OPERA sees 7.5 km/s fallout which goes above photon-speed. This will be consistent with Relativity if they incurred a larger error on their energy while at the same time keeping their time uncertainty between 1 to 10 nanosecs. SO they need to show us their energy distribution with uncertainties …
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.
A highly technical article on why motion blur occurs. Its a quantum mechanical stationary state. Whats a stationary state? A stationary state is just a snapshot of a time. But according to Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation of time vs energy (a daunting conundrum, because of time) when time is sharply measured, energy cycles are incompletely observed. Thats what we see in blurred images.
The energy cycle is not yet complete. which is to say, the error in energy is more and more when time is sharply measured equaling to instants. This is the case, because we are using high profile modern camera where shutter speeds can be so sharp they render the energy cycles incomplete. That is they take those instants when the position of any point is no more point but spread like a wave. The points (or sharp images) appear very blurred, or stretched out.
A matter of Relativistic Quantum Mechanics resolved, in my mind; why does one see a blurry, smeared picture, e.g. if one moves one’s hand, a little, while taking a picture, a digital camera, gives a fuzzy thing in motion.
— It follows from the energy-time uncertainty relation, which corresponds to two forms, in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, (R.Q.M.)
First off, what is R.Q.M.; Relativistic Quantum Mechanics pertains to extremely fast moving quantum-objects.
A quantum-object is a really small particle, usually an elementary particle such as an electron or even the atom. The more massive the quantum becomes, the lesser maximum speed such objects can move at, due to energy of motion converting into more and more mass, at higher and higher speed.
So, even though, technically, a molecule can be a quantum object, it can not move as fast as the electron, if enough energy can be imparted, to such an object.
For particles that are this small, speed is usually measurable in terms of the speed of light in vacuum, as these tiny objects attain speeds, that can quite match, that of light itself, sometimes both speeds being refereed to in vacuum.
When speed of these tiny objects, is even a bare 10%, of the speed of light in vacuum, these objects deviate, from the behavior, they would other wise show in the classical realm. In the former situation of really slow particles, the speeds add up as if they are additive in a normal way, but when the speeds become even as significant, as a mere 10%, compared to speed of light, the simple additive nature is lost, the speeds rather add up in more sophisticated way, given by something called as the Einstein’s velocity addition formula.