Neutrons interact magnetically, they themselves being made up of charged particles (quarks).
Photons don't have a charge either.
I, personally, would go with the xkcd version. I bet you 200$ it's not true, this is not to say it's not possible, but I think it's unlikely.
Now, here is a somewhat convincing argument for the case. The example is supernova 1987a. Supernova models suggest that most of the energy in a supernova is released in the form of neutrinos, since neutrinos don't interact very much, we would expect to see them shortly before the light from said supernova. (The light does interact with all the extremely dense material).
Indeed, a neutrino flux was observed from supernova 1987a shortly before the light was detected.
Now, if neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light (using the 1e-5 from the experiment) would mean that the neutrinos would arrive at earth WAY before the light since it is like 180000 light years away.
Before anyone starts trying to explain new physics by breaking old physics, keep in mind that science is about tweaking models, not scrapping the whole thing.
When a high-energy proton is accelerated into a heavy target, a number of spallation particles, including neutrons are produced. For every proton striking the nucleus, 20 to 30 neutrons are expelled. Meson production limits spallation efficiency above 140 MeV. At the 1 GeV proton energy level, the Spallation Neutron Source will require 30 MeV per neutron produced. Neutron scattering is used by a variety of scientific disciplines to study the arrangement, motion, and interaction of atoms in materials. It's important because it provides valuable information that often cannot be obtained using other techniques, such as optical spectroscopies, electron microscopy, and x-ray diffraction. Scientists need all these techniques to provide the maximum amount of information on materials.
The SNS process is, briefly:
Negative hydrogen ions (a proton with two electrons) are first generated in pulses;
accelerated to 1 GeV (almost 90 percent of the speed of light) by a linear accelerator using both standard and superconducting techniques;
stripped of electrons and concentrated into a 2 MW proton beam of less than 1 μs pulses at 60 Hz in an accumulator ring;
directed at a liquid mercury target (chosen for mercury's large nucleus containing many neutrons and its liquid form at ambient conditions capable of absorbing rapid temperature rise and intense bombardment shock) in the target building, which ejects 20 to 30 neutrons per mercury nucleus hit by a proton (spalling in all directions);
which are slowed down by moderators to useful energies;
and applied through 18 surrounding beam lines to various materials and interfaces;
where up to 24 instruments chosen by users record the results for interpretation. Examples of the neutron scattering instruments to be used are a backscattering spectrometer for high resolution spectroscopy, and magnetism and liquid reflectometers for studies of surfaces and interfaces.
At ISIS the neutrons are created by accelerating 'bunches' of protons in a synchrotron, then colliding these with a heavy tungsten metal target, under a constant cooling load to dissipate the heat from the 160 kW proton beam. The impacts cause neutrons to spall off the tungsten atoms, and the neutrons are channelled through guides, or beamlines, to about 20 instruments, individually optimised for the study of different types of matter. The target station and most of the instruments are set in a large hall. Neutrons are a dangerous form of radiation, so the target and beamlines are heavily shielded with concrete.
Another question about FTL: Why would FTL result in time travel? You release a pulse at t=0, light gets to the end at 6s, FTL gets there at 3s. Why would that be considered time travel, nothing got there before t=0.
Another question about FTL: Why would FTL result in time travel? You release a pulse at t=0, light gets to the end at 6s, FTL gets there at 3s. Why would that be considered time travel, nothing got there before t=0.
Concrete proof that relativity can be violated can be found in George Gamow’s watershed book Thirty Years That Shook Physics. Gamow, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, tells us that in the mid-1920’s, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck discovered not only that electrons were orthorotating, but also that they were spinning at 1.37 times the speed of light. Gamow makes it clear that this discovery did not violate anything in quantum physics, what it violated was Einstein’s principle that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Paul Adrian Dirac studied the problem. Following in the footsteps of Herman Minkowski, who used an imaginary number i, (the square root of -1) to be equivalent to the time coordinate in spacetime equations, Dirac assigned the same number i to electron spin. In this way he was able to combine relativity with quantum mechanics and won a Nobel Prize for the idea in the process (1966, pp. 120-121). That was the upside. The downside was that the finding that elementary particles spin faster than the speed of light as a matter of course went the way of the passenger pigeon. No physicist talks about this anymore. What this means is that the entire evolution of 20th and nascent 21st century physics is evolving ignoring this key Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck finding. The ramifications suggest that elementary particles, by their nature, interface dimensions, the faster than c realm stemming from the ether.
The SternGerlach experiment involves sending a beam of particles through an inhomogeneous magnetic field and observing their deflection. The results show that particles possess an intrinsic angular momentum that is most closely analogous to the angular momentum of a classically spinning object, but that takes only certain quantized values.
The experiment is normally conducted using electrically neutral particles or atoms. This avoids the large deflection to the orbit of a charged particle moving through a magnetic field and allows spin-dependent effects to dominate. If the particle is treated as a classical spinning dipole, it will precess in a magnetic field because of the torque that the magnetic field exerts on the dipole (see torque-induced precession). If it moves through a homogeneous magnetic field, the forces exerted on opposite ends of the dipole cancel each other out and the trajectory of the particle is unaffected. However, if the magnetic field is inhomogeneous then the force on one end of the dipole will be slightly greater than the opposing force on the other end, so that there is a net force which deflects the particle's trajectory. If the particles were classical spinning objects, one would expect the distribution of their spin angular momentum vectors to be random and continuous. Each particle would be deflected by a different amount, producing a smooth distribution on the detector screen. Instead, the particles passing through the Stern-Gerlach apparatus are deflected either up or down by a specific amount. This result indicates that spin angular momentum is quantized (i.e., it can only take on discrete values), so that there is not a continuous distribution of possible angular momenta.
Electrons are spin-1⁄2 particles. These have only two possible spin angular momentum values measured along any axis, +ħ/2 or −ħ/2. If this value arises as a result of the particles rotating the way a planet rotates, then the individual particles would have to be spinning impossibly fast. Even if the electron radius were as large as 2.8 fm (the classical electron radius), its surface would have to be rotating at 2.3×1011 m/s. The speed of rotation at the surface would be in excess of the speed of light, 2.998×108 m/s, and is thus impossible.[2] Instead, the spin angular momentum is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon. Because its value is always the same, it is regarded as an intrinsic property of electrons, and is sometimes known as "intrinsic angular momentum" (to distinguish it from orbital angular momentum, which can vary and depends on the presence of other particles).
The experiment is normally conducted using electrically neutral particles or atoms. This avoids the large deflection to the orbit of a charged particle moving through a magnetic field and allows spin-dependent effects to dominate. If the particle is treated as a classical spinning dipole, it will precess in a magnetic field because of the torque that the magnetic field exerts on the dipole (see torque-induced precession). If it moves through a homogeneous magnetic field, the forces exerted on opposite ends of the dipole cancel each other out and the trajectory of the particle is unaffected. However, if the magnetic field is inhomogeneous then the force on one end of the dipole will be slightly greater than the opposing force on the other end, so that there is a net force which deflects the particle's trajectory. If the particles were classical spinning objects, one would expect the distribution of their spin angular momentum vectors to be random and continuous. Each particle would be deflected by a different amount, producing a smooth distribution on the detector screen. Instead, the particles passing through the Stern-Gerlach apparatus are deflected either up or down by a specific amount. This result indicates that spin angular momentum is quantized (i.e., it can only take on discrete values), so that there is not a continuous distribution of possible angular momenta.
Previously it has been impossible to photograph electrons since their extremely high velocities have produced blurry pictures. In order to capture these rapid events, extremely short flashes of light are necessary, but such flashes were not previously available. With the use of a newly developed technology for generating short pulses from intense laser light, so-called attosecond pulses, scientists at the Lund University Faculty of Engineering in Sweden have managed to capture the electron motion for the first time.
View video: avi or mov.
“It takes about 150 attoseconds for an electron to circle the nucleus of an atom. An attosecond is 10-18 seconds long, or, expressed in another way: an attosecond is related to a second as a second is related to the age of the universe,” says Johan Mauritsson, an assistant professor in atomic physics at the Faculty of Engineering, Lund University. He is one of seven researchers behind the study, which was directed by him and Professor Anne L’Huillier.
Assuming it is not a equipment error or a calculation error :
Well, that is something that would explain something i still do not understand.
This what i understand of it.
Charge particles are "part" of the electric field and the magnetic field.
Electromagnetic waves such as light, create electric field and magnetic field disturbances that we see as photons when assumed as particles and as EM waves when assumed as waves. It always made sense to me that the speed of light in vacuum is the limit for moving charges or the disturbances(photons) these charges can create or absorb in the electrical field and the magnetic field. But neutrinos have no charge(But do seem to act on or are influenced by magnetic field disturbances). I do am sure that in the case that we can ever build a neutron accelerator, the neutron will also be able to surpass c. Unless there is something hidden about the gravity aether. ^_^
Perhaps the original theory of an aether surrounding us is true after all. We do not live in a void where particles come to existence out of nothing. Perhaps we live in several different fields.
It is just more complex then what was proposed. 3 separate aethers ?
Another question about FTL: Why would FTL result in time travel? You release a pulse at t=0, light gets to the end at 6s, FTL gets there at 3s. Why would that be considered time travel, nothing got there before t=0.
Why would the neutrinos travel faster than c? Don't they have mass, and aren't they therefore subject to Theory of Special Relativity?
EDIT:
I forgot to add that the quoted text is a bit of misleading.
Electrons do not really circle around. An electron just occupies a piece of our 3d space in an oscillating manner.
/EDIT:
Draw your conclusions... ^_^
According to scientists familiar with the paper, the neutrinos raced from a particle accelerator at CERN outside Geneva, where they were created, to a cavern underneath Gran Sasso in Italy, a distance of about 450 miles, about 60 nanoseconds faster than it would take a light beam. That amounts to a speed greater than light by about 0.0025 percent (2.5 parts in a hundred thousand).
The first is by Carlo Contaldi of Imperial College London. He says that it’s likely the OPERA team failed to take gravity into their math equations and its effect on the clocks used to time the experiment. This because the degree of gravity at the two stations involved in the experiment (Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy and the CERN facility in Geneva) were different, thus one of the clocks would have been running slightly faster than the other, resulting in faulty timing. If this turns out to be the case, the OPERA team will most certainly be embarrassed to have overlooked such a basic problem with their study.
The second is by Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glashow, who together point out that if the neutrinos in the study were in fact traveling as fast as claimed, they should have been radiating particles as they went, leaving behind a measurable trail; this due to the energy transfer that would occur between particles moving at different speeds. And since the OPERA team didn’t observe any such trail (or at least didn’t report it) it follows that the neutrinos weren’t in fact traveling as fast as were claimed and the resultant speed measurements would have to be attributed to something else.
Neither of these papers actually disproves the results found by the OPERA team of course, the first merely suggests there may be a problem with the way the measurements were taken, the second takes more of a “it can’t be true because of…” approach which only highlight the general disbelief in the physics community regarding the very possibility of anything, much less the speed of neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light, messing with Einstein’s most basic theories. The first can be addressed rather easily by the OPERA team if it so desires, and the second, well, if the neutrinos did in fact travel faster than the speed of light and did so without leaving a trail, a lot of physics theory will have to be rethought. Though that may not necessarily be a bad thing, physics is supposed to be about finding answers to explain the natural world around us after all, even if it means going back to the drawing board now and then.