[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon', '
')2. A particle traveling faster than light is obviously a very useful step forward. We may finally be able to communicate with remote destinations in outer space without much delay, be that human-made satellites or aliens or just physical objects like stars or planets. It may also somehow revolutionize our own terrestrial communications.

[Serial_Worrier]

Unless you can convert human beings into FTL neutrinos and then back again, long-distance space travel is out.

[evilgenius]

Look, I don't want to say how I know this (for various reasons), but even faster than light particles will not originate before their inception. Let's just say I have put in a lot of experimental time.

[radon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')Yes.
However your recipient from his perspective will get your message before you have sent it.

[evilgenius]

Like I said, I've stood there and watched the phenomenon. It does not reach back beyond the point of origin. Causality is not threatened in the strictest sense. Certain things happen to balance that. You people don't want to know the rest, it's just a load of boring stuff about the nature of the electron and space time and what the proton really is, that kind of thing.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', 'e')ven faster than light particles will not originate before their inception.

[evilgenius]

Like I said about the x-ray cascade, that doesn't happen. The most you can expect is instant on.

[evilgenius]

The faster above light they travel the less energy they have. It's a tachyon paradox, if you will. What that really means is that past zero(light speed) the probabilities reverse in a significant way. You stop looking for radiation, as in light, and start looking for gathering, as in tachyons. You stop saying that any new beginning is the vertex of a new cone which demands following outward into the fullness of the light cone and start saying that all cones resolve to a point, where energy and mass decrease across it as it resolves to nothing. Since it is not possible to achieve this phenomenon without first generating a carrier wave you are doomed to always resolve to the origin of the carrier wave, which can never be before the point of origin. So, you see, instant on. The fact that the neutrinos are free actors, viewed from a nuclear standpoint, shouldn't change anything. I'm not going to absolutely stand by this, but for now it seems to me it would still only produce instant on.

[dorlomin]

Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle Claimed Solved by Special Relativity

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut van Elburg says there is one effect that the OPERA team seems to have overlooked: the relativistic motion of the GPS clocks.

It's easy to think that the motion of the satellites is irrelevant. After all, the radio waves carrying the time signal must travel at the speed of light, regardless of the satellites' speed.

But there is an additional subtlety. Although the speed of light is does not depend on the the frame of reference, the time of flight does. In this case, there are two frames of reference: the experiment on the ground and the clocks in orbit. If these are moving relative to each other, then this needs to be factored in.

So what is the satellites' motion with respect to the OPERA experiment? These probes orbit from West to East in a plane inclined at 55 degrees to the equator. Significantly, that's roughly in line with the neutrino flight path. Their relative motion is then easy to calculate.

[babystrangeloop]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result
By Jason Palmer / BBC / November 18, 2011

The team behind the finding in September that neutrinos may travel faster than light has carried out an improved version of their experiment - and found the same result.

If confirmed by other experiments, the find could undermine one of the basic principles of modern physics.

Critics of the first report had said that the long bunches of neutrinos used could introduce an error into the test.

The new work, posted to the Arxiv repository, used much shorter bunches. ...

[Keith_McClary]

Faster than light neutrinos? More like faulty wiring
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '�')��According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos’ flight and an electronic card in a computer,”

[dissident]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', '[')url=http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-faster-neutrinos-faulty-wiring.html]Faster than light neutrinos? More like faulty wiring[/url]
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '�')��According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos’ flight and an electronic card in a computer,”

[vaseline2008]

'Faster-than-light' particles fade after cross-check
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')eutrinos do not go faster than light, according to fresh measurements of a test last year that had suggested the particles broke the Universe's speed limit, CERN said on Friday.