Talk:2011 OPERA faster-than-light neutrino anomaly

Template:Hidden infoboxes

ICARUS

Now this seems to be the end (although some concluding measurements will be made in may:

• http://www.nature.com/news/neutrinos-not-faster-than-light-1.10249
• arXiv:1203.3433

It this is true, then around 50% of the article is superfluous (especially the theoretical sections). --D.H (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should keep that section as a historical archive. Yes, I do agree this seems to be the end, though I think we should wait until May to formally change the very first line of the article. Ajoykt (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The refutation by ICARUS is a very strong one. It is not just two experiments - ICARUS and OPERA - giving conflicting results and our believing ICARUS because it gives the expected answer. For OPERA to be wrong, just an experimental error that overestimates neutrino velocity systematically is enough. For ICARUS to be wrong, we need both an experimental error that underestimates neutrino velocity systematically, and that the error be of the exact same magnitude required to bring the (v - c) down to 0. Just experimental error is not enough, the error should exactly wash out the superluminal effect. That is too high a bar. The preference for the ICARUS result flows from just logic alone, not from a previous bias toward a specific result. And they measured the same set of neutrinos OPERA did - at least half being muons generated in the rocks by neutrinos (external events). So differences in energy, what kinds of neutrinos the detectors detect and so on do not matter. I think the case is truly closed. I have no idea why Autiero doesn't concede. I wish the results had been otherwise, but, oh well. Nice working with you all, especially D.H., Anders, Strebe and JR Spriggs. Ajoykt (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree the OPERA results look unsupportable. Thanks for all the good work, Ajoykt. I wish I could have kept up better, but your pace was just too fast! Strebe (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Most Liked Comments to The Zee-News Faster-than-light-speed of neutrinos; published on 14th October 2011

Most liked Comments Hasmukh K. Tank - Ahmedabad In my opinion, there is a difference between `wave` and `particle` of photons and all other particles including neutrino. Waves travel at a given speed in a given medium. whereas `particle` is a bundle of a very wide band of waves. This wideband of waves, when get added constructively, gives rise to a `particle`. So we generally find `particles` travelling at `group-velocity` and `waves` travelling at their speed in a given medium. If neutrinos are really travelling at a speed faster than light, then they may be the constructive-superimpositions of waves traveling at the `phase-velocity`.That is, constructive-superimposition of a bundel of waves all travelling at `phase-velocity`.

Jim Burrill - California The OPERA results and Einstein`s relativity can both be correct as long as the definition of ``c`` is re-evaluated. When light travels through air or water it travels slower than ``c``. So to measure ``c``, the speed of light was measured ``in a vacuum``. Why, until now, hasn`t anyone said ``Wait a minute, according to quantum mechanics, there`s no such thing as a vacuum, so that measurement must really be slower than `c```? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.200.77 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Connector problem again

It seems that they have confirmed the existence of the connector problem. In a LNGS seminar on March 28, which was reported by INFN president Ferroni (see here, they compared some "values" and "numbers" of cosmic muon neutrinos between 2007 and 2008-2011, and found a discrepancy that fits with the OPERA anomaly, and which is caused by the connector. So they are "moving forward with great strides toward confirming that there was a mistake". --D.H (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are the details

• OPERA’s Timing Issue Confirmed? Yes!
• LNGS workshop

So now it's confirmed. --D.H (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

None of these sources explain how an incorrect fiber optic connection can result in a 60 ns delay. That is orders of magnitude too large for a connection alignment issue and orders of magnitude too small for data retransmission necessitated by a poor signal. The explanation that part of the signal was removed makes no sense, and the only possible interpretations of such an issue would result in a mean zero error.[1] None of the statements that the problem was due to a cable connection have been peer reviewed. Therefore, this conjecture should be removed from the article. GPS signal reflection at one or more of the receiver sites is far more likely. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Update: I am now completely satisfied with the explanation that the fiber optic cable was incompletely screwed in, because a multiple photodiode receiver designed to ignore spurious signals caused by dispersion over much longer distances than were actually used for this particular single mode fiber cable could in fact delay the signal in the neighborhood of 60 ns simply because its intensity was weakened by a connection gap. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Resignation

Now both OPERA team leaders resigned (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/03/leaders-of-faster-than-light-exp.html). --D.H (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrino 'faster than light' scientist resigns. BBC, 30 March 2012. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Exact problem identified, beyond a doubt, with graph and photos

Please see http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/neutrinos/neutrinos-faster-than-light/opera-what-went-wrong and in particular this graph and these photographs. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Keeping the speculative papers giving explanations for a fictitious phenomenon

Since the team members have resigned, users D.H. and Strebe have removed quite a large amount of very well sourced content ([2]).

I think that this content should be kept in the article, as it clearly shows how the scientific community reacted to the experiment, so i.m.o. the content remains relevant to the article. While some of these publications and (now probably moot) explanations might be embarrassing for some authors, I don't think it is up to us to decide that. I actually think that the decision to remove all this, could be interpreted as a (mild) form of original research. I propose we keep all of this in the article. Any seconds? - DVdm (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We can hardly trust NewsSources when it is about the evaluation of scientific results (note this was already problematic before February). I think we should wait for a peer reviewed research article, that actually analyzes all of those explanations. I'm pretty sure that many of those analyses will be published soon. --D.H (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The article describes the flurry of publishing activity following the OPERA announcement. Wikipedia articles aren’t accretions of everything connected to the topic; they’re supposed to be tuned for relevance. The content of the article has changed considerably now that the FTL interpretation has no credible defenders, just as it should, because the presence or absence of credible defenders determines the credibility of the topic and the credibility and relevance of the topic’s constituent parts. Therefore, for example, verbiage assuming the topic is a credible phenomenon is no longer appropriate and has been elided or reworked. People can find the papers if they look for them. Meanwhile Wikipedia recommends against exhaustive lists of references and external links. Papers which explain the non-existing phenomenon are suddenly much less relevant to people who want to know about the topic. It has nothing to do with who might get embarrassed. What are you proposing is WP:OR? Thanks. Strebe (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand both your points. The removed body of moot papers is indeed less relevant for (alleged) Faster-than-light neutrinos. But this article is not about Faster-than-light neutrinos. It is about a specific Faster-than-light neutrinos anomaly OPERA experiment", so, as attempts at explaining the result of the experiment, these papers are i.m.o. still relevant for what happened as a result of the experiment. Perhaps they can be collected in a section about these attempts. Or perhaps the article title could be changed to reflect the fact that there was no anomaly to begin with. I know, this is a subtle point. Forget about my "mildly-OR-remark", that was even subtler :-) - DVdm (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

When I think about the typical person—even a sophisticated layperson—coming into this article wanting to know about the experiment, I can’t imagine they’re going reference original papers written to rationalize the results of the experiment. Many would be interested in analysis of all such papers, or summaries of the directions the papers went, but not the papers themselves. In other words, secondary sources. There aren’t any (yet), but presumably there will be, and when they come, I would support folding in information from them. Again, the article isn’t supposed to be an exhaustive catalog of everything connected to the topic. I’m not vehemently opposed; I just don’t see who the constituents would be. Meanwhile the article is already long and contains lots of references. Strebe (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. Good point. - DVdm (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I think maybe the title should be changed, such as by replacing the word "anomaly" with "mismeasurement" or removing "faster-than-light" or both. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Should the oscillator error be mentioned in the introduction?

Regarding this edit, is it a good idea to mention the ~10 ns oscillator error, which made the neutrinos seem slower than otherwise, in the article's introduction? There are many sources of error and noise of almost the same magnitude listed in OPERA's reports. I think we should focus the introduction on the one mistake which caused the unexpected results, and leave mention of all other sources of error to the body of the article.

Also, should someone upload the photographs of the fiber optic connection and the associated timing graph? 71.215.74.243 (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason that both these two errors are especially worthy of mention is that they were not accounted for in the original error analysis. As unknown-unknowns rather than known-unknowns (see Known and Unknown: A Memoir#Background), they could and did push the total error outside its expected range. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can figure out how to improve the phrasing such that it is less confusing for those who read only the introduction. I'm not convinced that a previously unknown error which did not lead to the unexpected results is very important now that it is a known known. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I like your point, though I’m not sure I agree with it for the same reasons JRSpriggs notes. But more importantly, the sources always mention both errors, so we are obliged to as well without adding our own interpretation about why one might not be relevant. Strebe (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried to clarify it by expanding the text without removing mention of the oscillator error. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well now we have 70 – 10 = 57, which seems pretty confusing. Plus there is a lot more text. Was there something wrong with how it was? Strebe (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was very confusing before. I hope most readers understand that "about 70" means that there is only one significant digit on that figure. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain what was very confusing before? And I predict you’ll get an IP edit any time now correcting the arithmetic. Strebe (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"the sum of two opposing errors but dominated by the one reducing measured time-of-flight" was confusing because errors are not often described as dominating each other, for starters. The new wording doesn't leave people resolving multiple pronoun antecedents, either. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Rename?

How do people feel about Neutrino anomaly (OPERA experiment) or Faster-than-light neutrino mismeasurement (OPERA experiment)? 71.215.74.243 (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I opposed the change to the current name, and I don’t see why it needs to get changed again, either. What problem does it solve? Strebe (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The neutrinos themselves were not faster-than-light, but the measurement was wrong. There was no "faster-than-light anomaly" involved. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The title does not mean there were neutrinos that traveled faster than light. The results of the experiment were anomalous, and the anomaly could have been caused by anything. The anomaly turns out to be an incorrect measurement. One of the reasons this article title was chosen was because it would hold up regardless of how events played out. Strebe (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, you and I and probably everyone here on the talk page knows that. But don't you think the title should not imply that there were neutrinos which traveled faster than light? 71.215.74.243 (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)