**UPDATE**; 10 Dec 2011:

There is an **update to this analysis** which will **change** the **results**, but is *much* **more stringent on anomaly** as reported by **OPERA-experiment**. So the following should be taken as a *partial attempt*. Check here for latest result: Bad news for OPERA.

**update** to this *article*: (No Superluminal Neutrinos)

**EXCERPTS** from last article:

” **I reviewed and the gammas do not really turn out to be very large numbers**, in fact 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 of **eV**, most likely **~4 eV**.

So **OPERA** must **come clean** on **total energy uncertainties** *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/October/2011** .

**In that article**: *citing Weinberg’s results from his text book*, Weinberg’s results were for **uncertainty** *on* **proper-time** *of* **neutrino** *in the same order* **we find***our* **speed-uncertainty*** to be*, which only means the **7.5 km/second quoted by OPERA-experiment **will be **washed away** *by* as **little** as **4 eV** **uncertainty** *on***energy**.

This is also **most likely, and I seriously think IT IS,** that **MINOS-experiment** *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* **uncertainty-in-time** *howsoever small or large they may be* **that is** causing such excesses to be **meaningful ***or ***meaningless**. It is the** uncertainty relations** *of* **energy-time**, **speed-time** or (**proper-time**)**-time** that is in the** order of h-cross,** which is **good enough ***to ***void ***or*** invalidate** any claims of **superluminal attributes neutrinos ***were ***thought to have**. ”

A **stringent** **constraint** *on* **OPERA** **speed-excess**:

**Planck’s constant = 6.6 10^(-7) eV-nanosecond;**

**A neutrino** **mass** *of* **2 eV** *has to be* **measured ***to*** better than 1.15 eV** *to* **see any superluminal excess.**

— *After* I **fixed mistakes** *in my* **binomial-expansion**.

** At** *or* **above this error** you see **(7.5, >= 7.5 ) km/second**, you can see that **this** **is** *basic* **energy-time uncertainty relation**. *Nothing more*. **Neutrinos are really not fairy tale**.

**Method**: **uncertainty** = **1.15 eV** *x* **10 nanosecond** *x* **3,00,000 km/second** *=* **7.5 km/second**, *minimum* you must, is **2.1 km/second ***corresponding* *to* **0.312 eV**, *so* **this does not** *rule out* **superluminal neutrinos**, you just need to be between **(0.312 – 1.15) eV** in the **OPERA** set-up. If you have a **10 MeV** *total* **error** **somewhere**, *you have* to **convince** the world, that, this is **NOT **affecting **neutrino mass** *more than* **1.15 eV**.

*My*** incorrect binomial factors had led to a 6% error** **on** *my* **earlier claim** *on* **minimum speed uncertainty**, *which was*** 1.98 km/second** but now (stands corrected at) **2.21 km/second.**