Faster than light neutrinos.

[Norbert]

Plus the rampant variants of the "punchline first" jokes flooding social networks.

Why aren't neutrino jokes funny? Because you already know what is going to happen.

 

[Doug_G]

Still, I don't know when they started "monitoring", but if the neutrinos arrived before that time, then nobody would know.

These are multi-year experiments; the neutrino burst lasted a fraction of a second. There's no chance of them missing one.

According to current theory.

Yes, according to the most successful and extensively-tested theory in existence.

In this case, I'm wasn't talking about the theory of relativity itself, but about what Einstein thought about Quantum Physics. While Quantum Physics hasn't been shown to contradict relativity (yet), it is still unlike what Einstein, as a person, thought it would be, quantum entanglement being one example, leading to the so-called EPR paper which he co-authored.

"Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old One. In any case I am convinced that He doesn't play dice." -Einstein

I think many if not most scientists have the same misgivings about the underpinnings of quantum mechanics. But the theory describes the world incredibly well, so everyone uses it. You wouldn't be typing on a computer if it didn't work.

Meaning, even the perhaps best physicist of all times could be wrong. That's science, get used to it.

All theories are just an approximation to reality. The approximations get better over time, but only by climbing over the carcases of their predecessors.

Newton's laws are wrong; Einstein proved that. But in most real-world situations they are a very accurate approximation. So "wrong" in this context is perhaps not the best choice of word.

 

[Norbert]

These are multi-year experiments; the neutrino burst lasted a fraction of a second. There's no chance of them missing one.

That's evading my point, which is that they started measuring surely less than 100 years ago.

Yes, according to the most successful and extensively-tested theory in existence.

You can't use a theory to prove itself, though, or to disprove counter-examples, no matter how successful.

Also, there are things that I haven't heard an explanation for yet: When you light a candle, it produces light, photons. The energy of these photons, and the mass corresponding to it (according to E=mc2), did not have the speed of light before the candle was lit. While it had a (rest-)mass before that, still, this mass/energy somehow transitioned into the speed of light. This isn't considered a contradiction to relativity since photons are massless after the transition, however if you did not know about this, you might think relativity makes it impossible for that mass/energy to achieve the speed of light. As far as I know, this transition is still unexplained, but I'm happy for any pointer to a resolution.

 

[Doug_G]

That's evading my point, which is that they started measuring surely less than 100 years ago.

An earlier point I made is that you wouldn't be able to draw a conclusion from such an observation. There could easily be a supernova in this galaxy that could only be detected by neutrinos. Also I don't think anyone is proposing that neutrinos might be able to travel that much faster than light.

You can't use a theory to prove itself, though, no matter how successful.

No, but my point is, you should look very carefully at evidence that goes against 100 years of experimental confirmation.

Also, there are things that I haven't heard an explanation for yet: When you light a candle, it produces light, photons. The energy of these photons, and the mass corresponding to it (according to E=mc2), did not have the speed of light before the candle was lit. While it had a (rest-)mass before that, still, this mass/energy somehow transitioned into the speed of light. This isn't considered a contradiction to relativity since photons are massless after the transition, however if you did not know about this, you might think relativity makes it impossible for that mass/energy to achieve the speed of light. As far as I know, this transition is still unexplained, but I'm happy for any pointer to a resolution.

It's just a particle interaction. An electron changes energy states (moving from one orbital level to another), and emits a photon containing the energy difference between the states (the energy difference determining its wavelength). Of course since the photon travels at the speed of light, it does not experience time. From its perspective it is emitted by one electron and absorbed by another one instantaneously, even if the other electron is a billion light years away. So a quantum of energy is simply released by one electron and absorbed by another.

 

[Norbert]

An earlier point I made is that you wouldn't be able to draw a conclusion from such an observation. There could easily be a supernova in this galaxy that could only be detected by neutrinos.

I'm not sure what your point is, then.

No, but my point is, you should look very carefully at evidence that goes against 100 years of experimental confirmation.

Of course, I think everyone agrees.

It's just a particle interaction. An electron changes energy states (moving from one orbital level to another), and emits a photon containing the energy difference between the states (the energy difference determining its wavelength). Of course since the photon travels at the speed of light, it does not experience time. From its perspective it is emitted by one electron and absorbed by another one instantaneously, even if the other electron is a billion light years away. So a quantum of energy is simply released by one electron and absorbed by another.

This only describes the conditions and effects in more detail. It doesn't explain what kind of physical process happens in the transition itself, or the principles of this process. it just accepts it as a fact. And, still, if you didn't know about such "energy state changes", you'd think that for that mass/energy it would not be possible to achieve speed of light, looking at the equations of relativity.

 

[Doug_G]

I'm not sure what your point is, then.

My point is, detecting neutrinos without seeing photons from a supernova would be completely inconclusive.

This only describes the conditions and effects in more detail. It doesn't explain what kind of physical process happens in the transition itself, or the principles of this process. it just accepts it as a fact. And, still, if you didn't know about such "energy state changes", you'd think that for that mass/energy it would not be possible to achieve speed of light, looking at the equations of relativity.

Hard to say. Your question may not even make sense in the quantum realm. What is the "spin" of a particle, really? It's a property that may or may not have a tangible physical correlation to rotation, except in terms of bulk behavior. We have a model describing the event to a certain level of detail; it can't answer some questions, especially the ones that govern the (currently? maybe forever?) unobservable.

Our theories don't explain everything. Mother nature knows more about physics than we do.

 

[Norbert]

My point is, detecting neutrinos without seeing photons from a supernova would be completely inconclusive.

Yep.

Hard to say. Your question may not even make sense in the quantum realm. What is the "spin" of a particle, really? It's a property that may or may not have a tangible physical correlation to rotation, except in terms of bulk behavior. We have a model describing the event to a certain level of detail; it can't answer some questions, especially the ones that govern the (currently? maybe forever?) unobservable.

Our theories don't explain everything. Mother nature knows more about physics than we do.

Yep. Fortunately, we are still learning...

 

[W.Petefish]

I Call BS to faster than light neutrinos, for two reasons:

They said that they detected neutrinos and that is all. They don't know from what direction they were coming from.

Neutrinos cannot go faster than light, because they have a mass greater than a photon of light.

 

[Doug_G]

Neutrinos cannot go faster than light, because they have a mass greater than a photon of light.

Unless they just made a major discovery that will overturn our understanding of physics. But I agree on the BS thing.

 

[W.Petefish]

That was shared by a professor at SMU in the physics department. (Prof. Sekula who I think is doing research with ATLAS)

 

[Norbert]

New results show neutrinos still faster than light - physics-math - 18 November 2011 - New Scientist

One of the most staggering results in physics – that neutrinos may go faster than light – has not gone away with two further weeks of observations. The researchers behind the jaw-dropping finding are now confident enough in the result that they are submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal.

"The measurement seems robust," says Luca Stanco of the National Institute of Nuclear Physics in Padua, Italy. "We have received many criticisms, and most of them have been washed out."

One of the main concerns was that it was difficult to link individual neutrino hits at Gran Sasso to the particles that left CERN. To double check, the team ran a second set of measurements with tighter bunches of particles from 21 October to 6 November.

In that time, they observed 20 new neutrino hits – a piddling number compared with the 16,000 hits in the original experiment. But Stanco says the tighter particle bunches made those hits easier to track and time: "So they are very powerful, these 20 events."

(This actually appears to address the concern mentioned by W.Petefish, above.)

 

[richkae]

If you consider yourself interested in physics and the theories of relativity you owe it to yourself to read this:

Amazon.com: Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? (9780971484597): Tom Bethell: Books

I found it a very compelling read and it pushed relativity out of my pantheon.

 

[GSP]

Tom Bethell's book has my BS detector going off big time.

All theories are wrong, but some are useful. Special Relativity is useful and necessary. If you want to read a good review of General Relativity experiments over the years, I recommend this:

Amazon.com: Was Einstein Right? 2nd Edition: Putting General Relativity To The Test (9780465090860): Clifford M. Will: Books

It is written by someone who understands and explains the subject very well, not a journalist.

GSP

 

[W.Petefish]

A measly 20 events will not convince me, especially since the 20 events occurred in 16 days. Roughly 1.25 hits per day, this falls in the realm of noise.

IF they can get consecutive hits every time they activate CERN they might prove it. But they would need more hits than 20 in 16 days to convince me.

 

[Doug_G]

Tom Bethell's book has my BS detector going off big time.

There's only one way to falsify relativity: demonstrate a clear violation of one of the predictions of Special or General Relativity, and have that same result replicated by others. Anything else is gobbledygook.

The neutrino result might be that violation, but it has not yet been properly scrutinized or replicated.

 

[Norbert]

A measly 20 events will not convince me, especially since the 20 events occurred in 16 days. Roughly 1.25 hits per day, this falls in the realm of noise.

IF they can get consecutive hits every time they activate CERN they might prove it. But they would need more hits than 20 in 16 days to convince me.

The point of that more recent experiment was that due to the shortness of the bunches, they were able to link, with a high statistical certainty, the arrived neutrinos to the ones that were sent.

There are still doubts though, I don't think anyone is claiming it would be conclusive already.

 

[Norbert]

Here a link to CERN's press release (specificially "UPDATE 18 November 2011") :

CERN Press Release

In addition to the above article, it contains this info:

On 17 November, the collaboration submitted a paper on this measurement to the peer reviewed Journal of High Energy Physics (JHEP). This paper is also available on the Inspire website.

So, if the peer review accepts it (which might take a while in this case), it will appear in a qualified scientific journal.

The article has more than 170 authors, and the number of scientists putting their name under it, appears to be growing. I'd say this is on the way to the point where it has to be taken as a serious challenge.

 

[Doug_G]

Yeah, but don't forget that the first-ever credible report of an extra-solar planet had to be retracted because it was an instrumental error. Stuff happens.

 

[felixtb]

just had an interesting conversation with a guy working at CERN but on some other experiments. he said that the difficulty in proving this experiment is that there is no other equivalent experiment that can be done elsewhere to give credence because there is no other facility that can actually do the experiment. so what they are apparently doing now is the only way to prove themselves. they are building new instruments in a slightly different way so that they can measure the same thing but from a different angle so to speak, and this way either prove or disprove themselves........ quite interesting an excersise.........

 

[stopcrazypp]

He said that the difficulty in proving this experiment is that there is no other equivalent experiment that can be done elsewhere to give credence because there is no other facility that can actually do the experiment.

That's an interesting situation. With no other instrument in the world that can perform the same experiment, you can't really reproduce it independently and eliminate instrument error.