E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
CERN
The CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso experiment sends muon neutrinos through a tunnel at the French-Swiss border in the direction of a detector in Italy, more than 450 miles away.
Months after researchers reported that they measured neutrinos traveling faster than light, they're finding that the incredible result may have been due to a bad connection rather than a violation of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity.
The potential instrumental glitches, first reported by ScienceInsider's Edwin Cartlidge, is addressed in a statement from the OPERA Collaboration, the group behind the controversial neutrino-beam experiments.
Last year, the OPERA team made ultra-precise measurements of how long it took for neutrinos to make the 450-mile (732-kilometer) trip between the CERN particle physics lab on the French-Swiss border and Italy's Gran Sasso National Laboratory. When they took the speed of light and a wide variety of other experimental factors into consideration, they determined that the neutrinos arrived 60 nanoseconds before they should have.
If the results were to stand up, they'd mark the first failed test for Einstein's century-old theory. That's one reason why researchers found them so hard to believe, even though a repetition of the experiment yielded the same results. The OPERA team has been reviewing the entire experiment, and several other research groups have been trying to replicate it. A key concern has been the Global Positioning Satellite system used to clock the neutrinos' transit time. The measurements are required to be so precise that the relativistic effects of Earth's gravitational field on the GPS system had to be taken into account.
Now sources familiar with the OPERA review say scientists have identified two potential problems with the experimental apparatus. One has to do with a fiber-optic connector that sends a GPS time stamp to the experiment's master clock. That connector may not have been functioning correctly when the neutrino-timing measurements were made, and as a result, the recorded flight time would be shorter than the actual time. That alone could explain the seemingly faster-than-light results.
Another potential problem has to do with the oscillator that was used to generate the time stamps for GPS synchronization. This problem could have made the flight time look longer than it really was.
The sources I contacted via email declined to be identified because they weren't authorized to speak in advance of the statement issued Thursday. One of the scientists said the glitches should not be characterized as "errors," but instead as "nasty instrumental effects."
CERN spokesman James Gillies confirmed that the GPS connector problem was being investigated, but he emphasized that the effects still had to be confirmed. "More beam will be needed before we know for sure," he told me in an email. Tests with short pulsed beams have been scheduled for May.
Update for 9 a.m. ET Feb. 23: CERN has issued the expected statement about the potential glitches:
"The OPERA collaboration has informed its funding agencies and host laboratories that it has identified two possible effects that could have an influence on its neutrino timing measurement. These both require further tests with a short pulsed beam. If confirmed, one would increase the size of the measured effect, the other would diminish it. The first possible effect concerns an oscillator used to provide the time stamps for GPS synchronizations. It could have led to an overestimate of the neutrino's time of flight. The second concerns the optical fibre connector that brings the external GPS signal to the OPERA master clock, which may not have been functioning correctly when the measurements were taken. If this is the case, it could have led to an underestimate of the time of flight of the neutrinos. The potential extent of these two effects is being studied by the OPERA collaboration. New measurements with short pulsed beams are scheduled for May."
Update for 1:53 p.m. ET Feb. 23: Here's a similar statement from Italy's nuclear research institute, INFN:
"The OPERA Collaboration, by continuing its campaign of verifications on the neutrino velocity measurement, has identified two issues that could significantly affect the reported result. The first one is linked to the oscillator used to produce the event's time-stamps in between the GPS synchronizations. The second point is related to the connection of the optical fiber bringing the external GPS signal to the OPERA master clock.
"These two issues can modify the neutrino time of flight in opposite directions. While continuing our investigations, in order to unambiguously quantify the effect on the observed result, the Collaboration is looking forward to performing a new measurement of the neutrino velocity as soon as a new bunched beam will be available in 2012. An extensive report on the above mentioned verifications and results will be shortly made available to the scientific committees and agencies."
More about those pesky neutrinos:
- Faster-than-light neutrinos pass test
- Neutrinos spark wild scientific leaps
- Faster-than-light neutrinos? Not so fast, some say
- Challenging Einstein is usually a losing venture
- Interactive: Putting Einstein to the test
- 'Virtually Speaking Science': Podcast on weird physics
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or following the Cosmic Log Google+ page. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
A lot of physics is based on Einstein's theory. I was skeptical when faster than light neutrinos were 'discovered'. This is how science works. A discovery is announced and other researchers critique the effort and/or try to duplicate the results. Solid theories withstand the critiques and the test of time.
We might long since have had the answer if the collider in Texas had not been cancelled. Too bad we spend more on Botox or Cialis than we spend on good science. With no more cold war the future of funding is bleak.
Hey is this anything like my old video cards (4870X2) in quadfire computing 4 work units in BOINC in roughly the same time as one HD 6970 can compute four work units?
Or is there some higher mathamatical model that can predict neutrinos travelling faster than light.
@Doubtful
No, actually. A longer flight time means that for the same distance, the time of travel is longer. Since velocity is distance per time (d/t), increasing the time on the bottom makes the velocity smaller.
Human error. No one is perfect.
Look hard enough for an excuse not to believe the result you'll find one. Setting physics back yet another 50yrs. Any excuse at all not to break their fake holy grail.
Huh? Please explain what you mean? You think there is a conspiracy to prop up relativity? Seriously? What planet do you come from?
When I first heard that particles had traveled faster than the speed of light by "a few nanoseconds", i wasn't exactly sold on the idea that Einstein's general relativity theory had been violated. It was just a matter a time before a mechanical issue was to blame for this.
I find it downright bizarre how many people seem to think that there is a conspiracy happening here.
Yes what goes on at CERN really is quite alarming and in Truth had they achieved their actually aims: to create a black hole we may not now have the opportunity to comment on their incompetence. Perhaps rather ironically we have been saved by it! The LHC was set with major set backs, told a considerable amount of lies and wthreaten the universe with a less well designed disaster policy that BP's Deep Water Horizon you can read more on how close we came here w43w.com/no-higgs-boson-puts-cern-safety-assurances-into-bps-deep-water/
you can read more on how close we came here w43w.com/no-higgs-boson-puts-cern-safety-assurances-into-bps-deep-water/
Einstein wins again! But it would be nice to have the world that science fiction imagines but without all the blood and drama.
I had read some where that Dr.Albert Einstein said and wrote at the time that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. But i have yet to find that he ever said that it was the maximum speed of light. Please corect me if I am Wrong withe relevant links to read up on your reply .
Thanks
You are wrong. His theory also says that nothing can exceed the speed of light. It would basically take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate anything with mass to the speed of light. Light (photons) travel at light speed because they are mass-less.
I don't have a specific link for you but there are many book written for the layman that explain the special and general theories of relativity. Special came first and was 'special' because it only dealt with bodies moving at constant velocity. Most object in the universe move with accelerated velocities and are cover in the 'general' theory. It's actually much easier to understand then most would have you believe.
186,000 miles/second is the maximum speed of light in vacuum. Light travelling in a media (water, glass etc) has a speed slower than 186,000 miles/second. For example, light can be slowed down to 38 mph in a Bose-Einstein condensate. In such a condensate, nothing can go faster than 38 mph, the speed of light in that media. Einstein's relativity is not about "what was the maximum speed of light".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#In_a_medium
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/655518.stm
I guess 'ultra precise measurement' is a relative term.
You people know NOTHING! Can't you see, that if a particle with a mass greater than zero were to accelerate so that its velocity is less than .00000237% different than ACTUAL light speed (not perceived light speed, which scientists have been wrongly assuming to be roughly 186,000 miles per second), that particle would instantaneously generate infinite heat, and that heat would then increase exponentially in an infinitely small amount of time, and would instantly annihilate the entire universe, taking scientific knowledge and everything else along with it, at a point in time .00000237 seconds BEFORE the particle began to move in the first place? The time shift alone would crumble whole galaxies, but the heat? Forget it!
If therefore such a particle exists, we must bring the full weight of our incredible and laughable scientific knowledge to bear to make sure that particle (by necessity there can only be one), does NOT move!
Good one....nice try
I think it's very ironic that they needed to take into account relativity to use the GPS signals in order to show that relativity is not correct!
Very nice, johnny2. :-)
Although the intent wasn't to disprove SR, that was the apparent outcome. More ironic was the time difference when factoring in SR was 64 ns slower. However, the OPERA team did take into account SR in their setup.
No, the fact that they had use the Monte Carlo analysis to setup the experiment clearly indicates the "error" must be in the "nasty instrumental effects." By that they mean they have no quantitative analysis and data to include those effects in the Monte Carlo simulations.
PS, Monte Carlo analysis is a method used to calculate the expected error in any particular parameter in the setup that would contribute the desired measurement. So, we use it to select instruments and verify the configuration of the instruments and sensor and timing frames.
Looks like the Accidental Time Machine is broken again. I'm predicting a new Joe Haldeman novel out of this.
Read that. Pretty good for a soft scifi novel.
This reminds me of the Southpark episode and Hawkins famous statement.
Basically, "If time travel is possible, where are all the time traveling tourist?"
Tech support always has me check if it's plugged in first.
I must use this opportunity to express my disapproval of the way this is being reported. I think nearly the entire scientific community expected an error as it was such an anomalous observation. To my knowledge, it was never published or reported as fact that a neutrino was recorded going faster than light. It irritates me to no end the way MSNBC has written these two articles as if "SCIENTISTS" go bonkers every time something happens that is unusual and claim all current theories are overturned. This is not what happened, this is not what scientists do and reading these two articles is enough to make a paranoid person like me think that MSNBC at best doesn't understand science and discretion in reporting about it, and at worst is trying to make these experiments and science look bad.
It's MSNBC. What do you expect? I don't think the even have editors or proof readers anymore.
We are their proof readers. They put up the rough draft. Read all the complaints, then tweak the story. Seriously, it happens all the time. A story will be full of errors in the morning, and a couple hours and many complaints later, they will be gone. Pathetic practice. "Just get it up, well patch it later".
Just accept that this is SOP at MSNBC and you will get a lot less annoyed. It's second rate and I doubt it will change.
Neutrinos are not effected by gravity. Light is. NASA has recently proven that the mass of our planet distorts space/time through it's mass and subsequent gravity. If Neutrinos are not effected by gravity, it would not be restricted to following the path of a distorted spacetime. So to make it basic, it would be like having a small hole in the ground, if you could draw a straight line OVER (line a) the hole and a line following the landmass of the hole (line b) and both left point A at the same time.. wouldn't line a reach point B before line b? We may not be able to SEE this distortion thanks to our eyes being light specific but light would be forced to travel the gravitational distored path while the neutrinos bypassed the distortion all together. Thus "appearing" to be travel faster than light, when it actually just traveled a shorter distance being free from gravitationally distorted space/time. Just sayin...
Let's disabuse this notion that a scientific theory is unsubstanstiated knowledge. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Pedagogical_definition
In pedagogical contexts or in official pronouncements by scientific organizations a definition such as the following may be promulgated.
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,
According to this definition, a theory must be well supported by evidence. Furthermore, the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models. Consumers of science may find the above definition useful when evaluating the validity and/or efficacy of a theory.
So if somehow something shows you the future. A future that can not be changed. And light had nothing to do with it. Or light has everything to do with it. Or should I say the speed of light had nothing to do with it? Or that light has everything to do with knowing the future? Predictions are one thing but absolute knowlegde of the future is another. Will science know the future as fact not as a prediction? Not as a prediction but as fact. Maybe so someday. Predictions are self leading. Facts can hidden and it stays factual whether they are seen or not. But it is great to have science lead the way rather than guess our way back up the out of the muck. I would take all this back but I don't want to delete it...
If anything were traveling away from you at greater than the speed of light, you would never be able to detect it.
you can't prove math wrong.
Well, you can always cross your fingers and hope the instrumentation holds up to scrutiny... in that case perhaps look towards Buckhart Heim's theories for answers.
A couple of posters had questions: oscillators tend to run slower if there are power discrepancies. Even the 36khz oscillator in your quartz watch will do this - so the clock or watch looses time just before it dies. This would indicate less elapsed time in this example, and the bad connection may have either caused it or amplified it depending on which side of the oscillator it was on.
I've got a 9MHz (instead of 36KHz) wall clock that was a gift for a NASA consulting job many years ago. It uses 2XC cells rather than 1XAA cells like your standard issue, and you should see it go crazy with the first current surge when resetting or changing batteries.