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).
Full story here: http://news.yahoo.com/cern-claims-faster-light-particle-measured-180644818.html
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
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.
If this finding holds, I guess this would be a case of a scientific consensus being changed…
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.
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.
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!
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?
Tim Minchin says:
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.
Only the experts can be wrong…,
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.
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 [youtube recording of 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
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.
“”””” 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).
“”””” 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.)
>>
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
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.
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?
“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….)
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.
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:
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/
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.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/neutrinos.png
@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.”
>>
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
Commenter LC at UniverseToday knows his physics & isn’t impressed by the results:
http://www.universetoday.com/89135/breaking-the-speed-of-light/#comments
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.