Neutrinos going faster than the speed of light, comments?

Question

See latest news on this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110923095005.htm

Most physicists think and hope that this will be shown to be a false outcome. However, what are your feelings on this, do you think physics would be made more interesting if this is proven to be true, or would it "wreck physics"? I'd like to hear your opinions, as this is very interesting to me.

Answer 1

Anything travelling faster than light would not just be an interesting challenge to General Relativity, it would mean that the causality principle is wrong. I would hate seeing this happen as this has been considered perhaps the strongest principle of physics ever and many interesting ideas have been thrown away just because they would be incompatible with perfect causality somehow.



Broken causality, together with an assumption of the existence of some form of free will, could mean, e.g., being able to drain energy which resulted from some process before it happens, and then prevent it. Repeat this an unlimited number of times and you have a perpetuum mobile. That's just one of the reasons why I am most suspicious about this result.



I have read the experimental paper briefly and I am attaching it in the Sources below for others to see. I suspect that the problem lies within the measurement of the neutrinos' passage: these particles interact weakly enough to pass 730 km of solid rock as if it was free space, so one can't expect them to generate a click in detectors at both ends of their journey. If I understand it right, they timestamp the emission of a neutrino indirectly by observing a muon that originated simultaneously with its production. However, this simultaneity is predicted only by the Standard Model, which is already well-known to be imperfect, *especially* in the neutrino section. If there was anything that delayed the production of a muon by as little as 60 nanoseconds, e.g., any kind of intermediate particle, the mystery is explained.



I'd welcome any comments on my opinion by real particle physicists.

Answer 2

Well, perhaps photons DO have mass, a mass a little bit larger than the neutrinos in the experiment.



Just a thought...probably not a very good one.



Wow. I'm surprised I got 2 thumbs up from my answer considering that I have only a high school physics education and have read only a few articles on the web regarding relativity. The reason I say that photons could have a non zero mass if the experiment is proven true is because photons, currently accepted as having no mass, are also currently known to travel at the speed of light, currently the theoretical universal speed limit. And then, anything with mass should not be able to reach the speed of light. Additionally, it takes more energy to accelerate something close to the speed of light with increasing mass. So, particles of a mass closer to zero will also be found traveling nearer to the speed of light. IF a particle is found traveling faster than the speed of light, that breaks this rule. And, thus, in my mind, photons would have to have a mass greater than this faster particle. AND since neutrinos are said to have a non-zero mass, that COULD mean that all particles have a non-zero mass. Then again, there's probably plenty of arguments against photons having a non-zero mass. And this experiment will probably turn out to be a big failure. BUT if it is true, then physicists all over the world will have a huge gap in the theories holding together what we think we know about the universe. Ladies and gentlemen, this may be the scientific revelation of the century....or the biggest flop of the century.

Answer 3

Wow this is well to blankly put it astonishing. I figured it was possible but his experiment even though, as you said, is most likely a dead end but it still makes me really quite ecstatic. We really need something to shake physics and give us nerds something else to dwell over. This would be wondrous, although I am still not completely sure on how my feelings are about this; it’s still really quite exciting. Einstein predicted that no matter on earth would even have the possibility to be able to travel at such a speed. But if you do think about it even though science has found that some neutrinos have exceeded the speed of light does not mean, necessarily that Einstein’s theory has failed. I mean think about the mass, this could be an exception. You never know. But on the other hand it’s most likely to fail which would obviously not Effect Einstein. But how would the interaction would those neutrons observed have had. I’m guessing there will be o problem with the measurement distance as there is no simultaneous measurement of photon time as it’s a sold brick really. The neutrinos are going around 1/100000 fractionally faster than they should. Things that go faster than the speed of light have supposedly been found, the group velocities of electromagnetic waves in certain unusual dispersive media. But you never know, perhaps photons have a mass a little bit larger than the neutrinos in the experiment.

Great Question by the way. Hope you like the nerdy input.

Answer 4

I'm flabbergasted and ecstatic! Honestly, there's nothing else in the world that I care more about right now than this 'earthquake' in the world of Physics. I have mixed feelings. Part of me hopes that Einstein's theory remains intact and the other hopes that it doesn't. Einstein postulated that no entity in the universe that possesses rest mass could exceed the speed of light. Now, the scientists at CERN have apparently observed some neutrinos that exceeded the speed of light. But why does this necessarily imply that Einstein's theory has been falsified? I thought we might stick to the theory but merely add a condition, i.e no entity which possesses rest mass can exceed the speed of light, provided it remains within the same time dimension. I mean, perhaps something like that? Or on the other hand, it may be entirely preposterous. My knowledge on Einstein's theory is very shallow; I have quite a long way to go towards grasping it, let alone attempt to infer the latest paradoxical observation. By the way, may I get your thought on something too? What kind of a weak interaction could it have been which produced those neutrinos observed and what type of neutrinos could they have been(i.e electron neutrino, muon neutrino, tau neutrino)?

Answer 5

I don't have any "feelings" about it, as opposed to reading in amazement about what is being studied, and waiting to see what will be concluded. Once conclusions have been made, I'll be fine either way. I don't want to be too thrilled by false hopes, and I don't want to be the type who hopes it's not true because it will "wreck physics". We can deal with it either way. I'm just glad that the research is being done, and some people find the idea of spending money on such research is important. If it is indeed true that neutrinos go faster than the speed of light, it will be an exciting new world for us. Would physics be more interesting would this be proven true? Yes, but it's always been exciting to me.



It won't change how I feel about Albert Einstein. To me, one of the most valuable things he taught us was perseverance, to keep searching for answers, and to be persistent even if the answer will shake up what was previously thought and held "sacred".

Answer 6

Here is some idle speculation. Because in some possible world, the experimenter could have turned on the neutrino emitter 60ns earlier, there is a possibility that they arrive 60ns earlier at the detector. They didn't go faster than the speed of light, the time they left was just inaccurately reported.



I suspect that if they try a round-trip test, say a detector that automatically turns on an emitter in the opposite direction when it detects neutrinos, that suddenly they will no longer be able to find any faster than light neutrinos. No matter when they turn on the detector, in all possible worlds the neutrinos will have to arrive a certain time later.



Things that go faster than light have supposedly been found before, like group velocities of electromagnetic waves in certain unusual dispersive media. However, the phase velocity is always c, and importantly, the wavefront travels at c. Information has always been found to travel at the speed of light or slower.

Answer 7

Certainly interesting



My gut feeling is that there's a problem with the distance measurement somehow. There is no simultaneous measurement of photon travel time (it's solid rock after all). As Randall says, the picture of continental drift is cool.



If I understand the result, the neutrinos are going about 1/100,000 fractionally faster than they ought to, not fast enough to make a stock market killing by betting ahead of the traders.

Answer 8

I ALSO SURPRISED seeing that scientists have proved that neutrinos goes 6km faster than light. i don't know more about that experiment but i think result should be check again there something mistake is occurred. In other hand Stephen Hawking black hole theory says photons have also very very very small mass hence they turn back towards black hole.that means there is possibility of smaller mass particles than photons that I think at 9^th std now I am in 10^th. In future some particles of less mass will be found.

Answer 9

If you were on a 70mph highway, nothing is stopping you from going a little bit faster.

I always thought the same principal applied to light.



It could also just be an accident. Human error.

Or it could have warped space and time going at the speed of light, causing it to "teleport" suddenly.

Answer 10

> "do you think physics would be made more interesting...or would it "wreck physics"? "



Both. (Physics is always more interesting when it gets wrecked. :-)



> "I've been hearing all my life that the speed of light was absolutely inviolable. But why should it be?"



It SHOULD be, because it's a mathematical consequence of our understanding of "c" as the universal constant that unifies the concepts of space, time, matter and energy. If "c" can be exceeded, we'd have to seriously rethink about the fundamental nature of those things.

Answer 11

Rounding errors at the quantum level that relate to Heisenberg Uncertainty seem to be related to exotic matter or negative energy that have FTL or antigravity efffects that we see in Quantum Tunneling or Hawking radiation / Black Hole Evaporation.



This uncertainty principle (in some models) causes reverse time effects in some virtual particle (Feynman / Consistent) histories. This type of effect might in theory cause minor FTL effects in near C speed objects.

Answer 12

Interesting discovery........

I had the same feeling which started from school life, that physics subject is some thing that build upon some assumptions that has no solid base.....

If this discovery is a fact, then doesn't there a possibility for neutrinos replacing photons.......

Answer 13

hopefully this will help us to eventually master space travel. because in reality, the only way we're going to be able to go to other far away planets, galaxies, ect. (with out turning 100 by the time we get to our destination) is to figure out how to travel faster than light.

Answer 14

No charge and almost no mass, unlike a photon. THat is why I think this happened.

Answer 15

Well!!!!!!



Theories always Wreck Physics!!



Newton wrecked Aristotle's Physics..

Einstein wrecked Newton...



And if proved, this one will wreck Einstein!!!



If proven true, it will be really more interesting!!

Answer 16

Uniontera number 6-2, hope it helps. This is your so-called light.



Uniontera poem is to ferrari what big bang theory is to porsche.

Answer 17

It found to be true,it should be deeply investigated much more

Answer 18

If this was actually proven... FIRST STEP TOWARDS TIME TRAVEL!!! YEAH BABY!!! :D

Answer 19

I just posted a question 'Am I a genius'

I all my life know the speed of light is not the highest speed.

Answer 20

im only lvl 1 man i need some likes :|

Answer 21

lmfao @ ' Neutrinos' : ))





wow some chicks would find that word a turn on lol





what about Quarks ???





arent they the smallest known 'things' ever ? in the universe ???



ive never heard of neustrinos btw

Answer 22

My opinion is... this is premature hype. Wait for it to be confirmed. Duh.