http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8783011/Speed-of-light-broken-at-CERN-scientists-claim.html

Quote :

"It was Albert Einstein, no less, who proposed more than 100 years ago that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. But last night it emerged that the man who laid the foundations for the laws of nature may have been wrong. The science world was left in shock when workers at the world’s largest physics lab announced they had recorded subatomic particles travelling faster than the speed of light If the findings are proven to be accurate, they would overturn one of the pillars of the Standard Model of physics, which explains the way the universe and everything within it works. Einstein’s theory of special relativity, proposed in 1905, states that nothing in the universe can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. But researchers at the CERN lab near Geneva claim they have recorded neutrinos, a type of tiny particle, travelling faster than the barrier of 186,282 miles (299,792 kilometers) per second. The results have so astounded researchers that American and Japanese scientists have been asked to verify the results before they are confirmed as a discovery. Antonio Ereditato, spokesman for the researchers, said: “We have high confidence in our results. We have checked and rechecked for anything that could have distorted our measurements but we found nothing.” Scientists agree if the results are confirmed, that it would force a fundamental rethink of the laws of physics. John Ellis, a theoretical physicist, said Einstein’s theory underlies “pretty much everything in modern physics.""

Searched, and didn't see anything, which was kind of hard to believe considering the number of scientists and engineers here.

Thoughts?

9/23/2011 4:13:31 PM

The fact that this universe exists suggests that anything, and I mean anything, imaginable can also exist.

9/23/2011 4:29:35 PM

If it's true, I'll be excited to see what comes of these results. While the "fundamental laws of physics" may be broken, it doesn't change anything about how our universe works - rather, it just means we need to fix our math.

9/23/2011 4:42:32 PM

Just one step closer to hacking the universe.

9/23/2011 4:46:15 PM

God, I keep arguing to those scientists that we need to be looking for broadcasts from the future in the neutrino flux.

You might think I'm being obtuse, but my claim is physically exactly as plausible as the claim that they traveled faster than the speed of light.

9/23/2011 5:07:29 PM

one thing i've never understood about physics:

experts claim that the universe is about 15 billion years old.
they also claim it's infinite, or at least hundreds of billions of light years across.

these things in mind, how can anyone accept the big bang theory without accepting that it's possible for light speed to be exceeded? if it weren't, wouldn't the universe only be around 30 billion light years wide?

am i oversimplifying this?

9/23/2011 5:14:15 PM

anywhere you are in the universe, and any direction you look, you will see the edge at 13.8 billion years old.

9/23/2011 5:17:05 PM

at an instant in time, if you are at the edge of the universe, is there like a stoppage of space

like putting your hand on a wall? or is there still space open that big bang universe particles just haven't reached yet

9/23/2011 5:26:56 PM

9/23/2011 6:38:11 PM

Quote :

"at an instant in time, if you are at the edge of the universe, is there like a stoppage of space like putting your hand on a wall? or is there still space open that big bang universe particles just haven't reached yet"

I think that's one of the big questions still - how can you investigate something if even light hasn't arrived from it yet? At least that's the perspective from earth - no idea how things would go down if you somehow were at the edge of the universe.

[Edited on September 23, 2011 at 6:40 PM. Reason : ]

9/23/2011 6:39:26 PM

From what I understand the thinking about the edge the expanding universe is like thinking about the surface of an expanding bubble. We live on the bubble, so traveling in anyone direction will just take you back eventually from where you started.

9/23/2011 7:03:11 PM

any word yet on when they'll fix it?

9/23/2011 7:33:21 PM

I am still not sure about this. They are not that far outside the margin of error.

9/23/2011 7:43:57 PM

Actually, due to dark energy (the acceleration of the universe), it's likely impossible that we will ever be able to fly to, or see the light from, places beyond a certain event horizon. By any practical definition, anything past that point may be called outside of our "universe", and speculation about the nature of that space is similar to speculation about what lies beyond the event horizon of a black hole.

9/23/2011 8:36:32 PM

I want these results to pan out so badly, but I'm guessing that they'll be debunked within the next few days. Miscalibrated equipment, perhaps?

9/23/2011 8:54:21 PM

Never underestimate the bias of ones own work. Peer review exists for a reason, and it makes me wonder why this went straight to a media outlet before others can duplicate it. I am certain that it is bogus and someone is unethically trying to make news for himself/herself.

9/23/2011 9:11:44 PM

^
That's not how I read it at all. It isn't unusual to put out results like this before anyone can repeat it (also MiniBoone has seen a similar result at much less confidence). I read the paper last night and it was written with a lot of care and appears to be a solid piece of work.
MiniBoone at Fermilab is basically the only other long baseline neutrino experiment that can repeat it & it takes a lot of time to do these experiments. Mostly I read this as CERN/Gran Sasso saying "hey, we found a surprising result and have chased down every systematic error we can think of and have enough statistics to make this a six-sigma event. Anyone know what is going on?".
I don't believe the result but I can't blame the CERN folks for putting it out there.

[Edited on September 23, 2011 at 10:40 PM. Reason : x]

9/23/2011 10:35:13 PM

^^This isn't some small lab trying to make a name for itself or maximize the moment. This is CERN.

And, the way I read it, the event happened a few months ago, and they spent months with all of their teams checking and re-checking for errors. At that point, they send it out more broadly for additional checking, and that's when the media found out.

I don't think they went to the media on purpose, but if you send something like this out to be double-checked, somebody is going to call a journalist.

[Edited on September 23, 2011 at 10:47 PM. Reason : oops, crossposted with ^]

9/23/2011 10:40:21 PM

Quote :

" these things in mind, how can anyone accept the big bang theory without accepting that it's possible for light speed to be exceeded? if it weren't, wouldn't the universe only be around 30 billion light years wide?"

Based in the current data, yes we can only see in a 13.5ish billion light year distance. However, due to every bit of data gathered regarding expansion rates, and it's acceleration... scientists have extrapolated and projected that the universe is roughly 70 billion light years wide or something like that (i don't remember the number off the top of my head)... however this is impossible to confirm, based on our current knowledge of information travel. The universe damn well could have stopped expanding all together once it hit 40 billion ly across, frankly we just won't know until we get to that point where light will reach us.


Pertaining to the superluminous neutrinos... the results are intruiging, but this type of claim happens every so often, only for it to be disproved later. I have heard this is the most convincing yet, but we'll see.

9/23/2011 10:54:11 PM

Has anyone seen a star or planet that's not round?


If the shape of a planet were to be altered, would it be able to pull itself into a circle again?


All of the planets have mountains and craters but they all retain an almost perfectly circular shape from far away.


What does the fact that we don't have rod shaped planets or jagged meteor shaped planets mean about the universe?

9/23/2011 11:13:23 PM

It means gravity works

And the earth is not perfectly sperical... if you cut it through the poles, the distance through the center from the equator is longer than north pole to south pole.

It is approximately spherical.

9/23/2011 11:28:48 PM

^^go play a physics game. "spherical" in this sense means not imbalanced enough to sling off material.

9/23/2011 11:42:07 PM

Quote :

" Peer review exists for a reason, and it makes me wonder why this went straight to a media outlet before others can duplicate it."

Very few labs can replicate this. They probably already had the data.

The one word answer to this is: FUNDING

Not even for the discovering lab, but to boost neutrino science. And to help justify cern, for the international governments, especially since the higgs has been fairly elusive and cern is virtually synonomous with the LHC. It could live in the 140GeV range, but their window gets narrower and narrower. We may not find it. This could be good science.

But this could be like pons and fleischman all over again (I may have slaughtered their spelling, lol)

9/23/2011 11:53:31 PM

This is the first substantive pushback I've seen on the result. It didn't take long.

http://johncostella.webs.com/neutrino-blunder.pdf

Either way, this is embarrassing for the physics world, whether the result is true or not. Either it was 100 years of being fundamentally wrong, or the best of the best will be made fools. There are very few positive ways this can play out.

9/23/2011 11:54:25 PM

Quote :

"at an instant in time, if you are at the edge of the universe, is there like a stoppage of space like putting your hand on a wall? or is there still space open that big bang universe particles just haven't reached yet"

9/23/2011 11:58:11 PM

Quote :

" Either way, this is embarrassing for the physics world, whether the result is true or not. Either it was 100 years of being fundamentally wrong, or the best of the best will be made fools. There are very few positive ways this can play out."

This is asinine. Relativity is not a law, it is a theory, and it is inherently accepted that this can potentially be disproven, or modified, or tweaked.

This will be either revolutionary, or it will be an afterthought. But it won't be a disaster.

God knows how long our models of atoms were fucked up. Or how models are changed all the time. It doesn't destroy relativty, if this is proven to be accurate, it will tweak it appropriately. Much as relativity did to gravity...

9/24/2011 12:15:11 AM

Quote :

"This is asinine. Relativity is not a law, it is a theory, and it is inherently accepted that this can potentially be disproven, or modified, or tweaked."

It's not asinine.

If some physicist proposed an experiment that he expected would yield a particle exceeding the speed of light, not only would he not get funding, he would be laughed out of his social circle, uninvited from all conferences, and would never be allowed to publish again. He would be a pariah for even suggesting that this result was really possible.

That means the current framework is taken as far more than some theory that we acknowledge can be disproven, modified, or tweaked at any time.

9/24/2011 12:21:48 AM

You're right, regarding proposals... unless it was pretty convincing of a proposal. Someone will write one off this, and likely not get laughed at.

However, if you seriously think this will be a disaster if it is proven true, you're clearly not thinking straight.

9/24/2011 12:28:06 AM

^I disagree, and think if it's true it does count as a disaster. When you put things in every textbook as fact, with no textbook anywhere acknowledging the possibility of error, then that's a disaster when shown wrong.

However, the part we do agree on reveals a serious, fundamental flaw in the way we do science. I think you're being overly generous to say that a 'pretty convincing proposal' would get recognized in any way. Our 22nd century Einstein could come back here with a perfectly wrapped up solution that solves everything, and nobody would listen.

The only way something like this could be discovered (if it is true) is by grudgingly accepted accident, which is exactly what this was. When it takes an accident to reveal these flaws or make progress, something is wrong with the system.

Of course, I'm making no claim about whether this result will hold water. I find the critique of it I posted earlier very interesting.

9/24/2011 12:37:35 AM

That's not a disaster. It's called learning and adapting to new information.


Also the universe is living, what was true yesterday does not mean it has to be true today.

[Edited on September 24, 2011 at 1:12 AM. Reason : .]

9/24/2011 1:07:32 AM

The way we do science is indeed fucked up. Its mostly a competetion to have better H numbers or whatever, or money, instead of being driven by curiosity.

9/24/2011 1:20:20 AM

I kind of chuckle at the people who say "if we find shit going faster than the speed of light, then that shit will violate causality! it'll be traveling backwards in time!" These people don't quite understand that this notion is based specifically on other assumptions that say that you can't get something going faster than the speed of light. Thus, if you find something that is going that fast, then the original assumption is wrong, and shit based on it is equally wrong.

9/24/2011 2:32:27 AM

sorry to double post, but here's a good laugh
http://www.conservapedia.com/Relativity

9/24/2011 3:03:00 AM

Quote :

"at an instant in time, if you are at the edge of the universe, is there like a stoppage of space like putting your hand on a wall? or is there still space open that big bang universe particles just haven't reached yet"

As usual, comic books already have the answer!

9/25/2011 7:18:41 PM

Quote :

"It means gravity works And the earth is not perfectly sperical... if you cut it through the poles, the distance through the center from the equator is longer than north pole to south pole. It is approximately spherical."

oblate spheroid. It's out of round, but If you scaled the earth down, it would be smoother than the tolerances for billiard balls.

9/25/2011 9:09:01 PM

Couldn't remember the name of the geometry

9/25/2011 10:22:19 PM

They most likely discovered a new particle interaction.

A gold star from the physics community? Maybe. Rewriting relativity? No.

9/26/2011 9:55:38 AM

Quote :

"They most likely discovered a new particle interaction. bird shit on the detector"

9/26/2011 9:56:38 AM

Discovery of a new interaction would be quite notable. Bird poop, not so much.

9/26/2011 12:37:46 PM

I'm betting the next headline will be "CERN scientists discover discrepancy in GPS data mapping."

9/26/2011 2:05:07 PM

I'm betting the next headline will be "CERN scientists discover one of their own farted during the experiment rendering it useless."

9/26/2011 2:08:08 PM

baguette discovered!

9/26/2011 2:10:39 PM

^^^ 18m shorter would account for the 60ns time difference...

They have GPS detctors on the site, but this thing is buried pretty deep. The detectors are super accurate and can measure slight continental drift. But since the detector is buried, GPS signal can't reach it. So they have to infer the distance between particle detectors based on the geometries of the particle detector to the GPS dectors nd the distance between GPS detectors.

There's error in there, but they claim this was accounted for in their +/-10ns error calculation.

9/26/2011 2:49:37 PM

Neutrinos have been postulated to travel faster than c for decades...I assume the implication here is that they are taken to have non-zero rest mass? I haven't done much reading on neutrinos beyond their relevance to fission in years

9/27/2011 2:56:33 AM

so, i read another assertion that superluminous neutrinos are unlikely...

in 1987, the was a supernova in the large magellanic cloud, now called 1987a. The supernova released two things that were detectable: photons and neutrinos. Given the distance away from 1987a, and the measured time difference in the CERN experiment, we should have detected the neutrinos from 1987a something like 4 years ahead of the light we received.

we didnt.

we detected them slightly before, but this is expected and is a result of neutinos being so weakly interacting that they can reach us unimpeded. whereas, the photons produced are not immediately able to escape the blast, thus their release is delayed.

9/27/2011 7:59:25 PM

^^they've been found to have mass. This has been proven as a result of oscillations of neutrino flavor.

basically there was this experiment in the late 90s that produced only electron neutrinos, but at the detector they observed a significant fraction of muon neutrinos (and possibly tau neutrinos... i'm a little shakey on all of the details, it's been a while), that could not be explained by background sources. and it just so happened that the detected amounts of other flavors added up to the amount of "missing" electron neutrinos they expected to detect... based on detector efficacy and production rates at the source.

this proved a theory that was conceived in the 50s or 60s, regarding flavor oscillations. The only way for this behavior to occur is for them to have mass.

the rest mass is still an unknown: it has been narrowed down to really small, but not zero.

9/27/2011 8:08:22 PM

havn't they also recently said that the universe isn't endless, and its more a video game world. where you go through one side, and appear on the other. So you could essentially be on the far left and far right of the universe at once, and rather than an endless boundary, its folded to the other side

9/27/2011 8:54:56 PM

I think it's debated, but experimentally supported that the universe is flat, meaning no. You can't get back to here by going in one direction for any period of time.

But I'm not a physicist and when you start talking about non-Euclidean geometry my head hurts, so correct me if I'm wrong physicists.

9/28/2011 8:54:21 AM

i took physics for dummies in undergrad

9/28/2011 9:05:03 AM

Quote :

"This has been proven as a result of oscillations of neutrino flavor."

And so by process of elimination we can determine that the electron tastes like grape-ade.

9/28/2011 10:04:30 AM