Transluminal Neutrinos? Not So Fast!
Last year researchers in Italy claimed to have detected neutrinos that traveled faster than the speed of light. If true, this could signal the era of a whole new physics. Who knows? Perhaps warp drives or some such technique for traveling between the stars might be possible. On the other hand, most physicists were betting that Einstein was right and that there was something wrong with the Italian experiment. It seems that the doubters of transluminal neutrinos are right. ScienceInsider reports:
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.
One further note: Some Reason commenters seemed frustrated (you know who you are) that I had not reported on this allegedly transluminal phenomenon. Two points: First, since this is an opinion magazine and website, I tend to limit my reporting to scientific issues with a public policy angle, e.g., uncontroversial topics such as climate change, embryonic stem cells, biotech crops, demographic trends, epidemiology, genetic testing, etc. Second, with regard to just sheerly fascinating experimental results, my reportorial tendency is to wait until the results have been duplicated and confirmed. Just saying.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But I thought the Science was Settled!?!
My neighbor just met a bisexual man on ---datebi*cOMit's where for men and women looking
for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment.
It's a nice place for the people who have the same sexual orientation.
I think I just had a sargasm!
They forgot to flip the switch on the back to 220-240.
If true, this could signal the era of a whole new physics. Who knows? Perhaps warp drives or some such technique for traveling between the stars might be possible.
Aw, crap! I guess we're gonna have to learn to live with each other.
The idea of even having the ability to precisely verify such a small time change, with measuring technology that is in fact limited by the speed of light, is basically bullshit.
What's wrong with a simple analog stopwatch, like the kind Coach used to use when we ran the 40 in high school? They don't need fancy light to work, just a button on top.
A stopwatch would be sufficient to verify whether something had exceeded the speed of light if you were measuring the time it took for the thing to cover a great distance, say some quantity of parsecs.
Wouldn't here to say Jupiter and back take a few minutes?
At the very least. The hard part is getting the neutrinos to turn around and come right back without stopping to take a leak and stretch their legs.
This experiment would probably best be conducted in space. It would minimize environmental error, and would enable a distance great enough to establish a margin between the time for light to travel the distance and the time the neutrinos travel the distance. The time difference would be great enough to verify whether the neutrinos exceeded the speed of light without worrying so much about the precision of the time measurement equipment. Earth to Jupiter would probably be more than enough distance.
A stopwatch would be sufficient to verify whether something had exceeded the speed of light if you were measuring the time it took for the thing to cover a great distance, say some quantity of parsecs.
Or smaller distances as well, say, from across the room. You just have to be a little quicker on the button, that's all.
How's the coach who is standing at the finish line, a parsec away, going to know exactly when the neutrino left the starting gate?
Another stopwatch, to count down to the start time.
GPS works. It deals with measurements on that scale.
GPS isn't so highly precise that it is good enough for what they are trying to do here. There is error in the technology and there is environmental interference, and it clearly caused a significant discrepancy in the very small amount of time they are trying to measure.
GPS signals travel at the speed of light, but the signal also must be processed.
The experiment is cutting the neutrino travel distance kind of short for measuring the travel time.
It is also among the longest beam experiments to date. The beam qualifier is important because you have to be able to measure the start time as well.
Sufficient money will result in LBNE (about 1200 km---Fermi to Homestake) in a bit less than 10 years. There has been talk of a "short magic baseline" experiment after that running Brookhaven to Homestake, but that's pure blue shy stuff for now.
Neutrino beams suffer the same 1/r^2 problem that you get with anything else, so very long runs call for some combination of unreasonably intense beams, huge detectors and very long data collection periods. All for a pure science result, and all funded by governments.
But the GPS signals are only marking placement in the world to verify distance and therefore is not a part of the processing in the timing portion of this experiment and can be done completely separately though simultaneous.
This is not true. GPS is also being used to synchronize the clocks between CERN and Gran Sasso.
Note that they are not using your garden variety GPS receiver. They have one fixed to the ground that integrates full time, and is stablized by a cesium clock.
Go and read the preprint. Really.
Ronald,
If you dont think FTL has a public policy angle, you are insane.
Image the clamoring for hypertrains!
You'll get there before you leave the station!
robc: I never thought of that! 😉
But see also my second point.
I agreed with the 2nd point.
this is an opinion magazine and website
I thought everything presented here was fact.
The opinions on policy are derived from incontestable facts. Therefore, it is a fact that there must be one opinion that is the correct opinion, making it a fact.
Right on, dude!
We are the 0.3%!!
That high?
Damn dirty test-tubes!
They were using intertubes.
uncontroversial topics such as
Nice.
First, since this is an opinion magazine and website, I tend to limit my reporting to scientific issues with a public policy angle, e.g., uncontroversial topics such as climate change, embryonic stem cells, biotech crops, demographic trends, epidemiology, genetic testing, etc.
Seconded. Even though I often disagree with Ron, this sentence proves that he deserves to be here.
Plus he uses alt-text.
THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!
BAILEY IS A DENIER!
Stop Global Warping!
Stop Subspace Hyperactivity!
Stop The Barions From Quarking Up!
Earth First! We Can Strip Mine The Other Planets Later!
This is a wise approach.
It's not really science till it's been (idependently)confirmed
"This is before Taylor would transform the family's garage into a mysterious, glow-in-the-dark cache of rocks and metals and liquids with unimaginable powers. Before he would conceive, in a series of unlikely epiphanies, new ways to use neutrons to confront some of the biggest challenges of our time: cancer and nuclear terrorism. Before he would build a reactor that could hurl atoms together in a 500-million-degree plasma core?becoming, at 14, the youngest individual on Earth to achieve nuclear fusion."
http://www.popsci.com/science/.....yed-fusion
I read about that kid a while back. He's pretty amazing. Although after reading about guys like him I inevitably feel like a lazy mouth breathing monkey.
"mysterious, glow-in-the-dark cache of rocks and metals and liquids"
My bedroom and basement were like that in college.
At which time you feel the need to jump right in with the nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyaaah?
You should have omitted that last paragraph.
Myaaahhh.
You should have omitted that last paragraph.
You should have omitted that last paragraph.
boom baby
I predicted this.
Press Release: UPDATE 23 February 2012 (paraphrased)
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. If confirmed, one would increase the size of the measured effect, the other would diminish it.
http://press.web.cern.ch/press.....9.11E.html
It seems that the doubters of transluminal neutrinos are right.... followed by Second, with regard to just sheerly fascinating experimental results, my reportorial tendency is to wait until the results have been duplicated and confirmed.
[sigh]
Sighing never constructed any understanding, Neu. You're gonna have to do better than that.
Of course, because he's talking about actual science here, with experiments and shit, this doesn't apply to climate change pontificating.
Oh irony.
NM: [sigh] indeed!
Used the occasion to explain to Reason commenters who've been bugging me about this why I hadn't done reporting on it. Got a problem with that?
Again [sigh]
Used the occasion to explain to Reason commenters who've been bugging me about this why I hadn't done reporting on it. Got a problem with that?
No. But...
Your words: It seems that the doubters of transluminal neutrinos are right
If by "right" you mean "right that there was something wrong with the experiment"- I guess, OK. But if you mean that "Einstein was right" - your own tendencies should make you wait before declaring the experiment a bust.
For NM, "seems" isn't enough of a qualifier.
That seems a fair.
Perhaps he could have paired the "seems" with a "might" instead of an "are" ...
;^)
I knew that experiment was flawed 60 nanoseconds before it was.
Neutrino's eh? Is this because since Santorum has a substance then Gignrich gets one too?
The bartender says "We obey the laws of physics in here!"
A faster than light neutrino walked into a bar...
Heh.
Just from completeness I'll note that the way the OPERA collaboration phrased it's preprint and presented the results at CERN made it absolutely clear that they were not claiming to have discovered super-luminal neutrinos at the time, but reporting on an anomalous observation that they could not explain.
Nor do any of the "change one assumption" theories that have been floated explain both the OPERA result and the SN1987 observations, which suggests that someone has made a mistake.
Currently OPERA is chasing two possible source which pull in opposite direction.
Isn't physics fun?
//Read and understood the the preprint.
Thanks