I quote a result of a paper from belle collaboration which was published in 2010/2011 where I am an author as I had worked in belle for an extended period of more than 5 years. Belle is a leading particle physics experiment and it has produced more physics results perhaps than most other particle physics experiments. Many of these results are remarkable and reports new physics in various sectors of particle physics and standard model. Belle has the largest amount of electron-positron collision in the world that studies mainly the B-mesons and CP violation often in friendly competition with it’s twin-experiment BaBar. BaBar has now met it’s nemesis. It also has a remarkable charm quark studies group competitive with the other leading experiment CLEO. In-fact my thesis was an important study in charm quark interactions. I “measured” an asymmetry for the first time in the world {but not published for the first time, but it is not an equal measurement to what has been published by CLEO}. It measures the “famous” K-short and K-long asymmetry which is a result of the interference in quantum mechanical amplitude in two different modes of their production from neutral charm meson, D-zero.

Belle reported a center of mass energy called E_beam = (5433.5 ± 0.5) MeV, in measuring a B_s meson decaying into neutral kaons pair, h, in 2011. I am an author in this paper: Upsilon(5S), also when for the first time Upsilon(5S) data were being taken at belle, on one occassion I was on the expert shift in the belle control room in B3. I am nomore an author in any belle papers coming, perhaps this was discontinued sometimes in 2010. These decisions are taken in belle institutional board meetings where I was never a member. As a junior member you are allowed to make good physics contribution but not take decisions that affect your career. These decisions are taken by people with grey hair, usually, not that it matters to my taste, but I did develop greay hair back in 2006.

It’s a state of the science experiment which measured 5.4 GeV with 500 KeV error on their electron and positron collision. There is another paper: a new charmonium state , this is a renowned paper published in 2003 that I cite below which has an error of 810 keV on the center of mass energy. A paper is renowned if it has been cited more than 500 times. I missed my chance by coincidence to sign another renowned paper as I was busy in travel for the experiment. But the one I had signed has become a renowned paper only recently {perhaps} as it’s citations increased over time.

The citation of “my most renowned” paper increased steadily over the years, 612 now.

The question is can OPERA measure their neutrinos better than this. If they do not measure better than ~18 KeV their result is merely an error not a result of excess speed. 3 months have passed since this anomaly was first reported, 100 papers have been published and thousands of blogs were written, wikipedia is full with luminaries names expressing scepticism, nobody took their pen and paper and showed why OPERA is wrong. Those who did painstaking analysis in those 100 papers or else where they did not find any successful clue as to why OPERA sees such an anomaly.

My analysis is showing they have to quote their energy errors and better than 18 KeV. Bad news for OPERA.

Note: Belle in the above analysis, Upsilon(5S) is making a 0.5/5433.5 = 92 ppm error on their energy (center of mass energy). Nature’s “verdict” for OPERA comes in terms of basic Quantum Mechanics: 1.22 ppm of energy causes an error of 25 ppm error on speed = 7.5 km/s above speed of light. {see above linked article} 1.22 ppm of 17 GeV is ~18 KeV. So OPERA has to show better energy precision than 18 KeV. If they had say 5.4 GeV energy instead they had to show better than ~6 KeV precision on energy. In other words having a higher energy only entails them to make a higher error but not prove nature wrong. It is this use of QM uncertainty priniciple I have followed above in my analysis which shows why OPERA could be potentially wrong. It is actually wrong if you note two facts,

1. If they were really careful about the method for claiming speed uncertainty they would have noticed the energy uncertainty and mentioned it in their paper. Two papers were published in 3 months, by them and now they are prepared to go to a high profile Journal after their initial submission to the respectable ArXiv, but they have not made any mention of any uncertainty on their energy, which means they have completely neglected this vital aspect that claims violation of fundamental physical laws.

2. If you check any uncertainties associated with particle physics measurements in the GeV range they make errors of much much larger value than what could make OPERA a comfortable victory against known physical laws. PDG often gives you the best values the scientific community has so far and I had cited several weeks ago, about 2 months ago, if I recall, that we make much larger errors than the 18 KeV in measuring B-mesons which are about 4 or 5 GeV themselves, that is also why we need 5.4 c.o.m. energy at belle. I cited two belle values in this article the lesser of which is 500 KeV which comes in 2010. In 2003 it was 810 KeV.

So you can see how experiments such as belle reduce the uncertainty with which they measure the elementary processes by significant values of energy over the years, as they continuously innovate on better methods of techniques. The 500 KeV is a 92 ppm of total energy of ~5.4 GeV which is the center-of-mass energy of electrons and positrons colliding in millions in number. You are uncertain about 92 parts of 5.4 GeV which is 500 KeV. 511 keV is the mass of the electron. So you are missing 1 electron in about 10600 electrons. (rounded twice, once the total energy, once the electron mass) You can safely say you are uncertain about 1 electron in 10000 electrons. which is ~100 electrons in 1 million electrons, roughly. You can do these calculations really accurately and quote so you can compare various experiments. But for our purposes let us compare what it means for the layman.

The population of Odisha is about 40 millions, so if you go on counting this you are making an error of 4000 people. That is a very respectable number if you have done everything correctly, given you keep the detail of each and every process in the villages and cities and forests and the fact that there are tribals and separtists living or hiding in the forests. You can never count people very precisely without making very accurate methods of how you are counting them first. In other words the governmental procedures in Odisha would very easily make errors of 100,000, very easily. It can run to 50 times that. There is just no scheme that does this.

According to Government of India census in 2001 {click on link} there were 51,352 (+295) villages in Odisha which is a increase of 295 from 1991. In 10 years the villages increased, think about what it means to what is happening to actual people count. You never make them stand in ques and count them. These are in terms of scientific precision what one would call “bogus” numbers. But they are done with mostly political purposes, so noone is very concerned about them except a few. may be people are concerned but they never make an effort to count them very precisely, that is employ scientific/precise statistical methods. When I say precise statistical method I don’t mean manipulation. I mean truely focussed and precise counting.

Then you have to count all the goats, cows, chickens and multisensual human beings and so on. people eat meat, the cows go for grazing and so on. So you have to have a dedicated organization that takes care of such counting and statisticazation and the resulting inference which only increases the livelihood parameters of the community. Well it is not done in India. But in the western world they have particle physics laboratories since 7 decades or so. So we have amassed amazing deal of knowledge regarding the physical world. I believe they also count their buffaloes and cows and perhaps they can count their microorganisms at a short notice, if they preserve their data. But it is the same western world of science which is claiming Flyby and Pioneer as anomalies and OPERA as anomaly. There are many instances where they slack bigtime. But sometimes I find it pleasurable that I can figure out why these are really not anomalies. What more do you expect from scientists who go without payroll because a sucker somewhere is ready to lie and another is ready to help a lier.

Now back to making sense of OPERA, a 1.22 ppm uncertainity on energy takes away the superluminal attribute of neutrinos from OPERA in the present situation of their quoted values. So this is 18 KeV on a 17 GeV energy. {There could be a little very small factor here or there, it’s a blog, not a publication}

A 1 ppm uncertainty on energy is a 25 ppm uncertainty on speed excess below or above speed of light per my calculations and analysis, which I have linked above. So if OPERA has an energy uncertainty in par with say what belle does in 2010/2011 OPERA’s quote on their speed excess is merely within an uncertainity which is far more than their mean of 7.5 km/s. That is, if we say OPERA has atleast a 500 KeV = 0.5 MeV = 0.005 GeV = 29.4 ppm of OPERA energy = ~ 1 electron in number, its speed excess will be say 25 times this. {Not exactly, I haven’t done this check, one can use the speed uncertainty on speed related to compton wavelength of neutrino I have given to see the actual speed excess } So OPERA’s excess has to be 29×25 ppm speed excess uncertainty on a 25 ppm = 7.5 km/s speed excess result.

In short OPERA, if it makes an energy uncertainty around 500 KeV, they must say they are observing a speed excess given by (7.5 +/- 217.5 ) km/s which becomes a (7.5 +/- 7.5 ) km/s at an energy uncertainty of 18 KeV. It is the neutrino mass of 2 eV which is probably doing some trick. If they have a kinematical neutrino mass which is actually much different from 2 eV it shows up differently in different parameters such as their kinematical mass/momentum/energy etc. If they are measuring neutrino mass (2 +/- 18000) eV they would see no excess as per Physics theory of present day. If they can measure this to say (2 +/- 1800) eV they have made a fierce blow to Physics. If they make a 500 KeV error it means they have a kinematical neutrino which is (2 +/- 500000) eV which is why they should not have claimed a superluminal neutrino.

The onus lies on OPERA to show the world that they have any kind of energy uncertainty less than 18 KeV, not just on neutrino mass. You can now see where OPERA was actually not doing their good research.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s