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.
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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
This is still a great mystery, Einstein called it ""spooky action at a distance" But science and mathematics are full of concepts which at first cause great bafflement but in due course are just accepted. In the case of Quantum Mechanics this gave rise to the saying "Shut up and calculate". In other words, don't try to "understand it" just accept that the mathematics works. The square root of minus one is another example - it does not exist and yet electrical engineers use it to do...
Back
Top