Skip to content

OPERA has lost it’s claim on superluminal neutrino {my claim}

December 4, 2011

Mohan, mdashf


Here is what I promised for MINOS: (in general the energy-time uncertainty relation in particle detectors, in terms of speed-time uncertainties for any particle) gamma and gamma_c are not 1 but large numbers given by binomial factors, {a mistake I said gamma=1}

I REVIEWED AND THE GAMMAS DO NOT REALLY TURN OUT TO BE VERY LARGE NUMBERS, INFACT TO 20TH POWER OF BETA GAMMAS GO TO ORDER OF 5.002 IN THE RIGHT UNITS EVERYTHING FITS IN SO WELL WE WILL GET A VERY EXACT NUMBER FOR MINIMUM ENERGY UNCERTAINTY IN THE ORDER eV, MOST LIKELY ~4 eV. SO OPERA MUST COME CLEAN ON TOTAL ENERGY UNCERTAINITIES BELOW SAY 4 eV TO CLAIM SUPERLUMINAL NEUTRINOS, AT THEIR QUOTED LEVELS OF UNCERTAINTY ON TIME. THIS IS ALSO IN LINE WITH AN ARTICLE I WROTE ON 31/OCT/2011 {CITING WEINBERG’S RESULTS FROM HIS TEXT BOOK, WEINBERG’S RESULTS WERE FOR UNCERTAINTY ON PROPERTIME OF NEUTRINO IN THE SAME ORDER WE FIND OUR SPEED UNCERTAINTY TO BE, WHICH ONLY MEAN THE 7.5 KM/S QUOTED BY OPERA WILL BE WASHED AWAY BY AS LITTLE AS 4 eV UNCERTAINTY ON ENERGY} THIS IS ALSO MOST LIKELY THAT MINOS DOES NOT SEE ANY SPEED EXCESS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR SIGNIFICANCE AS THEY HAD KINEMATICALLY AND COMBINATORIALLY FACTORED IN THEIR NEUTRINO MASS TO BE IN THE ORDER OF ~50 MeV. IT IS NOT THE UNCERTAINTY IN ENERGY OR TIME HOWSOEVER SMALL OR LARGE THEY MAY BE THAT IS CAUSING SUCH EXCESSES TO BE MEANINGFUL OR MEANINGLESS. IT IS THE UNCERTAINTY RELATION BETWEEN ENERGY-TIME, SPEED-TIME OR PROPERTIME-TIME THAT IS IN THE ORDER OF h-cross, WHICH IS GOOD ENOUGH TO VOID ANY SUPERLUMINAL ATTRIBUTES NEUTRINOS WERE THOUGHT TO HAVE.

Energy-time uncertainty is a speed-time uncertainty

BELOW YOU WILL ONLY HAVE TO REMOVE a 2 that I mistakenly put infront of h-cross. SO the minimum error is 2.61 mm/s not 5.22 mm/s, and so on. But other ideas are correct, eg the idea that you have to fit the delE.delT=0.75(eV-ns) might actually be fitted to 0.375(eV-ns). This is because while E,v,p,m,t are all equivalent, mathematically E=p.p/2m=(1/2).m.v.v (with a gamma ~= 1) SEE the 2 now? (or will it be further changed?)

If OPERA finds it’s neutrino with energy error in the order of 1 eV such that its time error is in the order of 1 nanosecond it will see speed excess in the order of 7.5 km/s consistent with theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics taken together. In other words it must fit energy-time uncertainty relation delE.delT = a.h-cross and if it gets a = 0.75 eV-ns, it’s claim of superluminal neutrinos vanish ideally. For a 1 ns time accuracy this means 0.75 eV energy accuracy. All they need to do is see if they have this accuracy in energy. Note that we fit so any fluctuation in time error reflects in fluctuation in energy error which is why distance becomes erroneous and distance/time = speed is erroneous by that given amount. Just an observation in this order is sufficient to see that they can not claim superluminal attributes because it leads to the doubt that they may have to do everything more cautiously when they will actually make more errors than their claims. This was to be thoughtout prior to the performance of the experiment or at-least publication of results if not publicizing of what they have obtained, in mass media.**

**This is the reason why most people shout extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But I think also it is our responsibility in the name of dilligence that we take our pen and paper even if we are countering a claim that we would like to prove bogus. I do not think OPERA did a bogus thing. Although they will later agree that they caused a great ripple around the world for which they might have come with a little more caution. For one thing I did plenty of work in the last 2 months and some of these works are paper quality works and I hope will serve in the future for other studies whenever Relativity is concerned. I have already 1 paper that has been written and will be submitted soon.

I doubt their anomaly will hold any claim since we do not measure energy to this accuracy unless a dedicated measurement is performed with this in mind. Their paper does not mention a single word on this or any error of energy. It just deals with errors on time. This is equivalent to saying the distances were measured to mm accuracy but when the analysis was done it was not kept in mind that errors on distance and energy are correlated, hence allowing an energy error they have actually blown up the distance error in their analysis.

The GPS system is evidently fine as it is safe from how you use and interpret it. The details for non-superluminal claims are shown in the 3 pages I upload below. I will upload 1 more when that is ready, but that mainly would deal with MINOS situation, where they can use my analysis and perhaps come with a much more significant yet null excess result.

SO you can go and celebrate that Relativity has not been broken. Also all the money that was going to be spent for redoing all these experiments and all the textbooks that were going to be reviewed and rewritten has been made redundant.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: