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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the claim that neutrinos may have been measured traveling faster than the speed of light, specifically addressing the implications and validity of such measurements. Participants express skepticism and explore the potential for errors in the reported findings.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the claim of neutrinos traveling faster than light, suggesting it may be incorrect and indicative of measurement errors.
  • One participant questions what duration of measurement would be convincing, highlighting the significance of the 60 nanoseconds in terms of distance traveled at light speed.
  • Another participant reiterates that 60 nanoseconds is too close to the speed of light to be credible, suggesting it could be an error in calculation or a malfunction.
  • Some participants defend the precision of measurements, asserting that modern techniques can accurately measure such short time intervals.
  • There is mention of the GPS system's accuracy as a point of comparison, indicating that no neutrino has been clocked at faster-than-light speeds.
  • A participant references a previous thread on the OPERA results, suggesting that the discussion has been ongoing.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express skepticism about the faster-than-light claim, but there is no consensus on the reasons for this skepticism or the validity of the measurements. Multiple competing views remain regarding the interpretation of the results and the reliability of the measurements.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the potential for measurement errors and the significance of the time interval in question, but do not resolve the underlying assumptions or implications of the findings.

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