It's interesting that tachyons can travel having an infinite speed. However they need to receive an infinite amount of energy in order to be decelerated down to the speed of light (in the same way that a usual particle need to receive an infinite amount of energy in order to be accelerated up to the speed of light). The "speed of light" is a kind of an "absolute barrier": whatever moves, its speed can never reach (and, moreover, pass) this barrier, no matter if its initial speed is 'over' or 'under' this barrier. I think that we could, also, consider the "speed of light" as a kind of a cosmic reference velocity.

Nevertheless, I bet that something goes wrong with the measurement of these neutrinos. I bet that they don't, actually, travel at a superluminal speed. In the past, some other scientists had claimed that they observed superluminal speeds. Since then, silence followed their claims. I think that this is an "evidence" that something went wrong with their initial experiments (and they just rushed to make their announcements).

Hi George, you wrote: "I think that we could, also, consider the "speed of light" as a kind of a cosmic reference velocity."

A weird kind of reference, yes. Loosely speaking, one can never change your velocity relative to it. Also, if such a reference frame exists, it cannot have any concept of time or distance (space). It would be a 'null frame', where all possible events happen at once and at the same place...

-J

Hi Jorrie. You said: Loosely speaking, one can never change your velocity relative to it. I suppose that it is so, because any other frame is moving in a speed c relative to a 'photon's frame'. It doesn't matter if a frame is accelerating or decelerating: its speed will be, always, c relative to a 'photon's fame'. (Is that what you meant?)

You said: It would be a 'null frame', where all possible events happen at once and at the same place... I don't get it. Let's suppose that you are on a 'photon's frame': As everything else is moving in a speed c (relative to you), you see that everything is on the "same place", due to (infinite) Lorentz contraction of space. But, due to (infinite) expansion of time, no event should take place around you. Everything should be like a "frozen picture" relative to you.

Hi George.

Yes you paraphrased exactly what I meant.

You wrote: "But, due to (infinite) expansion of time, no event should take place around you. Everything should be like a "frozen picture" relative to you."

I suppose this would qualify for "everything happens at once". Remember, time in the rest universe as we know it, would still carry on as usual - it would be only your clock that has stopped.

Another way to look at it is that if you could travel just-just short of c relative to the universe at large, everything up to the end of the observable cosmos (and farther) would flash past you "in virtually no time at all".

What it really says is that a null frame of reference is not a valid frame of reference.

-J

A photon travels between two points that they are at a finite distance in a finite time. From your point of view (standing on the photon's frame), you covered the distance of the whole universe in no time at all (just because of the Lorentz contraction of the universe as it travels in speed c relative to you). But if you try to calculate your speed you'll find out that it is "indefinite", sth like "∞/0" relative to your clock (or sth like "∞/∞" relative to an outside clock, because of the infinite time retardation of the outside universe relative to you)- Am I right?

(In a way, you travelled -in no time- a whole -frozen in time- universe..... )

"But if you try to calculate your speed you'll find out that it is "indefinite", sth like "∞/0" relative to your clock (or sth like "∞/∞" relative to an outside clock, because of the infinite time retardation of the outside universe relative to you)- Am I right?"

More like 0/0, the null spacetime of a light-like interval. In the "photon frame", no distance and no time, or perhaps just plain undefined.

We must obviously not mix coordinates systems. For the 'outside universe', both space and time intervals for light are definite (equal) and so is the spacetime interval - the latter is zero, but definite. Again, to postulate a "light frame of reference" is not valid.

-J

Yes, 0/0 is better. (I just supposed that you are "aware" that you have covered an infinite distance, till the "end" of the universe.) So, again, the speed is undefined.

I agree that we can not consider the 'light frame' as a 'reference frame'. And (due to those weird results), probably, it should not be considered as a "frame" at all... ...

Thank you, Jorrie.

The only issue with this is that Tachyons are hypothetical particles and I am not sure what hypothetical conditions are required to instantiate them.

However, the whole CERN experiment has an order of Lorentz Invariance, too, no?

Hi AH.

With my 'jumping towns', I missed the other thread, but will respond there as new information becomes available.

Tachyons are surely hypothetical and the only thing going for them is that there is no good theory that forbids them. This is the only reputable experiment that has not been refuted (so far) showing something that may perhaps be a tachyon. Time will tell.

I would not consider the CERN experiment to go after Lorentz invariance, but the Opera measurement did apparently stumble upon a result that may show Lorentz invariance. I would still not bet on it, though.

-J

Hi Jorrie,

There is another discussion on this on CR4. I take it that the distance between the two sites is measured by a GPS. That would give the arc distance on the surface of the earth, would it not?

-S

Hi S.

AFAIK, they did use special GPS measurements to calculate the direct distance, not the surface distance.

I think the biggest factor would in any case be the time synchronization, which they also deduced from GPS timing. According to the Physics Forums discussions, they corrected this for all known relativistic effects of rotation speed and altitude variations. I gather that those effects are in any case an order of magnitude smaller than the result that they got.

My gut feeling is that the answer may lie in the statistical nature of the actual transmission and reception measurements that gave an anomalous result. This short note suggested a possible source of error, but we will have to wait and see.

-J

My post yesterday is not here, so I'll try again. Since there were no photons actually transmitted along with the neutrinos, I guess one can only assume that they calculated the time it would have taken photons in vacuum for the straight line distance the neutrinos took.

My gut feeling is that the answer may lie in the statistical nature of the actual transmission and reception measurements that gave an anomalous result.

Your OP said the result was a 6 sigma result. That means that they were 99.9997% sure of their answer! So much for statistics.

We know that light is slowed down about 3% in air compared with vacuum. What if vacuum slows down photons too. Neutrinos are very much smaller than atoms (I'm not sure if photon size is known), so maybe they are not slowed down as much by vacuum as photons are. (Also, it might be a mass issue). That might account for the 5.7% error. Everybody is guessing right now, so this is my guess. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this. Maybe a quantum gravity theory?

You wrote, "(I'm not sure if photon size is known)"

Photons do not have a physical mass nor a volume, therefore, no size to speak of. Photons do have a 2D wavefront, but photons are not particles.

The problem with launching photons along with the neutrinos (assuming you bored a hole through the Earth parallel with the neutrino beam) is, that it is unclear exactly when the neutrinos get launched as well as detected. So some degree of uncertainty will always exist.

However, it would be one way to confirm the actual point to point distance between detector and the cite where the neutrinos are generated.

The detected accuracy is claimed to be 60.7 ± 6.9 ns (stat.) ± 7.4 ns (sys.). The burning question for me is to what degree of accuracy can they really be assure of the positional accuracy of the two points?

Hi AH.

I believe the consensus is that the distance error are very small and that the uncertainties lie in systematic timing errors, or the way in which the analysis is done for possibly dependent systematics.

My apologies to Jorrie, I started, inadvertently, another discussion on same subject.I provided a link to another site that provides a source for the complete research details.

I have posted it below for those who want to analyse it for themselves:

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/other/4228236/Faster-than-the-speed-of-light-?cid=NL_EELife

OOPS! Here is the direct link:http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf

A recent article has suggested that the time difference could have come about by the "neutrinos" using additional dimensions and thus shortening their path length.

Sorry Guys I did not retain the reference.

Sleepy

Hi HTRN, no need to apologize, I posted this Blog entry after your thread; so my apologies...

I still believe that the answer lurks in systematic uncertainties that are dependent in some way and which they do not quite understand.

I wrote:

"

When v > c, both numerator and denominator must have imaginary values."

I just noticed a recent paper, reporting the intriguing result that the mass of the neutrino may perhaps be imaginary, indeed: m²_nu = −0.67 ± 2.53 eV².

One must obviously be careful with this sort of statistic; in fact the authors only claim that m_ν²_nu ≤ 1.86, i.e. an upper limit, with no mention of a possible imaginary mass and hence superluminal speed. Most physicists still take the neutrino mass as zero, as apparently confirmed by supernova neutrinos. It is however a very interesting result.

On this Friday (14th), CERN is running a seminar on the theoretical implications in case of a confirmation of the OPERA experiment. Hence, it is possibly premature to speculate...

-J

You have me intrigued and confused at the same time. Please explain what an imaginary mass is. Do you mean that it is at right angles to ordinary mass? In your formula, v and c are both velocities. What does that have to do with mass (imaginary or not)? If the neutrinos have zero mass, then they could have superluminal speeds, not limited to 5.7% greater than c. There would be no limit. How do supernovas confirm zero mass? Surely not by their having speeds equal to c. That would prove that they have some mass.

Here is a link referencing the mass of neutrinos:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/neutrino.html#c5

Thanks HTRN, it's very informative. It reaffirms my belief that they have some mass.

-S

p.s. I saw a TV special on the "magic soil" a while back. It's quite exiting.

It has to do with the math. Look at the equation in Jorrie's post and it becomes clear that for a velocity greater than C the math only works out if both denominator and numerator are imaginary numbers. It can't be one or the other, it must be both or the equation can not be solved.

Welcome to theoretical physics. :)

Hi S, it is easy to see why both m and √(1-v²/c²) must be imaginary, as AH said, but what 'imaginary mass' means, I do not know. :(

I suppose it is fair to view it as orthogonal to real mass, as in complex numbers, but to put some physical meaning to it is beyond me. I guess any mass may have a real (m_r) and an imaginary (m_i) part, i.e. a complex value of m = m_r + im_i. Maybe 'real masses' have such small m_i and photons such a small m_r that we just don't notice?

BTW, it is presently accepted that all truly massless particles travel at exactly c, no faster. The supernova neutrinos arrived at the roughly same time as light, so both are assumed to have the zero mass.⁽¹⁾ Relativity theory indicates that imaginary masses should always travel faster than c (tachyons, not been observed so far).

-J

(1) They started out at slightly different times (neutrinos first), but the distance they traveled is so vast that we must assume that they traveled at the same speed.

And the kicker in the CERN experiment is that there has never been an observation of super-luminal neutrinos in nature, which begs the question of what is different between CERN's experiment and all of the natural observations to date?

I suppose the differences are the energy level (higher) and the path of the CERN neutrinos through solid rock versus 'empty space' from supernovae. Hopefully CERN will address these in their Seminar tomorrow, 14th.

Haven't seen anything on the CERN seminar yet, but this very interesting recent paper on the CERN Opera experiment discusses a phenomenon called "superluminal Majorana neutrinos".*

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1109/1109.5445v5.pdf

Haven't heard of such beasts before, but they apparently have "fictitious imaginary mass" without violating Lorentz invariance. What is more, the phenomenon apparently seems compatible with both the supernova and CERN experiments!

-J

* Sounds a bit like neutrinos on marijuana

Hi Jorrie,

Thank for the article. It is interesting that E=mc² has been superseded (formula 2). Maybe you already stated that with yours. The results are barely within the uncertainty of SN1987a, so it is not proof, but convincing. Anyway, the universe is stranger than I can imagine, probably because it is more complicated that anyone could imagine. Since I don't really understand normal mass, I guess there's no reason to reject imaginary mass. What is the k in formula 5 (m² = -k²)?

-S

Since Baryonic matter is such a small proportion of the whole universe, we must use our imagination to visualize the rest.So if we are in fact living in a mostly imaginary universe, perhaps imaginary numbers are the only "real" ones.

There are lots of logic defying occurrences in Nature, and even more in man's theories of how the universe works;for instance a quantum computer that solves a problem before it is even run.

Hi S,

In #27, I wrote: "I guess any mass may have a real (m_r) and an imaginary (m_i) part, ..."

As I see it, Majorana use ik in the place of my m_i, the imaginary part of mass, so that:

m_i² = (ik)² = -k², more specifically for neutrinos, with spin 1/2.

Don't worry, nobody knows what mass is when it comes to particles; are they wave-like energy, point-like things with linear and spin energy, or what?

-J

I does seem that the 'involved' physics community are presently tight-lipped on the experiment. I suppose it is understandable that they want to be very sure before they publish (or leak) anything further. The 'fringe' communities are obviously very active, but it mostly comes down to mere speculation, unfortunately. We simply do not have all the details.

I've come across this very straight forward analysis made by Dutch physicist Ronald van Elburg, titled Time-of-flight between a Source and a Detector observed from a Satellite.

Apart from some 'Dutchism', e.g. "foton" for photon*, there are a few interesting possibilities in this preprint. I has to do with conversions between two quasi-inertial frames in relative motion: a single GPS satellite and the detector frame.**

It is not really a relativistic effect, because the gamma factor √(1-v²/c²) for the relative motion () is only some 10^-10 from unity. However, the Einstein clock synchronization effect is linear in v/c² and works out to be ≈ -32 ns. This is just over half the reported time of flight anomaly.

Van Elburg claims that this value doubles because of other coordinate conversion issues, but he is not very clear on that.

-J

* With Afro-Dutch (Afrikaans) as first language, I have sympathy with it. :-)

** Opera apparently used the same satellite over and over to synchronize the two atomic clocks, one at CERN an the one near Gran Sasso, which was then slowly transported to the detector, underneath the mountain.

I wrote: "I(t) has to do with conversions between two quasi-inertial frames in relative motion: a single GPS satellite and the detector frame."

It is rather unthinkable that the Opera collaborators did not think about such an error or that GPS does not correct for it automatically, because it could cause positioning errors of up to 10 meters. I think we are sure that there are no such glaring errors in precision GPS positions, because it would have become obvious long ago.

One intriguing possibility is that the error cancels out if you use many satellites for position determination. A better guess is that GPS receivers employ a correction in the algorithm for position, but that the raw time conversion still has it.

On another forum, someone speculated that maybe Opera, when doing the clock synchronization, employed this relativistic correction in the wrong direction (a sign error, easy to make), hence doubling it. The neutrons would then have arrived on time, but the GPS-synchronized Gran Sasso atomic clock would have recorded a time some 60 ns too early. I'm somewhat skeptical to this possibility.

-J

It's even more complex than that. You also need to do ionospheric corrections to account for refraction in the signal, which alter the propagation times for the signals.

Then there is multi-path issues for the receiver.

My understanding for ground based GPS monitoring that they take an average over the course of days or weeks of the GPS position and are able to refine the position within centimeters.

I agree with you that any GPS error would be a glaring one that individuals would never live down for the remainder of their careers. ;-) Actually, it may be a legendary one - sort of like a modern day Murphy.

(a sign error, easy to make)... I'm somewhat skeptical to this possibility.
I have seen some of these that were in play for many years! This is a distinct possibility.Sometimes the sign error is the result of a definition that is different from the usual. For example, thermal converter errors are based on their outputs rather than their inputs. That changes a sign. Just because the people have doctorate degrees doesn't mean they can't make a mistake.

"Just because the people have doctorate degrees doesn't mean they can't make a mistake."

I guess they now want be 100% sure there are no further mistakes, if any were indeed made. So we may have to wait a few years for a clarification. I understand that they plan a retest, now that the whole world has chipped in on possible, likely and unlikely errors.

-J

I meant to say thermal voltage converter errors are based on their inputs rather than their outputs. From a NIST report: "A positive error means that more AC than DC was required [at the input] to produce the same output". Had the same input levels been made, the output voltage would have been lower for the AC voltage (a negative error) in this case. This was just an example, I doubt TVCs are used here.

I wrote in #30: "... but this very interesting recent paper on the CERN Opera experiment discusses a phenomenon called "superluminal Majorana neutrinos".*

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1109/1109.5445v5.pdf

Haven't heard of such beasts before, but they apparently have "fictitious imaginary mass" without violating Lorentz invariance."

Believe it or not, but serious physicists⁽¹⁾ are apparently taking this serious as a possibility, should the Opera result be upheld.

What is "fictitious imaginary mass"? AFAIK it refers to particles that create the appearance of faster than light propagation, without actually breaking the light-speed barrier; very similar to phase velocity that may exceed c, while group velocity (that carries information) does not.

Oversimplified, the argument for neutrinos seems to be that rock may cause a dispersion of the various neutrino wavelengths (energies) and thus a phase velocity that may exceed c. Opera may perhaps have the time and distance right, but detected the phase velocity of the neutrinos, without knowing it.

So, the "Majorana neutrinos" may not have been on steroids (or worse) after all.

-J

(1) http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor

.

I haven't seen any announcement after the CERN seminar on this issue, but at least this was reported by the BBC: Faster-than-light neutrino experiment to be run again.

"Dr Sergio Bertolucci said it was vital not to "fool around" given the staggering implications of the result. So they are doing all they can to rule out more pedestrian explanations."

...

"This should be addressed by the new measurements, in which protons are sent in a series of short bursts - lasting just one or two nanoseconds, thousands of times shorter - with a large gap (roughly 500 nanoseconds) in between each burst.

This system, says Dr Bertolucci, is more efficient: "For every neutrino event at Gran Sasso, you can connect it unambiguously with the batch of protons at Cern," he explained."

...

"The re-jigged neutrino run will end in November, when Cern has to switch from accelerating protons to accelerating lead ions. Opera scientists hope to include these measurements in the manuscript they will submit for publication in a scientific journal."

Good show.

If they are sending a different time structure through the beam, is it realy then a repeat of the same test or a completely new test with new parameters, one that is more than likely to give new results. By changing the structure of the test you invalidate it as a check test and are instead running a completely different test than that ran before. The only surprising thing will be if the same results are obtained from a completely new test with different parameters.

I would also be very surprised if they find superluminal neutrinos again, but that will be a real sensational result.

If, as most expect, they find neutrino speed at c or just less, it will show that there was something wrong either with the first test, or with the statistical interpretation of that test. I fully expect the latter to be the case, but we will have to wait and see.

How will it show that? They are not performing the same test again, they are performing a completely new test with new parameters, with a new time signal being sent adjusted to give the values they expect, I expect nothing less than a result of c or less. All will then be forgotten and written off as an error and the original test that gave anomalous results never performed again as CERN goes on to accelerate iron molecules. The purpose of reproducing an experiment is to actually reproduce it, not change the parameters and call it a retest, that is nothing more than a completely new experiment. Not that I particularly think neutrinos travel faster than c, but the idea you can change the parameters and expect the same results is anything but scientific. People should object for no other reason than they want to change the experiment then call it the same experiment. Science at it's finest.

My understanding is that they suspect the systematic error to lurk in the long pulses and the statistical uncertainties that it introduces, making it senseless to perform an exact experiment again. The main issue is: do neutrinos somehow go faster than c though rock or not. The secondary issue is what/where did the first test go wrong.

Very few scientific experiments are ever repeated identically. You employ whatever was learned in prior tests in order to get better or more reliable results.

You employ whatever was learned in prior tests in order to get better or more reliable results. -J

Exactly, and what has been learned in the prior test? I believe their are as many theories as to why the test was in error as their are possibilities. Nothing has been learned at all.

1) Let us assume it was not a timing error but something different. You then introduce further error into the test by changing the timing, get a result you can live with and call it good.

2) Let us assume it was a timing error. You get a result you can live with and call it good.

The problem with one is it may not be timing issues and you compound the error, never discovering the true error. The problem with two is that if their is indeed a timing error, then it invalidates every single test done before since the CERN facility started operation. We can not expect to believe that a timing error affected this experiment, but no others. Does this also call into question every test done by any particle accelerator?

If I were to change the parameters of the Micheal-Moreley experiment and get a different result, would you agree that was a valid retest of the experiment? Or would you instead argue that I did not perform the same test?

Until the prior test has been repeated by independent researchers without creating an entirely new experiment there could be many possible errors or none at all.

"If I were to change the parameters of the Micheal-Moreley experiment and get a different result, would you agree that was a valid retest of the experiment? Or would you instead argue that I did not perform the same test?"

If I agree, after analyzing your test, that it was valid, I will accept the result and then try to establish what the consequences are for the current theory.

Independent researchers will certainly repeat Opera-type tests, but no two will be identical anyway. There have been many Michelson-Morley-type experiments, but no two were exactly the same. Did that invalidate the collective result?

How many of those tets changed operational perameters, calculations used in timing? Did they adjust the timing math in any of the experiments? Why not? that's seems to be a valid reason in this test.

SJW, your rambling makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you are prepared to make some positive (or at least humorous) contribution to this thread, please stop. You are scaring away contributors.

True, it makes no sense to one that believes a completely changed test is a repeat of the one that went before. To one that actually believes if I change the timing of the signal I can repeat the same test. Scare away those that have the same faulty thinking perhaps, but not those with open minds that actually use scientific reasoning. So in other words as long as i agree with you it's ok, just don't disagree right? So much for free speech and freedom of thought I guess. Just a little harder to control a forum that a periodical against dissident thoughts, no matter how hard you might try.

I have no problem with them performing different tests, but in performing different tests then calling it the same test. I expect the original test was in error, but that's not the point. No one knows what the error was, whether changing the timing would solve the error or compound it further. They've spent what, a month analyzing the data and instead of seeing if they can reproduce it, they are changing the test to get the results they want. That is the problem. Before anyone ever tried an experiment in a different way they first repeated the same experiment to see if they got the same results, then they tried different methods to see if they got the same results. You are happily going on to step 3 without first finishing steps one and two, i.e. repeating the test and thoroughly analyzing the results.

I believe the results are in error, but that doesn't mean I support science being performed wrong.

SJW #55: "How many of those tets changed operational perameters, calculations used in timing? Did they adjust the timing math in any of the experiments? Why not? that's seems to be a valid reason in this test."

and in #57:

"Scare away those that have the same faulty thinking perhaps, but not those with open minds that actually use scientific reasoning."

You classify #55 of yours as "actually scientific reasoning"?

I rest my case as in #56.

You are the one that actually believes a changed test is the same, not me. I rest my case.

You wrote, "I rest my case."

For that, we are grateful. ;-)

I am sure you are since the one thing standard cosmology can not stand up to is close scrutiny. :)

Thanks Jorrie

One normally associates mass with matter.I speculate that mass can exist without matter, a sort of unbound force that has not intricately interwoven itself with matter.It "prefers" to travel as a particle, because less energy is required,and mass attracts mass, causing a sort of "surface tension" that keeps it in a particle state. But if it is forced to split, it can behave as a wave.Sort of like splitting a drop of water will cause the parts to quiver in a wave-like manner.This has been a pet theory of mine for a long time, but I need to vet it with more knowledgeable persons.

Probably won't hold up to scrutiny, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Comments and constructive criticism are welcome, as is wit, sarcasm,humor,or even ridicule.Have at it.

I am not sure I have my brain wrapped around what you mean, but if I get your meaning...

Everything behaves as a form of a Probability Wave. That is, until you attempt to observe or measure it. At that point the probability wave collapses and you can no longer use Schrodinger's equation to predict the behavior or probability of of the way the world unfolds.

That probably deffinition doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but Neil Bohr came to that conclusion a long time ago. You can also have a look at the classical double-slit experiment to get an idea of what that means.

For the macro scale the probability is a needle like spike on the distribution curve. For the sub-atomic world that distribution becomes far wider and less predictable.

I am considering mass to be a separate component of matter that was fused with matter in the initial first time intervals of the big bang, but some of the mass was not bound up in matter.This unbound mass is what we observe as particles.Having no matter, yet having mass, it can travel at the speed of light and exhibit both wave and particle properties.

Consider this scenario: A bullet is aimed at a razor thin blade at the end of a long tube.Presume that the bullet can be split cleanly by the blade.

I contend that the two bullet halves will ricochet from side to side as the travel down the tube.Observed from above, the paths would cross, creating a wave pattern.Yet they are surely solid particles.

An analogy to the double slit experiment, or not?

The mass of the particles tends to "clump" when undisturbed, yet when it is forced to split, it behaves as a wave.

You wrote, "An analogy to the double slit experiment, or not?"

No, I think not. The double slit experiment demonstrated that the act of observing changes the outcome.

When electrons are shot through a single slit they act like particles. There is a predictable distribution through the slit that has some diffraction, but most of the beam passes straight through the slit.

Adding a second slit would seem to make two beams that are mirror images of each other. However, when it was tried something unexpected happened. It was amazing. Instead of two beams coming through two slits, a pattern is sprayed that looks like a row of bands.

Somehow the electrons passing through the left slit interacted with the electrons with the right slit and produced an interference pattern.

Quantum mechanics tells us to treat the particle, not like a rock thrown through space, but an undulating wave. Peaks and troughs which represent the probability of where that particle would likely or unlikely be found. Hence the term probability wave to describe the motion and position of matter.

I am not sure what you describe really makes sense. You are saying that two ricochetting particles create a path that traces out a wave, but that path is not really the wave. The probability of where that particle really is is the probability wave.

We are really talking about quantum uncertainty.

Then there is a whole discussion about what mass really is. From there we can talk about Higgs Field Theory and how any particle that transverses a Higgs field would be impeded as it goes, generating the effect of mass. The byproduct should be Higgs particles (up to 5 different types in Supersymmetry), but we have yet to detect anything that supports that theory. The LHC is hoped to detect the Higgs particle. If it does, then that adds to the support of the theory. If not, well, then we are scratching our heads again because it doesn't discount the theory, either.

However, if two particles collide (based on that Higgs theory) the energy could cause the Higgs field to clump and give the impression of mass where no particle exists.

You are probabilily right.But I thought the same results were achieved with a single photon and a single electron, which muddies my mental processes even more.Of course, quantum theory has a lot of muddy water that has yet to be cleared up, the strangest of which is the quantum computer that solves a problem before it is even run.

"Curiouser and curiouser" said Alice

Here is a link to quantum counterfactual computing, to which I refer.

http://news.illinois.edu/news/06/0222quantum.html

I am more of the belief that as relativistic particles travel they oscillate and it is this oscillation we mistake for wave-like behavior as we cannot with our current technology image a single point in time of particles traveling at c. By the time we start our observation and end it the particle has gone through several oscillation cycles and we interpret it as waves. The simple fact is that everything spins, oscillates and has motion, not one thing exists that is not spinning or oscillating as well. Spin is a major component of every particle that exists from subatomic to planet size and stars or collections of such that make up systems and galaxies. Spin is an absolute motion. If you could stop a particle dead in its tracks it would still spin. The question you need to answer for yourself is why a particle unaffected by any other particle spins, without outside intervention.

Yes, according to Wikipedia: "The "neutrino has half-integer spin (½ħ). Neutrinos interact primarily through the weak force. The discovery of neutrino flavor oscillations implies that neutrinos have mass. The existence of a neutrino mass strongly suggests the existence of a tiny neutrino magnetic moment^[13] of the order of 10⁻¹⁹ μ_B, allowing the possibility that neutrinos may interact electromagnetically as well."

Like all particles with mass, neutrinos should also display de Broglie waves in accordance with the energy level (E=ħω). AFAIK, this has not been demonstrated experimentally (yet).

All the above still do not explain the Opera results (apparent superluminal propagation and its magnitude). I think they will find a "missed bit" in the clock sync, but if not, quite a few possibilities have been suggested and discussed above.

Here is a link to Icaro report. They have interesting findings.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-11/second-italian-study-rejects-faster-light-neutrino-claim

AFAIK, ICURUS did not test for superluminal neutrinos, but for the effect

"... such neutrinos should lose energy "through neutral-current weak-interaction radiation - the analogue of Cherenkov radiation for a neutral particle." (http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/icarus_refutes_operas_superluminal_neutrinos-83684)

They did not find any such radiation, hence their claim. This obviously does not rule out all forms of "faster than light" behavior that might perhaps be present. If Opera's result holds, it stands...

-J

It's obviously ICARUS, not as I misspelled it.

I wrote: "This obviously does not rule out all forms of "faster than light" behavior that might perhaps be present."

One of the more intriguing possibilities is that the answer may lurk in (or between) the 'membranes' of M-Theory.⁽¹⁾ The proton collisions of CERN may 'kick' the neutrinos out into the 'bulk' outside our membrane.⁽²⁾ There the speed of light limit does not apply, so they can travel for a short time at some speed above c. A 'short time', because neutrinos have mass and the gravity of our membrane will make them 'fall back' and continue their normal propagation at slightly below c.⁽³⁾

Sounds like the "smoke and mirrors" that SJW is so fond of, but the theory is serious and it may be possible to test it one day. It does not replace Einstein's relativity, but may enhance it for ultra-high energies/densities. I do not understand much of it; I'm just all-ears...

-J

(1) M-theory

(2) http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/15640/Colliding-Branes-Cosmic-Model

(3) http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/opera_confirms_faster_light_neutrinos_and_indicates_ultra_superluminal_small_initial_jumps-84774

.

An interesting thought. Is there somewhere you can point to that elaborates on this possibility?

The first thing that comes to mind is that in order for any particle to move outside of a brane it must be composed of a closed loop string. The only thing that I know of that posses that trait is the hypothetical graviton.

Second, if the hypothetical graviton can move out of a brane and through the bulk independently, then it would also seem to posses the ability to be superluminal. However, recent experiments seem to confirm the belief that gravity propagates at the speed of light. Then again, so do neutrinos from supernovas.

If this is indeed what happens, then the neutrino stream would essentially skip a path of a minimum of 20 meters in our own brane by going through the bulk.

If this could be substantiated (somehow) it would sure give M-Theory a real boost.

As I (poorly) understand it, massive particles (in contrast to virtual particles), do not venture outside of our brane. But they may perhaps do so, given a high enough (initial?) energy.

Sascha Vongehr has an arXiv paper that I have struggled through: "Supporting Abstract Relational Space-Time as Fundamental without Doctrinism against Emergence". I read something on this in section 4.1 (p. 26):

"This is the same as the string-theory membrane inspired and well received "particles can be kicked off our 4 dimensional manifold, and indeed the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is testing for exactly this type of scenario. Very high energy collisions might let parts of the membrane (also made from strings) come off and travel through the bulk."

He gives a lot of references, but I have not yet examined any of them. There are other very interesting speculations(?) about an "aether" in there as well...

-J

Thanks for that link!

If the higher energy imparted by CERN did indeed kick the neutrinos into the bulk, it would also see possible that repeating the experiment and varying the energy level use would produce different transit velocities.

It might establish a support for the argument that the neutrinos exited our brane.

It seems like it has already been observed to some extent: those "superluminal Majorana neutrinos" that I wrote of in #30 actually show this indirectly, because apparent Majorana mass correlates directly with energy.

What is apparently not known is if the higher energy makes material to 'splash higher/farther' or if it just means more material at similar 'splash height/distance'. It is however interesting that, AFAIK, the MINOS and OPERA total distances were similar, so maybe the 'splash distance' (if any) did differ. It's sad that the achieved accuracy of the MINOS experiment was not better.

We will have to see if researchers feel that following this idea has merit.

You right I misspelled Icarus too

I think you are just STRINGing us along.

Vongehr is certainly 'STRINGing' me along. I especially like his section 4.1 (p. 26) "Causality preserving superluminal velocity but no time-travel".

That "pond of fluid, [with] splashed drops" is simply a mouthwatering analogy. I don't think it is Vongehr's, but sooo cool. To me, it invokes an image of a shaped charge going off near the center, but below the surface of the pond, creating high-energy directed splash drops (particles).

Those drops may travel through the air faster than the pressure wave inside the fluid (speed of sound in the fluid). This may mean going supersonic through the air, but that's irrelevant here. Where a drop returns to the surface, another pressure wave will start, reaching the edge of the pond before the original pressure wave.

The explosion may be analogous to the collision of protons at CERN, the drops to some neutrons ejected from 'our brane', quickly returning to it again, and the pressure wave analogous to neutrons traveling along the brane, at just under c. Net effect, apparent superluminal propagation of neutrinos through the brane. :)

-J

M-Theory smoke and mirrors Jorrie :), don't fall for it. IF neutrino's do travel faster than c it has nothing to do with crossing branes, just the simple fact that these people refuse to consider electric and magnetic affects. Not surprising considering they also believe in neutral particles and that space is electrically neutral as well.

Won't fall, but will keep an open mind on it. ;)

One normally associates mass with matter.

Agreed, but it is based on our everyday experience.

I speculate that mass can exist without matter

I am probably not the more knowledgeable person you are looking for. Who am I to argue? If I remember right, the BB theory requires something like 80% of the mass in the universe to be non-baryonic. You could be partly right, it may not be attached to any matter. IMHO it would be in particle/wave form if it was. It may just be "clouds" of mass. Photons are supposedly particles without any mass. Why not mass without any particles? ("dark matter")

Technically SR does not forbid objects of mass from traveling at c, only being accelerated to c due to energy limitations. Which is also called into question due to the fact that an electron, which undoubtedly has mass, is indeed traveling at a fraction of c. The energy required by theory to do this would be astronomical. Also E=mc(squared) should give you a clue that if a photon has energy, it has mass. Virtual particles are good for math and computer simulations, but that's about it. Likewise points, please let me know when a bag of points becomes available at my local hardware store, I would like to purchase some.

If anything does travel faster than c it is due to size, not virtualness. A proton is larger than an electron and an electron is larger than a photon. Likewise a proton travels slower than an electron, which in turn travels slower than a photon. The problem is people believe that nothing can be something, that a virtual particle could actually exist. It may be true that anything larger than a photon could not attain the speed of a photon, and particle size/speed relationships bear this out. If a hypothetical tachyon does exist it must indeed be smaller than a photon, perhaps why none have ever been detected except perhaps accidentally.

There are hundreds of people who know alot more about this experiment that I do and I admit my knowledge in this area is probably in the range of "just enough to be dangerous". That being said I have a question I hope you can shed some light on (lol..pun... HA!!)...

Neutrinos are a product of reactions all around us all time. Given the weakness they interact with matter, how are the experimenters certain the ones they measured are from their sources and not simply "random" neutrinos from a decaying rock next to the detector or a star a few billion light-years away?

I think the 'light goes on' when one realizes that the proton pulses created at CERN and the neutrino "pulses" detected at Opera correlated to within a tens of ns in time. The problem was more that the proton pulse was too long (order μs) and it is not clear exactly where in the pulse the protons decayed into (amongst other things) neutrinos.

They are now attempting a test with proton pulses a few ns long. The original rest was not designed to test neutrino speed.

-J

So it isn't necessarily that they somehow marked or tagged the neutrino signal or the detector was precisely aligned so as to only detect them from a certain direction or the like?

It's been a while since I've done any kind of reading on neutrino detectors, but the last time I did, they were HUGE volumes of water surrounded by detectors.

I just did some googling on what type of detectors they used.... the light is on!!

Thanks

I have updated the OP with the latest from CERN/Opera. I repeat the update here for info to Blog subscribers.

"Following the OPERA collaboration's presentation at CERN on 23 September, inviting scrutiny of their neutrino time-of-flight measurement from the broader particle physics community, the collaboration has rechecked many aspects of its analysis and taken into account valuable suggestions from a wide range of sources. One key test was to repeat the measurement with very short beam pulses from CERN. This allowed the extraction time of the protons that ultimately lead to the neutrino beam to be measured more precisely.

"The beam sent from CERN consisted of pulses three nanoseconds long separated by up to 524 nanoseconds. Some 20 clean neutrino events were measured at the Gran Sasso Laboratory, and precisely associated with the pulse leaving CERN. This test confirms the accuracy of OPERA's timing measurement, ruling out one potential source of systematic error. The new measurements do not change the initial conclusion. Nevertheless, the observed anomaly in the neutrinos' time of flight from CERN to Gran Sasso still needs further scrutiny and independent measurement before it can be refuted or confirmed."

The collaboration submitted an updated paper on this measurement to the peer reviewed journal JHEP. This paper is available on the ArXiv preprint server.

A statistical data analysis error seems to be ruled out. This leaves two reasonable possibilities: (1) the clock synchronization between CERN and Gran Sasso has a systematic error, or (2) those neutrinos went faster through rock than light goes through 'empty space'. An independent experiment is obviously needed.

-J

It looks like the collaboration re-uploaded the old paper as version 2 - the number of pages on arxiv is listed as 32 which doesn't match the pdf (24 pages)

They will hopefully correct that soon...

Thanks for helping keep us up to date.

I haven't memorized many quotes, but topics like this remind me of one I committed to memory...

"nature has no contract with mathematics and she has even less of an obligation to laboratory test procedures and results" - Terzaghi (father of soil mechanics)

.

Good quote!

It looks like the version 2 paper has now been correctly uploaded.

It look like the speed of light is right but the neutrinos are faster and it means that the speed of light is no the top speed in the universe

Yes, if this result holds (which I still doubt), it may perhaps mean that photons are not quite massless and that certain neutrinos have even less mass then photons.

There is also the possibility that neutrinos through rock can go faster than the 'speed of light in vacuum' - after all, we cannot send photons through the rock to compare.

The last resort, I guess, will be that those neutrinos displayed 'imaginary mass', as I mentioned in the OP. They could than have gone superluminal, but it flies in the face of other neutrino observations.

I wrote "This leaves two reasonable possibilities: (1) the clock synchronization between CERN and Gran Sasso has a systematic error, or (2) those neutrinos went faster through rock than light goes through 'empty space'. An independent experiment is obviously needed."

Apparently there are now plans to lay a ~730 km fiber optical cable (along the surface) between CERN and the Opera mine at Gran Sasso, in order to crosscheck the clock synchronization methods. I read it on Tommaso Dorigo 's Blog, but I could not open the link that he provided.

Will be interesting to watch...

But doesn't light travel slower in fiber optic cable than in vacuum? I'm not sure how that will answer anything unless they know exactly how fast it goes. Also, along the surface will mean more distance. But yes it will be interesting. This could end up with the "Fool of the Year" award.

Hi S, you wrote: "I'm not sure how that will answer anything unless they know exactly how fast it goes"

Remember, they are not going to "race photons against neutrinos". Because it is easy to measure the speed of light in the fiber (over a short distance), they plan to use the 730 km fiber as a (third) confirmation of the sync between the clocks at the two sites of interest.

I wrote: "I read it on Tommaso Dorigo 's Blog, but I could not open the link that he provided."

A noticed that "the link" I mentioned is now working.

The FAQ of that site says that the paper I mentioned in reply #46 above has been refuted. The values that van Elburg calculated was in fact the relativistic Sagnac effect in the rotating frame of the satellites themselves. That frame is irrelevant to the common mode time transfer used to synchronize the clocks of the Opera test.

There's an old saying: A man with two clocks never knows what time it is.

Exactly. That's why GPS time (and UCT/TAI) use more than 70 national laboratories around the world to determine what time it is where.

Thanks. I had been learning with you all. thanks

I wrote: "The FAQ of that site says that the paper I mentioned in reply #46 above has been refuted. The values that van Elburg calculated was in fact the relativistic Sagnac effect in the rotating frame of the satellites themselves. That frame is irrelevant to the common mode time transfer used to synchronize the clocks of the Opera test."

I noticed that another scientist (Satish Ramakrishna)* has jumped onto the "van Elburg" bandwagon and makes a seemingly convincing case for why the satellite orbital speed (~3.8 km/s) is the culprit in the synchronization. I still think that it is merely the Sagnac effect in the satellite's rotating frame that he calculated.

The reason why a few scientists apparently did sit up and took notice has to do with the complex way in which GPS satellite clocks and GPS ground timing center clocks are synchronized and that "one-satellite" (common-view) timing measurements could have errors. After all, our GPS receivers use many satellites and such errors might cancel out.

CERN maintains that they have correctly compensated for all the applicable effects, while Ramakrishna says not. Nevertheless, it seems that they plan to use a commercial fiber comms link between CERN and the Swiss timing center to verify the clock syncs. The problem seems to be getting exclusive access to that link for the required time.

-J

* http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.1922