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

The relativistic motion of clocks on board GPS satellites exactly accounts for the superluminal effect, says physicist.

The Physics arXiv Blog 10/14/2011

It's now been three weeks since the extraordinary news that neutrinos travelling between France and Italy had been clocked moving faster than light. The experiment, known as OPERA, found that the particles produced at CERN near Geneva arrived at the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy some 60 nanoseconds earlier than the speed of light allows.

The result has sent a ripple of excitement through the physics community. Since then, more than 80 papers have appeared on the arXiv attempting to debunk or explain the effect. It's fair to say, however, that the general feeling is that the OPERA team must have overlooked something.

Today, Ronald van Elburg at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands makes a convincing argument that he has found the error.

First, let's review the experiment, which is simple in concept: a measurement of distance and time.

The distance is straightforward. The location of neutrino production at CERN is fairly easy to measure using GPS. The position of the Gran Sasso Laboratory is harder to pin down because it sits under a kilometre-high mountain. Nevertheless, the OPERA team says it has nailed the distance of 730 km to within 20 cm or so.

The time of neutrino flight is harder to measure. The OPERA team says it can accurately gauge the instant when the neutrinos are created and the instant they are detected using clocks at each end.

But the tricky part is keeping the clocks at either end exactly synchronised. The team does this using GPS satellites, which each broadcast a highly accurate time signal from orbit some 20,000km overhead. That introduces a number of extra complications which the team has to take into account, such as the time of travel of the GPS signals to the ground.

But 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.

So from the point of view of a clock on board a GPS satellite, the positions of the neutrino source and detector are changing. "From the perspective of the clock, the detector is moving towards the source and consequently the distance travelled by the particles as observed from the clock is shorter," says van Elburg.

By this he means shorter than the distance measured in the reference frame on the ground.

The OPERA team overlooks this because it thinks of the clocks as on the ground not in orbit.

How big is this effect? Van Elburg calculates that it should cause the neutrinos to arrive 32 nanoseconds early. But this must be doubled because the same error occurs at each end of the experiment. So the total correction is 64 nanoseconds, almost exactly what the OPERA team observes.

That's impressive but it's not to say the problem is done and dusted. Peer review is an essential part of the scientific process and this argument must hold its own under scrutiny from the community at large and the OPERA team in particular.

If it stands up, this episode will be laden with irony. Far from breaking Einstein's theory of relatively, the faster-than-light measurement will turn out to be another confirmation of it.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1110.2685: Times Of Flight Between A Source And A Detector Observed From A GPS Satellite.

UncleAl

• 588 Days Ago
• 10/14/2011

External falsification

Relativity is rigorously derived and contains no errors within its boundary conditions.  Relativity cannot be internally falsified.  OPERA is not, cannot be observation of massed superluminal particles any more than Euclid can fail on a plane or cylinder.

Try Euclid on a torus or sphere.  Relativity can selectively fail outside its founding postulates.

Relativity is weak toward angular momentum - material spin ("dark matter"), quantum spin (polarized fermion spin and/or orbital angular momentum as magnets), spin-orbit coupling.  Einstein knew this, hence his 1928 "Fern-Parallelismus."  Revised edition's exceptions fail to appear *strong field* in pulsar binary systems with solar stars (hydrogen plasma) or with white dwarfs (Fermi-degenerate matter).  They also fail to appear weak field in Nordtvedt effect and Eotvos experiments.

Quantitative geometric chirality arises from moments of inertia (angular momentum).  Crystallography is outside physics' box.  Test spacetime geometry with atomic mass distribution geometry,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/erotor1.jpg
Opposite shoes violate the Equivalence Principle.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/shoes2.png
Opposite shoes on a vacuum left foot melt to identical socks with different transition energies.

That a foundation of physics could selectively fall to two calorimeters, three undergrads, and 24 hours is... the best reason *not* to look.  $billions to confirm, not a single penny to falsify. More's the pity. Reply eprparadox 1 Comment • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 Re: External falsification The best way to resolve this issue is directly/experimentally. Measure light and neutrino velocities over the same course - i.e., run a race (that is, a sufficiently large set of races). Reply vadbaxter 1 Comment • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 Re: External falsification "Relativity is rigorously derived and contains no errors within its boundary conditions. Relativity cannot be internally falsified. OPERA is not, cannot be observation of massed superluminal particles any more than Euclid can fail on a plane or cylinder." Until Relativity is proven to be FACT and not a theory, there will always be room for errors. To me this is yet another example of scientists trying to bury something as quick as possible because it goes against the accepted norm. They want this burried because they stand to lose millions of dollars in reseach money. Reply lucyhaye 77 Comments • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 You are Right! You are absolutely right because all experimental proof contradict Special Relativity. Only two examples: Time Dilation (Cal-Tech) and DECAY (Bi to Po) Muon Time Dilation Non-Existent. http://autodynamicslborg.blogspot.com/2011/06/blog-post.html The “Thought Experiment” with Two Observers (Time Dilation) http://autodynamicslborg.blogspot.com/2011/05/5-10-photon-momentum-in-dispersive.html New Detailed Experiment with RaE http://autodynamicslborg.blogspot.com/2011/05/blog-post_06.html Of course, there are many other that you could see looking in the Blog. Lucy Haye Reply jgoemat 2 Comments • 584 Days Ago • 10/18/2011 Re: You are Right! Are you serious? GPS satellites wouldn't work if they didn't take into account relativistic effects. Reply lucyhaye 77 Comments • 580 Days Ago • 10/22/2011 Re: You are Right! You are confused with the Scientific PROOFS. It is the contrary: If GPS is working it is the most conclusive proof that the concept of Time Dilation is non-existent as the Cal-Tech CHICOS experiment proves. If you want to believe in FANTASIA, is your problem, but it is NOT Science. Lucy Haye Ph. D. SAA’s representative Reply Mapou 357 Comments • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 Re: External falsification Relativity cannot be internally falsified. Aw, come on. Relativity can be easily falsified. The nasty little truth about relativity is that the time dimension, a requirement of Einstein's physics, makes motion impossible. Surprise! This is the reason that nothing can move in spacetime and that Karl Popper (of falsifiability fame) compared spacetime to Parmenides' block universe in which nothing happens. Source: Conjectures and Refutations. In other words, no geodesics, no particles moving along their worldlines in curved spacetime and no time travel either. It's all hogwash. That's right, Einstein's physics calls for a universe in which nothing can move. Is that enough falsification for you? In an essay titled "Objective Knowledge", Karl Popper wrote "... this is a field from which the observer was exorcised, slowly but steadily, by Einstein himself." Let's also not forget the irrefutable fact that the universe is discrete and that Einstein's physics is based on continuity. The above is just the tip of the iceberg of what's wrong with Einstein's physics. The farce will not last forever. Reply laughingman 1 Comment • 584 Days Ago • 10/18/2011 Re: External falsification It is painfully obvious to anyone who has actually studied physics that you have no idea what you are talking about. Reply Mapou 357 Comments • 584 Days Ago • 10/18/2011 Re: External falsification I know. Reply shomas 246 Comments • 585 Days Ago • 10/17/2011 Re: External falsification To the point of relativity and internally falsification, means constructing arguments that contradict itself like 2 = 3. The math of relativity is self consistent. But self consistency does not mean it describes our reality. Experiment and observation have done a good job of showing relativity represents reality to date and only experiment and observation could disprove relativity. History shows us more often then not when observation differed from prediction, we find that prediction failed to account for all factors. Taking that into consideration, it is prudent to reexamine the experiment and look for missing factors. An example of self consistency. Special relativity length contraction with some simple algebraic manipulation and trigonometric functions applied to derive a relativistic proof that proves velocities larger the speed of light are meaningless. Where L = Length; Lr= Length at rest; V= velocity; C=speed of light L=Lr*sqr(1-V^2/C^2) L/Lr=sqr(1-V^2/C^2) L^2/Lr^2=1-V^2/C^2 L^2/Lr^2+V^2/C^2=1 (L^2*C^2+Lr^2*V^2)/Lr^2*C^2=1 ((L*C)^2+(Lr*V)^2)/(Lr*C)^2=1 (L*C)^2+(Lr*V)^2=(Lr*C)^2 A^2 + B^2 = C^2 Pythagoras said “In a right triangle the sum of the squares of the length of the legs is equal to the square of the hypotenuse." If you substitute L*C for leg A, Lr*V for leg B, and Lr*C for hypotenuse C,and then if you call angle B the angle that is opposite leg B, the sine of Angle B would be leg B or (Lr*V) / hypotenuse C or (Lr*C) and reduces to the Sin of Angle B = V/C I'd like to ask if any one has seen the sin of any angle larger then 1 or less then -1 If relativity is true and there are no (real or we are able to rule out imaginary) angles with sin larger then 1, then V can never be larger then C. Speaking of real velocities faster then the speed of light would be just as meaningless as division by zero, because those values wouldn't exist if the theory of relativity is our reality. Reply Mapou 357 Comments • 585 Days Ago • 10/17/2011 Re: External falsification Experiment and observation have done a good job of showing relativity represents reality to date and only experiment and observation could disprove relativity. This is not true. It is an irrefutable fact that a time dimension makes motion impossible. There is no physics in relativity because relativity assumes the existence of a time dimension, an impossibility. It is also an irrefutable fact that nature is discrete, not continuous as the relativists have claimed and continue to claim. A discrete universe totally falsifies relativity even if some of its predictions are correct. The inconsistency is in the logic of relativity, not in the math. Relativity is just a math trick, a mere engineering formula based on certain measurements. As such, it explains nothing and it is no better than Ptolemaic epicycles or Newtonian physics before it. Unlike the relativists, however, Newton had the decency to acknowledge that he had no understanding of what causes gravity or even what causes motion. Math is only descriptive. It is not explanatory. The entire spacetime curvature nonsense - from which some (e.g., Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne) have extrapolated absurd monstrosities like black holes, wormholes and time travel, would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. Regarding the faster-than-light neutrino claim, it is obvious that physicists don't know what they're talking about. If they really understood why c is the universe's speed limit, then why all the fuss? They would just assume that they made a mistake and no one would hear of it. Was it a guess all along? It sure seems that way, doesn't it? If physicists had any clue, they would know that not only is c the fastest speed in the universe, it is also the slowest speed. Nothing can move faster or slower than c. It is the only speed in the universe, period. Why? Because the universe is discrete. Motion at ordinary speeds really consists of a series of discrete jumps at c interspersed with a lot of wait periods. This is true regardless of how smooth we think motion is at the macroscopic level. Read Physics: The Problem with Motion if you're interested in having a real understanding of motion. You don't understand motion even if you think you do. Reply Ashbert 2 Comments • 572 Days Ago • 10/30/2011 Re: External falsification Uncle Al claims: "Relativity is rigorously derived." NO IT IS NOT. Yes, mediocre minds are satisfied it is (i.e. just about everyone in today's world of physics). "If nothing travels faster than light then Einstein's theory is right?" Not so! Reality is more complex -- a COUNTER-EXAMPLE exists that PROVES that (though Einstein's postulates are correct), Einstein's claim of having derived the Lorentz transformations is wrong, yes a COUNTER-EXAMPLE -- and at least one Nobel prize winner takes this realization seriously. See http://physicsnext.org/ for details, a very simple read, but majority be warned... facing physics reality regarding the foundations could disturb a mediocre mind and make you react emotionally...for example, Howard Georgi got very angry! Physicists know what a COUNTER-EXAMPLE but almost none of them are intellectually bold enough to analyze Einstein's derivation. How many physicists can even spell "derivation" ... well, almost all can (mediocre minds don't think independently but are excellent at memorizing)... how about read Einstein's 1905 derivation *VERY* CAREFULLY ... almost none (their courage-less mediocre minds limit them from that option)? See http://physicsnext.org/ Reply sunil.thakur 23 Comments • 588 Days Ago • 10/14/2011 We are forgetting that experiment was conducted over a period of 3 years and same travel time was noticed for over 16000 neutrinos. If this explanation is correct then we cannot have same travel time for all the neutrinos. Reply nlw 1 Comment • 588 Days Ago • 10/14/2011 News or what? I don't get this. What is this blog, is this just some blog, or is it trying to be a more serious "news outlet" of sorts? Do you just pick up articles that people send to arXiv, and if you like it you publicize it? That looks like a pretty incipient research to me, and seemingly uninformed not only about how the experiment was conducted, but about GPS technology in general. This kind of effect _is_ taken in consideration on GPS receivers... The author seems to assume something was taken in account and something else was not, finds out a good number, and multiply it by two just to arrive at the magical 60ns. Until the work receives some more scrutiny, it should not receive as much attention and praise as this blog article here is giving. This is awful journalism. It that what you want this blog to be? Reply RAJvE 5 Comments • 588 Days Ago • 10/14/2011 Re: News or what? GPS is a complicated technology, and although its design choices are likely to be correct it is still possible to use it and make a conceptual mistake. If you use a hammer and hurt your thumb you probably shouldn't blame it on the hammer. In the end the members of OPERA team should check whether or not the calculations in this paper apply in their case. The factor of two is well motivated, discarding it at face value as reasoning towards the result is empty rhetoric. Factors of two appear often in science, just as factors of pi. I see no reason to discard all science which produces results which happen to contain a factor of two or pi or even two pi. Reply nxj18 1 Comment • 588 Days Ago • 10/14/2011 One thing in the paper... From the referenced paper: "The clocks in the OPERA experiment are orbiting the earth in GPS satellites." I believe that's incorrect. The clocks in the OPERA experiment are atomic clocks on the ground that are synchronized by GPS clocks. If I remember correctly, they are then checked against each other using other on-ground, highly accurate atomic clocks. Reply anorman07 1 Comment • 588 Days Ago • 10/14/2011 Re: One thing in the paper... Yes, this passage from the paper seems to indicate that additional checks were done on the ground using atomic clocks: "The Cs4000 oscillator provides the reference frequency to the PolaRx2e receiver, which is able to time-tag its “One Pulse Per Second” output (1PPS) with respect to the individual GPS satellite observations. The latter are processed offline by using the CGGTTS format [19]. The two systems feature a technology commonly used for high-accuracy time transfer applications [20]. They were calibrated by the Swiss Metrology Institute (METAS) [21] and established a permanent time link between two reference points (tCERN and tLNGS) of the timing chains of CERN and OPERA at the nanosecond level. This time link between CERN and OPERA was independently verified by the German Metrology Institute PTB (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt) [22] by taking data at CERN and LNGS with a portable time-transfer device [23]. The difference between the time base of the CERN and OPERA PolaRx2e receivers was measured to be (2.3 ± 0.9) ns [22]. This correction was taken into account in the application of the time link." Would people please comment on this? I'm not a physicist, so my apologies if I've interpreted this incorrectly. Reply ajoykt 1 Comment • 588 Days Ago • 10/14/2011 Points at rest are at rest in all frames If two points are at rest in one frame, they are at rest in all other inertial frames. In other words, a velocity of 0 is seen as a velocity of 0 in all other relatively inertial frames. That means the claim below is incorrect. "So from the point of view of a clock on board a GPS satellite, the positions of the neutrino source and detector are changing. From the perspective of the clock, the detector is moving towards the source . . ." The detector and source are at rest with respect to one another in the satellite's reference frame too. One doesn't have to be a physicist to realize why a velocity of 0 should stay the same in all inertial frames. Reply sergs 2 Comments • 588 Days Ago • 10/14/2011 Re: Points at rest are at rest in all frames http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction well, you don't have to be a physicist to realize how weird it is Reply sergs 2 Comments • 588 Days Ago • 10/14/2011 Re: Points at rest are at rest in all frames also, the satellites are accelerating with respect to the experiment (not linear uniform velocity) so it's not even an inertial reference frame Reply fadude 4 Comments • 588 Days Ago • 10/14/2011 Crackpot alert! Looking at the paper, two things pop up immediately: 1. The author is employed by the "Department of Artificial Intelligence", and 2. The author apparently does not even know how to spell 'photon'. Without going into further detail, my Baysian priors are leaning heavily towards him not knowing wtf he's talking about. Reply miguelferreira 1 Comment • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 Re: Crackpot alert! That's pure snobery. The author, if you had cared to investigate, got his degree in theoretical physics from the University of Groningen, and then a PhD, with a thesis on a quantum subject. It is a well known fact that many physicists work as computer scientists or even as financial analysts. This doesn't mean they are less able to analyse quantitative problems than a physicist working in a physics department. As for the "photon" spelling, it should be remarked that the author is not english/american. I would suspect that his english is far better than your dutch/german, so don't criticize without knowing. The article on arxiv.org is there for reading. Due to the extraordinary claim involved (neutrinos travelling slightly faster than light) all prudence is required and all sources of possible error should be checked. Even the authors of the OPERA paper are being very careful with their claims. True scientists will check if the corrections suggested here were taken into account and analyse the data again, carefully. By the way, you misspelled "bayesian"! I should be taking the necessary conclusions from this... :-p Reply jgury 4 Comments • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 Re: Crackpot alert! http://home.kpn.nl/vanelburg30/ At present I am a Post-Doc in the Sensory Cognition Group at the department of Artificial Intelligence of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. My work focuses on neuroscience derived computational principles for cognitive functions. Reply jgury 4 Comments • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 Re: Crackpot alert! Reply paul314 1 Comment • 588 Days Ago • 10/14/2011 tof is how gps works Something tells me this one is going to be difficult to sustain. GPS works by having not one but multiple satellites in view. By comparing the time signals from the clocks in the satellites it sees, the receiver can determine a) where it is, because it knows where the different satellites are and (solving a bunch of simultaneous equations involving the differences between the distances to the satellites) how far it is from each satellite b) what time it is at the receiver's location, because it knows exactly how far each clock signal has traveled and thus how much it has been delayed. So the fact that the satellite clocks are moving during the experiment (even assuming that the experimenters used a continual GPS readout instead of local atomic clocks synched by GPS) isn't merely irrelevant to a possible error, it's part of what makes the right answer possible Reply Jorrie 1 Comment • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 Re: tof is how gps works "So the fact that the satellite clocks are moving during the experiment (even assuming that the experimenters used a continual GPS readout instead of local atomic clocks synched by GPS) isn't merely irrelevant to a possible error, it's part of what makes the right answer possible" If anything, it must have to do with the synching of the local atomic clocks (using GPS), but any error should have been the same for CERN and Gran Sasso and hence cancel out, not so? Reply john.sitler 4 Comments • 584 Days Ago • 10/18/2011 Re: tof is how gps works I believe the GPS system is only being used here to calculate the distance. The error here is estimated at 20cm in the article. The satellite here is being used to send signals to the clocks at each location to sinc them. It should involve only a single satellite. The problem is that even if the signal is sent from a single satellite, the event (signal sent) is not simultaneous within the frames of reference on the ground. Reply lucyhaye 77 Comments • 588 Days Ago • 10/14/2011 Another Fantasy ….and the TALE for children is going and going ….. The Neutrino goes faster.... the Neutrino could..... the Neutrino should …. It is interesting to see HOW FANTASIA is working because the Neutrino doesn’t exist even thought anybody refuse to see the real TRUTH since it is known by Autodynamics that Special Relativity is absolutely wrong. See please the simple TRUTH at Layman level. (Don't be afraid. It will not kill you) Why is Pauli Wrong? For Layman http://autodynamicslborg.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-is-pauli-wrong-for-layman.html If somebody wants to see the whole TRUTH technically start with: Never any Detector Detected any Neutrino http://autodynamicslborg.blogspot.com/2011/06/never-any-detector-detected-any.html And of course to study deeply the whole blog. Lucy Haye Ph. D. SAA’s representative. Reply Geekoid 2 Comments • 465 Days Ago • 02/14/2012 Re: Another Fantasy Someone ban this troll. Reply TSA1984 1 Comment • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 This seems like a simple problem. Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't this be factored in by using a satellite that's in a geosynchronous orbit? That way we could re-do the experiment, and test the validity of this idea. Reply agarron 1 Comment • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 60 nanoseconds? 60 Nanoseconds is NOT a measure of significant relevance compared to light speed. A nanosecond is ONE BILLIONTH of ONE second~ The idea is not new. Dark matter which cannot be measured- is a form of "light" that travels faster. Faster than visable light. Because 'dark matter- light" travels so fast, it's greater gravitational pull in the visible light. Nice try guys, now focus on something that'll get us low cost electricity please. Reply EpitomeDial 1 Comment • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 Re: 60 nanoseconds? You're an idiot. In such high speeds, nano seconds make all the difference. Particularly in such such short distances, the order of magnitudes fit right in. Go learn some physics before you spout out more of your idiocy. Reply jgury 4 Comments • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 Re: 60 nanoseconds? I love the sensitivity of web communications. Most of you are in fact idiots. But to paraphrase an MIT prof from my past, we all have that opportunity. GPS relativistic time is undergrad level stuff: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html Reply lucyhaye 77 Comments • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 Einstein's Fantasies Your article is impressive but TOTALLY IRRELEVANT because Time Dilatation doesn’t exist as the Cal-Tech’s experiment CHICOS prove without any doubt, and the General Relativity’s Dragging and Geodesic Effect are PURE Einstein fantasies since PROBE B proved according with the FIRST Report from Stanford that it didn’t measure anything. Of course, I know that one year later, after manipulating the DATA, they CONFIRM one effect and 4 year later after manipulating again the DATA they CONFIRM the other effect to justify that the DEMY-GOD Einstein is right!!! Dr. R. L. Carezani with his Autodynamics PROVE, without any doubt, that all by Einstein is erroneous, that is his SR and his GR. Muon Time Dilation Non-Existent. http://autodynamicslborg.blogspot.com/2011/06/blog-post.html Lucy Haye Ph. D. SAA’s representative Reply naasking 29 Comments • 585 Days Ago • 10/17/2011 Re: Einstein's Fantasies The crackpots are out in spades for this story! Not surprising considering the consequences for Relativity I suppose. Take your crackpottery elsewhere please. Reply lucyhaye 77 Comments • 583 Days Ago • 10/19/2011 Re: Einstein's Fantasies Take the round Earth crackpot to other place, and the Heliocentric crackpot to the same place together with the Quantum crackpot and the Gravitation crackpot of Newton and the Galileo crackpot observation and the etc(s). crackpot together with the only REAL crackpot SR-GR that Autodynamics is proving and what is your angry and the may other, because Carezani proved with Algebra and PROOFS that my Mather can understand; no the Fantasies of the Actual classified as SCIENCE, generally real CRACKPOT. See http://autoidynamicslborg.blogspot.com Lucy Haye Ph. D. SAA’s representative. Reply beagle197 3 Comments • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 Select alternate neutrino detector location According to this article, the line of flight and relativistic motion of the GPS clocks produced the error factor. In this case why not send muon neutrinos opposite or 90 degree destination (e.g. towards Montceau-les-mines or Grenoble FR)? This could rule out or verify the type of error proposed to be at play. Reply Joe V. 4 Comments • 586 Days Ago • 10/16/2011 Re: Select alternate neutrino detector location Does seem rather a good idea, to 'quickly' rule out certain effects, performing the experiment in another direction, if it were possible. Do they have the capacity to generate & direct the particles at Gran Sasso ? Reply lumidek2 13 Comments • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 Priority Well, this "paper" is equivalent to one paragraph of what I wrote on September 24th, here, including the 30-nanosecond result. One could even argue that it is no coincidence. Luboš Motl Reply Joe V. 4 Comments • 586 Days Ago • 10/16/2011 Re: Priority Indeed that was a very good article, providing plenty of food for thought and I'm sure it inspired a lot of rubbing brain cells. It would be no surprise if the final discoverer of the effect responsible had the benefit of these insights to inspire their quest . Reply AL1432 1 Comment • 586 Days Ago • 10/16/2011 Re: Priority Lumidek2, thanks for your article. It shed a lot of light to my limited understanding of all this. Reply Assis A.V.D.B. 9 Comments • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 A Comment On arXiv:1110.2685 An Intrinsical Proper Time Reasoning, misconcepted by the OPERA Collaboration? The author of the article arXiv:1110.2685 uses the designation: \textit{from the perspective of the clock...} Within the approach used by the author, via special relativity, the GPS frame of reference must use \textit{\textbf{two}} distinct but synchronized clocks to tag the instants at$A$and$B$. The Eq. (2) in arXiv:1110.2685 should be obtained via the Lorentz transformation for the neutrino events of departure from$A$and arrival to$B$. Let$\left(x_{A},t_{A}\right)$and$\left(x_{B},t_{B}\right)$be the spacetime events of departure and arrival of the neutrino in the baseline reference frame$K$, respectively. The time interval spent by the neutrino to accomplish the travel in the arXiv:1110.2685 GPS reference frame$K'$is: \delta t'=\left(1-v^{2}/c^{2}\right)^{-1/2}\left[\left(t_{B}-t_{A}\right)-\dfrac{v}{c^{2}}\left(x_{B}-x_{A}\right)\right], in virtue of the canonical Lorentz transformation for time in$K'$as a function of the spacetime coordinates in$K$, where$v$is the assumed boost of$K'$in relation to$K$in the baseline direction$AB$,$c$the speed of light in the empty space. With$\delta t=t_{B}-t_{A}$,$\delta x=x_{B}-x_{A}=S_{\textit{baseline}}$,$\delta x=v_{\nu}\delta t$, where$v_{\nu}$is the neutrino velocity along the$AB$direction, the eq. (1) reads: \delta t'=\left(1-v^{2}/c^{2}\right)^{-1/2}S_{\textit{baseline}}\left(\dfrac{1}{v_{\nu}}-\dfrac{v}{c^{2}}\right). With$v_{\nu}=c$,$\gamma=\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}$,$\delta t'\stackrel{!}{=}\tau_{\textit{clock}}$, as defined in arXiv:1110.2685, the Eq. (2) here becomes the Eq. (2) in arXiv:1110.2685: \tau_{\textit{clock}}=\dfrac{\gamma S_{\textit{baseline}}}{c+v}\Rightarrow c\tau_{\textit{clock}}+v\tau_{\textit{clock}}=\gamma S_{\textit{baseline}}. \textit{\textbf{But}}: \begin{itemize} \item$\delta t'\stackrel{!}{=}\tau_{\textit{clock}}$is not a proper time (it is a time interval measured by distinct clocks at different spatial positions in$K'$); hence: why would the OPERA collaboration correct$\delta t'\stackrel{!}{=}\tau_{\textit{clock}}$via$\delta t=\delta t'/\gamma$, as claimed via the Eq. (5) in arXiv:1110.2685? \item Such correction would be plausible if the events of departure and arrival of the neutrino had the same spatial coordinate$x'_{A}=x'_{B}$in the GPS$K'$frame of reference, but it is not the case. \end{itemize} Concluding, it seems unlikely that the OPERA collaboration has misinterpreted a GPS time interval. Reply Assis A.V.D.B. 9 Comments • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 Re: A Comment On arXiv:1110.2685 On my previous remarks, it seems there is an intrinsical misconception within its claimed solution, since an intrinsical proper time reasoning leads to the assumption the OPERA collaboration interprets a time variation as a proper time when correcting time intervals between a GPS frame and the grounded baseline frame. Reply Solkar 2 Comments • 585 Days Ago • 10/17/2011 Re: A Comment On arXiv:1110.2685 Hi Assis! What did mean by "[...] the Eq. (2) here becomes the Eq. (2) in arXiv:1110.2685:[...]" just below your Eq.(2)? With v_\nu = c the rightmost term in brackets in your Eq.(2) yields (c-v)/c² but to get to Eq. (2) of arXiv:1110.2685 a term 1/(c+v) would be needed. Greetings, Solkar Reply Assis A.V.D.B. 9 Comments • 585 Days Ago • 10/17/2011 Re: A Comment On arXiv:1110.2685 Dear Solkar, Hint: Remember$\left(1-v^{2}/c^{2}\right)^{-1/2}=\left(1-v/c\right)^{-1/2}\times\left(1+v/c\right)^{-1/2}$. Multiplying by$1=\left(1+v/c\right)^{1/2}/\left(1+v/c\right)^{1/2}$, the right-hand side of my eq. (2), you reach the result within a few algebraic steps. My best regards, Assis. Reply Solkar 2 Comments • 585 Days Ago • 10/17/2011 Re: A Comment On arXiv:1110.2685 You're right. Thx! Reply zeke321 1 Comment • 587 Days Ago • 10/15/2011 Frame-dragging effect Perhaps the frame-dragging effect of general relativity; that massive celestial bodies can "drag" their own spacetime around with them; might have something to do with it. Reply tjrob 1 Comment • 586 Days Ago • 10/16/2011 This is wrong The author obviously does not understand how the GPS actually works. The satellites are NOT moving "West to East in a plane inclined at 55 degrees to the equator" -- SOME of them may well do so, but there are three different orbits, and two others are at quite different inclinations. Moreover, the clocks are all synchronized in the ECI frame the GPS uses, which is not rotating, and in which the center of the earth is at rest. That is, each satellite's clock displays the coordinate time of the ECI frame at its current location -- all effects due to the satellites' altitude and motion relative to the ECI are fully accounted for. Reply chiralring 1 Comment • 586 Days Ago • 10/16/2011 Faster-than-Light Neutrino Puzzle The result has sent a ripple of excitement through the jurnalist community, not physics community. Reply Joe V. 4 Comments • 586 Days Ago • 10/16/2011 Hmmm..., Makes one wonder if they haven't perhaps overcorrected, or indeed corrected for something that isn't there... Reply Joe V. 4 Comments • 586 Days Ago • 10/16/2011 Coincidence "The relativistic motion of clocks on board GPS satellites exactly accounts for the superluminal effect, says physicist." Coincidence. That is just one of many conjectures, this one which happens to coincide the the magnitude of the effect observed. Indeed isn't that what this is all about ? Coincidence, or rather the ability to determine coincidence with sufficient confidence. Coincidence however doesn't establish causation. A worthy attempt by the proposer to offer a plausible explanation for testing however. Reply Assis A.V.D.B. 9 Comments • 586 Days Ago • 10/16/2011 Re: Coincidence As asserted before (see the straightforward calculation in my previous comment), the claimed solution within arXiv:1110.2685 supposes an intrinsical proper time reasoning, but there is no reason for this, since the$\delta t'$is not a proper time. Thus, the claimed solution turns out to be constructed on an erroneous correction. The correction that should be done by the OPERA Collaboration, if the arXiv:1110.2685 GPS reference frame was to be taken in consideration, would read: \delta t=\left(1-v^{2}/c^{2}\right)^{-1/2}\left[\left(t'_{B}-t'_{A}\right)+\dfrac{v}{c^{2}}\left(x'_{B}-x'_{A}\right)\right], and this correction would read:$\delta t=\delta t'/\gamma$, with the$\gamma=\left(1-v^{2}/c^{2}\right)^{1/2}$defined in arXiv:1110.2685, IF AND ONLY IF$x'_{B}-x'_{A}=0$, but it is not the case. Reply ZephirX 250 Comments • 585 Days Ago • 10/17/2011 Superluminal neutrinos and aether model Whereas I'm rather convinced supporter of superluminal neutrino model, it's true, these experiments are based on dozens of corrections, many of them are much larger, than the difference observed. But we shouldn't forget, to impeach experiments is always a much easier, than to replicate them. As one of indicia, that the OPERA results cannot be ignored so easily, can serve the fact, these experiments fits well previous results. http://www.science20.com/files/images/tamburini2.jpg My explanation of superluminal neutrinos is based on water surface analogy of space-time. The particles are spreading along it like the soliton wave, which makes more dense/curved both the water surface, along which such soliton is rolling, both the underwater. The exception of neutrinos consist of the fact, they're very weak and subtle solitons, so that accidental fluctuations of underwater can occasionally wipe out the effect of surface deformation. Under such a situation, the neutrino propagates like underwater sound wave exclusively, i.e. much higher speed, than the surface ripples. During these rare moments the spreading of neutrino is literally detached from water surface, so it can propagate higher speed. This situation is the more probable, the higher speed the neutrino is - whereas low energy neutrinos would propagate in normal subluminal speed. In dense aether theory the space-time is modeled with phase interface of supercritical fluid and after then the photons are subluminal solitons resulting from mutual interference of transverse waves with bulk waves of heavier phase and the neutrinos are superluminal solitons resulting from mutual interference of transverse waves with bulk waves of lightweight phase. It means, we always have two kinds of solitons here, one tends to propagate with slightly subluminal speed (photons), whereas the second one is propagating in slightly superluminal speed (neutrinos). This model is slightly complicated with fact, the space-time is not completely flat due the presence of CMBR fluctuations, so that the low energy neutrinos can still propagate with subluminal speed, until their energy is not higher, than the energy of CMBR photons. And the photons can spread with slightly superluminal speed, until their energy (i.e. frequency) is not higher, than the energy/frequency of CMBR photons. Reply Assis A.V.D.B. 9 Comments • 585 Days Ago • 10/17/2011 Related to A Comment on arXiv:1110.2685 On my previous comments and calculations, I would like to assert, respectfully, that, related to the$K'$reference frame in my previous comments, the frame the author of arXiv:1110.2685 takes to explain the relevance of the GPS reference frame in terms of special relativity: the radio signals turn out to be irrelevant to be taken into consideration once the clocks within$K'$are synchronized, viz., the Lorentz transformations for events do consider radio signals intrinsically under the synchronization of clocks in a given reference frame. This said, the factor 2 the author uses to reach 64 ns seems misconcepted. Remembering, the$\tau_{\textit{clock}}$is the time interval in$K'$, it is not a proper time interval, and this time interval totally accounts for the entire process of emission and detection of the neutrino at$A$and$B$, respectively, departure and arrival, from which there are not two corrections to be accomplished at the points$A$and$B$related to radio signals. The radio signals related to the events at$A$and$B$in the GPS reference frame in arXiv:1110.2685,$K'$, are taken into consideration since the clocks at$A$and$B$in the this reference frame tagging the events of departure and arrival are previously synchronized by the very radio signals the author refers at the final of the article arXiv:1110.2685. Hence, once the Lorentz transformations provide the$\tau_{\textit{clock}}$, one should not consider radio signals twice. Reply Assis A.V.D.B. 9 Comments • 583 Days Ago • 10/19/2011 Re: Related to A Comment on arXiv:1110.2685 I would like to comment some misconceptions the author of arXiv:1110.2685 seems to have incurred when raising his arguments. Related to my previous comments, these ones are related to the first version of the mentioned article uploaded to arXiv. Recently, the author had uploaded an updated version, but the misconceptions seem to persist. It seems the author had in mind that the time interval to be corrected$\delta t'=\tau_{\textit{clock}}$(here, I will be considering the first version of the arXiv:1110.2685, since there are not substantial modifications throughout the updated version to avoid the criticisms raised) was a proper interval. Constructing his arguments, the author refers to what is observed in the satellite reference frame. Suppose, following the author of arXiv:1110.2685 reasonings, the satellite sends a radio signal to the event at$A$to see the departure of the neutrino when this radio signal turns back to the satellite. Be$t'_{ESA}$($E$denotes emission,$S$denotes satellite, and$A$denotes the location of the CERN at the instant, read in the satellite local clock, the neutrino starts the travel to Gran Sasso) the instant this signal is sent to reach the event of the neutrino departure,$t'_{RSA}$($R$detotes reception) the instant the signal comes back to the satellite, read in the satellite local clock. These instants are related by: t'_{RSA}=t'_{ESA} + 2d'_{SA}(t'_{A})/c, where$d'_{SA}(t'_{A})$is the distance between the satellite and the CERN location at$A$at the instant the signal (radio signal) reaches$A$, at the instant$t'_{A}$the neutrino is sent to Gran Sasso in the satellite frame. Analogous reasoning related to the neutrino arrival at Gran Sasso, at$B$, leads to: t'_{RSB}=t'_{ESB} + 2d'_{SB}(t'_{B})/c, where$d'_{SB}(t'_{B})$is the distance between the satellite and the Gran Sasso location at$B$at the instant another signal previously sent by the satellite at instant$t'_{ESB}$read in the satellite local clock (another radio signal) reaches$B$, at the instant$t'_{B}$the neutrino arrives to Gran Sasso in the satellite frame. The instants$t'_{A}$and$t'_{B}$are respectively given by: t'_{A}=\dfrac{t'_{ESA}+t'_{RSA}}{2}, and: t'_{B}=\dfrac{t'_{ESB}+t'_{RSB}}{2}. From these relations, the proper time interval between the instants the satellite SEES the events of departure and arrival,$t'_{RSB}-t'_{RSA}$, is given by: t'_{RSB}-t'_{RSA}=t'_{B}-t'_{A}+\dfrac{d'_{SB}(t'_{B})}{c}-\dfrac{d'_{SA}(t'_{A})}{c}, therefore, since$t'_{B}-t'_{A}=\delta t'=\tau_{\textit{clock}}$, see my previous comments: \tau_{\textit{clock}}=t'_{RSB}-t'_{RSA}-\left(\dfrac{d'_{SB}(t'_{B})}{c}-\dfrac{d'_{SA}(t'_{A})}{c}\right), from which:$\tau_{\textit{clock}}$DOES TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION the radio signals travelling, encapsulated within the time intervals within: \tau_{\textit{signals}}=\dfrac{d'_{SB}(t'_{B})}{c}-\dfrac{d'_{SA}(t'_{A})}{c}. The problem within the reasonings of the author of arXiv:1110.2685 seems to be this author was thinking that$\tau_{\textit{clock}}$would be the proper interval related to what was being seen by the satellite,$t'_{RSB}-t'_{RSA}$. Hence, at the final of his article, this author applies a correction related to radio signals to account for the time interval$t'_{B}-t'_{A}$, but this process was already done when the author obtained$\delta t'=t'_{B}-t'_{A}$, viz., as said before within my previous comments, the Lorentz transformations have got radio signals intrinsically, by construction, to deal with events in spacetime. Concluding, when the author of arXiv:1110.2685 applies the factor 2, this author seems to erroneously account for radio signals twice, and the factor 2 seems misconcepted. Even if the OPERA Collaboration had done the correction the author of arXiv:1110.2685 refers to, such discrepancy would be 32 ns, but not this value twice. The factor 2 seems to have not got logical explanation within the arXiv:1110.2685 reasoning, mostly being putted a fortiori. Respectfully, the reasoning that led the author to the factor 2 is not clear, i think. I think this reasoning should be putted under a fairly crystalline terms, as far as possible, in virtue of the importance given to this article. Furthermore, what would be being observed,$\delta t'/\gamma$(this gamma is the original one used by the author of arXiv:1110.2685), or this value twice? Why does not the author of arXiv:1110.2685 provide spacetime diagrams showing the process related to the radio signals that doubles the alleged half of the truly observed time of flight? Concluding, it seems unlikely that the OPERA collaboration has misinterpreted a GPS time interval. Reply Assis A.V.D.B. 9 Comments • 580 Days Ago • 10/22/2011 Re: Related to A Comment on arXiv:1110.2685 There are some places over the internet stating: \begin{itemize} \item \textit{If they had applied the right correction to the neutrino departure time at CERN, the OPERA scientists would have recorded it as being$32\,ns$earlier, van Elburg said. Similarly, they would have calculated the neutrino arrival time at Gran Sasso as being$32\,ns$nanoseconds later}. \end{itemize} This process is intended to explain the$64\,ns$discrepancy, but it leads to an inconsistency, an absurd, in virtue of the very reason the time interval$\tau_{\textit{clock}}=\delta t'=t'_{B}-t'_{A}$is not a proper time, as discussed before in my previous comments. Indeed, such a process of reasoning leads to: \dfrac{t'_{B}}{\gamma}=t_{B}+32\,ns;\,\,\,\,\,\dfrac{t'_{A}}{\gamma}=t_{A}-32\,ns, hence: \dfrac{t'_{B}-t'_{A}}{\gamma}-\left(t_{B}-t_{A}\right)=\dfrac{\delta t'}{\gamma}-\delta t=\dfrac{\tau_{\textit{clock}}}{\gamma}-\tau_{\textit{baseline}}=64\,ns, where, remembering, we are using the notations used in the first version of arXiv:1110.2685 (see my previous comments). But it turns out to be an absurd, since$\left|\delta t'/\gamma-\delta t\right|=32\,ns$(in fact,$\delta t'/\gamma-\delta t=-32\,ns$). Concluding, this process of reasoning does not explain the$64\,ns$discrepancy, from which one is led to conclude a different reasoning seems to be necessary to explain the alleged factor 2 that doubles the alleged$32\,ns\$ discrepancy obtained via the claimed solution in arXiv:1110.2685.

lucyhaye

• 584 Days Ago
• 10/18/2011

People asked, via e-mail, if AD's explanation of No-Neutrino in Decay is only applicable to Bi. decaying to Po. The answer is NO. AD explain Energy and Momentum Conservation or Momentum variation in all decay with N0-Neutrino.
Pion Decay.
http://autodynamicslborg.blogspot.com/2011/07/pions-decay.htm

Or something more technical:
The Muon Decay.
http://autodynamicslborg.blogspot.com/2011/05/blog-post_8327.html

Lucy Haye Ph. D.
SAA’s representative.
lucyhaye22@gmail.com

greghodg

• 547 Days Ago
• 11/24/2011

Then why the bloody hell don't you answer them VIA EMAIL instead of excreting your nonsense all over here?!!

sweerek

• 583 Days Ago
• 10/19/2011

Slower then if sent other direction?

If this is true, then blasting the lil' buggers back the other direction should then show them to be traveling ~60ish nanoseconds too slow, right?

ellathvijay

1 Comment

• 581 Days Ago
• 10/21/2011

Faster indeed !

Light from Sun takes about 8min to reach Earth.
If Sun explodes NOW , how soon will it affect Earth ? After 8min ? If it will be felt instantaneously , that is faster than light. It means that the information is conveyed faster than light. If we look at Neutrino in this background, being faster than light is easily acceptable.

Ashbert

• 572 Days Ago
• 10/30/2011

Relativity NOT rigorously derived

Uncle Al says: "Relativity is rigorously derived". It is NOT!

Yes the neutrino-faster-than-light experiment will NOT stand. So "If nothing travels faster than light then Einstein's theory is right!" Nice rhyme... most mediocre minds (i.e. just about everyone in today's world of physics) would dance to the line. A dance of the non-thinking crowd!

Reality is more complex -- a COUNTER-EXAMPLE exists that PROVES that (though Einstein's postulates are correct), Einstein's claim of having derived the Lorentz transformations is wrong, yes a COUNTER-EXAMPLE -- and at least one Nobel prize winner takes this realization seriously. See

http://physicsnext.org/ for details, a very simple read, but majority be warned... facing physics reality regarding the foundations could disturb a mediocre mind and make him/her react emotionally...for example, Howard Georgi got very angry!

Lungan

• 507 Days Ago
• 01/03/2012

But does it move relativistic?

This whole argument depens on wethever the satellite moves relativistic to the earth.

So my question is, does the satellite really move relative to the earth? Why haven't the team positioned the satellite at a height from earth so that it doesn't move relative to the earth so you don't have to count with those relativistic effects.

Sorry if bad english, hope anyone can give me an explanation of this.

Thank you.

Lungan

• 507 Days Ago
• 01/03/2012

Re: But does it move relativistic?

As I've read this is called geostationary orbit, isn't the satellites in this experiment geostationary?

StuartG

1 Comment

• 507 Days Ago
• 01/03/2012

Faster-than-Light Neutrino

They could use another form of timing signal ...
"DCF77 is a longwave time signal and standard-frequency radio station"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCF77
The signal is stable, predictable and on the ground!
The technology is available, proven and cheap.  Viewing the map of tx area on the Wiki, the areas are covered.  A good source of comparison?

aldecal

• 507 Days Ago
• 01/03/2012

732 Km

The relative accuracy [or] inaccuracy of these measurements is irrelavant to the capbilities to track neutrino signatures having traveled through rock, water, air, then to a receiver.  Having worked is many spheres of technology like the RF/mathematical science of Weather Radar Data Systems gives me enough experience to understand the implications of this experiment.  Neutrinos, neutrons or any derivative part of matter being tracked via signatures is an astounding work of man and woman's intelligence.

Many of you are quite myopic to the world around you with regard to your particular specialties.  You are paid well, good luck with your office/lab/vitae politics.

Fashioning the observation of time.  I think would require space vessels that can stay in one position as the universe passes it by.  thereby giving us serious windows to our miniscule experiences of being civilized for maybe 10,000 years.  We are doing very well at visualizing and understanding our world, universe and other vacuum state heavenly ideations.  Will we have to pay rent in heaven?

• 506 Days Ago
• 01/04/2012

Followup?

Gosh, it's been about 3 months since this "solution" to the neutrino puzzle took the blogs by storm, and it was features as a technology review "Best of 2011", don't you think some followup is warranted?  It doesn't seem like this "solution" has been embraced by the physics community.  And I couldn't help but notice that while the original article stated basically "those idiots forgot to include relativistic effects in their GPS synchronization!", the revised version published in November is much more mealy-mouthed, basically saying "well maybe relativistic effects were included, but someone really ought to look at this stuff more carefully." Come on Technology Review, a little quality control please.

Assis A.V.D.B.

• 501 Days Ago
• 01/09/2012

On 11/16/2011, van Elburg's response denies content within this blog...

Dear Dr. Ronald van Elburg,

Thank You for Your e-mail. In my opinion, there exists an effect that
was not taken into
consideration by the OPERA collaboration, since Einstein's relativity
theory seems completely
correct over different phenomena. My opinion and considerations
discussed in my paper. There is another instance of Your reasonings I
explored at the final of an
update in HAL:

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/63/58/02/PDF/HAL-A_Comment_On_arXiv-1110.2685-v5-10-26-2011.pdf
,

regarding this:

"If they had applied the right correction to the neutrino departure
time at CERN, the OPERA scientists would
have recorded it as being 32 ns earlier, van Elburg said. Similarly,
they would have calculated the neutrino arrival
time at Gran Sasso as being 32 ns nanoseconds later.",

said as being Your explanation for a 2-fold error, with which I do not
agree. (Yours? Or misinterpreted by press?) may be found at
some places over the web, e.g.:

http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/article_tech.aspx?aid=44968467&afid=1&pg1=2501

Your solution resides on a cascade of errors, mostly related to basic
relativity of sinchronicity,
and You raise this cascade of relativity errors
was accomplished by the OPERA collaboration. Respectfully, It seems
very unlikely.

With my best respects,

Armando V.D.B. Assis.

van Elburg's response:

Dear prof dr Armando Assis,

"If they had applied the right correction to the neutrino departure
time at CERN, the OPERA scientists would
have recorded it as being 32 ns earlier, van Elburg said. Similarly,
they would have calculated the neutrino arrival
time at Gran Sasso as being 32 ns nanoseconds later.",

said as being Your explanation for a 2-fold error, with which I do not
agree.

These words ARE NOT MINE [says van Elburg] and do not agree with what I wrote and intended to write in the preprint. I my opinion the factor two is secondary in my argument, and might not stand to the test. The factor of two depends strongly on the details of the  timing procedures, it is very hard to get accesss to the relevant details...

Kind regards,
Ronald van Elburg

------------------End of e-mail content

Hence, the information in this ARXIV blog:

"How big is this effect? Van Elburg calculates that it should cause the neutrinos to arrive 32 nanoseconds early. But this must be doubled because the same error occurs at each end of the experiment. So the total correction is 64 nanoseconds, almost exactly what the OPERA team observes."

turns out to have a mysterious source, regarding the each end of the experiment...