Follow this blog:
RSS

From Britain, new dimensions on the speed of light

By | September 26, 2011, 4:18 AM PDT

The neutrinos that travelled faster than the speed of light from Geneva to near Rome might have taken a short cut, which would mean they did not break physics’ ultimate speed barrier after all.

That was one possible explanation offered by popular British physicist Brian Cox as he and scientists around the world struggle to explain how the particles exceeded light speed, which should not be possible according Einstein’s long accepted theory of special relativity.

As we reported last week, CERN researchers noticed that neutrinos they beamed from Switzerland arrived a few billionths of a second ahead of light at the Gran Sasso laboratory about 75 miles northeast of Rome.

The researchers were so baffled by the Einstein-buster that rather than proclaim they had shattered physics’ fundamental law, they appealed for worldwide help in spotting possible errors or explanations.

In a BBC audio, Cox suggests that the neutrinos could have taken a short cut. Keeping with the mind-boggling spirit of the whole affair, it would have been no run-of-the-mill shortcut. Rather, the neutrinos could have tapped into one of the extra dimensions that some physicists have theorized co-exist with the three dimensions with which we’re all familiar (four if you include time).

If these dimensions are indeed out there, “Then things can take shortcuts through the extra dimensions,” says Cox, who likens such a cut-through to tunnelling from London to Sydney rather than flying.

Cox is clear that he’s only offering a possible alternative explanation. At the moment, no one has any solid reason to refute the defiantly fast neutrinos.

Could neutrinos provide the fuel that would propel time traveling machines such as Dr. Who's phone box tardis?

Could neutrinos provide the fuel that would propel time traveling machines such as Dr. Who's phone booth tardis?

If the light speed results stand, they would mark “The most profound discovery of the last hundred years or more in physics,” says Cox, a physics professor at Manchester University, a member of CERN’s ATLAS Large Hadron Collider experiment, and the host of BBC TV’s Wonders of the Universe and Wonders of the Solar System series (he’s a sort of second coming of Carl Sagan). “It requires a complete rewriting of our understanding of the universe,” if true, he says.

The CERN discovery was serendipitous. The lab’s OPERA (Oscillation Project with Emulsion t-Racking Apparatus) group had sent the subatomic particles on their 455-mile journey to see how many of them would flip from a muon state to a tau. CERN announced its surprise finding with the scientifically understated headline, “OPERA experiment reports anomaly in flight time of neutrinos from CERN to Gran Sasso.”

No telling what else we might find next by accident. The world does sometimes seem like a topsy-turvy place where anything can happen. The Buffalo Bills are undefeated. Explain that.

Photos: Top, Nic McPhee/Flickr; Bottom, Paul Hayes/Wikimedia

Related mind benders:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Mark Halper

About Mark Halper

Mark Halper is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Contributing Editor

Mark Halper has written for TIME, Fortune, Financial Times, the UK's Independent on Sunday, Forbes, New York Times, Wired, Variety and The Guardian. He is based in Bristol, U.K.

Follow him on Twitter.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Mark has no financial holdings in the companies he writes about. He occasionally travels at the expense of companies or their press relations agencies in order to report on a company or industry event related to it; Mark will prominently disclose this information when appropriate. This relationship will have no influence on his coverage. Companies he covers do not get to review columns in advance, or select or reject topics.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
14
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+2 Votes
+ -
I have been writing about this for a while.
I was very happy to see this back up my hypothesis.
http://jetsrock.wordpress.com/category/physics/
Check out the dates
Posted by richard_gillespie@...
26th Sep 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Sounds like..
Sounds like string theory
Posted by junietoons
26th Sep 2011
+4 Votes
+ -
Skeptical...
If these theoretical dimensions exist, then they have always existed - they have not just appeared since humans began theorizing about them. Thus, I would find it difficult to imagine that this light speed discrepency hasn't arisen before. Further, if neutrinos can use these alternate dimensional routes, then what about other minimal mass particles or photons themselves? I would think that such a possibility would be wreaking havoc with everyday communications. Additionally, this alternate dimension routing, if accepted, might cause certain problems for accepted cosmological measurement methods and previously proven points of General Relativity.
My guess is that this experimental fluke is simply due to oversight or measurement error. Perhaps due to the inherent geological plasticity of the earth and a precisely coincident seismic event, or something of that sort.
Posted by tonyv414
26th Sep 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
It's hard to measure
The problem with other minimal mass particles is that they tend to be unstable and thus wouldn't live long enough to show such a discrepancy. Another problem is that they don't go through matter the way neutrinos do. Nobody is going to make a vacuum tube of hundreds of miles to test the slight discrepancy. Of course, photons have always been the particles we use to determine the speed of light, so they set the baseline. I don't know what you could subject photons to that would make them also the discrepancy, or if it's even possible.

At this point, it looks like we're stuck with neutrinos.
Posted by zackers
26th Sep 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
It's happened before
A number of years back, FermiLabs in Chicago did an experiment where the neutrinos appeared to travel faster than the speed of light. Their results were similar to these results. However, in that experiment, the possible error value was high enough that they figured they simply had made a mistake in their measurements and left it at that.
Posted by mheartwood
26th Sep 2011
+4 Votes
+ -
First thing is to confirm the results
Good scientific process includes other experimenters run the same experiment and see if they get the same results. This step has not happened yet. The room temperature fusion experiment in the late 80's was also exciting but no one could duplicate the results; the discoverers have been discredited. This is not to say that faster than light speed is not possible, just the experiment needs to be duplicated to see if the results are the same.
Posted by sboverie
26th Sep 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Mass implications
Isn't there somewhere inside special relativity that the real reason that you can't exceed the speed of light is that apparent mass increases until, at the speed of light, the mass is equal to that of the rest of the universe?
Posted by metaphysician
26th Sep 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Possibly, but ....
Photons do not, by definition, have any mass -- so they're not subject to such a limitation. They have momentum, but zero mass.
Posted by kingtj
26th Sep 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
What we need...
is to test different pathways. Maybe neutrinos travel at c in the vacuum of space, but travel at c+ through a large mass. That would explain why those neutrinos from the supernova didn't arrive years ahead of the light. I have no idea why this would be true, but it would explain both results. We need to build a neutrino detector on the moon.
Posted by dmm99
26th Sep 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Just a bit of prediction... paraphrasing from a post in another venue:
I have some money to put down on an analysis: what we are going to find is that the current value for the speed of light in a vacuum is just a TINY bit lower than the absolute value for data transmission rates when using a particle which does NOT interact meaningfully with its environment. In other words, a photon-in-vacuum is NOT moving at the absolute speed limit. Because that photon DOES have some non-zero probability of interacting with virtual particle/anti-particle pairs along its path, whereas a neutrino has significantly LOWER (but probably still non-zero) probability of interaction.

The biggest questions now, then, should probably be something along the lines of "does it MATTER??" (re: there's nothing particularly constructive we can DO with neutrinos given detection issues) and "does it actually CHANGE anything ELSE which is based on the CURRENT value for speed-of-light-in-vacuum??" (in any meaningful sense). The first-of-many things that come to mind is that we MAY be able to get an improved "yard stick" for galactic distance measurements if we can somehow correlate photon observations with neutrino observations of distant "energetic" events (the variance giving a fairly SOLID indication of actual distance to the nova, burster, etc). ***Note: Astro databases could qualify as a quick way to double-check, IF we assume that there are no significant domain changes/boundaries (around stars, for example) being encountered. Also notice there didn't appear to be any neutrino identity-change results indicated; perhaps THAT event somehow creates a "drag" on the neutrinos over a larger time/distance?

Next thing to test: spatial isotropy. Light doesn't detect any variance; might THIS technique?? Unfortunately, the "plane of the ecliptic" leaves un-experienced a HUGE percentage of all the possible solar-based vector measurements that could be made; say between our sun and the closest neighboring stars?? If we were to find some form of lower-potential "interstellar tunnel", "ley line" or "hyperspatial thru-way" (a non-isotropic result along some axis) THEN we'd have some interesting times!
Posted by flared0ne
26th Sep 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Really new dimensions?
So why an effect is observed? I don't know. So please point me to the experiment data if somebody has a link... What did they really observe in Geneva and what detected near Rome? Until I have it I cannot say anything except some hypotheses and questions i.e. "Did they count the correct distance and not an arc on the Earth surface?"
Posted by Daniel Isakevich
27th Sep 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
a link on some other hypotheses
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/24/einstein-e-equals-mc2?newsfeed=true

Not so inspiring may be but may be right.
Posted by Daniel Isakevich
Updated - 27th Sep 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Regarding the Buffalo Bills
We here in WNY recently reacquainted with the bandwagon many of us fell off two decades ago explain the Bills reemergence with two words "Fred Jackson" Either that or we have found ourselves in another dimension, not a short cut necessarily by human standards, but there was that Jim Kelly guy at the patriots game standing on the sidelines waving a Bills flag. I think he may have been calling plays. I wish i could time travel so that I could see where this bandwagon is headed just in case there is a looming cliff ahead.
Posted by jayburney
29th Sep 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Let c be c but get rid of the speed limit
OK I am at the point where I have let go the idea that the speed of light is variable.(Still is strange that the experts say that light can go faster than the speed of light though."If a laser beam is swept quickly across a distant object, the spot of light can move faster than c") But I do believe a Relativistic velocity(v+c) should be included in e=mc2 such as e=mrv2. By removing relativistic mass we get rid of the idea of the mass shooting up to infinity. So far my view on the Lorentz transformation is that it is the perfect math to create an optical illusion much like a child's toy that spins a light around in a circle or the way a cars wheels look like they are moving backwards on film. I do not think that it takes into account the fact that nothing is stationary in space time. And at its heart it states "The Lorentz transformation describes only the transformations in which the spacetime event at the origin is left fixed." Space Time is always moving forward. So if an event happened it must take some time to occur. So I do not believe we are going to ever get time travel in the reverse in any frame of reference. You can step out of a frame and experience time dilution but at no point is time moving backwards. And I now believe that the study in 1999 did not show that the speed of light was faster just that space time was compressed.
http://jetsrock.wordpress.com
Posted by richard_gillespie@...
Updated - 30th Sep 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!