# Can neutrinos travel Faster Than Light **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 22, 2011, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266 "2011-09-22T22:59:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/281 "2011-10-02T16:32:34Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > … and I take it the ayes have it. Well done! ---
**Author:** ![Wizard\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Wizard\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wizard_One)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/282 "2011-10-02T17:34:39Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Huh? Where, exactly? > > From the article. “Almost all of the energy of the [1987] supernova came out in lightweight weakly-interacting neutrinos. About 1058 neutrinos were produced in the core collapse. On Feb 24, 1987, about 1013 neutrinos passed through your body from the supernova! About a million people on the Earth had an “interaction” with a neutrino, of course with no noticeable effect.” > I merely completed the sentence that was partially quouted. > > It probably wouldn’t be a single photon, though, but a Cherenkov ring thereof on the retina, provided you’re looking in the right direction. Neutrinos don’t generate Cherenkov radiation, there is a Cherenkov-like effect, due to weak interaction, but it’s a different thing entirely. Frankly, I’d go with Lorenz violation due to the much higher energy level of the neutrinos. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/283 "2011-10-02T17:43:12Z")
> [@Wizard\_One](#): > > Neutrinos don’t generate Cherenkov radiation, […] Read **Pasta** ’s excellent post 272 to see where the Cherenkov radiation comes from. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/284 "2011-10-02T18:12:49Z")
> [@Wizard\_One](#): > > Neutrinos don’t generate Cherenkov radiation, there is a Cherenkov-like effect, due to weak interaction, but it’s a different thing entirely. Yes, that’s [what](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14309812&postcount=254) I [said.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14312355&postcount=259) > [@](#): > > Frankly, I’d go with Lorenz violation due to the much higher energy level of the neutrinos. That’s exactly the interpretation Cohen and Glashow show is problematic due to weak Cherenkov radiation. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/285 "2011-10-02T22:40:49Z")
Lorentz violation 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/286 "2011-10-02T23:40:06Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Lorentz violation 😕 a Lorentz violation, is a violation of Lorentz symmetry. Lorentz symmetry is the (local) symmetry of spacetime and it requires that the physics of a situation stays the same even if you change your relative velocity (or orientation) to that situation. Lorentz violation usually leads to a preferred frame of reference and it could possibly allow FTL particles. If we accept that these neutrinos are indeed travelling FTL, then Lorentz violation would be the preferred explanation (despite tachyons not being in conflict with the very basics of SR, they can be fairly terminal in many theories based on SR) as there are reasonable arguments that Lorentz symmetry may infact be a broken symmetry (one that is violated, albeit only noticeably in extreme situations). However what the paper by Cohen and Glashow (a pair of physicists who could be considered experts in Lorentz violation, having created their own framework for Lorentz violation: very special relativity) argues is that considering the anomalous measurements by OPERA to be an example of Lorentz violation is in direct conflict with previous experiments involving neutrinos. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2011, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/287 "2011-10-03T02:13:53Z")
So the idea that C is constant in _all_ reference frames no longer applies? I understand that that is the surface reaction simply to the observation of putative FTL events; I’m just asking about this new-to-me framework. I have a layman’s understanding of Lorenz contraction and time dilation. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2011, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/288 "2011-10-03T02:55:04Z")
**Pssta** , you’re a prince/princess for your long post. Some thoughts, questions: 1. The issue of phosphenes has not been addressed. I do not know whether a 3Mv energy particle is overkill for the total mass of optical cortexes in the world. The brain is mostly liquid; it too would have its own C/c refractive index quantities. As for direct stimulation, I have read (15 years ago, and with experimental result limited by the size of electrodes and the risk of psychophysical damage–“kindling”) of the perception of phosphenes (a single phosphene event?) at a pulse rate of 100-200 msec, amplitudes of 10mAmp, and repetitions of 10-250Hz. I do not know how to translate these figures into terms suitable for our discussion. I do know that repetition rates is a deal-breaker, but you can always play the odds. 2. **Pasta** , why are you taking no note of the subsequent impingement towards the optical nerve–“cheating,” as you put it? The single photon-single rod effect, whatever it may be, simply _isn’t_ an effect w/o the optic nerve and the grey matter. 3. Back to the eyeb ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2011, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/289 "2011-10-03T04:41:39Z")
> [@](#): > > So the idea that C is constant in _all_ reference frames no longer applies? If those models are correct, at least. But there’s very little reason to believe that they are, and I think that, for the most part, even the folks who propose such models expect that they’re not true. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2011, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/290 "2011-10-03T11:32:54Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > So the idea that C is constant in _all_ reference frames no longer applies? I understand that that is the surface reaction simply to the observation of putative FTL events; I’m just asking about this new-to-me framework. I have a layman’s understanding of Lorenz contraction and time dilation. I don’t know that much about it, but yes it would certainly seem to imply the non-constancy of c (though only within certain types of constraints). ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2011, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/291 "2011-10-03T11:34:26Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > If those models are correct, at least. But there’s very little reason to believe that they are, and I think that, for the most part, even the folks who propose such models expect that they’re not true. The models exists for a reason and I think the main reason is to do with quantum gravity. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2011, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/292 "2011-10-03T11:47:35Z")
To expand on my last post (I hit submit by accident): In general relativity the field that describes gravity is also the same field that describes spacetime geometry on a the manifold. If you quantitise the gravitational field, you also quantitise the geometry of spacetime and this gives good reason to think that the smooth local symmetry of spacetime be in fact be a broken symmetry. In Cohen and Glashow’s theory, very special relativity (VST), I believe that Lorentz symmetry is conserved in all CP conserving processes. However CP symmetry is known to be violated in weak interactions. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/293 "2011-10-03T16:35:49Z")
Yes, but all anyone’s really doing with quantum gravity just yet is brainstorming. There’s a huge difference between saying that the world _might_ work this way, and saying that it _does_. ---
**Author:** ![Pasta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@Pasta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pasta)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/294 "2011-10-03T19:38:39Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > 1. **Pasta** , why are you taking no note of the subsequent impingement towards the optical nerve–“cheating,” as you put it? The single photon-single rod effect, whatever it may be, simply _isn’t_ an effect w/o the optic nerve and the grey matter. I was calling “cheating” any sensation that wasn’t caused by light hitting the retina. While a charged particle might induce sensation by passing through neurons, I wouldn’t say that is “seeing” anything, and I take the original claim as implying that one literally sees the flash of light. So, I limited the scope of my post to that. > [@](#): > > 1. Back to the eyeb ? ? ? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2011, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/295 "2011-10-03T19:44:33Z")
> [@Pasta](#): > > ? ? ? I think he was hit in the eye by a neutrino. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2011, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/296 "2011-10-03T21:57:23Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > It’s exactly how science works. The _most likely_, but not the _only_ explanation at present is measurement error. That doesn’t prevent testing to confirm or refute it. > > Newton’s laws were pretty well established when Einstein came along, and it took extraordinary evidence to overturn or modify Newton, but we got it, and it accumulated. This is no different. Just throwing this out there: [Clarke’s Three Laws are three “laws”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws) of prediction formulated by the British writer and scientist Arthur C. Clarke. They are: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2011, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/297 "2011-10-03T22:07:57Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I think he was hit in the eye by a neutrino. More likely my thalamus. I had to go look for some data, hit submit instead of preview, said fuck it, and crashed. ---
**Author:** ![Wizard\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Wizard\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wizard_One)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/298 "2011-10-05T13:20:13Z")
> [@These are my own pants](#): > > To expand on my last post (I hit submit by accident): > > In general relativity the field that describes gravity is also the same field that describes spacetime geometry on a the manifold. If you quantitise the gravitational field, you also quantitise the geometry of spacetime and this gives good reason to think that the smooth local symmetry of spacetime be in fact be a broken symmetry. > > In Cohen and Glashow’s theory, very special relativity (VST), I believe that Lorentz symmetry is conserved in all CP conserving processes. However CP symmetry is known to be violated in weak interactions. CP symmetry is known to be violated by the universe itself, hence our preponderance of matter in favor over antimatter. 🙂 EVENTUALLY, the math will catch up with the observations to explain why that is. Perhaps a false vacuum? ---
**Author:** ![Wizard\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Wizard\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wizard_One)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/299 "2011-10-05T13:29:04Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > More likely my thalamus. I had to go look for some data, hit submit instead of preview, said fuck it, and crashed. Tis a wise person who knows when to say, “Screw it, I’m tired and going to bed”, rather than persevere into the absurdities induced by excessive fatigue. 🙂 I think the confusion here is that of a weakly interacting particle with a mass between 01 and 3 eV and ionizing radiation triggering neural stimulation. Astronauts are known to see flashes caused by ionizing radiation either stimulating the retina, optic nerve or visual cortex directly. One key difference between a potential neutrino interaction and ionizing radiation is scale. Rather than one ATOM having a weak interaction with a neutrino, ionizing radiation can cause MANY atoms to ionize. Hence the risk involved with ionizing radiation, rather than the rather harmless neutrinos. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266/300 "2011-10-05T13:37:48Z")
How long should it take for others to replicate or refute these findings? Are there similar setups around the world that could relatively (snerk) quickly perform the same experiment? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light/597266.md?page=16)