OPERA anomaly analysis

In this paper we bring out a remarkable consistency of theory of Relativity in explaining the anomalous excess of speed of neutrinos observed in the recent baseline experiment of OPERA. The OPERA experiment is performed by shooting neutrinos produced from protons at SPS, CERN to the laboratory at Gran-Sasso where OPERA has placed its neutrino brick detectors. We believe that we have found the reason why this result was misinterpreted to claim superluminal neutrinos..

3 anomalies in 3 weeks.

This article tries to put on record exactly why OPERA neutrino anomaly, FLYBY of Galileo anomaly and PIONEER anomalies are not at-all anomalies, based upon my research from late 2011. On 25.11.2013 I sat for couple hours and reviewed the article written from 2011 and added contents. Since I am reading after couple of years I reminded myself exactly why these are not anomalies: and here is why. 

Anomaly from OPERA experiment involving neutrino base line:
The mass of elementary particles is equivalent to a proper-time and in another way to the Compton-wavelength. Compton wavelength is defined as $latex \lambda_{Compton} = \frac{h}{mc}&bg=ffcccc&fg=cc00ff&s=1$ where c is the speed-of-light in appropriate units, m is the mass of a given particle, note that h is the Planck’s constant, not the reduced Planck’s constant, usually found in quantum mechanical treatments.

So in case of the OPERA experiment, the neutrino howsoever it challenged the physical validity of the sanctity of proper-time of photon — that proper time of photon is always zero and minimum among all elementary particles, because its a tiny little smurf with hardly any-mass, it could not run faster, because it has mass.

Again the energy uncertainties of the experimental detector would equivalently add mass to the neutrino, a fact completely over-looked by OPERA experiment collaboration.

Photon proper-time is defined to be least, because its mass is zero, hence neutrino must always take more time than photon, for traversing the same distance, but OPERA claimed otherwise. All in all Relativity + Quantum Mechanics restores the anomaly to its nemesis. 

Anomaly from FLYBY of Galileo and PIONEER satellites:
For an explanation of the anomalies while equivalence or relativity of mass, momentum, energy, wavelength etc are not needed here, whats simply needed is mass. This mass is a Newtonian concept but rather refined by Einstein’s theory known as Theory of Relativity which branches into two aspects 1. special theory and 2. general theory.

OPERA anomaly might be out for good.

Quantum mechanics is such a powerful tool it makes all powers fools. You do not have to measure the distance of the CERN – Gran Sasso distance to mm accuracy. This is already measured and inherent in the data-analysis of OPERA. Being an experimental particle physicist I know exactly where.

It is inherent in the 4-vectors they add when they reconstruct these neutrinos from protons and muons or whatever. I know why MINOS didn’t see superluminal neutrinos but OPERA did. MINOS depended on their 4-vectors to set the neutrino mass, which gave them a staggering staggering error of 50 million eVs.

OPERA said we go by the PDG 2 eV upper limit. So they reduced the energy uncertainty on neutrino mass to zero. If they factor in the other energy uncertainty and it turns out that this error is actually smaller than ~0.01 eV, they have found something that will become a PIA for scientists for a good deal of time.

If they make errors larger than this, say even 0.1 eV which still makes the neutrino mass of 2 eV correct but not the inherent kinematic neutrino mass below this level. In this later case we have solved the OPERA neutrino paradox.

My last article gives the mathematical formula that I worked out just this evening which can test OPERA anomaly for it’s worth. Have a good day. Just give me the energy error you have in your neutrino mass or any where. Need be less than 0.01 eV if you still think OPERA is correct. I doubt it.

The energy loss of OPERA neutrino, aberration, rest the anomaly.

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.