Scientists Baffled By Seemingly Faster-Than-Light Particles

[Darks63]

I always find it interesting when they are baffled by that fact that a guy who lived 50 years ago theories are might just get proven wrong as science marches forward.

As we advance more and more people with propose things that at the time will fit the facts as we know them only to be possibly one generation later be proven wrong as our ability to find and deduce facts becomes better.

 

[Zakarath]

"reached Italy .00000006 seconds faster than the speed of light"
This sentence should be changed to "reached Italy .00000006 seconds faster than light would".

Well, that isn't exactly right either, as light's speed through mediums other than a vacuum can be somewhat lower itself, and they were sending these particles through solid rock, which light would have a little difficulty with. I suppose it could say "reached Italy .00000006 seconds faster than a particle traveling at c would have", but that's a bit wordy and over-complicated.

 

[Zakarath]

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).

I think they had their margin of error as +/-10 ns. Of course, just a tiny calibration error could be throwing their results off, but they couldn't find one, which is why they're asking for an intensive review of this.

 

[Yopaz]

I always find it interesting when they are baffled by that fact that a guy who lived 50 years ago theories are might just get proven wrong as science marches forward.

As we advance more and more people with propose things that at the time will fit the facts as we know them only to be possibly one generation later be proven wrong as our ability to find and deduce facts becomes better.

The evolution theory is 100 years old. Newton's laws are roughly 300 years old. Just because a theory is old doesn't mean it's invalid. I am sure even you would be surprised if you read an article states scientists have found out Newton's laws are wrong.

 

[Jakub324]

WORLD. SHAKEN.
Nah, seriously, that's weird.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I always find it interesting when they are baffled by that fact that a guy who lived 50 years ago theories are might just get proven wrong as science marches forward.

As we advance more and more people with propose things that at the time will fit the facts as we know them only to be possibly one generation later be proven wrong as our ability to find and deduce facts becomes better.

The evolution theory is 100 years old. Newton's laws are roughly 300 years old. Just because a theory is old doesn't mean it's invalid. I am sure even you would be surprised if you read an article states scientists have found out Newton's laws are wrong.

Well yes they are already wrong in certain cases like calculating Mercury's orbit around the sun which is why we have other theories besides Newton's theories.

 

[McMullen]

I'm betting that if it's not a measurement error, it's an unforseen or unaccounted-for effect of relativity or quantum mechanics. The particle didn't exceed c, it only appears to have done so.

 

[Venats]

Well yes they are already wrong in certain cases like calculating Mercury's orbit around the sun which is why we have other theories besides Newton's theories.

And Einstein's relativity fails to properly chart the Voyager flight path, and cannot account for galactic swirls without the ever so convenient cosmological constant. Like its predecessors, relativity also is showing its age... and has been for at least twenty years.

But, I feel like we've had two other whole topics on this with in depth physical discussion on this already. So, let me try and paraphrase from before:

~No, this didn't break physics.
~No, this was probably not random quantum effects (as 15,000 runs of statistical significance doesn't tend to go hand in hand with the unpredictable and uncertain nature of QM).
~No, this has nothing to do with Group Velocity and particle packet physics (as that would again have variations large enough to bar statistical consistency).
~Neutrinos are cheaters.
~This doesn't make FTL travel in the intergalactic sense any more feasible, there are other theories for that.
~And... let's wait for more, but I'm all for smacking parts of Relativity with a shovel and making sure that they are never seen or heard from again!

I'm betting that if it's not a measurement error, it's an unforseen or unaccounted-for effect of relativity or quantum mechanics. The particle didn't exceed c, it only appears to have done so.

It traveled a distance greater than what light would have traveled in the same time, it had to go faster at some point if all measurements are without error. That... or it ripped a hole in space.

 

[thiosk]

UCLA has been abuzz with the topic. I am skeptical. But I'm skeptical of everything. However, just to point out, should the results be confirmed and taken as standard, whether the particles broke the speed limit or got around the speed limit, this is huge. huge

 

[Quaxar]

10 euros on measurement error or the like.
If neutrinos were faster than c we'd probably have known it by now.

Consider astronomy. We have got neutrino detectors up running 24/7 looking for neutrino burst. One huge source is supernovas which also happen to emitt a lot of visible light as well.
Take SN 1987A as an example. This was the first time neutrino detectors measured a burst (yes, 24 measured particles is huge for something that doesn't really react much with matter), the burst was followed 3 minutes later by a visible supernova event from the same area.
Now, we can explain the three minutes easily with the fact that neutrinos just pass through everything whereas the visible light from the explosion had to reach the surface of the star first. Had the neutrinos actually travelled the now measured amount "faster" it would have arrived somewhere around 1983 instead...
(I don't really feel like doing the exact Math, it's just too late here)

I'm not saying it's impossible, I just want to remark that astronomical experiments don't really support that measurement at the moment. Don't get too excited people.

 

[Sylocat]

I'm reminded of this quote:

I would say that you misread Einstein, Dr. Powell. May I call you Mark? You see, Mark, what Einstein actually said was that nothing can accelerate to the speed of light because its mass would become infinite. Einstein said nothing about entities already traveling at the speed of light or faster.

 

[Wyes]

Just to get one little pet peeve out of the way;

Mass does NOT increase as your velocity approaches c. Rather, what changes is the relationship between momentum and energy (what you find is that the energy required to increase your momentum increases exponentially, as you approach c).

OT: This could make for a few interesting years, though I suspect nothing will come of it. If it does it means that my physics syllabus is going to change considerably...

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Didn't Professor Farnsworth say that they increased the speed of light so ships could go faster?

 

[Nikolaz72]

Cant we just increase the speed of light by sixty nanoseconds and be done with?

 

[Roserari]

"OMFG FASTER THAN LIGHT PARTICLES? THIS HAS TO BE THE GREATEST BREAKTHROUGH, EVER!"

"Oh god, what have I done? NO, SOMEONE PROVE I'M WRONG. PLEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASE."

Makes sense.

 

[bakan]

"reached Italy .00000006 seconds faster than the speed of light"
This sentence should be changed to "reached Italy .00000006 seconds faster than light would".

Well, that isn't exactly right either, as light's speed through mediums other than a vacuum can be somewhat lower itself, and they were sending these particles through solid rock, which light would have a little difficulty with. I suppose it could say "reached Italy .00000006 seconds faster than a particle traveling at c would have", but that's a bit wordy and over-complicated.

You can't as you can't shoot photons through solid matter, they just compared the particle with the time a photon would have needed in vacuum and there was nothing wrong in the article saying that it reached its destination x secs faster than the speed of light.

But there was already a thread about it yesterday, so I'm not gonna repeat everything now.

 

[Lizardon]

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).

Apparently the measuring error is +/- 10 nanoseconds. If they could right it off as an error, I don't think they would be asking other people to check there results.