A Neutrino! Who is there? Knock, knock! If it would really be possible to send signals back in time, it would be so cool to send Einstein what modern physicists discovered.
ComandanteJ Well, if it was true, that neutrinos can travel back in time and we would have a system to encode messages using neutrinos, that the receiver also knows and he would see/mesure the neutrinos and decode the message it maybe could be possible. But to say it for sure I know too less about special and especially general relativity, sorry :D
The team reported two flaws in their equipment set-up that had caused errors far outside their original confidence interval: a fiber optic cable attached improperly, which caused the apparently faster-than-light measurements, and a clock oscillator ticking too fast. The errors were first confirmed by OPERA after a ScienceInsider report, accounting for these two sources of error eliminated the faster-than-light results.
@justsoundtechno - I think it arives "before we can see it" - at the same level as you can travel faster than sound, thus making you "arive before you can hear it".
This might be good for either sixty symbols or numberphile. Could you do a video on a Tachyons that have an imaginary number as their mass? And how would the Higgs Boson (which gives particles mass) work with a particle with imaginary mass?
Primus Productions Actually, the Higgs doesn't give particles their mass, it just influences the one they already have. Particles have mass independently of the Higgs, but that mass changes in different ways through interactions with Higgs fields. That's why there are variations in mass between particles, that's the question that Higgs, Brout and Englert set out to answer 50 years ago. Their research culminated in the Higgs mechanism, which describes the process by which the masses of particles are modified, ending up with different masses.
Yes, I remember the measurement error had to do with the way satellite GPS coordinates are time corrected. Maybe that's the "extra dimensionality" hogwash they were talking about in this one :-)
@soulsfang No, actually I meant the speed of sound. "Not too long ago" is a subjective phrase, remember that when you read this part, because in the light of how long our species existed, it was the speed "barrier" that had the longest fascination with the strongest consensus. The speed of light has a consensus yes, but there are many scientists who believe it can be exceeded and that we just don't know how yet. ;)
It can also be the cause of a tunnel's shape and gravity. While going straight under the earth, particle crosses denser gravity which can affect particles speed in the relation with a surface and gps whose are the curve
Actually the average value was still faster than light. But it was so close that they concluded that it was "consistent" with the speed of light which we know cannot be right because they oscillate.
@Entrepreneur101 E = m? What do your symbols stand for exactly? I assume in your last line you mean F = d(m.v)/dt. How does that support faster than light travel?
Garrison Pendergrass actually mass = m(i)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) thus if velocity is greater than light, it becomes negative and you take square root of negative number thus get imaginary mass.
@Pianoguy32 I don't know if there's a reason why light should be the fastest particle, but there are very good reasons to think that there is a fundamental speed limit which no particle can break, and it appears that light happens to go at that speed, which is why it's called the speed of light. If the neutrinos have broken that limit then it would be big news.
Well as soon as the guy said they didn't get the spike of neutrinos three years ahead of the visible light is proof right there that they don't travel faster than the speed of light
Cool question. Off the top of my head, everything. To start with, light-speed is dependent on constants like the permittivity of free space, so they would have to be adjusted. But then we'd get a new value for the charge of a proton. Changing the speed of light would also affect gravitational lensing, which means either changing the strength of gravity or recalculating everything's mass. Even our time and length scales are defined in terms of the speed of light!
@ChungRts Relativistic mass is given by the equation m=1 / sqrt(1 - (v / c)^2) * rest mass. Let v=c. Any number divided by itself is 1. 1^2 is 1. 1-1 is 0. Sqrt(0) is zero, so you end up with m=1/0*rest mass. Therefore, the limit of the rest mass as you approach the speed of light is infinity, so a particle with mass traveling at the speed of light would theoretically have infinite mass. F=ma, so infinite force. E=Fd, so infinite energy. The amount of energy in the universe is finite.
@0hfuzzyu No. Devices are used that time-stamp as the particle hits the detector. I can assure you, everyone in any measurement field (aviation engine parts repair for me) knows full well the delay in computer processing time, and what is needed to get an actual measurement.
A lot of people want to know my personal opinion on the Cern findings. First and foremost, Cern needs to more imperial data to remain current. Then need to upgrade there facilities and computer systems, also there monitors have a low refresh rate (don't let me get started on the contrast ration). Furthermore Cern needs better water to conduct these tests, basic tap water will NOT do the trick. If Cern can afford it, they should be using bottled water, preferably Poland Spring water.
The response of the shown physicists is the interesting aspect of this video now. The amounts of skepticism, displayed wishes for it to be true, etc. That's what this document can still show us.
(the photons may still be going at the speed of light while bumping into such a small amount of particles/different medium, thus distorting the speed as a whole. Example: If you have to flashlights, and you shine, simultaneously, one of them with the air as the medium and the other with glass as the medium, the one traveling through air would reach an indicated destination before the other.)
@Themayseffect there is no light "in general". the visible spectrum still moves at C. the difference you are inquiring about is a result of the wavelength and the frequency, the speed is constant.
Wikipedia says they reported their equipment was not as accurate as they ocne thought. A fiber optic cable was plugged in wrong and an oscillator (?) was going too fast I guess. Too bad.
That only explains one set of results. According to Gavin Wince (search youtube), there were similar results at other collider facilities. A loose fiber optic cable at one facility doesn't simply explain away similar results at other facilities using independent instrumentation.
@allenrobinson2012 but light is a wave/particle to begin with. It doesn't travel in a straight line. I am not even sure how many dimensions it passes through as it travels in a direction. The wave would obviously be longer than the straight line it traveled. I am not sure that we actually "know" the speed of light. I am guessing we screwed up measuring the speed of light. or it is higher than what we thought it was.
I personally don't think that it's anything out of the realm of possibility that a Neutrino may be more likely to quantum tunnel in it's general velocity from time to time. This would basically amount to letting the Neutrino pass through space faster than light, but never actually exceed the speed of light while moving in normal spacetime.
Seán O'Nilbud She's half right. The neutrino has a function in Nature and is the left over force carrier space for the photon associated with the forward arrow of time supporting the asymmetry of the weak force separating the weak force from the strong force and it has a reverse (oscillation) arrow asymmetric twin that moves E in the opposite direction and measures larger than the neutrino just as the neutron measures larger than the proton. The difference in size maintaining E as a constant creates a worm hole because space is relative to time and more time goes back in than came out. Time did not stop during the Mass oscillation rate cycle and the added time must be accounted for and we clearly see the result of it outside of the fine structure constant that first exposed it creating something so important you put in on the wall and worry about it because it shows how little you really know about the field you are considered an expert in. e{a}/t=E BTW... that's why SLAC's E158 weak force asymmetry ratio matched CERN's 2011 worldwide announced "superluminal" muon phase neutrinos @ (v-c)/c=2.48e-5 and created an asymmetry in time of .20e-5 sec in 453.6 miles.
9 лет назад
You are batshit. Here's some of the babbling horseshit you prepared earlier. " I think its a dangerous idea so excuse no new rocket motor equations, just enough to "enlighten" people through understanding the math process and let a few people learn putting out fear and hate only creates hate coming back through a weak link through their blind side and that's not how you disarm the World. History shows brute force and the rampant corruption and greed associated we see controlling money is always short term power, and the people that misuse power ALWAYS think they are the exception and look at the mess they made this time. It's really added up. It's easy enough to control people using their own free will but I agree population control and basic intelligence must go together or war and genocide will decide the numbers. But that's Nature at it's worst and {a} changes what is on the table now big time. It is the only thing that will save the rich from themselves trying to trump Nature. It's a tap for energy that's lets us in-between quantum states into time's reservoir, the strong force. Generate 120 watts on a bike generator for 2 seconds (two coulombs) and split the field in half and reverse it so it repels itself. Now notice you have a force of almost one million tons at a distance of a meter, not mm. So how do you do that? You understand that the weak force is created by Mass in oscillation and how {a} works. And one more thing....never ever put two new field generation magnets in you front pockets or even the same room"
What the heck does my view on politics have to do with the function of the neutrino? And what does your weird “Anti conspiracy experiments” video on youtube show other than you are drunk off your *ss and your house is a disgusting filthy mess and you don't care? Your “Helmet on, off to the shops” video shows what a drunk fool you are putting people’s lives in danger. Buddy you are nothing but a strange drunk out of control emotion waiting for the inevitable to happen and expose the problem with over population at it’s worst. And you are an insult to the people of Ireland.
Maybe you´re right, if a star "dies" you could still see its light due to the time the light takes to travel from the star to your eyes. For example if the star is 1 light year ( measurement ) from here then we would be able to see it's light for 1 year more after it dies... But my question is: if you travel back in time ( since the sound travels slower ) would the light and sound be sincronized? And how would you use a neutrino to travel in time if it's too small?
Were they just counting with the distance or did they account the effect of gravity so the trajectory would be a slight arc. That might cause such a small increase in speed.
"But in February, the OPERA team also discovered that a loose fiber optic cable had introduced a delay in their timing system that explained the effect."
So. A lesson from Flatland by E A Abbot. If you can find another dimension you can jump over the line and violate the laws of flat distance. Point Set Topology tells us how to combine spaces - by forming the Cartesian product of the multiple spaces. Then consider relativistic 4-space crossed with another with simply a shortened metric allowing the movement of particles between two locations that are shorter than the standard metric...
@crazytrain7114 I think they detected it on the basis of a certain amount of neutrinos so they would be able to tell if it was there neutrinos or just random neutrinos. I'm not sure but I think that's what they did. So imagine they sent 50,000 neutrinos from A to B if 1 arrived first they would easily distinguish that from the 50,000 to follow after.
Thanks for making this video on popular request! You guys are GREAT!!! Speaking of videos by request: here's one I'd LOOOOOOOOVE to see: one about the different interpretations of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen, Many Worlds, etc). I can't even begin to conceive how, in order to "solve" many of the weird facts of QM, so many physicists today can agree about something as unimaginably weird as the Many Worlds interpretation.
Isnt the simplest explanation that the speed of light was measured slightly incorrectly in the first place? Even in a "vacuum" there is still small amount of matter that could be interacting with light and slowing it down. Since Neutrinos are neutral and very weakly interacting when they pass through matter, perhaps they are able to travel closer to the theoretical speed of light in ideal circumstances?
@tmafkap p=h/λ because E=sqrt(m^2c^4 + p^2c^2) and the photon has zero rest mass. As for changing speed in different mediums, it doesn't. It only appears to because of the frequent absorption and re-emission.
Now I'm a bit out of the latest, but perhaps if one were to consider the higgs field as a sort of surface (of perhaps the roiling surface of spacetime itself) and one were to think of this as a surface that due to interaction causes friction (whether higgs induced mass or not) and should some wimps be so "smooth" as to lack the ability to be slowed; perhaps the speed limit of light is less the limit of the speed of particle, but rather the limit of speed allowed by its active surface in contact with its medium. Less active the surface: less interaction. Leading to faster speeds. This implies less that light is not fast but less interactive. Which means that some particles could be even less interactive (like wimps), implying faster possible speeds due to less interaction. Ergo, lightspeed is less a limit of our universe but rather the limit of the speed of light within our medium. Light can be slowed in many ways and can be pulled about gravitationally. The less active a wimp the less gravity can effect it.this we know. Perhaps, it's less to do with classical gravity and more to do with quantum gravity and its force within the smaller coiled higher dimensions. Just food for thought.
@austin777136 Yes, and I know that train of thoughts you explained, thought so for myself for some time. But photons travel at the speed of light and they have mass (and are effected by gravity), yet their mass is not infinite but very small. Your explanation shows why bradyons can't reach c, but since they don't apply to luxons they probably also don't apply to tachyons (could tachyons have a rest mass?).
@obaeyens But it is possible in principle to measure 'c' directly, without getting light involved, from time dilation or relativistic mass increase measurements, and I assume that has been done. Do the neutrinos still exceed 'c' when it is measured in this way, rather than by measuring light?
perhaps it merely indicates that light travels at different speeds? neutrinos which are certainly interstellar if not intergalactic means the neutrinos travel at the speed of interstellar or intergalactic light not the speed of light in the solar system ?
@austin777136 E=pc, but p=mv, so for m=0 still E=0. Otherwise: p=h/λ and E=hf, a photon's energy, mass and momentum are expressed by it's frequency. They have relative mass, but no definable rest mass, because they don't rest. That doesn't mean m_0=0, it means m_0=no way, José. And I'm really not sure about the space and time thing, because of stuff like diffraction, differing speed of light in different mediums (heard of Cherenkov radiation?), and so on.
@TheJasmineee It's a simple pun, really. The popular theory is that time stops at the speed of light, and reverses when you exceed it. Since neutrinos are apparently faster than the speed of light, they're always going back in time...
Could a simple explanation of this experiment be that our human measurements of the speed of light are slightly wrong and the actual cosmic speed limit (the speed of light in vacuum) is slightly higher than we thought? Light does slow down when it passes through materials. Ambient space is not a complete vacuum, so maybe the "real" speed of light of slightly higher than thought. Neutrinos barley interact with anything, so maybe they can travel at that slightly higher "real" speed of light.
@ChungRts c has been derived from Maxwell's equations. Light moves at c because it is an electromagnetic wave and is thus described by Maxwell's equations. If you'd like more info, google "Maxwell's equations," but be warned. It's dizzying mathematics.
the neutrinos from SN1987A arriving in expected time is a good point, although a great point the paper makes about this is, the energy of their experimental neutrinos were about 1000 times more energetic.
@Dirtboy101 The speed of light comes out of the physical properties of the medium (even if that medium is nothing: a vacuum). The speed of light for any medium is defined by 1/sqrt(epsilon*mu) where epsilon is the permittivity (the ease at which electric fields can penetrate the medium) and where mu is the permeability (the degree to which the medium can support a magnetic field). We can empirically measure these two constants very, very accurately and hence find very close approximations of c.
@sbergman27 Agreed, I didn't think of that. If imaginary mass could be construed as negative mass, than e=mc2 would still apply correct? It would HAVE to travel faster than light due to its 'negative' mass
@Exmech2 Do you have an answer in regards to time stamping particles that are accelerated at outrageous velocities? I've designed discrete measurement systems for several companies including HP and as far as I remember there really isn't logic that can capture transitions in the low to mid microwave range let alone infrared, visible, ultraviolet, and well on into gamma rays. It would be interesting to see what Cern is using for hardware though. Times change.
@docsquee The symbol for light speed is a small 'c'. C stands for "heat capacity". It's how much heat (in Joules) a quantity of a substance can absorb before it's temperature rises one Kelvin. Having a negative heat capacity would be at least as awesome as breaking the speed of light. :-)
Imaginary doesn't necessarily mean negative, it just means it has an extra dimension. Imaginary numbers are written as A+Bi, for example 2+3i, which can be thought of as a 2-dimensional vector (A,B) or (2,3). 'A' is the real component, so maybe that's the part we can detect. Also, to negate motion (velocity), that just implies it's going the opposite direction along the same line.
I read an article some years ago entitled "The Light that Travels Faster than Light" which cited work by two scientists who found that around ten percent of photons undergo a phenomenon they called "tunnelling" which resulted in speeds much faster than light.
@50LightSabersInAPack Yeah I was thinking that too. I mean it was just recently that the mass of a proton was found to be different than originally measured.
Did they? They themselves said they were skeptica so it doesn't sound like they rushed to conclusionsl. Sometimes technical mistakes are harder to catch than it looks like.
@KarlHeinzofWpg "Like Feynman's analogy of the chessboard, this may be a pawn being promoted into a Queen." It was a Bishop changing it's 'color', but, yes, it's an exciting 'maybe'.
@hooloovoo1st is it true there can never be a true vacuum because of virtual "particles"/quantum foam? will the speed of light be measured a hair faster between casimir plates, where some of those quantum foam energies/wavelengths are removed?
was the experiment made in vacuum and did the particles travel faster than the speed of light in vacuum? 'cause maybe they don't interact with air particles whereas light is slightly influenced by friction.
Looking at all the neutrino vs speed videos/blogs i cannot find any talk of the possibility of the neutrinos been affected by the increased gravitation due to them traveling closer to the center of the earth than gravitational measurements at the surface of Earth ? Can the strengh of the gravitational field be calculated/Measured along the path the neutrino's are taking ? Is it possible that some Dence rock is increasing the strengh of field and therefore affecting the time readings ?
All you have to do in order to get to the speed of light or beyond is by bending space-time around you. Wormholes, while currently and possibly completely impossible to artificially create, are classic examples of bridging space-time by bending it in two places so that an extra-dimensional intersection point is made. Another example would be to bend space-time in a fashion that would allow you to essentially ride it like a surfer would a wave, with a space-time "wave" pushing you from the back and pulling you from the front using basically artificial gravity and anti-gravity (not to be confused with zero gravity).
@sbergman27 I didn't word my question correctly. Are we going to have a video on the possible explanation by the Dutch physicist, Ronald A.J. van Elburg who shows that Neutrinos are not traveling faster than light???
@austin777136 im not sure if i'm understanding this correctly. But why can't "c" have been incorrect and should have originally have been the speed of this nutriono?
quick question. as you have to calculate the differences for gps satelites that are further from earth surface, shouldn't you also calculate the "local particle time" when it travels far below earth surface? just asking :)
@PensFan109 The speed of neutrinos is already known to be near the speed of light as a first approximation (in the order of a thousandth of a percent different). At that speed the 730km journey takes 0.00243 seconds ie 2.43ms. During that time the Earth will have rotated about 10 millionths of one degree on its own axis, so the effect on aiming isn't very big.
@austin777136 Well, the definition of a luxon is that it moves at the speed of light, so it doesn't rest, ergo can't have a rest mass. By the equation you gave above (relativity of mass) a rest mass of zero would mean there's also a relative mass of zero (x*0=0). BTW: with regard to length contraction and time delation a photon would cross no space in no time while having infinite energy/mass. The last point is wrong, and diffraction of light implies that the first two points are false, too.
@ItsNotEvenSunny , @MoGaDeX Also they used statistical analysis to marginilize any inteference so even if there were some "false positives" it would be nowhere near enough to overturn the thousands of events they measured that were in very clear correlation with each other.
How do they know it was the same neutrino? They go mostly undetected, so maybe one neutrino 60 light-nanoseconds ahead of the first detected one slipped past the first detector, and was detected by the second detector?
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
They corrected their results and Neutrinos were slower than light. It was just a problem with their instruments.
+The Artificial Society yep, their gps was calibrated incorrectly...
maybe that was a gravitational wave :)
you "pulling" my leg!
A loose wire...
womp womp
Neutrinos faster than light - Sixty Symbols
next video :
Neutrinos slower than light - Sixty Symbols
A Neutrino!
Who is there?
Knock, knock!
If it would really be possible to send signals back in time, it would be so cool to send Einstein what modern physicists discovered.
That is hilarious. +1
But how? If the knocking happens last no one will say who is there and there is no need to say a Neutrino...lol
That would violate causality.
Metagross31 But would he be able to decipher a message sent to him using neutrinos?
ComandanteJ
Well, if it was true, that neutrinos can travel back in time and we would have a system to encode messages using neutrinos, that the receiver also knows and he would see/mesure the neutrinos and decode the message it maybe could be possible.
But to say it for sure I know too less about special and especially general relativity, sorry :D
As soon as I heard of this I wanted a SixtySymbols video immediately! And you delivered!
The team reported two flaws in their equipment set-up that had caused errors far outside their original confidence interval: a fiber optic cable attached improperly, which caused the apparently faster-than-light measurements, and a clock oscillator ticking too fast. The errors were first confirmed by OPERA after a ScienceInsider report, accounting for these two sources of error eliminated the faster-than-light results.
@luvboricha it was a bunch of neutrinos from the year 3048.
This is very annoying that there are no updates on videos like this one.
+Kavetrol This. But its not SixtySymbols style to correct or update any of their older videos.
+Kavetrol you do realize they made a follow up video
@justsoundtechno - I think it arives "before we can see it" - at the same level as you can travel faster than sound, thus making you "arive before you can hear it".
This might be good for either sixty symbols or numberphile. Could you do a video on a Tachyons that have an imaginary number as their mass? And how would the Higgs Boson (which gives particles mass) work with a particle with imaginary mass?
Primus Productions Actually, the Higgs doesn't give particles their mass, it just influences the one they already have.
Particles have mass independently of the Higgs, but that mass changes in different ways through interactions with Higgs fields. That's why there are variations in mass between particles, that's the question that Higgs, Brout and Englert set out to answer 50 years ago. Their research culminated in the Higgs mechanism, which describes the process by which the masses of particles are modified, ending up with different masses.
🤓
By far the most interesting series on RUclips!
looking forward to next video.
Thanks!
"Two beers please"
...
A neutrino walks in to a bar
0:21 "Scientists at CERN and in Italy have found that there's a new tree now."
What's the thing you're associating it with that you don't like at 5:30
Wasn't this debunked just weeks after? It was measured wrong or something.
It was, it was blamed on a faulty cable.
Martin Lamppu Always expend 20% of your budget in cables. LOL
Yes - sixty symbols shouldn't leave misleading and erroneous science lingering on the web.... and all the mumbo jumbo about extra dimensionality.
davet11 I thought it was calculated to be the time it took for the information to travel via satellite. Something that everyone missed.
Yes, I remember the measurement error had to do with the way satellite GPS coordinates are time corrected. Maybe that's the "extra dimensionality" hogwash they were talking about in this one :-)
@soulsfang No, actually I meant the speed of sound. "Not too long ago" is a subjective phrase, remember that when you read this part, because in the light of how long our species existed, it was the speed "barrier" that had the longest fascination with the strongest consensus. The speed of light has a consensus yes, but there are many scientists who believe it can be exceeded and that we just don't know how yet. ;)
This was proven wrong. The reason why they measured the neutrino going faster than light is because of a broken fiber optic cable.
It can also be the cause of a tunnel's shape and gravity. While going straight under the earth, particle crosses denser gravity which can affect particles speed in the relation with a surface and gps whose are the curve
Assholes
Spreading wrong data,the scourage of this planet
Actually the average value was still faster than light. But it was so close that they concluded that it was "consistent" with the speed of light which we know cannot be right because they oscillate.
@Entrepreneur101
E = m? What do your symbols stand for exactly?
I assume in your last line you mean F = d(m.v)/dt. How does that support faster than light travel?
9:26
Well it's definitely not a tachyon.
kept checking youtube for a sixty symbols video on this. awesome job. glad the professor from the beginning is back too.
negative mass= MIND BLOWN!
square root of -mass = MIND SUPER-BLOWN!
I gaped at the fact.
Garrison Pendergrass actually mass = m(i)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) thus if velocity is greater than light, it becomes negative and you take square root of negative number thus get imaginary mass.
@Pianoguy32 I don't know if there's a reason why light should be the fastest particle, but there are very good reasons to think that there is a fundamental speed limit which no particle can break, and it appears that light happens to go at that speed, which is why it's called the speed of light. If the neutrinos have broken that limit then it would be big news.
Well as soon as the guy said they didn't get the spike of neutrinos three years ahead of the visible light is proof right there that they don't travel faster than the speed of light
True. Thought the same
Cool question. Off the top of my head, everything. To start with, light-speed is dependent on constants like the permittivity of free space, so they would have to be adjusted. But then we'd get a new value for the charge of a proton.
Changing the speed of light would also affect gravitational lensing, which means either changing the strength of gravity or recalculating everything's mass.
Even our time and length scales are defined in terms of the speed of light!
Those are Team Rocket neutrinos.
That was so funny! X.D
@hitachi088 cheers... fixed it
It's painful watching this knowing what they don't know
This was posted three years ago.
What's the update on it? Just an error?
Yup. Apparently a 'loose cable' and one other thing i don't remember
@ChungRts Relativistic mass is given by the equation m=1 / sqrt(1 - (v / c)^2) * rest mass. Let v=c. Any number divided by itself is 1. 1^2 is 1. 1-1 is 0. Sqrt(0) is zero, so you end up with m=1/0*rest mass. Therefore, the limit of the rest mass as you approach the speed of light is infinity, so a particle with mass traveling at the speed of light would theoretically have infinite mass. F=ma, so infinite force. E=Fd, so infinite energy. The amount of energy in the universe is finite.
"italian scientists" sounds funny but then we remember that Science was established by one of them.
Nevertheless lets be careful :-)
@0hfuzzyu No. Devices are used that time-stamp as the particle hits the detector. I can assure you, everyone in any measurement field (aviation engine parts repair for me) knows full well the delay in computer processing time, and what is needed to get an actual measurement.
A lot of people want to know my personal opinion on the Cern findings. First and foremost, Cern needs to more imperial data to remain current. Then need to upgrade there facilities and computer systems, also there monitors have a low refresh rate (don't let me get started on the contrast ration). Furthermore Cern needs better water to conduct these tests, basic tap water will NOT do the trick. If Cern can afford it, they should be using bottled water, preferably Poland Spring water.
john mayer what
john mayer you are joking, correct? Refresh rate? Contrast?? Bottles water??? never mind...you are joking.
heavy water is much better
I hate your music Mr Mayer, but your Cern ideas will rock the world and also your body is a wonderland
The response of the shown physicists is the interesting aspect of this video now. The amounts of skepticism, displayed wishes for it to be true, etc. That's what this document can still show us.
(the photons may still be going at the speed of light while bumping into such a small amount of particles/different medium, thus distorting the speed as a whole. Example: If you have to flashlights, and you shine, simultaneously, one of them with the air as the medium and the other with glass as the medium, the one traveling through air would reach an indicated destination before the other.)
It does change with different mediums, which is called "Refraction" :)
Calculated from the X17 particles inductive charge radius the neutrinos are 41.30047 GeV/c^2, 44.6012 Gev/c^2 and 48.1657 GeV/c^2
@Themayseffect there is no light "in general". the visible spectrum still moves at C. the difference you are inquiring about is a result of the wavelength and the frequency, the speed is constant.
Wikipedia says they reported their equipment was not as accurate as they ocne thought. A fiber optic cable was plugged in wrong and an oscillator (?) was going too fast I guess. Too bad.
That only explains one set of results. According to Gavin Wince (search youtube), there were similar results at other collider facilities. A loose fiber optic cable at one facility doesn't simply explain away similar results at other facilities using independent instrumentation.
@vkotis sorry, I was a bit slower than a neutrino... was away in Australia when the story broke
@allenrobinson2012 but light is a wave/particle to begin with. It doesn't travel in a straight line. I am not even sure how many dimensions it passes through as it travels in a direction. The wave would obviously be longer than the straight line it traveled. I am not sure that we actually "know" the speed of light. I am guessing we screwed up measuring the speed of light. or it is higher than what we thought it was.
This is one of the most exciting times of my life and I'm not even a professional physicist! Hey Sixty Symbols, I'm keeping my eye on you...
I personally don't think that it's anything out of the realm of possibility that a Neutrino may be more likely to quantum tunnel in it's general velocity from time to time. This would basically amount to letting the Neutrino pass through space faster than light, but never actually exceed the speed of light while moving in normal spacetime.
Seán O'Nilbud She's half right. The neutrino has a function in Nature and is the left over force carrier space for the photon associated with the forward arrow of time supporting the asymmetry of the weak force separating the weak force from the strong force and it has a reverse (oscillation) arrow asymmetric twin that moves E in the opposite direction and measures larger than the neutrino just as the neutron measures larger than the proton.
The difference in size maintaining E as a constant creates a worm hole because space is relative to time and more time goes back in than came out. Time did not stop during the Mass oscillation rate cycle and the added time must be accounted for and we clearly see the result of it outside of the fine structure constant that first exposed it creating something so important you put in on the wall and worry about it because it shows how little you really know about the field you are considered an expert in. e{a}/t=E
BTW... that's why SLAC's E158 weak force asymmetry ratio matched CERN's 2011 worldwide announced "superluminal" muon phase neutrinos @ (v-c)/c=2.48e-5 and created an asymmetry in time of .20e-5 sec in 453.6 miles.
You are batshit. Here's some of the babbling horseshit you prepared earlier.
" I think its a dangerous idea so excuse no new rocket motor equations, just enough to "enlighten" people through understanding the math process and let a few people learn putting out fear and hate only creates hate coming back through a weak link through their blind side and that's not how you disarm the World. History shows brute force and the rampant corruption and greed associated we see controlling money is always short term power, and the people that misuse power ALWAYS think they are the exception and look at the mess they made this time. It's really added up. It's easy enough to control people using their own free will but I agree population control and basic intelligence must go together or war and genocide will decide the numbers. But that's Nature at it's worst and {a} changes what is on the table now big time. It is the only thing that will save the rich from themselves trying to trump Nature. It's a tap for energy that's lets us in-between quantum states into time's reservoir, the strong force. Generate 120 watts on a bike generator for 2 seconds (two coulombs) and split the field in half and reverse it so it repels itself. Now notice you have a force of almost one million tons at a distance of a meter, not mm. So how do you do that? You understand that the weak force is created by Mass in oscillation and how {a} works. And one more thing....never ever put two new field generation magnets in you front pockets or even the same room"
What the heck does my view on politics have to do with the function of the neutrino? And what does your weird “Anti conspiracy experiments” video on youtube show other than you are drunk off your *ss and your house is a disgusting filthy mess and you don't care? Your “Helmet on, off to the shops” video shows what a drunk fool you are putting people’s lives in danger.
Buddy you are nothing but a strange drunk out of control emotion waiting for the inevitable to happen and expose the problem with over population at it’s worst.
And you are an insult to the people of Ireland.
Maybe you´re right, if a star "dies" you could still see its light due to the time the light takes to travel from the star to your eyes. For example if the star is 1 light year ( measurement ) from here then we would be able to see it's light for 1 year more after it dies...
But my question is: if you travel back in time ( since the sound travels slower ) would the light and sound be sincronized? And how would you use a neutrino to travel in time if it's too small?
Yeah, I saw the video upload date. Would be nice if they responded this video with the update though.
Were they just counting with the distance or did they account the effect of gravity so the trajectory would be a slight arc. That might cause such a small increase in speed.
"But in February, the OPERA team also discovered that a loose fiber optic cable had introduced a delay in their timing system that explained the effect."
So. A lesson from Flatland by E A Abbot. If you can find another dimension you can jump over the line and violate the laws of flat distance. Point Set Topology tells us how to combine spaces - by forming the Cartesian product of the multiple spaces. Then consider relativistic 4-space crossed with another with simply a shortened metric allowing the movement of particles between two locations that are shorter than the standard metric...
@crazytrain7114 I think they detected it on the basis of a certain amount of neutrinos so they would be able to tell if it was there neutrinos or just random neutrinos. I'm not sure but I think that's what they did. So imagine they sent 50,000 neutrinos from A to B if 1 arrived first they would easily distinguish that from the 50,000 to follow after.
Thanks for making this video on popular request! You guys are GREAT!!!
Speaking of videos by request: here's one I'd LOOOOOOOOVE to see: one about the different interpretations of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen, Many Worlds, etc). I can't even begin to conceive how, in order to "solve" many of the weird facts of QM, so many physicists today can agree about something as unimaginably weird as the Many Worlds interpretation.
Isnt the simplest explanation that the speed of light was measured slightly incorrectly in the first place?
Even in a "vacuum" there is still small amount of matter that could be interacting with light and slowing it down.
Since Neutrinos are neutral and very weakly interacting when they pass through matter, perhaps they are able to travel closer to the theoretical speed of light in ideal circumstances?
@tmafkap p=h/λ because E=sqrt(m^2c^4 + p^2c^2) and the photon has zero rest mass. As for changing speed in different mediums, it doesn't. It only appears to because of the frequent absorption and re-emission.
Now I'm a bit out of the latest, but perhaps if one were to consider the higgs field as a sort of surface (of perhaps the roiling surface of spacetime itself) and one were to think of this as a surface that due to interaction causes friction (whether higgs induced mass or not) and should some wimps be so "smooth" as to lack the ability to be slowed; perhaps the speed limit of light is less the limit of the speed of particle, but rather the limit of speed allowed by its active surface in contact with its medium. Less active the surface: less interaction. Leading to faster speeds. This implies less that light is not fast but less interactive. Which means that some particles could be even less interactive (like wimps), implying faster possible speeds due to less interaction. Ergo, lightspeed is less a limit of our universe but rather the limit of the speed of light within our medium. Light can be slowed in many ways and can be pulled about gravitationally. The less active a wimp the less gravity can effect it.this we know. Perhaps, it's less to do with classical gravity and more to do with quantum gravity and its force within the smaller coiled higher dimensions. Just food for thought.
Timmy's my buddy!!
:)
Miss ya buddy. Hope things are going well for you.
This experiment's result in 2011 has since been shown as an error with a fiber-optic cable. Look up "OPERA experiment" on Wikipedia for the article.
@austin777136 Yes, and I know that train of thoughts you explained, thought so for myself for some time. But photons travel at the speed of light and they have mass (and are effected by gravity), yet their mass is not infinite but very small. Your explanation shows why bradyons can't reach c, but since they don't apply to luxons they probably also don't apply to tachyons (could tachyons have a rest mass?).
@obaeyens But it is possible in principle to measure 'c' directly, without getting light involved, from time dilation or relativistic mass increase measurements, and I assume that has been done. Do the neutrinos still exceed 'c' when it is measured in this way, rather than by measuring light?
@brace110 Probably because the detector was in Italy. As far as I know it went from Switzerland (CERN) to Italy (a big particle research institute).
perhaps it merely indicates that light travels at different speeds? neutrinos which are certainly interstellar if not intergalactic means the neutrinos travel at the speed of interstellar or intergalactic light not the speed of light in the solar system ?
@austin777136 E=pc, but p=mv, so for m=0 still E=0. Otherwise: p=h/λ and E=hf, a photon's energy, mass and momentum are expressed by it's frequency. They have relative mass, but no definable rest mass, because they don't rest. That doesn't mean m_0=0, it means m_0=no way, José. And I'm really not sure about the space and time thing, because of stuff like diffraction, differing speed of light in different mediums (heard of Cherenkov radiation?), and so on.
could you please make a video of just professor Copeland talking? he soothes me to no end!
@TheJasmineee It's a simple pun, really. The popular theory is that time stops at the speed of light, and reverses when you exceed it. Since neutrinos are apparently faster than the speed of light, they're always going back in time...
Could a simple explanation of this experiment be that our human measurements of the speed of light are slightly wrong and the actual cosmic speed limit (the speed of light in vacuum) is slightly higher than we thought? Light does slow down when it passes through materials. Ambient space is not a complete vacuum, so maybe the "real" speed of light of slightly higher than thought. Neutrinos barley interact with anything, so maybe they can travel at that slightly higher "real" speed of light.
@RustyCyler Matter and energy are equivalent - I suppose you're asking whether a neutrino has a real mass? Yes, it does (even tho it's tiny).
@ChungRts c has been derived from Maxwell's equations. Light moves at c because it is an electromagnetic wave and is thus described by Maxwell's equations. If you'd like more info, google "Maxwell's equations," but be warned. It's dizzying mathematics.
the neutrinos from SN1987A arriving in expected time is a good point, although a great point the paper makes about this is, the energy of their experimental neutrinos were about 1000 times more energetic.
@Dirtboy101 The speed of light comes out of the physical properties of the medium (even if that medium is nothing: a vacuum). The speed of light for any medium is defined by 1/sqrt(epsilon*mu) where epsilon is the permittivity (the ease at which electric fields can penetrate the medium) and where mu is the permeability (the degree to which the medium can support a magnetic field). We can empirically measure these two constants very, very accurately and hence find very close approximations of c.
@sbergman27 Agreed, I didn't think of that. If imaginary mass could be construed as negative mass, than e=mc2 would still apply correct? It would HAVE to travel faster than light due to its 'negative' mass
@Pablols7 The time dilatation is caused by speed or gravity and is really small at this scales.
@Exmech2 Do you have an answer in regards to time stamping particles that are accelerated at outrageous velocities? I've designed discrete measurement systems for several companies including HP and as far as I remember there really isn't logic that can capture transitions in the low to mid microwave range let alone infrared, visible, ultraviolet, and well on into gamma rays. It would be interesting to see what Cern is using for hardware though. Times change.
replying to an old video and people explained what was wrong, but wouldn't it be related to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
@docsquee The symbol for light speed is a small 'c'.
C stands for "heat capacity". It's how much heat (in Joules) a quantity of a substance can absorb before it's temperature rises one Kelvin.
Having a negative heat capacity would be at least as awesome as breaking the speed of light. :-)
Imaginary doesn't necessarily mean negative, it just means it has an extra dimension. Imaginary numbers are written as A+Bi, for example 2+3i, which can be thought of as a 2-dimensional vector (A,B) or (2,3). 'A' is the real component, so maybe that's the part we can detect. Also, to negate motion (velocity), that just implies it's going the opposite direction along the same line.
I read an article some years ago entitled "The Light that Travels Faster than Light" which cited work by two scientists who found that around ten percent of photons undergo a phenomenon they called "tunnelling" which resulted in speeds much faster than light.
@50LightSabersInAPack Yeah I was thinking that too. I mean it was just recently that the mass of a proton was found to be different than originally measured.
Did they? They themselves said they were skeptica so it doesn't sound like they rushed to conclusionsl. Sometimes technical mistakes are harder to catch than it looks like.
@ncfatcyclist thank you
@KarlHeinzofWpg "Like Feynman's analogy of the chessboard, this may be a pawn being promoted into a Queen."
It was a Bishop changing it's 'color', but, yes, it's an exciting 'maybe'.
@hooloovoo1st is it true there can never be a true vacuum because of virtual "particles"/quantum foam? will the speed of light be measured a hair faster between casimir plates, where some of those quantum foam energies/wavelengths are removed?
Relativity says light always travels at constant speed, no matter the perspective, does that apply to neutrinos?
was the experiment made in vacuum and did the particles travel faster than the speed of light in vacuum? 'cause maybe they don't interact with air particles whereas light is slightly influenced by friction.
Looking at all the neutrino vs speed videos/blogs i cannot find any talk of the possibility of the neutrinos been affected by the increased gravitation due to them traveling closer to the center of the earth than gravitational measurements at the surface of Earth ? Can the strengh of the gravitational field be calculated/Measured along the path the neutrino's are taking ? Is it possible that some Dence rock is increasing the strengh of field and therefore affecting the time readings ?
@HellsingDemon I'm assuming it has something to do with time travel?
All you have to do in order to get to the speed of light or beyond is by bending space-time around you. Wormholes, while currently and possibly completely impossible to artificially create, are classic examples of bridging space-time by bending it in two places so that an extra-dimensional intersection point is made. Another example would be to bend space-time in a fashion that would allow you to essentially ride it like a surfer would a wave, with a space-time "wave" pushing you from the back and pulling you from the front using basically artificial gravity and anti-gravity (not to be confused with zero gravity).
@ldpmendes i think it's like driving in a car and tossing a ball in the air, the ball goes the same speed.
@brace110 because cern "only" sent the neutrinos to italy. the italian laboratory under the gran sasso was studying their speed.
@sbergman27 I didn't word my question correctly. Are we going to have a video on the possible explanation by the Dutch physicist, Ronald A.J. van Elburg who shows that Neutrinos are not traveling faster than light???
@austin777136 im not sure if i'm understanding this correctly. But why can't "c" have been incorrect and should have originally have been the speed of this nutriono?
@1612ydraw I believe the direction of the reaction products are determined by multiple layers of detection.
quick question. as you have to calculate the differences for gps satelites that are further from earth surface, shouldn't you also calculate the "local particle time" when it travels far below earth surface?
just asking :)
@PensFan109 The speed of neutrinos is already known to be near the speed of light as a first approximation (in the order of a thousandth of a percent different). At that speed the 730km journey takes 0.00243 seconds ie 2.43ms. During that time the Earth will have rotated about 10 millionths of one degree on its own axis, so the effect on aiming isn't very big.
Why not changing the speed of light to the speed of the neutrinos in the equations? What would the implications be?
may i throw in an question.. is it faster the the speed light> in the visible light spectrum. or light in general.
Finally. Been waiting for the Proffs to talk about this.
@obaeyens So tachyons are only a "concept" at the moment then? (unless this experiment holds true)
@austin777136 Well, the definition of a luxon is that it moves at the speed of light, so it doesn't rest, ergo can't have a rest mass. By the equation you gave above (relativity of mass) a rest mass of zero would mean there's also a relative mass of zero (x*0=0). BTW: with regard to length contraction and time delation a photon would cross no space in no time while having infinite energy/mass. The last point is wrong, and diffraction of light implies that the first two points are false, too.
The previous video in this playlist (slower than light) was a bit of a spoiler to this one.
@ItsNotEvenSunny , @MoGaDeX Also they used statistical analysis to marginilize any inteference so even if there were some "false positives" it would be nowhere near enough to overturn the thousands of events they measured that were in very clear correlation with each other.
How do they know it was the same neutrino? They go mostly undetected, so maybe one neutrino 60 light-nanoseconds ahead of the first detected one slipped past the first detector, and was detected by the second detector?
RUclips's algorithm always recommends this video and never recommends the "Neutrinos Slower Than Light" video. :(
Are we going to have a video on the possible explination to the faster than light Neutrinos???
8:30 "Until the shockwave bounced,and then the light can escape."
I dont understand that.What holds the light ?
Curious Guy: intense gravity maybe because the whole star is collapsing in an small volume. Like in a blackhole.
I've been waiting eagerly for this video ever since I read the news :)
@JullianChannel That wouldn't explain the speed difference between the neutrino and the light particles.