A Small Glimmer of Hope For Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos 183
sciencehabit writes "The CERN particle physics laboratory in Geneva has confirmed Wednesday's report that a loose fiber-optic cable may be behind measurements that seemed to show neutrinos outpacing the speed of light. But the lab also says another glitch could have caused the experiment to underestimate the particles' speed. The other effect concerns an oscillator that gives its readings time stamps synchronized to GPS signals. Researchers think correcting for an error in this device would actually increase the anomaly in neutrino velocity, making the particles even speedier than the earlier measurements seemed to show."
Last Post (Score:5, Funny)
Well, if FTL works, it will have gone back in time to be sooner than that.
The new equation (Score:5, Funny)
E = MC^2 * (1 + ($M - $P ) / L ) + ( Ic/Ir )
Where:
E = Energy
M = Mass
C = Speed of light
M = Monster cable
P = PC Warehouse cable
L = Length of cable
Ic = Interval between calibration scheduled
Ir = Interval calibration required
Re: (Score:3)
When we remember to include the Denon cable and compensate for its effects, the actual equation comes out to:
E = (MC^2 * (1 + (($M - $P + $D) * $D) / L ) + ( Ic/Ir )) ^ dem
Where:
D = Denon cable
dem = number of demons released
Re: (Score:2)
When we remember to include the Denon cable and compensate for its effects, the actual equation comes out to:
E = (MC^2 * (1 + (($M - $P + $D) * $D) / L ) + ( Ic/Ir )) ^ dem
Where:
D = Denon cable dem = number of demons released
You're failing to account for a crucial divisor: the number of Slashdot members who have had sex with another person (q).
So:
E = ((MC^2 * (1 + (($M - $P + $D) * $D) / L ) + ( Ic/Ir )) ^ dem)/q
The mean, median and mode are all zero. Some of us are outliers in the data, but we must press on. Using this totally scientifically modified formula, my calculations indicate the world will end on December 21, 2012, due to shoddy coding.
Re: (Score:2)
If you divide by zero and get zero, you're doing it wrong.
Incidentally, this could also explain the black hole that has mysteriously developed near the French/Swiss border....
This will require time (Score:5, Insightful)
Doing measurements like this is extremely tricky, as it exceeds the usual equipment precision by a lot. I expect that confirmation either way will at least require months, possibly years. I would not be surprised if they need to recalibrate a lot of equipment and may have to build some especially for this experiment. Anyways. in the course of doing so, they will learn a lot and the improved measurement techniques developed will be available in the future. This is science at work. I do not find any fault with the researchers, just the press coverage. But the press has never understood how science works or what scientists do.
Extraordinary claims also require extraordinary proof. So the original measurement would not have been enough anyways, even if no flaws were found. I also seem to remember that they never claimed FTL neutrinos, but an effect they could not explain, leaving it open whether this was a measurement error or something not consistent with current physical theory.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:This will require time (Score:5, Informative)
Thats exactly what they did.
They released their results and said "we didn't quite yet figure out if there is a problem with our stuff, but here, maybe you guys can find something".
They didn't come out day one and shouted "we have FTL nutrinos, fuck all you bitches in chemisty".
Re: (Score:2)
But the real problem we're seeing here is that they might be hunting for their previous result instead of reality.
I doubt that very much. Doing that would incur the ire of the research community and they know that.
Re: (Score:3)
And space. And velocity.
I have now exhausted my physics vocabulary. Oh wait, I know "mass", too.
I had physics first period my junior year in high school and the girl who sat next to me wore short skirts. I think that about sums it up.
That's a good one. I tried to use that line on my first wife. She once tole me she loved me, and I dropped my pants and said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". It's the reason I w
Like 0.0001% faster anyway (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Like 0.0001% faster anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
But a lot of discoveries border on the measurement error initially, otherwise the discovery would have been made earlier with even cruder instruments.
Re:Like 0.0001% faster anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
A 6 sigma is not usually considered bordering on a measurement error. Additionally, this was not an insignificant speed increase. 0.001% of the speed of light is still very fast. 300000m/s give or take.
Re:Like 0.0001% faster anyway (Score:4, Informative)
0.001% of the speed of light is still very fast. 300000m/s give or take.
Take out a couple of more zeroes. It's 3 km/s.
Re: (Score:3)
You might find it interesting to know that 1/1000 = 0.1%. See that "0.0001%" in your post's title? That's 1/1000000. And the "0.001%" you quoted in your post? That's 1/100000.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
6 sigma is not bordering on experimental error. If you are saying that the distribution of neutrino speeds is such that it is very close to what we would expect if there was a systematic error in the measurement of time of flight, then please show your working (as in, do the stats). Otherwise you are just making shit up. I suspect, given the size of the effect and the absence of a good null to test against, you will have a hard time getting a significant result out of any reasonable equivalence test.
Re: (Score:2)
dual doom for data (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that at this point they ought to establish two different links using different technologies, for the data, in parallel, if they can. There they'll be able to say "Oh. now we're not sure which one is correct." :)
I believe Wizard Tim would say "Three links, I say three. No more and no less is the number." And something about swallows, coconuts, and neutrinos.
Re: (Score:2)
"What is the airspeed of an unladen neutrino?"
"What do you mean? Electron or muon?"
"What? I don't kno- WHAAAAAH!"
A good side effect of all this (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of the outcome, there is a good side effect of all this. All the equipment will be checked like crazy. Everything is going to be blueprinted to perfection. We might even advance the whole science of measurement. We might come up with better procedures for QA that could be transferred to other experiments. I hope influential people are taking notes and applying what they learn to other situations.
Re:A good side effect of all this (Score:5, Funny)
We might even advance the whole science of measurement.
And metrology, too!
Re:A good side effect of all this (Score:5, Insightful)
In teaching engineering, I'm told, part of the experience is learning how engineering projects failed.
Perhaps science needs to include the same. Perhaps we should be teaching why experiments got the wrong result, or why an effect was not detected when it should have been. It could be anything from equipment malfunctions to sampling and interpretation bias.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with science though is that you're usually doing something brand new. The Michaelson-Mauley experiment failed to detect the aether, but in the process revealed something far more fundamental.
There isn't really a broad-ranging way you could teach about "science failures" to people - although I promise you there's a lot of grad. students who are just dying to publish their null results and failures (I'm one of them).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hoping you mean the Michelson-Morley experiment here....
Re: (Score:2)
It does include the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Experience is the sum of all failures.
Only way to be sure (Score:2, Informative)
Vasquez: [after barely surviving the humilation of a loose fiber-optic cable] Okay. We have several canisters of neutrinos. I say we go back in there and remeasure the whole fuckin' experiment.
Hicks: It's worth the try, but we don't know if that's gonna affect anything.
Hudson: Let's just bug out and call it even, Mat! What are we even talking about this for?
Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Hudson: Fuckin' A!
Burke: Hold on a second. This installation h
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. You don't see those neutrinos fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage.
Shut up Scully, with your 'logic' (Score:2)
It's not CERN (Score:5, Informative)
The original article is way, way misleading. It makes it sound like the people in CERN are to blame. However, CERN is just the source of the neutrinos. The detectors in the other end is the Gran Sasso lab in Italy. The whole shebang is called the OPERA experiment.
Now, the problem(s) were found in the Gran Sasso side. For a slightly more accurate reporting, see http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/02/24/finally-an-opera-plot-that-makes-some-sense/, especially the first comment.
we're so sorry ... Uncle Albert ... (Score:2)
I, for one, was rooting for FTL. And I thought they'd have a more interesting gravity well or frame of reference mistake.
A loose cable? It's like they've got some out of work audio techs doing their setup.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they should have hired an audiophile. They surely know how important high quality cables are.
As unlikely as it may be...HOW fast matters, right (Score:2)
Suppose, for the sake of argument (I know the chances are between slim and none, I suspect that the speed limit on the universe is to prevent game-breaking exploits of the universe itself) that FTL neutrinos are possible. How fast do they need to travel before you can send messages to the past?
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose, for the sake of argument (I know the chances are between slim and none, I suspect that the speed limit on the universe is to prevent game-breaking exploits of the universe itself) that FTL neutrinos are possible. How fast do they need to travel before you can send messages to the past?
One of the interesting things to come out of this is that you can have bi-metric theories [arxiv.org] with superluminal motion and not have causality violations (time travel) or tachyons. Basically, these things happen because you are Lorentz transforming something going faster than light. In a bimetric theory, there are actually two conversions between time and distance (i.e., "light" speeds, although light itself only goes at one of them). Matter is sensitive to one metric, the matter metric (thereby avoiding violati
Should have bought in a timing expert (Score:2)
My understanding, based on talking to clock people who were brought to CERN after publication, is that there was no clock person on the original paper. They had access to some clock people at CERN, who helped set up the GPS measurements, but no clock person invested in the results.
If so, then CERN / OPERA does deserve the bad press they are getting. They should have brought in some experts prior to publication.
Absolute clock synchronization at the nanosecond level is notoriously tricky. (I have professional
Re: (Score:2)
This is the best description [profmattstrassler.com] I have seen in English of the debacle (see the first comment).
Crucial bit : We do not know how crooked the plug actually was at the time of our measurements last year. Sub-sequentially we do not know the actual time delay. So, they just don't know.
What's the big deal? (Score:2)
I'm just a layperson that has an interest in physics and relativity, but what if photons travel slower than neutrinos? There's nothing magical or about photons and relativity doesn't require that they travel at the universal speed limit, does it? I mean they travel 90 km/s slower through air than a vacuum and 180,000 km/s slower through glass. What would happen if you just use neutrino speed instead of light speed for c? Is some of the problem that we have so ingrained in our heads that the "speed of l
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It does.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it important ? Because it is built into the structure of spacetime as we understand it. It would mean that special relativity was wrong (or, rather, incomplete, as
SR is very solidly tested) and thus, that General Relativity was also incomplete (as it has SR as a limit, and is also well tested). It would also probably mean something similar for Quantum Field Theory, as that is built on top of SR. The ramifications would spread throughout most of physics.
Also, depending on how it occurs, superluminal m
There is no hope for FTL neutrinos. (Score:3)
There is a glimmer of hope for interesting new physics.
Better than wikipedia? (Score:2)
Keeping My Fingers Crossed! (Score:2)
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Insightful)
Only on Slashdot would arn armchair critic post crap about CERN's 'workmanship' late on a Friday night.
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Funny)
Only on Slashdot do you find scientists reading forums from their labs at 1AM on Saturday mornings while waiting for experiments to finish up.
*Looks over at refluxing reaction vessel*
Dammit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How many gratuitous errors and claimed impossibilities do you generally consider acceptable in your version of science?
All of them... (Score:5, Insightful)
How many gratuitous errors and claimed impossibilities do you generally consider acceptable in your version of science?
All of them, at least in a provisional sense. The provision being that each is promptly acknowledged as an error as soon as it becomes known that it was an error. Science progresses through the discovery of inconsistency or inaccuracy in existing explanations, and this means there will be occasional false positive. Science is not a fixed body of dogma independent of truth (that would describe most religions).
Re: (Score:2)
What impossibility did anyone involved in the experiment ever claim?
Re: (Score:2)
While not belittling CERN's accomplishments nor their professionalism, it is a little annoying to let the press pump out another headline talking about 'hope' while they are still dealing with potential errors in their experimental setup. It ranks up there with the "New Cures for AIDS" postings on r/Science, where a new cure is apparently found every week -> it becomes tabloid material.
The standard protocol remains the same -> fix the broken equipment, run the experiment, check results, run the experi
Re: (Score:2)
That is one problem with having basically one of the most expensive scientific instruments in the world: Who do you call to replicate your results? As far as I can tell, CERN basically had to throw a wide net in an attempt to find anyone who somehow had the capability of replicating the experiment, or help with the current one.
Re: (Score:2)
> ...then call in the reporters...
So they should keep their activities secret untill they are certain of their results and then publish, just to protect the reporters from making asses of themselves? Bullshit.
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Insightful)
Science doesn't work that way. It's not "should we believe him that there was a wolf", it's "is his account plausible as a real wolf sighting, is there any wolf traces and should we expend resources to try and confirm/disprove his claim"
Yes, they found one result "too good to be true" and now they're checking that result. If you'd RTFA (outlandish, I know) you'd notice this snippet at the end:
The two effects will get a new round of tests in May, when the two labs are scheduled to make velocity measurements with short-pulsed beams designed to give readings much more precise than scientists have achieved so far.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess science works more like: Oh shit, every experiment we've ever done has been affected by not one, but TWO incorrect setups. Fuck it.. our research must be fine.
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, they're not making "demonstrably insane claims". They published the data they collected during experiments and are looking for explanation - which might be "experimental error". Discarding anything as "demonstrably insane" before you investigate the reasons for data you got is just the other side of accepting anything you hear as true without investigation. Sadly, latter is modus operandi for modern journalism, which is why this all got blown out of proportion.
Second, you sound like you personally invested in development of FTL engine at CERN and now found out it was a fraud.
OPERA was looking for tau neutrinos and found them, AFAIK, and FTL neutrino sighting was just a strange data point they will now try and reproduce to shut this case.
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Interesting)
I love how the idea that anything running counter to the concepts of mass / length / time dilation happening at high speeds with relative simultaneity is considered insane. Oh, that's demonstrably insane, but Heisenberg and light-speed limitations on information transmittal, THOSE are the new rational. And that's not even getting into quantum effects.
I don't mean to pick on the science behind any of that. But Science long ago left the realm of anything that could be considered judgable based upon common sense. Any normal person from 300 years ago would consider science off its rocker, except for the fact that it's provably true (at least, the provably true parts are). We're firmly in a world where proof and experiments are more important.
Also considering the dead end we've had with strings, it's about time for a major sub-quantum theoretical shakeup.
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Interesting)
It's more like CERN isn't going to pull any punches and will release all the information they have about things instead of holding it back to make themselves look good.
Hell, some people seem to think CERN only did one experiment then screamed about faster than light. Instead, they did hundreds if not THOUSANDS of experiments before releasing a paper with a cautioning tone, asking for others to attempt replication or determine what could be the issue.
The fact that they found two *potential* issues, doesn't detract from the fact that they're an extremely cautious and skeptical group.
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is debating that. The original press release said that they were checking results elsewhere to ensure that they were correct. Broken / miscalibrated equipment is the bane of every scientist, and with-holding of results until after several of your friends confirm things is always a good idea (it helps prevent publications of perpetual motion machines and what not).
Re: (Score:2)
In their defence it is an extremely hard experiment to do so mistakes are inevitable and I would not blame them fo
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Informative)
Actually Cern did not claim it. It said that it had found some results that it could not account for yet. At no point did cern go "We have found FTL neutrinos".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If they're effectively communicating to you that they feel the result is 'too good to be true', then you really don't have a lot to really complain about, do you?
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:4, Insightful)
"This result is probably wrong" != "fertilize your lawn with motor oil"
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the original paper, you'll find that they did NOT claim the "too good to be true" result. It was reported that way by a lot of press agents, but the original source basically says "we think there's a systematic error at work we haven't identified. Can you see the problem?" Do not blame CERN for the way the press misrepresented them.
I worked at CERN for six months doing my M.Sc. (in 2000, on ATLAS, not OPERA which is the experiment reporting the result.) Having seen the actual systems and the level of complexity and sensitivity involved, I think assembling them with two small errors identified this quickly is actually pretty damned impressive. Most tech companies dream of CERN's quality control.
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Funny)
"It's the cleaning lady! She must have bumped into it!"
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
*shrugs* It may be possible to travel faster than light. However, we do tend to have a good idea how fast various known particles DO travel. There may be unknown particles that do travel faster than light, and / or other methods that allow normal matter to traverse space / time much faster than what is currently considered feasible.
However, CERN wasn't, to our knowledge, using wormholes or exotic matter or what not that particular day (Thursdays are wormhole days, Fridays are black-hole days, Saturdays are
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Funny)
I should also add that I will be conducting my own experiments in my basement with a neutrino cannon, flashlight and stop watch. If I see anything interesting, I'll post the results here.
If you want anything done right, you have to do it yourself!
Re: (Score:2)
Thats why you have to do all your science from scratch. No handholding.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I mean, what self-respecting super-villain doesn't have a particle collider of their own? The ones having trouble coming up with this month's rent, that's who.
Re: (Score:2)
I should also add that I will be conducting my own experiments in my basement with a neutrino cannon, flashlight and stop watch. If I see anything interesting, I'll post the results here.
Ha! Unlikely! I don't see duct tape [wikipedia.org] on your list. How do you expect to be taken seriously if you aren't using the miracle tool of the modern age? What next, cold fusion without a salad shooter? Pshaw!
Re: (Score:2)
Quoting ArcherB:
> "I should also add that I will be conducting
> my own experiments in my basement with a neutrino cannon,
> flashlight and stop watch. If I see anything interesting,
> I'll post the results here."
Actually, if you get any results, please put them in the first post so everyone can see them.
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Funny)
Quoting ArcherB:
> "I should also add that I will be conducting
> my own experiments in my basement with a neutrino cannon,
> flashlight and stop watch. If I see anything interesting,
> I'll post the results here."
Actually, if you get any results, please put them in the first post so everyone can see them.
If I get any interesting results, I'll post them yesterday.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you don't actually need the flashlight to conduct the experiment, give it back to me please
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Funny)
Just reverse the tachyon field on your deflector array, and then inject a stream of polarons into the positronic matrix.
Jeez, do I have to do everything around here?
Re: (Score:3)
Simple versions are actually quite easy to make. All you need is some aluminum (i.e. foil), a weak radioactive source (available by mail order), a controllable current source (probably the most expensive bit), and something to give it shape. A cardboard tube would work fine. Now just point the tube towards the sun, throw the rest of that shit away, and voila! Hundreds of billions of neutrinos will be coming out the end of it every second, for you to do with as you please!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a while, and I'm too lazy to fully read Wikipedia, but I want to say from the decomposition of neutrons. Neutron decay = 1 electron, 1 proton, & 1 neutrino.
Though I may be wrong.
Wait, checked it. Close, the above is Beta negative decay, so it emits an anti-neutrino. So, you want Beta positive for a regular (electron) neutrino.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Informative)
The fault is not with CERN but the press coverage. The claims out of CERN was an effect they could not explain, and that was the literal truth. Now they are getting deeper into it and finding flaws, which is not a surprise when working this close to what is possible with current technology. Before they can reliably say either way, they will need to do a lot more experiments and have independent verification. The scientists never claimed otherwise. Who you should stop taking seriously is journalists writing nonsense about things they do not understand.
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Funny)
sarcasm meter must be on the fritz again - all i pick up is asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, it's win-win for science. Either we get knowledge of FTL neutrinos, or we improve our measuring techniques/instruments. Who can complain about either scenario, merely because we don't come up with the answer immediately?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is how science is done though. It's not all "Theory -> Test -> Proof!" It's often just like this... messy, details, flaws, re-testing, often in cycles.
If we could get a OUNCE of this type of thinking applied to religion, God wouldn't stand a chance.
Poor quality assurance indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, CERN, but you need to pick up the workmanship before you can be taken seriously.
OPERA isn't a CERN project. CERN sent OPERA the neutrinos, but the detector and timing hardware is OPERA's responsibility. I don't know why CERN stepped in to issue a press release about errors in the results OPERA announced. (Maybe they wanted to dissociate themselves from the FTL claims that were being indirectly attributed to CERN?) More here [profmattstrassler.com].
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't know why CERN stepped in to issue a press release...
Because CERN handled the timing at their end and that seems to be where these problems occurred. It was a joint experiment.
Re:Poor Quality Assurance does not boost confidenc (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that's just the current paradigm. It's certainly not the only paradigm.
Science begets technology which begets economic growth. If scientists wanted to make money, they wouldn't have any problems... they'd just have to start doing things differently. A lot of research is done by grants that end up being public knowledge that is published in peer-reviewed journals and it's all academia. If they wanted to privatize and get out of the academic world, it would probably be bad for society as a whole, but pretty damn good for scientists.
It's basically the idea of peace on earth, goodwill to all men, and that kind of thing. Pretty much our whole economic engine has been created by scientists. They should really be lauded as heroes for all that they do and how little they do it for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So Henry VIII was the only rational governor in the history of the world?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This recurring trope of "Armchair quarterback posits that people
Re: (Score:2)
Well, whatever was the actual speed of those neutrinos, they did go in a straight line. There is no reason for why they should, they just did.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In relativity they say there is a speed limit for particles. We always assumed that it was the speed of light. It could in effect be slightly faster then light and causality is maintained.
What if causality is a faulty assumption. Goes against our intuitions, sure, but so do lots of other things physicists have discovered.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Causality, Relativity, FTL Communication. Pick any two.
If I get a choice, I'll take Causality and FTL Communication thanks.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Relativistic Physics appears to be having an affair with Ms. Soap Opera. Therefore, please don't be surprised by any outcome.
An interocitor [wikipedia.org] will take care of both of them. Probably with a surprising outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
I once had to help an assemble a 1980's video conference suite based on ISDN for a pre-booked conference. It was almost steampunk with a varnished wood one piece desk and cabinet for the monitor and camera. We managed to get the audio working then the engineers at the other end gave instructions on how to get the video working. Then the people who booked the meeting decided they would just travel down by train instead.
Re: (Score:2)
If those neutrinos are really faster than light, then either General Relativity or the Maxwell Equations are wrong. What now depends on what exactly is wrong, but could include time machines, perpetual motors, or maybe nothing important.