Einstein Got It Wrong?

[silverpig]

Neutrinos have mass. They were accelerated at CERN.

Might be a really interesting development.

I reread the article that Fern quoted, I didn't see anything about acceleration explicitly mentioned in there. I can assume that "fire a neutrino beam" means they accelerated the neutrinos, but maybe something more complex is going on.

LHC doesn't accelerate neutrinos. It accelerates protons and anti-protons. To make a neutrino beam they probably fire one of those beams at a metallic target (lead or something), and the resulting reactions produce a beam of neutrinos.

My jury is out on it, its not yet established the cern measurements are correct, and from what limited things coming out, the measurements only show particles moving only marginally faster than the speed of light. When anything truly significant would require speeds far far far faster than the speed of light and maybe approaching infinite.

No, the truly significant find is that ANYTHING can go faster than light. It's no more special if you find the beam moved 2x the speed of light as opposed to 1.05x the speed of light.

 

[Bird222]

If I remember correctly all parts of special relativity have been proven. It would be quite amazing if this were true. My money is on some kind of error somewhere.

 

[Moonbeam]

The equation isn't arbitrary neither is it untested. The equation says that to reach light speed anything which contains mass requires infinite energy to do so. Most likely there is an experimental error not yet caught. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I don't see that yet.

Hay, do you know about a theory that states that light isn't a limit not based on this evidence but theory? I just read about one but I forget where. Maybe I can find it.

 

[Moonbeam]

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20110920/NEWS/110919726/1001&parentprofile=1001

I don't think this is it but interesting: Did have to do with strings:

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20110920/NEWS/110919726/1001&parentprofile=1001

 

[Bowfinger]

LHC doesn't accelerate neutrinos. It accelerates protons and anti-protons. To make a neutrino beam they probably fire one of those beams at a metallic target (lead or something), and the resulting reactions produce a beam of neutrinos. ...

Yes, protons fired at a graphite target. From the OPERA Experiment web site:

OPERA needs an intense and energetic beam of muon neutrinos traveling a distance of hundreds of kilometers to seek for the appearance of oscillated tau neutrinos. A beam of this type is generated from collisions of accelerated protons with a graphite target after focussing the particles produced (pions and kaons in particular) in the desired direction. The products of their decays, muons and neutrinos, continue to travel in generally the same direction as the parent particle. Muon neutrinos produced in this way at CERN cross the earth crust reaching OPERA after a 732 km journey.

​

Edit: BTW, if I understand the articles correctly, they are not using the LHC for this experiment. It is another particle accelerator there.

 

[Moonbeam]

Here it is again differently stated:

http://cornellsun.com/node/45120

 

[Karl Agathon]

You go do that... I'll use FTL to get off this forsaken rock.

I agree, we could use FTL to try an locate the planet Caprica (and other colonial colonies) and see if any of out ancestors are still alive there.

 

[monovillage]

Amazing!
"Gillies told The Associated Press that the readings have so astounded researchers that they are asking others to independently verify the measurements before claiming an actual discovery.

"They are inviting the broader physics community to look at what they've done and really scrutinize it in great detail, and ideally for someone elsewhere in the world to repeat the measurements," he said Thursday."

This is how real science is done.

 

[sarsipias1234]

Here is the link to the research page: http://www-opera.desy.de/project.html

"For a massive neutrino, a given weak interaction eigenstate (nu_e, nu_mu, nu_tau) may be seen as a different eigenstate at some distance from the source. The corresponding probability has an "oscillatory" behavior (hence oscillation) with parameters which can be determined by experiments. In the simplified scheme in which oscillation "occurs" dominantly between a pair of neutrino flavours, they are described by two quantities: the mixing parameter sin² 2(Theta) (related to the oscillation amplitude) and the mass squared difference Delta m² between the two mass eigenstates (related to the "frequency oscillation"). The sensitivity of the experimental searches to the above parameters depends on the neutrino energy E and on the distance L of the detector from the neutrino source."


This is from an article on physorg.com

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-cern-faster-than-light-particle.html

Drew Baden, chairman of the physics department at the University of Maryland, said it is far more likely that the CERN findings are the result of measurement errors or some kind of fluke. Tracking neutrinos is very difficult, he said.
"This is ridiculous what they're putting out," Baden said. "Until this is verified by another group, it's flying carpets. It's cool, but ..."

Also from Scientific American:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=particles-found-to-travel

"If the speeds seen by OPERA were achievable by all neutrinos, then the pulse from the supernova would have shown up years earlier than the exploding star's flash of light; instead, they arrived within hours of each other. "It's difficult to reconcile with what OPERA is seeing," John Ellis Theoretical Physicists at CERN


This is similar to the GOD particle claim recently at CERN where scientist were super confident they found "GOD"!

Except in this case we have direct observable proof that contradicts these findings in supernova observations.

This is yet another example of science and education being perverted by capitalistic greed and desire!

Here is a quote from Albert Einstein which is relevant:

"The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career." Albert Einstein "Why Socialism?" 1949

 

[Muse]

I'm skeptical. Einstein's theories have been challenged many times over the years and it always seems to turn out that he was right, they were wrong. Until I hear otherwise, I will dismiss this as another such instance. Not everything he did or tried to do worked out, but most of the basic results have been corroborated, not debunked.

The equation isn't arbitrary neither is it untested. The equation says that to reach light speed anything which contains mass requires infinite energy to do so. Most likely there is an experimental error not yet caught. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I don't see that yet.

"Everybody is a genius. But, if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it’ll spend its whole life believing that it is stupid." - Albert Einstein

Indeed, it may turn out that these experimenters are fish trying to climb trees.

 

[trenchfoot]

Heh, if it somehow helps my PC to run a whole lot faster then I'm all in. Where do I sign?

 

[DrPizza]

I'm betting on experimental error, but it'll be somewhat interesting to read about this until more scientists chime in. There have been too many other observations that showed neutrinos traveling at (edit: close to) the speed of light, i.e. neutrinos from supernovae millions of light years away.

 

[randomrogue]

This is a very interesting topic. I am highly impressed and I boggle that we can even examine this.

I've long supported strong funding for raw scientific research (not linked to military application).

It'll be great to see if this is confirmed and what it tells us.

If this is a true discovery it will really make Americans question where our money is going. At least I hope so considering the far reaching effects this discovery will have on science.

The Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) (also nicknamed the Desertron[1]) was a particle accelerator complex under construction in the vicinity of Waxahachie, Texas that was set to be world's largest and most energetic, surpassing the current record held by the Large Hadron Collider. Its planned ring circumference was 87.1 kilometres (54.1 mi) with an energy of 20 TeV per beam of protons. The project's director was Roy Schwitters, a physicist at the University of Texas at Austin and Harvard University. Dr. Louis Ianniello served as Associate Director.[2] The project was cancelled in 1993 due to budget problems.

 

[DirkGently1]

There are a hundred similar claims like this a year that all turn out to have no substance. All i'm seeing is the usual sensationalist reporting.

"OMG it must be real, they've asked the rest of the community to verify the results.."

Blah, blah, blah.

There are norms in the scientific community for dealing with new data and a lot of scrutiny on the peer review process. When work is submitted it's not with the attitude 'look at my work, prove me right', it's 'look at my work and prove me wrong'.

In the case we're discussing, there's an obvious anomoly and the CERN scientists are asking for help to find out where the problem lies. Despite the reporting, they're not making wild claims and asking the community to back them on it!

 

[Double Trouble]

The news reporting on this is (quite predictably) terrible. From what I've seen, the CERN scientists are not making wild claims about shattering Einstein's special theory or anything like that, they're essentially baffled by the results of their experiment and want to find out if they erred somehow. If someone else were to be able to reproduce the result and the accuracy confirmed, THEN it will be a big deal.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I wouldn't be surprised if we discovered that the speed of light is not a universal speed limit, but an arbitrary designation as a speed limit because it was the fastest thing we had ever observed. Science is always getting updated in that sort of way. "We've never seen anything go faster than this, therefore nothing can," always struck me as fuzzy logic.

ROFLMAO!! You really have no concept of anything outside Newtonian physics?

Holy shit, what fucking colossal ignorance!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity

But since you probably have an IQ <80, clicking probably won't help you.

 

[ichy]

I've long supported strong funding for raw scientific research (not linked to military application).

Can't ever miss a chance to be sanctimonious, huh?

Re: the original story, it sounds very cool but even the researchers who made the discovery are skeptical until someone confirms their results.

 

[Atreus21]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44629271/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TnuzquzGAoM

IMO, not much cooler than going faster than the speed of light.

I hope Fermilab confirms this. Then I'm curious about the resulting impact on science and what will develop from this.

Fern

I wonder if my Uncle (Rocky Kolb at Fermilab, I proclaim with no small amount of pride) will be involved in this.

 

[Atreus21]

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career." Albert Einstein "Why Socialism?" 1949

I don't consider the following a threadjack since you saw fit to take cheap shots given the opportunity.

The very power of capitalism comes in its empowerment of individuals over the collective. It leaves people free to choose whether they want to be greedy or not.

Are you saying that governmental economic control is preferable to individual economic freedom in promoting an atmosphere more conducive to scientific inquiry?

 

[alphatarget1]

ROFLMAO!! You really have no concept of anything outside Newtonian physics?

Holy shit, what fucking colossal ignorance!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity

But since you probably have an IQ <80, clicking probably won't help you.

Mods, are these kinds of personal attacks allowed? It's totally uncalled for.

 

[Fern]

Nitpicking, but I don't believe Einstein ever said it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. He said it would be impossible to accelerate something with mass to the speed of light (or even more precisely, it would take infinite energy to do so). He left open the possible existence of things already traveling faster than c.

But very cool. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

That's basically always the explanation I've heard (that acceleration is the key). I'm not a physicist, but that intuitively makes sense given that the limit is always described based on the amount of energy required. If something is already going the speed of light or faster, staying at that speed shouldn't require any energy.

To state the obvious - I'm not a physicist either, but I think you guys are wrong.

If Einstein said what you say he did - then he most certainly did say "it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of light".

You said: "He said it would be impossible to accelerate something with mass to the speed of light (or even more precisely, it would take infinite energy to do so). He left open the possible existence of things already traveling faster than c."

The universe has a finite amount of energy. The amount of energy it has may be immeasurably large, but it is finite.

Therefore, if the energy of the universe if finite, and I do not believe anyone doubts this, there is nothing which could have possibly accelerated this particle to a speed faster than that of the speed of light. If the universe does not have infinite energy, WTH accelerated it? You're opening even more questions, and raising deeper questions regarding science/physics with a hypothesis that "something unknown" caused it to accelerate to speeds in excess of light.

But simply put - 'infinity' does not exist. There are no known quantities of anything which are thought to be infinite.

And infinite energy? Really? Infinite energy does not exist, no one claims otherwise. And if it did not, then no particle, no matter how small it's mass, could ever achieve speeds in excess of that of light.

In short, exceeding the speed of light cannot be explained under any known circumstances according to Einstein. He IS most definitely saying it is "impossible to travel faster than the speed of light"

BTW: For those of us older (or maybe from a different university) the problem was expressed as that of approaching infinite mass (as opposed to infinite energy). The closer you approached the speed the light, the more your mass approached infinity. Of course, they are the opposite side of the same coin: As something approaches infinite mass it takes infinite energy to accelerate it towards higher speeds.

Bottom line: there are no things - mass nor energy - which exist in infinite amounts in this known universe. Therefore, attaining the speed of light is impossible if Einstein's theory is correct. He is saying so directly, even if only thru his equation.

Fern

 

[xBiffx]

Very interesting topic. My question is even if you think something went faster than the speed of light, how do you measure this. Hell, what measurement device can you use to accurately measure something going even close to the speed of light. Any computerized measurement still relies on electrons moving through a circuit, which isn't the speed of light. Just like of lot of things in science, measuring what you observed or finding an accurate measuring device is 9/10 of the problem.

 

[woolfe9999]

To state the obvious - I'm not a physicist either, but I think you guys are wrong.

If Einstein said what you say he did - then he most certainly did say "it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of light".

You said: "He said it would be impossible to accelerate something with mass to the speed of light (or even more precisely, it would take infinite energy to do so). He left open the possible existence of things already traveling faster than c."

The universe has a finite amount of energy. The amount of energy it has may be immeasurably large, but it is finite.

Therefore, if the energy of the universe if finite, and I do not believe anyone doubts this, there is nothing which could have possibly accelerated this particle to a speed faster than that of the speed of light. If the universe does not have infinite energy, WTH accelerated it? You're opening even more questions, and raising deeper questions regarding science/physics with a hypothesis that "something unknown" caused it to accelerate to speeds in excess of light.

But simply put - 'infinity' does not exist. There are no known quantities of anything which are thought to be infinite.

And infinite energy? Really? Infinite energy does not exist, no one claims otherwise. And if it did not, then no particle, no matter how small it's mass, could ever achieve speeds in excess of that of light.

In short, exceeding the speed of light cannot be explained under any known circumstances according to Einstein. He IS most definitely saying it is "impossible to travel faster than the speed of light"

BTW: For those of us older (or maybe from a different university) the problem was expressed as that of approaching infinite mass (as opposed to infinite energy). The closer you approached the speed the light, the more your mass approached infinity. Of course, they are the opposite side of the same coin: As something approaches infinite mass it takes infinite energy to accelerate it towards higher speeds.

Bottom line: there are no things - mass nor energy - which exist in infinite amounts in this known universe. Therefore, attaining the speed of light is impossible if Einstein's theory is correct. He is saying so directly, even if only thru his equation.

Fern

Fern, it isn't theoretically impossible for a mass to exist that always moves faster than the speed of light. Look up "tachyons." Note: the actual existence of such things has never been proven. However, the point is that the existence of such a thing isn't theoretically impossible. I don't know the physics any better than you do, but this seems to come up every time this issue is discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

- wolf

 

[piasabird]

So what happens in a black hole? I think this proves that einstein believed that particles can travel faster than the speed of light.

 

[xBiffx]

So what happens in a black hole?

Paging Macamus.....:whiste: