Particles found to break speed of light

Comments (113)
Prudens wrote:

The theory of relativity is based on the speed of light in a vacuum. It doesn’t seem like the case reported is in a vacuum. There is one other famous case where the speed of light is exceeded- Cherenkov radiation.

Sep 22, 2011 2:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
calvinbama wrote:

good thing we (humanity) got this place built before the era of austerity or else these secrets would probably remain hidden for decades maybe centuries

Sep 22, 2011 2:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Gaius_Baltar wrote:

I thought the standard model postulated tachyons as a faster-than-light particle.

Sep 22, 2011 3:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MarketForce wrote:

60 billionths of a second difference over 500 miles of travel? Sounds like operator error. This is pretty lame. Recall that these are the same people who now speculate the universe was begun by two universes located 30 meters apart, and one started to leak gravity into the other. When you can say that with a straight face….. you’ve pretty much thrown science out the door.

Sep 22, 2011 3:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MovieGuru83 wrote:

Science isn’t exactly my strong suit, by an measure. But this seems like there could easily be a flaw here. The way the article describes it, this particle made the trip between CERN and Gran Saso. And the time it took was faster than if light traveled between the same two points, without them having had actually sent light between the same two points. It seems possible that if they don’t use the EXACT distance to a nanometer, it could throw the measurement off enough to come up with false data. It would seem to me that only true way to know if the particle can actually travel faster than the speed of light, they would basically have to have a race. That was the first thing I thought of. It just seems to be a stretch that even the greatest scientist in the world could measure a distance like that so precisely (taking into differences in altitude and all). Since they’d have to use that distance to determine how fast light could travel over the same distance. Also, how are they able to track a single subatomic particle through even rock and water, as they say? Do the particles they track have some kind of distinct characteristic that the ones that pass through us on daily basis do not?

Sure, this is important discovery, if true. And I’m sure this article has left the vast majority of the information necessary to determine the accuracy. But color me skeptical.

Sep 22, 2011 4:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
aftra wrote:

This is only a beginning of understanding what light is. light is nothing but data stream that human have yet to figure out. Decode the light and you wlll see the hidden message.

Sep 22, 2011 4:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

May I suggest running “Light” through the chamber to determine if it arrives 60nanoseconds faster then it is supposed to?

Thanks~

Sep 22, 2011 4:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
stimpson65 wrote:

MarketForce wrote:

“60 billionths of a second difference over 500 miles of travel? Sounds like operator error. This is pretty lame. Recall that these are the same people who now speculate the universe was begun by two universes located 30 meters apart, and one started to leak gravity into the other. When you can say that with a straight face….. you’ve pretty much thrown science out the door. ”

I’m not a scientist by profession but even I know enough to know that the statements I just read in the comment quoted above are so unbelievably ignorant that it boggles the mind.

Sep 22, 2011 4:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
nicer wrote:

This one goes out to every wise guy who in argument about evolution or global warming points to scientific ‘fact’. It’s called a theory because science has an agnostic gear in it and nobody really knows which one is going to be proven wrong next – this being one of the many that were generally believed to be ‘fact’.

Sep 22, 2011 4:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

May I suggest running “Light” through the chamber to see if it measures 60 Nanoseconds faster then it is supposed measure?

Sep 22, 2011 4:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JPMorgan wrote:

I’d wager its more like a Newtons cradle thing. The original particles may have bumped some others and transferred their energy. How can they be certain the particles they released are the same as the ones that arrived?

I wrote this tomorrow, btw :)

Sep 22, 2011 4:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@Prudens….Cherenkov radiation is from electrons, or maybe neutrons not 100% sure, travelling NEAR the speed of light slowing down an emitting radiation, usually a blueish light.

But this could be VERY interesting if confirmed.

Sep 22, 2011 4:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ScoJo77 wrote:

@MarketForce they’re measuring neutrinos, where nanoseconds are more relevant than say, driving across town. Even 1 nanosecond faster implies they could possibly escape from a black hole. While I’m sure “operator error” is still a possibility, they’ve studied for three years, not just standing around with stopwatches.

Sep 22, 2011 4:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MarketForce wrote:

“Light would have covered the distance in around 2.4 thousandths of a second.”

“…However, our particles made it through the tunnel in around….. 2.4 thousandths of a second. Send more money and we’ll get to the bottom of this pressing mystery.”

Sep 22, 2011 4:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JoeObserver wrote:

we dont know .0001% of the truth.The world is mystery. All these thories are wrong.

Sep 22, 2011 4:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SubTachyon wrote:

Cherenkov radiation is caused by electrons (had it in a lecture just couple of days ago) and it is faster than a speed of light in that medium, not faster than the stpeed of light in a vacuum. So nothing extraordinary there.

This measurement is intriguing. I have some faith that the scientists didn’t make such silly mistakes as some of you here are suggesting but as any reasonably person should I will remain skeptical until other teams of scientists begin to confirm the measurement.

Sep 22, 2011 4:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

To be technically correct, what Einstein’s theory of relativity said was that nothing could achieve the speed of light … from either direction. There is nothing in the theory that precludes particles traveling faster than light is they are created already traveling faster than the speed of light and can never slow down to sub-light (relative to us) velocities. Physicists have called these theoretical particles “Tachyons” and it may be that nutrinos are the first recognized Tachyons.

Sep 22, 2011 4:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JeffWC wrote:

The media story leaves out a most of the details. These are high energy physicist at CERN. If you can think of a reason it is not correct in 10 min sitting at your computer they have also thought of these reasons. Operator error, correct distance, etc. They wouldnt release this discovery without checking such easy things. Dont be naive.

Sep 22, 2011 4:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Dr.Cthulhu wrote:

Cherenkov radiation is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through a dielectric medium at a speed greater than the phase velocity of light in THAT medium.

So as long as this wasn’t tested in a vacuum…everything we know is still right

Sep 22, 2011 4:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
GCAST wrote:

Guaranteed light would make it through the chamber at the same speed if not faster. Gravity can mess with time at high distances/speeds

Sep 22, 2011 5:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
mjsully21 wrote:

I agree with “JeffWC” you can assume that these guys are not going to come out and say “Hey, I think the Theory of Relativity might have some flaws and we actual may have disproved it” without going over data and tests thoroughly and thoughtfully.

Also, why is everyone so quick to close the book on this? I actually tweeted 2 days ago (@Sully21) that I refuse to believe Faster Than Light travel is impossible. Open your minds and accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, everything we think we know in this world might not be fact or set in stone.

600 years ago we proved we are not at the center of the solar system.

500 years ago we proved the world was not flat

Why is it so hard to believe that this year or next might mark the date of when we proved that FTL is possible?

Just keep your mind open.

Sep 22, 2011 5:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
fatmike182 wrote:

according to Geoff Brumfiel from Nature (@gbrumfiel), it’s LNGS not CERN, so a little more km more south-east: http://twitter.com/gbrumfiel/status/116960738291089408

Sep 22, 2011 5:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gruven137 wrote:

Just wake me up when I can travel backward or forward in time.

Sep 22, 2011 5:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Yirmin wrote:

Okay two photons are flying through space toward each other… clearly they can’t see but if they could and they were the only things in space what would the outcome be? The photons are traveling at the speed of light…. assume one photon can think… it has no reference point in space to determine how fast it is moving other than the other photon… they close in on each other at 2 times the speed of light and speed away from each other after passing at 2 times the speed of light…. relative to each other and assuming nothing else existed in the space…. the speed of light is broken.

Sep 22, 2011 5:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TomChan wrote:

I think their facility is 140 meters underground, not 1400 meters:
http://proj-cngs.web.cern.ch/proj-cngs/Download/UndergroundStructures/CNGSUndergroundb.htm

Sep 22, 2011 5:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
a.chohan wrote:

approximately 1400 years ago, it is already proved. anyhow, carry on with today’s research. :-)

Sep 22, 2011 6:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MarketForce wrote:

JeffWC assures: “They wouldnt release this discovery without checking such easy things. Dont be naive.”

Apparently JeffWC has never worked in a competitive grant-writing environment. Or at the very least, has not thrived in one. Hype butters the bread, kid. Don’t be naive.

Sep 22, 2011 6:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Joe_Harner wrote:

@Yirmin “they close in on each other at 2 times the speed of light and speed away from each other after passing at 2 times the speed of light… relative to each other…” “…speed of light is broken”

For staters, I will simply state: No. You are wrong. Next time, look up what Einstein’s theory of *RELATIVITY* states and pose your hypothetical as a question, not as a grade-school level math proof.

Sep 22, 2011 6:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
LukeL wrote:

I gotta back up JeffWC. You guys are all raising objections anyone who’s taken a high school physics course and has access to Wikipedia could think of. Good for you. You must really have a low regard for the top scientists in the world to think they could spend three years working on something this revolutionary and not think about the objections all you guys came up with in one afternoon.

Sep 22, 2011 6:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ImranAnwar wrote:

There are a few things that travel move faster than light.

Dangerous rumors, conspiracy theories, stupid ideas, and critical office deadlines.

Imran Anwar
IMRAN.TV

Sep 22, 2011 6:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
effoff wrote:

Great Scott! 1.21 Gigawatts!

Sep 22, 2011 6:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
peter.foster wrote:

So do these results suggest that FTL (faster than light) time travel only occurs at speeds in great excess of the speed of light? If these particles moved FTL and arived 60 nanoseconds after they were sent in the frame of refference of the reciving station 500 miles away; then they weren’t moving backwards in time. Anyone one know of a theory that predicts the excess of light speed needed to obtain backwards time travel of a nuetrino?
Until they are sending things that arrive before they left I won’t be impressed ;). Just kidding, this is really cool and exciting but I don’t know enough about special relativity and FTL objects to know if I should be very sceptical of these resutls or not. From undergraduate phisics I got the notion that as soon as objects traveled FTL they were moving backwards in time in the frame of refference of the person reciving or documenting the arrival of the FTL object; that’s why the theoretical particles tachyons are not observable because they are perpetually moving FTL and backwards in time. Is this violation of Causality essential to all FTL objects or can particles move slightly FTL but slower than tachyons and not be moving back in time? Anyone know where I could learn more about this? Preferably not wikipedia please.

Sep 22, 2011 7:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
villefort wrote:

“JeffWC assures: “They wouldnt release this discovery without checking such easy things. Dont be naive.”

Apparently JeffWC has never worked in a competitive grant-writing environment. Or at the very least, has not thrived in one. Hype butters the bread, kid. Don’t be naive.”

We’re talking about CERN not your state university

Sep 22, 2011 7:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
60Hz wrote:

does this really contradict special relativity? i thought it allowed for particles to be faster than light, it’s the change in speed from sub light speed to faster than light (and vice versa?) is supposed to be impossible… anyway, the comments here are a lot better than most of the other sites i visited where commentors announce doomsday is coming because of the apparent error of einstein’s theory, though i’m sure 99% of those people have no clue what the theory even means…

Sep 22, 2011 8:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
60Hz wrote:

@Yirmin – please look up relativity before stating such things, there are some good videos on youtube to get you up to speed mighty quick.

Sep 22, 2011 8:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Fishrl wrote:

This will turn out to be experimental error.

There won’t be any headlines.

Sep 22, 2011 8:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
EricGF wrote:

As matter with mass approaches C, mass approaches infinity. MC^2, then, poses a problem here, unless M < 0. M cannot equal zero, else E would equal 0, and we would not be able to detect nutrinos at all.

Why did matter win over antimatter? It didn't. We just ended up on matter's side of the fence, unable to view the other. But M < 0 particles influenced by M > 0 gravity would behave like pressing like poles of a magnet together.

The LHC, and its successors are going to teach us things we weren’t expecting. Hope we survive the lessons.

Sep 22, 2011 9:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
skidooo wrote:

reading some of the comments made me dumber at a rate faster than the speed of thought.

Sep 22, 2011 10:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Patriot_70 wrote:

“Albert Einstein’s famous equation, e=mc^2, established light’s speed, 186,000 miles per second as the upper boundary for velocity. It also established light’s speed as a “cosmic constant,” as Reuters noted.”

No, he didn’t. He said that the speed of light was 186K from the point of origin of the observer. SoL = SoL+Velocity

They are probably measuring the particles that are eminating from the neutrinos. I’ll bet if they took the speed of light, and added the estimated speed of the particles shot from the collider, then they will find that the numbers balance perfectly.

The enutrinos are hitting light and causing it to reflect with the added speed of the neutrinos.

Sep 22, 2011 10:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jlevine71 wrote:

So, does this mean I should hold off studying for the MCAT?

Sep 22, 2011 10:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
abbottsys wrote:

Neutrino time of flight measurements are this accurate? Right. Oh boy. Get a grip!!!

Sep 22, 2011 10:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Smittylinc wrote:

This has a lot less to do with Einstein’s theory of relativity and more to do with string theory. The author should have clarified Einstein theorized that ordinary particles could not surpass “c” instead of using his name for a shocking headline.

Sep 22, 2011 10:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Nirudha wrote:

I think that original comment by Prudens makes a very good point. I am sure we will hear more of this as it gets reviewed by other scientist.

Sep 22, 2011 10:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
kmcguirk wrote:

Sounds like they’ve been pretty thorough… but I still believe some flaw in the experiment will be found, or some explanation other than FTL travel by the neutrinos.

Don’t start trying to build your warp engines yet. Relativity has stood the test of time… even when it dilates.

Sep 22, 2011 10:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BenYehooda wrote:

Nutrinos are faster then photons, as they are not only particles but altitude and latitude waves as well.

Wave of light, like waves of water have different speeds.

Please see “Grand Mechanical, a Theory of Everything” on Amazon.
Or Contact me on the Grand Mechanical page on Facebook.

Sep 22, 2011 11:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
pfg921 wrote:

tachyon is hypothetical, neutrino is not

Sep 22, 2011 11:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ReadmeHere wrote:

Isn’t the whole concept of “space-time” and “time not being constant” based on the fact that light speed is the speed limit of the universe and therefore time itself varies?

Since light speed apparently isn’t the universe’s speed limit, isn’t the “space-time” concept dead?

—————————-

On the other hand I read that there are actual practical examples of time variation, for example on GPS satellites and high precision clocks being flown at high speed, so now I don’t know what to believe…

Sep 22, 2011 11:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
avgprsn wrote:

Some people live in a universe, others a multiverse.
Multiverse is much more interesting.

Sep 22, 2011 11:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gastrafitis wrote:

Well, information can only be transmitted no faster than the speed of light, let alone the relatively slow speed of electricity which is used to initiate any light. Electricity is also extremely sensitive to environmental influences affecting the speed or efficiency at which it conducts (Most commonly through inductance.). So to accurately time the transmission and reception of a particle faster than light in different places respectively, one would have to simply be lucky, automatically meaning there is no substance in any test, even statistically. The test they performed I believe was most likely influenced by an unknown phenomena affecting what they saw or even a basic mathematical timing error. Just to process a ‘bit’ or move an electron in a processor takes some kind of time. Whether or not it is true (which I highly doubt), the fact remains we need some kind of information to travel at least as fast as the specimen for comparison, in reflection is not an option.

Sep 22, 2011 12:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
slough222 wrote:

I feel NASA needs to be held repsonsible for their junk. This is rediculous to put everyone the world over in a state of fear needlessly!!

Sep 22, 2011 12:31am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ysshelke wrote:

oh well… something is wrong. The claim is that neutrinos covered a certain distance in 60 billionths of a second less than photons which took 2.4 thousandths of a second. So if you do the math, the speed of the photon (same as the speed of light) is 0.999975 times the speed of the neutrino. If this were true, then the neutrinos from Supernova 1987A which is 168000 light years away, would be (1 – 0.999975) x 168000 = 4.2 years earlier than the light (photons) from this supernova. But the observation was that the neutrinos from this supernova came 3 *hours* before the light (photons) from it. SO the neutrinos were apparently not much faster than light. The light was apparently slowed down by interstellar medium, yet neutrinos were just 3 hours ahead, when this experiment claims they should be 4.2 years ahead.. So I hope this is not a case of scientists trying to make up a stunning result…. please, hope some common sense prevails..

Sep 23, 2011 1:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Old_Ollie wrote:

Supernova 1987-A proved that neutrinos travel at the speed of light. That event occurred ~50,000 LY away, and the neutronos and the photons it produced arrived here at the same time. If neutrinos really traveled as fast as the CERN experiment claims, they would have beat the photons here by nearly 15 months.

Sep 23, 2011 1:53am EDT  --  Report as abuse
sXe wrote:

Unlike Cherenkov radiation, which travels faster than light through the same medium (remember that light only travels through water at 75% the speed it does in a vacuum). This experiment posits that neutrinos can be made to travel through a variety of mediums (water, rock, etc) faster than the constant speed of light in a vacuum (the constant speed of light was used as a known comparison speed, they obviously can’t send light though rock to compare).

Sep 23, 2011 2:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Eric.Klein wrote:

Time to try it over longer distances. Try aiming at TANDAR Laboratory, Buenos Aires or the one in the Antarctic3

Sep 23, 2011 3:50am EDT  --  Report as abuse
MForgue wrote:

@Prudens

The implication I get from the article is that the neutrinos traveled to Gran Sasso (through water, air, and rock) faster than light would have made the trip in a vacuum. But you’re right that it’s not clear from the text.

Sep 23, 2011 3:52am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SebastienM wrote:

Tachyons are hypothetical.
@EricGF : Antimatter doesn’t have a negative mass. Exotic matter, which is highly hypothetical does. And yes, apparently matter won over antimatter.

@ReadmeHere Yes time variations exist, and it’s because time doesn’t flow the same way depending of the speed you’re traveling. Not because of the speed of light or something is going “back in time”. You can see it like if something traveling faster is less affected by time.

Sep 23, 2011 4:16am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Stu_ell wrote:

I really hope this is true.

Would be interesting to hear things like how much energy these neutrinos need to get up to 300,006 km/sec (absolute speed of light in a vacuum 299,792km/sec).

Also, I suggest the esteemed Dr. K do some empirical research on what is being reported before passing further comment (try www.google.com for a start).

It’s sad that folk jump up and down on the Journalist in a shoot the messenger type way, this article is bringing news of something that most people don’t really understand, so give the guy a break. Details are limited but the underlying story is that the speed of light has been exceeded at CERN and yes that is the absolute speed of light in a vacuum.
The absolute 299,792,458 m/s ceiling is in doubt, as neutrino’s have been observed travelling 0.071% faster, and they carry mass too.

Maybe these neutrino’s have more than infinite energy and are travelling backwards in time?
Or maybe the assumptions of Einstein and everyone who followed him are wrong? (which would be a lot of misappropriated human talent)

This experiment has been repeated 15,000 times over 3 years. It was conducted at two world class research centers. Even before today it will have been subject to extensive peer review.
A handful of folk on Reuters comments, with sketchy information, are unlikely to suggest something that has not already been considered.
(I politely direct this at questions about the curvature of the earth and the speed of light through rock)

Read the news of this revelation, because it is a revelation, then go back to whatever it is you do.

I am starting to form the opinion that physical science is so far advanced over contemporary life that throwing more resources at it is a wasteful pursuit that is unlikely to yield anything of use even to our great great grandchildren. Let them explore the niche observations of physics with their superior wealth and technology.

Whilst I look up at the night sky and wonder what is really going on out there, I contribute more to humanity by adding value and creating wealth that can be distributed here on Earth.
For example, furthering our collective understand of string theory adds nothing to peoples quality of life and is therefore a less noble pursuit than a guy making iphone chips in Taiwan.

Too much talent is lost as intelligent people become inspired dreamers and waste their lives chasing difficult problems that add no value.

These people would have been more use as mechanical engineers, solving the problems we experience every day. Instead they contribute nothing but ever more complex and useless ideas.

Sad but true.

Sep 23, 2011 4:29am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SRLNDM wrote:

There is a new book out that discussed this long before CERN manged to prove it Russ is correct based upon CERN’s Experiment.I think the book is called – Bending The Ruler – Bing it

Sep 23, 2011 5:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse

This AP reprint omits report of anything about the latest from physical science concerning the mass of a neutrino. If a neutrino has no appreciable mass, it might not be as significant to e=mc2 theory as this report speculates. However, if neutrinos should be at the more massive end of the scale of possibilities, that and the report from elsewhere that neutrinos may account for a large proportion of the mass in the universe would normally mean that at some future time (maybe in a few minutes) the universe will implode into an unimaginable black hole. In such an eventuality, one would have to agree with Sr. Ereditato that everybody should be very prudent.

Sep 23, 2011 6:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
simiontdragos wrote:

neutrino particles are not affected by the enironment and are passing each day through the earth itself and us (they don’t interact with normal matter).
tachyons are theoretical particales (that means that any particle that travels faster than light could be called a tachyon) so if neutrinos are able to travel with a faster than light speed than they would make good candidtaes to be called tachyons.

Sep 23, 2011 7:05am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SubTachyon wrote:

I am so tired of having to read so many highschool physics drop outs misrepresenting basic scientific laws to prove the top physicists in the world wrong. No you are not being smart. Even as an undergraduate physics student I have to facepalm at the glaring mistakes in your counter-arguments.

Yes. This result is very suprising and may be in contradiction with some of the previous observations such as the supernova observations. But if it’s wrong it’s not because light was reflecting off of the neutrinos hence gaining speed higher than c and you can’t disprove Einsteins speed of light limitation by posing the elementary thought experiment of two photons flying towards each other…

Sep 23, 2011 7:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
spadge wrote:

Most sci-fi is based around a misinterpretation of the time dilation theory Einsteins theory of special relativity (he pinched relativity from elsewhere) which was merely a mathematical model to do with predicting the actual position of distance objects based on apparent position due to the time taken for light to travel from a star to our observer. This would obviously be altered as the speed of the star’s motion approached what we call light speed.

In fact the “curvature of space”, the “uneven explosion of the big bang” and a whole lot more could be more readily and easily explained if they realised that light speed is merely a speed and is relative, there are objects that could be over the visual horizon because relative to us they are travelling faster than the speed of light.

Much of it is just to prove one man or another, red-shift for example was heralded as proof of the big-bang, however it could equally be proof of a big collapse! The red-shift is related to the speed at
which an object is accelerating away from us, not its actual velocity, which we only know relative values for.

Sep 23, 2011 8:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
spadge wrote:

If light is an electromagnetic wave (the reason that light speed was reckoned to be a universal constant) then how could its speed be constant when the fields it travels through are moving? The nearest and dearest source of magnetic field, our earth… is it static? NO, so how can its field be? answer it isn’t, it moves with us, the suns does the same and so does the magnetic field of every single star and galaxy and super galaxy out there. Indeed the whole magnetic eather for our entire visible universe could be moving along at a speed that is “faster than light”

Light speed will also be effected by changes in field density, theroetically when the field density is stronger it will travel faster.

Sep 23, 2011 8:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
spadge wrote:

even if matter and anti-matter exists and are created and destroyed every instant, it would still be an EVEN explosion, ie the amount of one would in total equal the other as it would all have to cancel back.

Here’s a doozy of a modern theroetical physics lie to spot, at the beggining of the universe, nothing existed, not even time…

so what passed between one instant (nothing) and the next (big-bang) if not time?

Time is an abstract concept, a manmade entity invented by man to measure his own pissant existance within the universe and to allow events within that short life to be referenced from the NOW. It is likely any higher intelligence out there in the universe would go along a similar route, it is not a physical entity.

The important thing here is the particles arrived 60 ns before they were expected to arrive had they been travelling at ONLY the speed of light, the other important thing is that this is NOT the only time this has been seen and is a replicated experiment (ie. its not likely to be just a mistake and can possibly be (or has been) repeated on many occasions)

Sep 23, 2011 9:06am EDT  --  Report as abuse
LukeL wrote:

Please remember that the equipment they’re using is far more advanced than the equipment originally used to discover the theory of relativity anyway. If you’re argument is “their equipment must be at fault!” then what’s to say it wasn’t at fault all along and relativity isn’t true at all?
If you think there’s no way the equipment could accurately measure particles down to 60 nanoseconds then you’ve basically thrown every particle physics experiment over the last 70+ years out the window.

Sep 23, 2011 9:57am EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

I second what skidoo says, but hey it is good for a laugh.

To the rest making legitimate points, good intellectual discussion for a Reuters post.

@peter.foster…just use Google to find good educational materials on this subject and other cutting edge science. You will find MANY articles ranging from those written for other PhD types to articles like this dumbed down Reuters piece. For a medium difficulty approach I would suggest, Science, Nature, Scientific American or for those slightly less technical, Discover. Scientific American has always been my favorite science mag.

Sep 23, 2011 10:38am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Is my understanding of the English language faulty, or is the word ‘theory’ just that? It is Einstein’s ‘theory’…a theory is not a proven fact. Look it up in the dictionary.

Sep 23, 2011 10:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse

@avgprsn…look at this great YouTube presentation and you will wonder even more about ‘multiverses’ (it is over an hour long but well worth listening to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc

Sep 23, 2011 10:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse

@60hz….it actually is Einstein’s THEORY…not fact. We can all have theories but that does not make them factual.

Sep 23, 2011 10:50am EDT  --  Report as abuse
FlatEarth wrote:

In fairness to the chaps at CERN, they have not made any claims regarding this. They have not called it a discovery, they have simply placed the results of an experiment, and the details of the experiment itself into the public domain so that peers get an opportunity to test the validity of the experiment and the results. This is the correct thing to do.

If the experiment cannot be shown to be flawed and the measurements are accurate then this will be a discovery and a pretty significant one at that. Some pretty fundamental theories may have to be re-visited.

Sep 23, 2011 11:19am EDT  --  Report as abuse
bcmilnov wrote:

The real question here is: How much money will you wager that this is/is not some time of methodological error or measurement error? To put it another way, can this velocity be repeated in an independent facility?

Common sense says that this is like the “reality” of ESP studies: Error Some Place

Sep 23, 2011 11:38am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jasonhall wrote:

The Earth’s atmosphere is a not a vacuum. Earth’s atmosphere is a medium. Space is a Medium. Space is not a vacuum (stuff such as light and space dust travel through it all the time, if they didn’t, the Earth would freeze and we would all die.) Space is a medium. The more “void” space is, the better medium it would be to test the speed of any particle traveling through it. The reality is, any test on Earth is mostly worthless because we are not in the middle of nowhere. Some numbers can be theorized but numbers will never be perfect. Remember, light travels at different velocities when it travels through different mediums (Refraction Index). For all intensive purposes, space as we know it has a refraction index of 1. What if it really had a refraction index of something slightly lower. Our calculations for the speed of light would be slightly low. What if Neutrinos has a different refraction index?

Sep 23, 2011 12:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
seosoft wrote:

This is quite interesting. They are theorizing that a partical, the nutrino, can travel faster than light which flies in the face of Einstein’s theory. The nurtrino has been known for a long time and this article doesnt claim to have found a new ‘type’ of nutrino. I have a thought to this that would keep Einstein’s theory intact: This difference in speed is related to a difference in time because of Time Dialation. These tests were between two facilities 730 KM apart, and they were done 1400 meters below ground, to avoid the effects of cosmic radiation. There is a slight difference in gravitational force that deep into the earth and this would have an effect on Time dialation. Since nutrinos can pass through rock and almost anything else, they were able to run these tests that deep underground with nutrinos. I bet if they could have made a straight tube that ran underground from one facility to the other, so that they could test regular light photons (that cant penetrate rock) through that tube, they would get the same time difference, faster than the speed of light. Another test they can do is try the same nutrino test between the same distance but above the surface of the earth (of course they will have to find a way to protect the nutrino beam from cosmic radiation).
I think Time Dialation due to the difference in the force of gravity is a much more viable explanation.

Sep 23, 2011 12:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

actually the theory of relativity states that nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light but it does not prohibit something to already be moving faster than light

Sep 23, 2011 2:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Tyg13 wrote:

@sophiewonderful: You know it’s funny how people who aren’t actual scientists can be so quick to dismiss any claims that scientists make.

Scientists (at least good ones) don’t just observe something happening or do a few calculations and come up with a conclusion. There’s a LOT of experimenting done, repeated experiments done independently by researchers all across the globe. We have used these “theories” to come up with a lot of very evident conclusions.

Take for example, the “Theory” of Gravity. Isaac Newton didn’t just one day say, “Hmm, perhaps the reason why things fall is because everything’s attracted to each other” and then just go with it. He did multiple experiments, other scientists did the same experiments and eventually everyone accepted gravity as the best explanation for how the universe functions. Will we one day figure out that gravity’s wrong? Maybe, but to completely just dismiss it because it’s a “theory” is anti-intellectual crap that really has no merit whatsoever. That’s an argument based on semantics which has nothing to do with scientific fact. Do you refute the existence of gravity because it’s just a “Theory”? Would it be more concrete if I called it a “Law”?

So I guess all the experiments that have been done over the past 70 or so years have been done in vain. Too bad Einstein didn’t call it the “Law of Special Relativity” instead of calling it a “Theory”.

Sep 23, 2011 4:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Willdall wrote:

Einstein’s assertion that nothing travels faster than light is by no means refuted by the latest claim by the CERN physicists to have discovered that there are neutrinos which can arrive at destinations ahead of the speed if light.

The mistake these physicists are making is to assume that there is just one time by which a motion is measured. In fact, in relativity, there are two times. One is the time which is measured by the observer of the motion, called the relative time (as in the experiments at CERN) and the other is the time registered by the particle itself, called the proper time. The upper, unreachable speed-limit of a particle in this proper time is instantaneity, while that same limit in relative time is the finite limit c. These two times are simply dual aspects of the same motion.

Obviously, nothing can travel faster than instantaneity, hence nothing can travel faster than c. If it did, then a neutrino sent from one laboratory today might arrive at another laboratory yesterday which is, of course, nonsense.

This ‘new result’ which the physicists have found has been predicted decades ago, and can be found on the website www.poams.org , which prescribes a whole new physics based on the relativistic views of Einstein’s mentor, Mach rather than that of his relativistic successor, Einstein. This neo-Machian approach shows how these claimed ‘new results’ are no more than to be expected.

Sep 23, 2011 4:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Emerald7 wrote:

I swear reading all of these comments has made me dumber. For those who don’t know, CERN is a little different from your High School stopwatch experiments. They’ve gathered data over three years, and they have been pouring over it for the last few months checking and re-checking for errors. They don’t even like the discovery they’ve made… it scares them, because the cosmic constant (light speed) is a HUGE fundamental part of modern day physics.

And for all of you talking about Cherenkov radiation… You’ve got it wrong. Here’s a quote from wikipedia: “Cherenkov radiation results when a charged particle, most commonly an electron, travels through a dielectric (electrically polarizable) medium with a speed greater than that at which light would otherwise propagate in the same medium.”

It’s ridiculous that you guys are like, oh they already found particles like that! No way! You mean that you thought of something you found on wikipedia that the physicists at CERN didn’t? How could they not see?!?

Cherenkov radiation is used as a tool in particle physics all the time.

Sep 23, 2011 5:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Emerald7 wrote:

All of these “armchair scientists” are really getting on my nerves

Sep 23, 2011 5:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mark123455 wrote:

I think they may be traveling back in time.

Sep 23, 2011 6:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

they probably forgot to factor in the rotation of the earth. the rotation of the earth must have been in the opposite direction as the particles were moving. this would make the distance travelled to be less than 730 km or 500 miles away.

Sep 23, 2011 7:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

I formulated my theory on the existence de speeds of some particles in the vacuum greater than c in my paper “Velocidades mayores que la velocidad de la luz” (“Speeds greater than the speed of the light”) published in 1969 in the newspaper “El Siglo” in Colombia. The present discovery on the speed of the neutrinos is the beginning of the show of the speeds superluminaries.

Sep 23, 2011 8:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jimweiser wrote:

I dont think they would have released this paper unless they didnt belive it was 100% correct. They have checked every bit of data they collected 100′s of times by now with the same results. And if they are wrong then it is just a matter of time before someone proves it… Now if they can figure out how someone can hitch a ride on these particles i’d buy a ticket

Sep 23, 2011 8:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
akalalu wrote:

were the light and neutrinos in the same time frame at departure from CERN?

Sep 23, 2011 10:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JoshuaMontzka wrote:

Uh I know this probably might have already been thought of but was the light travel time calculated using the straight line distance between the the locations or was it used with a person travel distance ie geographical difference because the curvature of the earth would add quite significant distance for that kind of time scale. I’m only an undergraduate of Physics but still is that something that was considered?

Sep 23, 2011 10:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
akalalu wrote:

If the Italians are receiving neutrinos from Switzerland, did they get declared at the border? Did the correct Swiss paperwork get filled out? What irony while passing by Bern! And what are the neutrinos employment status in Italia? And did they pay the correct taxes while working in Schweiz? Did the light experience a traffic delay in the Swiss mountain tunnels? Lastly, to the best of my memory, only Deutschland has no speed limit on the Autobahn – are there any radar-photos of these neutrinos passing the posted speed limit, and if so, at what *time* were they taken? :)

Sep 23, 2011 11:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
NeonBob wrote:

Evans gets sloppy in his explanation of where the data breaks with Einstien’s work. He calls the base constant of the light speed barrier the “Cosmic Constant.” It is not!! The theory of 1905 DID NOT incorporate the “cosmological constant.” That parameter showed up in 1917 in a “fix” (fudge) to the need to clean up the 1916 description of gravitation of general relativity. Evans is confusing what the term stands for – Einstien called the Cosmological Constant – his greatest blunder. (It survived 5 years of assertion before solutions were offered to contradict Einstien and 12 years until Hubble proved the notion wrong.

Sep 23, 2011 11:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
LilaLindy wrote:

‘sub-atomic particles traveling faster than light — a finding that could overturn one of Einstein’s long-accepted fundamental laws of the universe’

overturn? Why do headline writers go for this? I would suggest that if this discovery is verified, it will ‘”Add to” one of Einstein’s long-accepted fundamental laws of the universe’.

In the same way that Newton’s laws apply to pretty much everything in everyday life and then adding in the ‘teaks’ from Einstein allows them to work for relativistic values, this will just make it more interesting when you investigate physical properties in this new realm.

Sep 24, 2011 5:52am EDT  --  Report as abuse
peterwusc wrote:

If ruling out any possible error in measurement, I believe the issue is the speed of light. No one has measured the speed of light through “the Earth”. While it is commonly believed the speed of light in vacuum is the highest amount all “media”, only neutrino can really travel through the Earth without much interaction. In other words, I conjecture that if someone can really send high energy X-ray through the same path and measure the speed, it may still be faster than the neutrino and faster than the speed of light in vacuum. This experiment may actually have discovered “the speed of light” in some case can be traveling higher than that in vacuum, maybe depending on medium, gravitation or any kind of reasons.

Sep 24, 2011 7:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
NeonBob wrote:

Lila – There are few words that can capture what is being razed here. The whole concept of the scientific revolution – borne from the philosophy of the scientific method – is inoperable if it’s deductive premise building doesn’t have any true constants.

In it’s place – for the moment – you have facts – but no truth.

There’s nothing wrong with that – we lived without it for almost all of our history – it’s just not a Law giving exercise now – or yet!!

String Theory is out there waiting to pick up the slack – we’ll be alright – there are whole new worlds to conquer today that weren’t there yesterday!!

Sep 24, 2011 10:26am EDT  --  Report as abuse
HugoZ wrote:

Assuming that the measurements have been done appropriately, this would not debunk Relativity Theory, they way I see it, it would just tune it up. Perhaps it’s a way to tell us that the constant is to be fine tuned to the neutrino speed rather than light speed. The fact that neutrinos have little interaction with matter as opposed to light may indicate that neutrino speed is closer to the right constant. Further test could tell.

We have to decouple the notion of speed of information from speed of any material/energy’s speed. Photon entanglement had already shown that information can be passed from one photon to his entangled couple photon traveling in the opposite direction, which means we perceive information as being faster than the speed of light. That is, the information traveled somehow faster or in a different way than light and neutrino’s speed. So there is something (dark matter? Dark energy? Something else non-matter? or dimension) than either travel faster than light or give the appearance of traveling faster than light. That does not even contradict Einstein’s Theory as some people say, because most likely is not light or neutrinos producing that effect. Einstein Theory limit is for matter and energy as we know it and that most likely still apply. Einstein Theory could become just a spatial case of a more wide theory, the same way that Classic Physics is still good for low speeds. So let’s decouple speed of information from speed of light or speed of neutrinos.

Sep 24, 2011 10:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
HugoZ wrote:

Neutrinos are special beasts, even though they “have been around” as somebody commented here, it has only been in the last few years that humans have been able to set up experiments with them because of its difficulty to be detected by instruments. So keep an open mind here, because there could be interesting data coming from experiments that have never been done before.

Sep 24, 2011 10:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse
HugoZ wrote:

May I suggest to display the latest comments at the top rather than at the bottom.

Sep 24, 2011 10:38am EDT  --  Report as abuse
PHYSICSNOOB wrote:

@Prudens

They assumed the speed of light through a vacuum. If they used the actual speed of light through any assumed material between the two measurement points, then light would’ve taken even longer, proving this expirement is correct.

Sep 24, 2011 1:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
moiz.ahmed.it wrote:

Is it not possible that the particle decomposed into energy while traveling, and re-composed back into its particle form on destination? If so, then Einstein’s theory still stands.

Sep 25, 2011 5:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rick121x wrote:

I am not a scientist, but what about this comment in the article? “It is a tiny difference,” said Ereditato, who also works at Berne University in Switzerland.

I calculate that is actually 30 time faster – not a tiny difference to me.

Sep 25, 2011 4:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DryConfidence wrote:

keep an open mind – anything is possible in the multi-dimensional…

Sep 25, 2011 10:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
VJAMESK wrote:

What if the speed of light itself has been slowing down? I’ve heard that several scientists have calculated that it is the speed of light that is changing, and not that other particles are exceeding the generally accepted speed. Does anyone else have any details on those other light measurements?

Sep 25, 2011 11:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
chicagoam357 wrote:

Boy, there sure are a lot of geniuses here, coming out of the woodwork like roaches, ready to debunk this article. Where were you guys while this research was going on, working at Geek Squad?
I smell some good ole’ fashioned Euro-envy here. Didn’t this country put the kibosh on the SSC back in the 90′s, which could have proven-dis proven this a decade ago?

Sep 25, 2011 12:51am EDT  --  Report as abuse
wrote:

Tachyons is an mathematical Imaginary particle that may moves faster then Photons (Light particles) in the universe and yet to be discovered

*** Mr Rupak Bhattacharya-, of residence 7/51 Purbapalli, Sodepur, Dist 24 Parganas(north), Kol-110,West Bengal, India *Professor Pranab kumar Bhattacharya- , Now Professor and Head of department of Pathology, and of WBUHS Calcutta School of Tropical Medicine, C.R avenue; Kolkata-73, West Bengal, India*Miss Upasana Bhattacharya-, only daughter of Prof.PK Bhattacharya ***Mr.Ritwik Bhattacharya , ***Mr Soumyak Bhattacharya of residence7/51 Purbapalli, Sodepur, Dist 24 parganas(north) ,Kolkata-110,WestBengal, India , *** Miss Rupsa Bhattacharya **** Mrs. Dalia Mukherjee , Swamiji Road, South Habra, 24 Parganas(north) West Bengal, India**** Miss Oindrila Mukherjee-Student ,**** Mr. Debasis Mukherjee of Residence Swamiji Road, South Habra, 24 Parganas(north), West Bengal, India*****; Dr. Hriday Ranjan Das Dept of Nephrology, IPGME&R, 244a AJC Bose Road *****Mr. Surajit Sarkar, , Dept of Pathology, IPGME&R, Kolkata-20

What were the most elementary particles in the universe? According to Mery Gelman- The NL, the earliest particles were quarks and anti-quarks. The gospel of Big Bang was then supposed to have been inflation from zero volume at zero time, zero space of a corpuscle containing the cosmic soup of these quarks and anti quarks particles, where in the corpuscle, energy were equivalent to mass and radiation and flash. The particles and their anti particles were in constant annihilation and went into radiation and flash. What we authors want to mean that at about trillion and trillion degrees of temperature of cosmic soup (about 1015K) the particles and antiparticles were being in constant annihilation and were again created, although the total energy of elementary particles and radiation was just interchangeable. In the primordial fireball or in cosmic soup, the combined radiation and matter of the soup was constant . However in the quantum chromo dynamics (QCD) another particle was proposed as the earliest particles in the universe. It was Madsen and Mark Tailor, who gave first the concept of these particles in the primordial universe. The name of their particles is ‘ Neutrinos” . The neutrinos were also non-Zero mass particles according to authors and many, though in standard teaching is it is mass less . There are now broadly three (3) species of ‘Neutrinos”. I) Electron neutrinos 2) Muon neutrinos 3) and tat neutrinos. During the first half of the twentieth century, all physicists were convinced that all the stars including our Sun, shines by converting, deep in its interior, hydrogen into helium. According to this theory, four hydrogen nuclei called protons (p) are changed in the solar interior into a helium nucleus (4He), two anti-electrons (e+, positively charged electrons), and two elusive and very mysterious ghostly particles called neutrinos . This process of nuclear conversion, or nuclear fusion, is believed to be responsible for sunshine and therefore for all life on Earth. The conversion process, which involves many different nuclear reactions, can be written schematically as: —-[1] as Bhattacharya Rupak wrote it Ie,two neutrinos are produced each time as the fusion reaction (1) occurs within the star. Since four protons are heavier than a helium nucleus, two positive electrons and two neutrinos, reaction (1) releases a lot of energy to the Sun, that ultimately reaches the earth as our sunlight. The reaction occurs very frequently. Neutrinos do escape easily from the Sun and their energy does not appear as solar heat or sunlight in earth. Sometimes neutrinos are produced with relatively low energies and the Sun gets a lot of heat. Sometimes neutrinos are produced with higher energies and the Sun gets less energy. Neutrinos have zero electric charge, interact very rarely with hadron matter, and – according to the particle physics very high standard level textbook version of the standard model of particle physics – they are mass less. About 1000 billion neutrinos from the Sun pass through your thumbnail every second, but you do not feel them because, they interact so rarely and so weakly with matter. Neutrinos are practically indestructible; almost nothing happens to them. For every hundred billion solar neutrinos that pass through the Earth every seconds, only about one interacts at all with the stuff of which the Earth is made. Because they interact so rarely, neutrinos can escape easily from the solar interior where they are created and bring direct information about the solar fusion reactions to us on Earth. There are three known types of neutrinos already told. Nuclear fusion in the Sun produces only neutrinos that are associated with electrons, the so-called electron neutrinos . The two other types of neutrinos, muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos , are produced, for example, in laboratory accelerators or in exploding stars, together with heavier versions of the electron, the particles muon and tau . But there were some missing neutrinos too yet. All accepted models in the cosmology and in particle physics however accept that neutrinos are mass less or so. But The idea that neutrinos might have mass was of about 40 years old. The successful unification of the weak and electromagnetic force field implied that there should be as many as kinds of neutrinos, as there are different kinds of electron like particles. There is till no confirmed mass evidences that neutrinos have a non zero mass (Bhattacharjee Rupak and Bhattacharya Pranab Kumar)- The heaviest neutrinos in Gev temperature ranges from í to r electron volts. But the scientists found that this wooly mammoth allegedly carries also a mass of 17,000 electron volts(kev). By the radioactive beta decay process- a process in which an unstable nucleus in the radioactive isotopes emits both an electron and a neutrino, of decay of electrons. Rupak & I recorded the energy of decay electrons by sending them into a crystal where they knock other electrons creating a current that provided a measure of energy where a big 17Kev regularly appeared, taken from the energy of a few electrons. The energy was then obvious 17 Kev neutrinos and 1% of their emitted neutrinos belonged to heavy neutrinos. Neutrinos however can pass through the entire Earth almost near or at speed of light without leaving a trace and it is immune to many of forces that bind matter including electromagnetic forces. But obviously faster than speed of light? So Neutrinos are ghostly sub atomic particles, so feebly in their interaction with ordinary matter that they can happily pass through earth without stopping. They have almost never been observed outside the controlled environment of the big accelerator laboratories of USA &CERN in Europe. Neutrinos are even more common in the universe then the photons light particles), only because probably the Big Bang left a sea of very low energy neutrinos that permeated every corner of this Cosmos. In 30th march 2006 from the US laboratory “ Fermi lab” reported first result from a neutrinos experiment Called “MINOS”( Main injector neutrino Oscillation search) in Soudan mine at a depth of 776 meter in minnestoa 732 Km away. The MiINOs experiment showed that there is a short fall in the number of muon neutrinos ,if they are detected a long distance away from their point of production, may be called Missing Neutrinos- as we told some neutrinos were missing . Solar neutrinos actually have a multiple personality disorder. They are created as electron neutrinos in the Sun, but on the way to the Earth, they can change their type. For neutrinos, the origin of the personality disorder is a quantum mechanical process, called “neutrino oscillations .Lower energy solar neutrinos switch from electron neutrino to another type as they travel in the vacuum from the Sun to the Earth. The process can go back and forth between different types. The number of personality changes, or oscillations, depends however upon the neutrino energy. At higher neutrino energies, the process of oscillation is enhanced by interactions with electrons in the Sun or in the Earth. Stas Mikheyev, Alexei Smirnov, and Lincoln Wolfenstein first proposed that interactions with electrons in the Sun could exacerbate the personality disorder of neutrinos, i.e., the presence of matter could cause the neutrinos to oscillate more vigorously between different types. The standard model of particle physics assumes that neutrinos are mass less. Why We authors could never follow .In order for neutrino oscillations to occur, some neutrinos must have masses- some may not have mass. Therefore, the standard model of particle physics must be revised.
. Neutrinos are elementary particles where all neutral counterparts of charged leptons namely the electrons, the muons and ţ leptons all of which take participation in the weak interactions. Determination of neutrinos particles still remain notoriously difficult from the point of view of experiments and got challenges in the particle physics of highest depth research. At this moment, there is no information of even values of their individual masses. We authors however proposed their value as m1

Sep 26, 2011 1:29am EDT  --  Report as abuse
eol wrote:

@sophiewonderful: Yep, your understanding of the English language is faulty. Go read the dictionary for yourself, and see why.

Sep 26, 2011 8:45am EDT  --  Report as abuse
eol wrote:

@moiz.ahmed.it: Matter IS energy.

Sep 26, 2011 8:50am EDT  --  Report as abuse
shaftman wrote:

Now we just need the team of international smart guys to read this comment board for advice on setting up an experiment …

Sep 26, 2011 9:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gregbrew56 wrote:

Two words: Frame Dragging.

Sep 26, 2011 3:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gtaguy wrote:

I also discovered particles that are faster then the speed of light.. Its called your local financial investor.. They bankrupt you faster then the speed of light.. did any scientist ever see this phenomena before..

Sep 26, 2011 8:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

I for one find it difficult to believe that time travel to the future (at least of any significant length of time beyond minutes) isn’t possible. That would essentially mean that everything in history has already happened (forward history). Rather it’s Frame Dragging that we are witnessing. Distortion and the angle of the observation create the short term illusion of forward time travel. It has been suggested that time slows down as one approaches the speed of light. Hence the theory of occupants in a space craft traveling to a distance destination traveling at the speed of light and that the earth would have aged significantly more than the occupants once they arrive at that destination. I do believe that parallel universes and other dimensions may exist. Thus explaining the sudden appearance and then disappearance of particles all around us. Travel between these may one day be possible. But significant forward time travel? I have a hard time digesting that one.

Sep 26, 2011 10:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

I for one find it difficult to believe that time travel to the future (at least of any significant length of time beyond minutes) isn’t possible. That would essentially mean that everything in history has already happened (forward history). Rather it’s Frame Dragging that we are witnessing. Distortion and the angle of the observation create the short term illusion of forward time travel. It has been suggested that time slows down as one approaches the speed of light. Hence the theory of occupants in a space craft traveling to a distance destination traveling at the speed of light and that the earth would have aged significantly more than the occupants once they arrive at that destination. I do believe that parallel universes and other dimensions may exist. Thus explaining the sudden appearance and then disappearance of particles all around us. Travel between these may one day be possible. But significant forward time travel? I have a hard time digesting that one.

Sep 26, 2011 10:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Only 60 feet faster over 500 miles? That seems odd that the nutrino decided to not go too much faster than light. I think Einstein is ok.

Sep 26, 2011 12:31am EDT  --  Report as abuse
mattdomville wrote:

I’m remaining hopeful that this translates into teleporters toute suite. A comic on the subject: www.cinemabums.com

Sep 27, 2011 12:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
10dolphins wrote:

It is about time that science has clued in. The speed of light is not the ultimate speed. A few of us have been saying this for a long time and everybody laughed. Now.. who is laughing.

Physics is supposed to be based in “physical” models and with Einstein I see a bunch of math, but no physical models of things such as why light can’t go faster that “c”. In fact, in 1913 Georges Sagnac provided direct evidence that light can travel faster than “c”. Relativists merely incorporated his direct evidence against their theory into their theory…unbelievable! It is now 2011, 100 or so years later and it is now coming to light. Unbelievable.

Sep 27, 2011 8:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
aamolinaro wrote:

I wrote an article that appeared in the scientific journal Galilean Electrodynamics called The Invariance of Mass, which proves mathematically that Mass is an Invariant This means that we can travel faster than the speed of light.
Angelo Molinaro e-mail aamolinaro@aol.com

Sep 28, 2011 4:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BillSaidIt wrote:

so there really is a speed of light – great now lets move on to obtaining the speed of light. my formula of one foot per second per second should put you there in on time (which is the relative point-No time)
Science at this level are not interrested in anything but creating a MODE of light Speed Travel. 1st overcoming gravity – the result a “Flying Saucer” 2nd How to control the motion of light to power a vechicle to and beyond the speed of light. which may generate new technology – 1 following a light beam instead of being pushed by light as a power source. like the speed of sound when nearing that speed causes vibration. Light would compress into heat So following a beam would not creat heat if you could keep up with it.

Now to discuss life after death – which may equal lite speed

Sep 29, 2011 1:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
alitheturk wrote:

Gee if you find particles traveling faster than light -Defines the Light which you have the speed for is not the Light of the principles of operations of the theory which has by definition nothing is faster than light . I don’t know if it tells you if you ever have clocked light traveling. Wrong?

Sep 29, 2011 3:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse
forzaazzurri wrote:

Great! When can the military develop a neutrino gun?

Sep 29, 2011 5:01am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.