November 18th, 2011
05:45 PM ET

Test confirms particles appear to travel faster than the speed of light

(CNN) – Travel faster than the speed of light? Really?

Back in September, scientists found that tiny particles called neutrinos appeared to do just that, defying Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

It could be a fluke, but now the same experiment has replicated the result. It’s not hard proof yet, though; other groups still need to confirm these findings.

Physicists with the OPERA (Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus) experiment said in September that neutrinos sent about 454 miles (730 kilometers) from CERN in Switzerland arrived at Italy’s Gran Sasso National Laboratory a fraction of a second sooner than they should have according to Einstein’s theory.

Other scientists were skeptical, raising questions about possible flaws in the study.

So OPERA scientists rechecked parts of the experiment to take into account suggestions from their critics. They announced Friday that the new test confirms the initial findings.

“This result confirms that neutrinos arrived at Gran Sasso lab 62.1 nanoseconds in advance with respect to the time computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum,” according to Lucia Votano, director of INFN-Gran Sasso Laboratory.

The OPERA team's initial result was based on observing more than 15,000 bunches of neutrinos, or electrically neutral subatomic particles. But the scientists did not track any one specific neutrino. Instead, the neutrinos were produced in long pulses that lasted about 10 millionths of a second.

“Although this sounds short, it is hundreds of times longer than the 60 nanoseconds early arrival time of the neutrinos at the Gran Sasso in Italy,” said Andy Cohen, a professor of physics at Boston University, who is not involved in OPERA.

This means that when a neutrino arrived at Gran Sasso there was no way to know exactly when it was produced during the pulse, preventing an accurate measurement of its speed.

The new study used shorter pulses making it easier to know more precisely when an individual neutrino was generated.

“They did this for only 20 neutrinos,” Cohen said, “but since the speed of each one is known, this leads to a very precise result, confirming that the neutrinos appear to be arriving 60 nanoseconds earlier than expected.”

But don’t throw your physics book just yet. Cohen said there are other potential issues with the experiment that haven’t been addressed yet. “While this result is a very significant improvement over the previous measurement, many of the concerns that have been raised about possible sources of uncertainty remain.

“We should probably remain skeptical until we have confirmation from other experiments,” he said.

Votana agrees and said the OPERA measurement needs to be confirmed by independent scientists. Even if the results are confirmed, we won’t toss out all of Einstein’s theory. A broader theory would be generated that would include Einstein’s theory, Votana said.

Scientists at Fermilab in Illinois and in Japan are expected to try to replicate the findings.

“If the neutrinos are truly traveling faster than light this would require profound changes in the way we understand space and time,” Cohen said.

Follow @CNNLightYears on Twitter

Post by:
Filed under: Discoveries • News • Science Education
soundoff (549 Responses)
  1. helenecha

    If scientists really want to get us know there're particles which can travel faster than the speed of light, Ok, just turn it into something and let us see. For example, our spacecrafts can travel faster than the speed of light to go to any other planets at Space because of this discovery.

    November 19, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
    • o dear god

      arent you just an overflowing pot of smarts

      November 21, 2011 at 10:06 am |
    • sksk

      I think this article may be a little too advanced for you to fully understand. Marty McFly isn't going back to 1955 any time soon.

      November 21, 2011 at 11:52 am |
    • get educated

      i think this topic might be a little out of your league

      November 21, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
      • charles duncan

        i think assumption travels faster then intelligence...."use the force harry...-gandalf"

        November 21, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
    • What?

      You need a super rocket to drive to close to the speed of light, and the rocket itself with all its casing and fuel must have to travel at that speed then give you a further push. Remember, when you travel at that speed, tiny matters in space are coming at you at that speed and no radar can forewarn you.
      As to having matter occupying two spaces at the same time, this is not possible, never in the past, not now, and not in the future. It will always take time (a process that doesn't exist except when we compare two separate processes) to move a matter no matter how small from spot A to Spot B.

      November 21, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
      • BobfromNY

        Ever heard of a Boson? Probably not...

        November 21, 2011 at 1:49 pm |
      • Dan

        Research the concept of the quantum leap.

        November 21, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
      • Whisper

        Is there nothing Scott Bakula can't fix?

        November 21, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
      • Nad

        The comment about something being in two places at once comes form the quantum field theory...it states that particles exist at every point in space (a field) until they are observed at a perticular point. It does not mean that something can go from A to B instantly. Quantum entaglement is the term used when two particles share the same properties (spin, velocity, position, etc). When one entangled particle is messed with (say, the spin axis changed) the spin access will also change on the other particle instantly no matter how far apart they are. The 'information transfer' does happen faster than light. Einstein called this 'spooky action from a distance."

        November 21, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
      • Jason K

        Also factor that just to reach Proxima Centauri, it would take approximately 1 Earth year travelling at C. Even if one of our scopes could detect life on another world, the distance from it would be showing us images from long ago. Send an expedition there travelling at "light speed" and when it gets there in 50 years or whatever, the civilization might all be dead.

        Developing a technology like "warp drive" is infact very impractical as we have nothing sturdy enough to survive slamming into space dust at that velocity.

        Rather, principles of folding space, dimensional travel, or moving at the speed of thought (true teleportation) would be more practical avenues to explore. However, with our current understanding, such a thing could imagined but would always be dismissed at science fiction because of our inability to apply it at this time.

        November 21, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
      • speed can do wonders

        I see now. we can see our own self cooking, reading, or even taking a shower. All we have to do is to travel faster than light so we can turn our eyes back, slow down our speed, and watch ourselves. This is the closest thing two matters can occupy the same space or field.

        November 21, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
    • ummm

      AHAHAHA-This whole comment section is making my night-I love when the clueless come out to play with the grown-ups-makes for an amusing look into human insight-sometimes it is best to just give it up and not even try.. :D

      November 21, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
      • anon

        i totally agree with you. i'm lmao at the perfect microcosm of our society represented by this "discussion". dunces vs propeller-heads vs comedians vs the humorously senseless. the comment entertainment is better than the article...

        December 12, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
    • Freygunnr

      OMG Mom! You're totally embarrassing yourself. Totally.

      December 16, 2011 at 10:21 am |
  2. hippypoet

    this prooves that god does not exist because atheists are smarter than christians. go take a look at cnn's belief blog and you'll see

    November 18, 2011 at 11:39 pm |
    • John

      Huh? Your hangovers gonna be bad

      November 19, 2011 at 1:30 am |
      • the dude

        Christians aren't the only ones who believe in a supernatural being, but what this guy put could be sarcasm.

        November 19, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • NS Sherlock

      The only thing that moves faster than light are IDIOTS like YOU who obviously are uneducated and lack intelligence. It's a wonder you figured out how to use a keyboard. My bet is someone helped you.

      November 21, 2011 at 9:25 am |
      • o dear god

        AWWWW! how truly christian.. yes christian.. not Christian. why do you think you are as such, and why do you think the majority of this world WAS christian for so many centuries? we now call them extremists. Those that ridicule, persecute and ultimately threaten death or conversion of their beliefs. good job. way to continue this long standing christian tradition.

        November 21, 2011 at 10:11 am |
      • andrew.peter

        Man has used religion and other means to gain and secure their power. It's called exploitation. Their use of it does not in anyway devoid the vehicle which they use for their personal gain.

        November 21, 2011 at 12:32 pm |
      • Bill

        Hey Pete, that's what the NRA says about guns too.

        Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

        But if a tool is used over and over again for exactly what it was designed to do, and said intent is evil, its not hard or unnatural to extend one's antipathy from the constant stream of idiotic users of the tool to the tool itself, its inventors, and its "innocent" proponents.

        November 21, 2011 at 1:32 pm |
    • Really

      I don't see how this proves or disproves anything. "our understanding of time and space" would require profund changes. The Universe might not be as old as we were lead to believe if neutrinos can travel fast thatn light, then the age of the universe cannot be measured by light.

      November 21, 2011 at 10:28 am |
      • o dear god

        interesting. however tons of people have maintained that there are different rules governing the sub-atomic world

        November 21, 2011 at 10:37 am |
      • Les

        Light still travels at the "Speed of light". So ... light based measurements would still be accurate.

        November 21, 2011 at 1:15 pm |
      • Nad

        The only reason we use light to measure the age of the universe is becuase it is the most common thing we can 'see' with our instruments. Electromagnitism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are only observable via photons. Observing space using gravity is still new and we don't have a lot of knowledge about it. the biggest flaw with light measurements is that it travels too slow (and it gets distorted from gravity)....light from 14 billion light yeras was shed 14 billion years agon, but in that 14 billion years tims the universe has expanded so even though we measure that the light came from 14 billion light years away, it actually came from a lot farther if you account the time it took to get to us and the expansion within that 14 billion years.

        November 21, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
    • Reason

      Ballet fans are smarter than NASCAR fans. Therefore, NASCAR does not exist.

      November 21, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
      • alan seago

        To "Reason", regarding ballet and NASCAR: Clever point. Well stated.

        November 21, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
  3. Newton

    What Einstein did was math, not physics. Crucially, he assumed that nature follows the mathematical axioms which were invented by humans.

    November 18, 2011 at 11:34 pm |
    • j

      math was discovered not invented

      November 21, 2011 at 9:25 am |
      • Smarty

        Math was discovered, but Mathematical Axioms were invented.

        November 21, 2011 at 11:57 am |
      • mcbarker

        Math is a language, much like music notation, developed (invented) by humans to explain the complexities of physics. It is not yet a fully developed language, and will not be until we have a full understanding of the physics of the universe; which will be never.

        November 21, 2011 at 12:16 pm |
      • Mance Lotter

        actually, i invented math and math discovered me

        November 21, 2011 at 12:26 pm |
    • mattski

      Einstein's laws did not include an assumption about nature. He used mathematical formulae to confirm the relationship between time, space, gravity and speed. All physicists use math to confirm or disprove their theories.

      November 21, 2011 at 9:31 am |
    • Will S

      Math models nature.

      November 21, 2011 at 11:42 am |
      • PushingBack

        Nature models math

        November 21, 2011 at 11:52 am |
    • feedingfrenzy

      Unlike Issac Newton, Einstein was by no means an outstanding mathematician, something he freely acknowledged. He needed to be tutored, with great diffculty, in tensor analysis by Marcel Grossman in order to complete his treatise on general relativity in 1915. What Einstein really was was a tremendous intuitive thinker who also possessed the ability and drive to reduce his intuitions about the physical world into quantifiable proofs.

      November 21, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
  4. b4bigbang

    Heres a topic related to the article: "unlike ordinary particles, the speed of a tachyon increases as its energy decreases. In particular, E approaches zero when v approaches infinity. (For ordinary bradyonic matter, E increases with increasing speed, becoming arbitrarily large as v approaches c, the speed of light). Therefore, just as bradyons are forbidden to break the light-speed barrier, so too are tachyons forbidden from slowing down to below c, because infinite energy is required to reach the barrier from either above or below."

    November 18, 2011 at 10:48 pm |
    • phil

      Ah .. the wonderful (hypothetical) Tachyon ... Really reminds me the good old days of watch star trek TNG. This is the magical beam that will solve any problems. Got a temporal rift that needs to close? Tachyon beam it. Can't detect a cloaked vessel? Tachyon scan it. LOL ...

      November 18, 2011 at 11:31 pm |
      • kalster

        Yes...correct! And don't for get the "inverse tachyon pulse". That thing can break or repair anything!

        November 21, 2011 at 11:27 am |
    • Jason

      Don't diss da Tachyons! In da final episode of STNG, a tachyon pulse stopped a quantum paradox and saved the entire universe, ya hurd?!

      November 21, 2011 at 11:39 am |
      • Joe

        But Q started that event thus he could have ended it just the same. In fact if he left it alone, it would have made the Q cease to exist since it grew larger backwards in time. Thus it would be so large that Q was never made.

        November 21, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
  5. Kishore

    To put it mildly- this changes everything!

    November 18, 2011 at 10:34 pm |
  6. Snow

    Even as a kid when I first heard my 5th grade science teacher explain the speed of light and E's theory that "if something travels faster than the speed of light, it travels back in time" I called it Bull... After I grew up and understood "some" of E's relativity, I thought it made sense on paper, but still thought such a generalized statement was Bull..

    Here is how I reasoned it. If I take two clocks perfectly synchornized, and hold one stationary (wrt earth, lets say) and move the other clock in some trajectory at a speed faster than speed of light, and bring them back togather, what happens? I mean, wouldn't the amount of time that passed on each clock with respect to itself be the same amount? which means they would have counted the same amount of time, isn't it? which means, they would still be synchronized, isn't it..

    As a disclaimer, I have to say I am not a physicist..

    November 18, 2011 at 10:19 pm |
    • SciGuy

      Yeah...we know.

      November 18, 2011 at 10:25 pm |
    • Lotustar

      Actually I think the clocks would be off by a bit. I know there was an experiment where they synced two atomic clocks, left one on the ground and put the other in an airplane. They flew around the world with the one clock and when they got back they were off from each other by like billionths of a second. I also hear that astronauts age less when they are in space than people on earth. But I could be wrong.

      November 19, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
      • Scott

        Simple elevation accompishes the same, if I remember correctly, they've put two atomic clocks side by side and essentially 'put blocks' under one to elevated slightly higher and over time the two clocks did not stay in sync. It had something to do with distance from the earths core, gravity bending space time, etc.

        November 21, 2011 at 9:32 am |
      • steve

        you are right!

        November 21, 2011 at 11:53 am |
    • FP

      Your instinct is wrong here. Even just going faster at all the clocks end up different. No need to go faster than the speed of light. This experiment has been done, look up the Hafele–Keating experiment. In a nutshell, atomic clocks flown around the world on jet planes show different time than their synchronized partners on the ground. The time dilation effect is even large enough that the worlds' GPS systems have to compensate for it to give correct coordinates.

      November 21, 2011 at 9:30 am |
      • Soulcatcher

        That's the Earth's gravity affecting the atomic clock at different altitudes (basically distance from a large planetary body. Not much to do with faster than light travel.

        November 21, 2011 at 9:55 am |
      • lewax00

        @Soulcatcher Actually the distance from Earth does effect the speed it's moving. Think of two points on a wheel, one near the center and another near the edge. While the wheel spins, if it is rigid, both points will rotate about the axis the same number of times in the same amount of time, but the point farther from the center is actually traveling faster, because it must move in a larger circle to maintain the same amount of rotations than the circle close to the center. The same is true of things like geosynchronous satellites, they must move in a much larger circle in the same time we move in a smaller circle around Earth's rotational axis, and in order to do so they must be moving much faster than us, leading to timing issues because of relativity.

        November 21, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
    • Stu

      Here are thoughts from a guy that doesn't know anything about this stuff...

      We measure the speed of things in relation to our position in the universe. I assume everything in the universe is moving, some things faster than others, and everything in different directions in relation to some other object in the universe.

      Given this thought, if you are an object moving near the speed of light in one direction, and another object is moving towards you at the speed of light, isnt that other object moving at the speed of light plus your speed, when the speed is measure as to its relationship with you? Therefore, the fastest speed measurable by you would be an object traveling at nearly twice the speed of light (if it was on a trajector heading straight at you).

      Arthur C Clark, or someone, wrote an interesting short story(read it 25 years ago) about a scientist who discovered how to make an object stand still in the universe. Once he did this to an object, it appeared that it sped up instantaneously to astronomical speeds, since the earth was traveling at an astronomical speed within the universe. (and hence traveling away from the object at an atronomical speed, which had just attained a velocity of zero).

      Given these amature thoughts, if the experiment is duplicated at different times of the day, to place the direction of the neutinos in the opposite direction within the universe, I think that would be worth mentioning.

      November 21, 2011 at 10:55 am |
      • Dean

        Actually, if you measure everything in relative to your position, then you are always standing still. You are not changing position relative to where you are. The other comment I would make is that all measurements of velocity should be as a proportion of the speed of light and take into account time dilation.

        November 21, 2011 at 12:43 pm |
      • Dan

        While what you say seems, and is, perfectly logical and correct when measuring the slower velocities at which we can actually travel, things change at the spped of light. If one object is traveling at the speed of light, and another object is traveling directly toward it on a "collision course", also at the speed of light, their speed relative to each other is – the speed of light, not twice the speed of light. I do realize that it seems not to make sense, but it's mathematically sound. I don't know WHAT'S going on with those neutrinos.

        November 21, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
      • Professor

        No sir, Dead wrong. Logical- but nobody said life had to be logical. YOU CAN NEVER ADD OR SUBTRACT FROM THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

        Einstien's big discovery was 'space-time.' He reasoned that since experiments have repeatedly shown that no matter how fast a light source is moving the speed of light is always the same then that means the speed of light must be somehow related to time. That is, space and time must be related in some way so that when you approach the speed of light TIME MUST SLOW DOWN. So when 2 light beams are traveling towards one another they are EACH approaching at the speed of light. Weird huh? Now go smoke some herb and think about it again.

        December 9, 2011 at 5:58 pm |
    • rob

      The syncronization of the clocks breaks once you accelerate one and not the other. Accelerating one gives it more energy, which increases its mass and slows time.

      November 21, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
  7. Capercorn

    Part of me wonders if we're starting to rub up against the half-jokingly proposed "Groucho Marx Effect" [which states, "I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would accept me as a member"].

    Applied to cosmology, it would state, according to Prof. John Barrow of Cambridge, "A universe simple enough to be understood is too simple to produce a mind capable of understanding it."

    November 18, 2011 at 10:09 pm |
    • Jet747

      If a universe is too simple to produce a mind not capable of understanding it then a universe is simple enough to not be understood.

      Boolean contrapositive?

      November 18, 2011 at 10:29 pm |
  8. phil

    Neutrinos from supernova SN1987A in large Magellanic cloud (our satellite galaxy) observed arriving at the same time as light, not four years earlier. Don't get too excited folks.

    November 18, 2011 at 9:47 pm |
    • Capercorn

      While I'm putting all my chips down on Einstein, those neutrinos that we observed from that supernova are of a far lower energy than the ones used in this experiment.

      There is a possibility that quantities once assumed to be constants may end up being functions that just behave like constants at low energies.

      Stupid differential equations...

      November 18, 2011 at 9:59 pm |
      • phil

        well yes but it would be weird ~ just as I don't see photons of higher energy traveling faster than that of lower energy. But then of course there are other weird stuff like entangled Particles Seem to Communicate Instantly which happened a couple of years ago. Still no explanation.

        That .. or European can't time things. ... LOL ...

        November 18, 2011 at 10:20 pm |
      • Dan

        That's the point I think. It may be that this result is only seen at much higher energy levels. Of course, this will make it more difficult to confirm, since I'm not sure anyone else in the US or Japan can hit these levels.

        November 19, 2011 at 11:02 pm |
    • Dan

      Yeah, that's actually a very good point.

      November 21, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
    • Fred Squash

      I'm not wearing any pants.

      November 21, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
  9. b4bigbang

    Jet747 :That is exactly what the top theorist said 100 years ago about dust particls...anything smaller is spiritual....what do you think they will be saying in 100 years? Why is it so easy to make everything unknown attributable to spirits rather than understanding we don't know everything?

    They said that 100 years ago before the technology existed to go to the subatomic level. We're now at the jumping -off point where the observer is no longer observing particles (because at that level there are none), there are only strings. The size of a string relative to the size of a hydrogen atom can be like comparing the size of the solar system to a single tree. Beyond strings there're only dimensionalities.

    November 18, 2011 at 9:34 pm |
    • Capercorn

      Just stop. Please, please stop.

      You're using words that you clearly don't understand. Please learn from Wittgenstein: That which one cannot speak clearly of, one should not speak of at all.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:43 pm |
      • b4bigbang

        I cant do the math, but not to speak of this stuff at all? Then why have a pure science section in the pop press at all? Fortunately some top scientists disagree with you or we wouldnt have books by Davies, books and shows by Greene, etc. BTW, i was quoting Greene re the "math device" statement. I dont know the math, but he sure does.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:46 pm |
    • Jet747

      My only point was that for a certain segment of the population (99%) people seam to be content with..."well we can't go any further so must be some mumbo jumbo spiritual stuff running the show in that there particle thing"...rather than using common sense which would seam to indicate we just haven't developed the tools, physical or otherwise, to understand. In 100 years there will be an entirely different challege.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:46 pm |
      • b4bigbang

        @Jet747: I know, it's frustrating. People wanna talk about Paris Hilton and how many BFF's orbit her rather than the more interesting science frontiers....

        November 18, 2011 at 9:55 pm |
      • Jet747

        So did you hear that Paris is coming out with a new line of hand bags...should be all the rage...

        November 18, 2011 at 10:03 pm |
  10. Aaron

    Thank god, a discusion that doesn't involves repubs vs. dems.
    Im a plumber but find science so cool. Theres little opinion, just math.
    Will one of the smart guys here describe in laymens terms how something (protons) can have NO mass? are there other things with no mass? Is there anything that has been proved that CANT exist?
    Curious

    November 18, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
    • Jet747

      I am not sure a "thought" has mass.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:30 pm |
    • BajaFresh

      i think you mean photons (with an H).. they refer to light particles and they indeed have nearly no mass.. Protons (with R) have much much more mass compared to a photon though..

      November 18, 2011 at 9:32 pm |
    • Capercorn

      Well, I was going to write something.

      I learned that I should probably stay far away from writing popular science. I started trying to type in LaTeX. I'm not even sure if that works on CNN, nor do I feel like trying it today.

      A popular science writer who I like is the cosmologist Paul C.W. Davies of ASU. He's the guy that the scientific community has selected to be humanities ambassador to the aliens if/when we make first contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:37 pm |
      • Capercorn

        Gah. I meant humanity's. Not humanities.

        I'm sorry, I'm a bit out of it today. They made me put up with a chalkboard sized single algebraic statement. That took a while to simplify, and I still have a headache from it.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:39 pm |
      • b4bigbang

        @Capercorn: Davies eh? I'll have to check him out. Are you familiar w/Brian Greene and his work? If so, whaddaya think of it?

        November 18, 2011 at 9:43 pm |
      • Capercorn

        Sort of.

        I'm not a fan of string theory, or any sort of Theory of Everything.

        Because theories of everything claim to explain everything, they must also be able to explain us explaining them.

        Such feedback loops will lead us into a situation where the Second Incompleteness Theorem will come into play, rendering all of the work rubbish.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:46 pm |
      • ashrakay

        Paul Davies is a religious apologist. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, especially one as gifted as his.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:06 pm |
    • Lets Produce

      "Thank god, a discussion that doesn't involves repubs vs. dems. I'm also thankful it doesn't involve Justin Beaver or Kim Kardashian or Gaga. What a relief.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:42 pm |
    • Dan

      Read "A Breif History of Time".

      November 21, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
    • MathWizard

      photons (the "particle" associated with electromagnetic waves: ligh, xrays, radio waves) has zero rest-mass
      It does have mas when travelling at the speed of light (C) and they have exactly the mass

      m=E/c^2 (Remember E=m*c^2) where * means times and c^2 means c squared or c*c

      All science experiments need to be reproducible to be accepted. One experiment proves nothing,
      but may suggest further inquiry. Subtle errors can be made in a single experiment, but likely
      would not appear in subsequent experiments menat to confirm the experiment.

      Objects with non-zero rest mass cannot reach the speed of light, light particles can only move at the speed of
      light. If a particle were to be able to exceed the speed of light. it would have to have a purely imaginary
      rest mass ( the square root of a negative number). Tachyons were the name given to such theoretical particles,
      and tachyons would need to be going backwards in time, and would require energy to slow down closer to
      the speed of light. Such particles have not been observed, and

      As you accelerate objects they gain mass.

      November 21, 2011 at 7:35 pm |
  11. mxuxr

    May be there is existance of medium "ether' after all, in which, photon travels. May be there are presence of other mediums, one of which is used by Neutrinos, where value of "c" is different. So General relativity need not be untrue, its just a skewed perspective of the Whole.

    November 18, 2011 at 9:25 pm |
    • Just sayin'

      Two things:

      1. As per the article, "the same experiment replicated the result" doesn't exactly sell me on anything. Then it goes on to state "result is a very significant improvement over the previous measurement". Interesting doublespeak. If it's the replicated result how can it be an improvement over the previous result.
      2. Good question, mxuxr. This was only 20 neutrinos (how can you count them anyhow) and since neutrinos can travel through matter without being affected, maybe the neutrinos they detected came from a distant planet, or Chicago.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:49 pm |
      • Les

        I live in Chicago... I'm pretty sure we have all of our particles accounted for.

        November 21, 2011 at 1:25 pm |
  12. Melissa

    This may sound really stupid, and I know next to nothing about physics, but how did the researchers verify that the arriving neutrinos were the same neutrinos sent?

    November 18, 2011 at 9:24 pm |
    • John

      ID tags (with longform birth certificates).

      November 18, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
    • mxuxr

      One clue is difference in travel time is constant: 60 nanosecond. This value would have been random had the source or origin been at random.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:35 pm |
      • Melissa

        Thank you for the response, mx!

        November 21, 2011 at 10:26 am |
  13. Dave

    This is almost as fast as the collapse of Rick Perry and Herman Cain !

    November 18, 2011 at 9:22 pm |
    • godmatrix

      What's the third thing again.. Oh ya. Talibans in Libya. Wait. scratch that.. 999

      November 18, 2011 at 9:23 pm |
  14. Dood

    You know what travels faster than the speed of light? Taxes. And the love of someone you could care less about.

    November 18, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
    • godmatrix

      bravo...

      November 18, 2011 at 9:20 pm |
  15. godmatrix

    I got one for you.. Joke that is.
    What do you call a girl.. no wait. I just gave it away. No worries... Ping!

    What do you call a no I got that wrong again.. Ping...
    wait.. what was I talking about?!?

    November 18, 2011 at 9:18 pm |
    • godmatrix

      Assuming these particles can assist me back in time...

      November 18, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
  16. Mopery

    Praise be to Thor, who sits as judge of us all at the world tree Yggdrasil! Science has again been struck down by his mighty hammer Mjolner! Praise be to Odin, the All-Father!

    November 18, 2011 at 9:17 pm |
    • godmatrix

      Sorry to disappoint you. Loki made the particle go faster. Simply to piss Thor off.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:22 pm |
      • Mopery

        Loki! That foul trickster will surely bring the neutrinos to Surtur the Fire Giant! This can't end well...

        November 18, 2011 at 9:25 pm |
  17. Glenn

    Just play Black Sabbath backwards on an old 45 turn table and you will find the answer.

    November 18, 2011 at 9:17 pm |
    • Matthew

      I went back in time just reading that.

      November 18, 2011 at 11:38 pm |
  18. john

    scientitsts have already observed certain particles react to the same stimulus simultaneously from two end of the united states. So SOMETHING moves faster than light. Most people dont understand that the TRUE root of science, is composed of what they call "spooky" science. Things that are more spiritual in nature. I always laugh when people make fun of things like ESP or Auras, as they are indeed scientific in nature. Kirlian photography, phantom effects, holographic memory storage, multiple dimensions? all stuff of science.. even ghosts.

    November 18, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
    • Capercorn

      With the exception of multiple dimensions, the rest of that statement is hogwash.

      And multiple dimensions aren't some sort of spooky thing. It's just math. Yay... Now instead of being stuck with triple integrals, we're stuck with 11-dimensional integrals... Forgive my lack of enthusiasm.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:11 pm |
      • b4bigbang

        @Capercorn: I must disagree w/one part of your statement about "it's just math". I too thought this way until they interviewed the physicist. They asked "are these real dimensions or just a math device", and his answer was that it's not just a math device.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
      • Capercorn

        The concept of temporal-spatial dimensions in physics are tensor quantities that show up in linear algebra. They are the same exact thing.

        However, unless I'm working with somebody who also has the requisite background necessary to understand such concepts, I'm going to be misread. And I've taken Wittgenstein to heart; if I can't speak of it clearly given the language set I have to work with, I'm just not going to talk about it.

        If you go through about Calc III, and a class on discrete mathematics and logic, I can explain it in a very, very clear way.

        However, without that background, I cannot speak of physics clearly at all. For that, I will entrust you to Paul Davies.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
      • lgny

        PBS Nova has an excellent show on string theory, its role in explaining the universe as well as its skeptics. It's a good start if you want to begin to understand the overall ideas.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:37 pm |
      • john

        sorry man, but its not hogwash. people like you are actually keeping us in the dark ages. And the particles communicating have indeed been documented.. in many many many tests. ESP has been documented. and the term "spooky" has been coined by scientists, not me. Want to explain to me why quantum mechanics and general relativity make no sense together? string theory and mtheory toucch it and if they are true we are in a world of spooky. the fact that you think dimensions are mathematically explainable tells me a lot about how little you know..

        November 18, 2011 at 9:40 pm |
    • john

      This article in no way is saying that pseudoscience like esp and auras are legit

      November 18, 2011 at 9:15 pm |
      • john

        this artical has nothing to do with the sciences of kirlian emissions or esp. who said it did?

        November 18, 2011 at 9:42 pm |
    • b4bigbang

      Auras, ghosts, etc. I tend to agree. There's a level of existence below the level of the proton/neutron, indeed, even below the level of quarks, where science cannot presently (and may never be able to) observe. It is at this level that philosophy/spirituality comes into play. That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the top theoretical scientists.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:16 pm |
      • Capercorn

        As long as that "thing" you speak of is information, I can agree with you.

        If it's not, then STFU.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
      • Jet747

        That is exactly what the top theorist said 100 years ago about dust particls...anything smaller is spiritual....what do you think they will be saying in 100 years? Why is it so easy to make everything unknown attributable to spirits rather than understanding we don't know everything?

        November 18, 2011 at 9:23 pm |
      • john

        nice scientific evaluation with your stfu proposal.. i just lost any faith i had in you as an intelligent human being.. which wasnt much to begin with..

        November 18, 2011 at 10:41 pm |
    • NC

      Perception paints reality. Quantum physics offers infinite possibility. An infinite number of perceptions exist. Depending on the level of perception, any particle speed is possible.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:55 pm |
  19. Jet747

    Why did the chicken cross the möbius strip?

    To get to the other...

    November 18, 2011 at 9:06 pm |
    • Capercorn

      Heh... Topology joke.

      I approve. Nobody ever does those.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:08 pm |
    • TheAnswer

      To stay on the same side! ;-)

      November 18, 2011 at 9:31 pm |
  20. Mike P

    I thought other scientists had already shown that there was something wrong with the calculations - something about relativity factors not being applied to the satellites that were measuring the neutrinos' speed? Or is this a different experiment?

    November 18, 2011 at 9:01 pm |
    • Capercorn

      They used GPS for their time data.

      2 huge problems:

      1) GPS was never designed for particle physics experiments; it was designed for military navigation purposes; big macro/classical things, not tiny quantum things.

      2) GPS doesn't work unless you have a direct line of sight. OPERA is way underground. No direct line of sight.

      As my comp sci friends like to say: Garbage in/Garbage out.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:04 pm |
    • godmatrix

      The real question is.. will it create jobs.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:21 pm |
    • Louis

      Mike, I read the same thing in another artlcle. And yes it was for this experiment! I'd like to see followup on that. Did the mistake they find end up not being one? Is what we read someone's opinion and it was never really tested against this test?

      November 18, 2011 at 9:34 pm |
  21. Maxim

    I had so much fun reading comments here I almost missed the lecture I had to teach today!

    November 18, 2011 at 9:00 pm |
  22. Sigh

    The only thing more sad then everyone trying to show how 'silly' this either is or is not, are all the peopel trying to contradict them to show how smart they are. I doubt many ultra high IQ types would bother posting here...and if you ARE an ultra high IQ type why the heck are you in here....go cure cancer or something constructive!! Signed the middle 25%. (At least we aren't clogging up some cities tax dollars ;-P.)

    November 18, 2011 at 8:59 pm |
    • Sigh

      ...it seems I can't spell...feel free to get some high end flaming in based on my typos, heh.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:00 pm |
    • Capercorn

      As much as I enjoy computing endless numbers of triple integrals, and proving endless number of theorems, eventually the brain needs some rest.

      Posting on CNN does not require lots of quantitative analysis. This also lets us blow off steam, as the money-bags who give us money are stupid and have no clue about the stuff we do, and yet they think they know how to do stuff better than we do.

      -Mathematician

      November 18, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
    • gremlinus

      Why, because scientists can't be interested in current events or the news? There is a ton of misinformation out there. And there are many times that something controversial, disputed, or untested gets sensationalized as "possible" or an "alternative hypothesis." Some of us feel the need to point out sloppy science or when someone jumps to conclusions. Often it's not the scientists themselves, it's some layman pseudo-intellectual that jumps the gun and misinterprets. I get really tired of being vilified and doubted when hot, sexy topics like climate change and evolution come up in the media. So yeah, I'll feel free to point out when someone is misinterpreting or misusing science. Why don't you try learning some so I don't have to do it so often?

      November 18, 2011 at 9:21 pm |
  23. FrankR

    I am going back to the God of Abraham, the true source of all knowledge.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:58 pm |
    • Maxim

      Are you planning on coming back any time soon?

      November 18, 2011 at 9:00 pm |
    • Capercorn

      Okay. Make sure you take Keith Ward's "God, Chance and Necessity" with you. Then science and you can be best buddies without having to abandon Christianity.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:02 pm |
    • Bob

      I'm going back to the God of Keith Richards

      November 18, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
    • ashrakay

      I'm sure I speak for all thinking people when I say, you won't be missed.

      November 19, 2011 at 12:57 am |
  24. FrankR

    St Paul - Proffessing t be wise they become fools.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:57 pm |
  25. Bad Richard

    I took a rough look calculating the distance using Google Earth and got 455 miles. That should be within there figure of 454 as I'm not sure of there exact starting and ending site. That of course means the neutrinos came out of the ground, followed the curvature of the Earth and went back into the mountian to be timed. I hope they took into consideration the shortest distance between two points is a straight line....

    November 18, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
    • Aswift

      oh, they probably didn't think about that... they probably had a hard time with Algebra I, don't you think?

      November 18, 2011 at 9:06 pm |
    • Capercorn

      Only in Euclidean geometry is the shortest distance between two points a straight line.

      And we've known that non-Euclidean geometries exist for a couple centuries now. Einstein just proved that space-time is non Euclidean.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:13 pm |
    • Bionik1

      In other stories that I've read about this, it indeed was a straight shot through the Earth. Neutrinos are good like that. Interesting article.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:17 pm |
    • gremlinus

      What's the precision of measurements on Google Earth?

      November 18, 2011 at 9:22 pm |
    • K Kammeyer

      Neutrinos don't follow the curvature of the Earth. They go in a straight line. They are chargeless and nearly massless, so they are unaffected by gravity as well. I can only assume that both sites were using precisely calibrated atomic clocks, and the neutrino beam travelled straight through the earth from one location to the other.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
  26. James

    Anyways Humans can't push their body to go any where near the speed of light

    November 18, 2011 at 8:50 pm |
  27. James

    What happened to Neil Tyson Degrasse's Show

    November 18, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
  28. ashrakay

    By the way, the BBC did a fantastic write-up on this almost 2 weeks ago. CNN is the Walmart of news. Once it's here, you know it's already out of fashion.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:44 pm |
  29. El Kababa

    There are two comments that I always see whenever any scientist discovers any thing.

    1. This is news? Hell, everyone knows that. That's stupid. If they had asked me, I could have told them the findings ten years ago.

    2. I hope none of my tax dollars – for which I work my butt off – was spent on this nonsense. Who cares? They should spend money fixing the potholes in my street. That's just a bunch of liberal professors stealing my hard-earned money.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:43 pm |
  30. b4bigbang

    Hey, anybody here been watching PBS lately? They're running Brian Greene's series about spacetime and string theory on Nova. Really good series.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:38 pm |
    • frontgate

      OOoooo can't wait
      sounds like a real whizbang

      November 18, 2011 at 8:52 pm |
  31. ashrakay

    Without expressing a full understanding General Relativity, this article has effectively provided millions of religious hillbillies a reason to remain ignorant to science. Science is never "right" in finality. It's always about being more right than the previous generation. Einstein was more right than Newton. That doesn't mean we dismiss Newtonian physics. Rather, we continue to refine our understanding of the universe as we evolve.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:38 pm |
    • Ryan

      I really take offense to being called a "Religious hillbilly." Get off your freaking high horse and stop. Not everyone who believes in God is pushing their belief on everyone else in the world. I am a strong Christian and actually did a presentation in high school on wormholes and how they could be used for travel in space. Got an A. So there are some of us that like and enjoy science but still beleive in the existence of God. Science can prove a lot of things that we don't understand.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
      • Capercorn

        And to chime in, may I add that Rev. Keith Ward is very good at elucidating how science doesn't conflict with Christianity, once Wittgenstein's philosophy of language is applied. And everyone likes them some Wittgenstein.

        Problem fundies?

        November 18, 2011 at 9:00 pm |
    • ashrakay

      Your horse doesn't have to be very high to look down on religion. They set a pretty low bar. Any person capable of thought who willfully believes in fantasies that cannot be supported by evidence are either children are hillbillies. I'm happy to offend you and hope it's enough to smack your out of the fantasy world you're indulging in. Now use some of your critical thought and my offense as momentum to help you break free of the intellectual laziness that religion inspires. PS: Congrats on your A on your college paper. Assuming you didn't also go do a christian college, I'm sure it was a groundbreaking work of illumination.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:24 pm |
      • Capercorn

        Yes, because insults are very proper and academic and conductive to good thinking, aren't they.

        Man, you would make a great politician right now. Poo throwing and screaming is all they're good for.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:56 pm |
      • ashrakay

        You failed to point what if anything I said was untrue, unkind though it may be.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:11 pm |
      • Helloyall

        Your post is full of grammatical errors. I would be cautious about making fun of others for their beliefs, stating lack of education and implying low IQ's when your own post is showing your ignorance. Have a great day!

        November 21, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
  32. Capt. Aaron Sheffield

    Once upon a time there was math to "prove" that an airplane could not fly sideways. As the plane rotates thru 90 degrees the load on the wings increases exponentially. If the curve is followed to it's mathematical conclusion the load on the wings should be nearly infinite when it reaches 90 degrees. In practice what happens is that the load on the wings increases to a point then levels off then begins to decrease. As one goes faster one's mass increases exponentially so that, no matter how small a mass you start with, at the speed of light the mass should be infinite. We have demonstrated in experiments that mass does, indeed, increase as speed increases. What if it functions in similar fashion to the wing loading issue? At some point the increase levels then begins to drop (to the best of my knowledge there's no indication that these neutrino's were arriving at the target far more massive than when they left the gun). We've not been able to conduct experiments with anything more massive as the cost to accelerate any object with significant mass to near light speeds, cost in dollars and/or time, has been prohibitive. If that's the case it would mean that the speed of light is NOT the speed limit we thought it was.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:35 pm |
    • Capercorn

      Because the equations you're mentioning are generalizations that work for many instances.

      However, because they assume a continuum of massive substances, rather than a collection of discrete particles, the equations break in places.

      The model was never meant to be accurate in all instances.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:40 pm |
    • Capercorn

      And the other thing: Newton's Laws only work if one is working within inertial frames.

      Making everything relative to a single point on the aircraft would violate that condition. Once understood that the aircraft is a non-inertial frame, the addition of fictitious forces would make everything work out nicely, even with the classical statics equations.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
    • RHSimard

      That reminds me of an ancient "proof:" that Achilles could not outrun a turtle, as long as the turtle had a head start and never stopped moving thereafter. It might have been Aristotle who posed it; I don't remember.

      The idea was, since it takes a nonzero, finite time to travel any distance, however small the distance Achilles would have to travel to catch up to the turtle at any particular time, the turtle would have moved some distance further on and would still be ahead.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:05 pm |
  33. RHSimard

    It is the nature and history of science to observe, experiment, theorize and have your theories challenged, sometimes wrongly, sometimes correctly in ways that shatter it completely, but most often simply adjusted and modified in the light of new knowledge. It's pretty damn rare for any theory beyond the trivial to really turn out to be be perfectly correct.-or even for the science that challenges it to be perfectly correct.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
  34. Robert Fallin

    Tesla said Einstein was wrong and demonstrated it repeatedly with "Tesla Wave". The skeptics ridiculing traving back in time have little or no understanding of quantum mechanics. Quantum Theory proposes that all possibilities exist simultaneously and that the resut (effect) is based upon the observer. This has also been demonstrated by scientists.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:32 pm |
    • Capercorn

      Tesla never explained how he did what he did.

      For all I know, he was using parlor tricks sometimes. And Tesla's demonstrations do not jive up with Quantum Electrodynamics.

      I say that Tesla was full of himself after developing AC, and was just angry at everyone in general after Edison tried to humiliate him.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
      • JA

        Do a little research on what all Tesla invented or studied. While you're at it, do some reading on how Edison was a complete d*** to him.

        November 18, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
      • Capercorn

        Edison was a mean person.

        That doesn't mean that Tesla was right about everything. The fact that we cannot reproduce his results is evidence enough that he was a fraud, or he was insane later in life.

        November 18, 2011 at 8:57 pm |
      • Dan

        Capercorn – Tesla is responsble for everything around you today: your fridge, all indicution motors, radio, flourescent light, Alternating current and much more. Tesla proved all through his applications and all we use today. Einstein's work was all theoretical. Read up on Tesla before speaking for or against his genius. Tesla was probably the only that understood our world. Most others are simply just trying to understand it.

        November 21, 2011 at 12:25 pm |
    • Maxim

      I have a feeling that it's not skeptics who don't know quantum mechanics but rather someone here on the board heard two words "quantum mechanics" but didn't bother to go to college :-)

      November 18, 2011 at 8:58 pm |
    • Snow

      Tesla was a true genius of the kind not often found in nature. And true to his genius, he was also bat sh*t crazy. Read up about his obsession with 3, for eg. He was a man so far ahead of his contemporaries and had so outrageous plans for humanity that people simply shook their heads and ignored him. That also does not mean what he did with Tesla wave was not a parlor trick..just that genius comes together with madness.. and the difference is only in the context of a situation

      November 18, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
  35. Charlie

    So A.E. was off by a fraction of a second, and he was doing his work on a chalkboard... still the king of modern physics.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:28 pm |
    • SciGuy

      This is not the point; see my response to klipan below.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
  36. Capercorn

    What this experiment has proven is that the instrument is precise.

    However, as anyone with any knowledge of ballistics can tell you, precision and accuracy are two very different things.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:25 pm |
  37. pookie

    Light travels at 299704644 ms/s in air; much slower than in a vacuum (299792458m/s). A imperfect vacuum between Geneva and Gran Sasso might explain it, no?

    November 18, 2011 at 8:24 pm |
  38. Klipan

    So what if E did not get it PERFECTLY correct?!? Even IF he did not, he was darn close. To Nano-seconds? Back so many decades ago before all the technology we have today? All of our scientists are using what he gave to us, just as the scientists after Newton used his. It is the duty of all of us to build upon each new theory and discovery. I hope that E's theories are built upon and that his is not the final answer. Thank you.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:24 pm |
    • SciGuy

      The point is not the precise value of the speed of light; it is that Einstein said nothing could exceed the speed of light. This experiment has not found that the speed of light is faster than Einstein thought, but that Einstein was apparently wrong about the cosmic speed limit. And this implies so much more!

      November 18, 2011 at 8:29 pm |
    • Charlie

      Exactly, he had a chalkboard and did all of this stuff long hand... Probably as much a 'rounding' error as anything.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
      • Mike

        Omg, you are missing the WHOLE point. This is not about Einstein incorrectly defining the speed of light, the speed of light is what it is. This is about the theory that NOTHING can travel faster then the speed of light, the whole reason one would consider traveling to another galaxy impossible in a lifetime. If in fact physics can be manipulated in a way to exceed the speed of light significatly, say 3 maybe 4 times, then star trek light travel seems atleast possible. Though im guessing the star trek referrence killed it for you.

        November 18, 2011 at 8:45 pm |
    • Nat Q

      Nanoseconds across 400 miles. Extrapolated across light years, the difference is rather significant and could have all sorts of cosmological implications.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:36 pm |
  39. Steven

    What needs to be evaluated is, knowing the supercollider is round, would the forces involved in keeping the particles on track around this track affect the neutrinos? Could the neutrinos be cutting corners?

    November 18, 2011 at 8:22 pm |
    • Capercorn

      They're being fired in a "straight" line from CERN in Switzerland to OPERA in Italy.

      And I only use the word "straight" here because it conveys the meaning I want. I'm perfectly aware of the magical non-Euclidean geometries at work in GR.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:31 pm |
  40. Nico

    Maybe you should reread the article. This isn't about the discovery of neutrinos.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
  41. young_voter

    Neutrinos are not the fastest. There is something else faster, but we can't see it.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • b4bigbang

      Faster than neutrinos? That would be tachyons right?

      November 18, 2011 at 8:25 pm |
  42. ramicio

    It could just be that this is the speed of neutrinos, and maybe everything else is bound to c as the max, who knows.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:14 pm |
    • JG

      Einstein wasn't wrong, we just misunderstood him. Mass doesn't really increase relative to the speed of light, otherwise photons would have the mass of the entire universe as they are 1:1 with the speed of light.

      You know that scene in "Enter the Dragon" when Bruce is trying to get the student to look at the moon, but the student keeps looking at the finger instead? Yeah, that's us.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:23 pm |
  43. Justin Cider

    The bartender says, “We don’t serve faster-than-light neutrinos in here.”

    A neutrino walks into a bar.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
    • pookie

      he he he he he he he he hheee heh he he he he he he he he. made my day.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
    • El Kababa

      Now THAT is funny.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:24 pm |
    • chipfields

      That was funny

      November 18, 2011 at 8:27 pm |
    • JG

      . . . Simpsons did it.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:27 pm |
    • ME

      There needs to be a way to double Like this post.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:42 pm |
    • Jet747

      Why did the chicken cross the möbius strip?

      November 18, 2011 at 9:08 pm |
    • ME

      I stoled this for my Facebook Status :)

      November 18, 2011 at 9:09 pm |
  44. mike hunt

    i love how all the "einsteins" are commenting on this artical as if they know how the experiment should have been conducted or where it went wrong....... from the checkstand at kinkos

    November 18, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
    • Mark

      You are so right, lol.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:15 pm |
    • ashrakay

      totally.

      November 19, 2011 at 1:06 am |
  45. us1776

    Definitely "something" is wrong.

    Too early to tell exactly what yet.

    .

    November 18, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
    • SciGuy

      It's our understanding that's wrong. He who sits in the heavens laughs...

      November 18, 2011 at 8:14 pm |
  46. Greg

    Important points to remember:

    1) Special Relativity does not forbid particles traveling faster than light – it forbids massive particles traveling _at_ the speed of light. The problems arise when one considers the implications for causality – however, such effects would be weak since neutrinos interact only weekly.

    2) Special Relativity is only a localized specialization of a 'more correct' theory – General Relativity. One then wonders if a GR effect could be being observed here, since the start and end points are non-local to one another. Lense–Thirring effect anyone?

    November 18, 2011 at 7:58 pm |
    • mike hunt

      i read that they only interact monthly, not weekly.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:08 pm |
      • Anirban

        This is foolish!! this is a serious discussion.....please read some articles before typing such lame comments.....they dont interact anymore!! they used to interact weekly and then monthly...but rt now they dont see eye to eye since they broke up...

        November 18, 2011 at 8:25 pm |
    • SciGuy

      Is this THE anirban, famous stat prof?

      November 18, 2011 at 8:33 pm |
    • ashrakay

      Thank you for saying this. I'm so tired of listening to people comment who have never take the time to read, let alone understand Einstein's works.

      November 19, 2011 at 1:04 am |
  47. Luther51

    I'm glad I wasn't the guy in Italy waving the checkered flag when those babies came in.

    November 18, 2011 at 7:54 pm |
  48. Gracko

    Scientific theory evolves as well. In the immortal words of Captain Picard to Data, "Things are only impossible until they're not."

    November 18, 2011 at 7:54 pm |
    • oh boy

      I'll bet high school kids in this country are excited. Excited that they all got an A in their Everybody Should Feel Good class.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
    • Nico

      WHICH EPISODE???????????????????? Priceless.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:12 pm |
    • Croco3

      You said it right!

      November 18, 2011 at 8:15 pm |
  49. AhhPures

    AH HA !! I knew it. I was right all along.

    November 18, 2011 at 7:52 pm |
  50. Snipes

    I'm pretty sure Einstein theory never said nothing go faster than the speed of light, just not AT the speed of light.

    November 18, 2011 at 7:52 pm |
    • RHSimard

      No, it was at or above the speed of light. According to the theory, as velocity approaches the speed of light (relative to a particular observer), mass increases and tends toward infinity as velocity approaches c. It is impossible to accelerate an infinite mass, so while c can theoretically be approached with arbitrary closeness, it can never actually be attained, much less exceeded.

      Of course, the new discoveries that this article is about might do a heavy number on all that, but so far, it hasn't been conclusively disproven yet.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:10 pm |
      • Yoyo99

        I remember reading back in the late 70's a test site out in the western US involving underground caves and water where they were watching for neutrino's and that these particles actually traveled faster then the speed of light very briefly.

        I just always assumed because they had no mass this was possible. I thought Albert s theories applied to particles with mass so general and special relativity do not apply to these particles in the first place. So I am not sure why this is news. Too bad he is not around anymore, imagine what he could have done with the aid of today's computers and number crunching help.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:04 pm |
    • Nat Q

      How exactly does it go faster than the speed of light without first going the speed of light, which it cannot go? That's like saying nothing can go 10 mph, but if you can go 11 without first passing 10, that's fine.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:02 pm |
      • K Kammeyer

        Particles such as electrons and photons do not accelerate from a zero velocity – they just take off at the speed of light, instantaneously. So there's no problem with a so-called "light barrier" phenomenon. Also, the neutrino is virtually massless, so apparently the General Relativity mass thingy doesn't apply, either.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:25 pm |
  51. alex666

    Way to go Einstein... You blew it.

    November 18, 2011 at 7:49 pm |
    • Mark

      Can we leave politics out of a scientific discussion, please?

      November 18, 2011 at 8:00 pm |
      • spaz

        Mark, can you leave race out of this discussion? Thanks.

        November 21, 2011 at 12:53 pm |
  52. FreedomStorm

    "If you run around a tree at 185,999 miles per second, you're likely to screw yourself. Or, you could vote for Obama and get the same effect." .... Albert Einstein

    November 18, 2011 at 7:44 pm |
    • HurtzDonut

      Yeah, because a man of science would obviously vote republican. Republicans LOVE science!

      November 18, 2011 at 7:53 pm |
    • ChrisH

      God, take this crap somewhere else you tool.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:55 pm |
  53. Chris

    Its not that hes wrong. Most of his theory still holds, what we are talking about are particles that are alot smaller then what was known at the time.

    November 18, 2011 at 7:43 pm |
  54. slupdawg

    base7: It could, in ways you might never imagine.

    November 18, 2011 at 7:42 pm |
  55. ME

    The Neutrinos later tested positive for Steroids.

    November 18, 2011 at 7:39 pm |
    • RHSimard

      I like that one!

      BTW, can some of you others point me to a serious discussion about politics that I can contaminate with posts about physics? Huh???

      November 18, 2011 at 8:19 pm |
    • Calvin

      Steroids, right. I should have suspected that. By the way, how does one consider a thing to be a "particle" if it has no mass? If it has "almost no mass," that is a way of saying that it does, in fact, have mass. Then the whole idea of mass increading to infinite as velocity approaches c comes into play. I'm saying it's bigger than a breadbox, but smaller than a Volkswagon accelerated to nearly the speed of light. Are you not entertained? Is this not what you came here for?

      November 21, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
  56. aNN west

    A recently discovered Einstein theory shows GOP=DUH(2) squared

    November 18, 2011 at 7:37 pm |
    • ME

      Congratulations on your threadjack, now go away.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:40 pm |
    • JeffinIL

      Partisan Particles Pathetically Present.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:42 pm |
      • Wes

        P to the 4th

        November 18, 2011 at 8:43 pm |
  57. Merecat

    It always arrives in time for the next day...

    November 18, 2011 at 7:31 pm |
  58. Jacob

    This is why I still toy with the idea of living within an'ether' (wiki Michelson–Morley experiment for a good read)... Could be more quantum related than special relativity related though... or even something a few steps smaller (that we have yet to understand). Neutrinos are massless particles, however most of everything we experience has mass... Is it possible there's benn an overall (or possibly ongoing) shift in time for particles with mass while the massless particles remain unaffected (or vice versa)? Schrodinger's equation contains a derivitive w/ respect to time... Einstein said the speed of light is constant for a given frame (something like that) but could that be true only for particles containing mass, since mass is a function of speed (v)? By having no mass, neutrinos avoid having a relationship with their velocity. Physics buffs feel free to coment...

    November 18, 2011 at 7:31 pm |
    • rwlade

      The general consensus is that neutrinos *do* have mass...

      November 18, 2011 at 7:59 pm |
    • RHSimard

      I'm rather short of background to claim to be a buff, but the idea of massless particles doing an end run around Special Relativity (it seems like it would then not matter how closely you approach c; a huge number times zero is still zero) is intriguing.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:22 pm |
      • K Kammeyer

        Exactly what I've been thinking – however, photons have mass, and they're perfectly happy whizzing along at the speed of, er, photons... but something just doesn't add up here.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:30 pm |
  59. dave barrow

    there are no light producers, there are only dark suckers.

    November 18, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
  60. Gary the man

    First of all I do not understand how they can measure the speed and the position of a particular particle as it is not possible in Quantum physics. They can only measure one or the other. Only probability. Otherwise Schroeder's cat is either dead or alive and the paradox does not exist. Shucks, I forget the name of the law. Also, there might be some kind of "entaglement" effect. I am waiting for the GD particle to be discovered. Is there any way to use all this new information to help the Jets win?

    November 18, 2011 at 7:19 pm |
    • David

      The site PhysicsWorld has a more detailed explanation on how the test was done, as for the Jets, sorry.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
    • JeffinIL

      I suppose it would take a change in the laws of physics for the Jets to win. It's still more likely than the Cubs winning.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:37 pm |
  61. David

    A good check would be to start the measurement at a checkpoint – as a possible cause of an error would be the exact timing of the neutrinos departure. Of course, I would guarantee the scientists working on this are smarter than I or any other person blogging here, and have likely thought of that. Hope it is true.

    November 18, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
  62. Rags

    I wonder if that's faster or slower than the speed of dark?

    November 18, 2011 at 7:14 pm |
    • Orwell

      Life is as simple as a bridge. Thank you, Firesign Theatre.

      November 21, 2011 at 12:16 pm |
  63. Leonardo

    This article is OUTDATED. LHC already confirmed that there was an error in the calculations. The error in their calculations further confirmed Einstein's relativity.

    November 18, 2011 at 7:13 pm |
    • gremlinus

      Thank you. Oi.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
    • David

      That is not true

      November 18, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
      • Leonardo

        Seems like I'm outdated. Last thing I heard there was some time factor they forgot to adjust due to time being clocked from two different locations. Oh well, I doubt they're going faster, there seems to be a lot of uncertainty in their measurements.

        November 18, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
  64. DonDon1

    i mean I believe the interpretation of the result is incorrect.

    November 18, 2011 at 7:09 pm |
  65. JDavis

    Six words: John Moffat Variable Speed of Light (look it up)

    November 18, 2011 at 7:08 pm |
  66. reader10

    All Einsteins report to NASA.

    November 18, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
  67. DonDon1

    I personally think this result is wrong for a number of reasons. Not least of which is that neutrinos pass through everything, almost never interacting. Since the neutrinos permeate everything everywhere, it would be impossible to say for sure that the neutrinos detected came from the collision from opera with absolute certainty. We would also have to ask the question "did all of the neutrinos detected arrive before the photons or were some of them ariving with and or behind the photons aswell? " If this was the case then I would say the interpretation of these results is incorrect. I won't elaborate as to why on this forum but I believe that neutrinos do not travel faster than light.

    November 18, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
    • Crater

      Of course they don't travel faster than light. One look at their dog tags will confirm that. "Neutrino A: I have spin, but I don't exceed c."

      November 21, 2011 at 12:19 pm |
  68. Ron Mueller

    No, light is not the absolute speed.
    No, the "big bang" didn't occur once from a single proton to create the vastness of the universe.
    Yes, water is abundant in space and it readily available on most planets if it hasn't vaporized.
    Yes, planets do exist in binary star systems.
    Yes, our solar system is part of a great cloud.
    Yes, life is numerous in the universe; it's the rise and fall of species that makes overlap difficult.
    No, we cannot see the edge of the Universe.
    Yes, the Universe is much bigger than the observable 14.1 billion light years.
    No, gravity will not pull the universe back in.
    Yes, there are energies not yet discovered and gravity's affects become lesser as the field grows.
    Yes, time travel is possible but only as an observer, it has noreality, substance, or form.

    November 18, 2011 at 7:00 pm |
    • Allen

      While I really do not know about the validity of your statements. The last makes no sense. If time travel as no substance, reality, or form what would an "observer" be observing?

      November 18, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
    • Capercorn

      The time travel people don't seem to remember that nasty "thermodynamics" bit that ensures that time flows in one direction and one direction only.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:31 pm |
    • Timetraveler

      No, S T F U.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:04 pm |
  69. Horus

    If anyone actually cares about the science behind this other than stupid sensationalized headlines, the smart money is still on this conclusion being wrong. The only thing this new run proved is that the statistical sampling behind accurately knowing when a neutrino leaves and when it arrives isn't a problem. We shouldn't discount this experiment, but it's EXTRAORDINARILY unlikely that it's the result of new physics as opposed to some very trick systematic error we have yet to find.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
  70. Seattlite

    Perhaps the wave function of a neutrino is very large, like a bubble. Sometimes they seem to be going faster than light because the first part of the neutrino arrives earlier. Another possibility: what we think of as a vacuum is actually full of the "ether" (dark matter / energy) that light interacts with but neutrinos don't.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
    • K Kammeyer

      Sounds like "Vacuum Energy" – look it up.

      November 18, 2011 at 11:34 pm |
  71. RoundEarther

    If it is true then:
    Proof that Time Travel is Possible. Also that the Speed of Dark is faster than the Speed of Light. Hmmm...

    November 18, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
  72. longtooth

    Little things that move faster than light are simply things that happen before they happen. What's the big deal? BTW, Einstein never insisted he was right. They were theories. He also was sure there was a higher power than man in the universe.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
    • phearis

      Exactly, he also rejected the idea of an expanding Universe, which has now been proven. And to top that off, the Universe is expanding faster than the Speed of Light, also proven.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
      • Seattlite

        Expansion of the universe faster than the speed of light is not proven. Inflation is a theory too.

        November 18, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
      • Capercorn

        And the space-time manifold can expand faster than light without violating Special Relativity.

        November 18, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
      • Wilson

        Yeah, but that whole "cosmic constant" he wrote in there as a flub factor more than makes up for that.

        November 18, 2011 at 7:55 pm |
      • Thoughtly

        Scientific theories are never proven, they can only be disproven. Have you never been fooled before? What's a proven anyway? I'm betting it's a fruit of some kind, similar to a prune.

        November 21, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
  73. alex666

    I always knew that Einstein was a numbskull.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
  74. High IQ'er

    Einstein was a plagiarist, and stole many of his WIFE'S ideas. Do the research.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
    • Timetraveler

      Material you pulled from the National Inquirer doesn't qualify as "research". Sorry.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:07 pm |
  75. Mike B.

    Hmmmm....interesting....I doubt whether Einstein will be show to be wrong, but his theory could be incomplete...It does appear that SOMETHING (information) CAN travel ftl, ie the (entangled particles)...just not USEFUL information...I wonder if the math would work if neutrinos had negative MASS ?....This could also provide a mechanism for explaining the apparent acceleration of cosmic expansion....

    November 18, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
  76. Aristotle

    The crew of Star Trek's Enterprise knew this long ago . . . Warp 9!

    November 18, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
    • dwerbil

      This joke came about from the September news release.....

      "We don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos in here!" said the bartender.

      So, a neutrino walks into a bar..."

      November 18, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
  77. Tom

    Its obvious isnt it? If light is made out of particles, it has mass. Ergo according to Einsteins theory it cannot travel at the speed of light because its mass would become infinite. Ergo einsteins theory is bunk.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
    • Duckmanbill

      Except photons are massless. Back to school for you.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
      • Tom

        Particles have mass by definition guys.

        November 18, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
      • phearis

        But Light can not escape the gravity of a Black Hole, which there for suggest that Light does in fact have mass, although be it extremely small, it's still there.

        November 18, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
      • BoDacious01

        photons are chargelss and massless

        November 18, 2011 at 7:19 pm |
      • TheAlex

        @phearis – light cannot escape a black hole because a black hole creates a singularity where the very fabric of spacetime is infinitely bent. Essentially, like the old saying "all roads lead to Rome", all paths lead to the center of the black hole, light has nowhere to go but inside, irregardless of the speed at which it travels.

        November 18, 2011 at 7:38 pm |
      • Wonderboy

        Light escaping a black hole – same concept as trying to get your money back from a democrat. Doesn't happen.

        November 18, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
    • Yossarian

      Uneducated people have no business describing well-established theories as "bunk."

      November 18, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
    • Joe

      You didn't pass Physics 101, did you?

      November 18, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
    • Duckmanbill

      And we know its energy from quantum mechanics, hence it's non-rest mass is m=hv/c^2. This is why the path of light is deflected by massive objects.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
    • Li Tai Fang

      Learn the theory throughly before calling it "bunk."
      Photons have no rest mass, only momentum.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:01 pm |
    • Chaz

      Another moron who badly needs to go back to school or a least look up 'light photons' in wikipedia. Yes they have NO MASS. So NO MAS!

      November 18, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
    • Timetraveler

      Photons are not particles of matter, you moron. Their mass = 0.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:10 pm |
  78. James

    Hate to point this out but they found the problem with the experiment about a month ago, Einstein's theory holds. This is a little outdated.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
    • Duckmanbill

      Source?

      November 18, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
      • dwerbil

        One place to check, if CNN allows links, is here....
        http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1109.4897O

        November 18, 2011 at 7:01 pm |
  79. Old Soldier

    Way back in the 1980s I had an oldtime Sergeant in my unit. He joked about his lack of education and "book learning". One day he said: "Cap, what's the fastest thing in nature?". I replied light. He said: "No, Sir! Since two things can't exist in the same place at the same time, the fastest thing must be Dark. When you turn on a flashlight, the Dark has to get out of Light's way!". I guess he was ahead of his time.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
    • Duckmanbill

      No. Just stupid or insane.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
  80. Rahsheem

    Uuummm, its called deja-vu...I've been saying this for years, but people think Im crazy!!

    November 18, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
    • dwerbil

      Then try a different tact, try singing it.
      ;^)

      November 18, 2011 at 7:04 pm |
  81. Vic

    If it is proved that neutrinos are faster than light, then more likely something else must be faster than neutrinos. So dear scientists, the break is over; it is now time for you guys to roll up your sleeves and go back to work. Make sure to start from scratch.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
    • Duckmanbill

      Erm there has never been a 'break'. Scientists are always hard at work. General Relativity was never accepted to be the final theory because it works only on long length scales and breaks in the quantum realm.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
      • dwerbil

        Yep, if there's one word to describe the non-stop efforts of science, it's "Falsifiability".

        November 18, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
      • Capercorn

        Well, GR didn't satisfy all of Mach's Principle.

        It was important is that it kept our understanding of gravity with our understanding of mathematics.

        Gravity had moved up from multivariable calculus to manifold analysis.

        November 18, 2011 at 8:27 pm |
  82. Bob ob

    of course einstein was wrong.. he's white and all white people are wrong.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
    • dwerbil

      Bob ob, then to use your logic, you must be white yourself.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:06 pm |
  83. AmericanSam

    Sad that people overlook this article in favor of calling each other a socialist and/or fascist on the others.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
    • erimano

      Welcome to the internet!

      November 18, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
  84. erimano

    I bet you if Einstein had the computers we have today we would be even further in our knowledge of physics.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
    • Bob ob

      says captain obvious.. or should I say OBLIVIOUS. Go take care of your mentally instable children who touch kids at penn state instead of worrying about einstein.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
      • Yossarian

        Turn off your computer, Bob ob. Thanks in advance.

        November 18, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
      • ArizonaYankee

        What a freaking empty suit you are. Oh, how about getting some facts on the Penn State stuff instead of premature conclusionitus like all the media morons....Trial in the socialist media must be to you liking.

        November 18, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
    • Duckmanbill

      What makes you say that? Einstein's true genius was in his ability to perform thought experiments. Don't need computers for that.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
      • Sam I. Am

        Yeah, I agree... people like Newton, Einstein & Hawking (to name but a few) think on a whole different level! Newton INVENTED differential calculus, Einstein's space/time & relativity ideas, and Hawking's ideas on the structure of the universe, black holes, etc... and that was from a book in layman's terms I once read. Really mind warping! (for me at least!)

        November 18, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
  85. jj

    I am so awed by the scientists researching the mysteries of the universe. The new physics changes everything.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  86. N49

    Yes...Einstein can be wrong. He has become this mythical, supernatural being who's hypothesis became laws. Like Jesus, the myth and image surrounding this man has evolved over time into something that is so far from reality.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
    • Mikeinfc

      Even Einstein was smart enough to admit that his theories were in fact theories, because the science to prove or disprove them didn't exist yet.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
      • erimano

        Well Said Mikeinfc!

        November 18, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
    • wustlumdnj

      And when you say "turned into laws" I believe you are referring to Einstein's THEORY of relativity? Fail

      November 18, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
    • Duckmanbill

      Saying he was wrong is rather a strong statement. It would be better to say that his theories are limited in applicability. Until September, General Relativity was shown to be consistent with observations to a remarkable level of accuracy. That consistency is still there. These new measurements have (possibly) revealed a domain where the theory does not work, or breaks slightly. Still has profound implications nonetheless.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
      • nixliberals

        New laws of physics apply, world. This is a new (to us) energy particle travelling at its own wavelength. The speed of light was considered absolute, until new particles apply. Once, there was a list of all atomic particles, then along came man, who was minded to make even heavier, and new, atomic particles, so the list goes on. Why is anyone surprised?

        November 18, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
    • Chef333

      I respectfully disagree with you on the most important point of your statement. You are implying that it is due to the "god" like status of Einstein is why other scientist are having a hard time with this, but Einstein’s theories have been tested over and over against for the past 60 years and has never failed. His theories have been tested as much as gravity and like gravity always come back as correct. Imagine gravity to be proven faster then we thought? It would not be Newton's "god" like status that would be make scientist skeptical, but 100 of years of testing that would make it so.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
    • Jeffrey

      You forget, Einstein was known to be wrong about certain things even in his lifetime. For example, his comment that he refused to believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe disliking the statistical nature (and its inherent randomness) of quantum dynamics. Turns out God does, at least as far as we know. So no one in the scientific community believes he in infallible, they just view the fact that he came up with incredibly strong theories with a good amount of awe and respect.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
    • Chaz

      Guys, many of Einstein's theories are no longer considered "theoritical". Experiments in relativity have been PROVEN (such as the airforce jets carrying atomic clocks, etc.). If something moves faster than light it just means a larger more comprehensive model is needed, that's all.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
  87. Charles

    I I am more sensitive to neutrinos than most people that is why my fashion sense is always light years ahead..

    November 18, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
    • E.Light

      Ha!!! +10.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
    • Duckmanbill

      You are confusing a light year for a unit of time when it is in fact a unit of length.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
      • dwerbil

        Well, he is correct in its usage. Substitute miles for light years.

        November 18, 2011 at 7:14 pm |
    • Yossarian

      You should show off your fashion sense on the Kessel Runway, Charles.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
    • Duckmanhasareplyforall

      Don't get too c0cky Duckman, for her to say she is "miles" ahead of the competition would make just as much sense than her saying she was "months" ahead of the competition. Either way she is WINNING!

      November 18, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
  88. Uriel

    It doesn't change anything for me. This is what happens when the world of science is so convinced they're right that they begin to twist facts to suit theories. They are going to retest and retest this until they find some loophole that allows them to rest easy in the deep couch of relativity once again, or they'll tell us all this changes nothing from a practical standpoint, arguing that they had evidence all along and had been hiding it with Elvis in some mythical Oort cloud beyond Pluto. And oh yes, let's not forget that Pluto is no longer a planet, but it always was a planet until a few years ago. Face it folks, you are destined to believe whatever the minds behind the textbooks tell you, whether they can prove it or not.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
    • zcah56

      That might be the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. If science so deviously attempts to twist data to fit theories then why are they publishing research that could overturn something so fundamental to astrophysics. You even contradict yourself by using the Pluto example. Pluto was overturned as a planet because it doesn't fit the criteria, another example of scientific thought consistently seeking to find truth. Perhaps you should read one of those diabolical science books.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
      • Uriel

        The most ignorant thing I've ever heard is that Wendy's new sea salt french fries are better than McDonald's french fries. They are most certainly not better. Now that is diabolical.

        November 18, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
      • zcah56

        Uriel, are your parent's related? Just wondering

        November 18, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
      • Uriel

        What does inbreeding have to do with french fries? Have you tasted those things?! There really heinous.

        November 18, 2011 at 6:49 pm |
      • zcah56

        heinous french fries!? I'll have to try them, thanks for your invaluable insights today

        November 18, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
      • Letspumpthesolidstateseasalt

        I have heard reports of the sea salt being used as a solid state crystal to produce the god wavelength. You can actually image god with Wendy's french fries if you pump them with high enough energy, eat that McyDee's. This is final proof that Wendy's will create a population inversion (bah dum dum) and end the world as we know it.

        November 18, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
    • dwerbil

      What a load of baloney. In large part, science is peer review driven. If and when someone can actually negate Einstein on this topic, they're going to be hugely famous.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
      • Really

        heard of dark matter and dark energy that the scientific community accepts as fact without being able to proof its existence??
        see any parallels with religion here

        November 18, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
      • religionisnotphysikz

        HAHA, except for the fact that scientists say "because we do not know what this is, we will call it dark matter and continue to study it but now we can actually refer to this nameless phenomenon". While your preacher says, "why search for more answers when we know it is just the will of god, problem solved! Now where is little Bill Sandusky, I need my pipes cleaned."

        November 18, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
      • dwerbil

        Reply to "really"...

        Obviously you're not very well read up on the science of dark matter theory by your misguided statement.

        November 18, 2011 at 7:00 pm |
    • edge

      I guess I would rather believe what a scientist has speculated throught years of research and mathmatics that the misquoted ramblings of people who lived thousands of years ago, spoke 6 different languages of which only one is in use today though modern speaking of things they really didn't understand at all. I will take a 20 yr old science book as "proof" over a 2000 yr old book of hersay any day.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
      • Uriel

        You're kind of rambling a bit there.

        November 18, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
    • E.Light

      LMAO!!!! This coming from someone called "Uriel", I guess one shouldn't be surprised at what you posted.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uriel

      November 18, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
    • Jack Kieser

      Lol, it sounds like you're talking about *religion*, not science. Religion accepts dogma as truth regardless of the facts or evidence, not science. In fact, what these scientists are doing (testing, evaluating for proceedural weaknesses, correcting, and retesting) is what we adults call "being responsible and not jumping to conclusions".

      What's incredible, compared to dogmatic ideologies like religions, is that science is willing to test and challenge such long-held theories as Einstein's in the first place; can you imagine the Catholic church holding experiments to determine if Jesus really walked on water? Ridiculous. No, only science is willing to challenge itself and push its own boundaries thanks to such brilliant advances as the scientific method and peer review.

      So, next time you want to bad-mouth science, try turning that lens onto religion first. You'll quickly find that science is doing quite well.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:00 pm |
  89. Joseph

    IIt is difficult to say Einstein was wrong. When you try to understand his equations, you can really sense how closely mathematical formulae work according to universal principles . The real experimental results based on Einstian's equations were always very slightly "off". Considering the fact that neutrinos are faster by tiny fractions of meter/second, applying this observed velocity as "c" in his equations can probably yield much more accurate experimental values.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
    • nixliberals

      Just another energy particle travelling at its own wavelength. Wow!!! LOL!! Wait until they time their thoughts and realize they all thunk the same thought at the same time, give or take.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
      • Joseph

        Einstein badly needed a large value constant (just like Plank's, Eulers, pi, etc) to buttress his theories. His theory will still stand, since it is relative.

        November 18, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
  90. Steve

    I'll laugh if the discrepancy turns out to be because of the Coriolis Effect, i.e. the reason it go there 62 nanoseconds earlier was because the Earth was turning, and the remote site was closer when it arrived than when it left.

    I know Army snipers have to take the Coriolis Effect into place, and sniper bullets are moving crazy-fast.

    Of course, it'd be easy enough to rule that out by firing a particle back in the opposite direction.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
    • A-man

      I'm looking for signs of sarcasm in your post and I'm not seeing it. You truly can't be serious...no, you can't be serious.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
      • edge

        Not only is he serious I was thinking something similar. As in maybe the correct speed of light has never been calculated and it really is still faster than a nutrino.

        November 18, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
    • nixliberals

      In each its own particular corner of the milky way, spinning along our axess around the galactic center, around our star, within the total universe. We are never in the same place twice, even though it looks vaguely familiar. Why can't they anticipate this projection into space?

      November 18, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
    • mike

      or do it at equator.... no coriolis...

      November 18, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
    • mike

      only way to disregard coriolis is do it at equator.. going opposite direction doesnt change a thing dummy... turns right in NH left in SH..

      November 18, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
  91. No Einstein, but...

    Is the source code running the test equipment from the same source?

    November 18, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
  92. DJ

    SUCK IT EINSTEIN

    November 18, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
  93. Brain Hertz

    This is awesome... just waiting for the construction of a tachyonic antitelephone (look it up).

    Somehow I'm doubtful, though. Odds are that a flaw will still be found somewhere in the data.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
  94. CM

    Could it be that the measurement error is on the speed of light- meaning these observations conform to Einstein's theory, we're just off in our understanding of the true speed of light?

    November 18, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
    • Scott

      True, the cal lab probably does not have that many reference samples to test their speed of light meter.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
    • edge

      Amen brother! Thought the same thing while reading the article.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
  95. kalo

    Engage number one.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
  96. Josh

    How bout instead wasting billions on this type of useless research, why don't we spend the money on something good like finding the cure for cancer or something?

    November 18, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
    • Brain Hertz

      Why "useless"?

      Science is very interconnected, and results in one field tend to have unexpected consequences in other fields. Microchips are dependent on quantum physics, which arose from exactly this kind of work, for example. You can't just decide to have everybody drop everything and go and work on finding a cure for cancer; it just doesn't work that way.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
      • Ben

        Very welll said.

        November 18, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • zcah56

      Really, cure cancer? There are literally thousands of different types of cancer. Also, billions upon billions are spent on researching cancer around the world each year. This research is not useless, if it is correct, which seems to be a fairly large if, it would completely change one of the fundamental theorems of physics.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
      • nixliberals

        Why not cure cancer? Because evolution is wrong. We are not evolving, but degenerating; More disease, more mutations(I did not say improvements), more cellular degeneration. If we were evolving, wouldn't we have less of all of these things? Oh, that's right! Evolution is true, and if it cannot possibly apply, well, it's just a theory. Shut uip quasi-scientists.

        November 18, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
      • ramicio

        We are not devolving. We are constantly being bombarded by chemicals and radiation. There's your cancer. We rushed into technology too fast and greedily without caring about the risks on human health. Yes science can do good, but in the hands of evil it does much more bad than good science can prevent.

        November 18, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • Henry

      Because all science is based on fundamental physics, chemistry, and biology. If the fundamentals change, it can potentially change many other schools of thoughts based on the fundamentals, maybe even the school of thought involve cures for cancer.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
    • erimano

      WOW Josh, just WOW

      November 18, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
    • Robert

      We already are spending money of searching for cures for cancers.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
    • Sam I. Am

      Ever hear of radiation treatment for cancer? How about an MRI? CAT or PET scan? All of these use principles of physics, and I'm sure there are plenty that I'm not even thinking of right now. Like the others said, science is interconnected.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
  97. Scott

    Could the error be induced by the time travel associated with traveling at the speed of light?

    November 18, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
  98. dougaussie

    einstein got it wrong, surprise surprise. i mean you can only base a theory on what you know, from the studies and information at hand and your own access to limited technology. he was pretty smart, but, wrong. Now we can develop superneutrino drives and travel to the furtherest stars in only seconds...when our scientist catch up.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
  99. Josh

    what exactly is the point of this? What advancement can this really help for the human race? And how can you send this little tiny particle 454 miles, and know that is the exact particle you sent. How do you put a label on it?

    November 18, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
    • Brain Hertz

      If you're curious as to how the experiment works, maybe you should read what they said. It's not like anything is being hidden here.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
    • Henry

      Probably through atomic/electrical markers.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
    • Mee

      In ways Josh that in the near or distant future may enable our race to do things both wonderful and mundane.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
    • mike

      JOSH once you go to college ..even some high school you will learn the importance of science.. but you don't have to wait.. be pro active go research this for yourself you may actually learn something... but ignorance will get you anywhere..

      November 18, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
  100. Kat

    How is it that no one has posted a comment yet? This is potentially the most important news of our time. If this is confirmed further by other tests, it changes *everything*.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
    • Scott

      Congrats, you were the first. I agree this could be the breakthrough that leads to a new level of revolutionary science.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
    • Peter

      It wouldn't change anything. The 'cause and effect' idea they mentioned is totally fallacious. Go to Dr. William Lane Craig's website.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
    • base7

      Hey Kat, will it lower our national deficit?

      November 18, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
    • Jon

      Kat, I think replies from people like base7 answer your question! @base7 I'm sure all the satellite companies are thanking Einstein for his contribution to the world economy.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:31 pm |
    • slupdawg

      base7, it might in ways you could never imagine.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:43 pm |
    • James

      Peter, illogical to man, but man is now placing logical limitations on God. I don't think man has come that far in the sciences to be absolute. We accepted Einstein's theory of relativity and now this has been proven to be wrong. I agree with Kat, this is a huge milestone. I believe we have only scratched the surface.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
      • Jim

        I don't think Einstein's theory of relativity has been proven to be wrong.

        November 21, 2011 at 10:03 am |
    • jimmer

      [img]http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/115563.gif[/img]

      November 21, 2011 at 10:32 am |
1 2

Contributors

  • Elizabeth LandauElizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia DengoSophia Dengo
    Senior Designer