Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
SwordMonkey

[Merged] Neutrinos travel faster than light?

210 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Chimpanzee

can theory of everything explains this?

Special Relativty has always been in conflict with Quantum Theory anyway due to non locality.

Now we have found out why - Einstein was wrong yet again lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaguarsky

Can particles go faster than the speed of light? I'm pretty sure. Note- The speed of light is ridiculously slow compared to the speed of thought; which is instantaneous.

I was thinking that very thing as I was writing my post but did not include it. Thank you for posting the observation. Although, my speed of thought lately is not so instantaneous, more like having to look everything up in the hard copy dictonary. :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

By my calculations, for every light year the neutrino travels, it would cover that distance about 13 minutes ahead of a photon traveling the same distance.

If we had to emitters, one emitter firing a photon and another emitter firing a neutrino simultaneously, to an observer one conventional light year distant, the neutron emitter would appear to have fired 13 minutes before the photon emitter fired.

Now, if the photon took one year to travel the distance (9,460,730,472,580 km),

And the neutrino took less than one year to travel the same distance,

Then, the neutrino traveled faster in time than the photon for the same distance.

So, it would appear to the observer comparing the two events using one light year as a measure of time (the time the photon took to travel the distance), the neutrino reached the observer 13 minutes before the simultaneous firings of the emitters.

In this thought experiment, due to its speed being faster than the speed of light, to the observer, is the neutron effectively traveling backward in time?

Does this make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison

By my calculations, for every light year the neutrino travels, it would cover that distance about 13 minutes ahead of a photon traveling the same distance.

If we had to emitters, one emitter firing a photon and another emitter firing a neutrino simultaneously, to an observer one conventional light year distant, the neutron emitter would appear to have fired 13 minutes before the photon emitter fired.

Now, if the photon took one year to travel the distance (9,460,730,472,580 km),

And the neutrino took less than one year to travel the same distance,

Then, the neutrino traveled faster in time than the photon for the same distance.

So, it would appear to the observer comparing the two events using one light year as a measure of time (the time the photon took to travel the distance), the neutrino reached the observer 13 minutes before the simultaneous firings of the emitters.

In this thought experiment, due to its speed being faster than the speed of light, to the observer, is the neutron effectively traveling backward in time?

Does this make sense?

Interesting. Using the same logic, one could look at distant lightning, note the delayed arrival of thunder, traveling at the much slower speed of sound, and theorize that, with sound as the basis, light was traveling backward in time, so that it could arrive earlier than the sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chimpanzee

By my calculations, for every light year the neutrino travels, it would cover that distance about 13 minutes ahead of a photon traveling the same distance.

If we had to emitters, one emitter firing a photon and another emitter firing a neutrino simultaneously, to an observer one conventional light year distant, the neutron emitter would appear to have fired 13 minutes before the photon emitter fired.

Now, if the photon took one year to travel the distance (9,460,730,472,580 km),

And the neutrino took less than one year to travel the same distance,

Then, the neutrino traveled faster in time than the photon for the same distance.

So, it would appear to the observer comparing the two events using one light year as a measure of time (the time the photon took to travel the distance), the neutrino reached the observer 13 minutes before the simultaneous firings of the emitters.

In this thought experiment, due to its speed being faster than the speed of light, to the observer, is the neutron effectively traveling backward in time?

Does this make sense?

Its to early to tell

For example I can see ether theories returning to tell if neutrinos are effected by one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

,

Ok, but if the neutrinos were travelling faster than the speedd of light, why werent they observed to have arrived in Italy before they left Switzerland?

Even traveling at light speed, you wouldn't arrive instantly to an outside reference frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

That is truly incredible. would throw away a lot about what we know of physics out the window. I have been reading this book that states "correct me if I'm wrong" that through the eyes of a photon no matter how vast the distance it arrives at his destination instantaneously. for when you are traveling the speed of light there is no existence of distance, space and time. this breakthough "if it is a breakthrough" can bring a whole new meaning to time travel.

It does not throw anything out of the window, it just shows that particles without mass can go faster than light... unless it is a measuring error.

And no, so far we know nothing that reaches a destination instantaneously because that would mean it has to be in two places at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chimpanzee

It does not throw anything out of the window, it just shows that particles without mass can go faster than light... unless it is a measuring error.

And no, so far we know nothing that reaches a destination instantaneously because that would mean it has to be in two places at the same time.

Neutrinos have mass and are detected travelling fast than light which has no mass.

Edited by Chimpanzee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
indeed

I would put money on this being some basic error in the experiment/detection.

If this was true (Universal) we would have Neutrino bursts years before we detect supernovas, but in the real world its not the case.

If its true at end of the day I dont see Special Relativity being effected to much apart from a PS = Muon are a bee's willie faster than C .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

I would put money on this being some basic error in the experiment/detection.

If this was true (Universal) we would have Neutrino bursts years before we detect supernovas, but in the real world its not the case.

If its true at end of the day I dont see Special Relativity being effected to much apart from a PS = Muon are a bee's willie faster than C .

Not necessarily, not long ago we thought that the maximum speed within an atmosphere is the speed of sound and expected the X1 to disintegrate once it passes it... it did not.

But until this has not been peer reviewed it has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
indeed

But until this has not been peer reviewed it has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Indeed and ive got a feeling it wont pass, relying on GPS for an exact/perfect/micro measurement of distance for a start :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bildr

If you move space time below you, instead of you actualy moving... theoretically we could travel then faster that the speed of light since it would be space/time moving and not you actualy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

If you move space time below you, instead of you actualy moving... theoretically we could travel then faster that the speed of light since it would be space/time moving and not you actualy.

And where are you going to get all the idle energy from to do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
encouraged

So, what if another experiment does not replicate this one?

As someone in this discussion suggested, perhaps they have accidentally invented a ripple-in-the-fabric-of-space detector or a black-matter-along-the-way detector?

If it is replicated, perhaps heaps of calculations will have to be redone based on Neutrino speed as the immutable property rather than light, e.g. E = mN².

I wonder if there are any experiments that were trashed in the past because of people thinking they had things wrong, when it may be that they had it right. WOW! That would be a quicker way to get conformation or NOT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid
If you move space time below you, instead of you actualy moving... theoretically we could travel then faster that the speed of light since it would be space/time moving and not you actualy.

In my understanding, that's supposedly how the Starship Enterprise travels. It contracts spacetime in front of it and expands that spacetime behind it, that way it travels in a 'bubble' of stable spacetime around the ship. The ship doesn't move in its own space, the space it occupies moves, thus it can travel at any speed. This method also negates relativistic time dilation.

This is similar to distant galaxies that are accelerating away from us faster than the speed of light. It's the space the galaxies occupy that is moving.

Perhaps dark energy could be utilized in some way to achieve something like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

So, what if another experiment does not replicate this one?

As someone in this discussion suggested, perhaps they have accidentally invented a ripple-in-the-fabric-of-space detector or a black-matter-along-the-way detector?

If it is replicated, perhaps heaps of calculations will have to be redone based on Neutrino speed as the immutable property rather than light, e.g. E = mN².

I wonder if there are any experiments that were trashed in the past because of people thinking they had things wrong, when it may be that they had it right. WOW! That would be a quicker way to get conformation or NOT.

Very simple, to be a scientific fact it has to work every time under same circumstances, therefore it would be classified as error of freak occurence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oberon

As much as i like the idea of time-travel, the idea of it is terrifing aswell. So many things that could go very very wrong(snogging your own mother or father, what if you killed the guy responsible for the microwave or pot noodles). It to horrible a thought.

Im away to look at some kittens or puppies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chimpanzee

As much as i like the idea of time-travel, the idea of it is terrifing aswell. So many things that could go very very wrong(snogging your own mother or father, what if you killed the guy responsible for the microwave or pot noodles). It to horrible a thought.

Im away to look at some kittens or puppies.

haha

West Virginian man goes back in time and thinks ma mar sure seems kind of pritty or even his granny lol

Edited by Chimpanzee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
professorp

I wonder how many making comments are scientifically qualified to make a statement as to this being real or not. Post pages are there for conjecture, so many here seem to think they KNOW what they are talking about. IF any scientists are here commenting, I will hear your side of this. IF not, there are a lot of people that have a black hole of a mouth talking a lot of space junk...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

I wonder how many making comments are scientifically qualified to make a statement as to this being real or not. Post pages are there for conjecture, so many here seem to think they KNOW what they are talking about. IF any scientists are here commenting, I will hear your side of this. IF not, there are a lot of people that have a black hole of a mouth talking a lot of space junk...

There is an alternative: Stay away from pages where laymen discuss science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

Special Relativty has always been in conflict with Quantum Theory anyway due to non locality.

Now we have found out why - Einstein was wrong yet again lol.

We don't know if he was wrong, this is still an early observation which needs testing and validating. Nothing at the moment unifies classical physics (relative) and quantum physics, this if proven yo be correct could possibly lead to unifying physics at all levels.

Did these neutrinos travel through a vacuum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

There is an alternative: Stay away from pages where laymen discuss science.

These forums aren't for experts although they welcome. If your want to discuss it with physicists and others then find a forum catering to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison

We don't know if he was wrong, this is still an early observation which needs testing and validating. Nothing at the moment unifies classical physics (relative) and quantum physics, this if proven yo be correct could possibly lead to unifying physics at all levels.

Did these neutrinos travel through a vacuum?

No. mostly through rock, apparently. Along the chord between the neutrino source and the receiver, both points, ~ 500 miles apart, near the Earth's surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

There's nothing that pleases me more than a scientist being baffled.

And i'm not science-bashing, that's what scientists ought to be, finding out things that baffle them, and not being afraid to admit it and not trying to insist that they know everything and there's nothing new that science can't explain already. In fact, it should be a scientist's ambition to find soemthing that baffles them, as that means that they've found something that's genuinely new.

Since this is always what scientists are looking for I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy

The relative position of the measuring station remains the same, as it moves with the earth, so you can ignore that to determine the velocity of the particle.

Yes it is relative but it's a little different than throwing an object to a friend inside a train carriage.

Does initial velocity have any effect on the velocity of the particles? I thought not but that is just my opinion, because I haven't actually looked it up :)

I'll check it out when I get home, so if that is the case you don't have to reply and hurt my street cred. ;(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.