Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity
The relativistic motion of clocks on board GPS satellites exactly accounts for the superluminal effect, says physicist.
The Physics arXiv Blog 10/14/2011
- 67 Comments
It's now been three weeks since the extraordinary news that neutrinos travelling between France and Italy had been clocked moving faster than light. The experiment, known as OPERA, found that the particles produced at CERN near Geneva arrived at the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy some 60 nanoseconds earlier than the speed of light allows.
The result has sent a ripple of excitement through the physics community. Since then, more than 80 papers have appeared on the arXiv attempting to debunk or explain the effect. It's fair to say, however, that the general feeling is that the OPERA team must have overlooked something.
Today, Ronald van Elburg at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands makes a convincing argument that he has found the error.
First, let's review the experiment, which is simple in concept: a measurement of distance and time.
The distance is straightforward. The location of neutrino production at CERN is fairly easy to measure using GPS. The position of the Gran Sasso Laboratory is harder to pin down because it sits under a kilometre-high mountain. Nevertheless, the OPERA team says it has nailed the distance of 730 km to within 20 cm or so.
The time of neutrino flight is harder to measure. The OPERA team says it can accurately gauge the instant when the neutrinos are created and the instant they are detected using clocks at each end.
But the tricky part is keeping the clocks at either end exactly synchronised. The team does this using GPS satellites, which each broadcast a highly accurate time signal from orbit some 20,000km overhead. That introduces a number of extra complications which the team has to take into account, such as the time of travel of the GPS signals to the ground.
But van Elburg says there is one effect that the OPERA team seems to have overlooked: the relativistic motion of the GPS clocks.
It's easy to think that the motion of the satellites is irrelevant. After all, the radio waves carrying the time signal must travel at the speed of light, regardless of the satellites' speed.
But there is an additional subtlety. Although the speed of light is does not depend on the the frame of reference, the time of flight does. In this case, there are two frames of reference: the experiment on the ground and the clocks in orbit. If these are moving relative to each other, then this needs to be factored in.
So what is the satellites' motion with respect to the OPERA experiment? These probes orbit from West to East in a plane inclined at 55 degrees to the equator. Significantly, that's roughly in line with the neutrino flight path. Their relative motion is then easy to calculate.
So from the point of view of a clock on board a GPS satellite, the positions of the neutrino source and detector are changing. "From the perspective of the clock, the detector is moving towards the source and consequently the distance travelled by the particles as observed from the clock is shorter," says van Elburg.
By this he means shorter than the distance measured in the reference frame on the ground.
The OPERA team overlooks this because it thinks of the clocks as on the ground not in orbit.
How big is this effect? Van Elburg calculates that it should cause the neutrinos to arrive 32 nanoseconds early. But this must be doubled because the same error occurs at each end of the experiment. So the total correction is 64 nanoseconds, almost exactly what the OPERA team observes.
That's impressive but it's not to say the problem is done and dusted. Peer review is an essential part of the scientific process and this argument must hold its own under scrutiny from the community at large and the OPERA team in particular.
If it stands up, this episode will be laden with irony. Far from breaking Einstein's theory of relatively, the faster-than-light measurement will turn out to be another confirmation of it.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1110.2685: Times Of Flight Between A Source And A Detector Observed From A GPS Satellite.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
UncleAl
410 Comments
External falsification
Relativity is rigorously derived and contains no errors within its boundary conditions. Relativity cannot be internally falsified. OPERA is not, cannot be observation of massed superluminal particles any more than Euclid can fail on a plane or cylinder.
Try Euclid on a torus or sphere. Relativity can selectively fail outside its founding postulates.
Relativity is weak toward angular momentum - material spin ("dark matter"), quantum spin (polarized fermion spin and/or orbital angular momentum as magnets), spin-orbit coupling. Einstein knew this, hence his 1928 "Fern-Parallelismus." Revised edition's exceptions fail to appear *strong field* in pulsar binary systems with solar stars (hydrogen plasma) or with white dwarfs (Fermi-degenerate matter). They also fail to appear weak field in Nordtvedt effect and Eotvos experiments.
Quantitative geometric chirality arises from moments of inertia (angular momentum). Crystallography is outside physics' box. Test spacetime geometry with atomic mass distribution geometry,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/erotor1.jpg
Opposite shoes violate the Equivalence Principle.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/shoes2.png
Opposite shoes on a vacuum left foot melt to identical socks with different transition energies.
That a foundation of physics could selectively fall to two calorimeters, three undergrads, and 24 hours is... the best reason *not* to look. $billions to confirm, not a single penny to falsify. More's the pity.
Reply
eprparadox
1 Comment
Re: External falsification
The best way to resolve this issue is directly/experimentally. Measure light and neutrino velocities over the same course - i.e., run a race (that is, a sufficiently large set of races).
Reply
vadbaxter
1 Comment
Re: External falsification
"Relativity is rigorously derived and contains no errors within its boundary conditions. Relativity cannot be internally falsified. OPERA is not, cannot be observation of massed superluminal particles any more than Euclid can fail on a plane or cylinder."
Until Relativity is proven to be FACT and not a theory, there will always be room for errors.
To me this is yet another example of scientists trying to bury something as quick as possible because it goes against the accepted norm. They want this burried because they stand to lose millions of dollars in reseach money.
Reply
lucyhaye
77 Comments
You are Right!
You are absolutely right because all experimental proof contradict Special Relativity. Only two examples: Time Dilation (Cal-Tech) and DECAY (Bi to Po)
Muon Time Dilation Non-Existent.
http://autodynamicslborg.blogspot.com/2011/06/blog-post.html
The “Thought Experiment” with Two Observers (Time Dilation)
http://autodynamicslborg.blogspot.com/2011/05/5-10-photon-momentum-in-dispersive.html
New Detailed Experiment with RaE
http://autodynamicslborg.blogspot.com/2011/05/blog-post_06.html
Of course, there are many other that you could see looking in the Blog.
Lucy Haye
Reply
jgoemat
2 Comments
Re: You are Right!
Are you serious? GPS satellites wouldn't work if they didn't take into account relativistic effects.
Reply
lucyhaye
77 Comments
Re: You are Right!
You are confused with the Scientific PROOFS. It is the contrary: If GPS is working it is the most conclusive proof that the concept of Time Dilation is non-existent as the Cal-Tech CHICOS experiment proves.
If you want to believe in FANTASIA, is your problem, but it is NOT Science.
Lucy Haye Ph. D.
SAA’s representative
Reply
Mapou
357 Comments
Re: External falsification
Relativity cannot be internally falsified.
Aw, come on. Relativity can be easily falsified. The nasty little truth about relativity is that the time dimension, a requirement of Einstein's physics, makes motion impossible. Surprise! This is the reason that nothing can move in spacetime and that Karl Popper (of falsifiability fame) compared spacetime to Parmenides' block universe in which nothing happens. Source: Conjectures and Refutations. In other words, no geodesics, no particles moving along their worldlines in curved spacetime and no time travel either. It's all hogwash. That's right, Einstein's physics calls for a universe in which nothing can move. Is that enough falsification for you?
In an essay titled "Objective Knowledge", Karl Popper wrote "... this is a field from which the observer was exorcised, slowly but steadily, by Einstein himself." Let's also not forget the irrefutable fact that the universe is discrete and that Einstein's physics is based on continuity.
The above is just the tip of the iceberg of what's wrong with Einstein's physics. The farce will not last forever.
Reply
laughingman
1 Comment
Re: External falsification
It is painfully obvious to anyone who has actually studied physics that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Reply
Mapou
357 Comments
Re: External falsification
I know.
Reply
shomas
246 Comments
Re: External falsification
To the point of relativity and internally falsification, means constructing arguments that contradict itself like 2 = 3. The math of relativity is self consistent. But self consistency does not mean it describes our reality. Experiment and observation have done a good job of showing relativity represents reality to date and only
experiment and observation could disprove relativity. History shows us more often then not when observation differed from prediction, we find that prediction failed to account for all factors. Taking that into consideration, it is prudent to reexamine the experiment and look for missing factors.
An example of self consistency.
Special relativity length contraction with some simple algebraic manipulation and trigonometric functions applied to derive a relativistic proof that proves velocities larger the speed of light are meaningless.
Where L = Length; Lr= Length at rest; V= velocity; C=speed of light
L=Lr*sqr(1-V^2/C^2)
L/Lr=sqr(1-V^2/C^2)
L^2/Lr^2=1-V^2/C^2
L^2/Lr^2+V^2/C^2=1
(L^2*C^2+Lr^2*V^2)/Lr^2*C^2=1
((L*C)^2+(Lr*V)^2)/(Lr*C)^2=1
(L*C)^2+(Lr*V)^2=(Lr*C)^2
A^2 + B^2 = C^2
Pythagoras said “In a right triangle the sum of the squares of the length of the legs is equal to the square of the hypotenuse." If you substitute L*C for leg A, Lr*V for leg B, and Lr*C for hypotenuse C,and then if you call angle B the angle that is opposite leg B, the sine of Angle B would be leg B or (Lr*V) / hypotenuse C or (Lr*C) and reduces to the Sin of Angle B = V/C
I'd like to ask if any one has seen the sin of any angle larger then 1 or less then -1
If relativity is true and there are no (real or we are able to rule out imaginary) angles with sin larger then 1, then V can never be larger then C. Speaking of real velocities faster then the speed of light would be just as meaningless as division by zero, because those values wouldn't exist if the theory of relativity is our reality.
Reply
Mapou
357 Comments
Re: External falsification
Experiment and observation have done a good job of showing relativity represents reality to date and only experiment and observation could disprove relativity.
This is not true. It is an irrefutable fact that a time dimension makes motion impossible. There is no physics in relativity because relativity assumes the existence of a time dimension, an impossibility. It is also an irrefutable fact that nature is discrete, not continuous as the relativists have claimed and continue to claim. A discrete universe totally falsifies relativity even if some of its predictions are correct. The inconsistency is in the logic of relativity, not in the math.
Relativity is just a math trick, a mere engineering formula based on certain measurements. As such, it explains nothing and it is no better than Ptolemaic epicycles or Newtonian physics before it. Unlike the relativists, however, Newton had the decency to acknowledge that he had no understanding of what causes gravity or even what causes motion.
Math is only descriptive. It is not explanatory. The entire spacetime curvature nonsense - from which some (e.g., Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne) have extrapolated absurd monstrosities like black holes, wormholes and time travel, would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.
Regarding the faster-than-light neutrino claim, it is obvious that physicists don't know what they're talking about. If they really understood why c is the universe's speed limit, then why all the fuss? They would just assume that they made a mistake and no one would hear of it. Was it a guess all along? It sure seems that way, doesn't it?
If physicists had any clue, they would know that not only is c the fastest speed in the universe, it is also the slowest speed. Nothing can move faster or slower than c. It is the only speed in the universe, period. Why? Because the universe is discrete.
Motion at ordinary speeds really consists of a series of discrete jumps at c interspersed with a lot of wait periods. This is true regardless of how smooth we think motion is at the macroscopic level.
Read Physics: The Problem with Motion if you're interested in having a real understanding of motion. You don't understand motion even if you think you do.
Reply
Ashbert
2 Comments
Re: External falsification
Uncle Al claims: "Relativity is rigorously derived." NO IT IS NOT. Yes, mediocre minds are satisfied it is (i.e. just about everyone in today's world of physics). "If nothing travels faster than light then Einstein's theory is right?" Not so!
Reality is more complex -- a COUNTER-EXAMPLE exists that PROVES that (though Einstein's postulates are correct), Einstein's claim of having derived the Lorentz transformations is wrong, yes a COUNTER-EXAMPLE -- and at least one Nobel prize winner takes this realization seriously. See http://physicsnext.org/ for details, a very simple read, but majority be warned... facing physics reality regarding the foundations could disturb a mediocre mind and make you react emotionally...for example, Howard Georgi got very angry!
Physicists know what a COUNTER-EXAMPLE but almost none of them are intellectually bold enough to analyze Einstein's derivation. How many physicists can even spell "derivation" ... well, almost all can (mediocre minds don't think independently but are excellent at memorizing)... how about read Einstein's 1905 derivation *VERY* CAREFULLY ... almost none (their courage-less mediocre minds limit them from that option)? See http://physicsnext.org/
Reply