Was the faster-than-light neutrino result a mistake caused by a loose cable?

  • Thread starter humanino
  • Start date
In summary: Read the article here: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/02/error-undoes-faster-light-neutrino-resultsIn summary, the faster-than-light neutrino results announced by the OPERA collaboration last September were due to a mistake caused by a bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer. This discrepancy, which appeared to show neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light, has been attributed to the loose connection causing data to arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than expected. Further data and confirmation will be needed to support this hypothesis. This serves as a reminder to approach scientific discoveries with caution and thorough checking before making any announcements.
  • #1
humanino
2,527
8
I came here thinking you would already be discussing. It is a just a rumor, but don't we love them ? Let us keep an eye, or an ear, on what will hopefully come out soon.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html?ref=hp [Broken]
It appears that the faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame.

Physicists had detected neutrinos traveling from the CERN laboratory in Geneva to the Gran Sasso laboratory near L'Aquila that appeared to make the trip in about 60 nanoseconds less than light speed. Many other physicists suspected that the result was due to some kind of error, given that it seems at odds with Einstein's special theory of relativity, which says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. That theory has been vindicated by many experiments over the decades.

According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer. After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed. Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos. New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Faster-than-light neutrino result reportedly a mistake caused by loose cable
At the AAAS meeting's discussion, CERN's director of research, Sergio Bertolucci, placed his bet on what the results would be: "I have difficulty to believe it, because nothing in Italy arrives ahead of time."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
We're waiting for a formal announcement (press release) from CERN.
 
  • #3
Astronuc said:
We're waiting for a formal announcement (press release) from CERN.
Wise attitude. I am really just teasing, because this announcement will probably take a while. Despite the surrounding noise (which I am contributing today), CERN has been very cautious.
 
  • #4
humanino said:
I came here thinking you would already be discussing. It is a just a rumor, but don't we love them ? Let us keep an eye, or an ear, on what will hopefully come out soon.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html?ref=hp [Broken]


Faster-than-light neutrino result reportedly a mistake caused by loose cable
Sounds reasonable to me. My GPS tells me I'm in Timbuctoo when I'm really in Hainesport.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
In before the CERN faster then light cover up conspiracy theories.
 
  • #6
Jimmy Snyder said:
Sounds reasonable to me. My GPS tells me I'm in Timbuctoo when I'm really in Hainesport.
Would not that be about 10 [itex]\mu[/itex]s-light apart ? Where does your wife say you are ?
 
  • #7
Tell them a "neutrino walks in bar" joke. Meet somebody who works at CERN.
 
  • #8
humanino said:
Would not that be about 10 [itex]\mu[/itex]s-light apart ? Where does your wife say you are ?
Timbuctoo is in Westampton, just about 500 nanoseconds from Hainseport. My wife thinks I'm in the living room. Actually, I'm in the family room, but it's not prudent to contradict her so I'm moving.
 
  • #10
So my theory that the speed of light is actually d has been exploded?
 
  • #11
explocec.
 
  • #12
Since the initial announcement, my bet has been on a detector error. Would this count as a detector error, or some other type of error? I just want to know if I can collect my bets if this ends up being the official explanation. :biggrin: (Oh, wait, I didn't actually place any cash bets...drat! I guess I don't care then. :frown:)
 
  • #13
Moonbear said:
Since the initial announcement, my bet has been on a detector error. Would this count as a detector error, or some other type of error? I just want to know if I can collect my bets if this ends up being the official explanation. :biggrin: (Oh, wait, I didn't actually place any cash bets...drat! I guess I don't care then. :frown:)
I'd call it a system error. Apparently the detector worked fine, but the transmission of the information was delayed.

There is a good reason that PF has a relatively strict prohibition on overly-speculative posts.
 
  • #14
Astronuc said:
I'd call it a system error. Apparently the detector worked fine, but the transmission of the information was delayed.

Drat! Oh, wait, I didn't bet any real money, so it's all good. :biggrin: Really, the biggest mistake they made was the big press release of the initial report before they went through and double checked all of these systems for errors. On the other hand, it's a good lesson for the public about scientific method and that nothing is a foregone conclusion until it has been checked, checked again, and checked some more. And, even then, it's not a foregone conclusion.
 
  • #15
Moonbear said:
Drat! Oh, wait, I didn't bet any real money, so it's all good. :biggrin: Really, the biggest mistake they made was the big press release of the initial report before they went through and double checked all of these systems for errors. On the other hand, it's a good lesson for the public about scientific method and that nothing is a foregone conclusion until it has been checked, checked again, and checked some more. And, even then, it's not a foregone conclusion.
The authors reported concerns about errors. I seem to remember some experimenters not putting their names on the released report. Quite a few folks here expressed the concern about error and the need to check each and every detail. Of course, others started speculating about FTL this and that, or the demise of special relativity.

I wonder if scientists succumbing to the pressure/temptation to be the first to announce a discovery - or to publish?
 
  • #16
I am not surprised that the results turned out to be wrong. I have a lot of confidence in our current theories and the results they've been giving.

I am surprised that the error turned out to be something so embarrassingly avoidable.

I had assumed that a research team doing experiments like this (that will be scrutinized by the whole world) would be diligent enough to have more than one independent measurement system. I'd think they'd see a discrepancy in their two measurements and quickly get to the root of it. Surely they didn't just trust all their hardware software and processes without checks and balances?

I guess the answer is: yes they did and it is commonplace.
 
  • #17
DaveC426913 said:
I am not surprised that the results turned out to be wrong. I have a lot of confidence in our current theories and the results they've been giving.
Me too. Special relativity has withstood every experimental test for over a hundred years. I don't know of any other theory that has done so well for so long.
 

1. What does "Not so fast after all" mean?

"Not so fast after all" is a phrase often used to express that something may not be as quick or easy as previously thought. It suggests that there may be more factors or obstacles involved that could slow down progress.

2. How does the phrase "Not so fast after all" relate to science?

In science, the phrase "Not so fast after all" can be used to caution against jumping to conclusions or making assumptions without sufficient evidence. It reminds us to thoroughly investigate and consider all possibilities before making a claim or drawing a conclusion.

3. Can you provide an example of how "Not so fast after all" has been applied in scientific research?

One example is in the field of medicine, where a new drug may show promising results in preliminary studies but may not be as effective or safe when tested on a larger scale. This shows that the initial findings were not as conclusive as originally thought, and more research is needed before the drug can be used in practice.

4. Is there a downside to being cautious and not jumping to conclusions in science?

While being cautious and thorough is important in science, it can also lead to delays in progress and innovation. However, it is necessary to ensure that scientific claims are supported by evidence and not based on speculation or bias.

5. How can scientists use the phrase "Not so fast after all" to improve their research?

Scientists can use the phrase "Not so fast after all" as a reminder to constantly review and re-evaluate their methods and findings. By being open to the idea that initial assumptions may not be entirely accurate, scientists can conduct more comprehensive and reliable research that can contribute to the advancement of knowledge and understanding in their field.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
957
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
3K
Back
Top