The speed of light may have been broken.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Pincho Paxton, Sep 22, 2011.

  1. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Reading your first link, this is just confirming some measurements made at Chicago a few years ago. It isn't new.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    I would have to assume that CERN has access to the military grade GPS location data. Perhaps not universally but at least with respects to the locations they would need for this experiment. The distance as well as timing had been one of my primary concerns. I am willing to accept that they could have the distance down to within a manageable margin of error.

    I am not entirely sure about the timing...

    I did check out both of the above links and that brief review of the arxiv paper last night. Need more time with that.

    I had another thought on the issue late last night but I need some time and coffee this morning...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Yea, I think I was dividing by 60 rather than multiplying, and using the actual fraction of a foot light second instead of rounding... I was fair certain I had made some error...

    Still that would be 60 ft in 60 nano seconds a second and their elapsed time was 30 to a 40% of that so the distance accuracy would need to be in the range of maybe 18 to 24 ft?

    Edit in bold
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2011
  8. prometheus viva voce! Moderator

    Messages:
    2,045
    I feel compelled to point out that light travels at about 1 ft/ns.
     
  9. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    So neutrinos move at about the same speed as my car?
     
  10. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Thanks for saving me the time of reading it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  11. Aladdin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    125
    Umm... Well... actually the neutrinos were "picked up by giant detectors" -- what do you think those were?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    No, that is 60 ft in 60ns , not in a second. Why do you have so much difficulty with simple math?
     
  13. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Duh! I stand corrected once more. Like I said I needed coffee...
     
  14. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    OK, I'll read it, lol.
     
  15. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Yes we were both rounding. It would be more like 0.98208 ft per NS and even that is approximate...
     
  16. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,520
    I'll weigh in with a few comments:

    First, about 200 authors on the paper - wow!

    Second, the distance between creation and absorption of the neutrinos is measured to an accuracy on the order of about 20 cm, according to the paper. But I have not reviewed in detail how that was obtained, and I'm willing to entertain errrors in that measurement.

    Third, if tachyons were possible, one would expect flight-times far greater than c. But this result is only a tiny fraction above c. This lends itself to looking for systematic error as the explanation, rather than new physics.

    Fourth, the speed of neutrinos was measured accurately to be within about 1/500,000,000th of the speed of light during the 1987A supernova: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A While this result did not rule out neutrinos being faster than light (because they arrived at the earthbound detector about 3 hours before the supernova explosion), the normal explanation for their early arrival is that they penetrated the exploding core at near-light-speed, while the shock wave took 3 hours to reach the surface and become visible light, subsequently detected. However, the neutrino speed could not have been faster than 1/500,000,000th the speed of light because of the great distance from the supernova to earth. This compares to the 1/50,000th variation [This is a tiny fractional change - just 20 parts in a million - but one that occurs consistently.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484 ] between neutrinos and photons being reported by the CERN group, about 10,000 times greater than the 1987a measurement.

    Fifth, similar experiments elsewhere have not yielded this result.

    Sixth, if John Ellis is willing to entertain that Einstein's theory needs overhaul, how can he be so certain that dangerous strangelets can't be created by collisions of Lead nuclei at conditions that don't happen in nature, other than in deep space far away from astronomical bodies?
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2011
  17. prometheus viva voce! Moderator

    Messages:
    2,045
    Where does John Ellis (and he is not the president of physics btw) even remotely suggest that relativity "needs overhaul?"
     
  18. prometheus viva voce! Moderator

    Messages:
    2,045
    Also, What paper?
     
  19. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    Well dangerous strangelet creation by lead nuclei collisions can either happen, or they cannot. It's a 50/50 proposition, so it has a 50% chance of happening. Right?
     
  20. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,520
    Einstein's special relativity theory that says energy equals mass times the speed of light squared underlies "pretty much everything in modern physics," said John Ellis, a theoretical physicist at CERN who was not involved in the experiment. "It has worked perfectly up until now." http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...rs_neutrinos_that_travel_faster_than_spe.html

    His statement seems to imply that he is considering that from now forward it does not work as thought, or needs to be "overhauled".

    I noticed you did not comment on the first five comments I made. The 1987a argument against 'new physics' is apparently now being taken up by many others (or, more likely, I simply hit on it independently of several others).
     
  21. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,520
    .

    If we have no other evidence on the subject to the contrary, then right. So far, I have seen no evidence from nature or experiment on the subject.
     
  22. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    You couldn't resist throwing that in, could you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    His statement seems to imply that there needs to be better evidence if you're going to discard something that's worked perfectly so far.
     

Share This Page