• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Puzzling results from CERN

Dr.Sid said:
I did a little research about c .. and I think we generally have 3 types of c.

1) defined c. Today meter is derived by light, and so is time. So c is defined to be 299,792,458 m/s EXACTLY.
2) measured c. Here I include every direct method of measuring speed of light in vacuum. Here we have several values with different errors.
3) derived c. It means we measure different quantities, and derive c from it. Again there are several values with different errors.


What if light really does not move at full c in vacuum ? Ie what if c(2) is not equal to c(3) ? Maybe the errors in measurement allow for that.
Click to expand...

If those are different, it means some physical theory is wrong, and the prediction it makes for c is incorrect.

One example of 3 is that given by maxwell's equations, which can be arranged to give:
[latex]c = 1 / \sqrt { \mu_0 \epsilon_0}[/latex]
[latex]\mu_0[/latex] and [latex]\epsilon_0[/latex] can be measured. So far such measurements agree with other measurements.

but anyway, here there's a pretty direct velocity measurement -- how long it takes a particle to go a known distance.
 
Apologies if this has been covered somewhere in this thread already, just point me at the right post.

1. Assuming the results about FTL neutrinos are true, is the supposition that this would be a feature generally true of neutrinos or just neutrinos under some special circumstance of this experiment.

2. The results, if true, are said to be a breach of the basic principle of not being able to exceed c, but more subtly the principle is that matter cannotbe accelerated through c. In theory matter could exist that is permanently exceeding c. Which of these is being said to be true of these neutrinos.

3. If these results are true, although the magnitude of the effect is tiny, it's a point of principle that has been overturned so there is a problem with causality. Are there obvious candidate routes of exploration that would take this tiny qualitative principle and magnify it into a big obvious quantitative effect? It seems unlikely because future us would have done so and be waving at present-day us by its application.
 
Last edited:
I think the experimenters need to take an additional time measurement: measure the CERN-to-Gran Sasso neutrino travel time in a more direct way and narrow down where a possible systematic error lies.

At the end of the decay tunnel, and after the hadron stop, there are muon detectors. Muons passing through these detectors are basically going to be going through at the same time as the neutrinos going to Gran Sasso.

I propose, if it hasn't already, measure the time when the muons are detected at the end of the decay tunnel. This will provide a direct measurement of neutrino travel time to Gran Sasso. If the time resolution of those muon detectors is not good enough, it still should be not too hard or expensive to install something that is. This should identify if there is a systematic error on the proton/BCT side of the muon detectors, or narrow it down to either a systematic timing error on the Gran Sasso side or FTL neutrinos.
 
kalen said:
I think the experimenters need to take an additional time measurement: measure the CERN-to-Gran Sasso neutrino travel time in a more direct way and narrow down where a possible systematic error lies.
Click to expand...

I wonder if CERN still used a satellite(s) for synchronizing in their new run of experiments. I proposed that they could use a fiber optic cable and compare with light sent through it.

Another idea is to use a radio transmitter sending a synch signal from the source to the destination, directly without bouncing off the atmosphere and compare with the synch via a (moving) satellite.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I wonder if CERN still used a satellite(s) for synchronizing in their new run of experiments. I proposed that they could use a fiber optic cable and compare with light sent through it.
Click to expand...


From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...contradicts-Einstein-yields-same-result.html:
In France, Jacques Martino, head of the National Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics at the National Centre of Scientific Research (CNRS), said "the search is not over."

"There are more checks of systematics currently under discussion, one of them could be a synchronisation of the time reference at CERN and Gran Sasso independently from the GPS (Global Positioning System), using possibly a fibre."
Click to expand...

-- Roger
 
nathan said:
If those are different, it means some physical theory is wrong, and the prediction it makes for c is incorrect.

One example of 3 is that given by maxwell's equations, which can be arranged to give:
[latex]c = 1 / \sqrt { \mu_0 \epsilon_0}[/latex]
[latex]\mu_0[/latex] and [latex]\epsilon_0[/latex] can be measured. So far such measurements agree with other measurements.

but anyway, here there's a pretty direct velocity measurement -- how long it takes a particle to go a known distance.
Click to expand...

The measures agree .. but with some tolerance. I wonder what the tolerances are, and where lies the speed of neutrinos.
 
neutrino's still faster then light in latest experiment

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/pressreleases/releases2011/pr19.11e.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897v2

The scientists who appeared to have found in September that certain subatomic particles can travel faster than light have ruled out one potential source of error in their measurements after completing a second, fine-tuned version of their experiment.

Their results, posted on the ArXiv preprint server on Friday morning and submitted for peer review in the Journal of High Energy Physics, confirmed earlier measurements that neutrinos, sent through the ground from Cern near Geneva to the Gran Sasso lab in Italy 450 miles (720km) away seemed to travel faster than light.

...

Edited by LashL: 
Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, cite a short passage and provide a link to the source.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, we see about that ...

After all, there have been several faster-thank-light claims over the years and so far, none of them have been validated.

Therefore, I will hold off celebrating until this claim has been adequately verified.
 
I'm looking forward to see how scepticus and physicist Professor Jim Al-Khalili of the University of Surrey will eat his boxershorts on live TV, like he promised us. :D
 
Last edited:
This is really awesome. I'm excited to see how this plays out.

Genuinely new physics during my lifetime would be very exciting.
 
AvalonXQ said:
This is really awesome. I'm excited to see how this plays out.

Genuinely new physics during my lifetime would be very exciting.
Click to expand...

Neutrino flavor mixing wasn't genuinely new enough?

Evidence that the universe is expanding and accelerating outward doesn't do it for you?

High temperature super conductivity?

How old are you?
 
You know guys - when the first results came out we heard lots of bad causality jokes - and I was guilty of some myself. But please - this time don't bother. I've already heard them.
 
edd said:
You know guys - when the first results came out we heard lots of bad causality jokes - and I was guilty of some myself. But please - this time don't bother. I've already heard them.
Click to expand...

A neutrino walks in to a bar and says to the bartender, "I would like one of those, please" and points to a sign on the wall that says "Free Beer Tomorrow".
 
kalen said:
Neutrino flavor mixing wasn't genuinely new enough?

Evidence that the universe is expanding and accelerating outward doesn't do it for you?

High temperature super conductivity?

How old are you?
Click to expand...

I'll be 30 in December... of 2068.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom