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Game Over for Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos?

So there you have it: while physicists are still arguing over just where the OPERA collaboration's mistake is, another experiment seeking to check their result has found wild inconsistencies with OPERA's claims. So congratulations to ICARUS on a very clever use of their apparatus, and for those of you who aren't afraid of details, check out the ICARUS paper for yourself!

There might yet be some clever way to break the speed of light, but if there is, we haven't found it yet, and OPERA's claims to the contrary look to have just suffered a fatal blow!

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/10/game_over_for_faster-than-ligh.php

[A & K 42 34]

This is very exciting!

[luckytxn 2,264]

Game Over for Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos?

So there you have it: while physicists are still arguing over just where the OPERA collaboration's mistake is, another experiment seeking to check their result has found wild inconsistencies with OPERA's claims. So congratulations to ICARUS on a very clever use of their apparatus, and for those of you who aren't afraid of details, check out the ICARUS paper for yourself!

There might yet be some clever way to break the speed of light, but if there is, we haven't found it yet, and OPERA's claims to the contrary look to have just suffered a fatal blow!

http://scienceblogs....r-than-ligh.php

Read the comments after the article. They pretty much refute what he claimed pretty well. The only thing they didn't comment on was what he said at the beginning. That was when a super nova exploded they saw the light of the event and at a certain time AFTERWARDS they noticed the neutrinos. If neutrinos were faster than light then they should notice them before they received the light that showed why there were neutrinos and not after.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Read the comments after the article. They pretty much refute what he claimed pretty well. The only thing they didn't comment on was what he said at the beginning. That was when a super nova exploded they saw the light of the event and at a certain time AFTERWARDS they noticed the neutrinos. If neutrinos were faster than light then they should notice them before they received the light that showed why there were neutrinos and not after.

I noticed that as well. The first few comments take umbrage at his skepticism, then it deteriorates into a flamefest. The same thing happened when I offered a simple proof for Fermat's Last Theorem more than twenty years ago.