# A disturbance in the force – CERN finds faster than light particles?

click to make your own atom smasher sign

From Yahoo News:

CERN claims faster-than-light particle measured

GENEVA (AP) — Scientists at the world’s largest physics lab say they have clocked subatomic particles traveling faster than light, a feat that — if true — would break a fundamental pillar of science.

The readings have so astounded researchers that they are asking others to independently verify the measurements before claiming an actual discovery.

“This would be such a sensational discovery if it were true that one has to treat it extremely carefully,” said John Ellis, a theoretical physicist at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, who was not involved in the experiment.

Nothing is supposed to move faster than light, at least according to Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity: The famous E (equals) mc2 equation. That stands for energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.

But neutrinos — one of the strangest well-known particles in physics — have now been observed smashing past this cosmic speed barrier of 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers).

From the BBC:

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.’

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

h/t’s to WUWT readers Peter Hodges and pearlandaggie

## 265 thoughts on “A disturbance in the force – CERN finds faster than light particles?”

1. JeffC says:

I’m betting on bad stopwatches …

2. James says:

Such a great methodology of undertaking science professionally. This is what we have done. Here is our research. We can’t explain the results.

Compare that with trying to get the information and details of a single graph from climate scientists.

3. Greg, Spokane WA says:

Sorry, the science on this subject has been completely settled for a long time. Their observations are impossible and (various snarky remarks about the CERN team.)

/sarc_off

Seriously though, this would be pretty amazing if true. I think they’ll need some pretty vigorous confirmations, though.

4. Pull My Finger says:

Couldn’t be, the science is settled!

Seriously though, if ture this would shatter all kinds of notions we have about the universe. They better make sure that everything in that facitlity is fit and finished since I would imagine we’re dealing with a speed difference in the millionths, or billionths, of a second.

5. Pablo Barham says:

”It doesn’t take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, it takes a single fact.” -Albert Einstein

There is the fact…

6. What a great example of proper science being done with a true sceptical bent. Scientists asking for their work to be thoroughly checked by independent observers and hoping that they will be proved wrong. Nice to see there are still plenty of scientists in the world who understand the scientific method.

Our Climate Science ‘community’ and the IPCC should take note.

Sulu, Warp 5.

8. Dave G says:

Localised gravitic differences affecting timing – but what do I know?

9. Nuke Nemesis says:

Why not just model it?

10. kim;) says:

Whoa!!!

11. Pull My Finger says:

String theorists must be going ga-ga. From what I recall they have been predicting this for quite a while based on the inconnectivity of objects reacting to each other instantaneously, ie faster than light speed. I think… it’s been a while since I read about it and it took some serious work to wrap my head around a lot the stuff.

12. Severian says:

Wait, they checked their math and then put everything out there for others to analyze and comment on? Well, obviously these aren’t “real” scientists, the warmist climatologists are the real scientists and they never do that!

Seriously though, nice to see some folks not practicising post normal science for a change. And an interesting observation, it will be fascinating to see what the end result is.

13. Sean Peake says:

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” but “That’s funny…”
— Isaac Asimov

14. Bob B. says:

This needs to be confirmed with models.

15. To me, these physicists are acting like real scientists should — publishing their measurements openly and with a call to others in the scientific community to try to replicate their findings (or disprove them).

Too bad so-called climate scientists haven’t been as forthcoming and open (science is settled).

16. Ray says:

I read somewhere that the effect of gravity could maybe be traveling faster than the speed of light.

They will need to make a special-special theory of relativity.

17. Pull My Finger says:

According to Wikipedia this isn’t the first time neutrinos have been observed travelling faster than light but earlier events were dismissed, not “robust” enough I suppose.

18. Wil says:

Wow! Right up my alley. Love this stuff. Thanks Anthony for posting this – it gets me very excited indeed. The implications are mind boggling just as a quick though if proven to be accurate. And CERN scientists are very conservative in their approach – I imagine they have done their due diligence even before the thought releasing this for the larger scientific community. Holy crap – the more I concentrate of this the larger the implications –

19. Leonard says:

Maybe it’s not a question of speed but a question of distance. There are 730 km between the CERN and Gran Sasso and it seems that the neutrinos beam has exceeded the speed of light by only 20 meters. This could be explained by a slight uplift of the earth crust du to a tide effect. The Moon has a well known and visible effect on ocean tides and a very slight but real effect on the earth crust. They had some problems with that at CERN, a few years ago, because this tide effect made it difficult to adjust their beams of particles in their Large Hadron Collider. If the Moon was above Switzerland or Italy when they measured the speed of their neutrinos beams, the culprit may be easy to fix.

20. Pingo says:

I feel sorry for the neutrino, not even time for a quick pint on the way.

21. Jason says:

If true, this is a real game changing moment in history. It also, of course means that if one of the fundmental laws we accept as true is in fact not, that climate scientists shrill cries of “the science is settled” will look nothing short of the rantings of madmen.

22. 2kevin says:

I thought Neutrinos already did this? So what “…fundamental pillar of science…” has been broken?

23. Clearly, the particle observed must have written a paper rebutting Spencer and Christie

24. Dan Santo says:

I am highly, highly doubtful. There have been lots and lots of measurements of neutrino speed that disagree with this one.

One of the more famous is the supernova back in 1987 (I think) – the light and neutrinos showed up at the same time. Considering its distance, even the tiny difference that they think they’ve found here would have come out to be huge. We would have seen a neutrino surge long before the light showed up.

I think they claimed the neutrinos gained 60 billionths of a second in 2.4 milliseconds. If the supernova were merely 1 light year away, the neutrinos would have arrived about 788 seconds before the light. The supernova was 168,000 light years away, and so the neutrinos would have arrived about four years ahead of the light. We would have seen a very strong neutrino source in the sky suddenly appear 4 years before the supernova and then slowly taper away.

That’s not what we saw, though. We saw the neutrinos taper away at the same rate as the light from the supernova.

However, I am looking forward greatly to find out why the neutrinos are getting there first! This could be one of those “Huh, that’s weird” moments that results in a giant breakthrough!

25. 1DandyTroll says:

Einstein was an old fart who didn’t know better ‘an to claim the speed of light because, well, the sun, the light, and all that belief. I wonder though did he believe his knowledge of his observations would not be trumped by future knowledge and new observations? So, essentially, a lot of people believe science is hacked into stone, rather ‘an fluid and dynamic and chaotic. :p

26. Jim G says:

Someone call Joao Magueijo. However, quantum tunnelling hyothetically is the instantaneous (ininite speed?) travel of subatomic particals though I am not sure it has been proven to acceptable levels. So, simply FTL is somewhat slow by comparison. We were taught that neutrinos had no mass but only a “spin”. But this was long ago and I have read that recently it is thought that they do have some mass. Very interesting stuff. How does this all fit in with present day “settled science” in the world of physics?

27. Wil says:

I just have to add more – if accurate – this will go all the way back to the Big Bang itself as neutrinos were the dominant form of energy in the very early universe. Which brings to mind Guth and his inflationary universe model expanding faster than light – and on and on and on. Its gets more exciting as the implication begin to expand here – forgot to add – if accurate.

28. Carl Chapman says:

Further to Dave G’s comment.
Gran Sasso is at a higher altitude than CERN. Time is slower near mass, so time at CERN flows more slowly than at Gran Sasso because CERN is closer to the centre of the earth, while still at the surface of the earth. If there is an accurate atomic clock at CERN and another at San Grasso, and they compare them every day, they will find that the CERN clock gradually loses time relative to the San Grasso clock.

Did the researches allow for time going more slowly at CERN?

29. DocMartyn says:

Actually, there was always the possibility of particles such as neutrinos having negative resting mass, it was a rather in vogue in the early 80’s and then died a death.
Until we understand what mass actually is, we will have trouble understanding what negative rest mass actually is.
All they have do is fire them both up and down a gravity well and see if their is a speed difference, now that will be an experiment.

30. ecph says:

“Nothing is supposed to move faster than light, at least according to Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity”
This is simply not true. The speed of light in vacuum is a mathematical limit. Although particles moving faster than light have never been observed, the existence of such particles is not in violation of Einstein’s special relativity.
Such hypothetic particles have been dubbed tachyons, and extensive mathematical research has been already been made in the field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
What special relativity does say, though, is that you can’t accelerate particles from below speed of light to above speed of light.

31. Dan Santo says:

Ray, no, gravity travels at the speed of light. That’s been pretty well measured. Of course, you can say that the speed of neutrinos has been pretty well measured too, I guess.

All the measurements up until now have clocked neutrinos moving at light speed, as close as their error bars could tell anyway. If they don’t travel at light speed, they must be REALLY close to light speed: 0.9999999999999% or something like that. Otherwise we would have seen a major delay in the activity of the neutrinos from the 1987 supernova.

If I had to make a guess, I would say this is an issue with the difference between the speed of light in a vacuum, and the speed of light through whatever medium they are using to beam the light. (fiber optic cables?) My guess is that neutrinos aren’t slowed by passing through glass. Presumably they’ve also accounted for the slightly different paths that the light and neutrino would take. The light would follow the fiber, whereas the neutrinos are straight-line shots.

They’re smart guys there, a hell of a lot smarter than I am, so they’ve probably already accounted for those possibilities, but that’s my semi-layman’s guess.

32. HankH says:

I’m guessing some sort of undiscovered “bow wave” energy effect where earlier arriving and unassociated neutrinos are being raised to a higher state of energy, giving the appearance of association and early arrival. At the quantum level, strange connections happen in the interaction between particles and fields.

33. Leonard says:

@ Dan Santo: the neutrinos are passing through earth from CERN to Gran Sasso. Neutrinos don’t need any cable to pass through anything.

34. Scott Covert says:

I’ve always had a problem with the light speed limit. It is counterintuitive. I have convinced myself I might be wrong but it has always nagged at me. Einstein was a wiz at intuitive science but I think he swallowed the math Kool-Aide. Not everything can be quantified in my opinion. He was a firm believer in mathematics even when the maths made no intuitive sence.

I am sad to read the Cern quote ““We wanted to find a mistake – trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects – and we didn’t,”. That’s just confirmation bias, you have to break through that if you are going to discover anything.

35. Ian H says:

I too am highly doubtful. However I would like to point out that the physics of neutrinos is already in a total mess. The current model of the electroweak force requires that neutrinos be chiral particles – that they spin in only one direction relative to their direction of motion. But this is inherently impossible for a particle with mass (which neutrinos are now also assumed to have) travelling at less than the speed of light since you could chase after such a particle and pass it after which it would then appear to be spinning the opposite way.

A neutrino travelling at faster than the speed of light would solve this problem as it could have non-zero mass while still being inherently chiral.

36. Paul Murphy says:

huh? this is a science blog, right? so all of you know that relativity does not limit objects to below light speed – and, in fact, nature offers lots of stuff we model as having a physical existence (e.g. photons) that move at light speed. What the equations say is that the force needed to accelerate an object to c approaches infinity as v approaches c . So we can’t accelerate our space ship to c, have no idea how forces apply at c+, but have no problems fitting an object at c or c+ into the models.

37. Rosco says:

These guys put their observations up to scrutiny and challenge ?

Watts Up With That ?

38. Rosco says:

I always like to think Einstein’s theory shows where Trenberth’s missing heat may be hiding.

39. TomRude says:

Mr. Gillies told The Associated Press that the readings have so astounded researchers that they are asking others to independently verify the measurements before claiming an actual discovery.

“They are inviting the broader physics community to look at what they’ve done and really scrutinize it in great detail, and ideally for someone elsewhere in the world to repeat the measurements,” he said Thursday.”
===

Right away that is the difference between physics and climate science! EOM.

40. Doug S says:

Humbug, big oil must be behind this.

41. Bill Taylor says:

i told people for a very long time just like the speed of sound was NOT a barrier of any sort…same thing with light how fast it moves creates NO barrier…there is NO reason at all why something could not move faster than light.

42. neill says:

If borne out, what are some possible practical applications of faster than light particles?

43. Ian H says:

The obvious explanation for the supernova observation could be that the neutrinos generated in that event were extremely energetic. Particles which travel faster than the speed of light travel slower (closer to the speed of light) the more energetic that they are. If the supernova neutrinos were massively energetic they would travel only a tiny fraction faster than the speed of light. The CERN neutrinos on the other hand, having a lot less energy, could travel faster.

44. As a followup to ecph’s post about tachyons, the inflationary theory, which is one of the best (and most widely accepted) guesses we yet have as to what happened shortly after the Big Bang, theorizes that the very early universe underwent a huge expansion, far faster than the speed of light.
So although cosmologists believe the universe to be less 14 billion years old, it’s may be as much as 93 billion light-years in diameter.

45. Mike says:

“The famous E (equals) mc2 equation.” This famous equation is indeed also a result of Einstein’s theory, but as such I don’t see how it implies anything about speed limits for particles. IIRC it is the Lorentz transformation that implies this speed limit.

46. Paul says:

So now Einstein joins Spencer and Christy as a scientist whose work is full of errors requiring corrections.

47. Interesting, thanks Anthony. Delighted it’s coming through at CERN. I already knew about faster-than-light research, there has already been quite a lot, in junk science other corners of the universe that resemble WUWT in (a) careful observation etc as per scientific method (b) being ridiculed.

Climate Science is not the only area of science to suffer extreme corruption where the real scientists and paradigm-shifters are isolated and ridiculed, even by other isolated groups. I look forward to the day when all the pseudosciences legitimate challengers get to recognize and support each other.

48. MrX says:

They shouldn’t put up their observations. The only reason people want to look at it is to find something wrong. Oh wait!

49. timetochooseagain says:

Heh, if a particle has non-zero mass and velocity in excess of c, that would imply it has a momentum which is not a real number, but an “imaginary” one! It gets stranger: in order for you to get a real total energy, such a particle must also have “imaginary” mass!

Faster than light particles imply some very bizarre physics indeed.

50. Ian H says:

Q: What is their mass estimate?

51. All sorts of scope for errors here. We are only talking about 60 feet difference in path length that could account for this. Do they really accurately know the distance between the point of emission and point of detection of the neutrinos? There is no ‘line of sight’ that can be tested with, for example, light because the direct distance is through opaque rock, not around the circumference of the earth. Nor can it be tested with radio transmission as a reference since radio waves launched at the surface of the earth travel around the earth on a radius of approximately 4/3 times the earth’s radius, not in straight lines.

Then there is the thorny issue of the rest mass of the neutrino. It’s not ‘supposed’ to have any rest mass, but apparently it does have some. What is the effect of the earth’s gravitation on the neutrino? The gravitation would be subtly different alond the path of shortst distance, so what actually is the path of shortest distance in the presence of a varying gravitational field?

Various assumptions must be being made as to whether the neutrino is travelling in a perfectly straight path or in a shallow curved path, based on factors about the neutrino for which there is still uncertainty. If the neutrino is travelling in a shallower curved path than expected, because some assumptions are wrong, then it will appear to arrive sooner than ‘expected’.

I’ll almost bet my boots that this is another case like Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ – there is a discrepancy because one has made false assumptions.

52. Wil says:

Sorry, but I’m left wondering here – As I never got any indication of what type of neutrino mentioned. As we know neutrinos can osculate between tau neutrinos, muon neutrinos and electron neutrinos. We know from evidence that some of the muon neutrinos had morphed into electron neutrinos. So I’m wondering exactly which neutrino CERN was referring to?

53. DirkH says:

CO2 makes particles travel faster than light. We have to reduce our carbon emissions if we want to preserve causality.

54. DirkH says:

Causality has already been broken at Skeptical Science. That’s why Julia Gillard is in a hurry with the Carbon Tax.

55. Greg Cavanagh says:

I believe the theory of gravitons “assuming they exist” can travel infinite distance instantly, or near instantaneous. Then there is quantum tunnelling, another faster than light travel.

I’ve always been suspicious of the speed of light being the maximum, after all, how can light itself travel at the maximum. It should by logic be more similar to absolute 0 Kelvin. Impossible to reach the min/max of any fixed bounded system.

56. MattN says:

Wow. They make a claim. Put all their work up for anyone to see. They practically beg for indepedant verification.

The Hockey Team could learn a few things about how science is done from this…just sayin’…

57. SØREN BUNDGAARD says:

In Denmark we had a weather prophet named Arne Gabs that could predict earthquakes and plane crashes – and that Jupiter will be the new sun and its moons, its new planets
– Read more from an old school paper -translated from Danish
The material Universe
A part-teori – Arne Gabs
Arne Gabs has spent many years of his life to devise this part-teori: The material universe. But it has managed to challenge both Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. It is quite an achievement!!
Introduction
Paradise Earth is a paradise. So you must behave as we do in Paradise: Enjoy your next all the time. Enjoy your life, it’s so short. You have only one life and it is now. If you are thinking about new, good thoughts, you are vibrant and innovative. Your good thoughts are worthless if you can not translate them into action. If you’re not using your brain, you’re already dead.
Creating
The debate about creation is interesting. Many ideas are thoughtful and many tales written and told about creation. The Bible did an omnipotent God is at 6 days and then rested the seventh day. It’s a pretty old idea that expresses everything you knew at the time. Therefore, the proper time. However, there were cultures, such as the Babylonian, who believed to know more. Today we know that nothing comes from nothing. Thus, you also know that everything that exists, has been there forever, because everything that exists consists of something. The universe is thus materially.
Looking for example at the rings around Jupiter, we can see that constantly creating new, small moons. As the moons gravity is negligible, it grows very slowly, but they are growing, however the whole time. Time is classified as having enough of, so creation are seeing again today. It has always been and will continue forever. The material universe covers everything consists of matter and a spiritual part does not exist. Such a universe is simpler and thus easier to understand. As humans, we experience this universe of the senses we have, so it is important to look at how these senses work, and what is needed in order to operate. If you look at yourself in a mirror, most of you during your eye level as in other animals, but what separates you from other animals is your brain. Most of it has enough to do to keep yourself alive, and a very small part of the brain are you as a person: your I, your personality, your opinions. One of your most important sensory apparatus are your eyes that have the property that when they detect a very rapid particle, you perceive it as light. It is surprising, the particle emits no light – it moves only. The situation is even so that the particles you are least able to detect are those that run straight into your eyes. They can even make your eyes blind. The same goes for those who are moving away from you. The interesting thing is, you detect the particle velocity. You perceive different speeds at which different colors. Each speed its color! Your sense of hearing detects vibrations in the air layer. It is perceived as noise. Your ears perceive then waves as your eyes perceive particles.
The new universe
Our universe is material, everything that exists consists of something. In this universe is the attribute of all the mass that is appealing to all other mass. The universe is filled with particles with all possible speed. Some of these particles have an extremely penetrating ability. Earth and other celestial bodies use this mass to slow these particles. The larger and denser mass, the greater the deceleration, which causes the particles have a higher speed when they enter the mass, than when they come out the other side. This difference is seen as an attraction, but it’s the opposite: a pressure from outside. When it comes to Earth, it is such that some particles did not come through, but becomes part of the Earth. Thereby increasing the Earth and thus are attracting larger and larger. Earth has never grown so fast as now – The bigger it gets, the faster it becomes even larger. The particles have a very high kinetic energy, and with the full braking, this energy into heat – the earth is getting warmer! Now we know something new, larger attracting a lot have, the faster it becomes larger. The bigger it gets, the more gravity particles captures it. The more particles it captures, the hotter it becomes. Thus, we know how hot all celestial bodies are. We also know that the less weight a body have, the colder it is. The smaller an object is, the slower is its growth.
Light Today, scientific view of the light that the light can be seen both as particles and waves. It is a wrong perception. The light emitted by the particle flow, because when these particles hit a media that can put the media in a wave mode. If we sit at a quiet lake, its surface nicely polished. If you take a stone and throws it into the water, formed a wave trains. It is not the stone (light particles) which waves, but the water. If there was no water, there were no waves. When a particles of light leaving the Sun headed for Earth in the void, it is a particle flow without waves, for there is no medium that can create waves. When our little particles of light hits the first little atom of our atmosphere consists of taking over this atomic particles of light energy and continues as a new particles of light, but since it is slightly larger than light particles, it will continue with the same energy that it received, but with a less speed. This new particles of light delivers its energy to one that is bigger and slower. Now it has gradually slowed down so much that our eye detects it as blue. For remember – light has different speeds in different media and only slowed light particles are visible, because each speed has its own color. Candles are not waves but particles, and there are no spaces between the particles. The smaller they are, the more there are, within the same distance. The smaller they are, the faster they are. If two different masses contain the same energy, is the smallest the fastest, and the bigger it is, the slower it is. When a large particle hits a smaller, continuing the small with the energy it has received, but with a higher speed. Particles of light can thus change the speed.
When the Sun emits a particle that hits our atmosphere, hits the particle that is larger. When it persists, it happens at lower speeds. This speed allows our eye register, and you see a blue-violet color, which is the fastest, the brain can perceive. Thus informed has emerged that here is a particle with a blue velocity. The more the particle is slowed down, the more red it seems. We have a good example of a lunar eclipse. When the Moon entering the Earth’s shadow, the Moon is colored red because the particles are passing through our atmosphere, have slowed light particles, so the Earth has thus a red tail, like comets. Their tail is also slowed light particles. The proof is that the portion of the comet tail, which is closest to the moving direction is blue. When you register a color, you are aware that here is a particle. Velocity seen by the color.
The new Lightlaw
particles of light have different speeds in different media. Only brake light particles are visible. How much they are braked seen by the color, because each speed has its own color. The English scientist Isaac Newton discovered gravity, reaching even as a 24-year-old so momentous achievements that no previous scientist had achieved this. But he published them, perhaps for religious reasons. He joined Cambridge as a teacher of mathematics, but he was also by studying the nature of light. He was once visited by astronomer Edmond Halley, who wanted to know what type planetary paths have if they are determined by an attraction which decreases with the square of the distance to the Sun. Newton could say that it could not calculate with the since-known mathematics, but that he had intended it for over twenty years ago: they were elliptical. Newton worked with many things. He used a prism to a brake light particles. He discovered that the light changed direction – refraction – and that there was a spectrum of colors into view. He assumed that the colors appear in the light and the prism plates these colors. It was not true. A prism has a different thickness, and therefore it slows the incoming particles differently, so that particles of light coming through the prism at different speeds. We also note that the particles move across our line of sight. Our eye registers them words irrespective of their direction. We can use water droplets to slow light particles with. The drop is crystal clear, but light particles have a slower speed in water than in air. When light particles deliver their energy to the larger particles as water droplets consists of continuing these larger particles with the same energy as before. But with a less velocity than before. This slower rate is determined, because each speed has its own color. Einstein’s theory of light speed is possible only in vacuum, which is outside of our atmosphere. The theory is therefore quite useless in our atmosphere. Einstein used the time in his theories, but time does not exist, since it is not material, so therefore, we reach: Time is the distance between events. Space is distance between anything. Spacetime is thus two times nothing.
To repeat: LIGHT – particles of light have different speeds in different media. Only braked particles are visible. Each speed has its own color. Stopping a particles of light gives warmth. Gravitation gravitational particles have different speeds in different lots. Only braked gravitational particles provide gravity. The more they are braked, the greater weight. Stopping the gravitational particle growth.
A trip into space
Ring around the Earth,
the incipient ring formation around the Earth called zodikallight. Once the ring is quite thin, but it increased constantly, so we are on track to get a beautiful ring as we know it around Saturn. The ring is visible when the sun is just below the horizon, because the sun shines on the ring. Try to see at sunset time.
Redshift
When we look at light from distant stars, we see that it is red – for: the farther away stars are, the more red they look like. Red is the slowest of all light. According to science, it has been 15 billion light years underway. The light that does not hit us, but flits past the planet, continues to slow down on its way. Somewhere it is at a standstill and becomes a part of the space in which it ended in. Freed Hoyle had a theory that everything came from nothing. That nothing could be the light particles that have come to the end and is stalled. You can shoot infrared light as the eye can not see, and you discover that there is infrared light from everywhere. When the red light has been 15 billion years in the making, how much longer as infrared light was underway? For the infrared light to a slowing down to zero, there is a long way – and therefore infinitely long. The entire universe is filled with all sorts of radiation. It is their radiation mass called dark matter. It’s all that mass that slows light, when light is slowed down, it takes longer to move the same distance. A light year is therefore variable length. When this black substance is captured by the Sun, it will be immediately sent back on a new “spacetrip”.
Conclusion: The universe has no age – it has always been there.
Comets
colors in a comet tail are light particles. Scientists interpret it this way: the colors of comet tail tells us which fabric tail consists of – each substance its color. It is quite wrong for the tail consists of the brake light particles. The comet is surrounded by a very thin atmosphere that slows down particles of light in the visible spectrum. The extreme in this atmosphere slows only slightly: it gives a blue color, which turns right away from the Sun. The light particles, which come closer to the comet, slowed more, and it gives a slightly warmer color and are slightly slower than the blue. Therefore, they bend a little, so that the blue color always the one who is against the direction of motion around the Sun. This is proof that it is light particles we see. The light particles, which consists of the tail, hitting not our eye, which then detects all particles with a certain speed.
Sun
Since we have never seen the sun, but its most brilliant atmosphere, we will now poke your nose in the solar atmosphere to see how it looks there. It looks like the interior of the Helix nebula. Sun is very small compared to what it looks like here on Earth. There are thousands of miles from the atmosphere down to the Sun. What you see in the pages is the atmosphere that slows down particles of light in the visible spectrum and thus have the color that indicates particles of light speed. We notice that the color behind the sun is blue. It is the fastest color as the light has when it hits the bottom of the atmosphere. The Sun has sent its atmosphere high up – the hotter it gets, the higher. Extremely color is yellow. When light particles have passed through the atmosphere, it comes out in the corona, which does not brake light particles as well as the atmosphere did, so here are white. The corona consists of small particles that the Sun’s gravity has captured. These particles have a high speed, and scientists argue that this high velocity tells us how hot it is. It is wrong! The more weight, the higher speed. Extremely in the corona, we find a blue aura. The reason is that the corona becomes thinner and thinner, the farther away from the sun we get. The thinner it gets, the less drag on the particles of light. Therefore, the color blue, then be violet and ultraviolet. In the blank space to continue our particles of light as a particle stream that forms the waves when they hit a lot. When light particles hit the outer reaches of our atmosphere, it repeats the whole thing, but now in reverse order: first, an ultraviolet radiation, then purple, then slowed it down to blue (hence the sky is blue),
the new law for light particles (unlike Einstein)
particles of light have different speeds in different lots and different gravitational fields. Only brake light particles are visible. The fastest is blue, the slowest red. A particles of lights kinetic energy turns into heat when it is stopped. Einstein figured in “his” light with a velocity of 300,000 km / sec. – Even as a constant. But only in vacuum. Such a vacuum exists outside of our atmosphere – not particularly interesting, since it can not be seen. So why do you call it perhaps too bright? Niels Bohr had theories of elementary particles. Now we are more interested in particles than in waves, as the particles are the cause of the waves in a mass. The empty space is not empty – it is filled with invisible particles.
Gravity.
Gravity Particles called gravity. They have a much greater penetration than light particles. We have seen how the water droplet could be braked for the light particles. Thus, the earth also constricts the gravitational particles. This means that those who frames the Earth’s surface are faster than those who have been through the Earth. This difference is called the Earth’s gravity. In addition to the braking of the gravitational particles, there are also some who are trapped, and when some did not pass through the earth. But Earth’s mass has been increased because of gravity particles have more kinetic energy than light particles, so the capture gives warmth. If that were captured twice as many particles, the earth would grow twice as fast and twice as hot.
We can therefore infer a new law: the greater the weight is on a celestial body, the hotter it is and the faster it will be even larger. When a submarine dive, increasing the pressure that surrounds it as how deep it dives. Earth is not an ocean, and yet are Earth bombarded from all sides of gravitational particles. Moon shields the particles that come from that direction. Therefore, the greater the pressure from all directions. We will therefore not attracted to the Earth. We are attracted to space. We’re in gravityocean.
What causes gravity?
If we start with the opposite of attraction, then an explosion, we see that the faster the mass decreases its density, the stronger the explosion, and the higher the temperature. It tells us that a lot, which reduces its density, repulsion – the faster the mass density decreases, the greater the repulsion. Now an explosion nothing to do with gravity, but it shows us much: the hotter, the stronger.
Gravity is the opposite of repulsion:
attraction, ie. to a mass, which increases its density, attraction. What can then increase the density of Earth’s example – it has the attraction. It can be an external radiation that runs through everything with a huge speed greater than light. The smaller a particle, the higher speed it has. The small gravitational particles, the smallest available because of their high speed, not deflected. Particles of light have different speeds in different lots, and penetration-ability is different from light, x-rays, neutrons and gravity. When gravitational particles traveling through the Earth slows down, just as light particles do. This means that there is a stronger radiation from the outside than the inside out. The difference is precisely the attraction.
The new cognition
discovery of gravitational particles have turned upside down a lot. It is believed that the Earth is cooling, because the Earth’s internal heat emitted from the surface and disappear into thin air. But it is just the opposite. Earth uses its mass to capture gravity particles every time it catches a particle that gives this its kinetic energy as heat, and although the gravitational particles are extremely small, increase the constant mass of the Earth, so Earth will capture more and more gravity particles. The result: an ever larger and larger Earth with ever higher internal temperature.
New natural law
The less a free particle, the more momentum it has to. It is the only self-defense, the particle has. Since gravitational particles are the smallest, they are also the heaviest, far faster than light particles. Sun’s corona is small particles that will need to have a high speed to avoid being captured by the Sun’s gravity.
New gravitation
Gravitational particles have different speeds in different celestial bodies. The bigger the mass, the more gravity particles captures it. The more it captures the larger it becomes. Capture leads to growth, warmth and allure. It’s not Earth, prefers – it’s the room to press. Planets use their mass to slow down and capture the gravity particles. A trapped gravitational particle delivers its kinetic energy as heat. A trapped particle does not come out the other side. Particle flow from the outside in is larger than that goes from the inside out. The difference is what we call the strength of mass attraction. The greater attraction a planet has, the hotter it occurs a vacuum, which we call attraction.
Atmosphere
When a celestial body has grown to lunar size, approaching its gravity to the point where it can begin to sustain an incipient atmosphere. All celestial bodies are growing and getting their atmosphere increasing with the increasing gravity. Venus has a mass that is slightly smaller than Earth and has an air pressure of 90 atmospheres. Earth has about 100 atmospheres. But our air is only 1 atmosphere. Why now when we have the same terms as Venus, we followed the sun around the universe like Venus. If we look at Mars, it is clear that there have been rivers and water up there. This is apparently gone. There must have been a large celestial body that has come over and run away with almost all of our atmosphere, so there has been only around one quarter back atmosphere, which may have resulted in huge waves and earthquakes. All the life that had an internal pressure of 100 atmospheres. But our air is only 1 atmosphere. Why now when we have the same terms as Venus, we followed the sun around the universe like Venus. If we look at Mars, it is clear that there have been rivers and water up there. This is apparently gone. There must have been a large celestial body that has come over and run away with almost all of our atmosphere, so there has been only around one quarter back atmosphere, which may have resulted in huge waves and earthquakes. All the life that had an internal pressure of 100 atmospheres must have exploded, so there was only life left in the oceans. Earth still follows the sun’s track and captures all the time more atmosphere. The slow progress in the so-called empty space. It increased by only 1 millibars in 40 years, but will go faster and faster.
Heat Death
For many, many years ago, the entire African continent both green and lush. Low pressure tracks ran into the storm, where especially the Bay of Biscay was hit. Now that the sea has become warmer, resulting low-pressure belt in the north. The southernmost of the belt is France, and is the northernmost Norway. In addition, our altitudes also increase. This means that the winds increasing in strength. In the old days when depressions went south on us, we had often very harsh winters with easterly winds. When depressions ranging over us, or further north, as there is a tendency to become the opposite of wind, heat and water from the west. As the Earth’s internal temperature rises, formed in areas of desert, and it spreads all the time, both south and north. Soon jumping desert across the Mediterranean. Here is a recap of the above explanation short form: A mass of gravity tells us how fast it grows. Earth’s growth is taking place inside. Earth’s growth is greater now than before. Earth’s growth increases our air pressure. Earth’s growth makes our kilo seemed heavier. A mass gravitational tells how hot it is. The greater the attraction, the hotter paste. The warmer, the greater radiance. The smaller mass, the more colder. The smaller mass, the more slower growth. A mass that decreases its density, the repulsion. Universe Eternal change has always been there. The warmer the mass, the greater the distance to the atmosphere. The greater the sun, the greater speed. Black fabric is non-braked particles. Redshift are particles that are not hampered. The smaller the particles slowed down, the greater the speed they get. Each speed its color. Comet tails are slowed light particles. Waves in a mass caused by particles. Visible particles are braked particles. The smaller the particle, the greater speed. The capture of particles leads to growth, warmth and allure. Particles of light have different speeds in different lots. Space is distance between anything. Time is distance between events. Everything that happens has a cause. Nothing comes from nothing. Everything that exists consists of something. Therefore Universe materially.
Repulsion – a new dimension
in historical time, we have had many theories about the universe, depending on how far you’ve been in the scientific and technical progress. Already since Isaac Newton about. 300 years ago proposed the first theory of gravity, he added that the masses apparently attraction may be explained by his descendants. He was not even able to explain how the masses (celestial bodies) that were distantly located from each other, could influence each other. This very important addition to Newton’s gravitational theory, however, was quickly forgotten – and it is still undetected by today’s scientists! But Newton was right – he just lacked something:
Repulsion!
Repulsion due to a mass reduces its density! The highest speed of the repulsion exists in the black suns in returning gravitational particles. About 250 years later created the Albert Einstein a new universe, the relative universe where the speed of light is constant at approx. 300,000 km per second. Only at a late stage in his life, he recognized that light particles have mass and that they – like all other lots – is influenced by gravity. Einstein was not right in his assertion lightconsistens, but he was right in the assertion of light mass.
Anyone wishing to disprove my gravitation, will be struggling. He or she must then also prove that an explosion has the attraction – and it is not so easy. Earlier attempts rejection of my theories have not provided my gravitation, which is the essential background for my thoughts. My new laws are having separate types, and some will argue with me about these matters, they are very welcome. There are apparently no one has dared, to open the debate by saying that my gravitation, opens up several new and exciting questions, and to provide answers to some of them. Eg solves my problem of gravitation, which science struggles with today without coming to a sensible solution. One knows that the Moon moves away from Earth, and assuming a long enough back in time, you can count on their way to the distance between Earth and the Moon once only been a few earth-radii. But with such a short distance between them, the two planet mutual gravitational have ripped them both to smithereens.
Why is this not happening? Because you are not aware that both the Earth and Moon in the past were much smaller than today. If you count backwards in time, one in my gravitation also count on much smaller planets, with smaller globes will also be less attraction and that is why the Earth and Moon have not ripped each other to pieces in the past. It is astonishing that the researchers did not have long taken this into account when they have tried to solve the problem. The same energy that causes the Moon moves away from Earth, is also true in the Earth to the Sun.
Are we moving away from the Sun?
As the earth has more attraction than the Moon, it grows faster then also, since we do reminds us that the strength of a mass appeal tells us how fast it grows.
QUESTION
Will this mean that when the Earth has just as much mass as Saturn, so we are as far from the sun as Saturn is today? Will we also have equally thick atmosphere like Saturn have today? Will we also have an equally beautiful ring system? If the Earth and the Moon does not become engulfed by another large celestial body, will they grow and become a double pair of suns, which runs around a common center of gravity? In which case speed will be a planet to the sun?
Absorption and slowing
everything substance which is composed of a number of atoms is so porous. Is there enough substance, and the density high enough, the individual gravitational particles out of a large amount that passes through this porous material, sooner or later hit a or several of its atoms and thereby reduced its speed. Some gravitational particles will even be stopped completely and remain in the lot, they were about to pass while others will pass through at reduced speed. When no particles can not get out through a lot, they must be there. For example, the globe has increased, and thus its inner temperature increased, because a slowdown of the particles produces heat. If you look what’s going on, then these gravitational particles be very, very small and they must have a speed, which is far above what one of Lesage’s time imagined. Deceleration GRAVITY PARTICLERS SPEED Man “disproved” then Lesage’s theory by postulating that particle slowdown would produce much more heat than might at observation was noted. Lesage was not aware that the particles slow down as they pass through a lot. The closer the mass, the more reduced the speed of gravity particles. If there was more than that gravitational particle velocity sat down, we could of mass decrease speed to see how much weight the particles slowed, but there would not be either capture or growth. The new and exciting is that there were some gravitational particles not passed through the mass. This mass was increased – and now we can say that the strength of a mass appeal tells us how fast it grows. All lots with attraction grows, and the strength of attraction tells us how fast it grows. What we call gravity is the result of this slowdown and the capture of gravitational particles. The strength of a mass appeal tells us how fast it grows and how its internal temperature.
Problem
Try to go to the library and find out Newton’s theories vs. Arne Gabs’ theories. Try to find something about Lesage (library or internet). If Arne Gabs is right to change it because our perception of space? Discuss. The so-called “accepted” science will often not known at other ways of explaining things, so the texts you have read here can be a challenge for science. But Arne Gabs will go down in history of science, because he is hard to refute.
Suns made of gravity particles have been identified meant that the sun is created by condenses the enormous gas clouds. I believe that all lots of attraction has the ability to be both brakes gravitational particles, and also absorbs them. This absorption gives further growth, and finally the mass so dense that atomic processes begin. A NEW SUN UP – THE EMPHASIS OF PARTICLES When these suns eventually becomes very large and very dense, they will slow down the particles of light which they emit more and more. The more weight brakes particles of light energy, the less energy leaves the sun with. Gradually, the most energetic light particles, which were ultra-violet, slowed down so much that they now have infrared and therefore invisible to the other end of the spectrum. OUR SUN HAS BEEN TO A BLACK SUN emits the still invisible infrared light, but now its internal temperature soaring, because it can not get rid of its heat sufficiently rapidly by radiation. A NEW RADIATION YESTERDAY STARTED – A RADIATION OF EMPHASIS PARTICLES They can only come here in a black sun, where there is tremendous pressure and extremely high temperatures. If the black sun internal temperature is still rising, it will only lead to the removal of gravitational particles until there is balance. It shows that gravitational particles speed is much greater than the speed of light. Problems for “Suns” What do you think about this theory, which is not in accordance with the established science? Discuss and write down. Can it really be that the author is right in saying that gravitational particles speed is greater than the speed of light? If it is true, we must change our perception of space. Discuss and write down. Gravity slows light’s energy. What do you think? There is plenty to tackle. Go online and look forward to other scientists’ theories such as Newton, and compare with those made here theories.
Time
EXIST NOT PHYSICALLY If the broadcast of gravity particles as an explosion? In that case, my kg-weight roads differently before and after the explosion – and it does not! It is rather as an evaporation. And when the black sun is composed of all sorts of elements – even the densest – consists of gravity particles of a mixture of all possible elements to be distributed throughout the universe, then be a part of the celestial bodies, which they then become absorbed by. This new process takes much longer, but in this new universe is thus linked: EXIST NOT FYSISIK – THE HUMAN IS CREATED! This condition is achieved before the mixture is quite close – it is popularly called a “black hole”. So there is no Big Bang, which should be beginning of the universe. There is no “black holes” which are the universe’s death. There is neither the beginning nor an end to our universe – creation going on constantly. THE NEW UNIVERSE IS A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE – without beginning and without end in both space and time – and it continues under perpetual change. Problems for “Time” No black holes, no Big Bang. What do you think? Discuss and seek information where I can. Try also to look at what the Greek philosopher Democritus believed. Search also Frithjof Capra: Tao of Physics. Or find Taoist texts. Search in Lao Tzu. We are deep into life’s mysteries here and it might seem that Arne Gabs is right. We still “just” to get his theory on the formula, so you have a bid, please let us know you. Creation takes place all the time. It is the science by realizing now, so maybe formal education an impossibility, because it is just as restrictive as the language is when it comes to expressing emotions. Discuss.
Time, space as well as simultaneity and motion is not relative but absolute physical phenomena. There is no physical space-time – nothing physical world interval – no physical world lines. Electron dynamics are part of the simple Newtonian mechanics – and not vice versa! Einstein changed erroneously Newton’s mechanics and kinematics, but failed to return to direct the yet undiscovered error – namely isotope error and backscatter error. Had Einstein known these two errors would Lorentz transformation have been unnecessary as there was no need for any “bridge” since the ether disappeared. Space is three dimensional. It has neither four or more dimensions! Einstein claimed he was using to his own format for the Lorentz transformation had resolved Michelson-test conundrum, and the same repeats all relativity physicists after him. Einstein’s explanation is wrong! The right is that light propagate at different speeds in all directions. Einstein changed the classical physics kinematics despite the fact that it was true. “So far Marius Gormsen. His books are written in a difficult way but the quotes above are certainly crisp and clear and provides food for thought. Einstein swapped physics on with mathematics, and in terms of spacetime traded him about the cause and effect. When something crumbs in his movement in space, it is because of the weight. It is not the curvature that creates gravity, but gravity that creates the curvature. thus also vanished Einstein spacetime . Mathematics is a language like Latin. For my sake, one can speak the language you want, as long as one is not doing about the logic and reverses the cause and effect.

The new universe
In my new universe is gravity the determinative factor – ANYWHERE . As mentioned earlier all know how gravity works, but not WHY. I attach weight both velocity and mass: The maximum possible speed well in excess of light, the minimum possible mass. Although gravity particles mass is exceedingly small, I am convinced that these appear in different sizes, consisting of all possible elements – all immeasurably small. In the large masses of the world are plenty of all possible sizes, and I see no reason to assume that it is not true in the smallest masses world. My universe has no artificial boundaries, either in size or speed. Since gravitational particles have an enormous speed, they also have a huge effect. Hence need not so many of them to achieve the results we recognize that weight. Thin notion of the great masses of the world, suns, planets and moons, consists mainly of masses intervals between the individual elementary particles, ie. they are extremely porous. Gravity Particles passing therefore – almost unimpeded – through everything. But individual gravitational particles absorbed by the masses, they move in. It means a corresponding growth of the masses. Just as the light that has different speeds in different media so it is with gravity particles that have different speeds in different densities. THERE IS HERE, THE NEW UNIVERSE IS INTRODUCED. Everything is porous Comparing gravitational particles of light particles, the latter has the advantage that they can be seen – in contrast to gravitational particles, which we can ascertain the effects of. If, for example diving into the ocean, then you will find that the deeper we dig, the more darker there. The light is absorbed by the water masses, it passes, and get far enough down, there will finally completely dark. Similarly, I imagine that some of the gravitational particles absorbed by the masses they pass. Since the masses are very porous, they will – compared to the infinitely small gravitational particles – almost be perceived as a thin haze, which most people pass through, although they may reduce their speed to the speed of gravity particles have masses precisely the density. Comparing the gravitational particles of light particles, light particles have the advantage that they are visible. If there was anything other than gravity particles slows down when passing a lot, there would be no growth in the mass. Let us imagine, for example 100 gravitational particles towards the Earth’s mass. It will, for example 98 units pass unimpeded through the Earth’s porous mass with reduced speed, while 2 is absorbed and becomes part of Earth’s mass. They deliver their kinetic energy as heat. This growing mass of the Earth by 2 gravitational particles, and Earth’s internal temperature increases: the earth is getting bigger and hotter! gravity particles existence Moon When the moon moves away from Earth, one is a proof that it was heavier because it has used its mass to the gravitational capture of particles with the Earth As the Earth also grows, it removes itself from the Sun. This makes year longer and longer. Earth internal temperature is rising, and it explains that there are more and more desert because temperatures are attracted to the surface. Earth’s rising growth results including also that a kg-weight becomes heavier. Earth’s atmospheric layers is increased from 1012 mm to 1015 mm. It increases by 1 per millibars. 40 years.
One day the Earth will have a size as Jupiter, and this will be red hot. The ring around the Earth called Zodikallight that will be prettier and prettier as the Earth’s growth. This ring is naturally bigger and bigger as the Earth’s growth.

Jupiter, this planet may be our next sun. Science must correct the entire concept of solar system formation. Jupiter is hotter than you knew. Under its thick atmosphere is a glowing red ball. It is believed that the planet has a dynamo that creates the heat, but it is decelerated due to gravity particles that creates the heat. Lighting Only hindered light is visible. The color tells us how fast light particles are. This can be seen in a comet tail: the blue color is the front of the comet’s journey around the sun. Heating All celestial bodies are using their mass to the gravitational capture particles. This capture gives way more mass, greater attraction and warmth. Thus, we know how hot all celestial bodies are: the larger and closer they are — the hotter they are. Earth Power Lines The old setup with a weight that hangs on a string, to prove that the attraction is in the center of the Earth, because all the plumb line (power lines) shows the path. This is a misconception Sinker, which is a mass that holds together is not in the sand to fall back on all the atoms that acts foreclosure of pressure coming from the other side. Therefore, it is a middle ground and drops straight down between them – against the shielding mass center. If one – to find out where the Earth’s gravity (attraction) located – look at our plumb line, one must begin digging toward the center of the Earth. If one imagines that one has brought a kg-weight as one underway is considering a regular basis, you will find it easier already the first time you weight. It is because some of Earth’s atoms, which were previously COURSE soldered, now OVER soldered and thus pulls up instead of down. With this change sinker weight was correspondingly less. And when you finally are at the center of the Earth, weighs kg soldered nothing, for now, the Earth’s shielding equally in all directions. And if – to celebrate the end of the journey to Earth’s interior – affix a picnic bottle of champagne right in Earth’s gravitational center, you will find that forming a completely uniform thick layer of champagne from the bottle sides. The many bubbles in the champagne will gather in one big bubble in the center of the cylinder, and this bubble will have the same shape as the bottle. The attraction, in other words now be outward, not inward. Sole and Sole atmosphere emit light particles. These particles traveling freely in the “empty” space. The particles not hit anything running on. For every one billion years they lose around 2% of their speed. They say after 50 billion years at a standstill and turned into what is called a gas. Why? Because surely all suns everywhere constantly emits particles that get stuck, formed a ring of 50 billion kilometers on all suns. When the sun shines all the time, the ring mass is increased continuously. When two such particles fuse together and become one, the growth started. Economic change is slowest in small lots and eventually when they got into the asteroid sizes. The next phase is that it starts to get round as the moon, when it starts to get atmosphere. Mass internal temperature rises with the growth, so one day is the mass surface over 100 degrees. Thus, anything that can evaporate, become clouds that hide the celestial bodies such as Jupiter. Then they begin to emit radiation and becomes a sun – still surrounded by an atmosphere, and is now going faster growth, and the temperature follows with the growth. Now it will be X and what is even more energized that glows in the end, the energy and thus the temperature is so high that the emitted gravitational particles, and thus a new generation coming. The universe is thus a perpetual motion machine.

Arne Gabs (1921-2004)
We abrogate the law of gravity. A pressure and acceleration hypothesis 1962
The logical universe: new visions 1993
The material universe: a Part-teori 2004

58. RayG says:

What a novel concept, actually asking other researchers to independently verify the results. What a waste of time and resources. Thank goodness none of this replication, verification stuff needs to be done in climate science because the Teams’ words are graven in stone and are, therefore, immutable.

59. pax says:

How little we know and how exciting to learn just a tiny bit more about our world.

60. u.k.(us) says:

“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.”
========
This seems to suggest the distances between the labs are stable, unaffected by gravity waves, and the clocks are also unaffected.
Sounds like a time/space distortion to me.
Conjectures are fun :)

61. dearieme says:

Golly; perhaps Frau Einstein did help develop relativity after all.

62. peterhodges says:

The speed of light as a speed limit has two separate origins in modern physics.

In modern classical physics of the Einstein-ian sort, it is an assumption.

In normal physics unfettered by the Theoriesof special and general relativity, it is because no quantity of energy is large enough to drive any mass to the speed of light. This could be an artifact of our physics or a practical limit.

Even in classical physics of the Einstein-ian variety, nowhere will you find an equation with any term for the propagation of gravity….it is taken instantaneously.

Outside of classical physics, quantum teleportation has recently become a burgeoning area of achievement.

Further:

http: //arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/ti:+teleportation/0/1/0/all/0/1

63. Graeme says:

The interdimensional portal will be opening in 5… 4… 3… 2… 1…

Now where is that trusty double barrelled shotgun of mine…

64. Richard S Courtney says:

Friends:

As others have pointed out above, it is not true that
“Nothing is supposed to move faster than light, at least according to Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity:”

Relativity says nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light. But this does NOT mean nothing can move faster than light speed.

For example, if a particle were moving faster than light speed at the instant of its creation then it would require no acceleration for it to continue moving at that speed.

Richard

PS Moderators would it be possible for people making very long posts to be asked to submit them as potential articles. For example, the post by SØREN BUNDGAARD is so long that I doubt anybody has read all of it and scrolling to the bottom of it is such that many will not bother to read subsequent posts.

65. Jeremy says:

The likely cause is pretty obvious really. They are probably out by 18 meters on the exact location of the tank. The facility is in a tank on the side of a 10 Km long tunnel, 1400 m under a mountain. It is notoriously hard to pinpoint a location several Km underground to any degree of accuracy.

But heh, just a dumb engineer here. The propellerheads will probably figure it out given enough time.

66. kwik says:

Ah, but there is one problem…….If you transmit a particle from A to B, and you want to measure the speed…..you will need to know you are measuring the same particle at A and B.

Was the neutrinos marked in any way? How? With a barcode?

67. Rosco says:

I agree with pax – I have no idea what a neutrino is or anything else for that matter.

I understand some of what theory says matter, energy etc may be but beyond that I simply read and get on with my life trying not to become a fear monger or a false prophet.

Oh, and I have a small carbon footprint – size 9.

68. DocMartyn says:

“Scott Covert says
I’ve always had a problem with the light speed limit. It is counterintuitive. ”

Really?
Take a Tennis ball and throw it at a wall. The ball bounces of at its striking velocity + the velocity of the wall (more or less).
Take a Tennis ball and throw it at a train doing 70 m.p.h.. The ball bounces of at its striking velocity + the velocity of the train (70 m.p.h).

So lets us do light at a non-finite speed.

The sun is behind you and hits the train moving towards you. If photons were little tennis balls they would hit the train at light speed and then bounce off at LS+70 m.p.h. We would see phantom images of moving objects in front of the object and when we over took a car on the highway we would know that the image was behind the object. .

69. Claude Harvey says:

Ya’ just gotta’ love a site where impressively smart and knowledgeable people mix and mingle with some so ignorant they don’t know what they don’t know. Everybody gets to chip something into the pot, and wallowing around somewhere in there is truth to be found. Democracy in action!

70. Bob Diaz says:

Reminds me of a silly poem:

The was a young lady named bright
Who could travel fasted than light
She left Earth one day, in a relative way
and came back the previous night.

Now are the results: (1) Measurement/human error OR (2) One of the little surprises of the cosmos.
I can only hope for the second possibility, because we really don’t know that much around the cosmos.

71. Robinson says:

I’m pretty sure what the boffins actually said was that they’ve been unable to find the error. They’re pretty sure there is one though.

What a contrast to Climate Scientists, to whom the concept of error is never contemplated!

72. Jeremy says:

Is it possible that the neutrinos passed through Berlusconi’s bedroom on its way from CERN to Gran Sasso, Italy?

If so then it wouldn’t be the only objects in the universe to pass through faster than light speed.

73. Dishman says:

The entire experiment was conducted in an accelerated frame (gravity well), rather than in interstellar space.

My math suggests that 1/40,000 is actually less than the dilation effects due to gravity. That still doesn’t sound right to me.

If Neutrinoes were less affected by local gravity, they might still be sub-luminal. They would just be covering a shorter distance than even photons going in a straight line.

74. wsbriggs says:

Some people, myself among them, based on Rieman Geometry, believe that since space is not simply connected, particles which don’t strongly interact in space time, spend part of their time in “Elsewhen”. See a book on special relativity for additional information – Taylor/Wheeler “Spacetime Physics” is a good one.

The math of multiply connected universes, although based on complex geometry, may lead to understanding of dark matter and other current issues in Physics. Not that this is in any way generally supported by APS or other societies.

75. StuartMcL says:

Pablo Barham says:
September 22, 2011 at 1:14 pm
”It doesn’t take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, it takes a single fact.” -Albert Einstein
There is the fact…

That doesn’t prove Einstein “wrong”, any more thean Einstein proved Newton “wrong”.
In additon to Newtonian Physics and Einsteinian Physics, it appears we may be on the verge of developing a third Physics.

76. NetDr says:

I agree with Jeremy.

I am also an engineer and I would double and triple check the exact position of both ends of the link.

I am trying to visualize how you would exactly locate a point 1,400 M under a mountain. Would you bounce light and measure the time it took to return ? You would have to bounce it from 3 absolutely known points.

Does anyone have experience with this problem ? I don’t know the answer but I have grave doubts.

GPS sure wouldn’t work.

77. It would shock me if this experiment proved that Neutrinos can travel at 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light, and I hope it does. I think I know what the numbers add up to and what they mean if this is confirmed. And it is mind blowing.

Does anyone recognize these numbers?
186.282 3.1047 189.3867
186.282 3.14159265 189.42359265

Any physicist or engineer should recognize these, Although these numbers above may not appear relevant, they are if this is confirmed.

78. TRM says:

Looking forward to seeing how this turns out. At the quantum level verifying the “spooky action” at a distance (Bell’s theorem I believe) has been done up to 2 Km between the particle streams and when one polarity is changed the other is as well. So if you scaled that experiment up to a distance that light would travel you would see if there was any delay. So far no delay at 2Km so faster than light does seem to happen. The math is way over my head but fascinating to read about.

79. Tom_R says:

If the neutrino arrived significantly faster than light, then that would point to a new understanding of physics. That it arrived just very very slightly faster than light points to a measurement error, which may include an error in adjusting for external influences on the path and on measuring tools as others have mentioned.

This measurement needs to be investigated, and it will be because physics is not climate science. However, if I were a betting man I’d bet on a measurement error.

80. Bruce of Newcastle says:

Although Dr Motl is pretty down on this, I might point out that it is consistent with the Scharnhorst Effect, where light goes slightly faster than c between Casimir plates due to quantisation of vaccuum energy. Poor neutrino interaction with virtual particles could do likewise.

Big deal. Carbon dioxide can take the earth out of an ice age 800 years before it enters the atmosphere. Top that, neutrinos! :-)

82. Mac the Knife says:

“The readings have so astounded researchers that they are asking others to independently verify the measurements before claiming an actual discovery.”

Well, OK then….. I’ll get right on it!
Great Scott! Where did I leave my 1.21 jigawatt flux capacitor power supply for my atom smasher….??

83. Science is settled, model ensemble average is slower than light, no need for checking experimentally.

84. jorgekafkazar says:

It’s a new particle–the travestino!

85. Chris in Hervey Bay says:

Looks like time travel back to the past is possible !

Let’s send someone back to cut down that tree on the Yamal Peninsula !!

86. F. Ross says:

ecph says:
September 22, 2011 at 1:48 pm

“Nothing is supposed to move faster than light, at least according to Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity”
This is simply not true. The speed of light in vacuum is a mathematical limit. Although particles moving faster than light have never been observed, the existence of such particles is not in violation of Einstein’s special relativity.
Such hypothetic particles have been dubbed tachyons, and extensive mathematical research has been already been made in the field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
What special relativity does say, though, is that you can’t accelerate particles from below speed of light to above speed of light.

Paul Murphy says:
September 22, 2011 at 2:02 pm

huh? this is a science blog, right? so all of you know that relativity does not limit objects to below light speed – and, in fact, nature offers lots of stuff we model as having a physical existence (e.g. photons) that move at light speed. What the equations say is that the force needed to accelerate an object to c approaches infinity as v approaches c . So we can’t accelerate our space ship to c, have no idea how forces apply at c+, but have no problems fitting an object at c or c+ into the models.

While I agree with some of these two posts, for those interested in the velocity of propagation of a gravitational “field” may I recommend the following url:

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

An excerpt from the paper:

“…Indeed, it is widely accepted, even if less widely known, that the speed of gravity in Newton’s Universal Law is unconditionally infinite. (E.g., Misner et al., 1973, p. 177) This is usually not mentioned in proximity to the statement that GR [General Relativity] reduces to Newtonian gravity in the low-velocity, weak-field limit because of the obvious question it begs about how that can be true if the propagation speed in one model is the speed of light, and in the other model it is infinite.
…”

Enjoy!

“”There are more things in heaven and earth than are drempt of in your philosophy Horatio.”

87. SØREN BUNDGAARD:
I’ve never meant TL;DR quite so strongly before.

Graeme:
Shotgun? No, the way defending against interdimensional invaders works, is that you start out with a crowbar and work your way up.

88. George E. Smith says:

Actually particles travel faster than light quite routinely. It is (c) that they can’t exceed in a vaccuum but in some other medium they can travel faster than c/n, where n is the refractive index of the medium. If you accelerate a particle to 0.999999 c and let it crash into a block of glass of index say 1.5, then it will be going 50% faster than light in the glass. Of course it will radiate like crazy while it is slowing down to less than c/n, and during that wild deceleration, it must radiate EM waves, according to Maxwell’s equations. I can’t remember whether that is Cerenkov Radiation or Bremsstrahlung; but anna v would know.

It is the group velocity of EM waves which can’t exceed (c). The phase velocity can, but it carries no information or energy.

Some people now think the electron may have a non-zero Electric Dipole Moment, and they are currently trying to measure it; but it is in the noise if true. dunno why the electron would, since it supposedly has no internal structure; but a neutron or proton with three quarks each with non-integer charges might; but supposedly, neither one has a non . Go Figure. I’ll have to ask Richard Taylor the next time I see him (he’s the Quark guru Nobellist at SLAC)

But I’ll wait to hear the results on this neutrino gig.

89. Peter Wilson says:

Scott Covert says:
September 22, 2011 at 1:59 pm
I am sad to read the Cern quote ““We wanted to find a mistake – trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects – and we didn’t,”. That’s just confirmation bias, you have to break through that if you are going to discover anything.

No no no, its not confirmation bias, its real scientists faced with a surprising result using Occams razor to try to find any possible, non revolutionary explanation. The old saw about extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence surely applies here, and the first step in obtaining very strong evidence is eliminating all possible error sources. This is something climate scientists frequently fail to do – if the graph looks “nice”, thats a wrap – so its great to see how real scientists behave sometimes.

Personally I am very doubtful about this, we’ve measured a lot of neutrinos at lightspeed before now, but if it is true its very exciting.

90. mrrabbit says:

I second Richard S. Courtney:

Geez…if your comment is going to be an article all in itself…please…submit it as an article.

Scrolled right past it – and it took quite awhile – it was actually irritating how long it took.

=8-(

91. desurveyor says:

I for one hope this pans out. Perhaps the rewriting of the “Laws” of physics with a new understanding about speed limits will eliminate the ideas of dark matter and dark energy.

Just like the missing heat, these have only been found in a computer model.

92. Jim Masterson says:

>>
Dan Santo says:
September 22, 2011 at 1:37 pm

One of the more famous is the supernova back in 1987 (I think) – the light and neutrinos showed up at the same time. Considering its distance, even the tiny difference that they think they’ve found here would have come out to be huge. We would have seen a neutrino surge long before the light showed up.
<<

I think you’re talking about supernova 1987A (SN 1987A). It was an unusual type II supernova. Type II supernovae are massive stars (greater than 8 solar masses–the SN 1987A progenitor was about 20 solar masses) whose cores undergo gravitation collapse. The neutrinos leave the star when the core collapses–in a fraction of a second. The visible explosion occurs hours later when the shockwave from the rebounding core reaches the surface.

That neutrino surge was about 24 events (significant, but hardly breathtaking). The neutrinos remained ahead of the visible explosion all the way to the Earth (about 51.4 kiloparsecs or 168,000 light-years). That placed the upper limit on neutrino mass at about 20 electron volts–later refined to a maximum of 16 electron volts. For a comparison, the rest mass of an electron is about 511,000 electron volts or about 32,000 times larger.

Jim

93. The neutrinos in question are traveling a little east of South East.
That means a component of their direction is with the rotation of the earth.
I wonder what their assumptions were about the frame of reference and the possibility of gravitational “frame-drag.”

500 _____D______km of eastward travel
300,000__c______km/sec

0.001666_ T=D/c __sec travel travel time
2.2______Ve______km/sec = Earth rotational speed eastward
0.0036667__Dt = Ve*T__km frame moves in travel time T
1.22222E-08 ___Tf = Dt/c __ sec from possible frame drag.

Shoot. I only can account for 12 nsec.
Still, wouldn’t be interesting if a gravitational frame of reference is involved in determining the speed of light.

94. Corey says:

They have been doing this experiments for thousands of times for the last couple of years. Theses are some of the smartest physicist in the world. Fermilab and Japans Accelerater will begin experimenting on this immediately and will end up with very similar results.

95. Warren in Minnesota says:

I read that the distance was 730 km and the neutrinos arrived 60 nanoseconds earlier. The speed of light quoted as 299792 km/s. If I divide the speed of light by the distance, I get about 0.00243502 seconds or the time to travel that 730 km. Then I subtracted 60 nanoseconds from the time and divided the distance of 730 km by that reduced time. The results shows a speed of 299799 km/s or 7 km/s faster.

That’s how I read the report. I might have misinterpreted the article.

96. Ralph says:

The aether is real, and since it was heading in that direction, it was dragging the neutrinos along with it.

I always liked the aether, a space medium, and was very sad when they said it did not exist.

97. Ralph says:

>>>The was a young lady named bright
>>>Who could travel fasted than light
>>>She left Earth one day, in a relative way
>>>and came back the previous night.

.

There was a young man called Fisk,
Whose fencing was exceedingly brisk,
So fast was his action,
That the Lorentz contraction,
Turned his rapier into a disk !!

.

98. DesertYote says:

ScientistForTruth says:
September 22, 2011 at 2:40 pm
###

Calculating path length is the correct approach. Space is curved because of the Earths “Gravity Well” and the particles are traveling along a geodesic that is deeper in that well then the surface for most of the particles journey. That is the actual path length will be different then calculating the length from the position of the end points and using Euclidean geometry.

99. jim says:

Nice,

Everything You Know is Wrong!

100. Jim Reedy says:

If they looked at all the other possibilities… then it must be man’s fault..

101. Matthew Schilling says:

Neptune is 4.5 billion kilometers removed from the Sun. It takes light 15,000 seconds to travel from the Sun to Neptune. Yet this pair of bodies are attracted to where each other are NOW; there is an instant attraction between them. Therefore, the propagation of gravity is at least 15,000 times faster than the speed of light.

102. My money’s on Einstein. Faster-than-light requires infinite energy. Not about to happen in this universe.

103. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is displacing phlogiston thus facilitating a higher local speed of light.

104. Johnnythelowery says:

I wonder if there is a periodical difference in the speed. Not reported, but, how many observations has this speed difference been true??? over how long a length of time?? We;ve already had a report from Fermi, which i’ve not seen reported on since it appeared here at WUWT, that decay rates in certain elements vary according to periodical sun phases. Reported by the Chicago’s FERMILAB no less (not a Klinnsman-esque ‘dive in the box’ attempt to get more funding surely??).
Anyone seen ANNA???
(Anthony: You’ve been working too hard—Take a break: Take the wife and go see PLanet of the Apes. It;s brilliant!))

105. I love this quote from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html

“”We have high confidence in our results. We have checked and rechecked for anything that could have distorted our measurements but we found nothing,” he said. “We now want colleagues to check them independently.””

Wouldn’t it be nice of Mann, Jones or Hansen hadn’t been so corrupted by government money that they would adhere to the scientific method like this?

106. phlogiston says:

Sully Augustine says:
September 22, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is displacing phlogiston thus facilitating a higher local speed of light.

Say what?

107. Paul Clay says:

Lets see what could be faster than light? hmmm, Dark maybe? It does seem to be there as soon as light is gone, or was it there all along hiding in the, well light? Sure there’s something faster than light or maybe the earth is flat and we should just stop looking. If you think we have all the answers now then just kick back and zone out into tv land and everything will be okay, or let us take these baby steps into the unknown as did Columbus. Thanks for listening you may now return to your bliss.

108. phlogiston says:

Isn’t Cerenkov radiation where charged particles travel faster than light? – at least the phase velocity of light within a particular medium.

This gives the blue glow from nuclear reactor cores.

109. No, Neptune is attracted to the time delayed gravity from Sol from 15,000 seconds ago. (Assuming your number is correct). Gravity travels at the speed of light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

So if Scottie where to suddenly teleport Sol to a galaxy far far away Neptune wouldn’t know about it for 15,000 seconds and would travel in it’s orbit for that long then veer off at a tangent when Sol’s gravity stopped.

110. I think this was discovered a couple of years ago.

111. Andrew30 says:

How might this affect the idea that the apparent slowing of light through a BEC is an illusion of refraction?
Maybe there is just a higher concentration of Time in a BEC (inflated atoms).
Maybe there is a lower concentration of Time in the in the CERN experiment (compressed atoms).
Maybe Time is not a first order property of the universe, maybe Time arises in response to an absence of concentration of mass, inverse to Gravity.

Maybe what they found was not neutrinos traveling faster, just neutrinos traveling through a lower concentration of time.

I have for quite a few years tried to devise an experiment to show that Time is the opposite of Gravity, and that both are second order attributes of the universe.

This will be an interesting read, maybe.

112. KevinK says:

Maybe somebody left a Dark Emitting Diode ON in the lab ? It might attract the neutrinos and cause them to speed up ?

Never heard of a Dark Emitting Diode (i.e. DED) ? , just plug a Light Emitting Diode (LED) into your AC power lines (or the “mains” in Europe) after that it emits dark whenever electricity is applied.

Okay that is a bit lame, but really they claim to know the absolute distance between two laboratory locations ~750,000 meters apart to better than ~ 20 meters ? And one (or maybe both) locations are inside a mountain. That’s some damn impressive surveying if you ask me.

Anybody remember the old Benny Hill skit about how hard it would be to drill a tunnel across the British Channel from both ends ? The reporter asks, “what happens if they don’t meet in the middle ?”. Benny’s response; “Well we get two tunnels for the price of one”.

113. Truthseeker says:

Sparks said;

Does anyone recognize these numbers?
186.282 3.1047 189.3867
186.282 3.14159265 189.42359265

I see the speed of light (186.282) and pi (3.14159265) but I am not sure about the others …

114. F. Ross says:

pwl says:
September 22, 2011 at 9:01 pm

It seems to me that the “final” word on the propagation speed of gravity is still out.

See this quote from your Wikipedia source cited above:
“…
However, in the case of two gravitoelectrically interacting particle ensembles, such as two planets or stars moving at constant velocity with respect to each other, each body feels a force which is directed at the instantaneous position of the other body, without a speed-of-light delay. …”

115. Tony says:

The fact that the observed speed is just a tad faster than light, just a bit more than “statistically significant”, is a bit of a red flag for me. It suggests variability or error in the experiment. If FTL were not a fundemental limit, then we should expect to see relatively huge differences.

116. Brian Johnson uk says:

I have it filed in my Cold Fusion box

117. RoHa says:

“neutrinos — one of the strangest well-known particles in physics”

Neutrinos are well-known?

118. kwik says:

Hmmmm.
Gravitation has to be instantaneous, I always believed. If you have a delay in gravitation…..all our attempts on calculating a curve of an object, for example planets…..would be very problematic ? Right?

So, thats why we nowadays says the earth is rolling around on the edge of a gravitational well in spacetime. As far as I understand it, this is how Einstein explained it back then.

But if we say gravitation is because of some particle, then that particle must have a speed.
If it has speed, we either have a delay in gravitation, or a particle moving faster than light….

119. kwik says:

Aha, now I get it! It is Global Warming that is upsetting the speed of light!

120. Ray says:

I read somewhere that the effect of gravity could maybe be traveling faster than the speed of light. They will need to make a special-special theory of relativity.

I studied the equations of general relativity once to understand this. The problem: According to relativity the laws of physics in all reference frames are the same.

So consider: we see the earth attracted to the ((more or less) stationary) sun. So how about a traveller passing through the solar system from north to south? Does he see the earth attracted (A) to where the sun currently is, or (B) to where it was eight minutes earlier (the time for light to travel from sun to earth)?

If the answer is (B), then he should also see the earth careen off orbit towards the north pole of the solar system, since eight minutes ago the sun was, in his reference frame, north of where the earth is now. Since he doesn’t, because he has to see the same actual events that we see, the correct answer must be (A). But doesn’t that mean that knowledge of the sun’s location has been passed to the earth in zero time?

Not necessarily. In fact the equations tell us something truly (IMHO) amazing: that the earth is attracted to the point to which it predicts, from information available prior to eight minutes ago, where the sun must be now if the only force acting upon it is gravity.

So nothing goes amiss with regard to the orbits of any of the planets influencing each other – all goes like clockwork. But if one body were to be influenced by a non-gravitational force, such as pushing it by rocket power, or a star exploding due to going supernova, then other bodies would behave normally until the normal speed of light communication tells them that something drastic has happened. Then they would suddenly readjust their behaviour to the new prediction of the locations of other bodies now, assuming only gravitational effects from the time of the disturbance onwards.

That is what the equations, to my understanding, mean. That doesn’t mean the equations are correct. I believe that this really odd quality of the relativistic equations is why they predict gravitational waves. Last time I checked, they had not ever been detected.

121. Michael Schaefer says:

Thank God – they are finally waking up to the facts.

I was always sure that – once properly considered – the scientists’ mantra that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light, was nothing but a modern version of one of Zenon’s paradoxes which is known as The Paradox of Motion, or “Achilles and the tortoise”.

Having come thus far, science may – just MAY – one day also understand that, particles traveling faster than the speed of light exist, in fact, not only in traces, but in abundance in the Universe – because they are what Astronomy, for a a lack of better understanding, today calls “Dark Matter” – interacting only via it’s gravity with sub-light-matter.

Factor in faster-than-light particles into classic astronomy, and you will finally adjust astronomical calculations to the measured facts.

“Boy, do I love being right all the time!”
(Transcended from the golden words of Dr. Ian Malcolm, aka Jeff Goldblum, in “Jurassic Park”)

122. P.G. Sharrow says:

Of course neutrinos travel a bit faster then photons and electrons. I thought these people already knew that.
Why is it educated people are always “discovering” things that are already known? pg

123. Michael Schaefer says:

German professor Gunther Nimtz – Univiersities of Cologne and Bonn, Germany – conducted a large-scale reasearch culminating in the theory, that particles, as well as electromagnetic waves, can travel faster than light.

He calls the effect he uses for making matter and electromagnetic signals going faster than light “tunnelling”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Nimtz

And, by the way, his results are a much LESS “highly debated topic” than Wikipedia wants you to make believe – while “which only a minority of researchers considers as correct”, according to my understanding, does in no way disqualify his findings as wrong, anyway – for Galileo Galilei’s findings on the Heliocentric Solar System also were defamed as a theory, “”which only a minority of researchers considers as correct” in his days…

So, is the science settled in this area? Hell, no, it isn’t!

But it’s fascinating – isn’t it?

124. Andrew Harding says:

As I understand it, neutrinos are particles with no mass that travel at the speed of light and do not react with matter or magnetic fields. Billions of them pass through every square metre of the earth every second. The following might be simplistic, but could it be that the rest of the particles travelled in the constraints of the CERN magnetic field but the neutrinos went in a straight line so took a short cut and arrived before the other particles because they did not have as far to travel?

125. Michael Schaefer says:

To quote myself:

“Having come thus far, science may – just MAY – one day also understand that, particles traveling faster than the speed of light exist, in fact, not only in traces, but in abundance in the Universe – because they are what Astronomy, for a a lack of better understanding, today calls “Dark Matter” – interacting only via it’s gravity with sub-light-matter.”

Dark Energy is nothing but Dark-(faster-than-light)-Matter to, which only is arranged in a huge, Universe-wide halo, PULLING sub-light-matter outwards with it’s humonous gravity, thus giving an observer from the inside the impression, there exists an equal force PUSHING sub-light-matter to the edges of the Universe. That way, Redshift is caused by faster-than-light particles, too.

126. Einstein -‘Damn, I think I left my electron at CERN’
Heisenberg – ‘Are you sure ?’
Einstein -‘I’m positive’

127. Michael Schaefer says:

@ SØREN BUNDGAARD
September 22, 2011 at 3:07 pm
———————————————————————————
“F”

128. Dan says:

SRT probably says (but not very clearly) that you cannot measure speeds greater than c from one reference frame to another. That is an effect of c being not unlimited. The Lorenz transformation is probably only valid below c, who knows applies beyond.
You only need less than a year at 1g to reach c if in a rocket. I find it hard to believe the acceleration would cease just like that at or near c. And in reference to what?
Einstein himself hoped his theories would be the foundation of other, more advanced theories. I think he would have been most interested in the CERN-results, if confirmed.

129. Rabe says:

DocMartyn, you contradict yourself. Why, in your universe, is the light hitting the train at LS? Say, two trains are heading on each other with a mirror at their front… go ahead.

All our measurements of the speed of light showed it to be constant at any speed difference.

130. TheBigYinJames says:

Amusing as it might be, some of the displays of scientific ignorance on this thread just give more ammo to the warmists that we are a bunch of loons.

131. Peter says:

The good news is that they are being skeptical of their findings!

132. And now for the rebuttal paper from Hansen Mann and the fairytale team members proving the science is settled

What will it be? That this is yet more proof the the world is warming up …. it’s just we didn’t realise it was making the whole of space time swell up?

More proof of climate “weirding” as even time is getting weird?

133. … and no doubt a graph showing the correlation between “neutrino weirding” and manmade CO2, proving yet again how mankind is affecting not just the weather but the whole of space time …. is that a black hole I see before …. sucking in all kind of nonsense … no it’s a climate journal!

134. Andrew Harding says:September 22, 2011 at 11:40 pm

“The following might be simplistic, but could it be that the rest of the particles travelled in the constraints of the CERN magnetic field but the neutrinos went in a straight line so took a short cut and arrived before the other particles because they did not have as far to travel?

They must have gone through the climategate team’s fast rebuttal process?

135. Dan says:

Rabe:
The speed of light will always be c, as distance is measured in lightseconds nowadays. It has become a definition.

136. Allan M says:

RoHa says:
September 22, 2011 at 10:14 pm

“neutrinos — one of the strangest well-known particles in physics”

Neutrinos are well-known?

Some of my best friends are neutrinos.

137. Kelvin Vaughan says:

It has to be true as speed is relative!

138. Michael Schaefer says:

Dan says:
September 23, 2011 at 12:22 am

You only need less than a year at 1g to reach c if in a rocket. I find it hard to believe the acceleration would cease just like that at or near c. And in reference to what?
———————————————————–
Well said. That’s the result of my own calculations, too. In an empty, dark space without reference points, a given force will always and ever result in an equal counterforce – here: rocket-engine-thrust and accelleration – and will change the speed of the spaceship you are in accordingly. Anyway, you will only be able to measure accelleration – let’s say 1 g – over time – let’s say 1 year. But you will NEVER, EVER be able to truly calculate the exact speed resulting for said spaceship by measuring accelleration and time, due to the uncertainty about your initial speed and direction your spaceship was traveling prior to firing the rocket (aka: no reference points). So, yes, you might as well go way faster than the speed of light then – without even noticing.

Again, this “C-Thing” equates to yet-another of Zenon’s paradoxes to me. But, while in Zenon’s paradox about Herakles and the turtle it was distance – aka: SPACE – he was mistaking for being absolute, Einstein in his calculation is mistaking TIME for absolute – due to a simple, mathematical error:

Math states that, if, in a calculation, the divisor is “0”, the divident will per defnition turn infinite.

But in physics, when you reduce the time the given mass of an object needs to travel a certain distance to”0″, the mass of said object, in fact, remains just like it always was, while only the time it needs to travel will be reduced to “0”, or even becomes negative.

The infinite increase of mass you get by calculating Energy = Mass times Velocity square – may be mathematically sound – yet, it doesn’t match reality.

Oh, yes, I know, I will get a good beat-up for that statement now. But I stand to it. And no – Nukes are NOT disproving my point. I rather suppose that, in nuclear fusion, fission and decay, a mechanism plays out which, by sheer coincidence, happens to work at sub-atomar levels according to Einstein’s famous equation. But in the atomar and molecular world, things are different from it.

(Sorry, I am German and have to translate mathematical terms into english to my best knowledge. Please, correct me, where I am wrong.)

139. Julien says:

I’ve been noting that 60 nanoseconds can represent a distance measurement error between the emiter and receptor of approx 18 meters at the speed of light. If they used the GPS with its relative error of 10 meters to measure positions, they’re in! ;)

140. I’m singularly unimpressed that it is reported that the experiment has been done 15,000 times and yielded the same results. If there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions or data you can do it an infinite number of times and obtain a false result on every occasion. The patth length isn’t being checked 15,000 times, is it? So if that is wrong then the results will always be wrong.

As I mentioned before, I consider it most likely that the path length has been wrongly calculated with 18 metre/60 ft error. Of course, the other possibility is that the ultimate ‘speed barrier’ is just a tiny fraction higher than what has previously been thought, i.e. 299,799,850 metres per second rather than 299,792,458 metres per second for light, with photons travelling at just below this speed barrier. OK, so photons have been consistently measured at 299,792,458 metres per second. So what? Has anyone considered that maybe photons don’t go at the ultimate speed, and that all the measurements of contraction, time dilation, mass increase for particles with rest mass etc as one approaches the speed of light would be very similar if it was referenced to 299,799,850 metres per second instead. Would tiny discrepancies between these have even been noticed?

Since 1983 the speed of light has been ‘defined’ as 299,792,458 m/s, so if it is measured differently from the definition then this affects the length of the metre. I’m a bit uncomfortable with defining the speed of light as an absolute fixed constant, because it begs the question about the speed of light being a universal and invariant constant. The speed of propagation of photons in vacuo can be calculated by electrostatic and magnetostatic measurements of the properties of the vacuum, i.e. the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum, without doing any measurements of speed at all – this just falls out of classical physics (Maxwell’s equations) – it can all be predicted from static measurements. But of course, measurements of permeability and permittivity are inherently tied to electromagnetism and photons (and ‘virtual photons’) and so determine the velocity of electromagnetic radiation – the speed of ‘light’. Neutrinos are not photons and, unlike photons, appear to have a tiny rest mass, which according to the Standard Model they shouldn’t have. So little is understood about neutrinos, and what we do know seems to challenge the Standard Model so we are likely to be in for an overhaul of physics some time soon.

141. TomVonk says:

I read somewhere that the effect of gravity could maybe be traveling faster than the speed of light. They will need to make a special-special theory of relativity.

This special-special theory of relativity has existed for one century and is called general relativity.
According to the general relativity mass/energy defines space-time metrics.
In other words what some call “gravity effects” is actually the space-time metrics which is curved by mass/energy.
From that follows that in strongly variable fields (f.ex binary pulsars), their effect is to provoke “ripples” in space-time (imagine rotating fast a spoon in the middle of a large bowl filled with viscous liquid) . These “ripples” are called gravitational waves and propagate.
Their speed is c – e.g the speed of light.
The gravitational waves being extremely weak, they have not yet been detected but it is a work in progress (http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imaran/cosmology1.html).

As for the neutrinos going faster than c, there are 3 possible interpretations:

1) The effect is a fluke. Distances and/or times have been incorrectly measured. The result can’t be reproduced in controlled environnement. For me the most probable interpretation.

2) Something special happens with neutrinos and neutrinos only. Sofar we only know the upper limit of the neutrino rest mass which is very small. This is unfortunate but this doesn’t exclude the possibility that the neutrino’s mass is exactly zero. A less probable interpretation would then mean that some exotic special neutrino property had been discovered.

3) The Lorentz invariance (special relativity) is wrong and it is possible that particles with real (e.g non complex) non zero rest mass cross the c limit. While this can’t be excluded with absolute certainty, I consider that this interpretation has an extremely low almost zero probability.

142. Viv Evans says:

Whatever the outcome, after the scrutiny of the community of physicists – the simple fact that the CERN researchers have put this out to the public and ask for scrutiny is a lesson the climate scientists ought to learn a.s.a.p.

This report shows to all and sundry how proper science should be done.

Applause!

143. Ken Hall says:

What if something was travelling at the speed of light on earth, and the earth is travelling at 885,139 kilometres per second through space, then if the direction of travel of what is travelling at the speed of light is the same direction as the earth is moving through space, then that item will be travelling faster than the speed of light relative to the bit of space that the earth is travelling through.

144. petermue says:

Peter says:
September 23, 2011 at 12:48 am

The good news is that they are being skeptical of their findings!

And they’ll surely urge lots of \$ now.

145. TomVonk says:

What if something was travelling at the speed of light on earth, and the earth is travelling at 885,139 kilometres per second through space, then if the direction of travel of what is travelling at the speed of light is the same direction as the earth is moving through space, then that item will be travelling faster than the speed of light relative to the bit of space that the earth is travelling through.

This is what people thought a century ago and what we know since that time as being wrong. This is precisely Einstein’s and Lorentz’s insight that this was wrong that lead to the special relativity.

See the experiment which showed that this way of thinking was wrong : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

146. Robert of Ottawa says:

Perhaps transmitter and reciver were 60 foot closer than thought.

147. Robert of Ottawa says:

Ken Hall, no the sped of light is always a constant. Michelson-Morely (google it) performed an experiement in the early 20th century that demonstrated this.

148. wayne Job says:

It has been my hope that the scientists at Cern would measure them selves out of business.
It would appear that is happening, the Higgs bosun has gone missing and now this extraneous particle has exceeded the speed limit. Sirs at Cern please tell us what is gravity, electricity, magnetism, it would be nice to know these things before you tell us about the wonderful spin and charm of your imaginary particles. I can thank you for your openness in asking others to look at your results but I would prefer that you all digressed one hundred years and started anew.
Quantum mechanics and the standard model is looking iffy.

149. Alex the skeptic says:

So, if I ride on a neutrino, I’ll be able to watch tomorrow’s news.

150. Charlie K says:

Stupid question, but did they account for the curvature of the earth? Its pretty easy to hop on Google Earth and measure the distance between the source and receiver, but that is the distance along the surface of the earth. Since the neutrinos are travelling in a straight line they will travel along the chord of that arc, which over the distances they are travelling would more than account for the difference.

Not saying they would make that mistake, but then NASA lost a Mars mission due to the conversion between miles and kilometers, so its not inconceivable.

151. I could say that neutrinos modify the speed of time along the axis of their travel but I won’t;)

152. Alex the skeptic says:

TheBigYinJames says:
September 23, 2011 at 12:33 am

Amusing as it might be, some of the displays of scientific ignorance on this thread just give more ammo to the warmists that we are a bunch of loons.
+++++++++++++
And they are bunch of humourless, pessimist morons.

153. Rolf Atkinson says:

Lots of embarrassing posts here. Special Relativity is the most well validated of all physical theories. Don’t write it off in a hurry; but don’t assume that the physicists have overlooked something obvious.

Chris in Hervey Bay [September 22, 2011 at 5:13 pm] says:

“Looks like time travel back to the past is possible !

Let’s send someone back to cut down that tree on the Yamal Peninsula !!”

Very clever! That would save us some real money.

KevinK [September 22, 2011 at 9:38 pm] says:

“Never heard of a Dark Emitting Diode (i.e. DED) ? , just plug a Light Emitting Diode (LED) into your AC power lines (or the “mains” in Europe) after that it emits dark whenever electricity is applied.”

We used to call them Smoke Emitting Diodes back in the day!

155. View from the Solent says:

An amusing commentary.
” Look, light is a wave, right? And if there is a wave then something must be waving? Right?
The Newtonian universe demands it.”
…… .
…….
“HAH.
Take that Einstein, denier. The CERN results give us just one more confirmation of the Newtonian consensus..”

http://www.countingcats.com/?p=10847

156. Bruce Armour says:

Wednesday, 19 July, 2000

Beam smashes light barrier
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/841690.stm

“Scientists have seen a pulse of light emerge from a cloud of gas before it even entered.
“This astonishing and baffling observation was made by researchers from the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, US. “They conducted an experiment that involved lasers, a chamber containing cold caesium atoms and a super-fast stopwatch.

“The end result was a beam of light that moved at 300 times the theoretical limit for the speed of light. ”

157. Charlie K says:

@Ken Hall says:
September 23, 2011 at 2:53 am
What if something was travelling at the speed of light on earth, and the earth is travelling at 885,139 kilometres per second through space, then if the direction of travel of what is travelling at the speed of light is the same direction as the earth is moving through space, then that item will be travelling faster than the speed of light relative to the bit of space that the earth is travelling through.

Ken,
When you are talking about light relative to an object that is moving things get a little weird. Instead of the apparent speed of the light moving the apparent frequency of the light gets shifted. If you are moving towards the light source the light will get shifted towards the higher frequencies and it will appear more blue than it actually is. If you are moving away from the light source the light will get shifted towards the lower frequency end of the spectrum and appear more red than it actually is. Here is some reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_shift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_shift

158. Todd says:

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

Didn’t someone clue these guys in that the scientific method is passe?

It’s true, the science is settled, so god God, hide that data!

159. Dan says:

Alex the Sceptic:
“So, if I ride on a neutrino, I’ll be able to watch tomorrow’s news”

We all will. Tomorrow.

160. Vince Causey says:

Ok, interesting if real, but le’ts look at the numbers. A distance of 730km at the speed of light should take about 2 milliseconds. They claim that the neutrinos arrived 60 nano seconds too early. This represents only 1 part in a million deviation. The distance deviation is 18 metres. In other words, if the actual distance was 18 metres less than believed, this would account for the early arrival. Somehow, I can’t see them making a measurement error of this magnitude. There may be a possible explanation, though I can’t think of any.

161. JohnH says:

Paul says:
September 22, 2011 at 2:25 pm
So now Einstein joins Spencer and Christy as a scientist whose work is full of errors requiring corrections.

You forgot the \sarc off

If you didn’t then you have a warped logic LOL

162. son of mulder says:

Alex the Sceptic:
“So, if I ride on a neutrino, I’ll be able to watch tomorrow’s news”

No, you’ll be able to watch yesterday’s again.

163. Dr. Killpatient says:

The fact is that we can’t account for the 60 nanoseconds at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t…

164. Nuke Nemesis says:

DirkH says:
September 22, 2011 at 2:52 pm
CO2 makes particles travel faster than light. We have to reduce our carbon emissions if we want to preserve causality.

The ice core data proves this. We know the ice core data shows first it gets warm and CO2 levels lag by an average of 800 years. We also know that increased CO2 causes warming. Therefore, the CO2 from the future caused the warming in the past and therefore the CO2 must have traveled back in time to do this.

It’s basic physics/logic/climate science.

165. John G says:

E = MN^2 where N = the speed of neutrino.

There, fixed it.

166. Spector says:

If you look at the basic relativistic equations, you see that any hypothetical particle going faster than the speed of light introduces a factor proportional to the square root of minus one into the equations. So far, there has been no physical meaning given to this indication. It is like negative energy or negative absolute temperatures. If complex numbers can have significance for physical parameters, then the only thing that is really forbidden by these equations is a particle with nonzero rest mass going at exactly the speed of light. The speed-of-light limitation is based on the assumption that physical parameters can only be represented by real numbers.

There have been proposed particles called tachyons that introduce an extra minus one in the square root term of these equations, such that they cannot go *slower* than the speed of light. Perhaps they will find that these neutrinos have just been ‘tachyonized.’

167. Kelvin Vaughan says:

Nuke Nemesis says:
September 23, 2011 at 7:36 am

In that case we are not to blame. It’s the people in the future!

168. Ronald Henry says:

Haven’t you people learned anything from the climate hoax? Science is now ALL about hype and funding. The hucksters, er scientists, at CERN are desperate to feed their enormously expensive black hole for money. This is just one in a weekly series of press releases designed to justify their existence and convince the Euro bureaucrats to keep wasting money on these bozos. Remember all the hype about the Higgs boson over the last year? Well what happened – nothing. The same will be true for this “discovery” – after milking it for several months or a year there will be a little noticed release saying in so many words “never mind.” The CERN people are highly educated parasites that need to be kicked out into the real world and to get a real job, i.e., they need to become productive members of society.

169. DirkH says:

Kelvin Vaughan says:
September 23, 2011 at 8:06 am
“In that case we are not to blame. It’s the people in the future!”

http://www.vhemt.org/

170. Neutrinos are clocked moving faster than the speed of light and are promptly ticketed by a North Carolina State Trooper.

171. Johnnythelowery says:

So Al Gore is wrong before he even says it !!! We know this phenomenon well. .

172. Johnnythelowery says:

COMMENT FROM THE NEUTRINO WEB BLOG:

‘…………………………………I personally doubt the result but…Violation of the light cones superficially occurs if black holes evaporate.
The two detectors measuring the velocity are measuring two different “things”. An entanglement occurring across the light cone might result in part of probability distribution on one side or the other; while averaging out to the null-geodesic. Of course I don’t like the quantum theories preempting GR; aprior assuming they are better…………………….’

173. Warren in Minnesota says:

The production of the neutrinos is from high energy protons striking a graphite target. The secondary particles (most importantly, π+ and K+) produced in the target are focussed into a one kilometre long evacuated decay tunnel. Many of these mesons decay, thus producing an intense νμ (neutrino) beam. The π+ decays into a muon and a neutrino.

Original description of CNGS (Cern Neutrinos to Gran Sasso) document:
http://proj-cngs.web.cern.ch/proj-cngs/PDF_files/sl-2000-018.pdf

Description of OPERA: The Neutrino Beam
http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it/spip.php?rubrique41

Stylized cross section of distance travelled by neutrino:
http://proj-cngs.web.cern.ch/proj-cngs/ProjetOverview/NeutrinoBeam.htm

174. Spector says:

It looks like this story has already shown up in the Wikipedia…..

“Currently there is research from CERN and Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso suggesting the existence of tachyonic neutrinos. More information will be provided in the coming days.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

175. Tim Clark says:

Alex the Sceptic:
“So, if I ride on a neutrino, I’ll be able to watch tomorrow’s news”

No, but you’ll win next years NASCAR Championship Series.

176. J.H. says:

So….. Neutrinos change flavour AND break the speed limit….. I think they are gonna have to look at their neutrino model…. It’s broken.

177. Tom_R says:

Does anyone know how they determined the distance between the emitter and the detector?

178. What if light in vacuum is going a bit slower than the “speed of light” and neutrinos know the actual speed limit better?

179. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

I put my money on this being a complete red herring. The report says that the particles travel a distance of 750 km and take 60 nanosceconds less than expected. That translates in a speed of about 1.0004c. That’s a tiny increase and you may ask: if the most basic law is violated by these particles when with only such a small amount, why not by a factor of 1.5 or 2? Such small “effects” are most of time the hallmark of a non-existent effect.

It will turn out to be due to some as yet unrecognised systematic error in the timing.

180. Schrodinger's Cat says:

I seem to remember hearing of a theoretical particle called a tachyon which travelled faster than C but that was ok, apparently, because it never travelled slower than C. Maybe that is the culprit.

181. David Ashton says:

If the speed of light in a vacuum has been experimentally measured at 299,792,458m/s, then the chamber will have been evacuated of all measurable particles (in fact there probably needed to be a correction to compensate for the not quite perfect vacuum). However even if that vacuum had been perfect, it would still have contained non-evacuable particles eg dark mattter ??, but perhaps more importantly background electron-neutrinos, which I understand undergo quantum mechanical ‘oscillations’ to and from the more massive muon-neutrino and tau-neutrino. Do these (or other non vacuable particles) have a greater influence on electrons than they have on electron neutrinos. The true speed of light would, therefore, be that measured by CERN for the electron neutrino, or perhaps a little higher than that, if the electron neutrinos are influenced by the ‘vacuum’.

I note that the Kamiokande neutrino detector in Japan detected neutrinos from Supernova 1987A a few hours (I believe 3 hours) before electromagnetic radiation (visible light) was detected.

182. G. Karst says:

Wow! So many comments, so quickly!

If we assume the speed of light (in vaccum) cannot be exceeded, then these neutrinos must be taking a more direct route. Light must follow curving space/time to reach it’s target. Neutrinos may be able to short cut this route. Can everyone say “hyperspace”?

Tachyons, FTL, hyperspace… I seem to have awoken this morning inside a Star Trek episode!

Exciting times to be alive. GK

183. mwhite says:

Newtonian physics was once used to explain the movement of the planets. I believe mercury does’t fit (something to do with the gavitational force of the sun). Einsteins theories explained the inconsistancies. This does’nt mean that Newtonian physics is irrelevant.

Just a thought

184. Kasuha says:

I am extremely skeptical about neutrinos being faster than light. It’s either 1987 supernova was one-in-the-universe gigantic coincidence or their timing is 60 nanoseconds wrong at some spot they are unable to find just now. My bets are on the second but I still find it exciting. Notice that the whole effect may be caused by one cable being 18 meters longer than expected.

185. Bob Kutz says:

These relativity deniers are clearly funded by Big Gravity.

They are paid to make such claims to sew the seeds of doubt about relativity.

They will continue to obfuscate, distort the science and otherwise lead people down the path to interstellar travel which is known to be impossible.

The vast majority of scientists agree; the speed of light IS the law.

186. Crispin in Waterloo says:

From the BBC site:
“Quite a few comments from people who don’t understand special relativity. The speed of light is a constant regardless of your frame of reference. i.e. if you were travelling at just under the SOL relative to someone on Earth, the SOL in your frame of reference would still measure the same as the person on Earth. ”

++++++++

Interesting that they are so shocked at CERN. This frame of reference notion was disproved many years ago when the first atomic clocks were flown around the world to prove time/relativity/stuff. It was found there were indeed small differences in the time between the stationary clocks (relative to the surface of the Earth) and the clocks that went forward or backward around the world. Unfortunately the time differences were not consistent with the ‘regardless of your frame of reference’ meme.

To solve the problem, an arbitrary frame of reference was picked – a point high above the North Pole of the Earth. When this reference point was chosen, the three sets of clocks, the eastbound, westbound, and rotating with the earth ones, all the math added up. But ONLY when that arbitrary reference point is chosen. Not a point in the centre of the Sun, nor in stationary space

This is a dagger through the heart of the idea of absolute relativity and a conclusive proof of the existence of an aether. The Earth (and solar system) on average travel towards the Constellation Leo at 62 km per second. The signal from Cern will probably show an inconsistent speed change – i.e. it will vary through the day as the Earth turns. This was shown ages ago too – like 1926. It is not news. The ‘speed of light’ varies depending on the direction you send it, plus or minus 62 km, or some sine function depending the angle from the direction of travel through the aether.

If anyone wants to drag up the Michaelson-Morely experiment, all they proved was that the aether does not have the properties of a gas. Cern has just re-created an experiment done successfully in the early 90’s in Denmark which showed that the speed of electricity in a wire from one town to another varies as a sinewave throughout the Siderial Day (not the 24 hour day). This can only happen if there is aether and we are moving relative to its absolute reference frame.

187. Andrew Harding says:

I must admit that like many people who have commented on this post, Special Relativity has been tested and tested and retested and has each time been proven. I think the scientists have made a basic error in the experiment, probably a definition or measurement that has been mentioned on other posts . I congratulate them on having the guts to ask others for their opinions and I think if they have made an error, they will not be ridiculed by the scientific community, They have shown that they are pragmatic and big enough to realise that their (shared) data may be flawed. Compare that with the arrogant, dogmatic approach of the warmists who ridicule those who hold beliefs that disagree with theirs and manipulate and guard their data.

188. Owen says:

The mass difference has been seen in electrons. When you pass an electron which has been accelerated via an electron gun through a pair of charged plates, the beam of electrons miss the classically calculated target. If you recalculate the mass of the electron based on the speed, it hits. That has always done it for me as far as demonstrating the mass defect of relativity. There could be other explanations, but I usually go with what works. (As long as I can position the beam effectively, I don’t really care whether the science is real – as long as its predictions work)

189. G. Karst says:

Crispin in Waterloo:
September 23, 2011 at 1:04 pm

If I’m reading your comment correctly, it would seem to support my own private hypothesis/conjecture that the universe as a single body has velocity. This being a simple accounting of mass without the need for Higgs, dark matter etc. The problem of “traveling through what” may be answerable. GK

190. Jim Masterson says:

>>
David Ashton says:
September 23, 2011 at 11:34 am

If the speed of light in a vacuum has been experimentally measured at 299,792,458m/s . . . .
<<

That’s not a measured value. The speed of light has been defined to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. It’s the meter that needs to be measured more accurately.

Jim

191. Jim G says:

Roger Sowell says:
September 22, 2011 at 8:09 pm
“My money’s on Einstein. Faster-than-light requires infinite energy. Not about to happen in this universe.”

Accelerating any particle with a rest mass to the speed of light requires infinite energy. A particle could exist at or above C and not be so tethered. Above C it would take infinite energy to slow it down to C, or so I have read.

192. J Gary Fox says:

It’s very easy to explain.
The Neurtrinos are traveling through rock rich in Di-Lithium Crystals.
We know what they do in Warp engines.
Just bring in Scotty to confirm.

193. Robbie says:

What a load of rubbish. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Nothing!
Some commenters on this page make some really good explanations for this pheonomenon. But to be on the save side:

-To CERN: Why not do this experiment again and again to be sure that neutrinos can go faster than the speed of light? Make another measurement of the real distance and find out if these particles can or cannot go faster than c.
The best explanation I read so far came from Leonard with his theory of solid Earth tides which can make distances shorter or longer than the average distance. Maybe something overlooked by the CERN scientists.
Very curious what happens in the near future with this phenomenon. It could be just a small disruption in the space-time continuum along the track causing this measurement mistake.

194. kramer says:

If this finding holds, I guess this would be a case of a scientific consensus being changed…

195. Spector says:

Usually what happens in cases like this, the old theory is not proved to be wrong, just incomplete. Often, this only involves a minor correction in an obscure set of special case calculations. For practical work, Newtonian mechanics are still used for engineering calculations because most mechanical systems do not have working parts with relative velocities that are an appreciable fraction of the speed of light.

Of course, at this stage we don’t have real proof yet, just a possible indication than might be invalidated by a calibration error. Neutrinos are very hard to detect, so knowing exactly when they were emitted and when they arrived may be problematic.

196. Very interesting ideas here. Quite heretical to revive the aether, but fascinating, Crispin in Waterloo.

I love it when science is all ‘shook up’. That’s how science should be. This state humbles is in the face of nature’s mysteries, awakens fresh questions, and destroys our illusion of control.

197. Paul says:

While I’m not a high-energy particle physicist, I’d sooner believe that there was a very slight miss-measurement of the geodesic distance of the time-space curvature, than I’d believe a very slight exceeding of the speed of light in a vacuum. Space and time are much more variable than C!

198. Tim Minchin says:

I’ve always wondered why the speed of light is the figure it is. Why not faster? And why isn’t the theory of relativity m x c cubed?

199. Joel Shore says:

Tim Minchin says:

And why isn’t the theory of relativity m x c cubed?

Because m * c^3 does not have the units of energy.

A question a little harder to answer (well…at least for a physicist as far removed from studying relativity as I am) is why it is exactly m * c^2 and not, say, (1/2)*m*c^2 or 2*pi*m*c^2.

200. Growlzler says:

Only the experts can be wrong…,

201. jimmi_the_dalek says:

The pre-release paper can be found here:
http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf

For those of you who think they have measured the distance wrong, they are (claimed to be) accurate to 20cm. The distance is measured with sufficient precision that they can see continental drift and the effect of an earthquake in 2009. There is also a whole bunch of other highly technical stuff that I don’t follow that is considered a possible systematic errors, so it is not as if they haven’t thought about it.

202. It ain’t over till the fat lady Neutrina sings again in a number of encore performances around the world, aka “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (to borrow a principle from Carl Sagan).

“This is the live Webcast from CERN on Friday September 23, 2011. Given the potential far-reaching consequences of the OPERA experiment — which observes a neutrino beam from CERN 730 km away at Italy’s INFN Gran Sasso Laboratory, indicating that the neutrinos travel at a velocity 20 parts per million above the speed of light — independent measurements are needed before the effect can either be refuted or firmly established, according to a CERN statement just issued. The OPERA collaboration has therefore decided to open the result to broader scrutiny.”

The full paper is available here:

“The OPERA neutrino experiment at the underground Gran Sasso Laboratory has measured the velocity of neutrinos from the CERN CNGS beam over a baseline of about 730 km with much higher accuracy than previous studies conducted with accelerator neutrinos. The measurement is based on high-statistics data taken by OPERA in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Dedicated upgrades of the CNGS timing system and of the OPERA detector, as well as a high precision geodesy campaign for the measurement of the neutrino baseline, allowed reaching comparable systematic and statistical accuracies. An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 \pm 6.9 (stat.) \pm 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured. This anomaly corresponds to a relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity with respect to the speed of light (v-c)/c = (2.48 \pm 0.28 (stat.) \pm 0.30 (sys.)) \times 10-5. ”
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

203. Reed Coray says:

It may not be necessary to look for gravitational effects to explain the approximately 66 nanosecond (20 meter) propagation time shortfall. For example, consider that (a) the earth is rotating about its polar axis, and (b) the center of the earth is rotating about the sun. As such, to analyze the time required for light (or any object) to propagate between two points fixed in or on the surface of the earth, we must examine the problem relative to an inertial reference frame. This means we can’t simply treat the propagation distance as being 732 km.

Let’s assume the sun is a negligible-mass star at rest with respect to an inertial reference frame. Further, assume a second negligible-mass object-of-interest is rotating at a constant angular rotation rate of 2x(10-7) radians per second in a circle about the sun at a distance of 93,000,000 miles. These are, respectively, (a) the approximate angular rotation rate of the center of the earth about the sun and, (b) the approximate distance between the sun and the earth. We assume the circular motion is not the result of gravitational pull, but rather is produced by a “thruster” on the rotating object that always points towards the sun. In such a configuration, gravity can be ignored. But the fact that object-of-interest is traveling is a circular path relative to an inertial reference frame means that a reference frame in which the object is at rest is NOT an inertial reference frame. The postulates of special relativity apply only to inertial reference frames. As such, to compute inertial-space propagation times between objects fixed relative to a rotating reference frame, we must take into account all rotational motion effects.

To first order, an object traveling near the speed of light will take approximately 0.0024 seconds to propagate a distance of 732 km. Relative to our inertial reference frame, in 0.0024 seconds the object-of-interest rotating about the sun will move a distance of approximately 235 feet. Depending on the direction of neutrino propagation relative to the direction of object-of-interest motion, at the speed of light (approximately 1 foot per nanosecond), to first order this rotational motion can result in a neutrino propagation time “delta” relative to an inertial reference frame neutrino propagation time anywhere from -235 nanoseconds to +235 nanoseconds. Now I don’t know whether this effect has been considered or ignored. However, if it has been ignored, it has the potential to provide the approximate 67 nanosecond error mentioned in this post.

If this is the source of the discrepancy, I believe there is a way to establish that fact. In particular, as the earth rotates about its polar axis the direction of neutrino propagation relative to the motion of the center of the earth about the sun changes with time. Over a 24-hour period, the orbital-plane component of the neutrino direction of propagation relative to the direction of object rotational motion about the sun passes through a maximum (positive value), passes through approximately zero, and passes through a minimum (negative value). By measuring the propagation time (a) when the direction of neutrino propagation is in the direction of earth-center rotational motion about the sun, (b) when direction of neutrino propagation is opposite to the direction of earth-center rotational motion about the sun, and (c) when direction of neutrino propagation is approximately perpendicular to the direction of earth-center rotational motion about the sun, the propagation time delta should change sign and pass through zero. If the propagation time doesn’t so behave, this phenomenon (rotational coordinate system effects) cannot be the source of the discrepancy.

I also did a back-of-the envelope calculation of earth rotational effects about its polar axis. Over a distance of 732 kilometers, the maximum delta to inertial system propagation time is approximately 3.7 nanoseconds–so I don’t believe rotational motion about the earth’s polar axis can be the source of the 67 nanosecond discrepancy.

204. George E. Smith says:

“”””” Jim Masterson says:

September 23, 2011 at 2:57 pm

>>
David Ashton says:
September 23, 2011 at 11:34 am

If the speed of light in a vacuum has been experimentally measured at 299,792,458m/s . . . .
<<

That’s not a measured value. The speed of light has been defined to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. It’s the meter that needs to be measured more accurately.

Jim """""

Only four fundamental physical quantities have exact values. Those a (c), (g), (mu nought) and (epsilon nought); the permeability and permittivity of the vaccuum.

The exact values are 2.99792558 E8 ms^-1; 9.80665 ms^-2; 4piE-7, and 1/c^2.munought.
ergo c = 1/sqrt(munought.epsilonnought)
One might deduce from this that Quantum mechanics did not spell the end of James Clarke Maxwell's theory of Electro-magnetism; it is enshrined in those three absolute values, that together establish the group velocity of electromagnetic waves.

If one takes sqrt(munought/epsilonnought), you get, c.epsilonnought which is 120 pi Ohms, which is the characteristic impedance of free space (vaccuum) (377 Ohms)

If you paint your aircraft with 377 Ohm paint, it will disappear, since EM waves at any frequency will pass right through it quite unchanged. Note "disappear" does not mean become invisible; it will be horribly visible as a black void, since any EM radiation striking it will be completely absorbed and there will be zero reflected energy to "see" your plane. Free space is akin to a transmission line of 377 Ohms, so the magic paint perfectly terminates that transmission line, and makes it appear infinitely long from the sending end.

As to why (g) has an exact value; your guess is as good as mine. Since the gravitational acceleration on earth varies considerably, it isn't even close to being constant. But there is nothing wrong with defining an exact unit, and then referring all measured values of acceleration in terms of that unit. It's why apples and oranges are so named. Everbody knows what they are and understands that not all apples (or oranges) are exactly alike; but they are still apples (or oranges).

205. George E. Smith says:

“”””” pwl says:

September 23, 2011 at 9:15 pm

It ain’t over till the fat lady Neutrina sings again in a number of encore performances around the world, aka “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (to borrow a principle from Carl Sagan). “””””

And of course Carl Sagan was quite wrong; which is not that unusual.

Extra-ordinary claims require no better testing than perfectly ordinary claims. Nemely, both have to survive the crucial test of experimental verification. Was it Einstein who said that only one counter example is necessary to disprove any claim; and he did not separate ordinary claims from extra ordinary claims. Maybe it is the relative difficulty of the experimental tests, that distinguishes ordinary from extra-ordinary. A million positives are trumped by a single negative (verifiable results of course.)

206. Jim Masterson says:

>>
George E. Smith says:
September 23, 2011 at 9:41 pm

Only four fundamental physical quantities have exact values.
<<

When I was a student, the permeability of free space was defined. The speed of light and permittivity of free space were measured quantities. Now that the speed of light has been defined, that automatically sets the value of the permittivity of free space.

Jim

207. David Ashton says:

Jim Masterson 2:57pm 23/09/11

Many thanks for correcting me, as a (now retired) research chemist, I should have remembered that the metre was redefined as 1/299,792,458 of the distance travelled by light in 1 second.
Taking that into account my proposition would lead to the conclusion that the standard metre is a fraction too short.

208. Does anyone know how they arrived at the “speed of light through granite”?

Do they simply assume that it is the same as through a vacuum?

209. Roger Longstaff says:

“Only four fundamental physical quantities have exact values. Those a (c), (g), (mu nought) and (epsilon nought); the permeability and permittivity of the vaccuum.”

I would think differently – that c was defined by mu nought and epsilon nought and that the only other fundamental constants are h and G. All of the Plank units can be derived from these. (But, 40 years since physics degreee, and one liquid lunch….)

210. MartinGAtkins says:

Kelvin Vaughan says:
September 23, 2011 at 1:23 am

It has to be true as speed is relative!

Velocity is relative. Without a three dimensional point of reference and the fourth dimension of time there can be no measure of velocity.

Perhaps they were just using a cheap watch.

211. Joel Shore says:

Dead Dog Bounce: They are comparing the time it took the neutrinos to travel that distance with the time it would take light traveling through a vacuum to travel that distance. (In fact, I think you would be hard-pressed to get any light…visible light anyway…through hundreds of miles of granite.)

I don’t think it would be anything particularly new to observe particles traveling faster through a material than light travels through the same material. What is dramatic is the particles traveling faster than the speed of light in vacuum.

Roger Longstaff says:

I would think differently – that c was defined by mu nought and epsilon nought and that the only other fundamental constants are h and G. All of the Plank units can be derived from these. (But, 40 years since physics degreee, and one liquid lunch….)

No, it is c that is defined to be exactly a certain quantity. It is all a matter of convention at any rate. There are a certain number of units / physical constants that have to be defined and then the rest are derived from what is defined. At one time, it was the meter that was defined and the speed of light that was derived from it but at some point they changed that around so that now c is defined as being exactly and the meter is derived from it using that definition and the definition for the second. Here is a discussion of the current SI system from NIST: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/

212. DavidG says:

Who let all the loons out to comment on this likely mistake at Cern, like Soren Bungaarden, who laid down a 1000 pound load of word manure ? Lubos Motl at the Refereence Frame has a good idea of what went wrong in the experiment. Einstein has outlasted most of his critics and his work points the way to the future.

213. jimmi_the_dalek says:

214. Hugo M says:

@Crispin in Waterloo,

Prof. emeritus Reginald Cahill from Flinders University said in his 2006 paper (here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610076v1), that the widely published null result from the Michelson-Morley experiment was a misinterpretation, which was corrected only a couple of years later by Dayton Miller by his thorough statistical analysis of a years long experimental series.

Cahill states that, in fact, the anisotropy of the speed of light was “quite large, namely 300,000 ± 400 km/s, depending on the direction of measurement relative to the Milky Way” and that “the motion of that 3-space past the Earth displays wave eﬀects at the level of ±20km/s, as conﬁrmed by three experiments, and possibly present even in the Michelson-Morley data”.

In a later publication on “Experimental Investigation of the Fresnel Drag Effect in RF Coaxial Cables” (here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5772) he said that his analysis of Doppler shifts from spacecraft earth-ﬂybys gave “the solar-system a galactic average speed through 3-space of 486km/s in the direction RA=4.29h, Dec=-75.0”, “a direction within 5◦ of that found by Miller in his 1925/26 gas-mode Michelson interferometer experiment.”

215. Jim Masterson says:

>>
Tim Minchin says:
September 23, 2011 at 5:38 pm

I’ve always wondered why the speed of light is the figure it is. Why not faster?
<<

I guess it has to do with the fact that in our universe, the speed of light is c. If there are other universes (and I’m not saying that there are), then the speed of light could be different in those universes.

>>
And why isn’t the theory of relativity m x c cubed?
<<

It’s probably because light follows the inverse square law in our universe.

There were three problems leading up to the formulation of the Lorentz transformations: (1) Fizeau who measured the speed of light through flowing liquids, (2) aberration, and (3) the Michelson-Morley experiment. The Michelson-Morley experiment required that the ether be swept along with the Earth. Aberration requires that the ether be independent of the Earth. Obviously both can’t be true.

If we drop simultaneity, universal time, and rigid rods (at least in the direction we’re traveling), and assume the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames, then we can derive the Lorentz transformations. We also need the spherical propagation of light which is described by the following equation: x² + y² + z² = c²*t².

The Lorentz transformations are:
x = (x’ + v*t’)/sqrt(1 – v²/c²)
y = y’
z = z’
t = (t’ +v*x’/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

These obviously differ from the Galilean transformations:
x = x’ – v*t’
y = y’
z= z’
t = t’

The Lorentz transformations solve the above three problems. They also make Newton’s three laws of motion invariant (as did the Galilean transformations) and Maxwell’s equations invariant.

If you apply the Lorentz transformations to problems in mechanics (such as collision of elastic bodies), then you get the total energy for a point mass:
E = m*c²/sqrt(1-v²/c²) + E0; (where E0 is the constant of integration).

So as v goes to zero, we get the rest mass of E = m*c².

Jim

216. Philip Shehan says:

Actually relativity does not say nothing can travel faster than light. It only says that particles cannot be accelerated beyond the speed of light.

This does not preclude the existence of tachyons, objects which travel faster than light and cannot fall below that speed.

Not expert enough in particle physics or the particular experiment but perhaps the neutrinos were produced in the collision with greater than light speed. From this link:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html

“It has been proposed that tachyons could be produced from high-energy particle collisions, and tachyon searches have been undertaken in cosmic rays. Cosmic rays hit the Earth’s atmosphere with high energy (some of them with speed almost 99.99% of the speed of light) making several collisions with the molecules in the atmosphere. The particles made by this collision interact with the air, creating even more particles in a phenomenon known as a cosmic ray shower. In 1973, using a large collection of particle detectors, Philip Crough and Roger Clay identified a putative superluminal particle in an air shower, although this result has never been reproduced. ”

The Wikipedia entry on neutrino has already been updated since reporting on the experiment:

The idea that neutrinos could have a tachyonic nature was proposed as far back as 1985 by Chodos et al.[32][33] Today, the possibility of having standard particles moving at superluminal speeds is a natural consequence of unconventional dispersion relations that appear in the Standard-Model Extension,[34][35][36] a realistic description of the possible violation of Lorentz invariance in field theory. In this framework, neutrinos experience Lorentz-violating oscillations and can travel faster than light at high energies.

217. Spector says:

As information is not supposed to be transmissible beyond the speed of light, it may only be possible to detect super-luminary particles, tachyons, if you knew, in advance, when they were due to arrive.

218. Evil Denier says:

I find it amazing that one may question probably the most fundamental constant in physics, and yet if one dare question any part of the dogma of cAGW (even a part, which, according to the Revealed Truth of the IPCC is poorly understood’) one is excoriated as ‘a fossil fuel industry shill, an evil denier of Science’, &c.

219. Joel Shore says:

Jim Masterson says:

>>
Tim Minchin says:
September 23, 2011 at 5:38 pm

I’ve always wondered why the speed of light is the figure it is. Why not faster?
<<

I guess it has to do with the fact that in our universe, the speed of light is c. If there are other universes (and I’m not saying that there are), then the speed of light could be different in those universes.

Once one has Maxwell’s Equations, the speed of electromagnetic waves in free space follows from them…and specifically from the values of epsilon_0 (“the (electrical) permitivity of free space”) and mu_0 (“the (magnetic) permeability of free space”). Of course, this admittedly then raises the question of what determines epsilon_0 and mu_0, so it is just moving the question up a level…But, it is important to recognize that the value for the speed of light in vacuum does follow from these equations and, specifically, the constants therein.

In fact, when Maxwell first completed the formulation of the equations that bear his name and realized that they led to wave-like solutions, he noticed that the derived speed of these waves was, within the uncertainty with which it was known, the same as the speed of light and he then conjectured that light was an electromagnetic wave.

Evil Denier says:

I find it amazing that one may question probably the most fundamental constant in physics, and yet if one dare question any part of the dogma of cAGW (even a part, which, according to the Revealed Truth of the IPCC is poorly understood’) one is excoriated as ‘a fossil fuel industry shill, an evil denier of Science’, &c.

That is not really a correct characterization of what is objected to. It is okay to question such things but what is not particularly useful is when one questions them using the rather bogus or discredited arguments that one sees from people like Monckton, Postma, the Slayers, etc….and the more subtly problematic arguments / data analysis of people like Lindzen and Spencer.

My betting is that the folks at CERN are going to be shown to be wrong, but one has to respect that they have released a very detailed paper describing their methods and have been very careful to say that they know their result flies in the face of a lot of scientific knowledge and that it must be treated with caution, but that they have not as of yet been able to find anything wrong with the data and analysis despite quite exhaustive attempts to do so.

If they had simply issued a press release that bluntly said that they had proven Einstein wrong, I think you would be seeing a much less charitable reaction from the scientific community.

220. Joel Shore says:

Jim Masterson says:

>>
And why isn’t the theory of relativity m x c cubed?
<<

It’s probably because light follows the inverse square law in our universe.

Hmmm…An interesting idea, but I have to say that I don’t see how one follows from the other. I’d need a bit more of an argument to see any such connection.

As I said, the fact that the conversion factor between mass and energy involves velocity-squared is a simple consequence of the units. I suppose one could ask why energy has the units that it does…e.g., why doesn’t kinetic energy itself depend on an object’s velocity-cubed, but trying to imagine a universe with such different dependences just makes my head hurt!

(Reminds me of a quote from one of my undergraduate math professors when we asked him his opinion of a talk that someone had given where he tried to re-derive most of mathematics using somewhat different starting axioms. He said, “Doing non-standard mathematics is like being in the Bahamas; it’s a nice place to visit, but none of your friends are there.” Okay, I am not sure how this is connected to the above either but I still chuckle at that line.)

221. Jim Masterson says:

Those darn minus signs. In my post above, the Lorentz transformations would be correct if you swapped the primed variables with the unprimed variables. In that case we’d get the inverse Lorentz transformations. Otherwise, if you add the missing minus signs, then we get the correct formulas:

x = (x’ – v*t’)/sqrt(1 – v²/c²)
y = y’
z = z’
t = (t’ – v*x’/c²)/sqrt(1 – v²/c²)

Jim

222. Tim Minchin says:

Thanks Guys

223. martenvandijk says:

Also neutrinos are subjected to gravitation. Gravitation changes all the time to a certain extent. Therefore it implies that to a certain extent time measurement is subjected to uncertainty. Think about the Pioneer anomaly. CERN should be concerned about not being regarded as a concern selling tickets promising you an opera but all you get is an operette. ..

224. Just think about the possibilities if it’s proven right. But chances are slim.

225. Spector says:

RE: Tim Minchin: (September 23, 2011 at 5:38 pm)
“I’ve always wondered why the speed of light is the figure it is. Why not faster?”

Of course, the gravitational time dilation of General Relativity could make the speed of light appear to be faster or slower *somewhere else* depending on whether you were closer or farther from some huge massive object than the somewhere else. The standard formula for a non-rotating massive object is:

Td=Tf*sqrt(1-s/r)
This could be rewritten:
Tf*sqrt((r-s)/r)=Tf*sqrt(a/r) where

Td=dilated time.
Tf=time far away from any massive object.
s=the Schwarzschild radius of the massive object (event horizon if it were a black hole)
s=two times the gravitational constant, G, times the object mass divided by C squared.
a=equivalent altitude above the Schwarzschild radius of the massive object in Schwarzschild radii.

Remote time dilation without an equivalent remote space dilation implies that the perceived *remote* speed of light would also be dilated. If we see their clocks ticking at a slower rate, then it must take a longer time for their local photons to go between two points of reference as measured by our clocks.

Note that the square root factor of the standard time dilation formula makes it appear that a photon approaching the event horizon of a black hole would run out of altitude more rapidly than it ‘dilated’ out of speed; thus it would reach zero altitude in a finite time.

226. Stephen Wilde says:

“Nothing is supposed to move faster than light, at least according to Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity: The famous E (equals) mc2 equation. That stands for energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.”

I suppose that if something COULD go faster than light then the correct equation would be:

E = ms2

where ‘s’ is the actual speed rather than the speed of light.

What would be the implications of that ?

I notice that there is some doubt about the amount of mass contained in a photon as compared to that contained in a neutrino. Since photons can be blocked and absorbed by matter much more easily than can neutrinos that seems to suggest more mass in photons than in neutrinos.

If it be the case that neutrinos have less mass than photons then it may be that the speed of a particle increases as the mass decreases which would be consistent with the proposal that E = ms2 which would then be a more complete description of reality than E + mc2.

Einstein would still be correct but not fully correct. His equation would only relate to particles with a mass equivalent to that of light or less.

227. Stephen Wilde says:

Sorry, I meant to say:

Einstein would still be correct but not fully correct. His equation would only relate to particles with a mass equivalent to that of light or MORE.

228. Stephen Wilde says:

So the fastest speed achievable by anything would be the speed of expansion of the universe and any component of the universe that acquired any mass at all would move slower than that speed of expansion and the reduction of speed would be proportionate to the accumulation of mass.

Thus even photons would be unable to move as fast as the rate of expansion of the universe. Nor would neutrinos but they would presumably get closer to that speed than would photons.

The concept then would be a universe of pure massless energy expanding at whatever speed massless energy can achieve and over time matter precipitates out with each particle of matter slowing down proportionately to the mass acquired.

Particles gradually clumping together to form stars and everything else we observe.

229. Stephen Wilde says:

Oh, dear, a further correction. I should have said:

“Einstein would still be correct but not fully correct. His equation would only relate to particles with a mass equivalent to that of light.”

Clearly the Energy content of a particle relates to its own speed and not that of light because if c+ is possible then c is no longer a universal constant.

To get the correct figure for energy content would be to say E = ms2 where ‘s’ is the speed of the particular particle of matter relative to the speed of expansion of the universe.

The then defunct constant of the speed of light would need to be replaced by the speed of the expansion of the universe. That is the ‘true’ constant.

230. Particles do travel faster than light but not relative to the speed of light or energy leaving the particle, this is why we have the complexities of the wave, particle duality (did I explain this right?) What can be explained by this is either (A) a spreadsheet error or (B) a simplistic way of explaining upper weakly interacting particle acceleration mathematically. either way it’s all relative to c, and Hubble’s law is not a constant as it uses c/H to describe the distance between galaxies traveling apart.

231. Stephen Wilde says:

Perhaps it should just be E = ms2 where ‘s’ is simply the rate of expansion of the universe ?

232. Brian H says:

Bob Diaz says:
September 22, 2011 at 3:45 pm

Reminds me of a silly poem:

The was a young lady named bright
Who could travel fasted than light
She left Earth one day, in a relative way
and came back the previous night.

Mangled. From the book “One, Two, Three, Infinity”, George Gamow:

There once was a young lady named Bright
Who could travel much faster than light;
She left home one day
In a relative way
And arrived on the previous night!

233. Brian H says:

Checking further, the original is from 1923:

There was a young lady named Bright,
Whose speed was far faster than light;
She started one day
In a relative way,
And returned on the previous night.

A. H. Reginald Buller in Punch (Dec. 19, 1923)

234. Brian H says:

Don Santo;
Interesting note about the supernova neutrino wave front. I agree that seems pretty conclusive. A much longer “run” for any discrepancy to show up!

But you blew your speed ratio: “0.9999999999999%” is almost 1%. What you meant, I think, was “99.99999999999%”.
;)

235. I have taken the time and read the CERN paper, which is very detailed on what they checked and how.
However, the information I didn’t find is whether they checked the accuracy of the GPS they used and guarded against possible fluctuations due to external events which could lead to inaccurate GPS information, possibly influencing the result of their measurements:
http://en.zeropointfield.ch/2011/09/the-cern-neutrinos-faster-than-light/

236. Spector says:

The Lorentz transformations have what is called a ‘pole’ right at the speed of light. It takes progressively more energy to accelerate a particle as it approaches the speed of light. For tachyons, this should be true in reverse. It might be much more likely to find true tachyons traveling at speeds much greater than the speed of light than finding them moving just a hair over the speed of light.

237. Jim Masterson says:

>>
Spector says:
September 28, 2011 at 5:50 pm

It might be much more likely to find true tachyons traveling at speeds much greater than the speed of light than finding them moving just a hair over the speed of light.
<<

The Lorentz transformations may not be valid for speeds greater than c. One view treats the three space dimensions as real and the time dimension as imaginary. At speeds greater than c, this arrangement swaps–the three space dimensions become imaginary and the time dimension becomes real. So, what is the interpretation of that?

Jim

238. Kevin Kilty says:

Ed Zuiderwijk says:
September 23, 2011 at 11:04 am

I put my money on this being a complete red herring. The report says that the particles travel a distance of 750 km and take 60 nanosceconds less than expected. That translates in a speed of about 1.0004c. That’s a tiny increase and you may ask: if the most basic law is violated by these particles when with only such a small amount, why not by a factor of 1.5 or 2? Such small “effects” are most of time the hallmark of a non-existent effect.

It will turn out to be due to some as yet unrecognised systematic error in the timing.

Yes, well put. This is exactly the stance a scientific skeptic ought to take. STR has withstood a lot of scrutiny over the past 100 years. This is a bit like the claims of Pons and Fleischmann.

239. Spector says:

RE: Jim Masterson: (September 28, 2011 at 6:28 pm)
“The Lorentz transformations may not be valid for speeds greater than c.”

Yes, that may be true and the issue becomes moot if tachyons do not exist either. I may be looking at this from an oversimplified point of view. I would assume that if tachyons do exist, they would be some sort of mirror image of normal particles (tardyons) which would obey a modified set of Lorentz transformations with an extra minus sign in the square root term. I believe that would eliminate the time-travel paradox associated with going faster than the speed of light. I am just speculating, as I have not tried to work out all the consequences of having a special class of objects where:

1-(v^2/c^2) is replaced by
(v^2/c^2)-1 in the square-root denominators.

Of course, these hypothetical tachyon particles could never go *slower* than the speed of light and there would still be a pole at v=c.

The existence of tachyons would open up the possibility of FTL communications unless, for some strange reason, they could only be detected if we knew when they were coming.

240. Spector says:

RE: Spector: (September 28, 2011 at 8:38 pm)
“… unless, for some strange reason, they could only be detected if we knew when they were coming.”

Some have claimed there is a fundamental principle that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. However, if tachyons exist, this principle is probably void.

241. Here is a suggestion – Entanglement has an horizon and has a shape.

What if entanglement explained the apparent anomaly. (20 meters of entanglement and the rest is classical). What if:-

1. The generating device and or detecting device are emitting / detecting the neutrinos at a combined distance / radius of 20 meters or more, from their physical locations.

2. Conceptually the neutrinos cover the start and or end distances (together totaling 20 meters or more) instantaneously and then travel at or well below the speed of light.

3. Re-test at half or double the distance or some order of magnitude change, to see if the neutrinos arrive nearly 20 meters ahead of schedule or a proportion relative to the delta.

4. This would be very coool, with possible way-out implications like
a) entanglement then operates instantaneously or much faster than light, and at greater distances in alignment with the vector of velocity depending on speed. This would be visualized like a sort of horizon of entanglement that has a long jellybean longitudinally in direction of motion..
b) particles don’t go anywhere unless they have somewhere to go and entangle with
c) the maximum speed of stuff could be governed by the way in which entanglement and de-tanglement occur. Entanglement up in forward direction is balanced by de-entanglement from behind, and so we have momentum. (and possible entanglement friction i.e. friction in a vacuum due to mismatches in the process).
d) re-fraction could possible be re-framed in terms of the radius of entanglement horizons depending on the substance or environment
e) a boundary of the universe would exist by virtue of phenomena at the margin whereby all movement outward is limited because the entanglement horizons are shaped like Hersheys kisses. Recovered momentum entanglement behind being radiated sideways to other particles in the same predicament. An impenetrable boundary at which time stops.

242. Brian Johnson uk says:

Maybe the neutrino arrives at the true speed of light and a light source [had it been available and travelled the same distance] arrives that same fraction slower?

243. Roger Longstaff says:

Heisenberg said that the product of position and momentum is limited by a (his) constant. If the mass of the neutrino is vanishingly small, then does it not follow that its position is ill definied? Averaged over thousands of events statistically, is that what we are observing?

244. Spector says:

Mark Andrew Shuttleworth says: (September 30, 2011 at 4:06 pm)
“An impenetrable boundary at which time stops.”

Time only stops as viewed by a remote observer.

According to General Relativity, there is a radius around a black hole, known as the Schwarzschild radius where this happens. Technically, a black hole must have all of its mass contained at, or inside its Schwarzschild radius. This radius has no significance if the mass extends beyond that radius because the gravitational field begins to decline as soon as we penetrate the outer radius of the object and thus the apparent Schwarzschild radius would also decrease. It is hypothetically possible that there might be an incommunicable region of ‘normal’ space at the center of every black hole.

The Schwarzschild radius is nominally equal to two times the gravitational constant, G, times the object mass divided by C squared.

Gravitational time dilation has been measured by comparing the minute difference between the the time kept on the surface of the Earth and the time kept in high-flying aircraft by precision time standards.

It is interesting to note that the time dilation formula can be written in a form that this effect is proportional to the square root of the altitude above the Schwarzschild radius divided by the distance from the center of the object. This seems to indicate that a photon approaching a Schwarzschild radius would run out of distance to go at a faster rate than it would appear to lose speed from gravitational time dilation. Note that the integral (the complete summation of a series of infinitesimal function values over a specified range) of:
1/sqrt(x) is:
2*sqrt(x) + a constant
and this integral is finite at x=0 even though the function being integrated is infinite at x=0. Thus I assume a photon may arrive at this radius and possibly be reflected in a finite time, as perceived from a remote perspective.

Gravitational time dilation
From The Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

245. Jim Masterson says:

>>
Spector says:
October 1, 2011 at 10:39 am

The Schwarzschild radius is nominally equal to two times the gravitational constant, G, times the object mass divided by C squared.
<<

The derivation of escape velocity is straightforward. The equation is:

v-escape = sqrt(2*G*m/r)

If we set v-escape = c and solve for r, we get your Schwarzschild radius formula. Two things are apparent: (1) the derivation of escape velocity uses classical Newtonian physics, and (2) the event horizon is slightly smaller than the Schwarzschild radius because light can just barely escape from the Schwarzschild radius distance (it’s where v-escape = c).

It’s intriguing that you can get a General Relativity result from Classical Physics. I thought that maybe the Schwarzschild radius computed using GR would give different results, but apparently not.

Jim

246. Spector says:

I wonder if anyone has ever tried to determine how Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations behave with a Schwarzschild surface being one of their boundary conditions… Sounds like a good exercise for the student.

I note that the 60 ns early arrival cited in the CERN experiment is equivalent to a distance of about 59 feet over a nominal distance of 2,460,630 feet. For this to be significant, I would say that last distance should be known with an error less than 20 feet or about 8 parts per million.

247. Spector says:

RE: martenvandijk: (October 4, 2011 at 1:51 am)

It may be that the only way to satisfy that boundary condition is with an opposite polarity reflected field. If both fields cancel at zero altitude above the Schwarzschild radius, then the paradoxes with time flow dilated to zero and locally perceived infinite frequency signals would be avoided. What is needed is a rational for saying the electromagnetic impedance of free space drops to zero at that radius.

248. martenvandijk says:

249. Roger Longstaff says:

If the electromagnetic impedance of free space dropped to zero at the Schwartzschild radius, would not the speed of light become infinite?

250. Spector says:

RE: Roger Longstaff: (October 5, 2011 at 12:34 am)
“If the electromagnetic impedance of free space dropped to zero at the Schwartzschild radius, would not the speed of light become infinite?”

My comment was a passing thought. One can argue that the remotely observable speed of light should go to zero at the Schwarzschild radius because time appears to come to a stop at that point. The impedance is another issue. As time dilation should appear remotely to reduce the rate of electric current flow (coulombs per second=Amps) when the same voltage is applied; any remotely perceived impedance near a Schwarzschild boundary should appear to increase, unless some other time related factor also applies. Finding a class of functions that solve the EM wave equation in this region may be no simple task.

• Roger Longstaff says:

Spector – I was very interested in your “passing thought”. In a hazy way I tried to imagine conditions exactly at the Swartzschild radius – zero impedance as the vacuum field had been “ripped apart” and consequently an infinite speed of light, in contrast to a zero speed of light observed from anywhere outside. But, if this is not complete nonsense, like you I have no idea how to solve Maxwell’s equations over such a discontinuity.

It is a shame that this thread has just about expired, as a mathematician might have jumped in and put us straight.

251. martenvandijk says:

Time cannot be zero (flow of time infinite fast) because the speed of light is a constant and a maximum according to Einstein. Moreover time also cannot be infinite (flow of time infinite slow) because there must be some fluctuation everywhere at all times according to Heisenberg. At the Schwarzschild boundary space-time is curved by the gravitation of of the Black Hole to such an extent that f.i. light must follow paths along the boundary. QM implicates that time can be infinite fast. There are more contradictions/incompatibities between the various theories like predictability vs uncertainty, determinism vs indeterminism, the Big Bang theory predicting far less matter/energy than measured etc. As far as i am concerned the speed of light is not constant,space-time not curved as indicated on october 4th.

Two nice quotes: “Maybe there are waves only” (Hawking); “A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position” (Einstein).

252. Spector says:

Einstein Can Relax
“Technology Review has a post about work done by a physicist, Ronald van Elburg, at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Simply put, the 60 nanosecond difference can be explained by the relativistic motion of the GPS satellites used to time the event.”

253. Spector says:

RE: martenvandijk says: (October 8, 2011 at 3:05 am)
“Time cannot be zero (flow of time infinite fast) because the speed of light is a constant and a maximum according to Einstein.”

I believe this applies only to the speed of light that you measure in your own local space-time.

The remotely perceived speed of light must slow down in direct proportion to gravitational time dilation unless there were also an equivalent remote space dilation that would make every black hole appear to have a Schwarzschild radius of zero.

As photons escape from a gravitational well, they lose energy by losing frequency and thus may be perceived as being generated by the known process producing them running at a slower rate of time. I think the reverse situation would apply to those photons that gain energy as increasing frequency when they penetrate a gravitational well. Time dilation would cause an increasing red shift of the yellow radiation characteristic of sodium. If the apparent size of the remote sodium atom is not getting progressively larger, we must assume that the remote flow of time appears to be slowing down relative to our own time frame.