Introducing the Gizmag Store

Faster-than-light travel observed ... of neutrinos, maybe

By

September 23, 2011

The idea of matter traveling faster than light may no longer be limited to the realm of sc...

The idea of matter traveling faster than light may no longer be limited to the realm of science fiction, as scientists have reported observing neutrinos doing exactly that (Photo: Osvaldo Gon)

According to Einstein's restricted theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum. Up until today, that had pretty much seemed to be the case, too. Early this morning, however, researchers from the Geneva-based OPERA project announced that the results from one of their recent experiments indicate that neutrinos can in fact outrun light particles.

Neutrinos are electrically-neutral subatomic particles, with almost no mass. The OPERA project has been studying the characteristics of a neutrino beam that is generated by the CERN accelerators in Geneva, Switzerland, and detected when it arrives 730 kilometers (454 miles) to the south at an underground laboratory in Gran Sasso, Italy.

It takes photons (light particles) 2.4 milliseconds to make the trip. When neutrinos were tested, however, they reached Gran Sasso 60 nanoseconds sooner - this amounts to them traveling 20 parts per million faster than the speed of light.

The scientists are stymied by the results. "This outcome is totally unexpected," stated CERN spokesperson Antonio Ereditato. "Months of research and verifications have not been sufficient to identify an instrumental effect that could explain the result of our measurements."

If the observations are in fact accurate, the implications for the world of physics will be staggering. To that end, OPERA has submitted its data to the scientific community for evaluation, and is encouraging other groups to attempt to replicate its results.

A seminar on the findings will be webcast live today by CERN at 4:00pm CEST.

About the Author
Ben Coxworth An experienced freelance writer, videographer and television producer, Ben's interest in all forms of innovation is particularly fanatical when it comes to human-powered transportation, film-making gear, environmentally-friendly technologies and anything that's designed to go underwater. He lives in Edmonton, Alberta, where he spends a lot of time going over the handlebars of his mountain bike, hanging out in off-leash parks, and wishing the Pacific Ocean wasn't so far away.   All articles by Ben Coxworth
Tags
18 Comments

this 60ns equates to 18m of distance.

If they have the path distance down to that precision I'd be surprised.

in the end, it equates to a 0.002% difference from the normally accepted value of c.

If it were 10% I'd be a lot more excited.

Adrien
23rd September, 2011 @ 01:10 pm PDT

re; Adrien

The speed of light is thought to be an absolute limit. If their findings are in fact true it blows a hundred and six years of dogma out the window. The question becomes how much faster than light can we go, instead of how close to the speed of light can we go.

Slowburn
23rd September, 2011 @ 02:02 pm PDT

I like that you put maybe in the title this shows that your not running hook line and sinker like some journalist, or should I say sensationalists. Skepticism is the proper way to treat the possible change of 106 years of "dogma". I am not going to say it is impossible because the world is strange but I think Adrien has a very good point and think that an error in the measurement will be found.

katgod
23rd September, 2011 @ 04:06 pm PDT

Is it really a breaking of the speed of light or a more accurate measurement of the speed of light? I'd like to see if the new number is a finite measurement or the next marker to exceed.

Facebook User
23rd September, 2011 @ 06:48 pm PDT

@Slowburn

the speed of light is measured. We do our best. We don't have any absolute vaccums to measure light's speed in.

So maybe we just got the original speed wrong. I'm not suggesting things may travel faster than light. Maybe they just got the original speed of light wrong. Or maybe they just measured this experiment wrong.

Or maybe the speed for neutrinos is 0.002% faster than for photons through space (which isn't an absolute vaccuum either).

Quantum entanglement supposedly is faster than light too right?

Adrien
23rd September, 2011 @ 07:14 pm PDT

We have already measured the speed of neutrinos with great precision. In 1987 the neutrino burst associated with supernova 1987A was detected 3 hours before the light. Both neutrinos and light had been racing for 168,000 years and arrived on the same day. The 3 hour difference comes from the fact that the neutrinos flashed out directly from the supernova core collapse, while the light could not escape until the shock wave reached the surface of the star. So the 'tie' in the race after 168 thousand lightyears means the speed of propagation of light and neutrinos is very, very, very close.

Also, ask yourself which is easier to believe: a) that one experiment could be off by 18 meters over 730 kilometers or by 0.06 microseconds time measured in different countries or b) a fundamental of modern physics that predicted thousands of experimental results over a century is plain wrong.

piperTom
24th September, 2011 @ 07:49 am PDT

That is what science should be about- checking, observing, and making new hypothesis... dogma isn't a part of this scientific method.

Carlos Grados
25th September, 2011 @ 02:57 pm PDT

Sounds obvious to me; they're not testing in a vacuum ?

christopher
25th September, 2011 @ 06:16 pm PDT

@ Carlos Grados

Surely the speed would be slower than c then?

I think the ring shaped LHC needs to be ditched in favour of an (albeit very very long) straight line LHC to be more certain of the distance actually travelled by the neutrinos.

Joe McGrew
26th September, 2011 @ 07:55 am PDT

"Also, ask yourself which is easier to believe: a) that one experiment could be off by 18 meters over 730 kilometers or by 0.06 microseconds time measured in different countries or b) a fundamental of modern physics that predicted thousands of experimental results over a century is plain wrong."

Surely photons travel at the speed of light (by definition) - whatever it happens to be in the region in question.

Surely the "speed of a nutrino" is not too unlike the "speed of a nutron", that is it could be any arb value, depending on the speed it was accelerated to?

The only question here is if this acceleration could be sufficient to get their velocity higher than c.

ringo the Baptist
26th September, 2011 @ 07:56 am PDT

MAGNETISM EXCEEDS THE SPEED OF LIGHT

The propagation speed of WAVES is constant, but movement of the medium is not. Drop a stone in a pond, the wave propagates in all directions at about 5 MPH. Drop a stone in a fast moving stream, the wave still propagates at the same 5 MPH both upstream and downstream, but the water can be moving faster than the wave. Sound travels at 1100 ft/s in air, water, or solid objects. Supersonic flight proved that solid objects can exceed the speed of sound. However, the perceived frequency will change ie. a Train Whistle sounds higher pitch when the Train is approaching. Likewise with Radio and LASER waves, the frequency changes relative to perceived speed ie. RADAR uses the DOPPLER EFFECT. Radio, LASER, and light waves are all part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum ie. all are transverse magnetic waves, just at different frequencies. If a moving magnetic field approaches the speed of light in a vacuum, with leveraging it could potentially exceed the speed of light. Any dust or gas particles in the moving magnetic field will experience acceleration proportional to the speed of the moving magnetism, NOT the electromagnetic wave. My theory predicts that Newton's theory prevails over Einstein's theory ie. FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION ie. MAGNETISM EXCEEDS THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND THEREFORE ANY CONDUCTIVE PARTICLES WILL EXPERIENCE ACCELERATION THAT EXCEEDS THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

EGM
26th September, 2011 @ 08:42 am PDT

Surely one can accept that we discover and learn new things/stuff all the time? That being the case, why do people like Adrien find it sooo difficult to accept reality.

Also, it gives us a very good explanation, as to 'how come' so many of us see 'craft' that do not seem to be made on this earth.

indigo
26th September, 2011 @ 08:49 am PDT

I suspect that if the findings are confirmed that it won't be the speed of light that has been exceeded but some other sort of explanation will apply like a reduction of distance through something like a space warp.

Just as Newton's theory of motion wasn't clobbered by Einstein but rather tweaked for objects travelling very fast, I think they'll find that under some circumstances a correction factor needs to be applied. I say this because C hasn't been shattered with this result, it's just ever so slightly over the limit.

warren52nz
26th September, 2011 @ 02:04 pm PDT

I thought if we could travel faster than the speed of light

then we could travel back in time...

Could someone explain?

Afdhal Atiff Tan
26th September, 2011 @ 08:46 pm PDT

It can't be faster than MIND!

Anumakonda Jagadeesh
28th September, 2011 @ 06:00 am PDT

re; piperTom

You are presenting theory as fact.

Slowburn
29th September, 2011 @ 12:42 am PDT

thank goodness I'm not the only moron when it comes to this Einstein stuff...

Michiel Mitchell
30th September, 2011 @ 01:08 am PDT

@EGM

you are missing the point. the speed of light is an absolute speed.

the beam of light from a car going 100 mph travels the same speed relative to a stationary observer as a beam of light coming from a stopped car.

As for the measurement error , I am sure a lot of smart guys took that into account before releasing the data. I would also assume that they can reproduce the results.

Something like this is pretty incredible

Captain Danger
30th September, 2011 @ 08:43 am PDT
Post a Comment

Login with your gizmag account:

Or Login with Facebook:


Related Articles

Just enter your friends and your email address into the form below

For multiple addresses, separate each with a comma




Privacy is safe with us because we have a strict privacy policy.

Looking for something? Search our 26,553 articles