Welcome to our Public Beta Site - What does this mean?
Dublin: 12 °C Wednesday 22 February, 2012

Was Einstein wrong? CERN’s particles ‘travel faster than light’

Image: jonathan.rockway via Flickr

SCIENTISTS AT THE world’s largest supercollider in Switzerland have discovered sub-atomic particles which appear to travel faster than the speed of light – an observation which may undermine a well-established theory laid down by Albert Einstein.

A paper issued by researchers at CERN said measurements taken by scientists over the last three years have consistently shown that muon neutrinos fired from its HQ near Geneva to another facility in Italy had travelled quicker than anything ever known.

Though the increased speed is minute and barely recognisable – the neutrinos arrived in Italy around 60 billionths of a second quicker than light would have travelled – it poses a major challenge to one of the major laws of physics.

Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity, proposed in 1905, decreed that the speed of light was a constant, beyond which faster travel was simply impossible.

One researcher explained to Reuters that the results had been consistent across 15,000 experiments performed over three years – and that they had spent several months checking and rechecking their work to ensure that the increase was not down to a computational error.

They are so perplexed by the findings that their research is now to be published online for a virtual cross-examination by other researchers.

“The feeling that most people have is, ‘This can’t be right’,” another spokesman for CERN told AP.

“They are inviting the broader physics community to look at what they’ve done and really scrutinise it in great detail and ideally for someone elsewhere in the world to repeat the measurements.”

A separate researcher told the BBC that the researchers were reluctant to make any formal declaration about their findings just yet, given the massive ramifications that a disproval of Einstein’s theory would bring.

“We are not claiming things, we want just to be helped by the community in understanding our crazy result – because it is crazy”, he said.

Already a fan? Complete your signup...

Get breaking news from The Journal.ie via Facebook. Just click 'Like'.

Read Next:

Comments (50 Comments)

  • David Robert Grimes 153 days ago #
    Report this comment

    Most likely a systematic measurement error – neutrinos have mass, and massive particles would require infinite energy to reach light speed. Exceeding it is as far as we know impossible – however, if it were the case then several areas of physics would have to be looked into even more so. I am skeptical however – SOL has withstood theoretical and experimental probing for decades and I suspect a distance / time error in the set up to be the root cause of this. It will be interesting to see regardless.

    Also, kudos to the researchers for opening it up to the wider physics community – this is an example of ‘good science’. “We got a weird result consistantly – anyone else see what might be up” ? I personally think calibration / measurement error FAR more likely than violation of GR or superluminal speeds.

    Reply
    • fitszpatrick 153 days ago #
      Report this comment

      I agree I think this is their way of telling us they cheated in their exams. But it has serious implications. For example most early star trek plots are totally ridiculous and will have to be re made.

    • Aydo 153 days ago #
      Report this comment

      After 6 months of tests?
      Or is it perhaps we just don’t know enough about the nature of the universe?

    • David Robert Grimes 153 days ago #
      Report this comment

      6 months of tests on a complicated system is nothing – it would also have to refute 80+ years of experiments telling us otherwise. The authors are good scientists, and they’ve put it out in the open asking other scientists to look at it. If it’s true, something is interesting. If it isn’t, they’ve improved the experiment. Either way, win win.

      Of course we don’t know enough about the universe – else why would we do experiments ? That doesn;t mean you can fill in the blanks with waffle though…

    • Gordon Lucas 153 days ago #
      Report this comment

      The difficulty of testing the speed of sub-atomic particles would surely have made experimental probing difficult.
      Also, is the mass-light equivalence not dependent on the speed of light?
      Einstein’s theory is *just* a theory and could be as incorrect, but useful, as Newton’s.

    • Dars K 153 days ago #
      Report this comment

      They did 15000 different experiments over 3 years, checked and rechecked. Do you not think the room full of brainy people would have thought of that? We are not dealing with secondary school students here.
      It’s a little arrogant to assume it’s a mistake Is it not?

    • Aydo 152 days ago #
      Report this comment

      So…God then eh?

    • David Robert Grimes 152 days ago #
      Report this comment

      It is not a CONFIRMED result. It may be a measurement problem and that is exactly what the authors have said – I read the paper earlier. Why don’t you listen to Brian Cox who basically says the same ?

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15034852

      The results are interesting, but may merely indicate a systematic error….

    • Christopher O'Toole 152 days ago #
      Report this comment

      It might be instrumentational error. But if the results are replicated it’s not. I think the higgs boson is lurking here somewhere. Neutrinos are a bit chameleon-like. Sometimes they have mass sometimes we are not sure. Without mass (sometimes?) maybe superluminal speeds are possible. If c = square root of E/m where m=0 then c is undefined…

  • conoraleckelly 153 days ago #
    Report this comment

    According to the Star Trek episode writer’s guide for The Original Series, warp factors are converted to multiples of c with the cubic function v = w3c, where w is the warp factor, v is the velocity, and c is the speed of light. Accordingly, “warp 1″ is equivalent to the speed of light, “warp 2″ is 8 times the speed of light, “warp 3″ is 27 times the speed of light, etc.

    Reply
  • Gordon Lucas 153 days ago #
    Report this comment

    Jez…. That’s pretty huge.
    Anyone know the implications?…. Wouldn’t it mean that forward time travel is theoretically possible? And Black Hole theory would also fall apart, too, eh?

    Reply
  • Kelly McCarthy 153 days ago #
    Report this comment

    I bet half the usual comment posters here are wondering how they can work David Norris into this argument. Ooops-I’ve done it for you.

    Reply
    • conoraleckelly 153 days ago #
      Report this comment

      I bet Norris went onto the future and saw Martin Mc Guinness was going to be president so he put his name into the hat again.

  • David Robert Grimes 153 days ago #
    Report this comment

    Implications would be huge, but would also but in direct conflict with prior observations over past 80 years… XKCD got it right here..

    http://xkcd.com/955/

    Reply
  • neuromancer 153 days ago #
    Report this comment

    If your travelling at the speed if light (insert witty comment here)

    Reply
  • Mary O Sullivan 153 days ago #
    Report this comment

    beam me up scottie…

    Reply
  • Alan Breslin 153 days ago #
    Report this comment

    I can confirm that what those scientists have discovered is on fact true as i have just been voted ‘ Student most likely to travel back in time’ class of 2057. Now where is my hoverboard??

    Reply
  • Gavan Reilly 153 days ago #
    Report this comment

    I’m reminded of the following quote from Futurama:

    Professor: “These are the dark matter engines I invented. They allow my starship to travel between galaxies in mere hours.”
    Cubert: “That’s impossible. You can’t go faster than the speed of light.”
    Professor: “Of course not. That’s why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208. ”
    Cubert: “Also impossible.”
    Professor: “And what makes my engines truly remarkable is the afterburner, which delivers 200% fuel efficiency.”
    Cubert: “That’s especially impossible!”"
    Professor: “Not at all! It’s very simple.”
    Cubert: “Then explain it. ”
    Professor: “Now that’s impossible! It came to me in a dream, and I forgot it in another dream.”

    Reply
    • Aonghus Collins 152 days ago #
      Report this comment

      It takes more than one unverified result to “shatter” a long established theory.

    • Aonghus Collins 152 days ago #
      Report this comment

      Call into question, yes. But shattering will require this result to be independently verified elsewhere.

    • Gavan Reilly 152 days ago #
      Report this comment

      Appreciated, Aonghus, though I actually amended the wording to remove the ‘shatter’ bit before you commented ;)

    • Aonghus Collins 152 days ago #
      Report this comment

      Really? I’m still seeing it. Must be a problem on my end.

    • Gavan Reilly 152 days ago #
      Report this comment

      Aonghus – If you’re on an app it may take a few minutes/a reboot to download the updated text. (It’s a bug-of-sorts that we’re working on.)

    • Aonghus Collins 152 days ago #
      Report this comment

      No, the regular website. Using eduroam in UCD, which I’ve noticed caching websites before, so it might be that.

  • declan matthews 152 days ago #
    Report this comment

    its life Jim…but not as we know it

    Reply
  • Alan Murphyâ„¢ 152 days ago #
    Report this comment

    Took 6 months cause there was a fella sitting there sayingâ

    Reply
  • John Fitzgerald 152 days ago #
    Report this comment

    Scientific theories are just that. There has been strong scientic evidence for life after death around for at least the last 150 years and we still have some ultra-sceptical scientists who won’t even look at the evidence or consider it, let alone accept it. Let’s see how many more long established theories will be undermined in the months and years ahead…

    Reply
    • Brian Kelleher 152 days ago #
      Report this comment

      Well don’t hold back, where is this evidence? It’s certainly in the public interest, I’m sure someone would’ve mentioned this by now…? You said “some” scientists, implying that most have looked at the evidence? What did they say?

      Also, was wondering how long it would take for religion to be seriously introduced to this discussion.

  • Conor Byrne 152 days ago #
    Report this comment

    They’re not CERN’s particles… :P

    But anyway, to people saying the E=mc^2 etc. has to be right because it gives perfect results; take a look at general relativity and quantum mechanics. We know that they’re not a TOE but we still use them for the accurate results they give in their own areas.

    Reply
  • fitszpatrick 152 days ago #
    Report this comment

    I think they be trying to cover up their embarrassment. I heard on the nuclear physics grapevine that one of them dropped a half eaten Toblerone into the Collider. This may have caused the problem. The real announcement will come when they admit that they have discovered that Toblerone is the source of Black Holes.

    Reply
  • Jesus Ochoa 152 days ago #
    Report this comment

    The answer is BASIC, c as we know it is a local constant in our frame universe. That is all, no reason to alarm.

    Reply
  • John Fitzgerald 152 days ago #
    Report this comment

    To Brian Kelleher…The evidence I refer to has nothing to do with religion. To read about the evidence for survival of death I recommend the site run by retired Australian lawyer, Victor Zammit, as a starting point. He makes a good case for life after death, citing the vast body of evidence and the many scientists past and present who actually accepted on the basis of the evidence gleaned from scrupulous research, experiments etc that we do indeed survive the process of bodily “death” and live on in another form. His site is http://www.victorzammit.com

    Reply
    • Brian Kelleher 152 days ago #
      Report this comment

      @John Fitzgerald

      Had a look at that guys website, firstly he can’t seem to spell and secondly he seems to be absolutely batshit crazy. I understand he’s offering Stephen Hawking, the man with the highest IQ on the planet, “ONE MILLION DOLLRS” to disprove the existence of the after-life? What the fuck??

      Also, he’s website looks like the most kick-ass site that 1995 could buy. Hardly convincing.

  • Jane 152 days ago #
    Report this comment

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily sound evidence.
    I hope all the instruments were calibrated properly!

    Reply
  • John Fitzgerald 152 days ago #
    Report this comment

    Brian Kelleher…I see you haven’t exactly considered the evidence in any great depth, judging by the speed with which you replied to my comment. I would respectfully suggest that It requires more than a passing glance. Throwaway remarks of the knee-jerk kind are no substitute for careful, exhaustive analysis of the evidence for survival of bodily death. Your use of the term “batshit crazy” is just offensive subjective name calling. It is unscientific and has no value in assessing the reality of the afterlife. The challenge to people who say there isn’t an afterlife to back up this claim is reasonable in my view. There is abundant evidence for survival…no evidence to the contrary, just a combination of nervous rejection and actual ignorance of the research and studies carried out to date, accompanied by silly uninformed ridicule of the evidence itself. You don’t like the look of the website. That’s fine. But If it has a “1995″ style or whatever is hardly relevant to the strength of the evidence. I mention that site as one I thought it worth considering. There’s the Scole Project, in which mediums were tested under the strictest conditions to eliminate the possibility of fraud. Worth a look too. It doesn’t hurt to face up to the evidence for life after death and consider it objectively instead of dismissing it because it happens to undermine one’s present view of the physical “known” universe and what might or might lie beyond…Greater minds that yours, Brian (with the greatest respect to your intelligence) or mine have accepted the evidence. Okay, we’ll all find out in time anyway for ourselves, but let’s not be hostile to research into what has to be the most important subject of all…

    Reply
  • Billy Bourne 152 days ago #
    Report this comment

    I thought this was already known, (or very well theorized at least) it says in the holographic universe and other sources, about particles that communicate instantly (faster than light)
    It was theorized that everything is connected to everything else on a level of reality we are yet to perceive.
    There are loads of quantum particles that ignore space and time altogether because from a certain framework space and time does not really exist.
    I know the holographic universe theory and others like are not the ultimate truth on the nature of reality but if I choose to completely believe the consensus of science,
    I have to pretend a great many things don’t exist and are not possible, things I have felt and experienced and know to be true.

    This dilemma has been raised loads of times in at least the last 30 years and some quantum physicists have been practically witch hunted, most of them were ridiculed and some of them had their careers ruined. Hopefully this discovery will finally teach us how warped and limited our perception of reality truly is so and we can move forward as a species.

    I would just like to make it clear that I am not trying to undermine anyone else’s opinion.

    Reply
  • Fergus O'Neill 152 days ago #
    Report this comment

    It must be my inner nerd, but this is hugely exciting!

    IF the results are repeated & validated, it would throw our understanding of the universe wide open. The results would need to be understood, and new theories devised with that understanding in mind. Who know what this new understanding would bring us, what mysteries would be resolved, what new mysteries would arise. As Bohr said, “How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress”.

    If the results can be shown to contain significant errors, it would be extremely embarrassing for the CERN people. They know this, and wouldn’t have published if any ‘i’ were undotted, any ‘t’ uncrossed. So I suspect that if any error were found, it would also be something new, which would bring some deeper understanding with it! “Honorable errors do not count as failures in science, but as seeds for progress in the quintessential activity of correction” (Stephen Jay Gould).

    Reply
  • Niall O'Sullivan 151 days ago #
    Report this comment

    Pesky anti-chronotons!!!

    Reply
  • Nalliah Thayabharan 150 days ago #
    Report this comment

    Nikola Tesla the “father of free energy” as also the discoverer of the neutrino reported in 1932 that neutrinos are small particles, each carrying so small a charge and they travel with great velocity, exceeding that of light.

    Experimental tests of Bell inequality have shown that microscopic causality must be violated, so there must be faster than light travel. According to Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, nothing with nonzero rest mass can go faster than light. But zero rest mass particles can go faster than the light. Neutrinos have a small nonzero rest mass. Faster than light interactions are a necessity and they provide the non local structure of the universe. In any physical theory, it is assumed that there is some kind of nonlocal structure violates causality. If neutrinos are traveling faster than light, then neutrinos must be on the otherside of the light barrier going backwards in time, where the future can interact with the past.

    There are lots of theories and research regarding this matter including Cherenkov radiation, Standard Model Extension, Heim theory, Novikov selfconsistency principle, Casimir effect, Hartman effect, Casimir vacuum & quantum tunnelling, Tachyons, etc.

    - Nalliah Thayabharan

    Reply
  • Dhananjay Janorkar 147 days ago #
    Report this comment

    Hon.Sir,
    Research on E=Mc2 Instead of E=Mm2,The speed of light =22,32,00,00,000 miles per second,Point,Exact value of Pi = π = Goba = Pi = 3.141592653 , and also both research. Look at SBJANORKAR-site.google.com
    Respected sir,
    My father Shri. Shantaram Bapurao Janorkar has worked out the accurate numerical value of Pi=π,Goba= Pi = 3.141592653 is exact value and also research point:- Evidence of existence of point and it´s from.E=Mc2 formula derived by Hon. Albert Einstein is wrong & it´s evidence proof,E=Mm2 is new formula, The speed of light =22,32,00,00,000 miles per second. Soul:-Evidence of existence of Soul, it´s form and nomenclature.Om,Aatmaa and also both research.
    In mathematic´s the value of Pi = π, which was wrongly known to the mathematician is roughly limitless, in-comprehensible, incalculable, transcendental irrational.Circumference divided by Diameter = magnitude of regular polygon (Roughly circumference) divided by Diameter is wrong. Today’s world class mathematician was assumed that the circumference is a magnitude of regular polygon. (there fore) they do not get exact value of Pi= π, for this my father made whole life time research and calculated the exact value of Pi= π which was 3.141592653 and whole research was made in Marathi (Devnagri) language.
    In 15th of September 1998 publication of Pi=Ï€=Gobacha Swayam Siddha Siddhant Launching ceremony was arranged by me in a city center at Mahan Dist.Akola at 6:00 pm on 15-09-1998. This function was presided over by senior Journalist, Radio and Television reporter late. Shree Dadasaheb Mankar,Dr.K.S.Adhau, Head of Department of Mathematics Amravati University, Amravati Published theorem book. And the launching was over by Hon.Dr.T. M.Karde,(Dean,Faculty of Science, Nagpur University Nagpur, President of Einstin foundation internation,Nagpur) Shree. Bhagwantrao Ingle, President of District Journalist Union, Dr.Mujumdar, Head of department of Engineering Dr.P.D.Krishi Vidyapith,Akola Dr.Burghate, Dr.Asole, Deputy Education Officer,Shri.Wankhade,Adesh Deshpande, Baban Daberao, Prof. Pundkar Dr.Ghorpande, B.D.O. Shri. Borde, were present on dais.
    HONOURABLE GUEST’S VIEWS ABOUT THE THEORUM
    Hon.Dr.T.M.Karde (International pamed mathematician):- Dr.Karde admitted the new thought about the principal of static & Dynamic is brought by this theorem. In spite of all, he do not comment on this issue instantly, but the assured that, the discussion will be made on the same in next conference certainly.
    Hon.Dr.K.S.Adhau (Head, Department of Mathematics, Amravati University):- Dr.Adhau thought that it would be fast to give any remark on this theorem.
    Hon.Dr.Mujumdar (Head, Department of Engineering Dr.P.D.Krishi Vidyapith, Akola):- Today, this has been provide that research work is not limited to university expert person. But a farmer can also do a research work. There is no end to research work. This research work will guide the future generation.
    Hon.Late Dadasaheb Mankar (Senior Journalist):- Professor Mankar stated that this result is hard work / dedication of 20 years and he expected such Hero should be born from this earth only.
    Hon.N.L.Lakhanpal,Principal Secretary,Higher Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 Wrote in the letter DO No.PA1097/NLL/P.I.,Dated:-21May1997 to Hon.Prof.V.S.Ramamurthy,Secretary, Science and Technology Bhavan,Department of Science,Government of India,New Delhi.Since the state Government does not have any such expertise, We would request Government of India to Initiate whatever steps are considered necessary in this matter.
    No one has responded seriously to my father research work. I humbly request to you where in the validity of this claim Can be scientifically established. Whatever steps are considered necessary in this matter. So,I again request you to do needful in this regard.
    Thanking you, Yours faithfully
    Dhananjay Shantaram Janorkar
    (Chief Publisher,All Research Shri. Shantaram Bapurao Janorkar)
    c/o Shri.Patil House, Nityanand Nagar,
    Near Saraswati Vidyalaya, Gorakshan Road,
    Akola:- 444 004 (Maharashtra State),India
    Mob:- 091-9021607450,9226442256
    E-mail ID: dhananjay.janorkar70@gmail.com Shantaramb.janorkar@gmail.com
    Date: 24-09-2011
    Research on Point,E=Mc2 Instead of E=Mm2,Soul , Exact value of Pi=Ï€,Goba = Pi = 3.141592653 ,Om,Aatmaa and also both research, look at google site,Twitter,Orkut,Rediff mypage,Digg,yahoo mypage,Facebook, name of Dhananjay Janorkar and Shantaram Bapurao Janorkar.

    Reply

Add New Comment