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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the controversial claim that neutrinos were measured traveling faster than the speed of light, specifically a difference of 60 nanoseconds. Participants express skepticism regarding the validity of this measurement, citing potential errors in calculation or malfunctioning equipment. The discussion references the OPERA experiment and emphasizes the need for rigorous measurement standards, as demonstrated by the GPS system's accuracy of ±20 nanoseconds. The consensus leans towards caution in accepting such groundbreaking claims without substantial evidence.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of special relativity and the speed of light limitations
  • Familiarity with experimental physics, particularly particle physics
  • Knowledge of measurement accuracy and precision in scientific experiments
  • Awareness of the OPERA experiment and its implications in neutrino research
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the OPERA experiment and its methodology in measuring neutrino speeds
  • Explore the implications of special relativity on particle physics
  • Study measurement techniques in experimental physics, focusing on accuracy and error analysis
  • Review the CERN announcement regarding the neutrino speed measurements for detailed insights
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of particle physics, and anyone interested in the implications of neutrino research and the foundations of modern physics.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K