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 –probably because better late than never it was realized that it was a very tenuous scientific argument this paper was based on, namely relativistic speeds were added like Newtonian kinematic adherents. To see the difference read this article of mine, written much later to the current one.

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 of Weinberg, my most favorite man of science of present times, 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 his target of jest. I also liked a great deal how he had unabashedly bashed the string theory syndrome, at Harvard.

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 reinstated him. How can they mess up with a great-great man.

But when I read the Glashow paper — related to the present prospective anomaly of the OPERA neutrino experimental result, I did not like certain things about it. Of-course I was smoking [green?] but that’s not why. There was something terribly wrong. The same night I read it I did an uncertainty principle calculation and found what is so missing the attention of most of the world experts, that were basking in the 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 had the audacity to purportedly show the potential pitfalls of their paper. I haven’t read their to be published PRL paper 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 that I wrote and I will post the salient points I made in them, 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 make up your mind.

Incidentally one of these 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 explanation of one of the anomalies — there are 2 or 3 anomalies in this site that I have tried to address, Flyby and/or Pioneer and OPERA.

The simpler reason occurred after I started thinking about it. The other anomaly just followed the first, the simpler reason. If my simpler rule of uncertainty principle 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 mad-ass 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 uncertainty, especially because the mass of the participating particle is zero.

Thus not only the distance is uncertain, when time is sharp which is what aberration is, but this is because the speed is uncertain because time is sharply known. Yes, essentially this is what starlight aberration 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 is. In general this is a special relativistic effect.

— I gave an one-individual-audience lecture explaining with great care, verbatim, what is aberration, what is order of magnitude, what is the scope of relativity theory wrt Newtonian mechanics and how relativity theory and quantum mechanics relate the OPERA anomaly to aberration of neutrino ray. This can be  coupled with another phenomena, fuzziness in pictures observed in an ordinary picture taking experience, — aka motion blur. This later is explained in the following article named “motion blur”, currently.

Here are the two articles:

Article 1; Irrelevance of Glashow-Cohen paper — due to quantum mechanics alone.

Article 2; Irrelevance of Glashow-Cohen paper — due to quantum mechanics and theory of 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 Bremsstrahlung, any loss allows only 3 particles in the kinematic regime; photons, neutrinos, electrons.

Electrons are actually  not allowed kinematically, which is also why there should be no Bremsstrahlung in the first place. The other two can interchange because of kinematic considerations, because photons do lose enough at 17 GeV, if they are as massive as $10^{-7}\hspace{3pt}eV$.

At $10^{-18}\hspace{3pt}eV$ there is hardly any loss. But allowing enough inherent uncertainty in the experiment where we can not claim or nominate photons for $10^{-18}\hspace{3pt}eV$ we would see photons are transmuted back to the neutrino and a neutrino if it 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 in case it actually takes away the energy, it returns the debt in due time for neutrinos to appear in the Federal Bank Bouquet at Gran Sasso and this process if it does happen, happens 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 achieve.

This is what made me very uncomfortable about what Glashow was actually doing. A superman who had brought the arrogant string mavens down, 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 is achieved 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 except just Weinberg and Abdus Salam and Feynman and Gellmann. — Change Murray’s family name if I am incorrect: well is it Gellman? and add a few more to the list of that exception.

Incidentally I was thinking of a little more relativistic quantum mechanics long before OPERA had unfurled its 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 — in an article “motion blur” 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 known. This causes the speed to fluctuate given by the uncertainty relation of speed-time, which is a result of energy-time uncertainty relation except that the mass is almost zero, viz. less than 2 eV at-most.

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. That’s what I said in my profile. I am a stubborn publicity monger.