OPERA Anomaly

Bad news for OPERA.

By on • ( 2 )

Confirm, after I fixed some error-analysis ( — binomial coefficient and error analysis) and fixed the speed-of-light-unit calculations I see that OPERA-experiment does not even need to look beyond what error they might have done. ~1 part per billion of eV (ppb) error on their neutrino-mass equivalent to ~274 ppm of 1 eV error on their neutrino momentum equivalent to ~1 KeV error on their neutrino-energy is sufficient to produce an error on their neutrino speed to the extent of > 8.23 km/second, which already washes away the 7.5 kms/second, I will give you more details later.

1 KeV on 17 GeV thats a ~10^(-5) precision. I doubt it.

The brilliance of number, the precision is in the order of 10^(-5) which is what beta is for speeds at 5.1 km/s order.

Its a precision of energy at a fixed time precision that decides the speed excess is a result or an uncertainty? The minimum-minimum error on QM says OPERA result is an uncertainty unless they show us that they have say equal to less than 0.5 or 0.2 KeV error on their neutrino energy. Thats just an ideal, one might have to show much better precision on neutrino energy in a complicated scenario.

The relation between 3 anomalies of OPERA, FLYBY and Pioneer.

By on • ( 0 )

The very nature of earth-based gravitational effects is, at-least a fallout in the order of mm/second and application of Quantum Mechanics in case of OPERA apparatus brings out this inherent truth clearly.

One would see at minimum a (+ or -) mm/second order excess beyond speed-of-light = 1, no matter what. On the other hand flyby “anomaly” (which is rather a puzzle) is consistent with basic Relativity without need of Quantum Mechanics. The OPERA “anomaly” (which is basically a puzzle created out of carelessness) is based on an observation or more correctly a “misinterpretation” of 7.5 km/second but using Quantum Mechanics one sees that one should only observe ~5 mm/second given we have a fixed uncertainty on time-measurement to 1 nano-second level.

I claim that, OPERA has lost; it’s claim of superluminal neutrino.

By on • ( 2 )

My finding was thus, as you see in the equation described in the above analysis (image), if OPERA finds it’s neutrino with energy-error in the order of 1 eV such that its time-error is in the order of 1 nanosecond it will see speed excess (or anomaly) in the order of 7.5 km/second consistent with theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics taken together.

In other words OPERA-experiment must fit energy-time uncertainty relation del(E).del(T) = a.h-cross and if it gets a = 0.75 eV-nanosecond, it’s claim of superluminal neutrinos vanish ideally. For a 1 nanosecond time accuracy this means 0.75 eV energy accuracy. All they need to do is see if they have this accuracy in energy, in their experimental detector.

And new INSIGHTS (26.11.2013)

And whats use of saying additional constraint? Theory of Relativity or Einstein’s work centers about whats called the equivalence principle. Here is what its all about. When a contribution to variable A comes from B, C, D, E …, F and so on, we say A is equivalent to all those variables. But it would be mathematically inconsistent to replace the equivalence with a sign of equality. Because only a part of eg B comes into A and we need to know what part, exactly. Or else we would be mathematically inconsistent and therefore Physics: Laws of nature will be wrong or rather incorrect.

The laws of nature or laws of Physics are nothing but a mathematical statement of the constraints on a Physical system. So once we know what exact part of A is contributed by say B, we say (this part of ) A comes exclusively from B. So its only partly A that comes exclusively from B and that part is equal to B with addition of Physics Unit-and-Dimension scheme.

Similarly A is contributed exclusively by C, D and so on. If you add Quantum Mechanics here that would mean there has to be a finite or infinite set of variable that only contribute to the variable A. So whats equivalent is a Physical Attribute that a particular variable contributes to another. But whats equal is a mathematical constraint or equation and when its available for a Physical System we say its a Law of Nature.

OPERA anomaly might be out for good.

By on • ( 0 )

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.