Scientists Baffled By Seemingly Faster-Than-Light Particles

Earnest Cavalli

New member
Jun 19, 2008
5,352
0
0
Scientists Baffled By Seemingly Faster-Than-Light Particles



Nothing is faster than light. Albert Einstein said so. And yet, recent findings at the CERN physics lab seem to suggest otherwise.

If you're reading this site, I feel safe in assuming you have a master's degree in theoretical physics. Ha! Just kidding. Let's break this down for the layman.

A neutrino is an incredibly small particle, similar to an electron, except that it carries no electrical charge. The CERN facility (near Geneva, Switzerland) houses a machine that fires a stream of these neutrinos (specifically, "muon neutrinos") at an incredibly sensitive measuring device at Italy's Gran Sasso laboratory. This stream of tiny particles is tasked with passing through layers of rock, water and dirt, and by measuring the speed at which it reaches the Italian lab, researchers can get a better understanding of how physics works at the sub-atomic level.

This is crucial because at those hyper-miniature sizes, the physics reactions we all take for granted (gravity, for instance) start to break down, for reasons that are still something of a mystery to modern science.

In a recent CERN test, scientists uncovered another bizarre quirk. They fired the standard neutrino burst, and somehow that cluster of particles reached Italy .00000006 seconds faster than the speed of light.

If you have any familiarity with physics at all, you're likely aware that this sort of thing simply is not supposed to happen. Traditional theory dictates that as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases exponentially, slowing the object and preventing anything from ever beating The Flash in a footrace.

The researchers in charge of this experiment claim that the measurements were significant enough that this wasn't a one-off quirk, but even they seem somewhat baffled by their findings. As a result (and because this phenomenon, if genuine, would radically change our understanding of physics), the scientists have called on their colleagues from around the world to review the tests in the hope that someone might figure out what happened.

"We tried to find all possible explanations for this," Italian researcher Antonio Ereditato told the BBC. "We wanted to find a mistake - trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects - and we didn't. When you don't find anything, then you say 'well, now I'm forced to go out and ask the community to scrutinise this'."

"Despite the large [statistical] significance of this measurement that you have seen and the stability of the analysis, since it has a potentially great impact on physics, this motivates the continuation of our studies in order to find still-unknown systematic effects," Dr Ereditato said.

"We look forward to independent measurement from other experiments."

I don't want to jump the gun and demand a time machine based on these findings, but the really intriguing aspect of this situation is that no one really knows what happens if you travel faster than light. Would you actually go back in time? Are you eaten by Langoliers? Would Christopher Lloyd show up in a flying train?

Hopefully the science-types can pin this down somehow.

Source: BBC [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484]



Permalink
 

Rhymenoceros

New member
Jul 8, 2009
798
0
0
This wasn't mentioned in tue article but it wasn't a one off test. They measured it over 15,000 times and got the result every time
And I was wondering when this would hit the news room, I heard about it earlier today at college (british college) and was waiting for you to cover it.

Plus i had physics today and somehow everyone in my class had heard of this and pestered the teacher about it. Somehow we'd all heard about it before him...
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
What the fuck? If this is true it will change a lot of things we thought we knew about not just physics, but everything in this universe. I so want this to be true. Faster than light, people. Fuckin' warp speed!
 

Pandaman1911

Fuzzy Cuddle Beast
Jan 3, 2011
601
0
0
Do it again. And again. And again. And then make another pair of machines. And do it just as many more times. Get your science right before breaking this to the media. I don't want another "OMG COLD FUSION!!!11!!!one!!" bullshit thing.
 

jurnag12

New member
Nov 9, 2009
460
0
0
Interesting.
Findlebob said:
So what. A century of study has know went up in smoke.
Nope.
We just need a theory to explain this anomoly. It makes no sense to just throw our current understanding of physics out of the door because 1 thing doesn't match it.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
Findlebob said:
So what. A century of study has know went up in smoke.
Well not really. It would mean that they just found out some particles that can travel faster than light. It still doesn't mean that we will ever be able to do that. Just those particles they didn't know about before. And before LHC it wasn't possible to test that.
 

vallorn

Tunnel Open, Communication Open.
Nov 18, 2009
2,309
1
43
while Einsteins equations are beautiful at describing our macroverse they fail utterly at describing the levels of matter where quantum effects take over. because of this it can be theorized that there is likely a rather large flaw in one or both of the equations.

if this does turn out to be empirically true i will be happier than anyone you have ever met ever because all physicists have to figure out what the universe is pretty much from scratch. and that would lead to interesting discoveries. :D
 

LegitPlacebo

New member
Nov 10, 2010
8
0
0
I can't help but think of this when "Neutrino's" we're mentioned. Ignore the greek subtitles and such, was the only one I could find.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jUP1k-PKh0
 

Cipher1

New member
Feb 28, 2011
290
0
0
I guess I'll wait for all the data to be scrutinized by the world before jumping to conclusions.
 

RonHiler

New member
Sep 16, 2004
206
0
0
0.00000006 seconds? If I count the zeros right, that's 60 ns. What is the sensitivity of the measuring device? Could this be within the margin of error of that device? (I'm sure they've eliminated that as a possibility, but I had to ask).
 

Pinkamena

Stuck in a vortex of sexy horses
Jun 27, 2011
2,371
0
0
"reached Italy .00000006 seconds faster than the speed of light"
This sentence should be changed to "reached Italy .00000006 seconds faster than light would".

Also, this is very interesting.
 

LordOmnit

New member
Oct 8, 2007
572
0
0
So it arrived 18 meters ahead of the competition? I call human or mechanical error on that, especially when dealing with the theoretical limit of velocity.
That is unless it is repeated and we get consistent or improving results.
 

FreakSheet

New member
Jul 16, 2011
389
0
0
LordOmnit said:
So it arrived 18 meters ahead of the competition? I call human or mechanical error on that, especially when dealing with the theoretical limit of velocity.
That is unless it is repeated and we get consistent or improving results.
Apparently they did it... oh... 16,000 times.

and the results were consistent.
 

BehattedWanderer

Fell off the Alligator.
Jun 24, 2009
5,237
0
0
All well and good, with a decent understanding of it, and wonderful to hear that it's happened, though, I have one bit of issue with you otherwise good post:

Earnest Cavalli said:
If you have any familiarity with physics at all, you're likely aware that this sort of thing simply is not supposed to happen. Traditional theory dictates that as an object approaches the speed of light, it's mass increases exponentially, slowing the object...
Traditional theories in science are continuously adapting things, the more we come to understand. The simplest of laws gets adapted for related purposes. Forces can be specific forces, or a summation of forces. Factors can be given a single value which means they have little impact on this specific circumstance of equations, factors will cancel each other out as they are found to be involved, and small or overlooked concepts have to be added in to existing formulas to truly represent what is happening. As Einstein understood it, it wouldn't be possible to exceed the speed of a photon. But, while he covered quite a large amount of what should be happening, there are always other factors. Some can be ignored, or apply to different formulas, but some you'll have to alter your equations to account for.

That all said, because a single pseudoparticle can approximate and pass the velocity of light, doesn't mean that larger particles can. Here's looking forward to the new equations.