| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Study rejects"faster than light" particle finding |
| 2011-11-22 |
| [Dawn] An international team of scientists in Italy studying the same neutrino particles colleagues say appear to have travelled faster than light rejected the startling finding this weekend, saying their tests had shown it must be wrong. The September announcement of the finding, backed up last week after new studies, caused a furore in the scientific world as it seemed to suggest Albert Einstein's ideas on relativity, and much of modern physics, were based on a mistaken premise. The first team, members of the OPERA experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory south of Rome, said they recorded neutrinos beamed to them from the CERN research centre in Switzerland as arriving 60 nanoseconds before light would have done. But ICARUS, another experiment at Gran Sasso -- which is deep under mountains and run by Italy's National Institute of National Physics -- now argues that their measurements of the neutrinos energy on arrival contradict that reading. In a paper posted on Saturday on the same website as the OPERA results, the ICARUS team says their findings "refute a superluminal (faster than light) interpretation of the OPERA result." They argue, on the basis of recently published studies by two top US physicists, that the neutrinos pumped down from CERN, near Geneva, should have lost most of their energy if they had travelled at even a tiny fraction faster than light. But in fact, the ICARUS scientists say, the neutrino beam as tested in their equipment registered an energy spectrum fully corresponding with what it should be for particles travelling at the speed of light and no more. Physicist Tomasso Dorigo, who works at CERN, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, and the U.S. Fermilab near Chicago, said in a post on the website Scientific Blogging that the ICARUS paper was "very simple and definitive." The science, as they say, is settled... |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #25 Actually, the ICARUS group's conclusion, based on Glashow's paper, doesn't really disprove Opera's result. Glashow pointed out that superluminal neutrinos should emit the equivalent of Cerencov radiation and slow down quickly--if the existing theory is correct. But if neutrinos can go faster than light when traveling through rock, we know the theory has some holes somewhere anyhow. (As rammer notes, the supernova SN1987A neutrinos were pretty close to lightspeed traveling through vacuum.) Not that I believe Opera's results yet. |
| Posted by: James 2011-11-22 23:18 |
| #24 "Faster than Light...?" Your mileage may vary. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2011-11-22 21:51 |
| #23 i posted this comment before I thought of what I wanted to say. |
| Posted by: manversgwtw 2011-11-22 21:20 |
| #22 I read about this years from now. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2011-11-22 19:42 |
| #21 Pretty soon you are burdened with constants that may themselves be questionable. I think questionable constants have been used ever since Isaac Newton. Scientists have to assume that some things never change, have to make assumptions so that their calculations will work out. And mostly those calculations do. Nevertheless, besides constants taken on faith, there are other anomalies tangled up in modern physics. One is How can we make inferences about past events that we haven't observed while at the same time acknowledge that the act of observing it affects the reality we are inferring to? Another is: According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence. Then there is the Casimir effect in quantum electrodynamics, where 2 uncharged metal plates in a perfect vacuum, arranged just so but untouching, are under about 1 atmosphere of pressure pushing or pulling them apart - in a perfect vacuum. Etc. Maybe physics will have to re-define 'faster.' |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-11-22 19:23 |
| #20 How 'bout hem Vols.. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2011-11-22 19:08 |
| #19 Quantum entanglement seems funkier to me, but what do I know? As long as Rantburg comes up when I click the link... |
| Posted by: Spot 2011-11-22 16:17 |
| #18 The really fun stuff begins with tachyon theory. One theory to ponder is that particles are essentially "stuffed to the gills" with energy as they approach the speed of light, and crossing that barrier does not change this condition; but once they have become tachyons, the way for them to accelerate even further is to "give up" energy. So the very fastest of tachyons would be as energy-less as the most stationary of objects in our space. Which leads to the speculation, what if this completes a circle, so that only Brownian motion keeps a particle in this space. If it stops moving at all it is the same as an ultra high speed tachyon. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-11-22 15:51 |
| #17 Better yet: A Newtrino walks into a bar ... |
| Posted by: gorb 2011-11-22 10:42 |
| #16 A nootrino walks into she .... |
| Posted by: gorb 2011-11-22 10:41 |
| #15 The bartender says "Hey, no nutrinos allowed!" A nutrino walks into a bar. |
| Posted by: JonC 2011-11-22 10:22 |
| #14 The science is settled the science is settled! Why are they still talking about it when there are faster than light credits to buy! |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2011-11-22 10:16 |
| #13 @SPOT It sounded like a good idea at the time. But once corrupt politicians decided policy would be based on the best science; It was science that was corrupted. Hopefully, not permanently. (And it's not like I trust non-leftist politicians, it's just that they are the least worst.) |
| Posted by: Zebulon Spawn of the Wee Folk9512 2011-11-22 09:48 |
| #12 Oh, and as far as the accuracy of the speed of light is concerned, the most accurate speed to date, using lasers, was only devised in 1973 at 299,792.4574 km/s. Then again, in 1978, again using lasers, at 299,792.4588 km/s. The trouble is that there are many different techniques to figure out the exact speed of light, but they have to be based on other constants than the speed of light. Pretty soon you are burdened with constants that may themselves be questionable. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-11-22 09:08 |
| #11 I kinda think it matters in laser gyroscopes. Possibly also in range determination devices. I know it does when I'm using my laser pointer. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2011-11-22 09:00 |
| #10 There are lots of possibilities here. The most interesting I've seen is that what we think the speed of light is from our measurements of charged particles and photons, is actually slowed down from the true speed of light by just a bit in vacuum, because of interactions with virtual particles. Neutrinos being unaffected by most forces are thus slowed down in the vacuum, but slowed less than the usual suspects. While this is most interesting, it is still probably wrong, because of long distance measurements of neutrinos from stuff in space that seem to be synchronized in time with light, but shouldn't be if there were a really different speed limit, so were this theory correct it would still require that the neutrinos eventually slowed down to the same speed as light in a vacuum through some interactions over a million years or so, even if it started out faster. Anyway it turns out, there's lots of fun to be had here. |
| Posted by: rammer 2011-11-22 08:59 |
| #9 There is one alternative that hasn't been discussed much, because it could really impact physics in a harsher way than going faster than light. This is that there is something, anything really, that in normal space slightly inhibits light from traveling at its maximum speed. And that somehow, this experiment creates a circumstance where that inhibitory factor does not come into play, at least for these particles. In effect, this would mean that the *real* speed of light is slightly faster than it is in normal space. But is there any place in normal space where the *real* speed of light matters? |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-11-22 08:49 |
| #8 Well I do think you have to actually race a light beam if you want to claim one is faster than the other. This experiment does not do that. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2011-11-22 08:22 |
| #7 Spot on Spot! Silly Scientists! You have to perform the test inside a warp field! Any trekker knows that! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2011-11-22 08:13 |
| #6 I have no idea who is right, but I will say that I applaud the folks doing the experiments. Do the (appropriate) experiments and let the results speak. I'm tired of politically inspired (i.e., leftist) theories ruling the day. |
| Posted by: Spot 2011-11-22 08:08 |
| #5 I think that it's correct and the FTL "finding" was a mistake. I've been thinking about Relativity for years now, and it's still a really beautiful theory. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2011-11-22 07:24 |
| #4 That is not a refutal, we already know that the theory states no signal can travel faster then light. Now why are these measurements showing that these neutrinos are traveling faster than light? |
| Posted by: BernardZ 2011-11-22 07:16 |
| #3 Star Trek Lives. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2011-11-22 06:48 |
| #2 Is this before or after they did the repeat of the test with corrections and found the same results? |
| Posted by: Creregum Glolump8403 2011-11-22 06:42 |
| #1 I. WANT. FTL SPACESHIPS. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2011-11-22 02:00 |