The team reported two flaws in their equipment set-up that had caused errors far outside their original confidence interval: a fiber optic cable attached improperly, which caused the apparently faster-than-light measurements, and a clock oscillator ticking too fast. The errors were first confirmed by OPERA after a ScienceInsider report, accounting for these two sources of error eliminated the faster-than-light results.
A Neutrino! Who is there? Knock, knock! If it would really be possible to send signals back in time, it would be so cool to send Einstein what modern physicists discovered.
ComandanteJ Well, if it was true, that neutrinos can travel back in time and we would have a system to encode messages using neutrinos, that the receiver also knows and he would see/mesure the neutrinos and decode the message it maybe could be possible. But to say it for sure I know too less about special and especially general relativity, sorry :D
It can also be the cause of a tunnel's shape and gravity. While going straight under the earth, particle crosses denser gravity which can affect particles speed in the relation with a surface and gps whose are the curve
Actually the average value was still faster than light. But it was so close that they concluded that it was "consistent" with the speed of light which we know cannot be right because they oscillate.
The response of the shown physicists is the interesting aspect of this video now. The amounts of skepticism, displayed wishes for it to be true, etc. That's what this document can still show us.
Garrison Pendergrass actually mass = m(i)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) thus if velocity is greater than light, it becomes negative and you take square root of negative number thus get imaginary mass.
@Entrepreneur101 E = m? What do your symbols stand for exactly? I assume in your last line you mean F = d(m.v)/dt. How does that support faster than light travel?
This might be good for either sixty symbols or numberphile. Could you do a video on a Tachyons that have an imaginary number as their mass? And how would the Higgs Boson (which gives particles mass) work with a particle with imaginary mass?
Primus Productions Actually, the Higgs doesn't give particles their mass, it just influences the one they already have. Particles have mass independently of the Higgs, but that mass changes in different ways through interactions with Higgs fields. That's why there are variations in mass between particles, that's the question that Higgs, Brout and Englert set out to answer 50 years ago. Their research culminated in the Higgs mechanism, which describes the process by which the masses of particles are modified, ending up with different masses.
Yes, I remember the measurement error had to do with the way satellite GPS coordinates are time corrected. Maybe that's the "extra dimensionality" hogwash they were talking about in this one :-)
So. A lesson from Flatland by E A Abbot. If you can find another dimension you can jump over the line and violate the laws of flat distance. Point Set Topology tells us how to combine spaces - by forming the Cartesian product of the multiple spaces. Then consider relativistic 4-space crossed with another with simply a shortened metric allowing the movement of particles between two locations that are shorter than the standard metric...
Well as soon as the guy said they didn't get the spike of neutrinos three years ahead of the visible light is proof right there that they don't travel faster than the speed of light
Cool question. Off the top of my head, everything. To start with, light-speed is dependent on constants like the permittivity of free space, so they would have to be adjusted. But then we'd get a new value for the charge of a proton. Changing the speed of light would also affect gravitational lensing, which means either changing the strength of gravity or recalculating everything's mass. Even our time and length scales are defined in terms of the speed of light!
I personally don't think that it's anything out of the realm of possibility that a Neutrino may be more likely to quantum tunnel in it's general velocity from time to time. This would basically amount to letting the Neutrino pass through space faster than light, but never actually exceed the speed of light while moving in normal spacetime.
Seán O'Nilbud She's half right. The neutrino has a function in Nature and is the left over force carrier space for the photon associated with the forward arrow of time supporting the asymmetry of the weak force separating the weak force from the strong force and it has a reverse (oscillation) arrow asymmetric twin that moves E in the opposite direction and measures larger than the neutrino just as the neutron measures larger than the proton. The difference in size maintaining E as a constant creates a worm hole because space is relative to time and more time goes back in than came out. Time did not stop during the Mass oscillation rate cycle and the added time must be accounted for and we clearly see the result of it outside of the fine structure constant that first exposed it creating something so important you put in on the wall and worry about it because it shows how little you really know about the field you are considered an expert in. e{a}/t=E BTW... that's why SLAC's E158 weak force asymmetry ratio matched CERN's 2011 worldwide announced "superluminal" muon phase neutrinos @ (v-c)/c=2.48e-5 and created an asymmetry in time of .20e-5 sec in 453.6 miles.
Před 8 lety
You are batshit. Here's some of the babbling horseshit you prepared earlier. " I think its a dangerous idea so excuse no new rocket motor equations, just enough to "enlighten" people through understanding the math process and let a few people learn putting out fear and hate only creates hate coming back through a weak link through their blind side and that's not how you disarm the World. History shows brute force and the rampant corruption and greed associated we see controlling money is always short term power, and the people that misuse power ALWAYS think they are the exception and look at the mess they made this time. It's really added up. It's easy enough to control people using their own free will but I agree population control and basic intelligence must go together or war and genocide will decide the numbers. But that's Nature at it's worst and {a} changes what is on the table now big time. It is the only thing that will save the rich from themselves trying to trump Nature. It's a tap for energy that's lets us in-between quantum states into time's reservoir, the strong force. Generate 120 watts on a bike generator for 2 seconds (two coulombs) and split the field in half and reverse it so it repels itself. Now notice you have a force of almost one million tons at a distance of a meter, not mm. So how do you do that? You understand that the weak force is created by Mass in oscillation and how {a} works. And one more thing....never ever put two new field generation magnets in you front pockets or even the same room"
What the heck does my view on politics have to do with the function of the neutrino? And what does your weird “Anti conspiracy experiments” video on youtube show other than you are drunk off your *ss and your house is a disgusting filthy mess and you don't care? Your “Helmet on, off to the shops” video shows what a drunk fool you are putting people’s lives in danger. Buddy you are nothing but a strange drunk out of control emotion waiting for the inevitable to happen and expose the problem with over population at it’s worst. And you are an insult to the people of Ireland.
"But in February, the OPERA team also discovered that a loose fiber optic cable had introduced a delay in their timing system that explained the effect."
A lot of people want to know my personal opinion on the Cern findings. First and foremost, Cern needs to more imperial data to remain current. Then need to upgrade there facilities and computer systems, also there monitors have a low refresh rate (don't let me get started on the contrast ration). Furthermore Cern needs better water to conduct these tests, basic tap water will NOT do the trick. If Cern can afford it, they should be using bottled water, preferably Poland Spring water.
the neutrinos from SN1987A arriving in expected time is a good point, although a great point the paper makes about this is, the energy of their experimental neutrinos were about 1000 times more energetic.
All you have to do in order to get to the speed of light or beyond is by bending space-time around you. Wormholes, while currently and possibly completely impossible to artificially create, are classic examples of bridging space-time by bending it in two places so that an extra-dimensional intersection point is made. Another example would be to bend space-time in a fashion that would allow you to essentially ride it like a surfer would a wave, with a space-time "wave" pushing you from the back and pulling you from the front using basically artificial gravity and anti-gravity (not to be confused with zero gravity).
Wikipedia says they reported their equipment was not as accurate as they ocne thought. A fiber optic cable was plugged in wrong and an oscillator (?) was going too fast I guess. Too bad.
That only explains one set of results. According to Gavin Wince (search youtube), there were similar results at other collider facilities. A loose fiber optic cable at one facility doesn't simply explain away similar results at other facilities using independent instrumentation.
@ChungRts Relativistic mass is given by the equation m=1 / sqrt(1 - (v / c)^2) * rest mass. Let v=c. Any number divided by itself is 1. 1^2 is 1. 1-1 is 0. Sqrt(0) is zero, so you end up with m=1/0*rest mass. Therefore, the limit of the rest mass as you approach the speed of light is infinity, so a particle with mass traveling at the speed of light would theoretically have infinite mass. F=ma, so infinite force. E=Fd, so infinite energy. The amount of energy in the universe is finite.
Imaginary doesn't necessarily mean negative, it just means it has an extra dimension. Imaginary numbers are written as A+Bi, for example 2+3i, which can be thought of as a 2-dimensional vector (A,B) or (2,3). 'A' is the real component, so maybe that's the part we can detect. Also, to negate motion (velocity), that just implies it's going the opposite direction along the same line.
@soulsfang No, actually I meant the speed of sound. "Not too long ago" is a subjective phrase, remember that when you read this part, because in the light of how long our species existed, it was the speed "barrier" that had the longest fascination with the strongest consensus. The speed of light has a consensus yes, but there are many scientists who believe it can be exceeded and that we just don't know how yet. ;)
@justsoundtechno - I think it arives "before we can see it" - at the same level as you can travel faster than sound, thus making you "arive before you can hear it".
@KarlHeinzofWpg "Like Feynman's analogy of the chessboard, this may be a pawn being promoted into a Queen." It was a Bishop changing it's 'color', but, yes, it's an exciting 'maybe'.
@TheJasmineee It's a simple pun, really. The popular theory is that time stops at the speed of light, and reverses when you exceed it. Since neutrinos are apparently faster than the speed of light, they're always going back in time...
Camden Fitzgerald No. Photons have zero *rest* mass. They still have "effective" or "relativistic" mass from their energy: E=m*c^2. Neutrinos were once believed to also have zero rest mass; the recently discovered phenomenon of neutrino oscillation requires them to have non-zero rest mass and to travel slower than the speed of light. (This has not been experimentally confirmed as far as I know.) Other particles with zero rest mass include gluons and hypothetical gravitons.
Thanks for making this video on popular request! You guys are GREAT!!! Speaking of videos by request: here's one I'd LOOOOOOOOVE to see: one about the different interpretations of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen, Many Worlds, etc). I can't even begin to conceive how, in order to "solve" many of the weird facts of QM, so many physicists today can agree about something as unimaginably weird as the Many Worlds interpretation.
@ChungRts c has been derived from Maxwell's equations. Light moves at c because it is an electromagnetic wave and is thus described by Maxwell's equations. If you'd like more info, google "Maxwell's equations," but be warned. It's dizzying mathematics.
@Pianoguy32 I don't know if there's a reason why light should be the fastest particle, but there are very good reasons to think that there is a fundamental speed limit which no particle can break, and it appears that light happens to go at that speed, which is why it's called the speed of light. If the neutrinos have broken that limit then it would be big news.
@tasilbhurn not only was this found to be a technical fault. there are many ways to proove that it violates time but, as a meager first year physicist, lorentz contractions is how the speed you travel at in reference to a plane affects your time, length, speed to an observer on the plane. one formula is t=(gamma)(t0), t=observed time, t0=real time and gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). lets say the v is 2c, gamma=-(1/sqrt(3))i. this goes into imaginary numbers where gamma needs to be a real value
The slowed time for the neutrinos does not try to "keep up" with your time, resulting in a faster than light motion. Remember that in relativity, the idea of a "real time" or "universal time" does not exist. Time is dependent on motion through space and the frame of reference. Although we see time for the neutrino slow down, in the neutrino's perspective, its time is going at normal speed and it is our time that is slowing down. Who is right? Both are right. Time is completely relative.
Back in the 70's the entity SETH described how science will continue to build instruments to find smaller and smaller units without realizing that we are translating the real NONPHYSICAL thing into terms of what we're looking for; "Each particleized unit of consciousness contains within it inherently the knowledge of all other such particles- for at other levels, again, the units are operating as waves. Basically the units move FASTER THAN LIGHT, slowing down, in your terms, to form matter."
(the photons may still be going at the speed of light while bumping into such a small amount of particles/different medium, thus distorting the speed as a whole. Example: If you have to flashlights, and you shine, simultaneously, one of them with the air as the medium and the other with glass as the medium, the one traveling through air would reach an indicated destination before the other.)
@Themayseffect there is no light "in general". the visible spectrum still moves at C. the difference you are inquiring about is a result of the wavelength and the frequency, the speed is constant.
NOTE: According to physics, physical law(s) &, or analytical logic the Neutrino(s) v is naturally faster than v/c. But, what's new about that fact? Excluding the pressurized (non-luminescent) E = m within this (d¹, or) 1st dimension, the Neutrino(s) &, or the Antineutrino(s) is the most amazing & interesting E = m in this dimension.
@0hfuzzyu No. Devices are used that time-stamp as the particle hits the detector. I can assure you, everyone in any measurement field (aviation engine parts repair for me) knows full well the delay in computer processing time, and what is needed to get an actual measurement.
It was easy for Einstein to determine that light was the fastest thing due to absence of any other physical object that could contradict the theory. It has now gotten tougher because now we don't have to tell which is fast and which is slow, now we have to tell which is fast and which is faster... This would be a nice challenge for Einstein too!
They explain in this video why it is considered the "speed limit." According to Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, an object gains mass as it accelerates. In order for an object to go beyond the speed of light, it would have to have infinite mass. If an object has infinite mass, then it would need an infinite amount of energy to maintain its acceleration.
That is exactly why the photon moves at the speed of light. No mass means that the mass never increases ( I think, anyway ). However, there is disagreement over whether the neutrinio has no mass or very little. If it had no mass, it should travel exactly at the speed of light. If it had some, it should travel below the speed of light. Neither of these scenarios accounts for it to have gone faster than the speed of light, :)
@Dirtboy101 The speed of light comes out of the physical properties of the medium (even if that medium is nothing: a vacuum). The speed of light for any medium is defined by 1/sqrt(epsilon*mu) where epsilon is the permittivity (the ease at which electric fields can penetrate the medium) and where mu is the permeability (the degree to which the medium can support a magnetic field). We can empirically measure these two constants very, very accurately and hence find very close approximations of c.
i know :) just thought it would be fun to calculate and show how the tiny little change in speed actually makes a difference in distance from the figures the infamous experiment proposed... in reality the neutrinos either have little mass or no mass so the neutrinos would travel the same distance as light in 60 nano seconds, or a tiny bit less :)
Now I'm a bit out of the latest, but perhaps if one were to consider the higgs field as a sort of surface (of perhaps the roiling surface of spacetime itself) and one were to think of this as a surface that due to interaction causes friction (whether higgs induced mass or not) and should some wimps be so "smooth" as to lack the ability to be slowed; perhaps the speed limit of light is less the limit of the speed of particle, but rather the limit of speed allowed by its active surface in contact with its medium. Less active the surface: less interaction. Leading to faster speeds. This implies less that light is not fast but less interactive. Which means that some particles could be even less interactive (like wimps), implying faster possible speeds due to less interaction. Ergo, lightspeed is less a limit of our universe but rather the limit of the speed of light within our medium. Light can be slowed in many ways and can be pulled about gravitationally. The less active a wimp the less gravity can effect it.this we know. Perhaps, it's less to do with classical gravity and more to do with quantum gravity and its force within the smaller coiled higher dimensions. Just food for thought.
@austin777136 im not sure if i'm understanding this correctly. But why can't "c" have been incorrect and should have originally have been the speed of this nutriono?
@docsquee The symbol for light speed is a small 'c'. C stands for "heat capacity". It's how much heat (in Joules) a quantity of a substance can absorb before it's temperature rises one Kelvin. Having a negative heat capacity would be at least as awesome as breaking the speed of light. :-)
Did they? They themselves said they were skeptica so it doesn't sound like they rushed to conclusionsl. Sometimes technical mistakes are harder to catch than it looks like.
Could a simple explanation of this experiment be that our human measurements of the speed of light are slightly wrong and the actual cosmic speed limit (the speed of light in vacuum) is slightly higher than we thought? Light does slow down when it passes through materials. Ambient space is not a complete vacuum, so maybe the "real" speed of light of slightly higher than thought. Neutrinos barley interact with anything, so maybe they can travel at that slightly higher "real" speed of light.
It's an accessible and relatively easy to understand source of information that's self regulated. Of course, any dolt knows that it must be taken with a grain of salt. Check the citations if you must, or use an archive of scholarly articles to verify information. The internet sure is hard.
Maybe you´re right, if a star "dies" you could still see its light due to the time the light takes to travel from the star to your eyes. For example if the star is 1 light year ( measurement ) from here then we would be able to see it's light for 1 year more after it dies... But my question is: if you travel back in time ( since the sound travels slower ) would the light and sound be sincronized? And how would you use a neutrino to travel in time if it's too small?
@Bluebuthappy182 - During inflation, the universe was creating new space between the particles.Within the local space of each particle, they were not moving faster than c, but the distance between the particles was increasing. That is called dark energy now as it appears to be happening very slowly still.
Even if we did send neutrinos back in time, maybe the explanation as to why we havent come in contact with the future is that only neutrinos have been sent back in time and not information/people. This means that there could be particles from the future frame, we just don't know it. Or it could be the fact that we havent reached the date where future humans went back in time yet. Could we say that those neutrinos we fired went to the past by a fraction of a second? Amazing. Sounds weird right?
@allenrobinson2012 but light is a wave/particle to begin with. It doesn't travel in a straight line. I am not even sure how many dimensions it passes through as it travels in a direction. The wave would obviously be longer than the straight line it traveled. I am not sure that we actually "know" the speed of light. I am guessing we screwed up measuring the speed of light. or it is higher than what we thought it was.
perhaps it merely indicates that light travels at different speeds? neutrinos which are certainly interstellar if not intergalactic means the neutrinos travel at the speed of interstellar or intergalactic light not the speed of light in the solar system ?
@HellsingDemon According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, if you travel faster than light, you could send a signal that arrives before you even sent it. The neutrino is receiving a reply before even arriving to the bar because it travelled faster than light.
I really don't understand how this could happen. S=(1-v^2/c^2) , if a particle would be able to go fast then space-time dilation would be negative. Einstein's theories accurately address particles going near the speed of light, but if this is true we'd have to come up with a new set of rules. Exciting!
@ItsNotEvenSunny , @MoGaDeX Also they used statistical analysis to marginilize any inteference so even if there were some "false positives" it would be nowhere near enough to overturn the thousands of events they measured that were in very clear correlation with each other.
If the result had checked out, it wouldn't have violated causality, and wouldn't have been fatal for the theory of relativity. The basic assumption of theory of relativity is usually stated as: speed of light is the same for all observers. (And all the rest of the results of special relativity, including dilation of time, contraction of length, as well as that it's not possible to accelerate a massive particle to or beyond the speed of light, are a consequence of this assumption.) But it can be rephrased as: there is a particular speed c (which can be called the 'speed of causality'), which is the same for all observers. It just so happens that photons have no rest mass and propagate at this speed. So if the result had checked out, it would have meant that photons do not propagate at the absolute speed c, and therefore have rest mass. (But the result didn't check out, and the explanation was rather mundane: a loose cable has delayed the signal, giving an illusion of neutrinos propagating faster than light. Theory says that neutrinos must have rest mass; otherwise, neutrino oscillation wouldn't have been possible. But direct measurements are consistent with neutrinos propagating at the speed of light.)
So It does not seam like a anomaly that these nuetrinos are faster then light, given that light "could" have mass. Because everything with energy must have mass and vise versa. This in itself disproves the idea of relativity. So this is not all that strange if you thing about it.
So if I understand this correctly, the only way to accelerate something to the speed of light is if the particle has a rest mass of zero. Anything that has mass will encounter "drag" from space-time and will never reach light speed even if you use all the energy in the universe.
I read an article some years ago entitled "The Light that Travels Faster than Light" which cited work by two scientists who found that around ten percent of photons undergo a phenomenon they called "tunnelling" which resulted in speeds much faster than light.
The neutrinos would go through the Earth's crust to get to the detector, and they know the distance between the emitting and receiving stations (if you were to travel through the crust as well) and the time it took, and the data shows that the neutrinos are arriving a little sooner than if light going through a vacuum would have. Also, light isn't influenced by friction. You should read up on why light refracts and changes speed in different mediums.
Were they just counting with the distance or did they account the effect of gravity so the trajectory would be a slight arc. That might cause such a small increase in speed.
The Super Nova argument is so solid that it certainly cast an enormous shadow over this whole thing. Yet, I still wish there really is *something* going on here that isn't the measurements being wrong. *crosses fingers*
@obaeyens But it is possible in principle to measure 'c' directly, without getting light involved, from time dilation or relativistic mass increase measurements, and I assume that has been done. Do the neutrinos still exceed 'c' when it is measured in this way, rather than by measuring light?
This somewhat validates my confusion/ignorance about this because I never understood why Einstein thought nothing could travel faster than the speed of light in the first place. Seemed arbitrary, like his cosmological constant.
I think the only way to go to the past is by being a particle indeed, only in this small dimension of spacetime the fabric is unstable allowing this bizarre events to exist at a certain level
@tmafkap p=h/λ because E=sqrt(m^2c^4 + p^2c^2) and the photon has zero rest mass. As for changing speed in different mediums, it doesn't. It only appears to because of the frequent absorption and re-emission.
They corrected their results and Neutrinos were slower than light. It was just a problem with their instruments.
+The Artificial Society yep, their gps was calibrated incorrectly...
maybe that was a gravitational wave :)
you "pulling" my leg!
A loose wire...
womp womp
Neutrinos faster than light - Sixty Symbols
next video :
Neutrinos slower than light - Sixty Symbols
The team reported two flaws in their equipment set-up that had caused errors far outside their original confidence interval: a fiber optic cable attached improperly, which caused the apparently faster-than-light measurements, and a clock oscillator ticking too fast. The errors were first confirmed by OPERA after a ScienceInsider report, accounting for these two sources of error eliminated the faster-than-light results.
A Neutrino!
Who is there?
Knock, knock!
If it would really be possible to send signals back in time, it would be so cool to send Einstein what modern physicists discovered.
That is hilarious. +1
But how? If the knocking happens last no one will say who is there and there is no need to say a Neutrino...lol
That would violate causality.
Metagross31 But would he be able to decipher a message sent to him using neutrinos?
ComandanteJ
Well, if it was true, that neutrinos can travel back in time and we would have a system to encode messages using neutrinos, that the receiver also knows and he would see/mesure the neutrinos and decode the message it maybe could be possible.
But to say it for sure I know too less about special and especially general relativity, sorry :D
This is very annoying that there are no updates on videos like this one.
+Kavetrol This. But its not SixtySymbols style to correct or update any of their older videos.
+Kavetrol you do realize they made a follow up video
As soon as I heard of this I wanted a SixtySymbols video immediately! And you delivered!
"Two beers please"
...
A neutrino walks in to a bar
This was proven wrong. The reason why they measured the neutrino going faster than light is because of a broken fiber optic cable.
It can also be the cause of a tunnel's shape and gravity. While going straight under the earth, particle crosses denser gravity which can affect particles speed in the relation with a surface and gps whose are the curve
Assholes
Spreading wrong data,the scourage of this planet
Actually the average value was still faster than light. But it was so close that they concluded that it was "consistent" with the speed of light which we know cannot be right because they oscillate.
This is one of the most exciting times of my life and I'm not even a professional physicist! Hey Sixty Symbols, I'm keeping my eye on you...
0:21 "Scientists at CERN and in Italy have found that there's a new tree now."
The response of the shown physicists is the interesting aspect of this video now. The amounts of skepticism, displayed wishes for it to be true, etc. That's what this document can still show us.
negative mass= MIND BLOWN!
square root of -mass = MIND SUPER-BLOWN!
I gaped at the fact.
Garrison Pendergrass actually mass = m(i)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) thus if velocity is greater than light, it becomes negative and you take square root of negative number thus get imaginary mass.
@Entrepreneur101
E = m? What do your symbols stand for exactly?
I assume in your last line you mean F = d(m.v)/dt. How does that support faster than light travel?
This might be good for either sixty symbols or numberphile. Could you do a video on a Tachyons that have an imaginary number as their mass? And how would the Higgs Boson (which gives particles mass) work with a particle with imaginary mass?
Primus Productions Actually, the Higgs doesn't give particles their mass, it just influences the one they already have.
Particles have mass independently of the Higgs, but that mass changes in different ways through interactions with Higgs fields. That's why there are variations in mass between particles, that's the question that Higgs, Brout and Englert set out to answer 50 years ago. Their research culminated in the Higgs mechanism, which describes the process by which the masses of particles are modified, ending up with different masses.
🤓
could you please make a video of just professor Copeland talking? he soothes me to no end!
9:26
Well it's definitely not a tachyon.
By far the most interesting series on CZcams!
looking forward to next video.
Thanks!
Wasn't this debunked just weeks after? It was measured wrong or something.
It was, it was blamed on a faulty cable.
Martin Lamppu Always expend 20% of your budget in cables. LOL
Yes - sixty symbols shouldn't leave misleading and erroneous science lingering on the web.... and all the mumbo jumbo about extra dimensionality.
davet11 I thought it was calculated to be the time it took for the information to travel via satellite. Something that everyone missed.
Yes, I remember the measurement error had to do with the way satellite GPS coordinates are time corrected. Maybe that's the "extra dimensionality" hogwash they were talking about in this one :-)
So. A lesson from Flatland by E A Abbot. If you can find another dimension you can jump over the line and violate the laws of flat distance. Point Set Topology tells us how to combine spaces - by forming the Cartesian product of the multiple spaces. Then consider relativistic 4-space crossed with another with simply a shortened metric allowing the movement of particles between two locations that are shorter than the standard metric...
Well as soon as the guy said they didn't get the spike of neutrinos three years ahead of the visible light is proof right there that they don't travel faster than the speed of light
True. Thought the same
Cool question. Off the top of my head, everything. To start with, light-speed is dependent on constants like the permittivity of free space, so they would have to be adjusted. But then we'd get a new value for the charge of a proton.
Changing the speed of light would also affect gravitational lensing, which means either changing the strength of gravity or recalculating everything's mass.
Even our time and length scales are defined in terms of the speed of light!
Those are Team Rocket neutrinos.
That was so funny! X.D
I personally don't think that it's anything out of the realm of possibility that a Neutrino may be more likely to quantum tunnel in it's general velocity from time to time. This would basically amount to letting the Neutrino pass through space faster than light, but never actually exceed the speed of light while moving in normal spacetime.
Seán O'Nilbud She's half right. The neutrino has a function in Nature and is the left over force carrier space for the photon associated with the forward arrow of time supporting the asymmetry of the weak force separating the weak force from the strong force and it has a reverse (oscillation) arrow asymmetric twin that moves E in the opposite direction and measures larger than the neutrino just as the neutron measures larger than the proton.
The difference in size maintaining E as a constant creates a worm hole because space is relative to time and more time goes back in than came out. Time did not stop during the Mass oscillation rate cycle and the added time must be accounted for and we clearly see the result of it outside of the fine structure constant that first exposed it creating something so important you put in on the wall and worry about it because it shows how little you really know about the field you are considered an expert in. e{a}/t=E
BTW... that's why SLAC's E158 weak force asymmetry ratio matched CERN's 2011 worldwide announced "superluminal" muon phase neutrinos @ (v-c)/c=2.48e-5 and created an asymmetry in time of .20e-5 sec in 453.6 miles.
You are batshit. Here's some of the babbling horseshit you prepared earlier.
" I think its a dangerous idea so excuse no new rocket motor equations, just enough to "enlighten" people through understanding the math process and let a few people learn putting out fear and hate only creates hate coming back through a weak link through their blind side and that's not how you disarm the World. History shows brute force and the rampant corruption and greed associated we see controlling money is always short term power, and the people that misuse power ALWAYS think they are the exception and look at the mess they made this time. It's really added up. It's easy enough to control people using their own free will but I agree population control and basic intelligence must go together or war and genocide will decide the numbers. But that's Nature at it's worst and {a} changes what is on the table now big time. It is the only thing that will save the rich from themselves trying to trump Nature. It's a tap for energy that's lets us in-between quantum states into time's reservoir, the strong force. Generate 120 watts on a bike generator for 2 seconds (two coulombs) and split the field in half and reverse it so it repels itself. Now notice you have a force of almost one million tons at a distance of a meter, not mm. So how do you do that? You understand that the weak force is created by Mass in oscillation and how {a} works. And one more thing....never ever put two new field generation magnets in you front pockets or even the same room"
What the heck does my view on politics have to do with the function of the neutrino? And what does your weird “Anti conspiracy experiments” video on youtube show other than you are drunk off your *ss and your house is a disgusting filthy mess and you don't care? Your “Helmet on, off to the shops” video shows what a drunk fool you are putting people’s lives in danger.
Buddy you are nothing but a strange drunk out of control emotion waiting for the inevitable to happen and expose the problem with over population at it’s worst.
And you are an insult to the people of Ireland.
"italian scientists" sounds funny but then we remember that Science was established by one of them.
Nevertheless lets be careful :-)
Calculated from the X17 particles inductive charge radius the neutrinos are 41.30047 GeV/c^2, 44.6012 Gev/c^2 and 48.1657 GeV/c^2
It's painful watching this knowing what they don't know
This was posted three years ago.
What's the update on it? Just an error?
Yup. Apparently a 'loose cable' and one other thing i don't remember
"But in February, the OPERA team also discovered that a loose fiber optic cable had introduced a delay in their timing system that explained the effect."
A lot of people want to know my personal opinion on the Cern findings. First and foremost, Cern needs to more imperial data to remain current. Then need to upgrade there facilities and computer systems, also there monitors have a low refresh rate (don't let me get started on the contrast ration). Furthermore Cern needs better water to conduct these tests, basic tap water will NOT do the trick. If Cern can afford it, they should be using bottled water, preferably Poland Spring water.
john mayer what
john mayer you are joking, correct? Refresh rate? Contrast?? Bottles water??? never mind...you are joking.
heavy water is much better
I hate your music Mr Mayer, but your Cern ideas will rock the world and also your body is a wonderland
Finally. Been waiting for the Proffs to talk about this.
@hitachi088 cheers... fixed it
the neutrinos from SN1987A arriving in expected time is a good point, although a great point the paper makes about this is, the energy of their experimental neutrinos were about 1000 times more energetic.
All you have to do in order to get to the speed of light or beyond is by bending space-time around you. Wormholes, while currently and possibly completely impossible to artificially create, are classic examples of bridging space-time by bending it in two places so that an extra-dimensional intersection point is made. Another example would be to bend space-time in a fashion that would allow you to essentially ride it like a surfer would a wave, with a space-time "wave" pushing you from the back and pulling you from the front using basically artificial gravity and anti-gravity (not to be confused with zero gravity).
kept checking youtube for a sixty symbols video on this. awesome job. glad the professor from the beginning is back too.
Wikipedia says they reported their equipment was not as accurate as they ocne thought. A fiber optic cable was plugged in wrong and an oscillator (?) was going too fast I guess. Too bad.
That only explains one set of results. According to Gavin Wince (search youtube), there were similar results at other collider facilities. A loose fiber optic cable at one facility doesn't simply explain away similar results at other facilities using independent instrumentation.
@luvboricha it was a bunch of neutrinos from the year 3048.
@ChungRts Relativistic mass is given by the equation m=1 / sqrt(1 - (v / c)^2) * rest mass. Let v=c. Any number divided by itself is 1. 1^2 is 1. 1-1 is 0. Sqrt(0) is zero, so you end up with m=1/0*rest mass. Therefore, the limit of the rest mass as you approach the speed of light is infinity, so a particle with mass traveling at the speed of light would theoretically have infinite mass. F=ma, so infinite force. E=Fd, so infinite energy. The amount of energy in the universe is finite.
Hell yeah! I guess Brady was thinking like we were; there should be a 60 Symbols video about this!
Imaginary doesn't necessarily mean negative, it just means it has an extra dimension. Imaginary numbers are written as A+Bi, for example 2+3i, which can be thought of as a 2-dimensional vector (A,B) or (2,3). 'A' is the real component, so maybe that's the part we can detect. Also, to negate motion (velocity), that just implies it's going the opposite direction along the same line.
@soulsfang No, actually I meant the speed of sound. "Not too long ago" is a subjective phrase, remember that when you read this part, because in the light of how long our species existed, it was the speed "barrier" that had the longest fascination with the strongest consensus. The speed of light has a consensus yes, but there are many scientists who believe it can be exceeded and that we just don't know how yet. ;)
@justsoundtechno - I think it arives "before we can see it" - at the same level as you can travel faster than sound, thus making you "arive before you can hear it".
@KarlHeinzofWpg "Like Feynman's analogy of the chessboard, this may be a pawn being promoted into a Queen."
It was a Bishop changing it's 'color', but, yes, it's an exciting 'maybe'.
It does change with different mediums, which is called "Refraction" :)
@TheJasmineee It's a simple pun, really. The popular theory is that time stops at the speed of light, and reverses when you exceed it. Since neutrinos are apparently faster than the speed of light, they're always going back in time...
Conciseness is stronger than u can imaginel
Best explanation I've heard heard.
Camden Fitzgerald No. Photons have zero *rest* mass. They still have "effective" or "relativistic" mass from their energy: E=m*c^2.
Neutrinos were once believed to also have zero rest mass; the recently discovered phenomenon of neutrino oscillation requires them to have non-zero rest mass and to travel slower than the speed of light. (This has not been experimentally confirmed as far as I know.)
Other particles with zero rest mass include gluons and hypothetical gravitons.
Thanks for making this video on popular request! You guys are GREAT!!!
Speaking of videos by request: here's one I'd LOOOOOOOOVE to see: one about the different interpretations of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen, Many Worlds, etc). I can't even begin to conceive how, in order to "solve" many of the weird facts of QM, so many physicists today can agree about something as unimaginably weird as the Many Worlds interpretation.
@ChungRts c has been derived from Maxwell's equations. Light moves at c because it is an electromagnetic wave and is thus described by Maxwell's equations. If you'd like more info, google "Maxwell's equations," but be warned. It's dizzying mathematics.
@Pianoguy32 I don't know if there's a reason why light should be the fastest particle, but there are very good reasons to think that there is a fundamental speed limit which no particle can break, and it appears that light happens to go at that speed, which is why it's called the speed of light. If the neutrinos have broken that limit then it would be big news.
@tasilbhurn not only was this found to be a technical fault.
there are many ways to proove that it violates time but, as a meager first year physicist, lorentz contractions is how the speed you travel at in reference to a plane affects your time, length, speed to an observer on the plane. one formula is t=(gamma)(t0), t=observed time, t0=real time and gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). lets say the v is 2c, gamma=-(1/sqrt(3))i. this goes into imaginary numbers where gamma needs to be a real value
The slowed time for the neutrinos does not try to "keep up" with your time, resulting in a faster than light motion. Remember that in relativity, the idea of a "real time" or "universal time" does not exist. Time is dependent on motion through space and the frame of reference. Although we see time for the neutrino slow down, in the neutrino's perspective, its time is going at normal speed and it is our time that is slowing down. Who is right? Both are right. Time is completely relative.
Back in the 70's the entity SETH described how science will continue to build instruments to find smaller and smaller units without realizing that we are translating the real NONPHYSICAL thing into terms of what we're looking for; "Each particleized unit of consciousness contains within it inherently the knowledge of all other such particles- for at other levels, again, the units are operating as waves. Basically the units move FASTER THAN LIGHT, slowing down, in your terms, to form matter."
(the photons may still be going at the speed of light while bumping into such a small amount of particles/different medium, thus distorting the speed as a whole. Example: If you have to flashlights, and you shine, simultaneously, one of them with the air as the medium and the other with glass as the medium, the one traveling through air would reach an indicated destination before the other.)
"IF" this is true what impact will it have other than "we still dont know as much as we think we do"
This experiment's result in 2011 has since been shown as an error with a fiber-optic cable. Look up "OPERA experiment" on Wikipedia for the article.
@Themayseffect there is no light "in general". the visible spectrum still moves at C. the difference you are inquiring about is a result of the wavelength and the frequency, the speed is constant.
You can make anything travel faster than light if you slow light down enough.
NOTE: According to physics, physical law(s) &, or analytical logic the Neutrino(s) v is naturally faster than v/c.
But, what's new about that fact?
Excluding the pressurized (non-luminescent) E = m within this (d¹, or) 1st dimension, the Neutrino(s) &, or the Antineutrino(s) is the most amazing & interesting E = m in this dimension.
@0hfuzzyu No. Devices are used that time-stamp as the particle hits the detector. I can assure you, everyone in any measurement field (aviation engine parts repair for me) knows full well the delay in computer processing time, and what is needed to get an actual measurement.
It was easy for Einstein to determine that light was the fastest thing due to absence of any other physical object that could contradict the theory.
It has now gotten tougher because now we don't have to tell which is fast and which is slow, now we have to tell which is fast and which is faster... This would be a nice challenge for Einstein too!
They explain in this video why it is considered the "speed limit." According to Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, an object gains mass as it accelerates. In order for an object to go beyond the speed of light, it would have to have infinite mass. If an object has infinite mass, then it would need an infinite amount of energy to maintain its acceleration.
That is exactly why the photon moves at the speed of light. No mass means that the mass never increases ( I think, anyway ).
However, there is disagreement over whether the neutrinio has no mass or very little. If it had no mass, it should travel exactly at the speed of light. If it had some, it should travel below the speed of light. Neither of these scenarios accounts for it to have gone faster than the speed of light, :)
@Dirtboy101 The speed of light comes out of the physical properties of the medium (even if that medium is nothing: a vacuum). The speed of light for any medium is defined by 1/sqrt(epsilon*mu) where epsilon is the permittivity (the ease at which electric fields can penetrate the medium) and where mu is the permeability (the degree to which the medium can support a magnetic field). We can empirically measure these two constants very, very accurately and hence find very close approximations of c.
i know :) just thought it would be fun to calculate and show how the tiny little change in speed actually makes a difference in distance from the figures the infamous experiment proposed... in reality the neutrinos either have little mass or no mass so the neutrinos would travel the same distance as light in 60 nano seconds, or a tiny bit less :)
finally, i have been waiting for this video since the news came out.
Now I'm a bit out of the latest, but perhaps if one were to consider the higgs field as a sort of surface (of perhaps the roiling surface of spacetime itself) and one were to think of this as a surface that due to interaction causes friction (whether higgs induced mass or not) and should some wimps be so "smooth" as to lack the ability to be slowed; perhaps the speed limit of light is less the limit of the speed of particle, but rather the limit of speed allowed by its active surface in contact with its medium. Less active the surface: less interaction. Leading to faster speeds. This implies less that light is not fast but less interactive. Which means that some particles could be even less interactive (like wimps), implying faster possible speeds due to less interaction. Ergo, lightspeed is less a limit of our universe but rather the limit of the speed of light within our medium. Light can be slowed in many ways and can be pulled about gravitationally. The less active a wimp the less gravity can effect it.this we know. Perhaps, it's less to do with classical gravity and more to do with quantum gravity and its force within the smaller coiled higher dimensions. Just food for thought.
Timmy's my buddy!!
:)
Miss ya buddy. Hope things are going well for you.
@austin777136 im not sure if i'm understanding this correctly. But why can't "c" have been incorrect and should have originally have been the speed of this nutriono?
@docsquee The symbol for light speed is a small 'c'.
C stands for "heat capacity". It's how much heat (in Joules) a quantity of a substance can absorb before it's temperature rises one Kelvin.
Having a negative heat capacity would be at least as awesome as breaking the speed of light. :-)
@vkotis sorry, I was a bit slower than a neutrino... was away in Australia when the story broke
mranaya92 is plumbing new depths this week
Did they? They themselves said they were skeptica so it doesn't sound like they rushed to conclusionsl. Sometimes technical mistakes are harder to catch than it looks like.
Could a simple explanation of this experiment be that our human measurements of the speed of light are slightly wrong and the actual cosmic speed limit (the speed of light in vacuum) is slightly higher than we thought? Light does slow down when it passes through materials. Ambient space is not a complete vacuum, so maybe the "real" speed of light of slightly higher than thought. Neutrinos barley interact with anything, so maybe they can travel at that slightly higher "real" speed of light.
i was waiting for them to make a video about this.
I miss MrOldProf :(
he is pretty darn good at explaining these things very well.
It's an accessible and relatively easy to understand source of information that's self regulated. Of course, any dolt knows that it must be taken with a grain of salt. Check the citations if you must, or use an archive of scholarly articles to verify information. The internet sure is hard.
Maybe you´re right, if a star "dies" you could still see its light due to the time the light takes to travel from the star to your eyes. For example if the star is 1 light year ( measurement ) from here then we would be able to see it's light for 1 year more after it dies...
But my question is: if you travel back in time ( since the sound travels slower ) would the light and sound be sincronized? And how would you use a neutrino to travel in time if it's too small?
@1612ydraw I believe the direction of the reaction products are determined by multiple layers of detection.
@Bluebuthappy182 - During inflation, the universe was creating new space between the particles.Within the local space of each particle, they were not moving faster than c, but the distance between the particles was increasing. That is called dark energy now as it appears to be happening very slowly still.
I thought this was a big faux pas and there was a flaw in the eperimental apparatus. So nothing we know of faster than the speed of light.
+fitnesspoint2006 Yeah. They have another video about that later, but still it was interesting at the time
+fitnesspoint2006 The expansion of the Universe is faster than the speed of light. So your "nothing we know" statement is false.
it is true what i said - "nothing" as no "thing" is faster than light, the vid speaks of neutrinos not "expansion" and the proper term is inflation
Relativity says light always travels at constant speed, no matter the perspective, does that apply to neutrinos?
Even if we did send neutrinos back in time, maybe the explanation as to why we havent come in contact with the future is that only neutrinos have been sent back in time and not information/people. This means that there could be particles from the future frame, we just don't know it. Or it could be the fact that we havent reached the date where future humans went back in time yet. Could we say that those neutrinos we fired went to the past by a fraction of a second? Amazing. Sounds weird right?
@allenrobinson2012 but light is a wave/particle to begin with. It doesn't travel in a straight line. I am not even sure how many dimensions it passes through as it travels in a direction. The wave would obviously be longer than the straight line it traveled. I am not sure that we actually "know" the speed of light. I am guessing we screwed up measuring the speed of light. or it is higher than what we thought it was.
perhaps it merely indicates that light travels at different speeds? neutrinos which are certainly interstellar if not intergalactic means the neutrinos travel at the speed of interstellar or intergalactic light not the speed of light in the solar system ?
@HellsingDemon According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, if you travel faster than light, you could send a signal that arrives before you even sent it. The neutrino is receiving a reply before even arriving to the bar because it travelled faster than light.
I really don't understand how this could happen. S=(1-v^2/c^2) , if a particle would be able to go fast then space-time dilation would be negative. Einstein's theories accurately address particles going near the speed of light, but if this is true we'd have to come up with a new set of rules. Exciting!
@ItsNotEvenSunny , @MoGaDeX Also they used statistical analysis to marginilize any inteference so even if there were some "false positives" it would be nowhere near enough to overturn the thousands of events they measured that were in very clear correlation with each other.
If neutrinos are really faster than light doesn’t time reverse?
If the result had checked out, it wouldn't have violated causality, and wouldn't have been fatal for the theory of relativity. The basic assumption of theory of relativity is usually stated as: speed of light is the same for all observers. (And all the rest of the results of special relativity, including dilation of time, contraction of length, as well as that it's not possible to accelerate a massive particle to or beyond the speed of light, are a consequence of this assumption.) But it can be rephrased as: there is a particular speed c (which can be called the 'speed of causality'), which is the same for all observers. It just so happens that photons have no rest mass and propagate at this speed.
So if the result had checked out, it would have meant that photons do not propagate at the absolute speed c, and therefore have rest mass. (But the result didn't check out, and the explanation was rather mundane: a loose cable has delayed the signal, giving an illusion of neutrinos propagating faster than light. Theory says that neutrinos must have rest mass; otherwise, neutrino oscillation wouldn't have been possible. But direct measurements are consistent with neutrinos propagating at the speed of light.)
So It does not seam like a anomaly that these nuetrinos are faster then light, given that light "could" have mass. Because everything with energy must have mass and vise versa. This in itself disproves the idea of relativity. So this is not all that strange if you thing about it.
Thanks for the physicist humour warning - I was very nearly unprepared!
So if I understand this correctly, the only way to accelerate something to the speed of light is if the particle has a rest mass of zero. Anything that has mass will encounter "drag" from space-time and will never reach light speed even if you use all the energy in the universe.
I read an article some years ago entitled "The Light that Travels Faster than Light" which cited work by two scientists who found that around ten percent of photons undergo a phenomenon they called "tunnelling" which resulted in speeds much faster than light.
The neutrinos would go through the Earth's crust to get to the detector, and they know the distance between the emitting and receiving stations (if you were to travel through the crust as well) and the time it took, and the data shows that the neutrinos are arriving a little sooner than if light going through a vacuum would have.
Also, light isn't influenced by friction. You should read up on why light refracts and changes speed in different mediums.
Were they just counting with the distance or did they account the effect of gravity so the trajectory would be a slight arc. That might cause such a small increase in speed.
I agree, but it's pretty obvious that the speed of light is a constant and cannot be surpassed by any means, at least in this universe.
The Super Nova argument is so solid that it certainly cast an enormous shadow over this whole thing. Yet, I still wish there really is *something* going on here that isn't the measurements being wrong.
*crosses fingers*
@obaeyens But it is possible in principle to measure 'c' directly, without getting light involved, from time dilation or relativistic mass increase measurements, and I assume that has been done. Do the neutrinos still exceed 'c' when it is measured in this way, rather than by measuring light?
This somewhat validates my confusion/ignorance about this because I never understood why Einstein thought nothing could travel faster than the speed of light in the first place.
Seemed arbitrary, like his cosmological constant.
I think the only way to go to the past is by being a particle indeed, only in this small dimension of spacetime the fabric is unstable allowing this bizarre events to exist at a certain level
@tmafkap p=h/λ because E=sqrt(m^2c^4 + p^2c^2) and the photon has zero rest mass. As for changing speed in different mediums, it doesn't. It only appears to because of the frequent absorption and re-emission.
What's the thing you're associating it with that you don't like at 5:30