View Full Version : Scientists claim to have broken the absolute speed barrier



Dustin
09-23-2011, 01:18 AM
Scientists claim to have broken the absolute speed barrier - particles travelling faster than the speed of light.

Sep 23, 3:04 AM EDT

Roll over Einstein: Pillar of physics challenged

By FRANK JORDANS and SETH BORENSTEIN
Associated Press


GENEVA (AP) -- A startling find at one of the world's foremost laboratories that a subatomic particle seemed to move faster than the speed of light has scientists around the world rethinking Albert Einstein and one of the foundations of physics.

Now they are planning to put the finding - and by extension Einstein - to further high-speed tests to see if a revolutionary shift in explaining the workings of the universe is needed - or if the European scientists made a mistake.

Researchers at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, who announced the discovery Thursday are still somewhat surprised themselves and planned to detail their findings on Friday.

If these results are confirmed, they won't change at all the way we live or the way the universe behaves. After all, these particles have presumably been speed demons for billions of years. But the finding will fundamentally change our understanding of how the world works, physicists said.

Only two labs elsewhere in the world can try to replicate the results. One is Fermilab outside Chicago and the other is a Japanese lab put on hold by the tsunami and earthquake. Fermilab officials met Thursday about verifying the European study and said their particle beam is already up and running. The only trouble is that the measuring systems aren't nearly as precise as the Europeans' and won't be upgraded for a while, said Fermilab scientist Rob Plunkett.

"This thing is so important many of the normal scientific rivalries fall by the wayside," said Plunkett, a spokesman for the Fermilab team's experiments. "Everybody is going to be looking at every piece of information."

Plunkett said he is keeping an open mind on whether Einstein's theories need an update, but he added: "It's dangerous to lay odds against Einstein. Einstein has been tested repeatedly over and over again."

Going faster than light is something that is just not supposed to happen according to Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity - the one made famous by the equation E equals mc2. Light's 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second) has long been considered the cosmic speed limit. And breaking it is a big deal, not something you shrug off like a traffic ticket.

"We'd be thrilled if it's right because we love something that shakes the foundation of what we believe," said famed Columbia University physicist Brian Greene. "That's what we live for."

The claim is being greeted with skepticism inside and outside the European lab.

"The feeling that most people have is this can't be right, this can't be real," said James Gillies, a spokesman for CERN, which provided the particle accelerator to send neutrinos on their breakneck 454-mile trip underground from Geneva to Italy. France's National Institute for Nuclear and Particle Physics Research collaborated with Italy's Ran Sass National Laboratory for the experiment, which has no connection to the Large Harden Collider located at CERN.

Gillies told The Associated Press that the readings have so astounded researchers that "they are inviting the broader physics community to look at what they've done and really scrutinize it in great detail."

That will be necessary, because Einstein's special relativity theory underlies "pretty much everything in modern physics," said John Ellis, a theoretical physicist at CERN who was not involved in the experiment. "It has worked perfectly up until now." And part of that theory is that nothing is faster than the speed of light.

CERN reported that a neutrino beam fired from a particle accelerator near Geneva to a lab 454 miles (730 kilometers) away in Italy traveled 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light. Scientists calculated the margin of error at just 10 nanoseconds, making the difference statistically significant.

Given the enormous implications of the find, they spent months checking and rechecking their results to make sure there were no flaws in the experiment.

A team at Fermilab had similar faster-than-light results in 2007. But that experiment had such a large margin of error that it undercut its scientific significance.

If anything is going to throw a cosmic twist into Einstein's theories, it's not surprising that it's the strange particles known as neutrinos. These are odd slivers of an atom that have confounded physicists for about 80 years.

The neutrino has almost no mass, it comes in three different "flavors," may have its own antiparticle and even has been seen shifting from one flavor to another while shooting out from the sun, said physicist Phillip Schewe, communications director at the Joint Quantum Institute in Maryland.

Fermilab team spokeswoman Jenny Thomas, a physics professor at the University College of London, said there must be a "more mundane explanation" for the European findings. She said Fermilab's experience showed how hard it is to measure accurately the distance, time and angles required for such a claim.

Nevertheless, the Fermilab team, which shoots neutrinos from Chicago to Minnesota, will go back to work immediately to try to verify or knock down the new findings, Thomas said.

Drew Baden, chairman of the physics department at the University of Maryland, said it is far more likely that there are measurement errors or some kind of fluke. Tracking neutrinos is very difficult, he said.

"This is ridiculous what they're putting out," Baden said, calling it the equivalent of claiming that a flying carpet is invented only to find out later that there was an error in the experiment somewhere. "Until this is verified by another group, it's flying carpets. It's cool, but..."

So if the neutrinos are pulling this fast one on Einstein, how can it happen?

Stephen Parke, who is head theoretician at the Fermilab said there could be a cosmic shortcut through another dimension - physics theory is full of unseen dimensions - that allows the neutrinos to beat the speed of light.

Indiana University theoretical physicist Alan Kostelecky, theorizes that there are situations when the background is different in the universe, not perfectly symmetrical as Einstein says. Those changes in background may change both the speed of light and the speed of neutrinos.

But that doesn't mean Einstein's theory is ready for the trash heap, he said.

"I don't think you're going to ever kill Einstein's theory. You can't. It works," Kostelecky said. Just there are times when an additional explanation is needed, he said.

If the European findings are correct, "this would change the idea of how the universe is put together," Columbia's Greene said. But he added: "I would bet just about everything I hold dear that this won't hold up to scrutiny."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BREAKING_LIGHT_SPEED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

RadicalModerate
09-23-2011, 01:24 AM
Scientists have been wrong before.
And will be again.

Still: Cool Article!
It already "changed [my] idea of how the universe is put together" regardless of the "correct[ness]" of "the European findings."

Thanks!

Dustin
09-23-2011, 01:27 AM
Agreed. I sense some sensationalism in this article. I hope I'm wrong!

RadicalModerate
09-23-2011, 01:31 AM
What? "Sensationalism" is "wrong"? =)
C'mon . . . Give us a break (in the space/time continuum) =)

Just the facts
09-23-2011, 06:22 AM
One of the things I learned while getting a Minor in The History of Science at OU was that given enough time - every scientist has been proven wrong about everything they believed. Einstein will be no different. The problem is, and always has been, their frame of reference. Their knowledge is limited to what they can experience.

HewenttoJared
09-23-2011, 06:51 AM
I'd give this a few months to shake out. It would only take a measuring mistake of a few meters to make this a false speed reading. It is still very exciting, though.

bombermwc
09-23-2011, 09:46 AM
I've never subscribed to the theory that the speed of light is a barrier. You know, we used to hear that the sound barrier was it and that atoms were the smallest things. Those theories were proven wrong several times over. And as for the speed of light, the theories simply don't adequatly explain the ability to move faster. If i'm moving at the speed of light and i raise my arm, my arm does move faster than the speed of light. Forget the theories of perception or whatever...just because you move the speed of light, doesn't mean that you've reached some cosmos altering interdimensional thing (like so many think), you're simply move really fast.

Not to mention the fact that the speed of light is NOT constant. You learn in day 1 physics that the speed of light has changed in the past and that can be proven. You take the age of the universe and the distance observable galaxies are from us, they do not equate to the cureent speed of light. In fact, they are much further away than they would possibly be able to be if the speed of light were constant. Not to mention the fact that it is observable beyond that distance to the dark space beyond. We simply haven't found the science to explain the things we don't know about yet. :)

HewenttoJared
09-23-2011, 10:41 AM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/neutrinos.png

Martin
09-23-2011, 10:44 AM
this should help... (http://bit.ly/STy6) -M

HewenttoJared
09-23-2011, 10:52 AM
Pfft

Jim Kyle
09-23-2011, 11:43 AM
One of the first things learned in any serious study of logic is that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time; that's one of the simplest techniques for disproving any hypothesis -- reduction ad absurbum, it's called.

By definition, "c" (the speed of light) is defined only "in vacuuo" which is to say, in an absolute vacuum. However, an absolute vacuum is, again by definition, totally devoid of any content. Current theory holds that light is simultaneously a particle called a photon, and a wave. Its "particle" aspect implies that it cannot traverse that absolute vacuum (since by doing so it makes the vacuum less than absolute); its "wave" aspect implies a medium in which the wave can propagate, again negating the existence of that absolute vacuum. Therefore, the current definition of "c" contradicts itself and is therefore meaningless in absolute terms, although it provides a workable approximation for most needs.

As for these latest findings, the first point is simply that the path over which the speed was measured was by no means a vacuum; it was the earth itself. I doubt that the dielectric constant of that part of the planet is known, so the speed of light through that path cannot be calculated with any accuracy. Speaking of accuracy, the report from CERN indicates the measured difference in elapsed time was a few billionths of a second. That degree of precision in telling time between two separated points, in itself, tends to run afoul of the time-dilation aspects of Einstein's theories...

Bottom line: the more we learn, the more we discover how much we don't yet know!

USG'60
09-23-2011, 05:45 PM
Thanks for that, Jim.

I gotta say that this sort of reminds me of the time 10 or 20 years ago when some guys claimed to have accomplished atomic fusion. It would be fun if something meaningful came out of this, though.

jn1780
09-23-2011, 06:01 PM
I guess its too early to order my new FTL spaceship?

Jim Kyle
09-23-2011, 07:40 PM
Thanks for that, Jim.

I gotta say that this sort of reminds me of the time 10 or 20 years ago when some guys claimed to have accomplished atomic fusion. It would be fun if something meaningful came out of this, though.One other thing I forgot to mention: The original scientists made no claim at all. They called the result "crazy" and published their measurements in hopes that somebody else would find a reason for the discrepancy, although they had repeated the observation many times and attempted to locate all possible sources of error!

I remember "cold fusion" too -- as I recall it finally turned out to be a measurement error and no fusion had actually occurred...