Neutrinos faster than light speed? What do you guys think?

Entropee
Gold Member
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
I feel like this is one of those things where they say "oh my god this will change physics forever" but it ends up being being incorrect. Either way it is odd that they would measure faster then light speed at all, I'll give them that. But 60 nanoseconds? Not quite enough to make me convinced. What do you guys think? There are so many reasons why this couldn't be true in the first place.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I too am highly skeptical of the results, but not for the reason you state.

Entropee said:
But 60 nanoseconds? Not quite enough to make me convinced.
How long would be enough to convince you?

At light speed, 60 nanoseconds is a journey of epic length. Light can travel the breadth of your computer screen in that time.
 
Yes I realize at lightspeed 60 nanoseconds means a lot of distance covered but its still too close to the "barrier" of lightspeed to come off as anything but an error in calculation or a malfunction. Were talking a fraction of a second here.
 
Entropee said:
Yes I realize at lightspeed 60 nanoseconds means a lot of distance covered but its still too close to the "barrier" of lightspeed to come off as anything but an error in calculation or a malfunction. Were talking a fraction of a second here.

Yes, a fraction of a second, which we are extremely good at taking measurements of despite what you think.

Go watch the actual announcement from CERN ( http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1384486 ) before thinking they don't know what they're doing.
 
Pengwuino said:
Yes, a fraction of a second, which we are extremely good at taking measurements of despite what you think.

Go watch the actual announcement from CERN ( http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1384486 ) before thinking they don't know what they're doing.

The GPS system had an accuracy of only ±20 ns, among other things, including that no actual neutrino was clocked at FTL speeds.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top