Particles Moved Faster Than Speed of Light?

National Geographic ^ | September 23, 2011 | Ker Than

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Neutrinos—ghostly subatomic particles—may have been observed traveling faster than the speed of light, scientists announced this week.

If confirmed, the astonishing claim would upend a cardinal rule of physics established by Albert Einstein nearly a century ago.

"Most theorists believe that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. So if this is true, it would rock the foundations of physics," said Stephen Parke, head of the theoretical physics department at the U.S. government-run Fermilab near Chicago, Illinois.

[MHGinTN]

In other words, either the cesium atom "knows" what the planets are doing, or the planets know what the cesium atom is doing, or events associated with both are progressing in response to a thing called "time". So how do we explain the 'null path/state' of a photon crossing the universe yet carrying the present time imprint of when the photon was emitted, arriving at an observer and giving the observer a reading on the state of the source way back when the photon was emitted? I would contend that dimension TIME has similar expressions to what dimension SPACE is fashioned (linear, planar, volumetric). Perhaps our soul exists in present temporal alignment (planar present?), so it can 'sense' what occurs and gets processed by the bodily senses tuned to record past (linear past) events? ... I know, I know, it's an awkward way to express a new concept, but my limitations are language based. My point is that dimension TIME may beimagined as a 'volume', but that volume is composed of 'linear' and 'planar' arrangement. To God the Creator, all of TIME is occurring at the same just as all of SPACE is 'in' the 'bubble' we call spacetime.

[MHGinTN]

What is the flipside of a coin? ... The speed of dark is limited by how quickly light leaves a location.

[MHGinTN]

Can you give an example of somewhere/when in our universe where there is no electromagnetic radiation and no virtual particle creation? There you could measure the speed of dark. And apparently, Steven Wright has been there ... his humor is often that dark, and hilarious. Do you suppose he wears his hair like a confused Einstein in order to convey some excentricity we might equate with ‘Mathematicians and Physicists’? What did the guy who came up with ‘e’ look like?

[The Cajun]

How about a Neutrino is really a tachyon traveling at its’ slowest possible speed and its’ theoretical mass is really a negative mass?

Not totally in our spatial and temporal reference frame, but not totally out of it.

[allmost]

This is very interesting. The whole experiment was an attempt to gather information on neutrino oscillations and they find this.
I would assume that the particle never travels faster than c. The question was why and how a neutrino can transform into different particles (electron, muon, and tau). I'd guess the speed/time discrepancy in these experiments would be related to the particle changes themselves. In transforming from an electron to a muon there must be either a superpostioned state where both exist or the wavefunction itself collapses and is 'reborn'. The first is most likely the case. Superpositioned information is not ruled by relativity. "spooky action at a distance".

[wastedyears]

Not too bad I must say, gonna start a job at an auto parts place in Manhattan on Monday. Kinda excited about it.

How are things Down Under?

[E8crossE8]

The question was why and how a neutrino can transform into different particles (electron, muon, and tau).

Neutrinos don't transform into electrons, muons or tauons. According to our experimental observations, and also according to the theoretical Standard Model (i.e., the currently accepted model of elementary particles based on the Weinberg-Salam model), there are three types of neutrinos, each mathematically "partnered" with one of the three basic leptons (i.e., electrons, muons and tauons). Thus there are electron-type neutrinos, muon-type neutrinos and tau-type neutrinos. The neutrinos are all electrically neutral, whereas their partner particles all have non-vanishing charge. Neutrino oscillations occur when a neutrino of one the three types transforms into a neutrino of one of the other types.

Superpositioned information is not ruled by relativity. "spooky action at a distance".

Quantum states that are ordinary superposition states (these are superpositions of so-called "basis" states) exhibit dynamics that are indeed constrained by special relativity (i.e., their dynamical equations are Lorentz invariant). So-called "spooky action at a distance" has to do with what are called "entangled" states - these are special types of superposition states that have the property that they can't be factored into distinct basis states. Their dynamics are also explicitly constrained by Lorentz invariance.

Lorentz invariance is an essential mathematical building block of what is called "quantum field theory" (QFT), which is the principal mathematical tool used to compute predictions regarding elementary particles. There are (literally) millions of verified predictions from experiments carried out over the past 50 years that are all consistent with QFT, and thus consistent with the assumption of Lorentz invariance.

The only experimental evidence ever produced by professional experimental physicists that suggests a violation of Lorentz invariance is the recent announcement regarding the CERN-Gran Sasso "time-of-flight" measurement. If the recently announced measurement is indeed correct, it means that Lorentz invariant QFT is "wrong" in a fundamental way, and needs to be replaced (not just modified, since Lorentz invariance is mathematically embedded everywhere in QFT), and yet, it has somehow produced literally millions of other results that are all nevertheless correct. Thus it is considered by most of us to be highly unlikely that QFT is wrong, and it is more likely that this experimental claim is mistaken.

Most of us suspect that there is a deeply hidden experimental error (since this experiment is comprised of millions of separate experimental parts, and the number of possibilities for error is combinatorically gigantic) but we are waiting with open minds. Spectacular claims need spectacular evidence: this experiment needs to be independently replicated, and then we will see what is what.

[allmost]

Pull your head out of your a$$. You spout/steal text but have no understanding of any of the basic underlying theories.

Okay. Explain wavefunction collapse to the rest of the thread please. If not explain your personal theory as to how one particle can transform into another.

[allmost]

The fact is we are beyond experimental dogma here. You might have to think instead of parrot words in response.

[E8crossE8]

Actually, this is my field, and what I wrote was extemporaneous. Your reply is somewhat surprising - it is too bad for you that you are so angry. I hope you don’t take it out on your family. Best wishes.

[allmost]

Your cluelessness has nothing to do with with my family. Never go there again. Do you understand?

[allmost]

"Actually, this is my field,"

If you are telling the truth it explains quite a bit. You have no idea above the standard model. You attack what you cannot conceptualize. Who pays your supposed salary?

[allmost]

Read my post #45. Explain the flaws in my argument. Do not attack my family. I find the superpositioning argument sound. At least as sound as any others. You offer nothing in response to explain this.

[AFPhys]

I find this very interesting due to:
1) it is the second experiment to suggest neutrinos are faster than light
2) that would raise the possibility of negative mass

(Please refrain from personal attacks)

[allmost]

Neutrinos are the key IMO towards understanding the ‘next level’ of physical reality. Refining detection techniques alone could yield an unknown real benefit. Negative mass is a possibility, but the initial questions should be in detection IMO. All are invariant time-wise, but reality shows us every second that things tend to swing one way.

[SampleMan]

Thank you for your reply. I have always had a deep interest in these larger questions.

Unfortunately, my advanced calculus skills ended up being a C-grade capability, so I’m afraid that the math really does often escape me.

I will definately put my hands on your recommended reading and give it a shot.

Given the issues with C that I mentioned, I wonder if perhaps space actually is a medium, packed with subatomic particles so small or different that we have yet to identify them. Perhaps if they had gravity, but were electromagnetically repulsed by atoms (with a force greater than gravity), this would also solve the dark matter issue. Such particles would be rare close to visible objects, but denser in the space between galaxies. Obviously this medium would have to allow the passage of light generally undisturbed. In this scenario, C might be more analogous to Mach 1 than an absolute limit.

Assuming this medium to exist, this might also affect light wavelengths over extremely long distances, and thus throw off what we think we know about progressive expansion of the universe.

If that is unbelievably stupid, forget it. If it is the hypothesis of the millenium, please cite me. ;-)

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I don’t mean to discourage you, but before you reinvent the wheel, it behooves you to understand the wheel.