Challenging Einstein: Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Result From CERN And Explaining What It Really Means

What are the implications if this is right?

Scientists are not the jumpy guys, but no one can deny that the implications will be huge! The existence of a speed greater than the speed of light in vacuum immediately contradicts one of the two postulates of Special Relativity (SR). The very structure of SR is based on the constancy of the speed of light to all observers. It doesn’t matter at what speed you’re moving, you’ll always see light move away from you at the velocity of light. (Contrast this with, say, a velocity of a bus!) Furthermore, this is the highest speed achievable. Information, in whatever form, cannot travel faster than this speed. The neutrino result strikes at the very foundations of SR.

No More Relativity? That's preposterous!

So what, you may say? All that we have to bend our mind across is simply the fact that Einstein got it wrong. No, this is much bigger than that! Scientists would’ve had NO problem if they could get away by just saying that Einstein was wrong, but it’s much deeper.

SR teaches us how to do mechanics, how to measure quantities like energy, momentum and even mass. It teaches us what space is and what time is, instructing us never to use those terms separately, but to say space-time’. It tells us how one quantity in one frame might look to another guy moving with some velocity relative to the first frame. It tells us how electric and magnetic fields might look to observers at different speeds and integrates the laws of mechanics with those of electromagnetism.

When SR is integrated with quantum mechanics, it gives a huge body of knowledge called Quantum Field Theory (QFT). QFT is a pinnacle of success of human thought, giving us theories like Quantum Electrodynamics, which are unbelievably accurate. To change SR would be to really shake up the extremely successful construction of physical theories, a process that took place over the last 80 years and more. This involved countless experiments, tremendous toil and, in cases, amazing display of genius! Further, all of it fits together. It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to re-create a different edifice explaining all of the phenomena explained just as satisfactorily.

No, this result just cannot be right. They’re making a mistake somewhere, says an inner voice in me. Scientists all around the world might be saying just this.

But how can such a result be wrong?

The best answer to this is that SR is too strong and backed up by too much evidence accumulated over the past century to be proved wrong by one experiment. There needs to be good experiments to back up these results and that will only come in the coming years. A 6-sigma effect is hard to ignore, but scientists have been there, done that and found some error or the other in incidents like this in the past.

The Super Kamiokande neutrino detector in Japan. Each of the dots is a photomultiplier detector to detect light. This will be filled with water mixed with certain heavy ions. The equipment kept on the floor is about as high as a human and this sets the scale

The loophole has to lie within the measurement procedure. There is still room for uncertainty in the measurement of the departure times (i.e. measuring when the neutrinos are launched) and in the very working of the GPS systems. Maybe, instead of neutrinos, the fault lies in what we understand about GPS systems and how they work. Yes, this is a mundane explanation compared to the exotic ones flying around, like quantum gravity and shortcut through extra-dimensions, but one which works perfectly. We just need to figure out the flaw! Furthermore, we will need other experiments (like the Super Kamiokande, pic above) to independently find such an effect.

Signing Off

Dear reader, I hope that you’ve not lost the crux of the plot in all the details. Even if you’re not in the least bit associated with physics, feel the beauty of it all. Yes, people are worried that it might turn 100 years of physics on its head, but then scientists are working to resolve it. The OPERA group has declined any interpretation of the results, whether theoretical or phenomenological. Scientists are working to prove their own results wrong. How honest and beautiful that is!

Ohh! RReally? Not so fast!

I’m hedging my bets on Einstein at this moment. The Grand Old Man of Physics has had too much of an impact to be dismissed just like that. I’m hoping that this result simply goes away. I can imagine him sitting in heaven, watching over us and nodding his head in slight disapproval with a smug smile on his lips, saying, Check your measurements again, lads. My calculations are fine.Or he might be worried sick. Surely, he’s proud of the work of these scientists, who are a few generations his successor.

Couple of excellent articles on this:

Sean Carroll writes on Cosmic Variance:
CERN’s official blog – Quantum Diaries :

Published by

Debjyoti Bardhan

Is a science geek, currently pursuing some sort of a degree (called a PhD) in Physics at TIFR, Mumbai. An enthusiastic but useless amateur photographer, his most favourite activity is simply lazing around. He is interested in all things interesting and scientific.

  • Most amazing article Debjyoti. If I didn’t know you previously I would have refused to believe it.
    Nevertheless, If this is true, it is going to change everything every single facet of physics.
    I too have my faith in, as you say ‘Grand old man of physics’ and totally understand the irony of the present day physicists here.
    Thanks a lot for this wonderful post.

  • Thanks for a exhaustive and engaging article. After reading the original paper from arXiv, I was also shaken to my core and thought about the progress in Physics for last century. The results are too shattering and at times amazingly unbelievable. What I personally believe is that this may open a complete new horizon in Physics that may have not been endeavoured before and also might have been ignored on the face of existing theories. Special theory of relativity is confidently not so easy to prove wrong, most probably there are some errors with the experiment itself or we are interpreting something in a wrong fashion. I hope the later is true and that may bring us a complete new understanding of how neutrinos work.

  • Nalliah Thayabharan

    All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light – Nikola Tesla 1932

    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. We should understand the relation between local and nonlocal events like the dynamics of universal structure. 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.

    – Nalliah Thayabharan

  • Jorge

    I agree with Ghosh. This will be a great to have a new understanding of physics. I know it’s hard to believe Relativity is wrong but it was also hard to believe classical physics (which also explained hundred of experiments) were wrong when first quantum experiments appeared.

    And this will not be the first experiment. Last year observations of John Webb about physical constants not being really “constant” through the universe also suggest that Einstain’s equivalence principle is wrong.

    He indeed was a genious, but sciences is not about having “faith in a Grand old man of physics”. Science is about proving and no matter how fine a theory looks, nature has the last word.

    • Debjyoti Bardhan

      I agree. Your point is very well taken. However, SR has had tremendous success. Repeating that success is not easy. I know that no one should have faith in anyone, no matter how big a name he/she is, but the more likely scenario at this moment is that there is some mistake in the experiment rather than relativity being wrong. That’s all that I intended to say in the article.

  • Pingback: Tyranny of Ego « Simple Country Physicist()

  • CERN neutrino moves faster than the light speed. Is Einstein wrong?.
    “Looks like Einstein may have been wrong — An international team of scientists at CERN has recorded neutrino particles traveling faster than the speed of light”. “measurements over three years showed the neutrinos moving 60 nanoseconds quicker than light over a distance of 730 km between Geneva and Gran Sasso, Italy”. “If confirmed, the discovery would overturn a key part of Albert Einstein’s 1905 theory of special relativity, which says that nothing in the universe can travel faster than light”…/scientific-breakthrough-physicists-at-cern-have-recorded. According to H particle-paths hypothesis (in site, a particle, e.g. photon, moving in spatial medium, Sec. 7(4)3, part A (of the site), has irreversible path-length, Sec. 2(4)4, of expanding characteristic of configuration and time’s arrow; while, a particle moving in mass medium, Sec. 7(4)3, part D, has irreversible path-length of contracting mode of configuration at opposite sign to the former and time arrow reversal. Therefore, neutrino contrary to photon that reflects by the mirror can penetrate in mass medium. Thus, its total time travel just during the measurement is reduced respect to that of photon in this regards; please refer also to please refer also to Sec. 5(16)11, Sec. 5(15)2b, and Simulation 8(7)2, E5a, item 17E. Factually:
    A) Just at the moment of neutrino detection (or striking) by detector, according to Note 5(16)7, g2, contractons (as signal) is emitted spontaneously, Sec. 7(4)2f, part c, within H hall-package tunnel, Sec. 5(9)3d, part c, in backward path of neutrino emission towards the source, Fig. 5(10), i.e. completeness of measurement. In other words, the neutrino path is composed of two paths in vacuum and mass media as stated above with two different characteristics path-lengths of opposite sign.
    B) The mass medium of neutrino travel is its detector “The OPERA neutrino detector at LNGS is composed of two identical Super Modules, each consisting of an instrumented target section with a mass of about 625 tons followed by a magnetic muon spectrometer. Each section is succession of walls filled with emulsion film/lead units interleaved with pairs of 6.7 6.7 planes of 256 horizontal and vertical scintillator strips composing of target Tracker (TT). The TT allows the location of neutrino interactions in the target.” ArXiv: 1109.4897v1 section 2.
    As a result, the neutrino like other particles may moves equal or than less than light speed in free vacuum. “The findings may need many runs and checks to be confirmed. Once confirmed, it raises many questions, including why such an effect wasn’t noticed before. The big question would be this: What happens to Special Relativity, which is an extremely reliable theory?” › Science; please refer also to Sec. 2(6)2a. Based on above discussion Einstein is in a right way, i.e any particle cannot eceed the light speed in normal vacuum.

  • Sheena

    I am not trying to start an argument or seem to be condescending, but what use is this type of technology?
    What can be done with neutrinos that can move faster then light? Would this be a step in developing travel or exploration at these speeds for man or machine?
    Would someday our NASA program be able to shoot a camera ‘light years’ into space and see things we can only imagine now? This is interesting and I am in no way belittling it I swear, but trying to find the relevance.

    • Debjyoti Bardhan

      Your question is perfectly valid. The point is that not everything that happens in basic sciences has to have an immediate application in technology. Remember that the atomic structure came about and that didn’t have much direct effect on existing technology. However it was instrumental in unraveling the properties of Silicon, which is a mainstay of the semiconductor industry, as you know.
      If this result is actually true, we junk out 100 years of science at least and that comprises a lot! Surely, I don’t have to emphasize the seriousness of that.

      • Sheena

        thank you and yes point well taken.. I guess i was just curious as to the ideas of where this could lead… and yes you are right to throw out 100 years of past science and ‘discoveries’ would be heartbreaking to many who have made those old ways their life’s work.