With the Opera neutrino speed experiments being such a complex issue, it is probably logical that a number of PhD theses will follow. I already came across a multi-supervised thesis from the Universities Bologna/Lyon, by Giulia Brunetti.⁽¹⁾

It is lengthy, but a real treasure house of information - some 180 pages, not all easy reading. I copy the conclusions section here to stimulate your interest.

"Conclusions

This thesis concerns the measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA experiment in the CNGS beam.

There are different theoretical models that allow for Lorentz violating effects which can be investigated with measurements on terrestrial neutrino beams. The MINOS experiment has performed such a measurement in 2007 finding a deviation in the neutrino time of flight, with respect to the expected time of flight, assuming neutrinos travelling with the speed of light, of 126 ns over a distance of 730 km, with a statistical error of 32 ns and a systematic error of 64 ns.

The OPERA experiment observes as well muon neutrinos 730 km away from the source, the almost pure CNGS ν_µ beam produced at CERN. Since the OPERA experiment aims the direct observation of ν_µ → ν_τ oscillations in the CNGS beam, a higher energy beam w.r.t. that of MINOS is employed. This leads to a significantly higher number of interactions in the detector that allows for a measurement with a much smaller statistical uncertainty.

The timing system was explicitly upgraded in view of the neutrino velocity measurement, allowing for a much smaller systematic uncertainty thanks to a twin high accuracy system at both sites (at CERN and at LNGS) composed by atomic cesium clocks and GPS receivers operating in "common view mode". Thanks to this system a time-transfer between the two sites with a precision at the level of 1 ns is possible.

Moreover, a Fast Waveform Digitizer was installed along the proton beam line at CERN in order to measure the internal time structure of the proton pulses that are extracted from the SPS towards the CNGS target. By comparing the OPERA event time distribution to the time structure of the proton pulses that have generated these events, it is possible to improve the evaluation of the neutrinos time of flight.

The statistical accuracy achieved by the OPERA measurement is about 10 ns and the systematic error, still to be improved, is less than 20 ns. The work described in this thesis concerns all the steps needed to perform the neutrino velocity measurement, in particular I have taken part in:

• the study and calibration of the CERN and LNGS timing systems,
• the timing response simulation of the electronic subdetectors in OPERA,
• the analysis of the data from the high accuracy timing systems,
• the geodesy measurements performed in order to precisely evaluate the CERN-LNGS distance,
• the optimization of the event selection criteria in OPERA,
• the measurement of the delay between the neutrino interactions recorded by OPERA and the proton spills of the CNGS beam,
• the statistical data analysis and the extraction of the neutrino time of flight, and
• the selection of the final data sample for the neutrino velocity measurement.

These studies have been carried out with a blind analysis in order to guarantee the internal consistency and the goodness of each calibration measurement. The result on the neutrino velocity is the most precise measurement so far with terrestrial neutrino beams, it is equivalent to:

(v − c)/c = (2.9±0.6) x 10^-5.

This is a preliminary result and additional verifications are in progress."

Extra white space added for readability.

-J

(1) http://www.bo.infn.it/opera/docs/phd_thesis-BO-2011_05_20-brunetti.pdf

Hi Jorrie,

Nice find. I didn't see in the conclusions exactly how many nanoseconds the neutrinos beat 'the clock' in the new measurement, but did you get that number? Are you ready to accept that it's true, or still holding out for them to find an error? In an earlier post you referred to the neutrinos traveling through rock faster than light through empty space. You realize that the neutrinos are so small that they don't hit any rock atom particles, so they are traveling in the empty space between the rock atoms and the empty space inside the rock atoms.

-S

Hi S

This thesis actually predates the original Opera report, so it does not deal with the latest 'confirmation' of the result. The PhD student worked with the Opera team, presumably for over a year. It is just a very, very good description of the whole setup, experiment and data analysis.

AFAIK, the result of the 3 ns pulse re-test of Oct/Nov did confirm the 60±10 ns early arrival of the neutrinos at the Opera detector, as originally reported. My gut-feel is still for an error in the time sync between CERN and Gran Sasso - some silly one bit error, or one counter pulse missed in the very complex software.

This will only become more settled once they have done a bi-directional fiber sync check, hopefully still during this month - perhaps during some quite periods on the fiber lines over the festive season?

Carrying a portable cesium clock between the two stations and back may perhaps also be a good idea and is apparently considered by the team.

I still think "superluminal through rock" is a candidate, although it sounds like science fiction. Who knows how nuclear effects in rock may modify neutrino propagation behavior?

-J

Who knows what acceleration affects are caused by the electrical currents inside the earth as well. The simple fact is electrical fields are used in particle accelerators to accelerate particles. Without electrical currents the earth would have no magnetic field, so one can not discount such possible affects.

Who does?

From Wikipedia:

"Neutrinos do not carry electric charge, which means that they are not affected by the electromagnetic forces that act on charged particles such as electrons and protons. Neutrinos are affected only by the weak sub-atomic force, of much shorter range than electromagnetism, and gravity, which is relatively weak on the subatomic scale, and are therefore able to travel great distances through matter without being affected by it."

Given that the Earth's magnetic flux density is fairly low compared the the huge flux densities achieved in the accelerator machines we use to generate neutrinos it would seem unlikely (if not impossible) that enough energy could be transferred to a neutrino to boos its speed subliminally.

It could be the electromagnetic field of the planet giving then a boost

I have not run the numbers, but if you determine the amount of energy that would be required to accelerate a neutrino and the amount of energy available over the volume that neutrino traveled it would be a huge disparity.

That assumes two things - one, that an electromagnetic field would affect a neutrino (which is does not), and two, it was possible to cross the light speed barrier (which we do not believe is possible).

Agreed, but what if the measurements hold?

AFAIK, the Fermilab MINOS experiment is compatible with the Opera result, but the error bars were to big to be conclusive. There is however a slight statistical bias towards super-luminal neutrinos through the rocks of Wisconson.

It's no to accept or no. The answer to this is we are waiting to see if the facts are really true. If it is true everybody should accepted it until new finding show up. They are right now in a experimental face let see what happen next.

I tried to delve deep into this, but the Cognac Effect kept getting in the way.

Going to bed now. Goodnight.

I'm always scared these things will give me nightmares, like Einstein's "spooky socks". The short version goes like this.

In order to help Einstein not walking around with unmatched socks, his housekeeper puts one matched pair in each of the 9 drawers of his 3x3 chest of drawers. Einstein, being very methodical, always opens three drawers every morning, either one row of one column, never more. That way he has some choice in picking a pair that he likes, but never too many choices. Then to his frustration, whenever he opts to open a column of drawers, he finds one single sock in one of the drawers. This never ever happens if he opts to open a row of drawers.

But how could this be? If every row contains only pairs of socks, then every column must also contain pairs of socks. The answer may obviously be that sometimes there are one or more 'broken pairs' and Einstein is just lucky when he opens rows and unlucky when he opens columns. There are other possibilities, but the 'nightmare scenario' is where it is the chest and/or the socks that conspire against him and 'choose' an outcome once it 'knows' his selection (his observation is set up). This is the 'spooky' quantum physics solution...

The really crazy answer is that reality is subjective, not objective.This means that everyone's universe is different, and correct.

One cannot be TOTALLY objective about any observation. A hope, a fear, doubt can alter the outcome.

Experiments have been performed and verified that a person's intention can affect the results of an experiment on the macro scale.

This was observed with multiple clear columns, being filled with balls dropped from an overhead chute.

The distribution into the columns should have been random, but it was not.

When the subject was instructed to try to influence the number of balls in a certain set of columns, the result was not totally random.Multiple repetitions of the experiment yielded the same results.

When the subject was removed, the distribution became random, as it should be.

This crosses over the border into the twilight zone,where the line between fantasy and reality is blurred, and enters into the field of philosophy.Perhaps philosophers and scientists will meet on common ground eventually, where everything that is real cannot be proven, and vice versa.

Someone once said if you cannot decide between 2 good choices, flip a coin and you will have your answer,what you really want,....when the coin is in the air.

Wait a minute...there's a knock on my door...it's the men in the white suits coming to take me away..

You wrote. "Perhaps philosophers and scientists will meet on common ground eventually..."

It probably will not be grounded in substance. ;-)

(Washington Post) This story was written by Brian Vastag

"A second experiment at the European facility that reported subatomic particles zooming faster than the speed of light -- stunning the world of physics -- has reached the same result, scientists said late Thursday.

The "positive outcome of the [second] test makes us more confident in the result," said Fernando Ferroni, president of the Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics, in a statement released late Thursday. Ferroni is one of 160 physicists involved in the international collaboration known as OPERA (Oscillation Project with Emulsion Tracking Apparatus) that performed the experiment."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502223_162-57327392/2nd-test-affirms-faster-than-light-particles/

(Reuters) - 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.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/20/us-science-neutrinos-idUSTRE7AJ0ZX20111120

And we know that particles traveling faster than c would loose energy because we have empirical evidence that ftl particles do that? Or if they actually do travel ftl and those calculations are based upon that impossibility, then would not the energy calculation be worthless, based as it would be upon false premises if they do indeed travel ftl? A catch 22. Using math that calculates upon the presumption that nothing travels ftl to calculate the energy for a particle that may or may not travel ftl. I neither say they do or do not, but the time is much too soon to jump to any conclusion one way or the other.

For once your statement make sense. Saying that they should have but didn't is not a valid argument here.

Thx lighthasmass.

I've read now the paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3763v2 and it looks very credible.

As always, we will have to wait scrutiny from insiders that know the experiments well enough (and have access to all the data).

Quote from that paper: "As well known, a charged particle travelling at a speed exceeding the one of light is necessarily emitting coherent radiation (Cherenkov radiation) in a characteristic light cone."

How is this well known since no particles according to theory can exceed the speed of light? Cherenkov radiation occurs when a particle passes through a medium faster than the phase velocity of light can propagate through that medium. It has nothing to do with a particle traveling faster than light, i.e. c. So in reality we know nothing about how a particle that if it did travel faster than c would behave. Since light itself travels at c and does not radiate Cherenkov radiation, it is not scientific to assume a particle that traveled faster than light would do so. In all cases where Cherenkov radiation are emitted light travels less than c through the medium and the particle travels c or less, never faster than c, but faster than the light is traveling. To assume the same thing occurs when light is traveling at c and a particle is traveling faster than c is a conclusion not based upon any empirical evidence or theory. Just people looking for excuses to disprove the results so their world becomes safe again.

As for light it looks like we don't know as much about it as we thought.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-blocked-holes.html

They are several possibilities that can make this experiment give them a error in the reading. One of them is that because the earth is moving they are taking the first time in a frame and the second is take in a different one. the second point is changing direction and that mean frame too. And the bean of neutrinos is passing 11.4 km closer to the center of the earth that mean the curb in the space time will be different and the distance the neutrinos are traveling is shorter. One more could be that because the neutrinos have less mass they are able to travel faster. But the speed of light still the same like the GR says.

Hi J,

Welcome to CR4. You said:

"And the bean[beam?] of neutrinos is passing 11.4 km closer to the center of the earth that mean the curb[curve?] in the space time will be different and the distance the neutrinos are traveling is shorter."

I believe you are talking about the Sagnac Effect. I'm sure it's been accounted for, though one here may say incorrectly. A lot of people smarter than me have gone over this with a fine tooth comb.

"could be that because the neutrinos have less mass they are able to travel faster."

I said something similar on another thread, that 'empty' space (which is not really empty) may slow down photons a little, but neutrinos being much smaller and much less massive are not slowed down [as much].

Hi S, On J's: "And the bean[beam?] of neutrinos is passing 11.4 km closer to the center of the earth that mean the curb[curve?] in the space time will be different and the distance the neutrinos are traveling is shorter." you wrote:

"I believe you are talking about the Sagnac Effect. I'm sure it's been accounted for, though one here may say incorrectly."

I think he referred to the Shapiro time delay, but it is so tiny at that depth that it makes no discernible difference. Plus, it would cause a small delay in the neutrino propagation...

The question is why must it be an error in the reading? The test has been successfully repeated with the same results. GR uses the instantaneous speed for gravity in its math (zero aberration) and I don't hear you complaining about that. Of course instantaneous is incorrect, and GR reduces to Newtonian math, but hey, I wouldn't want to suggest that GR was wrong or anything.

The fact is as technology advances theories must change.

I apologize for not doing the research ahead of time, but has it been considered that the neutrinos are traveling at the "real" speed of light? i.e. the current value we use for "c" is slightly low... this seems like a reasonable conclusion at first thought.

AFAIK, light propagating "slower than the c in vacuum" has apparently been thought about and dismissed. To be compatible with relativity theory, it would have meant that photons have a small "rest mass", larger than neutrino mass. Extremely unlikely.

-J

Thanks for the response, but I think I may not have communicated clearly. Perhaps I did and I got the answer to the question, but I'll re-state just in case.

In our concepts and formulas have defined this constant we call c. The universal speed limit. My question does not lie in whether or not photons actually travel at c (I assume they do so as to avoid the complications you mention), but lies in the definition of c (and that may not be the right way to say it). Given that neutrinos interact so weakly with matter, it would make sense that they travel closer to this speed limit than would a photon traveling in the same medium. Now if we place a photon and a neutrino in a vacuum and the neutrino moves faster, is the simplest explanation that it is violating the speed limit or that the vacuum is imperfect and we have the posted speed wrong?

Neutrinos traveling faster than photons in vacuum? I think not, because the supernova neutrinos arrived very close to simultaneously with the photons. I think we must except that idea as ruled out. Neutrinos do travel faster than light (not c) in glass, because photons interact with glass and neutrinos don't (they definitely travel faster than light in rock...)

If c is a bit larger than the observed speed of light in vacuum, it must be very slight; otherwise we should have picked it up experimentally as a violation of Lorentz invariance, I think.

Me still thinks the clocks were just a little out of sync.

I defer the conclusions to you (I'm no expert in this area). It just seemed that the discrepancies were very small... although I don't know how that small ripple would become if we corrected all we do to a new c value. But couple that with our limited knowledge of dark matter (perhaps some the stuff that may slow the light down in our "vacuum" ever so slightly?)... it just seemed to be the simplest and still plausible explanation to the layman like me

Thanks for the answers though.

accounting for 'Hyper-Geometry' of curved space-time-fabric inside earth ?

The provided picture is 2D, appropriate if the space-time-fabric, inside earth, were flat:

However, inside earth, the space-time-fabric is (positively) curved, i.e. concave, like the inside surface of a section of a sphere. Neutrinos, traveling through that curved space-time fabric, from Switzerland to Italy, would actually travel along a 'great circle', i.e. 'geodesic'; and, not along the 'straight line' path indicated. Has this 'hyper-geometry' been accounted for ??

"... would actually travel along a 'great circle', i.e. 'geodesic'; and, not along the 'straight line' path indicated. Has this 'hyper-geometry' been accounted for ??"

Not really, because it is demonstrably negligible. The positive spacetime curvature near Earth's surface has a radius of about 1 light year, i.e. a very, very 'straight' path over the 730 km. Furthermore, it would have delayed the neutrinos a tiny bit, not 'expedite' them.

This argument obviously excludes 'jumps' through the 'bulk' or any other form of higher dimension.

^{"Not really, because it is demonstrably negligible. The positive space-time curvature near Earth's surface has a radius of about 1 light year, i.e. a very, very 'straight' path over the 730 km. Furthermore, it would have delayed the neutrinos a tiny bit, not 'expedite' them."}

Did I mis-read J.A.Wheeler's Journey into Gravity & Spacetime ? I thought the curvature:

K = R_c^-2 = R_s R^-3

i.e.

R_c = R (R/R_s)^1/2 = R^1.5R_s^-0.5

If so, then the Radius-of-Curvature R_c ~ 1 AU. Never-the-less, after repeated calculations, I have found, that the "lowest order" terms are always the simple, flat-space distance, i.e. d_v,0 = 2 sin(d/D) = 2 sin(730km/12,800km); and, that the next-lowest order term amounts to a few microns of "extra distance".

For the record, I was hypothesizing, that the CERN scientists had already assumed the "hyper-geometrically correct" distance d_v,theory > d_v,0; but, that due to inhomogeneities, in the distribution, of matter, in the Continental Crust, in the Alps, through which the neutrino beam was propagated, i.e. due to inhomogeneities in the local geology, i.e. due to (resulting) inhomogeneously curved space-time fabric, that d_v,theory > d_v,practice. Technically, the neutrino beam probed the "nubbly texture" of the "rumpled space-time fabric" in the Alps, cp. earth's "geoid":

Please ponder, that the total "hyper-depth", of earth's center vs. surface, i.e. dw = R_c (1 - cos( sin^-1(R/R_c) ) ) ~ R_c(1 - cos( R/R_c ) ) ~ R_c( 1/2 (R/R_c)² ) = R² / 2R_c = (R R_s)^1/2 / 2 ~ 100 meters, repeatedly employing "small angle approximations". Thus, the total "texture contrast", of the "bowled down" space-time fabric, inside earth, amounts to about 100m, e.g. a "football field" worth of "hyper-height/depth distortion", highly exaggerated in the following figure:

With 100m of "hyper-geometric bowl distortion" to "play with", the 20m anomaly reported by CERN employees, seemed at first glance to be hereby explainable.

Also, is it a coincidence, that the "texture contrast" of earth's geoid ~200m, measured from earth's surface, is closely comparable to that of the "bowled down" space-time fabric, at earth's core ?? Is there any reason why surface gravity anomalies would always be comparable to the curvature of space-time, caused by the massive body ??

ADDENDUM:

If the "hyper-distortion", of the "bowled down" space-time fabric, inside earth, is roughly:

dw ~ 0.5 (R R_s)^0.5

then local inhomogeneities, in local geology, would plausibly cause deviations in that "hyper-distortion", i.e. "nubbly texture around the bowl rim", of roughly:

d(dw) ~ w dR_s/R_s = w dM/M = w dg/g ~ w 10^-2 ~ 1 meter

i.e. the "nubbles around the rim of the bowl":

arising from the uneven distribution of matter:

vary, by about 1m of "hyper-height/depth", over earth's surface.

"dw ~ 0.5 (R R_s)^0.5

then local inhomogeneities, in local geology, would plausibly cause deviations in that "hyper-distortion", i.e. "nubbly texture around the bowl rim", of roughly:

d(dw) ~ w dR_s/R_s = w dM/M = w dg/g ~ w 10^-2 ~ 1 meter"

I'm not familiar with these equations, so could you perhaps describe them a bit more fully?

^{"dw ~ 0.5 (R R_s)0.5}

^{then local inhomogeneities, in local geology, would plausibly cause deviations in that "hyper-distortion", i.e. "nubbly texture around the bowl rim", of roughly:}

^{d(dw) ~ w dR_s/R_s = w dM/M = w dg/g ~ w 10-2 ~ 1 meter"}

^{I'm not familiar with these equations, so could you perhaps describe them a bit more fully?}

________________________________________________________________________

Assuming a uniform matter-and-energy density distribution, inside of a spherical "earth"; then, the positively-curved, "concave up", "bowled down" space-time fabric, inside that "earth", is distorted "hyper-spatially". In particular, an apparently flat plane, bisecting that "earth", through its center, is actually curved "hyper-spatially", like a "patch" on a spherical surface:

sin(O) = R / R_c << 1

O ~ R / R_c

dw = R_c - R_c cos(O) = R_c (1 - cos(O)) ~ R_c (1 - {1 - 0.5 O²}) = 0.5 R_c O² = 0.5 R² R_c^-1

where the "small angle approximation" was employed, to derive the fourth "step", from the third. And, w.h.t.:

R_c = R^1.5 R_s^-0.5

dw = 0.5 (R R_s)^0.5

For "earth", that "bowl depth" dw ~ 100 m. But, the actual earth is not nearly so idyllically uniform, as indicated by variations, of surface gravity. Thus, the actual space-time fabric, inside of the actual earth, is "rumpled":

How much "hyper-variation" is there, in those "rumpled creases", in the space-time fabric, inside of our actual earth ? I offer, for a crude-and-qualitative estimate, that the variations in surface gravity (dg) can be mathematically modeled, as deriving from variations in the "effective mass" (dM) of earth, i.e. variations in the "effective gravity radius" (dR_s) of earth. If so, then, differentiating the formula for dw, w.h.t.:

d(dw) ~ 0.5 w dR_s/R_s = 0.5 w dM/M ~ 0.5 w dg/g ~ (1) x (100 meters) x (1%) ~ 1 meter

to nearest order-of-magnitude. Thus, I offer, that the "creases" in the "rumpled" space-time fabric, near the surface of the earth, amount to O(1m) of variation of "hyper-elevation/altitude/height/depth", i.e. in the value of the "hyper-coordinate" (w) attributed to every point in space, cp. Flamm's Paraboloid.

I am thinking your degree of variation is probably two orders of magnitude too high.

Surface gravity varies on Earth about .01%. It would make sense that the variation a few hundred meters under the surface would be about the same.

Such small variation would be insignificant with respect to the degree of variation observed with neutrino speed.

^{Surface gravity varies on Earth about .01%. It would make sense that the variation a few hundred meters under the surface would be about the same.}

___________________________________________________________________________

There is a 0.5% variation in effective gravity, from poles to equator, due to the equatorial bulge; and, to centrifugal force from earth's spin. However, whilst the equatorial bulge would represent a global, planet-spanning, non-spherical variation, of space-time curvature, it would not represent local variations, due to local geology.

Instead, as you said:

"there are very small differences (on the order of 0.01% or less) in gravity due to differences in the local geology. For example, changes in the density of rock underneath you or the presence of mountains nearby can have a slight effect on the gravitational force" (cornell)

Accordingly, I would guestimate ~1cm hyper-spatial "rumples" in the fabric of space-time, near earth's surface.

^{(Thanks for the correction.)}

One must be careful not to connect the 'depth of the rumples' and gravity too tightly. In the weak field, gravity is directly proportional to the slope of the spacetime curvature (not the depth) at the point of interest. Space and time is however proportional to the depth, so the rumples could cause a tiny distance and timing effect.

OK, I can now see where your approximations came from, and they are basically correct. That is apart from the 1% variation assumption that AH pointed out as very unlikely.

Also, one would expect some increased density below the Alps. I guess that would have caused a very slight delay (GR-wise) of the neutrinos, not so?

^{"one would expect some increased density below the Alps. I guess that would have caused a very slight delay (GR-wise) of the neutrinos, not so?"}

__________________________________________________________________________

The CERN neutrino-beam generator is +300-400m "altitude" (wisc). The LNGS detector is +962m "above sea level" (amaldi). And, earth's geoid, i.e. gravitational equipotential, in the Alps region, is ~80m above the "WGS reference ellipsoid" (wikipedia).

1. Ocean
   
2. Reference ellipsoid
3. Local plumb line
4. Continent
5. Geoid

Meanwhile, the neutrino beam, propagating along a "chord" through the earth, reaches a maximum depth of ~10km.

Now, the space-time fabric, near-and-above the surface of the earth, has a "hyper-spatial elevation" described (approximately) by Flamm's paraboloid, i.e. w = 2 (R_s r)^1/2. And, the space-time fabric is smooth-and-continuous, through the surface of the earth (Wheeler. Journey into Gravity & Spacetime). Thus, for relatively small changes in radius dr, about earth's radius R, w.h.t. dw = (w/2) (dr/R) ~ (100m) (10^-3) = 10cm. So, as the CERN-LNGS neutrino-beam "cuts across the chord" through earth, its "hyper-elevation" decreases-and-then-increases by about 10cm, as its spatial elevation decreases-and-then-increases by about 10km, i.e. a ratio of (roughly) 1cm/km.

The Alps jut up above earth's surface. Therefore, I would guess that the Alps region is geologically under-dense, i.e. buoyant. Yet, the Alps region is gravitationally "over-heavy", er go more matter must be present. Some how, the quasi-concentric, spheroidal geoid surfaces, must relate, to the curvature, of the space-time fabric, e.g. geoidal surfaces are "surfaces of constant curvature", i.e. "hyper-elevation" ? That the geoid "bulges up" amidst the Alps, and that the beam "dives down" beneath the Alps, may imply, that the beam experiences (slightly) more change, in "hyper-elevation", en route.

Also, "Neutrinos from CERN are muon-like and those from [SN] 1987a are electron-like" (cosmos). Thus, only "second (& third) generation" muon (& taon) neutrinos are alleged to travel FTL:

(guardian)

If only second-third generation neutrinos travel FTL, then perhaps third generation taon-neutrinos travel the fastest, i.e. v_t > v_mu > v_e = c. If so, then perhaps adjusting the travel distance, according to the muon-taon neutrino oscillation wave-length, would yield commensurately oscillating average propagation velocities ?? Cp. nature.

It may be so, but I will not bet a $ on it. AFAIK, the CERN team did take every possible GR effect into account. I still suspect a funny systematic, or perhaps some new physics, but not tachyons (unless they perhaps go through the bulk of brane-world).

According to the Borexino Princeton Group, Neutrino Oscillations behave differently, in high density media,

^{"That complication is the Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) effect, which results in what are known as "matter oscillations." In very dense matter such as that found at the center of the Sun, neutrino oscillations work differently, because the probability that a neutrino interacts with the surrounding matter is no longer negligible. High-energy solar neutrinos such as those seen by SNO instead act like electron neutrinos with a probability of about 31%. It is only low-energy neutrinos that behave according to the "vacuum oscillations" giving a 57% electron neutrino survival probability. So neutrino experiments such as SNO that have a high energy threshold see electron neutrinos with a 31% survival probability, whereas experiments that can see nearly all neutrinos (99% of which are low-energy), such as the GALLEX and SAGE radiochemical experiments, obtain the 57% value."}

earth crustal rock has a specific gravity of ~3, higher than our sun's average density ~1.5, but lower than our sun's core density ~150. If muon-neutrinos can travel FTL; then, could muons also travel FTL ??

The Opera detector was specifically designed to study neutrino oscillations. I must believe that they understood what they were looking for, but perhaps not the side-effect that they were not looking for (apparent ftl propagation). Although not impossible, I would be very surprised if the answer lurks in neutrino oscillations.

That said, I still give a good chance to some form of neutrino-matter interaction being the culprit. Somewhat like light traveling at apparent ftl speeds through some meta-materials?

I wrote: "I still give a good chance to some form of neutrino-matter interaction being the culprit. Somewhat like light traveling at apparent ftl speeds through some meta-materials?"

I did report on one such mechanism in reply #30, which may in fact be interpreted as the neutrino reacting with the matter field of the rock. Something (sort of) like: neutrinos are absorbed by rock atoms and the atoms emit other neutrinos, of which some are at the opposite side, hence traveling in the same direction. This quantum process is apparently not restricted to the speed of light, hence we can have observed superluminal propagation (similar to 'faster than light' photon propagation through some meta-materials).

This still hints at "Spooky action..." because the far side knows what happened at the opposite side instantaneously..If C does not apply at quantum scales, and all matter is composed, at some level, of quantum particles or strings, then it is again a matter of unifying the Newton,Einstein, and Quantum Mechanics before we will be able to transport real objects at FTL.(If we can send the flea, we should be able to send the cat) eventually.

Since it boils down to a phase velocity, I suppose it is the 'spooky action' type that cannot transfer energy or information.

If Opera's result holds, I guess that would mean the 3 ns pulses that arrived 60 ns too early could not have transferred any energy or information. This makes my head spin, so I would rather not speculate further...

It makes my head spin also.

Usually, when my head spins, it is the result of circular,auto referencing information,which are contradictory.A similar physical effect can be had by spinning around in circles.(Don't let the government know this, they will want to tax it the same as an intoxicating beverage .)

Suppose party "A" wishes to communicate the fact that he has arrived at a destination to party ""B", and they have pre-arranged a method of notification:

When "A" arrives, he will send a message by spooky action.A very simple single bit.

This single bit will communicate the desired information FTL.

If proven to work as described, I can see many potential uses for this,ie; a universal time reference, regardless of your location in the universe.

"When "A" arrives, he will send a message by spooky action. A very simple single bit.

This single bit will communicate the desired information FTL."

I have a way of doing this; piece of cake.

I recruit two other characters: C (who travels with A) and D (who stays with B). What I do not tell the audience is that C and D lives in the 5th dimension (the bulk), and not on our (M-theory) membrane. This was the difficult part, but the rest is straightforward. C sends a signal to D, who tells B that A has arrived, this instant, with zero time delay, signalled through the bulk, of course.

Note however, that I could not (yet) devise some form of time travel. Tried as I may, I did not succeed to get that message (that A has arrived) to B before A left B (or do I have it the wrong way around?)

Entanglement of atoms has occurred in recent experiments, which was previously thought impossible.What's next? Who knows!

We are still a very primitive culture, presuming that sentient life takes the same amount of time to evolve, there are civilizations somewhere that are billions of years ahead of us.

Faster than TIME and FTL may be 2 entirely different things.

Suppose they are not inextricably linked.

This frees up a lot of scenarios.

The speed of light limits the slice of time that we can directly observe, but time itself may be infinitely fast,(as in the bulk).

We do not have a reference for time as we know it except for the speed of C, which is agonizingly slow for such a large universe.We can only view the past to varying degrees.Even an object within inches of your eyes has a slight delay in addition to the mental processing delay involved.

I think that "spooky action" indicates that there are things faster than C, but not observable to us.

Perhaps we will discover a form of energy that violates C.

Perhaps we may determine some of the features of the "bulk" by applying different energy levels and observing the variation in results.

All of our measurements involve electromagnetic forces to some degree, so our yardstick is limited.

A did not travel faster than C to get to his destination, but the information about his arrival made the return trip faster than C (Thru the Bulk)therefor, info traveled faster than C.

If B had one half of an entangled pair, and A had the other half, sending one bit is possible.

Imagine millions of entangled pairs, half at each point.. Now we can have some real data traveling faster than C, none of which violates causality,because the storage vessel for the pairs did not exceed C.

It would require transportation of the pairs at below C, but one heck of a communication system once they were set up.Imagine, for instance, controlling a robot in real time once it arrived at it's destination.Or remote surgery or video.

Entangled particles do not occupy much space,or displace much mass, so transporting Exabytes would be no big deal.Of course,there would be a finite amount of data, until they found a method to "refresh" the entanglement;an "Entangled Echo" perhaps?

Perhaps all particles are entangled naturally, and it is simply(?) a matter of finding the matching half? IMHO.

AFAIK, the entanglement 'spooky action' has a degree of randomness in the results, hence preventing FTL information delivery. (?)

If so, the trick would be to get around this 'conspiracy of nature'...

Scientists have entangled photons and sent them many miles through fiber optic cables.It is a very secure method of data transmission, because you cannot "snoop" on the signal without altering it.They do not violate C in the cable.The fiber has to be continuous,no repeaters or amplifiers.Initially they claimed unbreakable signal transmission.Recently I read of a method to "peek" at a signal without influencing it, so new methods must be developed to prevent this.Spy vs Spy.The game is afoot and the beat goes on.But the end result is increasing creativity and advances in technology.

I realize the "bulk" is full of random spurious signals,creating noise for entangled particles, but man's ingenuity in overcoming obstacles never ceases to amaze me.

I am sure we will find a way to do it.

Look at all of the communication protocols we have now that would seem like noise to a receiver 50 years ago.200 years ago we knew absolutely nothing of wireless communication, and it would have been considered witchcraft or "spooky" to be able to see and talk to someone thousands of miles away.

We will develop a technology that conquers the currently perceived speed limit, but there will always be "spooky" things to challenge us.

I am very skeptical of atoms absorbing neutrinos because of their extreme small size. There are certainly many mysteries involving neutrinos and subatomic particles in general, as this presentation shows. It didn't work well on my computer, and had no sound. Wish I could see it in person with the physicist that put it together.

Despite their (apparent) smallness, neutrinos pack considerable energy, which they seem to not give up easily in interaction with matter. Very mysterious beasts...

I agree that the presentation slides without the presentation does not mean too much. Maybe we can find an old (saved) podcast of it.

"If so, then the Radius-of-Curvature R_c ~ 1 AU."

Correct. Sorry, I've quoted the spacetime geodesic radius, which is perhaps more relevant here than the spacetime curvature radius.

As you have correctly calculated, the possible effect is negligible. The Opera guys have considered every relativistic gravitational effect and found them all irrelevant for their test.

'vacuum polarization' effect, inside matter-laced space-time-fabric, increases local speed-of-light ?

The curvature of space-time, amidst matter, may affect the ambient vacuum energy, via a 'vacuum polarization' effect (Scientific American 2009). What if that change, of ambient vacuum energy, also changed the local speed-of-light ? If the more matter curved space-time, the more the speed of light increased; then, such a suggested scenario could possibly prevent the formation, of full-fledged 'singularity' BHs, "saving" GR from such "infinities".

"If the more matter curved space-time, the more the speed of light increased;"

It's the other way around - the Shapiro time delay causes an apparent slow-down of the speed of light in the increased curvature near massive bodies, at least as applicable to the Opera experiment. But, it is very small and hence negligible.

I agree that quantum effects will most likely prevent singularities, but event horizons will probably stay.

It's sad, but singularities are here to stay for awhile, no matter what the math says.

"... singularities are here to stay for awhile, no matter what the math says."

True, but as you well know, the singularities are where the GR math blows up (infinities). Einstein always thought that nature would have some way of preventing this bizarre state of affairs. Quantum gravity may or may not come to the rescue.

_{"Einstein always thought that nature would have some way of preventing this bizarre state of affairs."}

It does have a way, it's called current and magnetism. It's just ignored for now although the data keeps building.

"singularities are where the GR math blows up (infinities). Einstein always thought that nature would have some way of preventing this bizarre state of affairs."

__________________________________________________________________________

QM mathematically models fundamental "particles", i.e. "quanta", with "wave functions". And, those WFs can be considered ontologically "real":

^{"A quantum wave function was originally conceived by Schroedinger as a tangible, physical wave... as a real object" (Pusey 2011).}

Er go, quanta can be considered as actually extended, cloud-like, "blobs of quantum playdo", e.g. which resist compression, with a certain mechanical-like "Young's Modulus", i.e. Quantum Degeneracy Pressure. And, if quanta are real, then their WFs correspond to actual matter densities p = mYY^* = m|Y|². Such matter densities have no singularities, i.e. quanta are "smeared out in space". As such, such matter densities can be "fed" directly into General Relativity, i.e. "inputs" to the Stress-Energy Tensor T^uv.

Supra-classical phenomena require the Klein-Gordon equation, instead of the Schrodinger equation. The KG equation is "inferred", via Classical Correspondence Principle, in the same way, as the S equation, except that the Energy Operator (E = ihd_t) & Momentum Operator (p = -ihd_x) are "inserted" into the full-fledged Relativistic Energy Equation (E² = p² + m²), instead of the Classical approximation (E = m + p²/2m) derived therefrom.

And therefore, combining the E & M operators, into a single "momenergy" operator (E = {E,p} = {ihd_t,-ihd_x}), w.h.t.:

E^vE^un_vu = m² (eq.1)

where n_vu is the Minkowski metric, appropriate for flat space-time. And therefore, in curved space-time, described by a metric g_vu, w.h.t.:

E^_vE^_ug_vu = m² (eq.2)

for the fully GR extrapolation, in curved space-time, of the Classical S equation, for flat space-time. For relevant example, please ponder the Schwarzschild metric,

g_vu = {(1-R_s/r), -(1-R_s/r)^-1, -1, -1}_diag (eq.3)

Perhaps eq.'s 2-3 can help explain the "anomalous" neutrino numbers, reported by CERN employees ?? Perhaps WFs "spread" as they propagate, so that the "leading edge", of their WFs, both "spreading" & propagating forwards, faster than light, i.e. the WFs "spread" in transit, and then their "leading edges" can QM "tunnel" into the detector, before the main body arrives ??

Please permit some swift speculation.

Our space-time fabric is a "membrane" embedded in a higher-dimensional "bulk". Plausibly, our space-time fabric, i.e. "the rubber sheet", has some "thickness", in a hyper-dimension, orthogonal to the standard spatial dimensions. Plausibly, particles are trapped, within our space-time "brane", so that they do not "vanish off into the bulk", by an approximately 1D square-well potential. Such a hypothetical "hyper-potential" would generate a series of eigenstates, of increasing mass-energy, which "energy ladder" could account, for the series of "flavors" or "generations" of particles, e.g. u,c,t, d,s,b.

Note, particles gain or lose mass-energy, i.e. "climb up or down that energy ladder", only via Weak Force interactions, involving the emission or absorption, of charged Weak bosons, i.e. W⁺,W^-. And, Weak bosons are the only force-carriers to have mass, i.e. mass-less force-carriers cannot influence mass.

When particles undergo Weak interactions, their wave-functions "collapse", and they emerge from the interaction "conformed" into eigenstates, of the Weak Force, which are mixtures, of the canonical mass eigenstates. In particular, the Weak Force lepton eigenstates, expressed as mixtures, in the mass eigenstate basis, are approximately

e_W = 0.9 e + 0.5 u + 0.0 t

u_W = 0.4 e + 0.6 u + 0.7 t

t_W = 0.4 e + 0.6 u + 0.7 t

Such mixtures can be qualitatively investigated, via e.g. the above-linked QM solver. Qualitatively, the "Weak electron" eigenstate "slowly sloshes from side to side", trapped "deep down" in the potential well. But, qualitatively, the "Weak muon / taon" eigenstates "slosh around" irregularly & erratically.

Naively, the irregular behavior, of the Weak muon / taon eigenstates, per this picture, seems vaguely reminiscent, of their irregular behavior, as observed at CERN-SG. Now, their muons & taons must have been generated by Weak interactions, and so must have been generated into these "irregular" Weak eigenstates. Naively, could the "irregular" Weak eigenstates, of the muons / taons, relate to their alleged FTL propagation ????

AFAIK, the Opera experiment is about testing for neutrino oscillations. They stumbled upon the apparent FTL propagation, but I have not seen any reference to a connection with the oscillations. The different flavors have different masses, but they are all real masses and hence probably incapable of FTL.

Movement through the membrane-bulk (or some other dimension, as you speculated) is one obvious possibility, but that will be very difficult to prove, I guess.

I still suspect a timing or statistical error to be the cause of the anomaly.

Very Latest from CERN Press Release:

UPDATE 23 February 2012

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.

The plot is thickening: now there is even a possible error that could make the neutrinos even faster - and then there is the more probable error that is likely to cancel out the 60 ns early arrival. Cool.

Roll on May!