Speed of light 'broken' by scientists

[Influx]

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... tists.html

Puzzling results from Cern, home of the LHC, have confounded physicists - because it appears subatomic particles have exceeded the speed of light.

Neutrinos sent through the ground from Cern toward the Gran Sasso laboratory 732km away seemed to show up a tiny fraction of a second early.

The result - which threatens to upend a century of physics - will be put online for scrutiny by other scientists.

In the meantime, the group says it is being very cautious about its claims.

"We tried to find all possible explanations for this," said report author Antonio Ereditato of the Opera collaboration.

"We wanted to find a mistake - trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects - and we didn't," he told BBC News.

"When you don't find anything, then you say 'Well, now I'm forced to go out and ask the community to scrutinise this.'"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

Can't wait for whats next!?

[jjohnson]

The paper has been published on arXiv - its author is OPERA; its number is 1109-4897.

They are prudently posting first on arXiv and inviting open review and critique of their process, measurement system, errors, conclusions, - everything, because if they are correct (juries may be out for a while on this) then a lot of cards are going to come down.

One potential error that I read of could be involved with the use of quasars by the GPS instruments used to precisely obtain the baseline distance traversed by the neutrinos. Quasars (I had no idea this was true, before I looked it up here) are actually used to increase the accuracy of location. After a highly precise (within 40 micro-arcseconds) survey with long- baseline radio telescopes, it has been subsequently noted that some of the quasars' positions in the background of stars may have changed and this would would resultant in an error that would have to be reviewed for significance and corrected successfully if found to be significant. That, I would think, represents the sort of specific feedback that they are looking for, not opinionated bluster like "that can't be right!". If they already checked that GPS stuff out in their experiment, good; no action needed. If not, then decide on a course of action. Right way to go about this. Going to be interesting to see if this leads anywhere.

Jim

[Goldminer]

. . . One potential error that I read of could be involved with the use of quasars by the GPS instruments used to precisely obtain the baseline distance traversed by the neutrinos. Quasars (I had no idea this was true, before I looked it up here) are actually used to increase the accuracy of location. After a highly precise (within 40 micro-arcseconds) survey with long- baseline radio telescopes, it has been subsequently noted that some of the quasars' positions in the background of stars may have changed and this would would resultant in an error that would have to be reviewed for significance and corrected successfully if found to be significant . . .

Yesireee! and what does that tell us???

(". . . some of the quasars' positions in the background of stars may have changed . . .")

If the QUASARs' background changed, then they are not the farthest objects known to astronomers!


.

[tharkun]

Here's Miles Mathis' reply: http://milesmathis.com/neutrino.pdf

He chalks it up to a miscalculation in experimental error. Propoer accounting brings the velocities back below 'c'.

tharkun


PS. If anyone is interested, there's a new Facebook group set up to discuss the work of Miles Mathis. It's called Miles Mathis Revolution.

[Aardwolf]

Here's Miles Mathis' reply: http://milesmathis.com/neutrino.pdf

He chalks it up to a miscalculation in experimental error. Propoer accounting brings the velocities back below 'c'.

tharkun


PS. If anyone is interested, there's a new Facebook group set up to discuss the work of Miles Mathis. It's called Miles Mathis Revolution.

Miles Mathis is making a mistake by casting doubt on the way they measured the synchronisation of the clocks. This is actually quite an easy part of the process. For example, A sends B a signal at 12:00 (read on clock A) which is received by B at 12:02 (read on clock B). B sends A a signal at 12:10 (read on clock B) which received by 12:12 (read on clock A). Therefore the clocks must be synchronised as there is exactly a 2 min delay both ways. If there is a deviation either way then either one clock is adjusted or a simple calculation can resync. And over the time span of the experiments certain atomic clocks are very stable. Sychronisation isn't a problem.

[StalkingGoogle]

I'm under the impression the figure stated for the "neutrino delay" was culled from thousands of measurements over several years. It's reasonable to conclude some of the "measurements" of this "delay" differed from others, and this 60 nanoseconds (or whatever) figure is something of an average of all those other numbers. Without seeing the raw data it's impossible to know what to make of this "delay", other than to conclude it doesn't meet the researchers' expectations. There are countless ways they could be in error.

[Aardwolf]

There are countless ways they could be in error.

I agree but I understand they have spent the last 8 months looking for it. If they cant find it I doubt anyone outside of the experiment can. None of the various suggestions given to explain the error are anywhere near the magnitude required to falsify the results.

[tayga]

There are countless ways they could be in error.

I agree but I understand they have spent the last 8 months looking for it. If they cant find it I doubt anyone outside of the experiment can. None of the various suggestions given to explain the error are anywhere near the magnitude required to falsify the results.

I agree with you both and I think that an earnest effort to validate the data is laudable. Unfortunately, this is only happening because acceptance of the data would destroy a significant part of the current physical paradigm.

It's a shame that the unbridled fantasizing of some cosmologists isn't subjected to similar scrutiny and equally regrettable that the challenging of observations like Arp's isn't as out-in-the-open as this.

[Goldminer]

Two clocks are not necessary for the timing of the neutron trip; and therefore no "clock synchronization" problems arise. One clock and equal length shielded cables, fiber optic or conventional coax will work fine. One cable is dedicated to the "start signal" when the neutrons leave the source, the other is dedicated to the stop signal at the distant reception of the neutrons. The problem is that the neutrons that trigger the start signal do not get to travel the distance and be detected at the other end.

The speed of the signal in the cables does not matter since it is the same for both cables. It could actually be forty miles an hour and wouldn't matter. The length of the cables does not matter either; they must be long enough to reach each end of the course, but could be longer. The only requirement is that they be of equal length.

[Goldminer]

Two clocks are not necessary for the timing of the neutron trip; and therefore no "clock synchronization" problems arise. One clock and equal length shielded cables, fiber optic or conventional coax will work fine. One cable is dedicated to the "start signal" when the neutrons leave the source, the other is dedicated to the stop signal at the distant reception of the neutrons. The problem is that the neutrons that trigger the start signal do not get to travel the distance and be detected at the other end.

The speed of the signal in the cables does not matter since it is the same for both cables. It could actually be forty miles an hour and wouldn't matter. The length of the cables does not matter either; they must be long enough to reach each end of the course, but could be longer. The only requirement is that they be of equal length.

It's neutrinos, not neutrons, Mr. Goldminer.

[Influx]

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... opera.html

New high-precision tests carried out by the OPERA collaboration in Italy broadly confirm its claim, made in September, to have detected neutrinos travelling at faster than the speed of light. The collaboration today submitted its results to a journal, but some members continue to insist that further checks are needed before the result can be considered sound.

OPERA (Oscillation Project with Emulsion-Tracking Apparatus) measures the properties of neutrinos that are sent through the Earth from the CERN particle physics laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland, and arrive in its detector located under the Gran Sasso mountain in central Italy. On 22 September, the collaboration reported in a paper on the arXiv preprint server that it had measured neutrinos arriving some 60 nanoseconds earlier than they would have if travelling at light speed. The researchers obtained that result by statistically comparing the temporal distribution of protons within the 10.5 microsecond pulses that produce the neutrinos at CERN with that of the neutrinos observed in its detector.

[Siggy_G]

How do one know that it is the same neutrino that is being measured in each end of the distance, and not some kind of chain reaction within an aether of neutrions? Other than that, I don't see why a particle of little mass (neutrinos) should travel faster than an entity of less mass (photons), independent of GR.

[harrissteve11]

i don't know about it in deep way but I guess, it will travel faster from other !

[Influx]

Neutrons are parts that make up atoms. Neutrinos are the stuff that ghosts are made out of.

[mharratsc]

Neutrons are supposed to be a proton and an electron smashed together, held in the nucleus of an atom (they cannot exist on their own for very long before they separate back into a proton and electron.)

As for neutrinos, there seems to be some argument about what they are. Wallace Thornhill hypothesizes that they are subatomic structures of vanishingly small mass. When energy is imparted into them, they then become other atomic particles with which we are more familiar.

Hope that helps a bit.