• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Second experiment confirms neutrinos travel faster than light

I'm not a physicist, but I have watched about every documentary made in the last 20 years, and if we were able to go in a rocket at the speed of light, supposedly time would stand still, while everything else would continue to progress through time. I think it's based on light being the speed limit of the universe, which would also include time's speed limit.

I don't mean this as a back-handed compliment, but I'm actually amazed that you're interested in this! Maybe there's hope for you, yet :)

I'm blown away by this stuff. I don't really know what to think, but obviously there will be many experiments and efforts to examine these findings. I've seen and read quite a bit about quantum theory and string theory, and I really think we're just beginning to break ground in these fields. I think quantum computing will exponentially increase our knowledge in these fields, but as of right now, most of the theories in these fields sound ridiculous or wrong. But that could very well be because my mind has no way of grasping such complex information.
 
well, here's my question: is everything is relative, doesn't that mean that if one object is moving at 3/4 the speed of light in one direction, and another object is moving at 3/4 the speed of light in another...when they pass each other...won't it appear that they are both moving at 150% the speed of light?
 
well, here's my question: is everything is relative, doesn't that mean that if one object is moving at 3/4 the speed of light in one direction, and another object is moving at 3/4 the speed of light in another...when they pass each other...won't it appear that they are both moving at 150% the speed of light?

You mean with the naked eye? I doubt you would be able to differentiate between them.
 
Last edited:
well, here's my question: is everything is relative, doesn't that mean that if one object is moving at 3/4 the speed of light in one direction, and another object is moving at 3/4 the speed of light in another...when they pass each other...won't it appear that they are both moving at 150% the speed of light?

No. Both objects will appear to each other to be moving at less than the speed of light. This is because time actually slows down for both objects as they approach light speed. So from the perspective of a third party who is observing both objects zipping past each other, it will appear that one second after they pass they are 1.5 light-seconds apart. But to the objects themselves, it will not, because "one second" doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to the third party observer. One second after they pass each other, an observer aboard one of the objects will calculate the distance between them to be more than 3/4 of a light-second but less than 1 light-second.
 
Last edited:
The biggest one I know, is that it breaks the time barrier. Time is supposed to stand still at the exact speed of light, so if this particle travels faster than light, based on all we know about physics, the particle will arrive before it leaves. In other words, E=Mc2 is either flawed, or we have just found our first evidence of actual time travel.

Not exactly the first evidence. That would probably come from the world of quantum mechanics, e.g. Freaky Physics Proves Parallel Universes Exist | Fox News
 
Nova has been doing some great stuff lately - I think they realized they needed to step it up after Through the Wormhole began it's awesomeness. The 2nd to last episode was about space and how it is not empty, and the last episode was about the relationship between time and space and the fabric of time. Looks like the next few are going to be good too:

"The Fabric of the Cosmos: What is Space?"
"The Fabric of the Cosmos: The Illusion of Time"
"The Fabric of the Cosmos: Quantum Leap"
"The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse?"

Quantum Leap should be good, and Multiverse stuff is interesting as well.
 
I can. Even many of the scientists involved have assumed that there is an error somewhere, but they published the paper because they can't figure it out on their own. Maybe someone else will.
There are numerous ways for scientists to elicit peer review and seek assistance from the physics community. Publishing scientific papers in the Journal of High Energy Physics isn't one of those numerous ways. Clearly, the Opera Collaboration has endorsed their superluminal-neutrino submissions.
 
I don't mean this as a back-handed compliment, but I'm actually amazed that you're interested in this! Maybe there's hope for you, yet :)

Why is that? Because of my political lean, or because of my style of posting?

Oh, and it's I that holds out hope for you... :)
 
There are numerous ways for scientists to elicit peer review and seek assistance from the physics community. Publishing scientific papers in the Journal of High Energy Physics isn't one of those numerous ways.

And once you have exhausted those alternative ways and you're still faced with a counterintuitive result, the academically honest thing to do is to publish what you have, even if it seems implausible (which it almost certainly is) and even if you're skeptical of the results yourself (as they should be).

Clearly, the Opera Collaboration has endorsed their superluminal-neutrino submissions.

Again, let's go with Occam's Razor: Of the following three explanations, which is the most likely:

A) Both teams simply made a mistake in the experiment, or in their assumptions, and someone else will uncover it in the coming weeks or months.
B) The teams made some reasonable assumption based on the known laws of physics, but some thus-far-unknown corollary to those laws exists which is skewing their results, without neutrinos actually exceeding light speed.
C) Neutrinos are actually traveling faster than light, thus upending 100 years of physics, and despite the fact that there is no known mechanism by which a massive particle could get to that speed.

I'm going to go with A, followed by B, followed by C, in terms of their order of likelihood.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to go with A, followed by B, followed by C, in terms of their order of likelihood.
A is unlikely. I would be dumbfounded if 100+ scientists failed to detect a flaw/error in equipment/methodology.

C is extremely unlikely. In my own field, the Opera results to not agree with relevant astrophysical data.

I'll go with B. Although (c) remains invariant, I think it is possible they have stumbled upon a unique anomaly.
 
If confirmed by other experiments, the find could undermine one of the basic principles of modern physics

Insane!

BBC News - Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result

To be honest, I believe SR is correct but doesn't tell the whole story. The reality, IMHO, is that all matter defined to have a real mass is prohibited from exceeded light speed within a Minkowski reference frame. In other words, if the particle w/positive mass is considered to exist within an observer's Minkowski spacetime, then it must travel below the speed of light.

However, nothing prevents a particle w/imaginary mass in a reference frame A, i. e. a particle that can only have a real mass in a reference frame that's superluminal w/respect to A, from exceeding the speed of light.

These imaginary mass particles cannot be detected directly (since they don't exist, per se), but rather indirectly from its effects within frame A. And that's likely what happened in the experiment.
 
Not ONE OF the basic pillars. Causality is THE FUNDAMENTAL pillar. There's still a lot to be looked at. The fact of the matter is that this could be a material property. A while ago they had talked about light going faster than the speed of light through some material. The fact is that the photon wave packet could be detected apparently sooner than it should have been. But the phase information could not arrive faster than the speed of light. There was some interesting results of it and left hand chiral material tested; but it was all material property and interaction. Here they are shooting neutrinos through the earth, and there could be an effect as such.

Want to do this right, you need a vacuum. If we had a cool Lunar Science Bay, we could aim the neutrinos there and know a hell of a lot better. It would be pretty difficult to drill a hole through the earth and evacuate the air.

Causality is not necessarily violated w/reverse time travel. You can add parallel (i. e. forked) universes to hold alternate realities or have a single universe that instantly changes to account for actions to make itself causality-consistent.
 
Before everyone gets too carried away, let's clarify what this second experiment did and didn't actually confirm. It did NOT confirm that neutrinos travel faster than light, it simply confirmed that whatever is causing the discrepancy wasn't due to a simple measurement error. If there is some systemic problem with the way the experiment was conducted, or if the experiment made an invalid assumption somewhere along the way, then it doesn't matter how many times you run the test and get the same result because the experiment itself is flawed.

I remain highly skeptical of this result, and will continue to be skeptical until there is literally no other plausible explanation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as Carl Sagan famously said.

In actuality, there is no way to know whether the superluminal neutrinos that arrived at the detector site came from the designated source. This is only assumed to be true based on an assumed validity of the statistical model used to measure the neutrino speeds.

It's like if you throw a die 500 times, and 250/500 times the die shows 5 dots on top. Statistically, one would conclude that 3 faces of the die had 5 dots, but this does not mean that it's guaranteed that this is the case. It's only the case--based on the assumptions of the statistical model--that it's the most likely to be true.
 
Causality is not necessarily violated w/reverse time travel. You can add parallel (i. e. forked) universes to hold alternate realities or have a single universe that instantly changes to account for actions to make itself causality-consistent.

You'd have to add something if you want to keep Causality alive. So far whenever science is forced with a choice on how something can be interpreted, we have always chosen to maintain causality at the cost of everything else. Because once that becomes not true...how the hell are you supposed to understand anything? Regardless, we know that Relativity works and thus IF we measured FTL particles, we would have to find a construct underwhich they do not break causality. Maybe the speed of light needs to be raised. Hehehe. But for sure, there is a lot that could be "wrong" with the measurements, there's a lot that has to be discovered. I remember superluminous wave packets and how people went crazy about that at first too; and then we learned the real physics behind it and it all fell in place. I think that's what we're going to see here too...there will be some material property that we find.
 
Faster than light neutrinos? Not so fast, say new findings.


Scientists at Switzerland's CERN research center threatened to turn physics upside down in September, when they measured a neutrino traveling at faster-than-light speeds. But now a new experiment by researchers in Italy suggests that the particles are actually obeying the cosmic speed limit.

An international team of scientists in Italy studying the same neutrino particles colleagues say appear to have travelled faster than light rejected the startling finding this weekend, saying their tests had shown it must be wrong.

The September announcement of the finding, backed up last week after new studies, caused a furor in the scientific world as it seemed to suggest Albert Einstein's ideas on relativity, and much of modern physics, were based on a mistaken premise.

The first team, members of the OPERA experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory south of Rome, said they recorded neutrinos beamed to them from the CERN research center in Switzerland as arriving 60 nanoseconds before light would have done.

But ICARUS, another experiment at Gran Sasso – which is deep under mountains and run by Italy's National Institute of National Physics – now argues that their measurements of the neutrinos energy on arrival contradict that reading.

In a paper posted Saturday on the same website as the OPERA results, the ICARUS team says their findings "refute a superluminal (faster than light) interpretation of the OPERA result."

They argue, on the basis of recently published studies by two top U.S. physicists, that the neutrinos pumped down from CERN, near Geneva, should have lost most of their energy if they had travelled at even a tiny fraction faster than light.

But in fact, the ICARUS scientists say, the neutrino beam as tested in their equipment registered an energy spectrum fully corresponding with what it should be for particles traveling at the speed of light and no more.

Physicist Tomasso Dorigo, who works at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, and the U.S. Fermilab near Chicago, said in a post on the website Scientific Blogging that the ICARUS paper was "very simple and definitive."

It says, he wrote, "that the difference between the speed of neutrinos and the speed of light cannot be as large as that seen by OPERA, and is certainly smaller than that by three orders of magnitude, and compatible with zero."
Faster than light neutrinos? Not so fast, say new findings. - CSMonitor.com
 
You'd have to add something if you want to keep Causality alive. So far whenever science is forced with a choice on how something can be interpreted, we have always chosen to maintain causality at the cost of everything else. Because once that becomes not true...how the hell are you supposed to understand anything? Regardless, we know that Relativity works and thus IF we measured FTL particles, we would have to find a construct underwhich they do not break causality. Maybe the speed of light needs to be raised. Hehehe. But for sure, there is a lot that could be "wrong" with the measurements, there's a lot that has to be discovered. I remember superluminous wave packets and how people went crazy about that at first too; and then we learned the real physics behind it and it all fell in place. I think that's what we're going to see here too...there will be some material property that we find.

The notion of "causality" is nothing more than an idea that stems from a limitation in human perception--our inability to perceive more than one Minkowski reference frame at once and our inability to perceive the dimension denoted "time" in that frame in a non-sequential fashion.

Sequential time is merely a psychic mechanism to perceive a series of 3-dimensional spaces. It is not a component of physics theory. SR only requires that the laws of physics are Lorentz invariant, that's it. It makes no stipulation on how T should be perceived.

If someone goes back in time and changes something in the past that creates a different future from that which one knows at the time he attempts the change, one way to resolve the inconsistency (outside of adding a parallel universe) is for the person to simply forget about the previous future, and for that previous future to simply no longer exist in spacetime.
 
It's certainly an interesting result, and the verification they did rules out what I thought was the error. It would be good to see another experiment confirm this, either in Chicago or in Japan. There are possible theories to explain this, but not many. It's quite exciting, and although I suspect it to be an error, it would be a massive game changer if it was true. Mind you, it's not the actual aim of the experiment, which is a measurement of something else to do with neutrinos, which will also be exciting when they release their 'actual' results :)
 
As objects approach the speed of light, time slows down for them. So if you get in a spaceship and spend an hour joyriding near the speed of light, many years will have passed on earth when you return. Theoretically, if you could travel at exactly the speed of light (which you can't), you would appear frozen in motion and the clocks on your spaceship would appear to have completely stopped to a person on earth who was looking in the window of your spaceship. But everything would appear normal to you until you stopped...then you'd notice that an infinite amount of time had passed and the universe was completely dead from heat death.

The speed of light is a maximum speed because a lot of infinities happen if you could travel at exactly the speed of light. You'd become infinitely massive, you'd become infinitely thin, your line of vision would become infinitely narrow, distant objects would appear to have no distance at all, and an infinite amount of time would pass outside of your spaceship. This is why it is impossible for anything that has a mass (whether it's a spaceship or a neutrino) to travel at the speed of light.

If something is exceeding the speed of light, that would mean that it was traveling backward in time, it would weigh more than the entire universe (or possibly weigh less than nothing), and it would have negative width. Therefore, color me skeptical.

But that's just according to the math, right? Couldn't there a difference between what can be done on paper and what is done in the real world?

For example, you can't take 5 grams of material from 3 grams of that same material. But that's a real world application. But that's different from the math of accounting, in which case a person can lose 5 dollars from an investment of 3 dollars.

I mean I basically grasp the concepts concerning that as one gets closer to the speed of light the perception of time changes. But couldn't it be possible that what actually happens when something exceeds the speed of light uses a totally different set of equations or follow totally different sets of physics that doesn't run counter to causality?
 
But that's just according to the math, right? Couldn't there a difference between what can be done on paper and what is done in the real world?

For example, you can't take 5 grams of material from 3 grams of that same material. But that's a real world application. But that's different from the math of accounting, in which case a person can lose 5 dollars from an investment of 3 dollars.

I mean I basically grasp the concepts concerning that as one gets closer to the speed of light the perception of time changes. But couldn't it be possible that what actually happens when something exceeds the speed of light uses a totally different set of equations or follow totally different sets of physics that doesn't run counter to causality?


As Heinlein said, you can speculate and calculate the number of bannannas in a tree all day long... but you won't know for sure until you climb the tree and count them. :)

Some of those questions are probably unanswerable, with certainty, until we can actually accelerate a thinking mind to a substantial fraction of c.
 
But couldn't it be possible that what actually happens when something exceeds the speed of light uses a totally different set of equations or follow totally different sets of physics

Possibly. But there is nothing in the known laws of physics to indicate that that would be the case. What especially interests me about this experiment is that even though the neutrinos supposedly exceeded the speed of light, they just barely exceeded it (a very small fraction of a percent). But once we've crossed that barrier there is theoretically no reason they couldn't travel much faster...at an arbitrarily fast speed.

that doesn't run counter to causality?

I don't see how (which isn't necessarily to say that it's impossible). Special relativity indicates that the laws of physics should look the same to everyone, regardless of their frame of reference. If neutrinos can travel faster than light, that means that it should be possible to send information faster than light. For example, if you stand on Earth and I stand on Betelgeuse and we fire beams of superluminal neutrinos at each other in Morse Code, we could communicate instantly even though we were 640 light-years apart.

And being able to send information faster-than-light DOES have serious repercussions for causality. For example, suppose I've rigged up a series of Christmas lights in a straight line across our section of the galaxy. I've set them up so that I'll send a superluminal neutrino signal to Light 1, which will then turn itself on and send a superluminal signal to Light 2 to do the same, etc. If you're in a spaceship traveling at near the speed of light in the same direction as my superluminal neutrino signal, from your perspective you would see Light 2 turn itself on before Light 1 ever sent it a signal to do so! Since there is nothing special about my frame of reference, I can't say that my interpretation of causality is correct and yours is wrong. You would have witnessed an effect happening before its cause, and your perception of the events would be just as valid as mine.
 
Not to mention that if neutrinos can travel faster than light, then so can macroscopic objects. If information can be sent faster than light, it opens the door to instantaneous teleportation across the universe. You could scan the position of every atom in your body, then step into a machine that would kill you, instantly transmit the information about your atomic composition to a receiver device on a distant world, and be reassembled by the receiver on that world.

I have no idea what THAT would do to causality (or if relativity would even apply in such a bizarre situation) but it would certainly result in a lot of weirdness.
 
Last edited:
I find it hard to believe that neutrinos, given their small extremely small mass, behave like little tennis balls even at near-light velocities. They should behave more like wave packets (i. e. photons or low energy electrons).
 
I find it hard to believe that neutrinos, given their small extremely small mass, behave like little tennis balls even at near-light velocities. They should behave more like wave packets (i. e. photons or low energy electrons).

Isn't it generally accepted that those types of particles behave like both?
 
Back
Top Bottom