Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity [Update: Paper made the wrong - Polidicks

[QUOTE]The Michelson-Morley experiment shows that the experimental outcome of an interference experiment does not depend on the constant velocity of the setup with respect to aninertial frame of reference. From this one can conclude the existence of an invariant velocity of light. [B]However it does not follow from their experiment that a time-of-ﬂight is reference frame independent. In fact the theory of special relativity predicts that the distance between the production location of a particle and the detection location will be changed in all reference frames which have a velocity component parallel to the baseline separating source and detector in a foton time-of-ﬂight experiment. [/B]For the OPERA experiment we ﬁnd that the associated correction is in the order of 32 ns. [B]Because, judging from the information provided, the correction needs to be applied twice in the OPERA experiment the total correction to the ﬁnal results is in the order of 64 ns. Thus bringing the apparent velocities of neutrino’s back to a value not signiﬁcantly diﬀerent from the speed of light[/B]. We end this short letter by suggesting an analysis of the experimental data which would illustrate the eﬀects described.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.2685v1.pdf"]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.2685v1.pdf [/URL][URL="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/"]http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/ [/URL] I have only read the article from Technology Review, but it seems reasonable. However it seems to be something that the team at CERN should have been taken into consideration, especially as their paper brought up a lot of factors that could change the results. Well, now we just have to wait and see. [B]Update[/B] [QUOTE=aVoN;32840355]I just read about, the paper posted in the OP made wrong assumptions. The method used for the time compression via the two-way sattelite-link is well established and relativistic effects are taken into account during the measurement. Additionally, the Physikalisch-Technischen Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Brunswick, checked the Gran Sasso measurements with two synchronised clocks and by the sattelite link.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=aVoN;32843417]The [b]paper[/b] assumed, that the Opera Experiment used the method for syncing the clocks incorrectly. But they didn't. Also the paper does using Galilean velocity addition in one formula instead of the relativistic one. People from the PTB even mentioned, the author of the paper has no idea how the method Gran Sasso used works. So the puzzle still remains unsolved.[/QUOTE]

So...no more faster than light neutrinos?

FTL? TALI HERE I COME

Schoolboy error.

[quote]Because, judging from the information provided, the correction needs to be applied twice in the OPERA experiment the total correction to the ﬁnal results is in the order of 64 ns. Thus bringing the apparent velocities of neutrino’s back to a value not signiﬁcantly diﬀerent from the speed of light.[/quote] [IMG]http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/1953/doublespecialrelativity.png[/IMG] I probably went way more time on this than I should have.

God I love arxiv

[QUOTE=Chamango;32779154]Schoolboy error.[/QUOTE] Damn those schoolboys breaking into cern and doing unauthorized experiments.

I'll give it a read later but this is published by one guy and he's a neuroscientist so I'll reserve judgment until CERN or reputable physicists comment on it.

I don't quite understand what is stated in that article, but it seems neutrinos don't travel FTL after all.

It's all due to frames of reference which goes into length contraction/time dialation. I'm surprised they didn't take this into account.

So.. Someone made a mistake with timing?

sounds like a pretty simple thing, to be honest, they took a LOT of things into account, if they somehow ballsed up the basics of special relativity I'd be incredibly surprised then again, I'd be far more surprised if the FTL result was verified

Fotons?

Is it possible the neutrino didn't travel faster than light, but [i]covered the distance[/i] faster than light would have?

Let's hope Einstein was wrong I was always a big supporter of him but I always thought that the idea that we might never pass the speed of light was depressing

[QUOTE=EpicRenegadeCop;32785000]Is it possible the neutrino didn't travel faster than light, but [i]covered the distance[/i] faster than light would have?[/QUOTE] Which would mean it travelled faster?

I'll attempt to explain it, correct me if I'm wrong: What he's saying is that the measurements are skewed as a result of the lack of accounting for the manner in which time behaves. As you may know, time moves slower around more massive bodies. Thus, the 'flow of time' changes in moving between different locations. The neutrino isn't exceeding the speed of light, it's simply moved 'forwards in time'. It's a confusing concept, sorry I couldn't word it better. Imagine I have a blue ball and a red ball, I drop both into tunnels of equal height. Both balls fall at the same speed, but time moves slower in the red ball's tunnel. So while both balls are falling at the same speed, the blue ball will reach it's destination 'sooner'. [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3655261/time.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;32785628] . [/QUOTE] That clears things up, thanks. Still disappointed though. :(

[QUOTE=Icedshot;32781487]Fotons?[/QUOTE] Another name for the photon, languages such as Spanish lack 'ph' as the f sound.

[quote]However it does not follow from their experiment that a time-of-ﬂight is reference frame independent. In fact the theory of special relativity predicts that the distance between the production location of a particle and the detection location will be changed in all reference frames which have a velocity component parallel to the baseline separating source and detector in a foton time-of-ﬂight experiment[/quote] Oh ok, that is totally understandable. It's just that the distance between the something of a particle does something and that explains it all! [editline]15th October 2011[/editline] Seriously by the time I get to the end of that quote I am cross eyed. I have no idea what the fuck is going on here.

oh damn it

[QUOTE=demoguy08;32780728]I don't quite understand what is stated in that article, but it seems neutrinos don't travel FTL after all.[/QUOTE] Wrong assumption of frame-of-reference for the clocks used for distance measurements might result in a total deviance f64 ns. [editline]15th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CakeMaster7;32785101]Let's hope Einstein was wrong I was always a big supporter of him but I always thought that the idea that we might never pass the speed of light was depressing[/QUOTE] This (depressing) is no real argument

[QUOTE=aVoN;32789128] This (depressing) is no real argument[/QUOTE] Its just sad that we might never go faster than the speed of light :( In our lifetime, atleast. Start develop space holes scientists!

I don't think it's sad that we might never go faster than light and I don't see why everyone does. [editline]15th October 2011[/editline] It's like being sad that we all tend to stick to the Earth. Maybe it's not what we'd like but I don't think that it's sad. It's just how nature is. Relativity is one of my absolute favorite topics in physics.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32789495]I don't think it's sad that we might never go faster than light and I don't see why everyone does.[/QUOTE] Because it would be fucking cool to explore the stars. Tell me it wouldn't be amazing to hop into a binary or trinary star system and just chill there for a while.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;32789551]Fuck nature, that's what science is all about mother fucker, kicking nature in the balls and riding off into the sunset in a flying metal machine traveling faster than any living creature. "We can't fly, that's just how nature is. Fuck your shit here's a jet that travels faster than the speed of sound" "We can't go into space, that's just how nature is. Fuck your shit we just put three badass mother fuckers on the moon" Nature 0 Science 9,999,999[/QUOTE] No. No. Science looks down on you.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32789668]No. No. Science looks down on you.[/QUOTE] He's at least partially right (although he could have put it more elegantly). Science starts out as a way for people to understand the unknown, but if history has taught us anything it's that the second we finally do understand what we were investigating we seek ways to exploit it, or loopholes to get around it because we're not happy being told what we can and can't do.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;32789760]No, if we did science your way no one would actually do anything. "It's just how nature is" is a stupid argument. Defying nature is pretty much the reason anything ever was invented. "Nature didn't give us wings" Airplanes "Bacteria and viruses from nature are killing us" Medicine "I can't swim across this ocean" Boats There's literally a million other things we've done to defy nature and spread humanity to every corner of this planet.[/QUOTE] I don't think they're very good examples of your point. We know that other things can float, we know that other things can fly. Whether or not humans can do it is irrelevant. Exploiting loopholes in nature would be a better way to explain your point - like quantum computing for example. Or, if we ever get around to it - creating a wormhole to beat light to a destination.

I think its funny that we have all kinds of people that have one foot out the door to find exotic stars and planets, when they've probably only seen ~4% of the earth themselves.

Relativity allows you to travel to other stars within your lifetime. The closer you get to light speed the faster the world around you seems to become, this is caused by the fact that you move slower through time the faster you move through space. In your own reference frame, when accelerating, you would not suddenly start accelerating slower and slower approaching the speed of light. You would carry on accelerating, even beyond what you would have thought was the speed of light. This is of course an "optical illusion". The world around you will move faster to accommodate the fact that you cannot move faster than the speed of light. What this basically means, is that, given that you are moving close enough to the speed of light, you could travel to Andromeda within one year of your lifetime. During your travel you will see the rest of the universe going through 2.7 million years of time. Of course I have never experienced this, but the stars in the sky would likely become very lively and move around the place, maybe resembling an n-body simulation. It would be really cool. Also, this is basically timetravel-travel.