New Report Casts Doubt on CERN's Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Result

MY question is this? Why is it so hard and unthinkable to maybe admit Einstein was not the know all end all when it comes to physics? Why couldn't there be some theory that due to technological capabilities we are just know discovering? Something that Einstein was unaware of? Just seems stupid and short sided to scream about how its not impossible or a fluke or altered test results.

Originally posted by w810i

Just seems stupid and short sided to scream about how its not impossible or a fluke or altered test results.

No one is saying it's impossible. No one it saying it's a fluke. And, absolutely no one is claiming that the test results were altered in any way.

What we have here is an experiment which seems to defy a multitude of other experiments. The scientists involved have the right to be skeptical.

Sorry I wasn't referring to the article itself but rather some of the posts in this thread.

reply to post by w810i


I was talking about both, though I was in a hurry, so I didn't necessarily make it clear. Though, I will agree, anyone completely disregarding this experiment is shortsighted and narrow-minded. If the results are found to be legitimate, then there's no more to say...something is wrong with current theory.

Originally posted by CLPrime
If the results are found to be legitimate, then there's no more to say...something is wrong with current theory.

I just looked through the Unsolved problems in physics in wikipedia.

Previously neutrinos were listed in 2 of the 51 unsolved problems in physics there (I think), and now wiki shows the CERN neutrino velocity problem as a third unsolved neutrino problem out of now 52 unsolved problems in physics listed in Wikipedia.

So, it's not like neutrinos weren't a little bit mysterious already, or that current theory explained everything about them, which it didn't.

These are the three listings involving neutrinos now, the last one is the latest finding at CERN:

Fundamental symmetries and neutrinos
What is the nature of the neutrinos, what are their masses, and how have they shaped the evolution of the universe? Why is there now more detectable matter than antimatter in the universe? What are the unseen forces that were present at the dawn of the universe but disappeared from view as the universe evolved?

Neutrino mass
What is the mechanism responsible for generating neutrino masses? Is the neutrino its own antiparticle? Or could it be an antiparticle that simply cannot join and annihilate with a normal particle because of its irregular state?

OPERA neutrino anomaly
The Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (OPERA) is an experiment to test the phenomenon of neutrino oscillations. In September 2011, CERN and OPERA announced that time of flight measurements made by their collaboration had indicated muon neutrinos traveling at faster than lightspeed. What is the explanation for this anomaly?

Reading that kind of gives the impression we already didn't have a very good handle on neutrinos even before the latest episode at CERN.

But physicists would be bored if they didn't have any problems to solve so at least this gives them more questions to answer.

Originally posted by w810i
MY question is this? Why is it so hard and unthinkable to maybe admit Einstein was not the know all end all when it comes to physics? Why couldn't there be some theory that due to technological capabilities we are just know discovering? Something that Einstein was unaware of?

Einstein himself would admit he couldn't explain the gap between relativity and quantum mechanics and he tried to develop a unified field theory but was never able to do so.

The thing that makes exceeding the speed of light harder to grasp than some other new unknown aspect of nature, is that the limit of the speed of light seems to be so well documented already. But as I just pointed out, we hadn't even solved all the unsolved problems regarding neutrinos before the CERN OPERA team report.

We did finally solve the solar neutrino problem, we think, but that took a long time, partly because of even more aspects of neutrinos that weren't understood.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I noticed that.
Though, the other problems are more general, and also aren't all that neutrino-specific. Where do neutrinos get their mass? Well, we ask that of every particle in existence. And the first question is similar.

This is the first true neutrino-centric mystery scientists have encountered since the solar neutrino fiasco you mentioned, and certainly the first one to seriously challenge the entire paradigm of modern astrophysics.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I noticed that.
Though, the other problems are more general, and also aren't all that neutrino-specific. Where do neutrinos get their mass? Well, we ask that of every particle in existence. And the first question is similar.

It's not just where they get their mass though that is a question.

First, the question was: "do they even have mass"? and now that the answer seems to be "yes", what is the mass? Since we know the masses of many other particles that tends to make the neutrino more unique but even moreso when we consider the measurements of mass were NEGATIVE! Thus, I think we have had some neutrino-centric problems between the solar neutrino problem and the OPERA experiment:

Laboratory measurements and limits for neutrino properties

The mass of electron neutrinos is measured in tritium beta decay experiments. The decay results in a 3-helium, electron and an electron antineutrino. If neutrinos have non-zero mass, the spectrum of the electrons is deformed at the high energy part, i.e. the neutrino mass determines the maximum energy of emitted electrons.

To be exact, the experiments measure the neutrino mass squared. Curiously, when taken at the face value, all results point to a negative mass squared, particularly the oldest experiment. This is probably due to a systematic error, and actually two running experiments, Mainz and Troitsk, have been able to measure physically acceptable values.

That was written in 2005 and I am not sure if the negative mass issue has been resolved since then, but either way, it seems like an example of a neutrino-centric problem since the solar neutrino problem.

Interestingly, that web page also mentions the possibility of systematic errors for the negative mass which are also cited as possibilities for the CERN OPERA team results.

Now here's an interesting question. If the OPERA findings turn out to be true/verified, then would the negative mass measurements for neutrinos take on a new meaning other than a possible systematic error?

Originally posted by spikey
I was making a point about professional physicists and other scientists dismissing the results out of hand, claiming errors, mistakes, skulduggery or anything else on the tip of their tongues before having a chance to replicate or investigate personally, simply because accepted THEORY, says that the experiment result is impossible.

I just re-read the hardcopy of CERN Bulletin with some details on error analysis in the beamline at CERN. Neither there, or in previous seminars at CERN, there were any "professional physicists dismissing the results out of hand". So by and large, you are fighting a straw man.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Negative mass-squared (that is, imaginary mass) would indicate tachyon neutrinos. QM predicts that tachyons will be spinless fermions, which neutrinos (and all other ordinary particles) are not. So, tachyon neutrinos violate either Relativity or QM.
If neutrinos violated Relativity only, they would have real mass, not imaginary mass, and they would not be spin-1/2.
The only possibility, then, is that Quantum Field Theory is wrong.

The negative mass-squared result demands that QFT is wrong but that Relativity is right.
The superluminal neutrino result demands that Relativity is wrong but that QFT is right.

Head exploded yet?

reply to post by CLPrime

I suppose it's possible or even probable that they violate neither QFT nor Relativity if they do find a systematic error, but if they don't find such an error, those are some interesting possibilities to consider. I don't know if anyone's head will explode but a lot of people will be busy if the FTL result is confirmed, and we might at least look at the negative mass measurements in a new light in that case. I'm going to try to be patient and see what the replication experiments find, though I wonder if they couldn't also be subject to systematic errors. I suppose it depends on the type of error.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


At least we know now that it's not a "simple" timing error.

we might at least look at the negative mass measurements in a new light in that case.

Though, as I said, the two are mutually exclusive. That "new light" would be one of two possible conclusions: either the negative mass-squared result was erroneous, or both GR and QFT are partially wrong. That would certainly explode some heads.

An update on the Icarus result. Good work there.