Skip to content

The energy loss of OPERA neutrino, aberration, rest the anomaly

December 2, 2011

Mohan, mdashf

There were only two articles I had written countering Cohen and Glashow’s famous paper that had claimed a refutation of OPERA experiment. (where? In your dreams?) I had written some critical reports on Van Elburg’s hilarious paper. Van Elburg’s name was removed from Wikipedia article. He should have recanted his paper from ArXiv but I don’t know if he did. Science has dropped to ridiculous level and not just due to Elburg. Neither it is due to Glashow, who is a luminary and a great contributor to the causes of science. I would be as much a follower of his as I would be to Weinberg my most faveorite man, perhaps. The greatest living Physicist. I have ever only read one article of Glashow. He had made crap of fictitious medicinal system, if I remember the traditional medicinal system of India came to that target. I also liked a great deal how he had unabashedly bashed the string theory sysndrome, at Harvard. (Or was it Boston? whereever he was working)

I had also not liked the UNiversity’s decision to issue him a pink card. What else can they do? Watch Porno and drink beer and bash the luminaries when they speak the truth. Although they restored him. How can they mess up with a great great man.

But when I read the Glashow paper I did not like certain things about it. Ofcourse I was smoking but thats not why. There was something terribly wrong. The same night I read it I did a Uncertainity prinicple calculation and found what is so missing most of the world experts that were basking in glory of this paper from the luminary.

I also after a few more days wrote another article that from another angle and very basic ideas of Physics showed the potential pitfalls of their paper. I haven’t read their to be published PRL and I do not know if its already published. SO I really do not know if they fixed their errors or still basking in glory.

Here are the two articles I wrote and I will post the salient points I made in those so you can avoid one of the longer articles. You can read the other if you will, so you can get a flavor of the arguments to mak up your mind. Incidentally one of this articles, the shorter one, may give you the final answer to the OPERA anomaly. {I have already from very basic physics although initially after a roundabout and painstaking “several days” calculations given you very fitting explanations of one of the anomalies. The simpler reason occured after I started thinking about it. The other anomaly just followed the first, the simpler reason}. If my simpler rule of Uncertainity prinicple of Energy-time gives an answer to OPERA anomaly blame all 3 on me and I have for all my life made any contributions I had to make to science, then I will just go ranting about madass folklore. Here is thus the OPERA explanation I had made in the shorter of the two articles whose links will follow right after.

The Energy-time becomes a speed-time uncertainity especially because the mass of the participating particle is zero. Thus not only the distance is uncertain when time is sharp which is what aberation is but this is because the speed is uncertain because time is sharply known {yes essentially this is what starlight aberation is, there is a small velocity factor because of which a small angle is extended and for small velocities the angle is in the same order as the velocity. In general this is a special relativistic effect. }

Here are the two articles:

i. irrelevance of Glashow Cohen paper due to Quantum Mechanics alone

ii. irrelevance of Glashow Cohen paper due to Quantum Mechanics and Relativity

Here are the main points of the 2nd article; the energy loss of the neutrino is such that {disregarding any unseen energy loss such as Bremstrahllung} any loss allows only 3 particles in the kinematical regime, photons, neutrinos, electrons. Eletrons are actually  not allowed kinematically {which is also why there should be no Bremstrahllung in the first place} The other two can interchange because of kinematical considerations, because photons do lose enough at 17 GeV if they are as massive as 10^-7 eV. At 10^-18 eV there is hardly any loss. But allowing enough inherent uncertainity in the experiment where we can not claim or nominate photons for 10^-18 eV we would see photons are transmuted back to the neutrino and a neutrino if turns into a photon, it is again favored that the neutrino is created back. That is if (neutrino-photon) is favored so also (photon-neutrino) is thereby making (neutrino-(photon)-neutrino) a highly favored channel. Note that here only the photon is a virtual one just incase it actually takes away the energy it returns the debt in due time for neutrinos to appear in the Federal Bank Bounquet at Gran Sasso and this process if it does do happen as many time as it does without taking away too many neutrinos in the process so their group arrives where it matters and how it matters.

The 1st article similarly had the main point that Glashow had a very whimsical way of taking away the energy precision of the experiment of OPERA {to what? a GeV or more} and increased the time accuracy to such a level which our 500 generations down the line will even not acheive. This is what made me very uncomfortable about what Glashow actually doing. A superman who had brought the arrogant string mavens seems to be falling into their trap. Just for beer and good time?

Once that kind of time and distance accuracy {to preserve the speed invariance you need to keep both intact at the same level, mind ya, but not the energy}. If only Glashow could have seen the relativistic quantum mechanics a little harder of which he was such a masterful artisan. It is he who had weaved the electromagnetic forces with the weak one so he would have done more back of the mail calculations than anybody else, perhaps just Weinberg and Abdus Salam and Feynman and Gellmann {Change Murray’s family name if I am incorret} and a few more. Incidentally I was thinking of a little more relativistic quantum mechanics long before OPERA had unfurled it’s shock. But now I believe it’s just an aberration like you see when you swivel your camera  a little or you are taking the picture of something which is moving a little more than what you even with your normal sight call stationary. This I had described in quite detail and now its all clear in my mind. But one can very easily extend this to the case of aberration except if you complaint it is not the same thing remember the only difference is stars are far far away hence their position as mapped by your telescopes is what you would think is real unless you knew that your telescopes are moving a little but hence there is a relative velocity and what you are observing is apparent. Then you adjust such. In case of neutrinos the little excess is showing up because the time is known very very precisely. Distance is not as precisely. This causes the speed to fluctuate given by the Uncertainity relation of speed-time which is a result of Energy-time except that the mass is almost zero, 2 eV.

I will stop finding any more salient points from my articles. This is it for OPERA anomaly. Rest it for ever. 3 anomalies I fixed. what you call me? An abrasive self promoter. Thats what I said in my profile. I am a stubborn publicity monger.


No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: