BBC: Neutrino Particle Breaks the Speed of Light

[Chris Peterson]

Quote From the article :

Narlikar found that in a universe that is expanding after a big bang event, neutrinos would turn up at a detector before they were emitted. "Only future-going neutrinos were possible in the steady state cosmology while the ever-expanding big bang models gave neutrinos travelling into the past," Narlikar told me. If you see firm evidence of neutrinos arriving at the detector before they are sent, that can't happen in a steady state cosmology, so the big bang has to be right. Or equivalently, no faster-than-light neutrinos, no big bang.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/short ... geste.html

How could this be possible ?

Most likely? The original analysis from 50 years ago was wrong. Cosmology has advanced tremendously since then, when there was little observational evidence for the Big Bang, and the theory itself was at its most basic.

[The Code]

Most likely? The original analysis from 50 years ago was wrong. Cosmology has advanced tremendously since then, when there was little observational evidence for the Big Bang, and the theory itself was at its most basic.

Evidently ! But the math hasn't, the prediction stated that neutrinos,for what ever time difference, should be faster than light. So what did he and the science lab in Italy do right ? or was this just a coincidence ?

tc

[Chris Peterson]

Evidently ! But the math hasn't, the prediction stated that neutrinos,for what ever time difference, should be faster than light.

The math was applied to theory that has changed substantially. The math itself may be right, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is.

[Frenchy]

Are you guys thinking that the Big Bang happened only once? What if it is a continuous never-ending process?

[Chris Peterson]

Are you guys thinking that the Big Bang happened only once? What if it is a continuous never-ending process?

There's no evidence of that, and scientifically, the suggestion may be meaningless, if it can't be tested or confirmed by any possible observation. In terms of how the Universe works and what we observe, there may be no difference between the case of a single BB and the case of cycles of them.

Of course, the evidence now points strongly to an open Universe, which will expand forever, which suggests that if it ever was a cyclic Universe, that is ending with our incarnation.

[ThePiper]

Chris: "A question which produces more questions is a good one"

hehe - a nice and interesting definition. But really?

So the mother of all questions "what happened since the energy was born?" include all the potential subsequent questions -
but is pretty senseless.

The more cloudy, blurred a question is, the longer the enclosed chain of subsequent questions; that's not leading to target.
A well targeted question require a precise answer. Our goal is not to always find more questions, we want answers!

[Chris Peterson]

Chris: "A question which produces more questions is a good one"

hehe - a nice and interesting definition. But really?

So the mother of all questions "what happened since the energy was born?" include all the potential subsequent questions -
but is pretty senseless.

The more cloudy, blurred a question is, the longer the enclosed chain of subsequent questions; that's not leading to target.
A well targeted question require a precise answer. Our goal is not to always find more questions, we want answers! :wink:

Of course, my comment was a brief summary of a more complex bit of scientific philosophy. Certainly, there are good questions and bad ones. In science, the best questions are focused, and designed to lead to clear, unambiguous answers. Your "mother of all questions" isn't a scientifically framed question at all.

To be more precise with my earlier comment, it might be better to say that a good scientific question is one where the answer produces more questions.

[ThePiper]

Of course, my comment was a brief summary of a more complex bit of scientific philosophy. Certainly, there are good questions and bad ones. In science, the best questions are focused, and designed to lead to clear, unambiguous answers. Your "mother of all questions" isn't a scientifically framed question at all.

To be more precise with my earlier comment, it might be better to say that a good scientific question is one where the answer produces more questions.

All right, you are unbeatable. I had to take the chance for a little, playfully provocation.

[ThePiper]

The answer before was not from Piper but from ThePiper. Had a strange problem on submit. Was not logged-in. Sorry!

[Chris Peterson]

All right, you are unbeatable. I had to take the chance for a little, playfully provocation. :wink:

I didn't know it was a contest <g>. But I always appreciate the opportunity to make myself more clear, if there is any question.

[THX1138]

Aside from both the misspelling and the banter herein along with the age old question that every human whom has ever lived has likely pondered at one time or another. “What date is it on the moon “ ( LOL )
Because this thread has been brought back from the dead, what of the statement in my opening.
If space didn’t expand faster than light there would be no space for the light to spread into. A correct assumption,

[Chris Peterson]

If space didn’t expand faster than light there would be no space for the light to spread into. A correct assumption, :idea: :?:

I don't think so. Light spreads out inside a closed, opaque chamber, and there's no need for the container to be expanding. Why should the Universe be different? Light can spread into an expanding Universe, or it can be contained in a non-expanding one. I don't see how we can draw any conclusions about the nature of the Universe from the "spreading out" of light.

[neufer]

If space didn’t expand faster than light there would be no space for the light to spread into. A correct assumption,

If the Earth didn’t expand faster than seismic waves there would be no Earth for the seismic waves to spread into.

[upheaval]

There were no big bang and time doesn't exist at all. It's a purely an invention of the human being. The univers has no beginn and no end, but change constantly (because integration and deintegration of the matter, actually like hier on the hearth) . Hearth-Time is relatif depending of the change of the phenomenon. I think, we'll need another 50 years to understand this!

[bystander]

BREAKING NEWS: Error Undoes Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Results
Science Insider | Edwin Cartlidge | 2012 Feb 22

It appears that the faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame.

Physicists had detected neutrinos travelling from the CERN laboratory in Geneva to the Gran Sasso laboratory near L'Aquila that appeared to make the trip in about 60 nanoseconds less than light speed. Many other physicists suspected that the result was due to some kind of error, given that it seems at odds with Einstein's special theory of relativity, which says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. That theory has been vindicated by many experiments over the decades.

According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer. After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed. Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos. New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Faster Than Light? More Like Faulty Wiring.
Universe Today | Jason Major | 2012 Feb 22

Neutrinos and Cables
Discover Blogs | Cosmic Variance | Sean Carroll | 2012 Feb 22

Unconfirmed rumor: FTL neutrinos may be due to a faulty GPS connection
Discover Blogs | Bad Astronomy | 2012 Feb 22

Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos Caused by Loose Cable?
Discovery News | Ian O'Neill | 2012 Feb 22

Faster-than-light neutrino measurement has two possible errors
Nature News Blog | Eugenie Samuel Reich | 2012 Feb 22

'Faster than light neutrinos' could be slower... or faster... than thought
Science and Technology Facilities Council | 2012 Feb 23

CERN Update | 2012 Feb 23

The OPERA collaboration has informed its funding agencies and host laboratories that it has identified two possible effects that could have an influence on its neutrino timing measurement. These both require further tests with a short pulsed beam. If confirmed, one would increase the size of the measured effect, the other would diminish it. The first possible effect concerns an oscillator used to provide the time stamps for GPS synchronizations. It could have led to an overestimate of the neutrino's time of flight. The second concerns the optical fibre connector that brings the external GPS signal to the OPERA master clock, which may not have been functioning correctly when the measurements were taken. If this is the case, it could have led to an underestimate of the time of flight of the neutrinos. The potential extent of these two effects is being studied by the OPERA collaboration. New measurements with short pulsed beams are scheduled for May.

[neufer]

.

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

The OPERA isn't over until the fat Larry sings.

BREAKING NEWS: Error Undoes Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Results
Science Insider | Edwin Cartlidge | 2012 Feb 22

<<It appears that the faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all. According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer. After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed. Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos.>>

[geckzilla]

You need to start spoiler tagging how you are making connections between what you post and what you quote, Art. I just can't figure it out a lot of the time.

[neufer]

You need to start spoiler tagging how you are making connections between what you post and what you quote, Art.
I just can't figure it out a lot of the time.

The OPERA isn't over until Larry the fat Cable Guy sings.

[bystander]

CERN Update 16 March 2012

ICARUS experiment at Gran Sasso laboratory reports new measurement of neutrino time of flight consistent with the speed of light

The ICARUS experiment at the Italian Gran Sasso laboratory has today reported a new measurement of the time of flight of neutrinos from CERN to Gran Sasso. The ICARUS measurement, using last year’s short pulsed beam from CERN, indicates that the neutrinos do not exceed the speed of light on their journey between the two laboratories. This is at odds with the initial measurement reported by OPERA last September.

"The evidence is beginning to point towards the OPERA result being an artefact of the measurement," said CERN Research Director Sergio Bertolucci, "but it's important to be rigorous, and the Gran Sasso experiments, BOREXINO, ICARUS, LVD and OPERA will be making new measurements with pulsed beams from CERN in May to give us the final verdict. In addition, cross-checks are underway at Gran Sasso to compare the timings of cosmic ray particles between the two experiments, OPERA and LVD. Whatever the result, the OPERA experiment has behaved with perfect scientific integrity in opening their measurement to broad scrutiny, and inviting independent measurements. This is how science works."

The ICARUS experiment has independent timing from OPERA and measured seven neutrinos in the beam from CERN last year. These all arrived in a time consistent with the speed of light.

"The ICARUS experiment has provided an important cross check of the anomalous result reports from OPERA last year," said Carlo Rubbia, Nobel Prize winner and spokesperson of the ICARUS experiment. "ICARUS measures the neutrino's velocity to be no faster than the speed of light. These are difficult and sensitive measurements to make and they underline the importance of the scientific process. The ICARUS Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber is a novel detector which allows an accurate reconstruction of the neutrino interactions comparable with the old bubble chambers with fully electronics acquisition systems. The fast associated scintillation pulse provides the precise timing of each event, and has been exploited for the neutrino time-of-flight measurement. This technique is now recognized world wide as the most appropriate for future large volume neutrino detectors.”

New neutrino news says not faster than light
Science and Technology Facilities Council | 2012 Mar 16

A different experiment measuring the time of flight of neutrinos between CERN in Geneva and Gran Sasso in Italy has published new results that indicate that neutrinos do not travel faster than light.

In September 2011, unexpected results from the OPERA collaboration suggested that neutrinos travelling between the two laboratories were defying a key assumption that underpins modern physics – that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. This caused an international media sensation and opened up the process of scientific scrutiny to the general public.

Since then, physicists around the world have been rigorously checking the OPERA results, repeating and replicating experiments in an effort to establish whether the OPERA results are correct.

But now the ICARUS experiment, which is also based at Gran Sasso, has reported results which indicate that neutrinos do not travel faster than the speed of light. The experiment has independent timing from the OPERA experiment, pointing to the possibility that there is a timing discrepancy on OPERA.STFC manages the UK subscription to CERN.

Superluminal Neutrinos are so 2011
Discover Blogs | Cosmic Variance | 2012 Mar 16

Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos (Probably) Don't Exist
Discovery News | AFP | 2012 Mar 16

Neutrinos Obey The Speed Limit, After All
Universe Today | Jason Major | 2012 Mar 16