Article

2011-11-22 Science & Technology

Study rejects"faster than light" particle finding

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2011-11-22 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 I. WANT. FTL SPACESHIPS.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2011-11-22 02:00|| 2011-11-22 02:00|| Front Page Top

#2 Is this before or after they did the repeat of the test with corrections and found the same results?

Posted by Creregum Glolump8403 2011-11-22 06:42|| 2011-11-22 06:42|| Front Page Top

#3 Star Trek Lives.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2011-11-22 06:48|| 2011-11-22 06:48|| Front Page Top

#4 That is not a refutal, we already know that the theory states no signal can travel faster then light.

Now why are these measurements showing that these neutrinos are traveling faster than light?

Posted by BernardZ 2011-11-22 07:16|| 2011-11-22 07:16|| Front Page Top

#5 I think that it's correct and the FTL "finding" was a mistake.

I've been thinking about Relativity for years now, and it's still a really beautiful theory.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2011-11-22 07:24|| 2011-11-22 07:24|| Front Page Top

#6 I have no idea who is right, but I will say that I applaud the folks doing the experiments. Do the (appropriate) experiments and let the results speak. I'm tired of politically inspired (i.e., leftist) theories ruling the day.

Posted by Spot 2011-11-22 08:08|| 2011-11-22 08:08|| Front Page Top

#7 Spot on Spot!

Silly Scientists! You have to perform the test inside a warp field! Any trekker knows that!

Posted by CrazyFool 2011-11-22 08:13|| 2011-11-22 08:13|| Front Page Top

#8 Well I do think you have to actually race a light beam if you want to claim one is faster than the other.

This experiment does not do that.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2011-11-22 08:22|| 2011-11-22 08:22|| Front Page Top

#9 There is one alternative that hasn't been discussed much, because it could really impact physics in a harsher way than going faster than light.

This is that there is something, anything really, that in normal space slightly inhibits light from traveling at its maximum speed. And that somehow, this experiment creates a circumstance where that inhibitory factor does not come into play, at least for these particles.

In effect, this would mean that the *real* speed of light is slightly faster than it is in normal space. But is there any place in normal space where the *real* speed of light matters?

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-11-22 08:49|| 2011-11-22 08:49|| Front Page Top

#10 There are lots of possibilities here. The most interesting I've seen is that what we think the speed of light is from our measurements of charged particles and photons, is actually slowed down from the true speed of light by just a bit in vacuum, because of interactions with virtual particles. Neutrinos being unaffected by most forces are thus slowed down in the vacuum, but slowed less than the usual suspects.

While this is most interesting, it is still probably wrong, because of long distance measurements of neutrinos from stuff in space that seem to be synchronized in time with light, but shouldn't be if there were a really different speed limit, so were this theory correct it would still require that the neutrinos eventually slowed down to the same speed as light in a vacuum through some interactions over a million years or so, even if it started out faster.

Anyway it turns out, there's lots of fun to be had here.

Posted by rammer 2011-11-22 08:59|| 2011-11-22 08:59|| Front Page Top

#11 I kinda think it matters in laser gyroscopes.
Possibly also in range determination devices.

I know it does when I'm using my laser pointer.

Posted by Skidmark 2011-11-22 09:00|| 2011-11-22 09:00|| Front Page Top

#12 Oh, and as far as the accuracy of the speed of light is concerned, the most accurate speed to date, using lasers, was only devised in 1973 at 299,792.4574 km/s.

Then again, in 1978, again using lasers, at 299,792.4588 km/s.

The trouble is that there are many different techniques to figure out the exact speed of light, but they have to be based on other constants than the speed of light. Pretty soon you are burdened with constants that may themselves be questionable.

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-11-22 09:08|| 2011-11-22 09:08|| Front Page Top

#13 @SPOT

It sounded like a good idea at the time.
But once corrupt politicians decided policy would be based on the best science; It was science that was corrupted. Hopefully, not permanently.

(And it's not like I trust non-leftist politicians, it's just that they are the least worst.)

Posted by Zebulon Spawn of the Wee Folk9512 2011-11-22 09:48|| 2011-11-22 09:48|| Front Page Top

#14 The science is settled the science is settled! Why are they still talking about it when there are faster than light credits to buy!

Posted by rjschwarz 2011-11-22 10:16|| 2011-11-22 10:16|| Front Page Top

#15 The bartender says "Hey, no nutrinos allowed!" A nutrino walks into a bar.

Posted by JonC 2011-11-22 10:22|| 2011-11-22 10:22|| Front Page Top

#16 A nootrino walks into she ....

Posted by gorb 2011-11-22 10:41|| 2011-11-22 10:41|| Front Page Top

#17 Better yet:

A Newtrino walks into a bar ...

Posted by gorb 2011-11-22 10:42|| 2011-11-22 10:42|| Front Page Top

#18 The really fun stuff begins with tachyon theory.

One theory to ponder is that particles are essentially "stuffed to the gills" with energy as they approach the speed of light, and crossing that barrier does not change this condition; but once they have become tachyons, the way for them to accelerate even further is to "give up" energy.

So the very fastest of tachyons would be as energy-less as the most stationary of objects in our space.

Which leads to the speculation, what if this completes a circle, so that only Brownian motion keeps a particle in this space. If it stops moving at all it is the same as an ultra high speed tachyon.

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-11-22 15:51|| 2011-11-22 15:51|| Front Page Top

#19 Quantum entanglement seems funkier to me, but what do I know? As long as Rantburg comes up when I click the link...

Posted by Spot 2011-11-22 16:17|| 2011-11-22 16:17|| Front Page Top

#20 How 'bout hem Vols..

Posted by BrerRabbit 2011-11-22 19:08|| 2011-11-22 19:08|| Front Page Top

#21 Pretty soon you are burdened with constants that may themselves be questionable. I think questionable constants have been used ever since Isaac Newton. Scientists have to assume that some things never change, have to make assumptions so that their calculations will work out. And mostly those calculations do.
Nevertheless, besides constants taken on faith, there are other anomalies tangled up in modern physics. One is How can we make inferences about past events that we haven't observed while at the same time acknowledge that the act of observing it affects the reality we are inferring to?
Another is: According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.
Then there is the Casimir effect in quantum electrodynamics, where 2 uncharged metal plates in a perfect vacuum, arranged just so but untouching, are under about 1 atmosphere of pressure pushing or pulling them apart - in a perfect vacuum.
Etc. Maybe physics will have to re-define 'faster.'

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-11-22 19:23|| 2011-11-22 19:23|| Front Page Top

#22 I read about this years from now.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2011-11-22 19:42|| 2011-11-22 19:42|| Front Page Top

#23 i posted this comment before I thought of what I wanted to say.

Posted by manversgwtw 2011-11-22 21:20|| 2011-11-22 21:20|| Front Page Top

#24 "Faster than Light...?"

Your mileage may vary.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2011-11-22 21:51|| 2011-11-22 21:51|| Front Page Top

#25 Actually, the ICARUS group's conclusion, based on Glashow's paper, doesn't really disprove Opera's result. Glashow pointed out that superluminal neutrinos should emit the equivalent of Cerencov radiation and slow down quickly--if the existing theory is correct. But if neutrinos can go faster than light when traveling through rock, we know the theory has some holes somewhere anyhow. (As rammer notes, the supernova SN1987A neutrinos were pretty close to lightspeed traveling through vacuum.)

Not that I believe Opera's results yet.

Posted by James 2011-11-22 23:18|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com 2011-11-22 23:18|| Front Page Top

00:03 JosephMendiola
23:48 JosephMendiola
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:18 James
22:57 Angoper Smith4384
22:49 badanov
22:21 trailing wife
22:10 trailing wife
21:54 USN, Ret.
21:51 Angoper Smith4384
21:51 USN, Ret.
21:45 Barbara
21:38 Angoper Smith4384
21:20 manversgwtw
21:11 crosspatch
21:06 Nimble Spemble
21:00 crosspatch
20:57 Pappy
20:53 Pappy
20:20 Barbara
19:59 newc
19:42 Deacon Blues