hoon
0
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 58
- Points
- 0
Neutrino breaks light speed... According to experimenters at CERN in Geneva, where neutrinos were sent underground to Italy , a 454-mile journey. The article is longer than it needs to be compared to info it has, so I'll provide background that I know and bits from the article; I'm not reading or citing any other sources. I had some college physics but not my major, so those more educated I'd like their input (of course opinions of anyone else appreciated).
Neutrinos are indeed mysterious. There are 3 different flavors, along with at least one antineutrino (which is actually quite common); due to sort of recent discovery they can switch flavors in flight from sun to earth, means they have some small mass. They fly through matter almost completely unimpeded, going straight through the earth (weak force is the only interaction supposedly). They require large underground detectors, since the interactions are so rare. Trillions of neutrinos, mostly from the sun, fly through our body every second.
When the 1986 supernova happened, neutrinos actually made it here first before the light... but as I understand, they explained it as they are released first as the core collapses, but travelling very close light speed (99.999etc%; since it has mass relativity says it can't even reach true 100% light speed).
Ok now to the article. 454 miles underground they were sent... came out 60 nanoseconds faster than expected with a margin of error stated at 10 nanoseconds. The physicists quoted who were working on it said they waited months to check for errors, before releasing this info. Fermilab, an accelerator in the USA, said they also once measured them faster than light but since the margin of error was too high they dismissed it. Other physicists quoted said it must be an error; Brian Greene (who got me more interested in this field with the beginner-level but interesting book "Fabric of the Cosmos") says he bets "all he holds dear" that it is a mistake.
My opinion: I think it is a mistake, or agree it is something mundane , but I hope it isn't. 60 nanoseconds faster than c ... well let's put this in perspective. How long would it take light speed to go the 454 miles? I got 2 milliseconds. In 60 nanoseconds, c covers about 70 feet distance. I assume then, they have the distance calculated (underground) to error below 6 feet, not including any equipment mistake, etc. That is quite a small bit of time, although atomic clocks are very accurate a few orders of magnitude lower... even difference in gravity can change relative time over that distance (my opinion). If we could experience nanoseconds like we do seconds, it would take over 31 years to complete 1 second.
my calculations show, to put in perspective how "faster" it supposedly went:
0.002437165 seconds would take for light to go 454 miles
0.002437215 seconds they measured, or 0.00002% faster... couldn't go far back in time with it heh.
Maybe it is significant, but since I'm not familiar with all the equipment I can't give a good opinion.
Neutrinos are indeed mysterious. There are 3 different flavors, along with at least one antineutrino (which is actually quite common); due to sort of recent discovery they can switch flavors in flight from sun to earth, means they have some small mass. They fly through matter almost completely unimpeded, going straight through the earth (weak force is the only interaction supposedly). They require large underground detectors, since the interactions are so rare. Trillions of neutrinos, mostly from the sun, fly through our body every second.
When the 1986 supernova happened, neutrinos actually made it here first before the light... but as I understand, they explained it as they are released first as the core collapses, but travelling very close light speed (99.999etc%; since it has mass relativity says it can't even reach true 100% light speed).
Ok now to the article. 454 miles underground they were sent... came out 60 nanoseconds faster than expected with a margin of error stated at 10 nanoseconds. The physicists quoted who were working on it said they waited months to check for errors, before releasing this info. Fermilab, an accelerator in the USA, said they also once measured them faster than light but since the margin of error was too high they dismissed it. Other physicists quoted said it must be an error; Brian Greene (who got me more interested in this field with the beginner-level but interesting book "Fabric of the Cosmos") says he bets "all he holds dear" that it is a mistake.
My opinion: I think it is a mistake, or agree it is something mundane , but I hope it isn't. 60 nanoseconds faster than c ... well let's put this in perspective. How long would it take light speed to go the 454 miles? I got 2 milliseconds. In 60 nanoseconds, c covers about 70 feet distance. I assume then, they have the distance calculated (underground) to error below 6 feet, not including any equipment mistake, etc. That is quite a small bit of time, although atomic clocks are very accurate a few orders of magnitude lower... even difference in gravity can change relative time over that distance (my opinion). If we could experience nanoseconds like we do seconds, it would take over 31 years to complete 1 second.
my calculations show, to put in perspective how "faster" it supposedly went:
0.002437165 seconds would take for light to go 454 miles
0.002437215 seconds they measured, or 0.00002% faster... couldn't go far back in time with it heh.
Maybe it is significant, but since I'm not familiar with all the equipment I can't give a good opinion.