TED Conversations

Robert Bouillon

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

What's the prevalent theory on the "faster than light" Neutrino experiment at the LHC?

I wonder why neutrinos have been recorded faster than the speed of light.

Is it possible that they took a "dimensional shortcut"? Are they like gravity in such that they likely exist in another dimension, and just "pop in" to be measured from time to time?

Or I wonder if the neutrino, being a weakly interacting particle, reflects the "actual" speed of light where our perception of the speed of light is in fact skewed by some yet-to-be-discovered constant?

What's the prevalent theory?

Thanks :)

Topics: quantum mechanics
0
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb

    Md Santo

    • 0
    Jan 22 2012: FTL NEUTRINO VIEWED FROM HUMAN SYSTEM BIOLOGY- BASED KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (HSBKM) MODEL FRAMEWORK PARADIGM

    Only fundamental force, a hypothetical massless particle, independent to SpaceTime (IST) containing consciousness element factor (CEF) with speed of entanglement, functioning as “psychic / consciousness mediating particle” to counterparting Graviton as “somatic mediating particle” wherein both acting as “duo entity forces” we believed as Higgs Boson particle to give shape of SpaceTime within psycho-somatic entity paradigm of our (smart) Universe will behaving possibility to enable Faster Than Light (FTL) Neutrino

    To get information in brief, visit our URL http://bit.ly/v7guKs - “Knowledge Interface, Knowledge Value and Fundamental Force relationship viewed from Human System Biology-based Knowledge Management (HSBKM)”

  • Robert Bouillon

    • 0
    Jan 20 2012: Is this a hard experiment to reproduce? Why would it take so long to produce and clock neutrinos from other facilities?

    Thanks.

  • warhu shashen

    • 0
    Jan 19 2012: Actually, the original experiment was confirmed on 2011-11-18. There was no obvious or systematic errors detected. However, since the results would require modification to long held pillars of belief more than one confirmation is need it by various independent sources. There have been quite a number of theoretical papers pro and against- but these just assume various parameters some of which use conservation of linear energy and momentum and/or relativity which in this case could be circular logic since the experiment if valid has detected a flaw in the latter and possible exception in the former. This issue will be resolved in about 18 to 24 months at the very least. So, do not expect an answer before May 2014.

  • Richard Krooman 50+

    • 0
    Jan 17 2012: I must say that 'the last thing I heard' about this is that the research data was too unconvincing.
    Aka to say some particles go faster than light has to be extremely well grounded proof. And the proof presented was not very conclusive.

    I also read the paper and in general I was not that blown away myself. The main 'proof' is that on average the particles get there just a bit slower than light. However there is a standard deviation that tells us that some of the particles should've gone faster than light. But they don't really say more than that.
    So it can also just be that almost all particles arrive with the same (just below light-) speed while just a few get there a lot slower. Would yield similar results (mathmatically)

  • Robert Bouillon

    • 0
    Jan 17 2012: Thanks. It's a great read. It's fantastic to be a spectator to all of this unfolding.

    I think most of my other questions I can probably find answers for online.

    I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction.
  • thumb

    Christophe Cop 500+

    • 0
    TED AttendeeTEDx OrganizerAssociate
    Jan 16 2012: I would refer to Tomasso's opinions on that...
    http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/opera_confirms_neutrinos_travel_faster_light-84763
  • thumb

    Fritzie Reisner 100+

    • 0
    Host
    Jan 16 2012: As of late November, the result of neutrinos faster than light appears to be refuted definitively. Most scienctists at the time theorized that the earlier announced observation was a result of measurement error. More specifically, there is lots of "noise" in the data, and it is challenging even for the best of minds to distinguish real phenomena from artifact. That is my understanding from what I have read.
Showing all 7 comments