And, that's the point. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics won't stop working just because of this result. However, this phenomena, may lead us to a result that combines the two theories. If this result holds up, I predict that it splits the physics community in two groups: One group that dismisses the result, and another that accepts and tries to explain the result. Either way, it's the type of result that is so polarizing.

They are, indeed, handling it correctly. They found something that is highly significant and relatively unexpected, so they have to be careful.

_________________
My Malkovich Game with SinK: SinK vs. Suji.

My plan to become an SDK is here.

If the result holds up, the physics community won't split into two groups, because nobody will be able to argue.

Are you suggesting that the scientific community has never split in two over a result that held up?

If that's what I wanted to suggest, that's what I would have said.

Then what did you mean? Because I have no clue.

_________________
When you think your opponent has made a mistake, that's when you should be the most cautious.

This is my best guess:

[youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSZxV4SL ... age#t=308s [/youtube]

In a simple model the earth crust is represented by average nuclei with average mass and average volume located on the lattice points of a cubical lattice. We can draw a line through nuclei parallel to one of the axes of the lattice. Of this line the fraction that passes through nuclei is easily calculated from the average density of the nuclei and the average density of the earth crust. It turns out to be approximately 1/42000. This is remarkably close to the fraction that neutrinos are found to exceed the speed of light ( 1/40000 ) in the earth crust. It only needs the bold assumption that the neutrinos don’t experirience any temporal delay inside nuclei to account for the exceptional measurements of Gran Sasso. Perhaps only the theory of high energy particles in high density material needs to be rewritten.



mass nucleus / A ...... 1,67E-27........kg ............ 1)
radius nucleus / A^1/3. 1,25E-15....... m ............. 2)
nuclear density ....... 2,04E+17 ...... kgm^-3
crust density ......... 2850 .......... kgm^-3 ........ 3)
ratio ................. 1,39E-14 ...... Spatial emptiness
third root ............ 2,41E-05 ...... Linear emptiness

observed speed excess . 2,50E-05


1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleus_(atomic_structure)
3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crust_(geology)

Given that the measurement had the neutrinos going faster than the speed of light, it would require that the neutrinos speed up significantly (double their speed) while inside nuclei.

Doubling wouldn't be enough according my calculations above. Pls correct them if they are wrong. I prefer to see the nucleus as a black box for the time being as far as fast neutrino's are concerned. Physics including space and time need to be reconsidered inside it. I propose the neutrino's to reach the other side of the nucleus in ( almost ) no time.

Cyclops: I dispute your argument. You are making the following oversight: it is extremely unreasonable to represent the earth's interior as a bunch of atoms on a cubical lattice. The earth's interior has - along a long path, and all the way from one side of the earth to the other is certainly a long path - no long-range lattice order.

Your calculation, in which you take "linear emptiness" as the third root of "spatial emptiness" looks fancy, but would only apply in the exceedingly unlikely case that a neutrino would pass through a nucleus at every possible lattice site. Since, as we noted, the earth interior has no long-range order, this does not happen. Thus, "linear emptiness"=="spatial emptiness"=="emptiness". So even if, somehow, the neutrino's would pass through a nucleus absolutely instantaneously, the speed excess would only be (1 + 1,39E-14) * c, using your numbers.

_________________
My name is Gijs, from Utrecht, NL.

"Embrace ambivalence, and ride the wave!"

Gaius, thx for putting your finger at the rotten spot. ( sorry for using this dutch expression ). The third power root is indeed the weak point in my argument. I admit I am quite optimistic with my cubical lattice model as far as the time gained is concerned. But I think your model is definitely too pessimistic. The number 1,39E-14 is, apart from a form factor close to 1, the mean free path between nuclei as fraction of the nucleus size. Or equivalently the fraction inside nuclei of a random straight line segment through the earth, assuming them randomly distributed. At first sight it seems reasonable to take this number to calculate the time gained by my hypothesis of zero delay in nuclei. But, don't laugh, as in refraction, the path of least time is needed, and due to my hypothesis it is not going to be a straight line but a broken line zigzagging through nuclei. It needs a computer program or some good calculating to establish the amount of time saved in this model. To me it is not improbable that my third power root will be justified this way. Anyway the numerical coincidence I found will make me observe the tonight snooker match more intensely.

That is a somewhat interesting idea, but I don't really buy it. It would require somehow using the wave properties of a neutrino to the max to do this, and I don't think wave-particle duality really allows that without penalty! Besides, I have a very tough time imagining a zigzagging line that crosses most nuclei but does not make the total neutrino path length at least 0.0025% longer (which is what you need to explain the speed gain).

All of this seems exceedingly implausible to me, unless you would come up with a convincing explanation of: 1) how and why wave-particle allows you to do this and 2) why it allows you to do it so efficiently.

EDIT: mathematicians, please forgive me for using the term "zigzagging line". My shame knows no bounds.

_________________
My name is Gijs, from Utrecht, NL.

"Embrace ambivalence, and ride the wave!"

Forgive my ignorance, but when you calculate the time it takes light to travel from X to Y, you're already measuring the most direct path rather than the distance putatively transversed by the wave-function, right?

Photons behave this way, according to Feynman's book "QED". Is it its mass that you doubt neutrino's behave this way too?

I did a rough calculation and alas I needed to confine my nuclei to quite close to their lattice positions in order not to loose what my zero delay hypothesis gained. 1% of the lattice distance was all freedom I could grant them. So indeed I need some ordering to survive. And I am not going to propose that gravitation and earth rotation might offer the needed ordening. My geological knowledge is not enough for that and besides Italy is not oriented North-South enough.

Not that it relevant anymore but assuming my hypothesis I think it is a straightforward application of the QED book. Maybe apart from the fact that the neutrino is not supposed to be massless as photons are.

I don t think that mass affects the quoted behavior:
as far as i remember, Feynamnn says that classical trajectories corresponds to stationnary solutions of the path integral. i think this is also true for massive particules. But the point remains that its hard to imagine the extra distance by a zigzag path being compensated by quicker speed within nucleis

as to instant transportation within a nuclei, it reminds of the measurement paradox, ie the fact that after a measurment, the wave function is instantly projected to the measurment result. Thus the EPR paradox where measures on a an entangled photon affects the other one "faster than light".
I never really understood the specifics but this does not violates relativity because no information can be transmitted this way (you transfer the result of a random measurement).

but i am not sure it applies here: the arrival of a neutrino signal is a message and could be used to transmit information ?

I agree with gaius that the numerical coincidence you observe seems a bit far fetched. i dont see a reason to use the third root of the "emptyness" rather that the emptyness itself

_________________
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

...and the plausible explanations begin: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27260/

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

That's the most plausible explanation I've heard yet. Neat. I'm far from qualified to review their work, though ...

Explanations would be premature which is why the team reporting this offered none.

First several other teams will attempt to replicate the result. ROFLOL last weekend a conference I was at (unrelated to physics) had a workshop about this (and other neutrino research)because one of the attendees is connected to one of the labs that will surely be doing that.

If you wonder at the extent of the work by the reporting team to show how they couldn't have a measureent error that's because the result being reported was so extraordinary that this was necessary before other labs would even try to replicate (there can't be an OBVIOUS error).

BTW -- what was being claimed wasn't that the neutrinos exceeded the speed of light in some medium but that they exceeded the speed of light in vacuum. Neutrinos regularly exceed the speed of light in various media.

Thanks, that's what I thought.

_________________
Sheik Yerbuti -- if that really is your name --