Neutrinos slower than light - Sixty Symbols

[@TheRABIDdude]

6:58 "I'm working in this field" He sounds gutted to be doing agricultural work when he has such a clear interest in physics. Someone get him a lab.

[@minecraftfan2087]

wow.......

[@TheRABIDdude]

Nibs ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[@MoviMakr]

TheRABIDdude Nice one.

[@chromatosechannel]

TheRABIDdude ಠ_ಠ

[@ThePritt12]

TheRABIDdude cant stop laughing 'bout this one!

[@selectedvideos6180]

Maybe the neutrinos realized they were being watched... and slowed down :)

[@leesohkean8154]

ya from micro life forms to femto life forms in the future maybe even there would be a plank particle alive and knowing we r watching it so it start growing ;)

[@TheRABIDdude]

2:57 ''This isn't the only possible source of Errororororo''

[@kito323]

0:38 how to intrique a physisist? " What happens when neutrinos hit the rock?" "Nothing, absolutely nothing" *biggest smile*

[@fbicknel]

6:58 "I'm working in this field..." Puntastic.

[@sixtysymbols]

@Every1Tubes we did have the compasses and tourist maps out to get our bearings.... but you can never really be sure when it's misty and everything is underground! ;)

[@jgkitarel]

The biggest issue, is not whether it is possible, it is that our instruments, while extremely accurate, are still prone to error, or other simple issues. When you get to something that has to measure time in femtoseconds (1fs = 1*10^-15s), you don't want any issues which can throw the measurements off. Also, the initial claim should have been viewed more skeptically in the first place. As Carl Sagan put it: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

[@sixtysymbols]

@azaas we feel under pressure now to make the LHC videos good!!!

[@DivingDeveloper]

I don't know if this is said enough. I absolutely love these videos. You need to be on the TV.

[@Evid3nzMatterz]

The uncertainty principle states that position and momentum cannot be known precisely simultaneously, *not* that leptons "cannot be seen in one place". Thus. we can perform measurements on a system which collapse the wave function and locate at a *definite* location a particle at some specified time, but we cannot obtain precise measurement values on its momentum at the same time. In addition, everything after your "Therefore" does not follow validly from anything before the "Therefore".

[@njimko23]

@Daniefab - there are many other fields besides the field that gives rise to the charge of the electron. The neutrino is a ripple in one of those other fields. That field interacts with the rest only via the weak force, so it is very hard to spot those ripples.

[@AssortedBits]

I have the idea the arrows are (roughly) correct. By the looks of it the camera is pointed in eastern direction on a location northwest of Meyrin & Geneve. Mont Blanc is south by southeast of that location (probably offscreen) and the Gran Sasso (definitely offscreen in center of Italy) is to the southeast. Don't forget that Switzerland has a weird appendix into France over there. Brady's back is towards France, but the western part of the mountains prof. Copeland points at is France as well.

[@sixtysymbols]

@Jordie389 happy to oblige

[@edgeeffect]

I'd love to see Sixty Symbols videos on the Strong force and the Weak force.

[@jMcWill781]

they were detecting Parker neutrinos.

[@daksh8747]

#Parker-square-every-day

[@Triantalex]

false.

[@jMcWill781]

@@Triantalexwhat does that mean.

[@YesIamJames]

@YesIamJames (2) We have also measured the speed of neutrinos before from a supernova and they arrived after the light. The new experiment only showed neutrinos arriving 60 billionths of a second faster than lightspeed which I think could easily be put down to a miscalculation. The mass of a neutrino is tiny (even on the scale of other sub atomic particles) but nobody has been able to measure it yet. electrons and protons don't move anywhere near the speed of light.

[@YesIamJames]

@BabylonLynx Experimentation has demonstrated that the passing of time approaches zero and mass approaches infinity as you approach light speed. Basically it would take infinite energy to get a partial to light speed and massless objects always travel at that speed. This is all covered in relativity, the equations are pretty hard to get your head around but the concepts aren't too taxing. .

[@sixtysymbols]

@hitachi088 it's to juxtapose the title of the earlier film... I assume you kind of know a short catchy headline or title does not have to tell the entire story of a nine-minute film? I think we've been quite even handed?

[@Jordie389]

Have been checking everyday, waiting for this new video to come out! So happy!

[@RedEyedMars]

I like it very much when scientists admit they don't know something, it's very honest and humble and something that the rest of the world could learn from

[@aluisious]

@ZacharyGalifianakis He said at one point that gravity is so weak they don't even bother to worry about it with neutrinos. So the weak force is pretty weak but still does something occasionally.

[@Draxis32]

Brady seems to not remember when he recorded the original video about Neutrinos( my favourite since then) if he seems so amazed about the fact they pass through mountains you gotta remember first that if you would take off all the electrosphere from all these mountains, leaving just the nuclei, it would fit in a bucket( even though it would weight as much as the moutains itself). That is why the neutrinos can pass through planets and leave stars.

[@mvmlego1212]

On the CERN end, how exactly are they detecting the location and time of neutrino emissions? It seems like knowing the exact part of the generator where it was produced would be important for the distance measurement, but I don't know how you'd detect it without blocking it from continuing on toward the collection point.

[@zlatankovacevic4281]

they are probably doing something like this: 1. bomb a couple of atoms in a short instant 2. virtually simultaneously try to detect neutrinos on the other side I'm not an expert though :D

[@nikoyochum6974]

there is a specific point in the LHC where collisions occur

[@JayJayAbels]

Excited to see your "Approximated Inside The Large Hadron Maybe Collider" video! Keep it coming!

[@featheredfan]

@gwaur The neutrinos are created as a byproduct of each particle collision. They are only detected when one of them impacts an atomic nucleus in the detector.

[@sixtysymbols]

@aianyoung gosh, hope we don't disappoint!

[@Kakashiyuka]

Thanks for another golden video, the two latest Numberphiles were also really interesting. It really amazes me when even the professor cannot grasp that problem (yet). Heavy science underway, looking forward to more CERN!

[@arthurdent9160]

I have a question I'd loved to get answered by seomeone qualified... How probable is it that the graviational waves discovery at LIGO is going to turn out as an instrumental flaw or something similar, same as the faster than light Neutrinos detected by OPERA?

[@7Wolfbrother7]

Being a master Physics student I feel somewhat qualified :P. The chances are virtually non existant and I only reason i phrase iit like that is because I don't like saying something is impossible :P. The signal was actually detected by 2 seperate and independent detectors a few 1000 kilometers apart.(which also made it possible, much like you can hear the direction of sound due to the distance between your ears and the time delay between auditive signals) The signal had the exact same shape for both detectors, arrived with the correct time delay and had the predicted shape (which is quite an unusual one so it looks nothing like say an earthquake or elektromagnetic disturbance)

[@AssortedBits]

If I'm correct matter partially absorbs light while another part bounces of and scatters (which is why we can see, since we capture reflected light with our eyes). So bounce it a few times and the light is fully absorbed. Considering the speed of light is almost 300000 km/second, those couple of bounces are pretty much instantaneously. Besides that, photons (light-particles) only exist while they move. Stop their movement and they're gone.

[@emadrio]

I like how the media takes no responsibility for the gross dramatization of results that most the researchers were skeptical of themselves.

[@YesIamJames]

@YesIamJames (3) As I understand it the reason the universe is expanding faster than light is because it's space-time itself expanding not the galaxies themselves traveling at ridiculous speeds. Also any galaxy moving faster than light away from us we will never be able to observe and it will never effect us because we are moving away faster than the light or anything else can reach us.

[@sixtysymbols]

@Draxis32 I have the memory of a goldfish.... I'll be amazed next time they tell me as well!!!!

[@basalisk335]

@mopsnuf im pretty sure that neutrinos are normally affected by gravity just like other particles. Gravity isn't considered a force in relativity, notice in the video he just said that they aren't affected by the strong and em forces.

[@Justpooinabush]

@DireStraitsInImpala At the beginning of the video the guy said neutrinos are only affected by the weak force, meaning not gravity. So the earth's gravity has no effect on the velocity of the neutrino.

[@augiedoggie]

@ZacharyGalifianakis You're right but, gravitational force is long ranged, where as weak force is short ranged. Im sure that has something to do with it.

[@GFlCh]

At about 8:18 he talks about when he was doing his PHD, a Nobel Prize was awarded related to the acceleration of the universe. What was the event/discovery/research that the NP was awarded for?

[@TheAmazingFocus]

Just because the experiment was flawed does not mean that the neutrinos were not moving faster than light! Other similar experiments that I saw set the average speed just barely above c (though still well within experimental error). This is still a subject to keep your eye on in the future!

[@oooooooooorly]

@rogerdotlee Here's one for you: Doing so would contradict the very mathematics of coordinate transforms between fast-moving reference frames. That's why it's impossible. It's not some arbitrary observed fact that things don't move faster than light, it's a fundamental result that follows from the observation that light moves at the same speed in every reference frame.

[@okmarshall]

@linkuei83 They didn't measure light as well with this experiment (because light couldn't travel between the two places through Earth). The speed of light is a generally accepted speed and has been measured very precisely for years. The experiment wasn't a direct comparison just a time for neutrinos compared to a CALCULATED expected time.

[@lidaranis]

So. the monentum is conserved but not for each item(that's why i said momentum is not conserved in previous answer).. is conserved for the system. neutron 1 will change it's momentum and also neutron 2. You could say they swap momentums. How i said in the previous answer. N1 goes this way -> and colides with N2, pushing him in the same direction with a force and "giving" it, it's momentum. Same for N2. So the total momentum before colision it's equal with the total momentum after colision.

[@AssortedBits]

Check out "Why is glass transparent?" in this channel, it is about the function and absorption of photons.

[@TheMajorpickle01]

Ive only just done AS level physics, but I swear ive heard multiple professors stating that there is a probability that a subatomic particle can appear spontaneously at any point in the universe

[@Sarthex]

@Poopdahoop it's still pretty normal to analyze something like that, since it's pretty radical. Measurements of speeds and time delays like that are incredibly difficult to perform accurately. Every single step in hte process has an error margin, and they found some which "could" account for this result. They'll analyze it further till they got it right ;) BTW, what would you do if your scale suddenly told you you weighed only 25 pounds? disassemble the scale and analyze, ;)

[@Lorofol]

Even though they may not be faster than light, could we still use these to replace optical cabling that runs the thousands of kilometres through the sea and whatnot. Would the cost of running two of these towers across a country and across the sea be a cheaper alternative to the cables?

[@isreasontaboo]

With all these margins of errors you're supposed to deal with for about every measurement you make and circular reasoning you're bound to come across when one unit depends on other units that somehow point back to the first unit I wonder how they still manage to find these things.

[@akai454]

AWWWW, I was hoping that Faster Than Light Neutrinos would be able to make My internet connection faster, I mean the commercials upload and play flawlessly, but the actual KZbin videos that I want to watch take their sweet time to upload every once in a while. Maybe Neutrino Based Internet would be soooo fast that I could watch the video before the commercial?

[@CloudysGuitarChannel]

Inside the collider? WOOHOO! I love you sixtysymbols

[@milind006]

Question continued. So if all these forces are all non contact, what force will actually push the neutrons away? If there is no force and the neutrons are not pushed away, that would mean that momentum is not conserved. That is also not possible is it?

[@HotblackDesiat042]

@Jessica616ify There are four fundamental forces: strong, weak, electromagnetism, and gravity. Both strong and weak forces are nuclear forces that are usually just referred to as strong or weak interaction.

[@user-me7hx8zf9y]

Technically, if you treat each force as the dynamics of fluctuations in fields, the higgs could technically be called a "force", but since it does not have a gauge boson (since it's a scalar field and not a vector field) and some other wibbly wobbly factors, it's not really a "force" by most definitions.

[@lidaranis]

Ok, did a little reading.. las answer was just intuitive. You are right. The momentum is conserved. the Momentum Conservation Principle sais: For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

[@DireStraitsInImpala]

What about shooting the neutrinos downwards? If they go that fast horizontally, maybe even faster vertically down - to the Earth center?

[@lidaranis]

2 neutrons, perfect testing enviroment, perfect vacuum, no gravity, nothing. Momentum it is not censerved. Like velocity, linear momentum is a vector quantity, possessing a DIRECTION as well as a magnitude. If they bounce off the direction changes so the momentum is not conserved. But they are moving so they have energy. When they colide there is an energy transfer between them. So the first neutron applies a force to the second one and the second one aplies a force to the to the first one.

[@YesIamJames]

@20robo09 I did a bit lol. Also I just love the Desertphile clip.

[@limpy601]

@mopsnuf All matter is affected by gravity, the gravity of the earth is just too weak to significantly alter the path of a neutrino (in the same way that a light wave isn't really bent by the earth's gravity), so with classical information, neutrinos must fall into black holes. But if they could travel faster than light then they may be able to cross the event horizon and come out the other side.

[@Every1Tubes]

I wish to purchase the complete set of Brady's Roughly Approximate Maybe Maps.

[@Draxis32]

@Serostern He's actually right, its Global Position Satellite System.

[@CastFire001]

by inside the LHC... do you mean INSIDE or inside the large hadron collider

[@BabylonLynx]

may i ask something... what does it mean when a particle is faster than light? how is it physically possible? and in general why was the speed of light considered the limit of speed?

[@Evid3nzMatterz]

Yes, your professors are correct, and this relates to Feynman's path integral equation. Whilst it is ridiculously complicated, it is not (strictly speaking) related to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and it does not violate the universal speed limit: c.

[@ComandanteJ]

Could an Iridium or Osmium detector work better than Lead? And depleted Uranium?

[@thespacecowboy420]

+ComandanteJ What luck that BASF sells Osmium in bulk! It's only about 400 USD per ounce.

[@ComandanteJ]

UNDERHILL It's a bargain! Let's clear the shelves before it goes up! :P

[@shahrazadmalek4794]

Fantastic Video, danke

[@L00NGB00W]

@Zee96969696 No, that's the strong force. The weak force is kind of the opposite, it tears nuclei apart. And is responsible for radioactive decay.

[@emikochan13]

@eleutheromaniac how is the big bang unobserved? We can see the cosmic microwave background radiation easily. At one point all the matter in the unverse was in one place. How do you explain the pattern of the CMB ?

[@YesIamJames]

@BabylonLynx (1) This is going to be a long comment because there is a lot to cover. The reason the neutrino experiment is such a big deal is because if it is shown to be correct we are going to have to completely rework the theory of relativity or discard it completely. Personally I think it is much more likely that there was an error in the methodology and the experiment needs to be shown to be repeatable before we draw conclusions.

[@jhwh420]

We just recently decide that if neutrino's have little mass, AND can oscillate, than it can never go faster than the speed of light. So its like cars running on water, means the oil industry crashes. I'd almost hope that the CERN experiment is really wrong due to the cable.

[@wenbiaoliang]

what happens when Neutrinos hit through a neutron star? Will they collide with the neutrons since neutrons are so packed together?

[@AlanKey86]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was slightly disappointed to hear that that nippy neutrino wasn't actually going faster than light.

[@Dan-B]

Stupid question: How do Nuetrinos exist if they're not a form of energy in some way .ie. having a charge, or is their charge 'Nuetral' as it were? (even in the sense that they're neither positive or negative in charge)

[@milind006]

If two free neutrons moving about in space collide, would the momentum be conserved and would they bounce off? If that were to happen, that means, there was some acceleration, which would indicate some force acting to push the two neutrons away. What kinds of force it would be? We can rule out gravity (attractive) and em (neutron - no charge). I believe the strong force is attractive as well, so no. I don't claim to know much about the strong and weak forces, but know that they are no contact.

[@WarzSchoolchild]

GPS can fix a distance to within 10 mm. so an 18 metre error seems rather careless. Also "The ubiquitous 'loose wire' is the standard debunking refutation" Above the door of The Dismal Citadel of Orthodoxy" is inscribed the legend :- "IF IN DOUBT BLAME A LOOSE WIRE".

[@heavymetaldeath4life]

@gwaur The high energy protons collide with targets (I don't know what these targets are) and the mass-energy equivalence creates a bunch of new particles, including these neutrinos.

[@imadgibbs9063]

(C) Brady's Roughly Approximate Maybe Maps

[@imadgibbs9063]

+ Anyone know how they 'send' the Neutrinos in the direction of Gran Sasso.. I've always wondered

[@catradar]

Imad Gibbs They don't send them any direction, the neutrinos go in all directions. The detector is a specific direction from the source, so the neutrinos that go in other directions are not detected.

[@imadgibbs9063]

***** Got it, but how are they differentiated from solar & interstellar neutrinos?

[@njimko23]

@eleutheromaniac - You seem to not be aware that General Relavity calculations are much more complex and time consuming that Newtonian, but they give essentially the same answer that is only different enough to matter in special cases. Same is true of Quantum Mechanics, which is far superior to classical mechanics, but you don't use QM when you do auto repair.

[@RigelOrionBeta]

@YesIamJames When you talk about particle physics, gravity is a non-factor because it is so weak. I think this is why he referred to the weak force as the weakest. Also, some people would argue that gravity isn't even a force, since all it is is the curving of space time due to masses.

[@DahPianoNut]

Either way, it still have mass; and as you very well put it, that means it is still bound by the speed limit. Even if it doesn't have mass, it still wont exceed the speed of light, which light itself is a proof of. Though it would be really exciting if the neutrinos are actually proven to travel faster than light, the largest advancements comes from contradiction.

[@SchumiUCD]

@narfboy93 No, they don't reflect (or do anything else to) light.

[@tommy6564]

These videos truly remind me of why Im looking forward to majoring in physics when i go to college next year... thank you guys

[@juliusEST]

How's it going?

[@Jessica616ify]

What does he mean when he says 'weak forces'?

[@MrNation1234]

How do they find the way to shoot a single neutrino?

[@BabylonLynx]

@YesIamJames if massless objects travel by this speed, then how come objects with masses (neutrinos) can travel faster? and if the mass approaches infinity when the particle is moving at the speed of light then how come those neutrinos, electrons, protons are very light yet their speeds are very close to the speed of light? and another thing came up to my mind, how come our universe expands faster than the speed of light?

[@garyazerier1431]

These guys are terrific! Brilliant gents!

[@TheMajorpickle01]

You no longer have to only think! since the universe is expanding identically in every place at the same time, the only shape it can take is a sphere

[@gulllars]

@Serostern i feel the same way, but more strongly when people say SSD disk. It's redundant if you mean it as a storage unit, and it contains no disk shaped object. Ranting about semantics on the internet FTW :P

[@Poopdahoop]

Alright, I realize that this discovery may have been radical, and would have brought lots of change to physics but... Idk why, but I have a feeling that the scientests didn't believe it so much, that they searched too far in to this and eventually found a false mistake...? Still pretty neat though. :> Best channel on youtube.

[@MegaSkills9]

It seems only logical that we will never see Neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light. For many years they were thought to be massless and now they are known to posses a very slight mass. Please tell me how something with any mass at all can even travel the speed of light, let alone faster than it?

[@L00NGB00W]

So how does the Neutrino interact with matter via the weak force? Does it trigger beta decay?

[@JordanMiller333]

If Neutrinos only interact with 1 of the forces does that mean its possible for us and all known matter might not interact with some unknown forces? in other words does this mean that there could be more more forces that we cant interact with?

[@BrandonCourage]

@Daniefab They have neutral charge, but they still have mass

[@sniffy6999999]

How do you make/get neutrinos then? and are they one of the bits in the 'standard' model?

[@antoniojoseb.salamat7390]

Wait, why do they use lead for detectors? I mean, the densest element is osmium (and yes, it is osmium, not iridium), so why lead?

[@bcubed72]

+Antonio Jose B. Salamat [deadpan] You ever price out osmium?

[@RobSinclaire]

+Antonio Jose B. Salamat ... they failed to consult with you I guess

[@eatmyshortsss4755]

Might be more than how dense or w.e ask me in about 3 years and i might be able to answer

[@lidaranis]

Answer part 3: So There is a force that pushes the neutrons away. And yea the momentum is not conserved but the overall energy of the system is. And according to the law of conservation of energy the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The energy not the momentum :) i hope that answered your questions.

[@Danu_Shanan]

Wait. If the neutrino doesn't interact with the earth's atmosphere at all and the light has to interact, it is possible that the light slows down to a point where it is slower than neutrino, because I heard light travel slower in our atmosphere.

[@OisínMcColgan]

@linkuei83 They didn't measure light in that experiment, they know how long it should take light to travel the same distance those neutrinos did. Light would be stopped by the mountains

[@AssortedBits]

When scientists talk about "the speed of light" they talk about the maximum speed in a vacuum without interruptions.I read an article earlier today where they managed to slow (laser)light down to 30m/sec. I can't answer the polarisation-question since that's territory I'm unfamiliar with. :)

[@Dextomus]

@Supacalaz yes. As in its expansion is accelerating. Not as in accelerating like a car :)

[@zebolm]

Can you please ask them to explain point like objects. How physicists think of what a point is, as opposed to how mathematicians and philosophers do. Is it the same?

[@CynthiaAvishegnath-watch]

So there was a loose optical connection. Was the same optical connection also loose, while the Higgs was being verified? If so, wouldn't that make the Higgs results invalid?

[@ZFQFMB]

This is why things are checked and double checked. You may recall the Higgs team had a 'We're pretty sure' announcement a few months before their 'Ok, we're nearly definite' I announcement. In the case of neutrinos checking proved them wrong in the case of the Higgs, more right.

[@IamGrimalkin]

Sarah Williams There was also a one-year delay in the Nobel prize to check it.

[@TheMajorpickle01]

yuppers, infact it could do that without even looping around! subatomic particles such as leptons (electrons, tau, neutrinos) cannot be seen in one place due to the uncertainty principle, and the principle states that they can, and do, occupy every possible place in the universe, and take every single path. Therefore, the neutrino, in infinite quantum realities (think Schroedinger cat) loops back infinite times every second.

[@vasko002]

I'm going to CERN in April. I hope it's fun.

[@Destro7000]

Are the Photons and the Neutrinos meant to be taking the same path? I always assumed they somehow were, and yet surely that's impossible because neutrinos go through solid rock, but Light doesn't, surely? In which case the Photons have to follow curve of the earth whilst the Neutrinos take a shortcut?