# BBO Discussion Forums: The neutrinos from the future... - BBO Discussion Forums

• 4 Pages
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

## The neutrinos from the future... Faster then c?

### #21gwnn

• Csaba the Hutt
• Posts: 12,863
• Joined: 2006-June-16
• Gender:Male
• Location:Heidelberg, Germany
• Interests:matching LaTeX delimiters :(

Posted 2011-September-26, 06:02

btw just did a very simple calculation and 60ns is equivalent to a distance of 18 metres at the speed of light, and 1/40 000 of the total time.

The paper is here: http://static.arxiv....f/1109.4897.pdf

They claim an error of about +/- 10 ns, or so, if I'm reading it correctly.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
0

### #22barmar

• Posts: 17,282
• Joined: 2004-August-21
• Gender:Male

Posted 2011-September-26, 22:31

gwnn, on 2011-September-26, 06:02, said:

btw just did a very simple calculation and 60ns is equivalent to a distance of 18 metres at the speed of light, and 1/40 000 of the total time.

Ouch, there goes my tunneling theory. I have no idea how to do the calculations, but my guess is that you could probably count the number of particles on earth that would tunnel that far on your fingers.

### #23PassedOut

• Posts: 3,469
• Joined: 2006-February-21
• Location:Upper Michigan
• Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2011-October-15, 12:26

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

Quote

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.

The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper.  Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists  that is why they invented hell.  Bertrand Russell
0

### #24Winstonm

• Posts: 12,850
• Joined: 2005-January-08
• Gender:Male
• Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
• Interests:Art, music

Posted 2011-October-16, 17:58

PassedOut, on 2011-October-15, 12:26, said:

Well, that certainly refutes the lyrics, "Ti-i-i-i-ime is on my side, yes it is."
"For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens. - George Washington, 1790
0

### #25barmar

• Posts: 17,282
• Joined: 2004-August-21
• Gender:Male

Posted 2011-October-18, 15:31

The last paragraph is the best:

Quote

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.

What got me was the earlier comment: "the tricky part is keeping the clocks at either end exactly synchronised." Doesn't Special Relativity say that there's no such thing as synchronized clocks?

### #26hotShot

• Axxx Axx Axx Axx
• Posts: 2,976
• Joined: 2003-August-31
• Gender:Male

Posted 2011-October-18, 15:51

That special relativity idea seems to be wrong.

Dr. T. Feldmann from the PTB Braunschweig who was involved in developing the method of time measurement claims that relativistic effects were taken into account and that Ronal A.J van Elburg made a mistake himself by adding signal- and satellite speed in a classical way instead of a relativistic way.

So the mystery is still on.
0

### #27BunnyGo

• Lamentable Bunny
• Posts: 1,504
• Joined: 2008-March-01
• Gender:Male
• Location:Portland, ME

Posted 2011-October-18, 15:54

barmar, on 2011-October-18, 15:31, said:

The last paragraph is the best:

What got me was the earlier comment: "the tricky part is keeping the clocks at either end exactly synchronised." Doesn't Special Relativity say that there's no such thing as synchronized clocks?

No, what it says is that "simultaneity is relative". Since clocks being synchronous is a series of simultaneous events (ticking every second together) this is a relative thing. The difficulty is synching them in your reference frame when you can't actually easily see both of them at the same time. This was (provisionally) their error.
Bridge Personality: 44 44 43 34

Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
0

### #28semeai

• Group: Full Members
• Posts: 582
• Joined: 2010-June-10
• Gender:Male
• Location:USA
• Interests:Having eleven-syllable interests
Counting modulo five

Posted 2011-October-18, 18:45

hotShot, on 2011-October-18, 15:51, said:

That special relativity idea seems to be wrong.

Dr. T. Feldmann from the PTB Braunschweig who was involved in developing the method of time measurement claims that relativistic effects were taken into account and that Ronal A.J van Elburg made a mistake himself by adding signal- and satellite speed in a classical way instead of a relativistic way.

So the mystery is still on.

barmar, on 2011-October-18, 15:31, said:

What got me was the earlier comment: "the tricky part is keeping the clocks at either end exactly synchronised." Doesn't Special Relativity say that there's no such thing as synchronized clocks?

BunnyGo, on 2011-October-18, 15:54, said:

No, what it says is that "simultaneity is relative". Since clocks being synchronous is a series of simultaneous events (ticking every second together) this is a relative thing. The difficulty is synching them in your reference frame when you can't actually easily see both of them at the same time. This was (provisionally) their error.

Maybe a simpler way of putting it: Two clocks that are at rest with respect to each other have a notion of being synchronized.
1

### #29hotShot

• Axxx Axx Axx Axx
• Posts: 2,976
• Joined: 2003-August-31
• Gender:Male

Posted 2011-October-18, 23:01

semeai, on 2011-October-18, 18:45, said:

http://heise.de/-1362506

As to "Can apparent superluminal neutrino speeds be explained as a quantum weak measurement?"

M V Berry, N Brunner, S Popescu & P Shukla answer that with "Probably not."

http://arxiv.org/ftp...0/1110.2832.pdf
0

### #30semeai

• Group: Full Members
• Posts: 582
• Joined: 2010-June-10
• Gender:Male
• Location:USA
• Interests:Having eleven-syllable interests
Counting modulo five

Posted 2011-October-19, 09:16

hotShot, on 2011-October-18, 15:51, said:

That special relativity idea seems to be wrong.

Dr. T. Feldmann from the PTB Braunschweig who was involved in developing the method of time measurement claims that relativistic effects were taken into account and that Ronal A.J van Elburg made a mistake himself by adding signal- and satellite speed in a classical way instead of a relativistic way.

So the mystery is still on.

hotShot, on 2011-October-18, 23:01, said:

Thanks for the link. It makes complete sense that the people who think about time synchronization using GPS would already take into account relevant effects like this. After all, as we all know from xkcd, even general relativity is necessary for GPS to be accurate.

That said, I'm not sure why there's the comment about there being an error. Maybe the reporter misunderstood, or put the researcher on the spot and it was a throwaway comment? Equation (2) in Elburg's paper is correct; he's not adding velocities. An analogous equation shows up as equation (8) in the paper cited in that news article as already taking into account the effect.
0

### #31mike777

• Posts: 16,739
• Joined: 2003-October-07
• Gender:Male

Posted 2011-October-19, 21:25

semeai, on 2011-October-19, 09:16, said:

Thanks for the link. It makes complete sense that the people who think about time synchronization using GPS would already take into account relevant effects like this. After all, as we all know from xkcd, even general relativity is necessary for GPS to be accurate.

That said, I'm not sure why there's the comment about there being an error. Maybe the reporter misunderstood, or put the researcher on the spot and it was a throwaway comment? Equation (2) in Elburg's paper is correct; he's not adding velocities. An analogous equation shows up as equation (8) in the paper cited in that news article as already taking into account the effect.

so at this point there is an experimental error or not?
0

### #32semeai

• Group: Full Members
• Posts: 582
• Joined: 2010-June-10
• Gender:Male
• Location:USA
• Interests:Having eleven-syllable interests
Counting modulo five

Posted 2011-October-19, 22:01

mike777, on 2011-October-19, 21:25, said:

so at this point there is an experimental error or not?

No experimental error confirmed yet I guess. My take from the sources mentioned in this thread: The paper giving the "correction" didn't make a mistake in its physics, but the original paper presumably used GPS time calibration that already included the physics "correction," according to some guy who knows about GPS time calibration.
0

### #33hotShot

• Axxx Axx Axx Axx
• Posts: 2,976
• Joined: 2003-August-31
• Gender:Male

Posted 2011-October-20, 00:17

semeai, on 2011-October-19, 22:01, said:

No experimental error confirmed yet I guess. My take from the sources mentioned in this thread: The paper giving the "correction" didn't make a mistake in its physics, but the original paper presumably used GPS time calibration that already included the physics "correction," according to some guy who knows about GPS time calibration.

While I can't say anything about the physics involved., I can tell you that the PTB is the german equivalent of the NIST. One of it's main objectives is to synchronize clocks and to evaluate and develop methods for accurate time measurement .
"This guy" finished his ph.d. thesis on "Advances in GPS based Time and Frequency Comparisons for Metrological Use" this year.
Part of this was " Improved GPS-Based Time Link Calibration" to be found here:
http://www.ptb.de/cm...ROA_and_PTB.pdf

0

### #34semeai

• Group: Full Members
• Posts: 582
• Joined: 2010-June-10
• Gender:Male
• Location:USA
• Interests:Having eleven-syllable interests
Counting modulo five

Posted 2011-October-20, 00:59

hotShot, on 2011-October-20, 00:17, said:

While I can't say anything about the physics involved., I can tell you that the PTB is the german equivalent of the NIST. One of it's main objectives is to synchronize clocks and to evaluate and develop methods for accurate time measurement .
"This guy" finished his ph.d. thesis on "Advances in GPS based Time and Frequency Comparisons for Metrological Use" this year.
Part of this was " Improved GPS-Based Time Link Calibration" to be found here:
http://www.ptb.de/cm...ROA_and_PTB.pdf

I didn't mean "some guy" to be disparaging. However, as you imply, "an expert on" would have been better wording than "some guy who knows about."

By way of lame excuse, maybe I can erroneously suggest that I have a high bar for using the word "know(s)."
0

### #35barmar

• Posts: 17,282
• Joined: 2004-August-21
• Gender:Male

Posted 2011-October-23, 13:03

If high-energy physics were easy, everyone would do it.

### #36BunnyGo

• Lamentable Bunny
• Posts: 1,504
• Joined: 2008-March-01
• Gender:Male
• Location:Portland, ME

Posted 2011-November-18, 10:37

I'd still back Einstein (as per several XKCD strips) but apparently the experiment has been repeated.

Oh, and doesn't

Quote

The odds have shrunk that Einstein was wrong about a fundamental law of the Universe.

mean that it's less likely that Einstein was wrong? Why put a sentence like that in front of an article describing how an experiment "showing" he was wrong has been repeated?
Bridge Personality: 44 44 43 34

Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
0

### #37BunnyGo

• Lamentable Bunny
• Posts: 1,504
• Joined: 2008-March-01
• Gender:Male
• Location:Portland, ME

Posted 2011-November-18, 11:26

One question for the physicists (or physics knowledgeable people). If the neutrinos really are going faster than light, shouldn't they arrive before they are produced? Or is the theory that relativity is completely wrong with regards to faster than light travel and its effects?
Bridge Personality: 44 44 43 34

Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
0

### #38S2000magic

• Group: Full Members
• Posts: 439
• Joined: 2011-November-11
• Gender:Male
• Location:Yorba Linda, CA
• Interests:magic, horseback riding, hiking, camping, F1 racing, bridge, mathematics, finance, teaching

Posted 2011-November-18, 11:34

BunnyGo, on 2011-November-18, 10:37, said:

Oh, and doesn't

"The odds have shrunk that Einstein was wrong about a fundamental law of the Universe"

mean that it's less likely that Einstein was wrong? Why put a sentence like that in front of an article describing how an experiment "showing" he was wrong has been repeated?

Not the way it's written; if it had said that the odds against Einstein being wrong had shrunk, it would mean that it's less likely that he was wrong.

(In your defense, the author of the sentence you quoted probably meant the odds against Einstein being wrong, and fouled it up; most laymen, in my experience, don't understand that the common (mathematical, statistical) use of "odds" refers to odds against something happening.)
BCIII

"If you're driving [the Honda S2000] with the top up, the storm outside had better have a name."

Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.
0

### #39BunnyGo

• Lamentable Bunny
• Posts: 1,504
• Joined: 2008-March-01
• Gender:Male
• Location:Portland, ME

Posted 2011-November-18, 11:46

S2000magic, on 2011-November-18, 11:34, said:

Not the way it's written; if it had said that the odds against Einstein being wrong had shrunk, it would mean that it's less likely that he was wrong.

(In your defense, the author of the sentence you quoted probably meant the odds against Einstein being wrong, and fouled it up; most laymen, in my experience, don't understand that the common (mathematical, statistical) use of "odds" refers to odds against something happening.)

Thanks for clearing that up, I was suspicious about the use of the term. So much for all the probability theory I took in grad school. We never discussed "odds" as a term like this.
Bridge Personality: 44 44 43 34

Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
0

### #40gwnn

• Csaba the Hutt
• Posts: 12,863
• Joined: 2006-June-16
• Gender:Male
• Location:Heidelberg, Germany
• Interests:matching LaTeX delimiters :(

Posted 2011-November-18, 12:46

BunnyGo, on 2011-November-18, 11:26, said:

One question for the physicists (or physics knowledgeable people). If the neutrinos really are going faster than light, shouldn't they arrive before they are produced? Or is the theory that relativity is completely wrong with regards to faster than light travel and its effects?

They should arrive in imaginary time, or not? There will be some negative numbers under some square roots I guess.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
0