That assumes all neutrinos play the same game though. I have an error in the calculation for the possible difference in speed for the supernova neutrinos compared to photons and it is actually 2E Still way too small compared to the experimenters ratio.
If the measured neutrino velocity is correct, given the distances involved with SNA, the neutrinos should have gotten here years before photons, not hours. SNA is really good evidence that neutrinos are subluminal. On the Nature blog, theoretical physicist Ellis was referred to as having made similar comments. It is not just that neutrinos arrived 3 hours faster; but it is the light that has been observed 3 hours late.
Thanks to all for the responses. There is a small teaching point here with regards to random walk which is how it is possible for photons to be held back 3 hours when the star that went supernova obviously could not have been 3 light hours wide in diameter. Only when the shock wave from the implosion reached and obliterated the surface of the star could the photons produced from the event be seen. Since neutrinos do no interact with matter in the same way as photons they did not experience random walk and came straight at us.
The three hour delay for the photons then is a function of both the diameter of the souce star before it imploded and the speed of propagation of the shock wave that spectacularly tore the remainder of the star apart.
So it looks like the speed of light is upheld for neutrinos from this evidence that nature threw at us and we recieved in I am still curious enough to follow this to see what systematic methodological error or flaw led to this confounding result. Perhaps something useful and unexpected will come out of this with regards to how to calibrate the equipment properly or how to control the methods better to stamp out unexpected correlations that bias the results, but most likely instead of a great discovery this will turn out to be a great embarassment that will quickly be forgotten.
In any event, a methodological error is far more likely than the alternative that somehow the different condtions of the OPERA experiment versus a supernova accelerated the neutrinos by an unknown mechanism. I still am sceptical about neutrinos acting like tachyons. The SNA event might prove this concept wrong. Given the lack of peer review and the stunningness of the result, I too think it smells like moldy cannoli, and I too expect this to not be reproduced and to fade quietly from view.
They say that nothing with non-zero rest mass can ever cross that barrier; although, zero rest-mass particles can do so. The real problem here is the relation between local and non-local events, e. In any physical theory, we must assume that there is some kind of non-local structure — and this non-local structure itself violates causality — i.
Yes, it does. These entities are computational devices of field theory, not real particles. Excuse me? The very idea behind the inequality and its test is that relativity is taken to be preserved.
So causality is preserved too, naturally. All physical observations and theories to date are causal. To suggest otherwise is to not have done due diligence. The outcome of the tests is consistent with the prediction, and shows that there are no hidden variables. Hence relativity and quantum mechanics are compatible, and especially quantum systems shows entanglement. So, the most advanced particle physics lab in the world has got it wrong? But then maybe they were. Probably just another software bug at CERN.
What about Einsten-Rosen tunnel?? All should be in consistency with other laws …. Should consider plate tectonics and continental drift that could influence the experiment. Experiment to be confirmed by other laboratories of physics. I would think that perhaps these things are traveling at the correct limit and light is being slowed by gravity and interactions with other particles… my 2 cents. I kinda hope it is true, because I want a warp drive!
They produce neutrinos in bunches, and can recognize the accelerator beam packet periodicity, rough travel time, and over all particle bunch spread by comparing to a local detector. That in itself makes this news release valuable, even if or when it is proven wrong! The advanced supernova neutrino burst is an interesting thought but if neutrinos can exceed c then why does it have to be by a fixed amount?
And if the results prove to be accurate and some things actually can travel faster than the speed of light, so what? I always thought that is what science is all about, learning new things using the scientific method. Is it possible to learn new things without occasionally learning that previous learning was incorrect? We ought to always keep our minds open.
It is an easy one. According to the paper the distance measurement procedure is documented here , and they use the geodetic distance in the ETRF ITRF system as given by some standard routine. I get the difference between measuring distance along an Earth radius perfect sphere roughly the geode and measuring the distance of travel, for neutrinos the chord through the Earth, as 22 m over km. Of course, they have had a whole team on this for 2 years, so it is unlikely they goofed. But it is at least possible.
Unfortunately the technical details of the system and the routine used to give distance from position is too much to check this quickly. But the difference is a curious coincidence with the discrepancy against well established relativity. Other outstanding concerns are:. It is not a clear photon vs neutrino race. That must be carefully measured to establish that particles or information, for that matter travels faster than relativity allows.
The photons travel through space at the same speed. If you were traveling at nearly the speed of light the photons would slowly leave your flashlight. Space is not analog. The present discovery on the speed of the neutrinos is the beginning of the show of the speeds superluminaries. I think the conclusion has to be that there is no new physical effect, just a systematic error that the collaboration needs to find. Science is all connected.
It would be difficult to break the speed of light limit and not break the theories that allow your GPS or your computer to work. Similar neutrinos from distant astronomical events arrive after the light. The paper cites the SNA supernova evidence. One of the big promises has been quantum computing and we still don't have it. Also, photonic computing — we still don't have that either.
Quantum tunneling To understand the principle of quantum tunneling, consider a ball being bowled up a hill. If the ball has insufficient velocity, it will not roll over the top of the hill and appear on the other side.
But, if the ball was a subatomic particle, subject to quantum laws, it would also behave like a wave. The "wave function" describing the particle would represent the probability of finding it at a certain location. This wave could extend to the other side of the hill, meaning there will always be a small possibility of the particle being detected there unexpectedly. The effect is already used in a practical way in the scanning tunneling microscope, which can image surface features at an atomic scale and relies on the "tunneling" of electrons.
Tunneling is also involved in radioactivity and nuclear fusion. Without it, the sun could not shine, and some scientists believe the universe itself only came into existence because of tunneling. As airplanes approach the speed of sound, their sound waves pile up into a wall of air pressure that shatters apart weak airplanes. Airplanes that are strong enough can poke through this wall of air pressure and create a shock wave that trails behind them.
When this sonic shock wave passes ground observers, we hear it as a sonic boom. By analogy, if a space ship traveled faster than the speed of light, it would create a shock wave made entirely of light. The problem is that nothing can go faster than the speed of light in vacuum , so a space ship can never go fast enough to break the light barrier.
It's not a question of engineering, but of fundamental physics. As an object approaches the speed of light, it takes an increasing amount of energy to accelerate. It would take literally an infinite amount of energy for a space ship to exactly reach the speed of light in vacuum.
This fact is verified every day in particle accelerators. Impenetrable barriers are integral to one of the more fascinating quantum phenomena: tunneling. For around ninety years, researchers have been studying the way that quantum particles are able to pass through such barriers. That means that a particle could speed up while tunneling, and to make its goal in that fixed amount of time, it might even surpass the speed of light — if the tunnel is long enough or the barrier thick enough.
Of course, this idea does not fit with the precepts of relativity — neither special nor general relativity — which are quite strict in insisting that particles cannot exceed the speed of light. Still, most researchers were not overly concerned with the results of this study, since it was already known that quantum mechanics and the physics of relativity do not jibe in many ways.
Therefore, so the thinking has been, this is another apparent anomaly that will work itself out once we figure out how to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics.
0コメント