For those not keeping up with the news from CERN, it looks like neutrinos might travel just a tiny bit faster than light.

So what now? Time for everybody to panic? Time to burn somebody at the stake? Time to throw Einstein out the window?

No. Time to confirm. Time for the people at CERN to turn over their data and let everyone else try to duplicate their results. If they can't, then they will figure out what went wrong. If they CAN, then we refine our understanding and move on.

If true, this does have big implications. But being wrong is the portal to knowing the truth, if you are able to accept the failure of your previous notions.

http://io9.com/5843395/physicists-expla ... -particles

Krauthammer wrote a pretty good piece on the significance of this new discovery.

This changes everything, possibly. I like the joke.


Charles Krauthammer

October 7, 2011 12:00 A.M.

Gone in 60 Nanoseconds

A scientific discovery changes everything we think we know about the world.

“We don’t allow faster-than-light neutrinos in here,” says the bartender.

A neutrino walks into a bar.

— Joke circulating on the Internet

The world as we know it is on the brink of disintegration, on the verge of dissolution. No, I’m not talking about the collapse of the euro, of international finance, of the Western economies, of the democratic future, of the unipolar moment, of the American dream, of French banks, of Greece as a going concern, of Europe as an idea, of Pax Americana.

I am talking about something far more important. Which is why it made only the back pages of your newspaper, if it made it at all. Scientists at CERN (the European high-energy physics consortium) have announced the discovery of a particle that can travel faster than light.

Neutrinos fired 454 miles from a supercollider outside Geneva to an underground laboratory in Gran Sasso, Italy, took less time (60 nanoseconds less) than light to get there. Or so the physicists think. Or so they measured. Or so they have concluded after checking for every possible artifact and experimental error.

The implications of such a discovery are so mind boggling, however, that these same scientists immediately requested that other labs around the world try to replicate the experiment. Something must have been wrong to account for a result that, if we know anything about the universe, is impossible.

And that’s the problem. It has to be impossible because, if not, everything we know about the universe is wrong.

The fundamental axiom of Einstein’s theory of relativity is the absolute prohibition on speed faster than light. Einstein’s predictions about how time slows and mass increases as one approaches the speed of light have been verified by a mountain of experimental evidence. As velocity increases, mass approaches infinity and time slows to zero, making it progressively and, ultimately, infinitely difficult to achieve light speed. Which is why nothing does. And nothing ever has.

Until two weeks ago Thursday.

That’s when the results were announced. To oversimplify grossly: If the Gran Sasso scientists had a plate to record the arrival of the neutrinos and a super-powerful telescope to peer (through the Alps!) directly into the lab in Geneva from which they were being fired, the Gran Sasso guys would have “heard” the neutrinos clanging against the plate before they observed the Geneva guys squeeze the trigger on the neutrino gun.

Sixty nanoseconds before, to be precise. Wrap your mind around that one.

It’s as if someone told you that yesterday at drive time Topeka was released from Earth’s gravity. These things don’t happen. Natural laws don’t just expire between shifts at McDonald’s.

Not that there aren’t already mysteries in physics. Neutrinos themselves are ghostly particles that travel through nearly everything unimpeded. (Thousands are traversing your body as you read this.) But that is simplicity itself compared to quantum mechanics, whose random arbitrariness so offended Einstein that he famously objected that God does not play dice with the universe.

Aphorisms don’t trump reality, however. They are but a frail, poignant protest against a Nature that disdains the most cherished human notions of order and elegance, truth and beauty.

But if quantum mechanics was a challenge to human sensibilities, this pesky Swiss-Italian neutrino is their undoing. It means that Einstein’s relativity — a theory of uncommon beauty upon which all of physics has been built for 100 years — is wrong. Not just inaccurate. Not just flawed. But deeply, fundamentally, indescribably wrong.

It means that the “standard model” of subatomic particles that stands at the center of all modern physics is wrong.

Nor does it stop there. This will not just overthrow physics. Astronomy and cosmology measure time and distance in the universe on the assumption of light speed as the cosmic limit. Their foundations will shake as well.

It cannot be. Yet, this is not a couple of guys in a garage peddling cold fusion. This is no crank wheeling a perpetual-motion machine into the patent office. These are the best researchers in the world using the finest measuring instruments, having subjected their data to the highest levels of scrutiny, including six months of cross-checking by 160 scientists from eleven countries.

But there must be some error. Because otherwise everything changes. We shall need a new physics. A new cosmology. New understandings of past and future, of cause and effect. Then shortly and surely, new theologies.

Why? Because you can’t have neutrinos getting kicked out of taverns they have not yet entered.

— Charles Krauthammer is a national syndicated columnist. © 2011, The Washington Post Writers Group.

This guy may be drumming up a little "sky is falling" action.

Lots of theories we use we know for certain are wrong. But they are pretty damn close to true.

The classic model of the atom is wrong. We know it's wrong, but we still use it because it's a more approximate description of the true situation than nothing.

We already knew there was something wrong with Einstein's theory because if it was right, then Quantum mechanics wouldn't work.

This FTL business might not be what binds the two together, but we already knew Einstein didn't get a bulls-eye. And despite not being *quite* correct, we cannot simply throw out all of the huge amounts of evidence that correlates to Einstein, or the astounding results his theory has given us.

They need to be reconciled. We find out where the crack in the armor is, and we learn more about it, and then we have refined our understanding.

If neutrinos are FTL, then there are some adjustments to be made, no doubt, but it doesn't throw our world view out the window.

After all, if neutrinos are FTL, then they didn't just start behaving that way. They were that way when we lit up our nuclear reactors, and they were that way back when Einstein was a pattent clerk, and they were that way back when we were giving vitalism a serious nod.

It isn't "throw out all we know" time. it's investigate a new clue time.

Well said. The guy does seem to overstate the case. I would think that this discovery wouldn't undo Einsteinian physics completely, but merely push beyond them. Einstein revealed Newton's laws to be only approximately correct, but they were still laregly correct.

The above is pretty much true as I see it. Point particle physics has been errant for some time and the standard model is certainly in need of correction: http://www.quantummatter.com/space-reso ... -particle/



Somewhere in all of this is a simple explanation for the faster than light speed neutrino's.

I've sometimes wondered if the conceptual structure of a theory could predict all experimental results, yet still be wrong. For example, there are two equally valid methods to conceptually describe a necker cube if you see it on paper. Both would be correct. Yet, perhaps there is some slight difference. Let's say the lines of ink used to draw the necker cube were drawn in such a way that they show the original artist's intent. They show that the artist wanted the cube to pop "out" rather than "in". Visually, nothing changes, but one of the conceptual descriptions is false.

You can't undo the previous evidence, even if you find new evidence that goes against the theory. Whatever theory we think up to replace an old one does not start from scratch. It must explain all previous observations as well. Which means that if these experimental results are true and Einstein was wrong, the upgrade or replacement will predict the same results as Einstein's theory did in the vast majority of cases.

Maybe the FTL neutrino goes against Einstein's theory of relativity, but whatever theory arises from this new information will probably be compatible with Einsteinian physics up to a point. As johnson says, there is a vast body of evidence that supports Einstein's theories. The new theory will, however, necessarily reveal some unforeseen contingency or dimension of space-time that we previously have not considered. It will be like getting a more powerful lens for our telescope, revealing more detail than we've been able to see before. This could be the beginning of a new paradigm for physics. I can't wait to hear of confirming evidence of the FTL neutrino and the new theories that will follow.

Agree.

I just think it's too bad when a reporter goes off the road like that. People less interested in the subject and less familiar with science's track record on new understanding might take away that everything we thought we knew was all just made-up bullshit.

What will the stahrwe's, the Tomas hood's and the katelyn's make of that article? Ignorance spreads like wildfire and understanding advances at a crawl. We could do without knee-jerk reactions like that.

It is important to look at history. Newton wasn't completely right. But he was mostly right. When Einstein came along and gave us a more complete understanding, it didn't invalidate the things that newton had right. But that isn't the way this article makes it sound.

When we found out E=mc2, what went up, still had to come down.*

Krauthammer's hyperbole didn't bother me at first, but I totally see where you're coming from. It's a shame that the writer felt he needed to exaggerate the significance of this discovery because it is, in its own right, mind-bogglingly cool and amazing. It doesn't have to render Einstein's theories moot to be cool and is a gross inaccuracy to claim that it does.

I'm not very conversant on this subject, but I suspect that it's important to remember that Newtonian physics still applies to most conditions in the real world. Einstein's special relativity comes into play under extreme conditions such as a black hole.

The media usually does get science wrong in its attempt to mass produce for mass appeal.

from Wikipedia . . .

The predictions of special relativity agree well with Newtonian mechanics in their common realm of applicability, specifically in experiments in which all velocities are small compared with the speed of light. Special relativity reveals that c is not just the velocity of a certain phenomenon—namely the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (light)—but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified as spacetime. One of the consequences of the theory is that it is impossible for any particle that has rest mass to be accelerated to the speed of light.

Without really understanding what "rest mass" is, I think it's possible that neutrinos may qualify as an aberration to the norm and Einstein's theory remains substantially correct just as for most applications Newtonian physics does.

I love this cartoon, and it got me to thinking about Nobel Prizes in the sciences. It seems that most of the stories about prize winners (including some from this year) include the fact that they were, at one time, ridiculed, ostracized, accused of sloppy or falsified research, and on and on. Of course, they all eventually came out winners, and I think this demonstrates the value of caution and "reasonable" debate, as opposed to knee-jerk reactions based on adherence to the "religious dogma" of some researchers as they desperately try to hang on to past theories (often their own) for the security they provide both in reputation and in monetary return. I, for one, always hold out the hope that I will lose that $200 bet.

I've been reading more on this in search of a logical explanation for the mystery. The "broker" effect of space in the act of instantaneous action may solve this whole thing: http://www.quantummatter.com/space-reso ... ural-laws/

In a chat with astronomers about the relation between Newton and Einstein, I found out that this characterisation of relativity as only coming into play in extreme conditions is not quite right. In fact, all modern cosmology depends on relativity. Not only does it bend space and time, it bends your mind, for example with the idea that gravity is not a force. We have to take general relativity into account to manage global positioning systems, so relativity is closer than black holes. Geo's term "the real world", rather like "common sense", can be a dangerous beast, as it carries the implicit assumption that our big universe is not part of the real world.

An irony of the paradigm shift from Newton to Einstein is that in a sense it restored Plato and Aristotle's ancient distinction between the superlunary (the perfect realm beyond the moon) and the sublunary (the imperfect realm of terrestrial appearance). Newtonian mechanics is an excellent approximation of relativity, and works fully for all practical purposes on earth. But as soon as we get off the earth, and especially beyond the sphere of the moon, we need Einstein to explain what is going on. This was originally proven in 1920 when measurement of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury proved Einstein right. To get a sense of how accurate relativity is, check out these numbers.

So do FTL neutrinos presage a paradigm shift? I would not have a clue. But the discussion is interesting, and points to the real need for paradigm shifts, especially regarding climate change and religion. Current dominant approaches on both of these topics are based on wrong data, and the prevailing mindsets are approaching sudden collapse. I don't think you can say that about relativity, which remains a largely accurate basis for cosmology.

I confess, I am really bad at remembering details on relativity. Special Relativity and General Relativity remind me of the traditional theological categories Special Revelation and General Revelation. I wonder why Einstein chose to usurp special and general which were well established theological categories? Maybe it was a deliberate part of an effort to engineer a paradigm shift from religion to science?

This is a simple matter of me not being very skilled in talking about such mind-boggling things as space-time. Of course it's all part of the real world. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

It might be more accurate to say that Einsteinian physics applies when we require a more accurate reckoning of what's going on, but again I might be spouting off.

Leave it to the experts, I say. These FTL neutrinos might be easily explained after all, leaving Einsteinian physics perfectly intact.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/ar ... 0/?ref=rss

Here's one attempt to replicate the results.

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chi ... ?id=190357