Faster then light

Post Reply New Topic

just wanted to add this
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... um=twitter

It strikes me that what is most likely going on is that the distance between the point of emission and receiving. The time difference could be accounted for if the distances were off by 18 metres. For example, did they take the Earth's curvature into account?

Physicists are starting to realize that light doesn't have a fixed speed anyway. Scientists have observed FTL particles before.

It appears like it's more likely to be a systematic error in the time measurement. They are relying on GPS for the time measurement and, as the article said, GPS's can have uncertainties of up to 10's of nanoseconds. Honestly, as a theoretical physicist myself, I think the guy in that article who is trying come up with a theory where the speed of light barrier is violated, is just wasting his time. If you want to be a productive theorist, first make sure that your observed effect is real, rather than due to experimental error, then develop your theory. This would actually require extraordinary evidence since special relativity is extremely well tested.

Not true. There has never been a single confirmed experiment that shows light to deviate from a constant speed in a vacuum. Special relativity has been extremely well tested with not a single confirmed instance of experimental results deviating from its predictions.

If that's true then we may be able to know the fate of the Universe using neutrino detectors.

deviation of 10nanoseconds, and they were faster by 60nanoseconds. I think that the 10nanosecond inaccuracy doesn't matter with that time... either it's 50 or 70...

Tens of nanoseconds, not ten. So it could be off by 50 or 70 or so.

Also, I doubt that GPS time accuracy is the only possible experimental error.

Which is more likely: that a well-tested physical theory that has lasted decades is wrong about this one point, or that one experiment done once by one guy had an error in it when he measured a small amount of time with a GPS? Show me 5 other guys who did this experiment with better timing equipment and got the same result, then I'll be interested.

Well, the CERN guys have asked for as many people as possible to replicate their results; unfortunately, since the SSC was canceled a while back, the only facilities set up for it right now are Fermi and a place in Japan that's still recovering from that mess with the earthquake and tsunami, so it may be a bit before we get either confirmation or rebuttal.

If it does prove out, it would be quite exciting - even only going .00021% faster than c is still FTL, and opens the concept of greater speeds...

I've read that while the distances from the emitter to the detector are fairly precise, an error is introduced when trying to determine exactly where the neutrino was emitted. This kind of confused me. Is the emitter itself so huge that the neutrinos could be generated with an 18 meter uncertainty?

if there really is an 18m uncertainty then in reality it is more like 20-90 nanoseconds range and lot of uncertainties.

From that article:
Still, Kostelecky repeats the old adage: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even Ereditato says that one measurement does not extraordinary evidence make.


I would start with the timer synchronization scheme which used GPS to synchronize the clocks on both end of the experiment. Could a small error have been introduced there. Also I would like to see this experiment repeated at different locations. Could there be some local condition that fritzed up the instruments?

It is way too soon to jump to conclusions.

ruveyn

If that were true then neutrinos would travel backward in time.

And if we could detect neutrinos they would be coming from the future.

Evidence, Please?

I want a t-shirt with this printed on it.

On second thought, it'll probably just make people scream "YOU CAN'T PROVE WHAT I SAY WRONG!! !" at me.

No, naturalplastic, you're confusing tardyons and tachyons. Under Einsteinian physics, tachyons would be hypothetical particles that can only exist at speeds greater than that of light, and which would have reversed entropy. Neutrinos, however, are tardyons, and should not be able to move quite as fast as light, and there is no reason to suppose entropy would change for them. Some physicists believe that FTL would necessarily violate causality; others disagree, pointing out that the basic assumptions involve Minkowski spacetime, and if FTL is possible, then spacetime cannot conform to Minkowski's equations, meaning that using Minkowski to analyze the situation would be akin to using Newtonian physics to analyze wavicle theory.

Obligatory disclaimer: it is still most highly probable that this is some sort of error, as there is already a huge pile of evidence in support of Special Relativity. If it's not an error, this would be extremely exciting...