Talk:2011 OPERA faster-than-light neutrino anomaly/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about 2011 OPERA faster-than-light neutrino anomaly. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

A paper written by Russ Blake contains a credible and verifiable explanation for the OPERA result. See here:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/45399874/201201012300%20Underground%20neutrino%20transit%20time.pdf

However, efforts to get this paper published have so far been unsuccessful, see here:

http://www.votewrap.com/index.php?title=Spring_Theory#.27Underground_neutrino_transit_time.27_paper_rejected_for_publication

To aid publication of the paper we have been waiting for the results to be replicated by MINOS, T2K and who ever else may see fit to do so. Now that there has been an unverified explanation released into the public domain that is being presented as probably being true it may unfortunately result in the experiment not being replicated. So we feel that if Russ Blake's paper is now added to the debate around this result via this page then it may help to provide support to the argument that the experiment should be replicated.

Below is the abstract of the paper:

"The measurement of the transit time of a beam of neutrinos from CERN in Geneva, Switzerland to the Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy has recently been repeated. The new measurements confirm the neutrinos arrive (57.8 ± 7.8) ns faster than expected if the neutrinos had been traveling at the speed of light. This has brought into question whether the observation of Special Relativity that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is warranted. We show that it is indeed possible for the neutrinos to arrive early at Gran Sasso and not contradict Special Relativity. The crucial observation is that although nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, the ground under the mountain from Geneva to Gran Sasso is not a vacuum. Extending our previous model of particle creation we show that a little time is gained for each large nucleus through which the neutrino passes. The sum of these gains accounts for the observed reduction in transit time. The model predicts that should the matter be denser or the path longer, even more time will be gained."

I note that the absence of Cherenkov radiation has been addressed in Russ's paper, see below:

"In an analysis of the same data used in the OPERA experiment, Ferrari et. al. contend that the absence of Cherenkov radiation from the observed neutrinos refutes the notion that they may be traveling faster than light [3]. This argument derives from theoretical attributes of neutrinos traveling faster than light in a vacuum. Since we contend this is not precisely the case here, we believe this argument is not a refutation of the observed phenomenon."

And, for more information about QST and links to the two published papers see here:

http://www.votewrap.com/index.php?title=Spring_Theory

We look forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorlp (talk • contribs) 14:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We report on issues; we don't try to set the scientific agenda following our biases (I, for one, am biased to considering the results real, but that doesn't matter). Also, other experiments are still going to try to replicate OPERA. Ajoykt (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ajoykt, You say that you report on issues, well I put to you that this is an 'issue' in the form of a body of work that is proposing a solution to the observed results. It is just as real as the observed result from OPERA. I also submit to you that your statement that you do not set the 'scientific agenda' is rather broad. What is your criteria for an issue to be deemed as setting the scientific agenda? Also, this is your position. Are you the final arbiter as to whether this proposal is accepted or rejected? I would assume not as there are other people who are active on this page. What is this groups procedural rules to reach a consensus on a matter such as this? And what is deemed to be a quorum for that consensus? Yes, other experiments are going on that is a statement of fact. It is also a real possibility that the reporting that is biased towards the result being an error could have a political impact on the allocation of funding for these experiments and as a result cause them to not proceed.Thor Prohaska 02:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorlp (talk • contribs)

There are many hypotheses regarding the cause of the observed effect, even assuming it is real rather than an error in the experiment or the data reduction. We cannot cover them all, so why is your hypothesis more worthy of inclusion than others which have received peer review? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

By not covering any of the hypotheses you are taking one side of the argument and in effect saying that it is not even worth considering any of the explanations. Now just for arguments sake we did add these explanations then the number could be culled substantially as most of them do not offer a credible explanation. Let alone make any testable predictions. In early January Russ Blake reviewed the abstracts of the 118 articles published at that time on arxiv.org that attempted to explain the anomaly and found about a dozen articles that may lend theoretical support to the QST explanation. Most of these allow that some unspecified local effect of passing the beam through matter might explain the observations. These were pretty theoretical conclusions and they made no quantitative support for the observations, unlike Russ’s proposed mechanism which support the observations to the nanosecond. The other 100+ articles lacked any sort of consistent focus. Some are now irrelevant since the repeated experiment in November, which was done to respond to a few early criticisms in these articles. Others use some fairly obscure mathematical modelling to derive an explanation; these models had been derived to explain some earlier data or theoretical conjecture; they have been extended in an attempt to explain the anomaly. These models may be perfectly valid. However, they are hard to test. None of them result in a quantitative support of the actual 60 ns observation of the OPERA experiment. In contrast Russ’s simple calculations show exactly how the matter under the mountain results in exactly the observed time gain. This match of his theory to the observation is hard to dismiss. A few of the papers suggest experiments to verify their hypotheses. No one seems to predict as Russ does that the neutrinos will go faster if they go farther through the matter, although the idea that the type of matter could affect the result was mentioned in two articles. I understand that there are now more papers on this subject. However I suspect that none of the have a precise prediction. We would need to do a further assessment of the papers to determine if any offer a precise explanation with a testable prediction. So I think that an inline summary of the types of explanations offered to the anomaly could be a part of this page with links to the papers that offered a credible explanation. However, if you take the position stated below that you would only include published work then you would be voting no anyway to the inclusion of Russ's paper. So the proposition that there should be some form of reference to the explanations of the anomaly I still see as an open issue for this page. I for one will be voting for their inclusion Thor Prohaska 10:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

“So we feel that if Russ Blake's paper is now added to the debate around this result via this page then it may help to provide support to the argument that the experiment should be replicated.” This is a fallacious and misguided hope. Wikipedia is not a source of critique. No one in a position of peer review or editorial judgment would be swayed by what a Wikipedia article says—and if they were, they would be incompetent. Because there are so many unpublished papers on the topic of this article and so much attendant speculation, we who have been editing this article long ago rejected unpublished sources. We can’t be in a position of picking and choosing amongst such papers. Strebe (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Strebe, No I do not agree that it is a 'fallacious and misguided hope' because Wikipedia is increasingly being used by serious academics and professionals as a source. Information itself is neutral and it is up to the competency of the user of that information to determine its accuracy, usefulness and relevance. If a person is peer reviewing or editorialising then it is quite valid for them to assess any related information that they encounter in the process. I agree with you that if they were swayed by the information alone without verifying and validating its accuracy, usefulness and relevance then they would be incompetent. But to assess information on evidence and merit is a competent approach and a core part of the scientific process.

I believe I understand why you chose to handle the overload of 'so many unpublished papers on the topic of this article' by rejecting unpublished sources. However, by doing this you are also rejecting what may very well be of direct relevance to the issue. This is especially true when many of the papers associated with this issue, now including the OPERA paper itself, are yet to be peer reviewed. So until this issue becomes more certain I argue that there is a place to pick what does seem relevant even if it is not peer reviewed. As the process of verification and validation proceeds the elements that aren't appropriate will be revealed and vice versa. Thor Prohaska 14:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorlp (talk • contribs)

An editor or peer who uses Wikipedia as anything more than a shortcut to find something is guilty of malfeasance. More generally, your comments in this section amount to a proposal that the editors of this article should judge the scientific merits of the unpublished work in order to favor its inclusion here. As explained several times, we don’t do that. We are not in a position to do that. We are in a position to report what people who are in a position to do that have said. That is all.Strebe (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The policy that only published papers are cited in articles is understandable. We will resubmit our suggestion to include this paper when it has been accepted for publication. In any case it appears that the publication of this or any other paper on this topic must now be held until the original research is once again verified (see next comment.) No point in trying to explain something that did not occur. Thanks for your time. --Russ Blake-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerfWise (talk • contribs) 06:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

In a German interview, OPERA-member Caren Hagner says about the paper submitted to JHEP (my translation):

We are going to withdraw the paper now. We need to make everything new. (Diese Arbeit werden wir nun zurückziehen. Wir müssen alles neu machen. http://science.orf.at/stories/1694983/) --D.H (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In an extensive interview, Hagner (head of the German part of the OPERA research group) provided some details on both errors. She says that the cable error, which depends on the way the cable is screwed, possibly amounts up to 100ns, while the oscillator error (without numbers) goes in the other direction. Together, both effects might explain the 60ns early arrival. However, it's still not proven, because the state of the cable connection and the oscillator during the experiments last year is unknown. So, much data must be analyzed in the next weeks and the new neutrino beam in May must also be used. --D.H (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

DH, per WP:NOENG can you please provide a rough translation in the footnotes for this reference? Also, Ereditato says the cable error could be up to 60 ns (probably both are kind of right - I doubt a loose cable's effect can be that precisely measured). Where there is conflict I think the order has to be Autiero/Ereditato/team leaders (Hagner)/other OPERA members (Luca), based on their formal titles. Ajoykt (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There is an inofficial translation in the first comment to (http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/02/24/finally-an-opera-plot-that-makes-some-sense/). --D.H (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Tommaso Dorigo: "No, apparently the issue is the connector being in a undefined state during data-taking, causing the software a fixed delay before accepting a signal." http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/opera_result_affected_instrumental_error-87192 Deep in the comments section. We can't quote him in the article, but nobody seems to have the details of the problem.

So two things we know for sure: it depends on the way the cable was screwed in (Hagner), and on the signal level (both NYT and Hagner). --D.H (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hagner avoids the question of whether the cable was screwed in right. What made them check it in the first place? Did it look loose? Or was it they went hunting for possible equipment problems (bad connections, broken fibers and so on) which could explain the 60 ns difference, and pulled out and inspected everything they could? Fiber optic cables typically "snap" into place (unless the flap at the end is broken, in which case you won't hear a snap sound). The characterization as a "crooked" plug isn't right (could be a translation thing, I guess). Fiber optic connectors either fit snugly or are loose. I think the core thing missing in these is whether the connector was loose or not when they first checked it after Sep 22. On a scale of yes/no/likely-yes/likely-no/we-don't-know, it seems the general perception from how statements have been worded is "likely-yes." I am not clear why; the statements all dance around the issue. Makes our description too quite vague, despite all the sources. Ajoykt (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so they did push and pull at things until they managed to pry something loose enough to explain the anomaly. This is hardly credible as an error explaining the 60 ns discrepancy. From "Science" (Cartlidge's latest):

The investigators [a small group of OPERA people] discovered that the pulses' transit time varied by several tens of nanoseconds depending on how tightly the coaxial fiber cable was plugged into a socket attached to a card inside the experiment's master-clock computer. The card converts the light pulses into electronic signals. Any loose connection was supposed to stop the pulses from being registered, but instead it appears that the card allowed the delayed pulses to get through. So a loose connection during the experiment would have stamped neutrino pulses with arrival times suggesting faster-than-light travel. Although researchers can't be sure the cable was loose during the experiment, the size of the delays involved is highly suggestive.

The travel times of pulses along the fiber had been measured in 2008 by collaboration member Dario Autiero of the University of Lyon in France. A source familiar with the experiment says some researchers thought the measurement should have been rechecked before the neutrino velocity results were submitted to a journal in November, but OPERA's scientific management resisted carrying out such a check. (Autiero and collaboration spokesman Antonio Ereditato of the University of Bern in Switzerland were unavailable for comment before this story went to press.)

In December, the researchers finally got the go-ahead to test the fiber.

Come May and looks like OPERA and others will repeat the original results, and our article will be destabilized again. In the meantime, need to capture the politics part of this as well—right now the article has just the technical details. Ajoykt (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's not forget that according to Hagner only a little deviation from the ideal cable position would lead to errors. Since this potential effect was unknown before, there are good reasons why some of them believe that this might be the cause. Whatever, we have to wait for the May results. And then we have to wait for the independent replications, and so on.... So the next months will certainly provide some interesting information. --D.H (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the science article says the coaxial cable was screwed in, and they unscrewed it to show there could be a 60 ns discrepancy. I am not sure of the word "tilt" in this context. Is that a translation artifact? Note the description doesn't square with what is said in the science article. Also, if the connection were tilted, it remained so precisely tilted at the same unstable position for over 2 years, and then again in the month of October when Opera-2 was repeated multiple times? Matt Strassler has updated his blog (the one where we link to the translation) with this exact same point. Note that Hagner was one of those who refused to sign the initial submission, as was Luca Stanco (see, for example, http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/5242/topic5242855.shtm). We do need to be careful taking them this literally. I think OPERA is releasing a technical report on this issue, which should clarify the details. Ajoykt (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. As Hagner said, the error depends on how the cable was screwed in. If this wasn't done carefully [that is, if the cable was "loose" or "tilted/inclined" (German: schief)], then a delay was introduced. So the Science article simply repeats what we already knew. Both "Science" and Hagner said that they don't know what was the state when the measurement was done in the last years. --D.H (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And yes, we really need the technical report by OPERA. --D.H (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Can't the argument "if the cable were loose, the result wouldn't be correct" be used to upend the results of practically every physics experiment? Researchers ensure connectors are snug and fit; those who verify results are supposed to check for a right fit. Instead they checked and leaked the results of a test on what would happen if the cable were loose. To summarize reports we do need to assess credibility, and that credibility, unfortunately, is tied to people's agendas and beliefs. The science report doesn't say anything about 'ideal' positions and 'just a little bit' deviations from the ideal. Looks like Hagner used these words, neither right nor wrong, to convey an impression. I wonder whether we should mirror that impression here. Ajoykt (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, also the Science report is based on the opinions of some dissenters who were criticizing Autiero from the beginning. But that's (unfortunately) not our problem, unless we have some sources that say so. BTW: Although Hagner is and was very skeptic, she says that the new measurement in May could provide a "sensational" result as well ([1]). --D.H (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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 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)

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.[2] 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)

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)

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)

Since the team members have resigned, users D.H. and Strebe have removed quite a large amount of very well sourced content ([3]).

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)

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 one another, 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)

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)

It doesn’t. Strebe (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

How about we name it A Plight at the OPERA? Since these Italians have been amusing us all with their cornball antics for so long? For a while it was Marx brothers stuff, with science magazines printing pictures of Einstein, upside down. Bleh! SBHarris 04:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems a bit strange. From my experience, in industrial setups, monitoring is used to detect problems in components.

Plus, GPS receivers dedicated to clock synchronization usually provide easy ways to read out their state of synchronization with the time source - in this case, GPS.

So how did this happen? In a setup as complex as this, did they go without industrial-style monitoring?

Sbohmann (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The preliminary results of OPERA, ICARUS, LVD, und BOREXINO: They are all in agreement with the speed of light (see this Spanish blog entry)

Borexino: δt = 2.7 ± 1.2 (stat) ± 3(sys) ns

ICARUS: δt = 5.1 ± 1.1(stat) ± 5.5(sys) ns

LVD: δt = 2.9 ± 0.6(stat) ± 3(sys) ns

OPERA: δt = 1.6 ± 1.1(stat) [+ 6.1, -3.7](sys) ns

OPERA has also revised their 2011 results and will resubmit it to JHEP

δt = (6.5 ± 7.4 (stat.)+9.2 (sys.)) ns

Also MINOS corrected their former results

δt = −11.4 ± 11.2 (stat) ± 29 (syst) ns (68% C.L)

Note that they approach the 10^-6 level. --D.H (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

CERN retracted the so called anomaly: http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html. It does not exist. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that the Talk page sections re: the proposal to add the paper written by Russ Blake have been removed. See --link deleted--. Is this correct, if not where are they. And if so why was this done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorlp (talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It’s in the archives, where things get shuffled off to periodically. See, for example, this change. By the way, I’m deleting the link spam. Strebe (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, 'It's in the Archives'. Well isn't that a convenient place to put things that in your opinion need to be 'shuffled off' periodically. On what basis is an item determined to meet the criteria to be 'shuffled'off? And, you call a reference link a SPAM link. Well that is your opinion. In my opinion it is further evidence that Wikipedia pages are not managed on a democratic basis. Thor Prohaska 14:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorlp (talk • contribs)

I have nothing to do with the archiving. It is normal procedure because Talk pages get unwieldy in length. In the case of this article, when the editing and discussion was fast and furious, the archival frequency was set as low as two weeks, if I recall. It’s much longer now because the article is not very active. As for link spam, that’s not my call, either. See WP:LINKSPAM. Basically, no, you are not allowed to use Talk pages or Wikipedia in general to publicize your stuff. Strebe (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info about how the wiki pages get archived. So that appears to mean that if there is a Talk issue that is unresolved then it would have to be manually added back into the Talk page? That doesn't seem very good. And who sets the archiving frequency? I would have thought that would be under the control of those involved with the page in question. On the issue of the removal of 'link spam' you said it was not your call. Yet it would appear that you did delete it. I have read WP:LINKSPAM and I see some room for argument that the link was relevant to the topic under discussion. You may say you were only following Wikipedia policy, however there was still a measure of interpretation on your part to reach the conclusion that the link was spam as defined by the policy. Thor Prohaska 15:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorlp (talk • contribs)

Yes, I made the judgment call in this instance. I meant I did not set the policy. The policy is clear in this case, without realistic room for argument. Besides WP:LINKSPAM's “Source solicitations are messages on article talk pages which explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article,” such as “Is the source controversial, such as being non-peer reviewed, old or polemic (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources)?”, please familiarize yourself with WP:CONFLICT. The theory you refer to was never a reasonable candidate for inclusion in the article, and now that the anomaly has been accounted for, any discussion of the theory on Wikipedia would only be construed as a publicity tactic by other editors. Strebe (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Your comment, "The theory you refer to was never a reasonable candidate for inclusion in the article" indicates that you are 100% sure that there is no merit in Quantum Spring Theory. Well that is unscientific of you to close a door when you haven't analysed QST in detail. I don't even say it is correct, all I am saying is that it contains a logic based on evidence that I wish to see further explored. If QST is correct ( and I challenge anyone to explain how it is 7 times more accurate in predicting the 'binding energy mass defect' over the current models ) then the application of the QST model to the way the neutrino wave passes through the atomic nuclei is theoretically valid. And then your comment, "... and now that the anomaly has been accounted for" is also not 100% accurate for three reasons. Firstly from the reviews I have done of the 'new results' there is no definite statement that completely rules out the 'anomaly'. Secondly there is still a margin of uncertainty in the results themselves. Admittedly not as big as the 70 odd nanoseconds but none the less still a margin ( I also note that everyone is taking the new results as being free from any measurement issues which I find a bit overconfident ). And if these results prove that it was definitely a measurement error then why haven't the OPERA folks with the most 'skin in the game' not updated their website to state that ( see http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it/spip.php?rubrique14 ). In summary my advice to you is to not be too black and white in your statements in an area that is so difficult to pin down with absolute precision.Thor Prohaska 03:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorlp (talk • contribs)

It has nothing to do with my being “100% sure that there is no merit in Quantum Spring Theory”. Wikipedia editors are not the judge of scientific merit. Please familiarize yourself with WP:SOURCES and WP:SELFPUBLISH. Strebe (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead starts (my bold), In 2011 the OPERA experiment mistakenly reported neutrinos appearing to travel faster than light, but the body of the article does not contain such a clear indication of the current status of he results.

We do have:

In February 2012, the OPERA collaboration announced two possible sources of error that could have significantly influenced the results.[7]

• A link from a GPS receiver to the OPERA master clock was loose, which increased the delay through the fiber. The glitch's effect was to decrease the reported flight time of the neutrinos by 73 ns, making them seem faster than light.[20][21]

• A clock on an electronic board ticked faster than its expected 10 MHz frequency, lengthening the reported flight-time of neutrinos, thereby somewhat reducing the seeming faster-than-light effect. OPERA stated the component had been operating outside its specifications.[22]

In March 2012 an LNGS seminar was held, confirming the fiber cable was not fully screwed in during data gathering.[5] LVD researchers compared the timing data for cosmic high-energy muons hitting both the OPERA and the nearby LVD detector between 2007-2008, 2008-2011, and 2011-2012. The shift obtained for the 2008-2011 period agreed with the OPERA anomaly. The researchers also found photographs showing the cable had been loose by October 13, 2011.

Correcting for the two newly found sources of error, results for neutrino speed appear to be consistent with the speed of light.[5]

Although this suggests that the original results were mistaken there is no clear statement from a good source confirming this.

We need either to change 'mistakenly' to something less strong, such as 'controversially', or to find a very good source that clearly states that the original results were wrong. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

arXiv:1206.2488, arXiv:1206.2840, LNGS seminar etc. --D.H (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to say 'mistakenly' we need something better that a couple of arxiv papers. Is there anything indicating that the original claims have been withdrawn. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that arXiv:1206.2488 was co-written by OPERA themselves. And they stated in a conference of June 8, (Dracos Marcos, The neutrino velocity measurement by the OPERA experiment), that their arXiv:1109.4897 will "soon revised and resubmitted to JHEP". --D.H (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That is all fine but I would still suggest that we need a clearer statement from those that made the original claim that they got it wrong, preferably in a peer reviewed or respected media source, before we should say in the lead 'mistakenly'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I’m puzzled by your objection. Are we stuck with America being in Asia because Columbus never acknowledged he was wrong? Since when do we require someone to confess they made a mistake before we call it a mistake? The party in error is the least objective source. In any case, OPERA has implicitly acknowledged the error and moved on through the resignations of the science and publicity team leads, through the corrections they made to the original paper, through their final results refuting their original, and through their cooperation in the CERN announcement that all of the CERN-sourced neutrino experiments measured speeds consistent with that of light. They admitted they were wrong long ago; they just never had any particular reason to say it that way since it was obvious and everyone already knew it anyway. Science doesn’t care what you call it; it cares what it is. As for peer review, well—the original paper wasn’t peer-reviewed, so now we’ll hold the retraction to a higher standard than the dubious claim itself…? Strebe (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the CERN announcement. The article is fine. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)