Speed of light exceeded? CERN think it may be...

[Sway]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1501...

CERN have noticed that in the course of 15000 measurements, a statistically significant proportion show neutrinos travelling at a speed greater than that of light.

Reading between the lines, it seems this is such a paradigm shift that they are downplaying it massively and asking the rest of the related community to double check.

Now, my understanding is about that of 'Why does E=mc2'. I recognise that it is a fundamental tenet of the standard model that light is the fastest hombre around, but, if this is backed up, and light speed is exceeded by neutrinos, what implications does this have?

Does it pretty much bin all the empirical support of the standard model, or is it actually just a major, but historically insignificant tweak to current knowledge?

Edited by Sway on Thursday 22 September 22:04

[Simpo Two]

Just as Einstein showed Newton to be slightly wrong, no doubt one day someone will find that Einstein was slightly wrong too. 'Shoulders of giants' and all that.

I think we need to research gravity. I think that holds the next batch of secrets.

[don4l]

Simpo Two said:

Just as Einstein showed Newton to be slightly wrong, no doubt one day someone will find that Einstein was slightly wrong too. 'Shoulders of giants' and all that.

I think we need to research gravity. I think that holds the next batch of secrets.

Agreed.

Many scientists already feel that Einstein's equations are not 100% correct. They are more accurate than Newton, but not quite 100%.

Googling "Pioneer Anomaly" brings up some interesting info (but ignore Wikipedia).

Don
--

[telecat]

All Science is only "to our knowledge". It has no definite's as a "fact" is only a "Fact" until proven otherwise. Many Believed that you couldn't exceed 100mph without being able to breathe. The Speed of sound was considered an "absolute" limit. The Speed of Light will remain in the category of Theory until we have the capability of getting to it.

[Dr Jekyll]

telecat said:

The Speed of sound was considered an "absolute" limit.

No it wasn't.

[davepoth]

Dr Jekyll said:

telecat said:

The Speed of sound was considered an "absolute" limit.

No it wasn't.

It was considered very difficult to get past in a plane, but they always knew bullets and shells flew far faster than sound.

[Eric Mc]

davepoth said:

Dr Jekyll said:

telecat said:

The Speed of sound was considered an "absolute" limit.

No it wasn't.

It was considered very difficult to get past in a plane, but they always knew bullets and shells flew far faster than sound.

Don't forget that the V2 rocket was achieving Mach 4 in 1942.

Engineers knew that a properly constructed shape could easily pass through the sound barrier and into the hypersonic regions. The difficulty was maintaining controlled aerodynamic flight as the whole lift and pressure environment around the aircraft changed unpredictably once you reached transonic speeds. Their main difficuluty was that there were no supersonic wind tunnels until the late 1930s. The fact that the Germans built the first supersonic wind tunnels gave them a head start in the supersonic and indeed the hypersonic field.

A shell or a rocket flies ballistically so the aerodynamic effects of supersonic/hypersonic flight are not as critical - although they are still important.

Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 23 September 17:57

[telecat]

It was earlier. By the time long range Artillery had developed it was just another limit. BY that time the problems were how to get a manned vehicle to and though it. Then they discovered the instability caused by the shock wave. If the Light speed barrier is just "another" limit then we are back in the Middle ages with regard to getting there. The First problem is the power and engine that would allow us to get to and though it. The next, how do you navigate beyond the speed of light?

[dundarach]

Ah well even science is not always right

[Simpo Two]

telecat said:

The next, how do you navigate beyond the speed of light?

In the dark!



'Science' is always right, but there is much that man doesn't know.

Edited by Simpo Two on Friday 23 September 20:26

[telecat]

dundarach said:

Ah well even science is not always right

The point of a real scientist is that they accept that and find out why.

[Hooli]

Simpo Two said:

telecat said:

The next, how do you navigate beyond the speed of light?

In the dark!

Until you exceed the speed of dark, then what?
All we know is the speed of dark is much faster than the speed of light as no matter where the light goes, darkness got there first...

[Simpo Two]

There is no such thing as 'dark', it is simply the absence of light.

Checkmate

[Engineer1]

dundarach said:

Ah well even science is not always right

Ah but it is because as soon as it knows its wrong it goes off in search of a better answer or rephrases the question such that the current equations get the rider of in all circumstances except... this is a good enough approximation, its been obvious for a while that conventional physics and quantum physics have a disconnect where predictions from one model don't work in the other.

[Huff]

<taps calculator>

Looking at the timing discrepancy reported ...which d'you think is more likely?

a) "Relativity is violated, hurrah!"
b) The route actually taken by said neutrinos is error-free and about 30-40metres shorter than the known/measured/assumed distance between send and receive lab detectors.*

Now - the really interesting stuff in Science always happens when someone first says '...oh, that's funny...'; but I really do hope due diligence has been paid already and we aren't witnessing another Cold Fusion moment - because such things really, really shortScience's value in the eyes of the General Public.

• geodetic distance measurement to about 35pm over 700KM.

Edited by Huff on Saturday 24th September 20:28

[Engineer1]

Are they equally sure space and time haven't been messed with rather than speed its self?

[Simpo Two]

Why is it that THESE neutrinos have been found travelling at >c?

Are they 'special' neutrinos or is the measuring system suddenly more accurate (or wrong?)

[Hooli]

Simpo Two said:

There is no such thing as 'dark', it is simply the absence of light.

Checkmate

Your not a discworld fan are you?

[Pobolycwm]

Faster than the speed of light is not a new phenomenon, a pair of electrons emitted from the same proton travelling a considerable distance apart ( many thousands of miles ) have been found to be "coupled", when one of the electrons has it's spin reversed say in a magnetic field the other electron reverses it's spin instantaneously, this so called spooky effect hasn't been explained yet but was I think first observed about 10 years ago ?

It is said not to violate the speed of light as any attempt to use it to say transmit a signal results in the collapse of the effect

So that's ok then, the standard model is well and good, I can sleep at night

let's just hope there's a snappy answer for the faster than light nutrino............or more interestingly let's hope there isn't an answer

[Zad]

I thought the spin coupled pairs effect was debunked not long ago? What it amounts to is that it is still impossible to send information faster than the speed of light by this effect, and so doesn't contravene any physical laws. The error measured in the neutrino experiment is the equivalent of 18 metres, not massively greater than the speed of light, so it will be interesting to see where any errors are found to be hiding.