The new glitch in OPERA. Reply

This correspondence is from more than one and half years ago that communicates:

Why, when more than two years ago a particle physics experiment by the name OPERA startled the world of Physics by saying Theory of Relativity of Einstein was found to be invalidated by their findings which they took rather several months and 300 papers to not see reason, then they came up with a reason “a cable was off“. While that eye-washes all of us, the crux-of-the-matter was a lack of caution with basic physics, as basic as an undergraduate student of Physics can check to see. Prestigious by any definition but a holocaust of science by the name of ArXiv Preprint, Luminaries such as Nobel Laureate Sheldon Glashow and crazy hypothesis giver Van Elburg they all were published to the level of 300 papers but could not give us the Physics that was befittingly required to explain this puzzle. A mere application of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle with the hind sight that experiments like OPERA would easily give few MeVs of errors on their everyday measurement of energy of neutrino and photons is sufficient to wash off the observed (which again found to be not observed because off a cable being disconnected) speed-excess of 7.5 km / second.

New Glitch in OPERA experiment that is against the spirit of Faster-Than-Light or super-luminal neutrinos. LINKed BELOW at bottom.

Manmohan Dash writes as a rejoinder to a link provided by Dev, a fellow particle physicist. 

Deb:

OPERA is wrong without this glitch as well. I have pinpointed this in many of my articles and one paper-communication **. They have misinterpreted their result without much caution.

** UPDATED (– 19-11-2013), not in the original correspondence ;

My papers were twice rejected by ArXiv (– and never published but I will review them again when I am onto the OPERA analysis again), ArXiv merely serves as the holocaust of science. Basically they allowed such nonsense and dangerous nonsense at that as that of a Physicist by the name Van Elburg who didn’t know how to add velocities, let alone relativistic paradigm of adding velocities, and they allowed even luminaries like Sheldon Glashow whose analysis of OPERA anomaly analysis reminded me that the basic level at which Particle Physics can only be done given that the concepts have to be precise without which you are perhaps mowing your grass and not doing Particle Physics, is simply oblivious to these giants and anyone who reviews their papers and publishes such in journals of high repute such as PRL.

 And add to that the hideous agenda to publish as many papers as would keep the Publication and Journals make large deal of money but no sensitivity towards science, would keep them awake at night.  Glashow predicted an uncertainty given to the experimental parameters at OPERA that would only mean several GeVs of uncertainty on energy if one is to make the claims consistent with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Such was shown by my off-the-mail-back computations and uploaded two years ago. I will lay my hands on them again so matter becomes clear even if after 2 years. Thats part of the agenda of my website: if a mistake has been committed by my research and I or anyone credible enough finds it, it shall be corrected. If I find a mistake in scientific investigation in a field that concerns me and I am capable enough to figure it out howsoever long it takes, given to I exist, I will show it to the world.  **

(Part of original correspondence begins)

I had said they are potentially wrong even before they had their paper up on archive. Basically I was the first, in a few days of that paper’s submission, when I had suggested that Uncertainty Principle will suggest the answer to this anomaly and it does.

Actually I have updated only on a few websites including face-book, where now you have left, there is not a point I have tried to leave to prove they are wrong. eg I was the first one to analyze GPS-clocks from standpoints of General Relativity and many other aspects which are all pretty well documented on my web-journal: (THIS website).

Here is what I had remarked on reading this science-mag article ( — forwarded on face-book by couple guys).

Whether or not there was a glitch in OPERA’s experiment from a cable that explains (Really?) the 60 nano-seconds early arrival, what explains the team’s interpretation of this anti-establishment outpourings?

( UPDATE, 19.11.2013 — Establishment here refers to the standing of Theory of Relativity in making speed-of-light as 2.99 x 1,00,000 kms/second, therefore they have attacked speed-of-light hypothesis and a cable glitch doesn’t take away their claim, as their claim was made on the basis of Physics in their paper, the glitch only deletes one data point, that the late arrival was a dubious data-point, but no-one knew of such a glitch at the time of their claim, more-so those who claimed the “imminent” failure of Einstein’s Theory.)

I mean 3 hours of basic Physics could have suggested pretty easily that 3 years worth of data taking is merely consistent with establishment, the order of the Goliath. They (simply) did not interpret their results correctly and that is the crux of the matter.

I have a punctured tyre, but what makes me think that I can drive 733 kms with it. I didn’t know I had a punctured tyre. But then its still punctured and it can not take you afar. Unless you ( — metaphoric you, read also as we) assume that puncture tyre are as good as good ones and they can take you thousands of kms.

What made them think they can refute Theory of Relativity so soon, especially since all their results have built upon it. They reconstructed the neutrinos by that theory. Mind it. Now they conveniently espoused and spiced up the Faster-Than-Light hypothesis and Journals were just queuing up to pour in 100s of papers. And then there is still talk as recent as of today, in the international media, that repetition of experiments will establish the facts. What a wastage of resources !! And what a sorry day for science !! Because everything is clear from basic science in this case Relativity Special and General ( — if you/we want to consider GPS system, which is again unwarranted) and in this case Quantum Mechanics Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg.

Deb; when we talked a month or two ago, when you had called, I had given you the ideas I was testing then, namely Van Elburg’s fallacy raised by me (and found to be correct) and GPS system fallacy raised by some (found to be without a a basis, GPS is very accurate). Because GPS system works wonders. What did not was OPERA’s methods.

I had hinted upon this even 2 or 3 months ago by the time I was sure that they (OPERA) are most likely wrong (I usually say incorrect as wrong is kind of a moral dictum as opposed to a methodical one that is called upon when we do science). In science we could not immediately reject without testing the various aspects. I had back then argued that mm level accuracy is anyway achievable and achieved by many systems, not just OPERA.

Many articles were written by me to address each and every aspects of the experimental anomaly. They (OPERA) did not focus on the implication of basic knowledge of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity neither did any theoretician did. Everyone was trying to occupy some prime space in world media.

What a sordid state of affair regarding science. Everyday someone or someone else is trying to prove his machismo. 

-Manmohan

Here is excerpts from the article that Dev linked to inform me of the new glitch found by the OPERA experiment.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:21 AM,

Debabrata Mohapatra <dmohapat@gmail.com>  wrote:

BREAKING NEWS: Error Undoes Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Results

“According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos’ flight and an electronic card in a computer. After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed. Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos. New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis. “

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 )

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