Neutrino experiment of **OPERA has proved at-last** that the following changes need to be made to our understanding from Relativistic phenomena.

- The photon speed is only binding on the photons, if we do see something at any scale crossing this speed limit.
**(and now we see so … edited: 9.9.2012, although that result vanished as I claimed mostly)** - The photon speed constancy is only binding on the photons as long as the sensitivity of our present instruments do not resolve
**any energy dependence of the photon speed.**The photon mass being extremely small this has not yet been achieved through observations,**but theoretically it is possible to break this monolithic behavior of the photons which will lead to working solutions of quantum gravity**. - The relativistic laws as formulated as of now are therefore quite good to explain everything we have observed so far and the Lorentz invariance forms are good enough. But a slight modification is needed for anything disobeying this behavior.
**Because the neutrino violate such behavior so far only by a little excess the laws have still been good to some extent but need to be modified.****edited: 9.9.2012, because the neutrino violate such behavior [as per OPERA’s claims which were invalid anyway] …**

Now here is the recent paper highlighted on http://physicsforme.wordpress.com/ that claims to have accounted for a** “time correction”** in the **OPERA neutrino measurement that would put Relativity back to its celebrated success.** But read on for what it actually is. **Edited, 9.9.2012: OPERA neutrino measurement that would take Relativity away from its celebrated success.**

The following paper which has tried to bring in correction to time calculation of GPS clocks is **erroneous in its perspective** and has **introduced wishful and manifestly incorrect equations**. Hence this paper may be discarded.

{{** arXiv:1110.2685v1: edited 9.9.2012, for pointing out this arXiV refused to publish my paper on OPERA last year and another relativity-paper. They don’t want their severe failures pointed out. To those who think US is a paradise for research. **

quoting verbatim:

**Times of Flight between a Source and a Detector observed from a GPS satellite.**

**Ronald A.J. van Elburg∗**

**S_clock = γ . S_baseline (1)**

**with γ = sqrt(1 − vv/cc).**

From the perspective of the clock the detector at B moves towards location A at a speed v. And we find that the foton will reach the detector when the sum of the distances covered by the detector and the foton equals the original separation, i.e

τ_clock . c + τ_clock . v = S_clock (2)

with τ_clock the time of flight in the clock reference frame. From this we find

τ_clock = S_clock/(c + v)= S_baseline . γ/ (c + v) (3)

The authors of the OPERA paper [5] seem to include a correction for the Lorentz transformations, but they not correct for the change in scenario. And because they project back the time of provided by the moving clock to the baseline they seem to incorrectly assume that the outcome of their experiment should be equivalent to that using a clock in the baseline reference system, τ_baseline = S_baseline/c

**end quoting**}}

Here I supply the basic reasoning for the above paper only. The others I have already described with detailed reasoning and calculations in my **blogs on OPERA result**.

The Theory of Relativity says: From our earth frame if a clock is moving at a velocity say v, it measures a longer time and a shorter distance of processes in the rest frame of earth-baseline/laboratory. If this velocity is quite small compared to the speed of light such effects are only minuscule to a desired level of accuracy.

The paper above measures a velocity of ~4 km/s for the GPS clocks. 1^{st} of all it uses the relativistic invariance incorrectly and I am surprised such a paper has been accepted into the arXiv **(where is science really going?)**

{{**I correct myself here, so I remove the part in {{ …}} here >>>** 2ndly it uses 12 hrs time for a 2.Pi.R orbit, that is a full circle, it must use 24 hrs. So this incorrect velocity must be ~2km/s. **I was incorrect to assume a 24 hrs time-period, but I do not use this reasoning for my conclusions in this article hence it was a simple mistake that does not change my arguments**}}

Remember a 0.5 km/s earth rotation gave a very small deflection due to** Coriolis and centripetal accelerations** that I **calculated yesterday and published** in my website.

This 4 km/s compared to a staggering 3×10^5 km/s is going to give a zero correction to time not a 32 nanosecond, which the paper claims and multiplies by 2, **Relativity has become a child’s toy**. 9.9.2012: **He will break it.**

The correct idea of relativity is:

S_clock = γ . S_baseline < ————— [[ length contraction or shortening of length]]

τ_clock = (1/γ) . τ_baseline < ———————- [[ time dilation or lengthening of time]]

These parametric change occurs so as to render the speed of light constant for all observers (Now we understand that this is only so for the photons and only so as long as we do not fine-resolve the scale at which the photon mass is definite)

The above paper** **erroneously** adds the velocity of the clock, to the velocity of the light** and reports a 32 nanosecond of correction. You would think someone is doing some serious calculations but this an “**Alan Sokal Hoax**” and look how shamelessly we included this into our ArXiV publications. I even spent one whole evening downloading and reading this paper. [9.9.2012; So I gave enough reasons to ArXv to not publish me, butt what are we doing? Science or rubbish self propagation?]

If you check it’s calculations it is adding a 4 to the 5^{th} decimal place of speed of light 3.0×10^8 m/s (2.99 best value, quoting from modern textbooks) which essentially means epsilon = 0 nanoseconds or whatever units, instead of a 32 nanoseconds, what a joke and it’s not even April.

WELL NOT SO MUCH, ALTHOUGH THE PAPER IS NOT A HOAX AND I POINTED OUT IN ANOTHER ARTICLE AND APOLOGIZED, I JUST COULD NOT BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE WITH A PHD IN PHYSICS WOULD DO THAT KIND OF MISTAKE, AN ARBITRARY VELOCICTY ADDITION. BUT I HAVE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THIS IS MATHEMATICALLY CORRECT CONTRARY TO WHAT I SAID INITIALLY, BUT PHYSICALLY ERRONEOUS AND KIND OF WHACKY THAT IT WOULD PERSIST FOR SO LONG … WITHOUT GETTING CHECKED AS SOON AS IT WAS READ. SAD.

So from above invariance of speed of light, c = Sclock /τclock = γ.γ(Sbaseline)/ τbaseline

=> τ_baseline = γ . γ . S_baseline /c, γ . γ= 1, since beta = 0, as orbital velocity of the satellite is far –far-less compared to the speed of light. This is what the OPERA paper has used in it’s calculations, and see, the above paper mentions this very cleverly to hide the fact that it’s a hoax paper so as to gain admission into the ArXiv. [9.9.2012: well hoax or not how do they publish a paper like that which made mockery of Relativity a college kid could have pointed out and not mine ;)]

Since there really is no difference of time that OPERA must take into account so far nobody has recorded a valid reason why OPERA results must be incorrect.

I request my good lady Caren Hagner (I know her since belle days) to accept to sign this paper and let the scientific community discern anything to be found incorrect about the results. [9.9.2012: Caren didn’t sign, OPERA claims were invalid although for both experimental carelessness and as my OPERA paper-draft from last year has been standing a silent witness: theoretical misunderstanding of QMech and Relativity together or separately. Anyway not signing the paper does not mean its good, one has to work to find the inconsistencies ]

**This above paper may win an ig-Nobel and may be kept in the archive of annuls of science, to showcase as Pseudo-Science.** If this author and organizations are real then they should be punished for using world resources for purposefully misguiding the world community. [9.9.2012: And arXiv is also responsible, I guess they don’t hire knowledgeable physicists. Sorry I would feel whacked out at such trends not just because of arXiv. How can we do world-class science without good understanding of scientific methods?]

## One comment