The Gran Sasso lab is 1.4km underground. CERN is also underground.

I wonder if allowance has been made for the depth of the labs along with the curvature of the Earth...

That is, the straight line path for the neutrinos will be slightly shorter than what the GPS measurements will indicate for the surface distance (or even for the straight line distance) between the surface access points. Assuming that GPS coordinates for the surface points have been used...

Keep searchin',
Martin

They have used an advanced GPS. I saw the slides during the webcast.
Tullio

I would doubt that the Sasso lab scientist would make such obvious mistakes. ...

Rather than "mistakes", a better description is "assumptions".

Has the assumption been made that the GPS derived surface distance (if that has been used) is assumed to be "near enough" the straight line distance through the Earth at the depth of the respective labs?

To use my bicycle wheel analogy:

Has the GPS very accurately measured the distance around the wheel circumference, or even a straight line distance taken between the surface points, when in fact the straight line distance that should be taken is from 1.5km down the spokes nearer the wheel hub (to give a slightly shorter distance)?

The "faster than light speed" only needs the distance to be "20 parts in a million" of 732km (about 15 metres) to be explained just by the distance being shorter than is assumed at present. I hope they have been very careful with their surveying to the source and detector from the GPS surface reference points!

There is also the question of how accurate the GPS is for what is assumed for the shape of the Earth! They may have their GPS measurements precise to 20cm, but what is the absolute accuracy?


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

It certainly brings out the necessity of a new paradigm, as Thomas Kuhn would say.I think we are witnessing the birth of a new physics and I regret being too old to take part in it. But I am running jobs from LHC on my BOINC_VM virtual machine. Cheers.
Tullio

---

The Gran Sasso lab is 1.4km underground. CERN is also underground.

I wonder if allowance has been made for the depth of the labs along with the curvature of the Earth...

Just tried out my own assumptions on that one and assuming 1.4km nearer the centre of the Earth gives a distance shorter by just 32cm.

That is, the straight line path for the neutrinos will be slightly shorter than what the GPS measurements will indicate for the surface distance (or even for the straight line distance) between the surface access points. Assuming that GPS coordinates for the surface points have been used...

Keep searchin',
Martin

They have used an advanced GPS. I saw the slides during the webcast.
Tullio

I would doubt that the Sasso lab scientist would make such obvious mistakes. ...

Rather than "mistakes", a better description is "assumptions".

Has the assumption been made that the GPS derived surface distance (if that has been used) is assumed to be "near enough" the straight line distance through the Earth at the depth of the respective labs?

To use my bicycle wheel analogy:

Has the GPS very accurately measured the distance around the wheel circumference, or even a straight line distance taken between the surface points, when in fact the straight line distance that should be taken is from 1.5km down the spokes nearer the wheel hub (to give a slightly shorter distance)?

The "faster than light speed" only needs the distance to be "20 parts in a million" of 732km (about 15 metres) to be explained just by the distance being shorter than is assumed at present. I hope they have been very careful with their surveying to the source and detector from the GPS surface reference points!

There is also the question of how accurate the GPS is for what is assumed for the shape of the Earth! They may have their GPS measurements precise to 20cm, but what is the absolute accuracy?

So, the difference in distance due to depth is not significant (only 32cm rather than 15m).

Which comes back to questioning the assumptions made for the distance surveying and for the exact source and detection positions.

Assuming a circumferential surface path rather than straight line through-the-Earth path may give a difference of the order of metres... Anyone like to do that calculation please? ;-)

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Did a little math. What is being measured is about 18 mm. Humans are capable of much more precise measurements of the location of objects on the earth. Consider Very Long Baseline Interferometry and the necessity of knowing the location of the telescope dishes to better than sub-millimeter precision. I doubt the issue is any location error. I still suspect it will come out to be some sort of equipment issue or a sign error in calculations. Especially in light of the Supernova result and the length of travel in that experiment.

---

Did a little math. What is being measured is about 18 mm. ...

Err... Care to recalculate? Or explain? That is far too short for what GPS can resolve and for what can be timed at the speed of light...

I get the quoted variation of "20 parts per million" for "732km" to be approximately 15m.

How do you calculate?

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

you also assume that they are using civilian grade GPS locators. I'm betting they have access to a bit better technology that the average joe.

Since they are able to repeat the experiment, I assume that they've actually tried it using various different parts on their equipment. I'd never assume that everything is working fine. Heck, heres a test. try the same experiment sending neutrinos to other parts of the world and see if similar results are recorded.

By similar I mean that over increased distances the actual time discrepancy increases

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Did a little math. What is being measured is about 18 mm. ...

Err... Care to recalculate? Or explain? That is far too short for what GPS can resolve and for what can be timed at the speed of light...

I get the quoted variation of "20 parts per million" for "732km" to be approximately 15m.

How do you calculate?

Keep searchin',
Martin

oops, forgot the speed of light in m/s the first time, not millimeters but meters.
Faster than expected time = 0.00000006 seconds * speed of light = 18 meters (about)

0.00000006 / 0.0024 about 20 millionths.

Their paper says they have measured the distance to about 20 millimeters so 18 meters difference is a large amount.

---

As far as I recall from the webcast the distance was measured within 20 cm. There will be another presentation at Gran Sasso Monday but I don't know if it will be webcast. One should be able to read the preprint, there are so many data.
Tullio

---

The paper.
http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf

Abstract
The OPERA neutrino experiment at the underground Gran Sasso Laboratory has measured the velocity of neutrinos from the CERN CNGS beam over a baseline of about 730 km with much higher accuracy than previous studies conducted with accelerator neutrinos. The measurement is based on high- statistics data taken by OPERA in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Dedicated upgrades of the CNGS timing system and of the OPERA detector, as well as a high precision geodesy campaign for the measurement of the neutrino baseline, allowed reaching comparable systematic and statistical accuracies. An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 ± 6.9 (stat.) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured. This anomaly corresponds to a relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity with respect to the speed of light (v-c)/c = (2.48 ± 0.28 (stat.) ± 0.30 (sys.)) ×10-5.

---

Assuming they had access to the Military version of GPS I believe that their accuracy is limited to 4 inches. Also, what does Heisenberg say about determination of position if we think we know the momentum.

Since the speed difference is slight, doesn't that suggest that one or more understandings of the distance or time are also slightly off. The two points would not be spinning at the same speed relative to the Earth's axis unless they were at the same latitude meridian.

Since we are traveling at high speed relative to a fixed frame of reference could the neutrino somehow be a disturbance in the fixed notion of free space ("aether").

Objects are receding from us at faster than the speed of light due to the expansion of space--yet we don't tally this as a violation of the cosmic speed limit.

Just some random thoughts--It would be interesting to see further duplication of these results.

If you read the paper ...

Thus, in 2008, two identical systems, composed of a GPS receiver for time-transfer applications Septentrio PolaRx2e [16] operating in “common-view” mode [17] and a Cs atomic clock Symmetricom Cs4000 [18], were installed at CERN and LNGS (see Figs. 3, 5 and 6).

you would be able to look up the equipment used ...

---

... Which comes back to questioning the assumptions made for the distance surveying and for the exact source and detection positions.

Assuming a circumferential surface path rather than straight line through-the-Earth path may give a difference of the order of metres... Anyone like to do that calculation please? ;-)

Reading further, the neutrino beam is indeed a directed beam, so the calculations for directing the beam must be accurate enough!

However, there's no detail given for what was actually calculated from the GPS measurements for the beam length. Also, there is no detail for the surveying for transferring the GPS measured points at Gran Sasso back to the underground lab midway along the 10km long highway tunnel...

There's high detail and simulation for the time stamp modulated onto the neutrino stream and how that is detected. There is only cursory detail given about the position surveying for the beam line... (There's lots of details elsewhere about the surveys done for the other CERN facilities.)

So... I'm still most suspicious of the surveying for the beam length...

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... The "faster than light speed" only needs the distance to be "20 parts in a million" of 732km (about 15 metres) to be explained just by the distance being shorter than is assumed at present. I hope they have been very careful with their surveying to the source and detector from the GPS surface reference points! ...

So, the difference in distance due to depth is not significant (only 32cm rather than 15m).

Which comes back to questioning the assumptions made for the distance surveying and for the exact source and detection positions.

Assuming a circumferential surface path rather than straight line through-the-Earth path may give a difference of the order of metres... Anyone like to do that calculation please? ;-)

OK... So...

Assuming an Earth radius of 6367km for northern Italy, then a 732km surface distance gives 731.561km (about 439m shorter) for the straight line through the earth distance.

What all that does show is that great care has to be taken over the surveying. I wonder if the Gran Sasso mountain range has enough mass to deflect slightly what is measured for "plumb line vertical", and so have slightly thrown off the surveying through to the lab along 5km of tunnels from the accurately determined GPS points?

There's only 15 metres difference in it!

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I've read a very technical article about the Field Programmable Gate Arrays used in the detecting equipment. I am unable to comment on this article, but it seemed written by a competent person. Anyway,the result must still be confirmed.
Tullio

---

The actual distance the particles travel is removed by the way they preform their measurements. They admit they do not even know where the neutrino begins its flight. What they do know is the time difference from a single GPS timing pulse between the two locations. Average over 1/2 an orbit of a GPS bird and you get a very accurate reading of the path length, well the length between the GPS antennas anyway.

Now as to not knowing the start point, to generate the neutrino they know the beginning of the place where it can be generated from the decay of the particle from the accelerator as it must interact with a hydrogen atom. They also know the last spot it can be generated. Now consider that the thing that decays is traveling near but less than c. They are getting a reading of faster than c. Consider if the neutrino is above c what does this mean in relation to where it begins flight. If later in the path the neutrino must go even faster than earlier to cover the distance because the particle that decays is moving slower than c. As each detection can be timed we can put limits on the speed. We also know the length of the hydrogen target and the time width of the pulse and an approximate speed of the decaying particles. So we don't have an absolute measurement, but a range of speed.

Now as to the 15 meters, that is inside the range that conventional (non GPS) survey techniques can measure. If path length is the error, I more suspect an error in an antenna cable length. (A TDR should clear that up though.) To get the beam to the right place the survey had to be correct or it wouldn't hit the detector.

---

I've read a very technical article about the Field Programmable Gate Arrays used in the detecting equipment. I am unable to comment on this article, but it seemed written by a competent person. Anyway,the result must still be confirmed.
Tullio

Tul', the New Scientist magazine on-sale for this month gives every impression that the results of the neutrino experiment may be sound. They further support my theory that extra dimensions may be coming into play here. I do get the feeling that Einsteins days are numbered in some respects for he has reigned supreme for so long now that it's natural that someone new is going to come along soon to un-seat him. I cross my fingers in hope that the neutrino experiments gets proved for this will lead science to investigate more deeply the effects that the extra dimensions in space are having within our universe. Trying to understand quantum behaviour through our three dimensional application of studying is not going to produce good results. String theory is drying up because it has yet to encompass fully yet what multi-dimensions have to support it. One thing for sure that multi-dimensions will show is that certain particles can be in two different places at the same instance in time. There will be no such thing as "uncertainty" when the extra dimension become better understood. It's only a matter of time before extra dimensions get proven, it may have happened now with this neutrino experiment but for sure Einstein will soon be out-shone by someone new...it's happens all the time this way.

They are getting a reading of faster than c. Consider if the neutrino is above c what does this mean in relation to where it begins flight. If later in the path the neutrino must go even faster than earlier to cover the distance because the particle that decays is moving slower than c.

Gary, I put my head on the chopping block here and state that the neutrino experiment is not showing that the neutrino actually did travel faster than light but that it possibly took less time than the photon in covering the calibrated distance used in this experiment. If I'm right then what happened is that the neutrino is able to pass through the extra dimensions of space unhindered whereas the photon gets delayed on passing through but without any loss to speed during this event, i.e. the photon has to take a longer course. But since this delay to the photon is so very small it's therefor very hard to detect. Light reigns supreme in our three dimensional study of quantum physics. But in the multi-dimensional universes light may feature way down low in the pecking order of effect and causes in this science. So I wounder if the photon may soon have had it's day, it does tend to be a millstone around scientists necks hence I wounder if it's about to be thrown off and cast away. Discovering multi-dimensions may prove that the science of our universe has no need for time and therefor time is something only man experiences himself or "thinks that he experiences".

American physicists noted this same phenomenon some time ago. It was later laid off to experimental inaccuracies or equipment mis-calibration.

American physicists noted this same phenomenon some time ago. It was later laid off to experimental inaccuracies or equipment mis-calibration.

I gather too that they were not using equipment deemed accurate enough to warrant any further investigation. This is changing now and Fermilabs will be putting together new equipment to enable them to copy SASSO's experiment and hopefully gain the same results as them.

They are getting a reading of faster than c. Consider if the neutrino is above c what does this mean in relation to where it begins flight. If later in the path the neutrino must go even faster than earlier to cover the distance because the particle that decays is moving slower than c.

Gary, I put my head on the chopping block here and state that the neutrino experiment is not showing that the neutrino actually did travel faster than light but that it possibly took less time than the photon in covering the calibrated distance used in this experiment. If I'm right then what happened is that the neutrino is able to pass through the extra dimensions of space unhindered whereas the photon gets delayed on passing through but without any loss to speed during this event, i.e. the photon has to take a longer course. But since this delay to the photon is so very small it's therefor very hard to detect. Light reigns supreme in our three dimensional study of quantum physics. But in the multi-dimensional universes light may feature way down low in the pecking order of effect and causes in this science. So I wounder if the photon may soon have had it's day, it does tend to be a millstone around scientists necks hence I wounder if it's about to be thrown off and cast away. Discovering multi-dimensions may prove that the science of our universe has no need for time and therefor time is something only man experiences himself or "thinks that he experiences".

Anyone making this claim must explain why the neutrinos from the supernova SN_1987A arrived at the same time as the photos from it did. Somewhat significantly longer path length so any FTL has a considerably earlier arrival time.

---