Neutrinos still travel faster than light

[theVOID]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236

The team which found that neutrinos may travel faster than light has carried out an improved version of their experiment - and confirmed the result.

If confirmed by other experiments, the find could undermine one of the basic principles of modern physics.

I guess the critics of CERN's handling of the experiment just got silenced.

The conformations aren't independent, they were done by the same people with the same equipment and assumptions about distance among other things, this hasn't done a thing to remove any of the technical concerns that keep people sceptical of the result.

There is a much more pressing reason NOT to believe this finding, that being the energy of the Neutrinos are not what would be expected for a particle with the energy necessary to travel faster than the speed of light - the energy of the neutrinos is consistent with the energy of a particle accelerated to fractionally less than the speed of light - These are reasons with much more solid foundations than a situation involving estimated distances and synchronized clocks (Which is extremely problematic).

[little_monkey]

At the speed of light, time stops for the mover. Beyond the speed of light, time reverses for the mover. Would this affect the aging of the mover? Technically, it would stand to reason so, but I have yet to find anything on this particular idea.

The problem here is that the mass of the mover would have to be ZERO.

Particles. Some particles age, though most have mass. Assuming an aging massless particle traveling FTL, would it 'unage'?

Particles, massive or massless, don't age. Thet can decay into other particles. For instance the proton is supposed to decay theoretically at once every 1032 years, which is longer than the age of the universe. So, as far as we are concerned, protons are stable (ageless in your terms).

---

The problem here is that the mass of the mover would have to be ZERO.

What about imaginary?

Those are the tachyons. In String Theory, they are particles that can be exchanged by branes of higher dimensions.

---

There is a much more pressing reason NOT to believe this finding,

This paper has pretty much nailed the error in the OPERA`s findings.

[IATIA]

Particles, massive or massless, don't age.

A subatomic particle known as a pion has a lifespan of 000000026 seconds.

[theVOID]

This paper has pretty much nailed the error in the OPERA`s findings.

I was looking for that paper Cheers.

[corndog36]

I'm wondering if they are taking into account the Lorentz contraction in calculating the distance these neutrinos are traveling.

[Angrboda]

Personally I'm going to let the scientific process run it's course and reserve judgement until these findings have been subject to the appropriate examination rather than pick sides now and argue for an untenable position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgZ7gMze7A


You know, I think the point of the Charmin commercial about bears and dingleberries is NOT that you should use Charmin bathroom tissue, but that you shouldn't walk around in public without pants.

[IATIA]

I'm wondering if they are taking into account the Lorentz contraction in calculating the distance these neutrinos are traveling.

I am sure they have. The two issues are clock synchronization and the exact distance (path through rock with curvature of space-time).

Who was holding the other end of the tape measure?

[little_monkey]

Particles, massive or massless, don't age.

A subatomic particle known as a pion has a lifespan of 000000026 seconds.

Yes, that is the time it would take for a pion to decay (btw, there's a decimal point missing), usually into a muon and a muon neutrino -- there are other modes of decay but less likely to occur. However it doesn't refer to its "age". There are no "young" pions or "old" pions. By some principles in QFT, all pions are indistinguishable, similarly for all the elementary particles of the Standard Model such as electrons, quarks, neutrino, etc...

[IATIA]

Particles, massive or massless, don't age.

A subatomic particle known as a pion has a lifespan of 000000026 seconds.

Yes, that is the time it would take for a pion to decay (btw, there's a decimal point missing), usually into a muon and a muon neutrino -- there are other modes of decay but less likely to occur. However it doesn't refer to its "age". There are no "young" pions or "old" pions. By some principles in QFT, all pions are indistinguishable, similarly for all the elementary particles of the Standard Model such as electrons, quarks, neutrino, etc...

Of course it refers to it's age. Granted it's 'age' is indeterminable, but it only exists as a pion for .000000026 seconds then it is no longer a pion. I will attempt restate the question in order to satisfy the 'semantics nazi'. Would the lifespan/existence of a short-lived particle traveling faster than light change? As it's clock is running backwards, it would suggest so. Perhaps it becomes 'unborn'? Depending on the speed and other factors, it would be quite difficult to detect, observe and/or confirm.

And I fail to understand the reasoning for attacking the semantics of this hypothetical thought experiment. It is not as though we are writing our Doctorate thesis at this time or even being graded.

[little_monkey]

Particles, massive or massless, don't age.

A subatomic particle known as a pion has a lifespan of 000000026 seconds.

Yes, that is the time it would take for a pion to decay (btw, there's a decimal point missing), usually into a muon and a muon neutrino -- there are other modes of decay but less likely to occur. However it doesn't refer to its "age". There are no "young" pions or "old" pions. By some principles in QFT, all pions are indistinguishable, similarly for all the elementary particles of the Standard Model such as electrons, quarks, neutrino, etc...

Of course it refers to it's age. Granted it's 'age' is indeterminable, but it only exists as a pion for .000000026 seconds then it is no longer a pion.

As I said before this would violate the known principle of indistinguishability in Quantum Field Theory. All are calculations would blow up at infinity. So even if I would conceive that there are "young" particles and "old" particles, we have no way to distinguish one from the others, and must treat them as the same.

I will attempt restate the question in order to satisfy the 'semantics nazi'.

Would the lifespan/existence of a short-lived particle traveling faster than light change? As it's clock is running backwards, it would suggest so. Perhaps it becomes 'unborn'? Depending on the speed and other factors, it would be quite difficult to detect, observe and/or confirm.

We wouldn't consider that its clock is running backward but that it would have an imaginary mass. These are the so-called tachyons. They were dismissed when people first found them in Relativity. The idea was "resurrected" with String Theory. They are now considered as particles that can be exchanged between branes. Since they are off the bulk matter and travel in inter-dimensions, they can have imaginary masses ( in case, this is unclear, it means the mass is expressed as i multiplied by mass, where i is the square root of -1)

And I fail to understand the reasoning for attacking the semantics of this hypothetical thought experiment. It is not as though we are writing our Doctorate thesis at this time or even being graded.

I'm not attacking anything, just trying (poorly?) to clear up a misunderstanding.

Hope I was clearer this time.