• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

Neutrinos still faster than light in latest version of experiment

Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
2,553 (0.84/day)
Likes
1,013
Location
United States
System Name Aluminum Mallard
Processor Intel i7 940
Motherboard ASUS Rampage III: Gene
Cooling Noctua C-12P
Memory 6GB Corsair Dominator DDR3
Video Card(s) ASUS HD5870
Storage OCZ Vertex 2 60GB SSD, 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 in RAID0
Display(s) HP w2338h
Case Corsair 700D
Audio Device(s) On Board
Power Supply Corsair TX850
Software Win7 Ult 64 bit
Benchmark Scores 31 FPS in Dalaran.
#26
How large are neutrinos? I mean, this can probably explain why I'm so quick in bed.

Where does time travel the quickest? My girlfriends vagina.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
2,553 (0.84/day)
Likes
1,013
Location
United States
System Name Aluminum Mallard
Processor Intel i7 940
Motherboard ASUS Rampage III: Gene
Cooling Noctua C-12P
Memory 6GB Corsair Dominator DDR3
Video Card(s) ASUS HD5870
Storage OCZ Vertex 2 60GB SSD, 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 in RAID0
Display(s) HP w2338h
Case Corsair 700D
Audio Device(s) On Board
Power Supply Corsair TX850
Software Win7 Ult 64 bit
Benchmark Scores 31 FPS in Dalaran.
#28
No, because I was able to escape it.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
5,894 (2.22/day)
Likes
6,556
#30
They all rely on relativity more or less. However now OPERA and ICARUS argue with each other who's wrong and who's right. The only way to find out is just to see who can replicate this experiment and we probably just grab some pop corn and watch the show. How strange that it's XX1st century and there's a lot of things we can't be sure of.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
5,894 (2.22/day)
Likes
6,556
#31
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-faster-than-light-particles-science-drama.html

scroll to the bottom of the page:

Many papers noted that the tiniest technical inaccuracy would have skewed the outcome. Some questioned whether the OPERA team had properly tagged the pulses of neutrinos so that the particles could be identified at the start and end of their flight.
I admit I was thinking about this before.

The OPERA team have now finetuned the neutrino beam to tag the particles better, but say they still have the same result. And they are looking at using a fibre optic cable, rather than GPS, to synchronise the timing. In the coming 12 months, Einstein could be confirmed on his mighty pedestal, or worrying cracks may appear in it.
But yeah like they say maybe those neutrinos just used extra dimensions as a shortcut and ain't superluminal at all.

Whatever grab popcorn, we won't find out until 2012.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
9,946 (2.25/day)
Likes
2,309
System Name MoFo 2
Processor AMD PhenomII 1100T @ 4.2Ghz
Motherboard Asus Crosshair IV
Cooling Swiftec 655 pump, Apogee GT,, MCR360mm Rad, 1/2 loop.
Memory 8GB DDR3-2133 @ 1900 8.9.9.24 1T
Video Card(s) HD7970 1250/1750
Storage Agility 3 SSD 6TB RAID 0 on RAID Card
Display(s) 46" 1080P Toshiba LCD
Case Rosewill R6A34-BK modded (thanks to MKmods)
Audio Device(s) ATI HDMI
Power Supply 750W PC Power & Cooling modded (thanks to MKmods)
Software A lot.
Benchmark Scores Its fast. Enough.
#32
Perhaps we just mis-measured the speed of light and neutrinos are the only particle we know of and can measure that doesn't interact with dark matter.
 
T

twilyth

Guest
#33
Neutrinos have mass so they would have to interact. Even photons which are supposed to be massless are affected by gravity.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
5,894 (2.22/day)
Likes
6,556
#34
^ True. Even Space-Time itself is affected by gravity. Just nobody knows the mass of neutrinos, like we don't know the mass of PBH. They can only narrow down the possible range.

Two interesting links:

The best researchers have been able to do is narrow the mass down to a window, with each new experiment shrinking the range a bit further. The upper limit has gone from 7.0 to 1.3 to 0.58 electron volts, and the lower limit from zero to about 0.05 electron volts. To push the limits closer, a research group turned its gaze to the Universe as a whole.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news...of-a-mystery-thanks-to-deep-space-imaging.ars

Evidence for neutrino mass

In 1998, a convincing evidence was reported that neutrinos have mass. The Standard Model has fallen after decades of invincibility. The evidence comes from experiments deep underground in pitch darkness with many thousands of tonnes of water housed in mines.

Implications of neutrino mass

Neutrinos are found to have mass, but the mass is extremely tiny, at least million times lighter than the lighest elementary particle: electron. How do we need to change the Standard Model to explain the neutrino mass? Some argue that our spacetime has unseen spatial dimensions, and we are stuck on three-dimensional "sheets". Other argue that we need to abandon the sacred distinction between matter and anti-matter.
http://ctp.berkeley.edu/neutrino/neutrino5.html





We don't know much about neutrinos, we don't know much about PBH and we don't know much about gravity, dark matter, dark energy. ... I can go on ... We don't even know are there other extra dimensions or not. The more I read about this the more I realise how everything is strange and unstudied.
 
T

twilyth

Guest
#35
Shouldn't we be able to predict the mass? I was going by the fact that neutrinos oscillate and therefore must have mass (according to the std model??? IDK).

Some else speculated about this, but if they turn out to be superluminal, my guess is that this is related to the oscillations. {shrug} :toast:
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
142 (0.05/day)
Likes
19
Location
Perth, Australia
Processor Phenom II X6 1055 @3290/3760Mhz 1.375 HT@2115 NB@2350
Motherboard GA-880GM-usb3 (seems to dislike bclk of over 235)
Cooling Scythe Big Shiruken + TR 1300rpm 140mm
Memory G.Skill Ripjaw 4GB 8-9-8-24-32 1T @1566mhz
Video Card(s) Gigabyte 6850 @875mhz gpu 1150mhz memory
Storage G.Skill Evo 115GB, Seagate 7200.11 1TB, WD Green 5400 1TB
Display(s) LG Flatron E2240V
Case Lian Li V352
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC 892
Power Supply Seasonic X-650
Software Win 7 Ult 64bit
#36
maybe there just isn't a universal speed limit, maybe its just really, really hard to go faster than light and time doesn't start doing weird stuff... anyway isn't the speed of light variable red goes faster than blue and so has higher frequency? maybe neutrinos are faster than some light.
 
T

twilyth

Guest
#37
I think the loophole is the fact that relativity only says you can't travel AT the speed of light. Think of a function that is asymptotic to the y axis. As you approach zero on the x-axis from either side, the value approaches infinity. But just because you approach infinity from one side doesn't mean you can't get to the other side.
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
2,106 (0.52/day)
Likes
371
System Name Norfree
Processor i5 3570k @4.4
Motherboard Gigabyte UD5H
Cooling 212 Evo
Memory 4x4GB Kingston 1600 @ 1833 9cl
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro Fury
Storage Corsair SSD, WD Black
Display(s) 1080p TV
Case Corsair 300-R
Audio Device(s) Auzentech Prelude > Fidelio X2s and AD-700s
Power Supply PCP&C Silent 950w
Software Win 10 Pro 64
#38
If a particle that has mass travels the speed of light, doesnt it gain infinite mass? At least that is what I understand about trying to achieve traveling at the speed of light. THe faster you go, the heavier you are. Maybe that is just for propulsion equations.

How does a Neutrino get to traveling faster than the speed of light? And is it capable of traveling slower than the speed of light as well?

Fact is we really dont know anything about how the universe works. We just have theories based on some obvious observations. Maybe time starts to flow backwards once you hit above the speed of light. After all the laws of physics allow for things to happen in reverse. It is just by chance that we experience time in the way we perceive as Forward. Maybe our forward is other particles backwards. WE JUST DONT KNOW lol
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
5,894 (2.22/day)
Likes
6,556
#39
If a particle that has mass travels the speed of light, doesnt it gain infinite mass? At least that is what I understand about trying to achieve traveling at the speed of light. THe faster you go, the heavier you are.
No that's not true. The principle says that to accelerate something so it could gain the speed faster than the speed of light in the vacuum (note the word vacuum) you need to apply infinite energy. For that exists the law of Conservation of Energy.

How does a Neutrino get to traveling faster than the speed of light?
Traveling FTL was never a problem for any medium. Particles always could travel FTL in some processes. Sun produces gazillions of electron neutrinos (the only type of neutrinos Sun can produce) everyday. Physicists use them in their experiments. For example the neutrinos that pass through the detector filled with the heavy water can produce electrons that travel faster than the speed of light in the heavy water.

Traveling FTL in vacuum is another thing. Because scientists believe that vacuum is full of particles called Higgs bosons. Everything that collides with them acquires mass. They didn't detect these bosons yet and now no one knows how when and why was the Universe created and how come that everything acquired mass.

It's perfectly can be seen in this picture. Every particle that hits the Higgs bosons (small crosses) changes its handedness and can't accelerate to the speed of light. The heavier the thing is the harder and more frequently it collides with Higgs bosons and slows down. Only gamma (light) is unaffected.

And is it capable of traveling slower than the speed of light as well?
All the time. An observer moving at the speed of light (if he or she could ever do that lol) could overtake the moving neutrino and would see it moving in the opposite direction. Well actually everything I said here was in the pdf I posted just few posts above.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
2,106 (0.52/day)
Likes
371
System Name Norfree
Processor i5 3570k @4.4
Motherboard Gigabyte UD5H
Cooling 212 Evo
Memory 4x4GB Kingston 1600 @ 1833 9cl
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro Fury
Storage Corsair SSD, WD Black
Display(s) 1080p TV
Case Corsair 300-R
Audio Device(s) Auzentech Prelude > Fidelio X2s and AD-700s
Power Supply PCP&C Silent 950w
Software Win 10 Pro 64
#40
No that's not true. The principle says that to accelerate something so it could gain the speed faster than the speed of light in the vacuum (note the word vacuum) you need to apply infinite energy. For that exists the law of Conservation of Energy.



Traveling FTL was never a problem for any medium. Particles always could travel FTL in some processes. Sun produces gazillions of electron neutrinos (the only type of neutrinos Sun can produce) everyday. Physicists use them in their experiments. For example the neutrinos that pass through the detector filled with the heavy water can produce electrons that travel faster than the speed of light in the heavy water.

Traveling FTL in vacuum is another thing. Because scientists believe that vacuum is full of particles called Higgs bosons. Everything that collides with them acquires mass. They didn't detect these bosons yet and now no one knows how when and why was the Universe created and how come that everything acquired mass.

http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/neutrino/PWMAY02murayama_3_0001.jpg

It's perfectly can be seen in this picture. Every particle that hits the Higgs bosons (small crosses) changes its handedness and can't accelerate to the speed of light. The heavier the thing is the harder and more frequently it collides with Higgs bosons and slows down. Only gamma (light) is unaffected.


All the time. An observer moving at the speed of light (if he or she could ever do that lol) could overtake the moving neutrino and would see it moving in the opposite direction. Well actually everything I said here was in the pdf I posted just few posts above.
So does the Higgs Boson completely screw up the law of conservation of mass? Or is that mass already in existence but just somewhere else?
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
5,894 (2.22/day)
Likes
6,556
#41
So does the Higgs Boson completely screw up the law of conservation of mass? Or is that mass already in existence but just somewhere else?
That darn Higgs Boson (HB) screws up everything and not only the standard model but also the law of conservation of mass. Scientists don't even know for sure. The nature of mass just like the nature of gravity is unknown.

Basically they all say that everything has mass because of that friggin' HB. We collide with HB and dang ... we have mass! Simply put: HB (if it really exists) is some kind of DRM (lol funny I know) made by some god, nature, quantum mechanics or someone else that makes everything material and limits its speed. So if there weren't HB then everything could be faster than light and wouldn't be material. Just like gravity (another DRM) prevents from moving in time or having a party in different dimensions.

HB (mass giving thingy) and gravity (a curvature of space-time) are like cage for us. They won't let us cheat or use godmode. And we can't just jailbreak it.
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
2,106 (0.52/day)
Likes
371
System Name Norfree
Processor i5 3570k @4.4
Motherboard Gigabyte UD5H
Cooling 212 Evo
Memory 4x4GB Kingston 1600 @ 1833 9cl
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro Fury
Storage Corsair SSD, WD Black
Display(s) 1080p TV
Case Corsair 300-R
Audio Device(s) Auzentech Prelude > Fidelio X2s and AD-700s
Power Supply PCP&C Silent 950w
Software Win 10 Pro 64
#42
Sorry, but which particles collide with the HB to gain mass? Photons dont. Would it be only other particles that already have mass? Thereby just increasing the mass they already have?
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
5,894 (2.22/day)
Likes
6,556
#43
Sorry, but which particles collide with the HB to gain mass?
....

Photons dont.
Right. Gamma (photons) are unaffected, only gravity can affect them. You can see it in the picture, the first particle from top. As you can see the top quark (t, fourth from top) always collides with HB, hence it's the heaviest quark. While lefthanded neutrino very slightly interacts with HB (section b in the picture), hence the lightest lepton.

Higgs postulate says that Higgs field (which permeates entire space/vacuum) gives all elementary subatomic particles that interact with it their mass. These particles are the 12 particles of matter see the link below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg

6 quarks and 6 leptons - they are bricks of all matter in the universe, everything that can have mass is made of them. However, Higgs field which confers mass on quarks and leptons, causes only a tiny portion of the masses of other heavy subatomic particles, such as protons and neutrons. In these case those heavier particles acquire their mass through gluons (strong interaction) that bind quarks together. Protons and neutrons are made of quarks.

Would it be only other particles that already have mass?
They think that righthanded neutrinos unlike other neutrinos have a mass of their own without relying on the HB. And they are really really heavy, ridiculously heavy. The problem is ... no one ever detected righthanded neutrinos.

Two possible explanations:

1st: Lefthanded neutrinos collide with HB and acquire mass, in this very moment for a very short time interval they transform into righthanded neutrinos which transform back to lefthanded neutrinos which collide with HB again ... and so on. No one knows how on Earth it's possible to detect them. It's called seesaw mechanism.

and 2nd: Some physics argue that righthanded neutrinos are not trapped in 3D space in the same way that we are, rather they can move in the extra dimensions.

Seesaw vs extra dimensions. Will anyone ever find out, I don't know.
Will it ever be possible to break through the 3D space to see what happens outside.
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
498 (0.12/day)
Likes
41
#44
didn't read the link[sure it's over my head anyway] but how do they know there the same Neutrinos an not Neutrinos that where pushed forward?
if you could picture a dam breaking,the water that's already in the river below the dam will be pushed ahead of the mass released in the break. You would have a surge that would appear faster then the released water travels.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
5,894 (2.22/day)
Likes
6,556
#45
The drama goes on:

When an international collaboration of physicists came up with a result that punched a hole in Einstein's theory of special relativity and couldn't find any mistakes in their work, they asked the world to take a second look at their experiment.
Let's recall those events again:

The neutrinos in the experiment were created by slamming speeding protons into a stationary target, producing a pulse of pions - unstable particles that were magnetically focused into a long tunnel where they decayed in flight into muons and neutrinos. The muons were stopped at the end of the tunnel, but the neutrinos, which slip through matter like ghosts through walls, passed through the barrier and disappeared in the direction of Gran Sasso.
If anyone cares here's the Feynman diagram which represents pion decay. It helps to understand the process:



http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/piondec.html



Now the IceCube - a neutrino observatory in Antarctica - is checking and comparing the results. So they could say was OPERA wrong or right.


IceCube detects these neutrinos when they collide with other particles generating muons that leave trails of light flashes as they plow into the thick, clear ice of Antarctica.
IceCube has seen neutrinos with energies 10 000 times higher than those the OPERA experiment is creating. Thus, the energies of their parent pions should be correspondingly high. Simple calculations, based on the conservation of energy and momentum, dictate that the lifetimes of those pions should be too long for them ever to decay into superluminal neutrinos. But the observation of high-energy neutrinos by IceCube indicates that these high-energy pions do decay according to the standard ideas of physics, generating neutrinos whose speed approaches that of light but never exceeds it.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-pions-dont-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html


By the way can anyone change the title of this thread? Because it's not a fact yet.
 
Last edited by a moderator: