Can Neutrinos be Superluminal? Ask OPERA!

Four days ago a rumour started circulating in the comments at Resonaances that some “6.1 sigma” signal of new physics had been seen at CERN. I reported it in an update on  the Seminar Watch post. There had been a seminar titled “Seminar DG” which was listed on indico and removed the day before it was due. The rumour confirmed that this meeting was rescheduled to Friday but as an update on OPERA, the neutrino experiment which a couple of years ago saw its first tau neutrino. The claim now is that they have measured the speed of muon neutrinos and got a result faster than the speed of light!

This is of course a crazy idea because if true it would violate everything we think we know about causality. Even if neutrinos are hard to detect it should be possible to use them to send information into the past if this result holds up. That does not sound very likely (but I am now setting up a neutrino beam to send the news back in time so that it was actually me who leaked the story) .

Hypothetical superluminal particles are known as tachyons and they always move faster than light because they have imaginary valued mass, but quantum field theories for tachyons have terrible problems. Aside from the causality issues, the vacuum becomes unstable because you can create neutrino pairs with negative energy out of nothing. You would need a very unconventional variation of relativistic quantum field theory to stop the universe degenerating into an instant burst of neutrinos, and we don’t have that.

However this is not the first time that superluminal neutrinos have been reported. Some people claimed that observations of neutrinos arriving before gamma rays from supernovae implied that they are superluminal see . Other people just say that the neutrinos were created before the gamma rays.  In fact some “crazy” people believed in superluminal neutrinos well before that. Early attempts to measure the squared mass of the neutrino in the 1990s always seemed to give negative results  I have not had time to look back at that old ideas but it may be time to do that.

Of course such extraordinary claims need very good evidence and for now the most likely explanation by far is a systematic error. The rumoured “6.1 sigma” significance is probably a statistical error and it will be important to consider any systematic sources of error before coming to conclusions.  For now we will need to wait for the official seminar at CERN on Friday to see what they have to say about that.

click for wallpaper

Update: It is of course worth recalling that the MINOS experiment also measured the neutrino speed and got a result faster than the speed of light at 1.7 sigma see If the OPERA measurements are consistent with this measurement it will have to be taken seriously. As far as I can tell no measurement of neutrino speed or mass refutes the claim that they are tachyons, it’s just the theory that’s a problem.

Measurements of mass-squared from beta decay in Tritium have tended to give negative value results with error bar consistent with zero or positive values. This plot from shows how the measurements have developed over time. The latest result I can find is -0.6 ± 2.2 (stat) ± 2.1 (syst) eV2 from These are measurements for the lectron anti-neutrino, not the muon neutrino that OPERA is looking at.

If you are wondering about theories that allow tachyonic neutrinos the least wacky one I can find is that neutrinos can take “shortcuts off the brane through large extra dimensions”

What about the Supernovae observations? The timing of neutrinos vs light from supernova 1987a constrains the speed of neutrinos to be within one part in 10-8 of the speed of light, while the MINOS measurement had a speed of about (v-c)/c = (5.1 ± 2.9) x 10-5 so this seems inconsistent, even taking into account any differences of energy. Since neutrinos oscillate between different flavours we can’t make the excuse that one case looks at electron neutrinos and the other muon neutrinos, can we?

That said, neutrino physics has many unknowns. Other experiments hint at sterile neutrinos and even differences in mass between neutrinos and their anti-particles, even though we don’t even know what kind of spinors they are yet. If the large extra dimension theory has any bearing they may only travel faster than light in the presence of a gravitational field. It all sounds too crazy to be true but I am reserving judgement until at least we have heard from OPERA to see what they are actually claiming and how confident they are.

Meanwhile we have other views from MotlStrassler and Kea.

Update 23-Sep-2011: The news is now officially out with a CERN press release and an arxiv submission at The result they have obtained is that the neutrinos arrive ahead of time by an amount 60.7 ns ± 6.9 ns (statistical) ± 7.4 ns (systematic). On the face of it this is a pretty convincing result for faster than light travel, but such a conclusion is so radical that higher than usual standards of scrutiny are required.

The deviation for the speed of light in relative terms is (v-c)/c = (2.48 ± 0.28 ± 0.30) x 10-5 for neutrinos with an average energy of 28.1 GeV The neutrino  energy was in fact variable and they also split the sample into two bins for energies above and below 20 GeV to get two results.

13.9 GeV:  (v-c)/c = (2.16 ± 0.76 ± 0.30) x 10-5

42.9 GeV: (v-c)/c = (2.74 ± 0.74 ± 0.30) x 10-5

These can be compared with the independent result from MINOS, a similar experiment in the US with a baseline of almost exactly the same length but lower energy beams.

3 GeV: (v-c)/c = (5.1 ± 2.9) x 10-5

If we believe in a tachyonic theory, with neutrinos of imaginary mass the value of (v-c)/c would decrease in inverse square of the energy. This is inconsistent with the results above where the velocity excess is more consistent with a constant independent of energy, or a slower variation.

We also have a constraint from supernova SN1987A where measurement of neutrino arrival times compared to optical observation sets |v-c|/c < 2 x 10-9 for neutrino energies in the order of 10 MeV. For smaller energies we should expect a more significant anomaly so this is important, but perhaps the energy dependence is very different from this expectation.

So if this is a real effect it has to be something that does not affect the cosmic neutrinos in the same way. For example it may only happen over short distances or in the presence pf a gravitational field. It would still be a strong violation of Lorentz invariance of a type for which we do not really have an adequate theory.

So obviously there could be some error in the experiment, but where? The distances have been measured to 20cm accuracy and even earthquakes during the course of the experiment can only account for 7cm variations. The Earth moves about 1m round its axis in the time the neutrinos travel but this should not need to be taken into account in the reference frame fixed to Earth. The excess distances by which the neutrinos are ahead of where they should be is in the order of 20 meters, so distance measurements are unlikely to be a source of significant error.

Timing is more difficult. You might think that it is easy to synchronous clocks by sending radio waves back and forward and taking half the two way travel time to synchronise, but these experiments are underground and radio waves from the ground would have to bounce off the upper atmosphere or be relayed by a series of tranceivers. This is not a practical method. What about taking atomic clocks back and fourth between the two ends of the experiment? the best atomic clocks lose or gain about 20 pico seconds per day, but portable atomic clocks at best lose a few nanoseconds in the time it would take to get them from one end to the other. This could be a good check to carry out if a good atomic clock could be flown on a helicopter, but as far as I know this has not been done.

Instead the best way to synchronise clocks over such distances is to use GPS which sends signals from satellites in low earth orbit. Each satellite has four atomic clocks which are constantly checked with better groundbased clocks. The ground positions are measured very accurately with the same GPS and in this way a synchronisation of about 0.1 ns accuracy can be obtained at ground level. The communication between ground and experiment adds delay and uncertainty but this part has been checked several times over the course of the experiment with portable atomic clocks and is good to within a couple of nanoseconds. The largest timing uncertainties come from the electronic systems that are timing the pulses of neutrinos from the source at CERN. The overall systematic error is the quoted 6.9 ns, well within the 60 nanosecond deviations observed. Unless a really bad error has been made in the calculations these timings must be good enough.

The rest of the error is statistical so it is worth looking at the variations in timings to see if another error could be hidden there. Here is a plot from the paper of some of the timings over the years the experiment has run. The blue band shows the average delay relative to timing delays assuming travel at the speed of light that were calculated later to be 987.8 ns. I have added a green band at this time plus or minus the 6.9 ns systematic error so that we can see how cleanly the measurements are displaced.

It looks pretty consistent. I think the only conclusion we can draw at this point is that further independent results are required. Perhaps MINOS could upgrade their timing measurements to see if they get a similar result with increased precision. T2K might also be able to attempt a measurement but their baseline is 295km compared with 730km for OPERA and MINOS. Otherwise a new experiment with shorter neutrino pulses and superaccurate timers may be the only way to resolve it. OPERA could also remove possible systematic timing errors at the source end by installing a second (much smaller) neutrino detector much nearer to CERN.

Some more reports: arstechnica , BBC, and of course Dorigo whose earlier post was ordered off line by big cheeses at CERN. Look out for his repost of his  interesting review of where he thinks problems may lie.

Post-talk update: The webcast talk at CERN was very interesting with lots of good questions. The most striking thing for me was the lack of any energy dependence in the result, a confirmation of what I noted this morning. The energy of the neutrinos have a fairly wide spread. If these were massive particles or light being refracted by a medium there would be a very distinct dependence between the speed and the energy of the particles but no such dependency was observed. The speeker showed how the form of the pulse detected by OPERA matched very nicely the form measured at CERN. If there was any kind of spread in the speed of the neutrinos this shape would be blurred a little and this is not seen.

Most physical effects you could imagine would have an energy dependence of some sort. A weak energy dependence is possible in the data but that would still be hard to explain. On the other hand, any systematic error in the measurement of the time or distance would be distinguished by just such a lack of energy dependence.

The only physical idea that would correspond to a lack of energy dependence would be if the universe had two separate fixed speeds, one for neutrinos and one for photons. I don’t think such a theory could be made to work, and even if it did you would have to explain why the SN1987A neutrinos were not affected. I think the conclusion has to be that there is no new physical effect, just a systematic error that the collaboration needs to find.

434 Responses to Can Neutrinos be Superluminal? Ask OPERA!

  1. Marc says:

    There were some papers by Pas, Weiler and others recently which had superluminal neutrinos which took a “shortcut” through a warped extra dimension. Apparently doesn’t violate causality, but these neutrinos definitely had to be sterile. The OPERA ones aren’t, so I suspect that they are ruled out from some of the strong bounds on Lorentz violation.

  2. Marc says:

    Phil—Tommaso seems to have taken down his post. I wonder why..

  3. Kea says:

    Wow! Was Tommaso’s post based on actual OPERA results? I’m not even sure that OPERA can measure such a thing, but maybe. And I’m certainly open to the possibility of >c velocity in the neutrino sector. Hmm. Perhaps one species goes at slightly less than c, due to its mass, and the Koide/Brannen minus sign causes other species to go at >c.

  4. Kea says:

    Yes, I like it. So we may only have to wait for Friday for the standard picture to be demolished. Well, thank goddess for that!

  5. Kea says:

    What, no comment by Lubos yet? But M theory has tachyons, so he should like it. Oh no, wait, he would have to admit that string theory was wrong about almost everything else first …

  6. Mitchell Porter says:

    vixra tweet says, ‘Mysterious “seminar DG” at CERN cancelled at last minute. Anon message says 6.1 sigma anomaly! Good rumour or prank?’

    How about a third option: bad analysis.

  7. Kea says:

    I am having trouble figuring out how they can gauge the distance from source to target accurately. I guess the most likely answer is that the black hole in the centre of earth acts to curve the neutrino’s path, and hence give the tachyonic misinterpretation.

    • Mitchell Porter says:

      Does this alleged black hole do something beyond generating a conventional gravitational potential? I feel that in this statement, you are not just ostentatiously declaring your belief in the existence of the unusually-situated black hole; I feel you imply that it matters physically that the source of the effect is a black hole. But these neutrinos don’t even pass below the Earth’s mantle. Whether the mass of the centre of the Earth takes the form of molten iron, a black hole, or a giant cheesecake shouldn’t matter at that distance.

  8. Kea says:

    Mitchell, I was being funny, although I do believe in Louise Riofrio’s black hole. Given the oscillation results to date, the straight line path seems to be established.

    • Kea says:

      Or is it? I am not thinking of a classical gravitational interaction, Mitchell, as you should know by now.

      • netdragon says:

        Is it possible that the gravity well in the center of earth (which effects everything around it) warps space more for light than it does for neutrinos?

  9. alessandro de angelis says:

    Smells bad, and inconsistent with SN1987A…
    There had been a delay of ~3h between the neutrinos and the gammas in SN1987A (it had been explained by astrophysical reasons, though). If one however interprets it as physical, takes the distance of the SN (168000 ly) and rescales it to the distance between CERN and Gran Sasso, one would expect at GS a delay of

    Dt ~ 10000 s * (700e3/(168000*3e7*3e8)) ~ 5 ps

    which is 1 millimeter… It is true that the SN neutrinos where in the MeV, but it looks strange that something dramatic happens between the MeV and the GeV…

    Alessandro De Angelis

    PS – People had claimed and then withdrawn, in the case of the SN1987A, a neutrino detection 1 day before – and also speculated about neutrinos being tachions; this would make however 50 ps, still not enough…

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      I agree that the SN1987A observation seems inconsistent with anything they could measure at OPERA, unless there are some very odd elements to the effect being observed that make the two observations different.

      • Marc says:

        In arXiv:0805.0253, John Ellis et al show that if the Lorentz violating effect varies as the square of the energy, then OPERA can be more sensitive (by a little bit) than SN1987a

      • AnonymouS says:

        Marc, the problem is that the OPERA anomaly is measured at different energies, and there is no sign of an E^2 growth

      • netdragon says:

        Such as the fact that for the OPERA experiment, the neutrinos were passing through matter most of the time, whereas for the SN1987A observation, they were mostly passing through “empty space”

    • Joerg says:

      What if there was another burst of neutrinos from the supernova that arrived significantly earlier, say month or years. Would somebody have correlated that blip with a supernova whose light arrives much later?

  10. This kind of effect is more than twenty year old prediction of many-sheeted space-time concept. Light velocity of light determined from travel time between points A and B depends on the space-time sheet involved and would be different for neutrinos and photon. The velocity is expected to depend on p-adic length scale of the space-time sheet. In cosmological scales the velocity is about 73 per cent from the maximal one so that various experimental findings can be understood easily.

    For details see my blog.

  11. Alex says:

    Please note that cosmology seem to prefer a sterile neutrino. Can the two things be related ?

  12. Nathaniel Tagg says:

    Just a quick note (as the corresponding author of the MINOS paper) – the 1.7 sigma effect was not a claim of discovery. The major uncertainty was systematic rather than statistical, so it problably means that the methods we used to measure our offsets had a bias of something like 100 ns.

    That sounds like a lot (it’s a cable run of 100 feet) but actually the difficulty is getting the right transmission time down a long fibre-optic cable from the surface (where your GPS antenna is) down to your clock (which you use to do the timing). That transmission time (which is a total of about 450 ns delay) is highly dependent on the exact qualities of the fibre. We measured it about 4 different ways and got 4 different answers – hence our large uncertainty. Getting that just a little wrong will get you the wrong answer.

    I’m eagerly awaiting the Opera result.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      Thanks for the insight. of course a 1.7 sigma result would not be given much credence even for a benign claim, but it could add a little credibility to another similar result.

      The comments about the time measurement are very relevant. I would guess that a similar method must have been used at CERN unless they were able to stick atomic clocks right next to the source and target. Hope they are able to provide such details at the talk.

  13. TGD does not allow sterile neutrino. Right handed neutrino is predicted but it mixes with left handed one and this is basic element of massivation and supersymmetry – and R-parity breaking. SUSY is very different in from the “standard” SUSY (and consistent with the findings from LHC).

    The basic prediction of p-adic mass calculations is however that neutrinos can appear at several p-adic length (mass) scales differing by a power of sqrt(2). In some circumstances neutrinos and antineutrinos might have have different p-adic mass scale and mix differently dynamically although CKM matrices would be identical: the experimental situation is unclear in this respect. Only apparent “environment induced” CPT breaking would be in question.

    Could you explain in more detail why cosmology prefers sterile neutrino?

  14. Lawrence B. Crowell says:

    This is likely to burn off like the morning fog. One possibility is this is sterile neutrino, but the FNAL MiniBoone eliminated them. From a Dirac equation perspective an imaginary mass gap seems troublesome. Further, I am not sure what it means to measure something which is imaginary valued.

    • Ervin Goldfain says:


      I cannot agree with you more. Superluminal neutrinos are a fantasy on par with all other erroneous claims aiming to disprove Special Relativity.

      It is surprisingly easy to forget that experimental neutrino physics is a field where misinterpretation of results and measurement errors are very likely to happen.

  15. JollyJoker says:

    “The latest result I can find is -0.6 ± 2.2 (stat) ± 2.1 (syst) eV2”

    From Wikipedia on neutrino mass:

    “The best estimate of the difference in the squares of the masses of mass eigenstates 1 and 2 was published by KamLAND in 2005: Δm2 21 = 0.000079 eV2” (Source given is, I didn’t check it)

    Assuming positive masses squared and a similar distribution of masses as quarks or electrons, the direct measurements have to improve by many orders of magnitude before they can rule out negative values.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      If the OPERA result is giving similar orders of magnitude to MINOS for the excess speed then it would imply a neutrino mass in the range of a few MeV (imaginary) so the masses would have to be very similar across the neutrino flavours.

      I don’t think that this in itself would count against the result. It would just be another fine tuning problem to solve.

    • chewbacca says:

      you right, but assumptions are not a proof of anything! it is possible to have oscillations with comparably large mass states, one only needs a small difference of masses.

      btw this has nothing to do with the discussion, though,

  16. Kea says:

    Just an obvious note for the casual readers here: any high energy neutrino travels at a speed CLOSE to c, whether or not a tachyon. The difficulty is determining the sign of the difference v – c. Now a 6.1 sigma result should be taken seriously, assuming their distance and timing measurements are sufficiently careful. If it’s true, and we will probably know on Friday, just watch out and see how the majority dismiss the result simply because they don’t like it.

  17. Jin He says:

    Do you know that we live in a gravitational field??
    Do you know that the religion General Relativity has no inertial reference frame??
    Do you know that meaningful Speed is dependent on its measurement with respect to an Inertial Reference Frame??

    Do you know that you are ruled by Scientific Dictatorship??

  18. Superluminal neutrinos are of course absolute nonsense. The question is again about taking bird’s eye of view. What maximal signal velocity means? What we mean with light velocity operationally?

    The M-theorists identifying space-time as brane would in principle have sufficiently enough flexible mind frame to end up with the childishly simple picture provided by TGD (see this. Light velocity assigned with space-time as *sub-manifold* with maximal light-velocity assigned with the imbedding space geodesics.

    Many-sheeted space-time and light velocity at cosmic scales is 73 per cent from the maximal one: this just from Robertson-Walker cosmology and the basic cosmological data. This allows to explain superluminal velocities in various cases although it does not yet predict the values of the light velocity.

    The overall intellectual situation in particle physics is very much like at the times of the aether hypothesis. New concepts and wider conceptual framework is desperately needed (and it already exists!) but people prefer denialism or continue blow their head on the wall by introducing all kinds of ad hoc notions.

  19. We have to wait. However, I would like to remark and insist that a square mass negative don’t need to be necessarily a tachyon. There could be explanations for that “fake” tachyon. And I suspect that if SN1987A and OPERA results are taken together it will drive us to a new picture. It can be a signal of something quite unexpected and we misunderstood physics. I have to see what is OPERA if the rumour is real. Rumours are rumours, not feasible data. What I think is that most of the living theorists in these times are desperated to find ANOMALIES ( like those, e.g., in the flux of reactor neutrinos), more and more to demolish the SM that…As far as we do know now, is to be superseded by other theory. How much time to get the road to new unknown yet physics? We live in exciting times!

  20. Ulla says:

    Wilczek talked of the neutrinos a a giant mass scale of Universe, doi:10.1038/nature03281 – what would imply entanglement (‘superluminosity’)?

    Another thing: When we look at the GUT scale, we see asymmetry. If we look at neutrinos we see asymmetry. What kind of strong wishful thinking makes us see only symmetry in form of light (tested thoroughfully, so it must be true)? Are there more than one fundamental scale ruling universe? What is the true nature of light? A massless boson, ye, but something more also?

    Last year when neutrinos were measured from Sun to Earth there was an error, making it seem they were superluminous?

    • Ulla says:

      … discuss the noncommutative space generated by two noncommuting variables with a constant commutator. This is the space of the noncommutative field theories described in this book, as well as the elementary phase space of quantum mechanics. The Weyl map from operators to functions is introduced…
      A link phase space – operator space? This is asymmetric? As is matter too. I guess Kea can tell us more, if she wants to. Noncommutative space (the tensions?) is the giant, entangled, skewed, scale of Universe, what TGD tells us is hbar expansion (=”Inflation”?) giving us a transparent universe with light in it.
      Just an idea, I am no expert on this.

  21. […] are circulating about a claim that OPERA measured a superluminal speed of neutrinos. Press release this Friday…. I am very curious. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe […]

  22. Well, let’s see if it is true or not. I am really waiting the data and to see what are they measuring! I really need to know! Will neutrinos do it again?

  23. Alex says:

    Some more infos. The time difference is 60 nanoseconds \pm 7 (statistical) \pm 7 (systematic). They add the two ierrors n quadrature and claim a 6.1 sigma detection. There is no frequency dependence.
    It seems a very controversial claim.
    (cosmology prefers 4 neutrinos see or but I think it would be too much to make a connection with OPERA)

  24. 4 neutrinos is weird…It can not be fitted symmetrically. I prefer a 3+3 scenario. Or even a CPT violated spectrum with modified dispersion relations plus the 3 known neutrinos. If 4 neutrinos is the correct picture, it is really a strange global view since we observe 6 flavor quarks. A fourth neutrino would imply another possibly “dark” lepton ( darm matter/energy?). NObody understands neutrinos…

  25. giorgio parisi says:

    I was told that the paper will appear on the Archives this night. On the 23 everybody can read

  26. Giorgio Parisi, the real G.Parisi who studied a bit p-adic physics and other phenomena? So is the rumour true?Is there something “big” and serious?

  27. By the way, unexpected desperated problems often require desperated solutions. Tachyons? Well, even all of we can agree that nobody has studied well enough tachyons to understand them. Tachyons are only problematic due to vacuum instability in our present accepted models…

  28. Kea says:

    Now OPERA have confirmed the rumour and it is in the news. Get out of bed you lazy sods …

  29. I want to see the data. I am usually exceptic from common media. Well, I am not so lazy sod, Kea, hehehe. :D. We will see if other experiment can verify what they have…If you follow the neutrino branch, you do know the accelerator anomaly around more or less a mass squared similar to LSND. It is just intriguing what a “tachyonic-like” neutrino mass would mean in the context of NO ( neutrino oscillation) and NOSEX (neutrino oscillation experiments) more generally…

    • Kea says:

      I think ‘intriguing’ is somewhat of an understatement!

      • Of course, but new data has to be carefully taken. Sceptical is other common word, but I am usually well motivated for new stuff. AFter all, present theories have reached its limit years ago ( dark matter, dark energy, neutrino masses, Higgs undetected yet, no susy,…). It is better to be intrigued that to be defending the dogma when you see the present paradigm is not self-consistent anymore ( of course, cosmologists or HEP physicists will be defending the SM , and the lambdaCDM till they move towards something better, and data is what can move that. Strings/branes and other theories have not appeared neither, so…Exciting times provided some of the present anomalies is confirmed -Pioneer anomaly seems to be well explained by the plutonium fuel decaying…alghoug I am not expert in that topic). To move next a paradimg, we will need something else…

  30. […] a good theoretical basis for expecting neutrinos to do anything like this. One physics blogger who commented on the results wrote, “If you are wondering about theories that allow tachyonic [faster than light] […]

  31. wl59 says:

    First, any measurments, before they can give reason for serious theoretical considerations or models, have to be verified, verified, verified. Often enough we see observations or measurements which later had to be corrected by any problem.

    Second, after the measurements became evidence, one have to make hardest efforts to represent them with existing theories, before inventing new ones.

    In this case, there are plenty explanations for such an effect. The most simple is, that the physical light or photons don’t reach the limit speed c, but the neutrinos reach it more near. Just this is sufficient to have no need to change nothing on the theory (inclusive not on the RT). It remains only to explain, why light is slower than the limit speed and also slower than neutrinos.

    And even for this exist enough explanations. According to my opinion, the ‘line element’, action, or number of events on a path is no ‘geometrical object’ but is also observer variant. This is obvious by very easy examples. F.ex., for us as observers today, the line element between not-yet happened events in the future is not = ds but it is = zero, equally the line element between two events behind a kinematic or spatial horizon (f.ex. within a black hole), because no action from them reachs us. Another example, within its rudimentary (event-like) proper frame, the line element of a photon between its emission and absorption is just h – they are not equal but two different events so that it’s not zero, but they are imediately neighboured and there are no events between, so that their distance is 1 event or h expressed in action. However, for us or other observers and their frame, depending on their situation and dimensions, can exist events between, such like diffraction, so that the action, event number, lenght of the photon’s line element in the observer’s system is n+1 or (n+1)h where n is the number of diffractions and similar events which the photon suffers (counting are only events without absorption-reemission). This means that the Action or number of World Points / events is an own discrete dimension, inclusive that action and events, facts, informations, truenesses can have validity only within limited parts of action, time, space and any other dimension. Then the metric is (ignoring metric coefficients, i.e. locally):

    0 ≈ 1/h² dS² – 1/tpl² (dt² – 1/c² {dq1² + G0²/G² [dq2,3² – …]}) with G0 = c⁴lpl/Epl ≈ G

    where the first term is essentially the proper time or number of events times h , discretized and thus resulting also in discrete solutions for intervals of the other dimension’s observables on any path. This means however, that each interaction or event in the world, dimensions, frame of the observer need to be compensated with a small difference of the time. How many exactly, this would depend on the exact value of the metric coefficients, but potential values (which don’t need introduce new parameters but using only existing ones) would be either one elementary time or one frequence of the photon in the observer’s frame in which is valid the event. This would explain a lag of the light each time it interacts with something on the way. The neutrinos could interact less often like photons, and then their lag could be less than that of light.

    However, all these aspects will need careful experimental examination – before everything, if really neutrinos passes faster the path than light.

  32. Daniel de Franca says:

    The paper is here:

  33. Mitchell Porter says:

    I figured out what’s happening with the neutrinos. Arsenic-eating extremophile bacteria deep in the mantle of the earth are creating a low-energy nuclear reaction which was anthropicly tuned by supernova-induced mass extinctions to increase the local density of fermi-scale closed timelike curves. It’s simple when you think about it!

    • Kea says:

      Now you’re getting it, Mitchell! Think outside the box …

      • Mitchell Porter says:

        The real proof that New Physics is at work here is that this morning, the value on my train card was $17.76, and I immediately thought, “Hey, the mass of the tauon is about 1776 MeV.” And this happened *before* I learned that the OPERA experiment had become an overnight sensation. I’ll never complain about smartcard errors again; obviously Tipler’s Omega Point intelligence uses them to make its teleologically necessary interventions in the past.

      • Kea says:

        Like when the annoying sports broadcast down by the river this morning suddenly went dead when I arrived. I told them the satellite had cut out just for me, lol, and as if to prove me right it started working again just as I was leaving.

    • Ulla says:

      Even I can recognize that. Good try, but better ‘out of the box’ theories, thanks 🙂

      And congratulations to Kea, who now is on the lead, and Matti in the other corner. Because this is a dance between c and hbar, visible and invisible, dark worlds, mirrors and shadows…

      Remember, speed of the light needs time, and time is different in quantum world.

      • Mitchell Porter says:

        Ulla, I predict that the answer will be relatively mundane. This is basically a beam of particles with two stages of decay. First, from a beam of protons you have mesons (pions and kaons), and some of these decay into a muon and a mu neutrino. The muons are detected right there, but the mu neutrinos keep traveling through the rock, and some of them turn into tau neutrinos that later turn into tauons, and these tauons are what gets detected at the second stage. The speed of the neutrinos is deduced by extrapolating back from the tauon detection and the muon detection, to the point in space and time where the meson decay occurred. But this is a rather statistical analysis – they aren’t matching up an individual tauon detection with an individual muon detection; they are taking averages and measuring statistical distributions. Also, the interpretation depends on the model of meson decay. So rather than neutrinos going faster than light, I think it is far more likely that, for example, the “pion decay constant” is actually time-dependent; or at least that they are using an oversimplified model of meson decay.

      • Ulla says:

        Ye, many questions…

        What eg is light, and time-signals? But first the methodological ones, as y say.

      • Mitchell, so, tau neutrinos would then decay to a pair of tauon and anti-tauon. But this process would be so rare that wouldn’t show up in the statistics.

      • Mitchell Porter says:

        Daniel, my description was wrong. I think the tau neutrino hits a nucleus, turns into a tauon, and then the tauon decays back into a tau neutrino. No antitauon involved.

  34. Ervin Goldfain says:

    The anomaly is quantified as the ratio (v-c)/c which is found to be of O(10^(-5)). The speed of neutrino (v) is carefully derived from recording the time elapsed between its emission (E) and detection (D) events, whereas “c” is apriori taken to be a universal constant.

    In my opinion, there is a fundamentally faulty definition of “timing” in this context. This misinterpretation arises when comparing neutrino propagation between (E) and (D) with the propagation of a corresponding light wave traveling the same distance in vacuum. But light is also emitted and detected through quantum processes ((E’) and (D’)) and these need to be factored in when defining the time elapsed between the start and stop of the light wave. It seems to me that some sort of correlation must be first established between (E), (E’) and (D), (D’) to be able to meaningfully compare the two signal speeds.

    There may be other hidden invalid assumptions. For example, it may be the case that a (currently unknown) neutrino flavor transition occurs between (E) and (D). If this is the case, it can be shown that neutrinos arrive later than light and Relativity stays unbroken.

    • But 60 nanoseconds is a long, very long time. A modern PC’s time between each tick of its internal clock is around 0.4 ns on average.

      • Ervin Goldfain says:

        Yet radiative lifetimes of some atomic transitions range from 1 to about 10 ns. Roughly, this amounts to a range of up to 20 ns for both photon emission and absorption processes. In any event, what I am suggesting is that actual mean emission and absorption times for neutrinos and photons need to match for a meaningful comparison of their time of flights. And this may not be as trivial as it sounds.

  35. number 26 says:

    The result of this experiment is the first manifestation of extra dimensions.
    Indeed the space-time is 26 dimensions, which are reduced to 11 by the effect of emptying the field of 2 Higgs doublets, 4 Higgs. 4 correspond Higgs generate empty space group using the quaternions.
    The diagonal of the multiplication table of octonions is composed of a value of 1 and 7 values ​​of -1, which correspond to the possible values ​​of the coordinates of a sphere in 7 dimensions.

    SU (4) involves 15-dimensional quaterniones multiplication table
    4D space-time

    26 dimensions – dim (octonions multiplication table) = 11 dimmensions. 7 rolls, 3 and 1 space-time extended

    The 7 dimensions rolls in torus

    x1^2 + x2^2+…..x7^2 =r=7

    All possible values ​​for each of the positive coordinates of this area sphere:

    x1^2=(sqr(1/7)x i^2)^2, = ((sqr(1/7)x j^2 )^2 …….(sqr(1/7) x (kl)^2 )^2

    This implies that the value of the total energy of the vacuum given by:

    E^2= (m x c^2) +( p x c)^2

    has 7 negative values ​​indistinguishable in 3 dimensions, but distinguishable in 7 dimensions for the octonions

    Octonions in turn involve a space-time 8 rolled dimensions with a maximum number of sphere packing 8 d = 240

    This value corresponds to the inverse of the zeta function Rienmman for all possible negative values ​​of the multiplication table of octniones, which correspond to isomorphic form of a sphere coodenadas in 7 dimensions.
    7 negative values ​​octonions multiplication table diagonal and Rienmman zeta function:

    (zeta[-7] )^-1 = 240

    For 3 dimensions the value of zeta[-3]= 1/120. The given factor in the equation, the value of the vacuum in the effect Cassimir.

    These 3 Negative values ​​correspond to negative values ​​of the multiplication table of the quaternions.

    Therefore for the total energy of the vacuum in 3 dimensions are not rolled

    E^2= (m x c^2) +( p x c)^2

    There are imaginary values ​​for the mass values ​​are 3 possible negative for the square of total energy as

    know that the value of the vacuum energy has negative pressure

    This is only possible if preserving the positive value of Planck’s constant and applying the principle of uncertainty, we take a negative value for energy and a negative value for time.
    What is the equivalent antiparticle

    The group of rotations in a space of 7 dimensions, which dimension is 21, has as subgroups to negative values ​​of the diagonals of the quaternions and octonions. 7 x 3 = 21

    The value of the ratio between the difference of baryons and antibaryons and the number of photons, corresponding
    the following differential equation by scaling:

    (nb – _nb ) / gamma = A

    dA/A = -21 ; integral ( dA/A ) = -21 ; In (A ) + c = -21

    EXP(-21) x EXP(c) = (nb – _nb ) / fotón number = 6,2 x 10 ^-10

    Without entering into details it can prove that for a wound on 7D dimension and value of the same dimension as the 7D taking small radius of a torus for which a quantum black hole in 7D, there is:

    R inner hole(torus 7D ) / lenght planck =( 2x (2 x PI )^7 / [Volume

    torus 7 D = 16 x (PI)^3 / ( 15 ) ] )^(1/9) = (15 x ( 2 x PI )^4 )^(1/9) = 3,0579009561024…

    R inner hole(torus 7D ) / lenght planck = Rih(7D)= 3,0579009561024…

    R roll radius balckhole torus ( 7 D)/ lenght Planck =( [ 4 x (2 x PI )^7]/ [ 8 x Volume torus 7 D = 16 x (PI)^3 / ( 15 ) ] )^(1/8) =

    2,95694905822…. = RrBH ( 7D )

    (nb – _nb ) / fotón number = EXP(-21) x ( 1/(In[RrBH ( 7D )]) +

    1/(In[ Rih(7D)]) ) -1 ) = 6,2 x 10^-10

    Glory to God the Creator of the universe

    • Kea says:

      That’s cool, number 26, but you should not speak about the higher dimensions as if they are essentially components of a classical space, since quantum information spaces determine these dimensions.

  36. number 26 says:

    The real space-time is 11 dimensional. The classical space-time is the dimensions not roll, That’s the difference

    • Kea says:

      Yes, as in M theory. We get it.

      • number 26 says:

        It is easy to prove that the value of the maximum number of spheres Wrapped, the inverse of the zeta function for the value -7 Rienmman can be expressed as:

        [2 x In( mass planck/ electrón mass] + [alpha electromagnetic coupling constant]^-1 = 240 = 103 + 137, where [ … ] is the integer part

        And the extra dimensions are not a mere fiction, see:

        R inner hole(torus 7D ) / lenght planck = Rih(7D)= 3,0579009561024…

        137,035999084… = [alpha electromagnetic coupling constant]^-1 =

        [6 / ( 6 x Rih(7D) x InIn(26) + 12^2 + 1 ) ] +137

        137 = 2^7 + 2^3 + 2^0

        2 ^ 7 is where all the states (information) due to possible polarizations of photon 2 to 7 diemensiones rolls, which are isomorphic to form the 7 negative values ​​for the vacuum state of the table diagonal multiply octonions

        And 2 ^ 3 is where all the states (information) , 2 due to possible polarization of the photon for the 3 dimensions are not rolled, so isomorphic corresponding to the 3 negative values ​​for the state of vacuumm of not diemensiones rolled, depending on the amount of negative values ​​of the diagonal of the multiplication table of cauterniones

        And 2 ^ 0 is for the time dimension

        7 + 3 +1 = 11

        Note that 2^7 -2 is = 126 = Kissing number sphere packing in 7D

        And very important: there is a close relationship between Chaitin’s constant, the maximum number of packed spheres in 7 dimensions and maximum quantum computability and these vacuum states

        (Chaitin’s constant)^1= 126.98 aprox 126 +1 = 2^7-1

  37. number 26 says:

    And more, it can prove that for this experiment:

    (v-c ) /c = EXP-( In^2 (26 D ) ) = 2,45 x 10^-5

  38. Ulla says:

    For CNGS neutrino energies, = 17 GeV, the relative
    deviation from the speed of light c of the neutrino velocity due to its finite rest mass is expected
    to be smaller than 10-19, even assuming the mass of the heaviest neutrino eigenstate to be as large
    as 2 eV [4].Ch. Weinheimer et al., Phys. Lett. B 460 (1999) 219; but this one is old, used here in this new paper?

    • Kea says:

      They are just remarking that such high energy neutrinos ‘ought’ to have a speed very close to c. But with new physics, nothing ‘ought’ be.

    • ohwilleke says:

      Thanks for quantifying that factor. My intuition had been that the difference would be small, but I hadn’t run the numbers to see that it was the much vastly smaller than the effect observed. In absence of this effect, to the accuracy of all of the experiments in question then, high energy neutrinos should be travelling at a measured value exactly equal to c barring something slowing down neutrinos or light en route. And, neutrinos that do crash into something else en route aren’t going to make it to the detector at all.

      What would be the deviation at the 10 MeV energy of the supernovae neutrinos? (I know I could do it myself, but it takes time for someone who doesn’t even have a scientific calculator at his desk).

  39. wl59 says:

    From the experimental side, for affirm the result, anyway one will have to measure and compare the travel time of light and neutrinos on the same path.

  40. […] a good theoretical basis for expecting neutrinos to do anything like this. One physics blogger who commented on the results wrote, “If you are wondering about theories that allow tachyonic [faster than light] […]

  41. Ulla says:

    Light bends with the spacetime sheets, but neutrinos travel straight through Earth? Can that be the difference?

  42. number 26 says:

    An exact value for this ratio greater than light speed and with the 3 neutrino flavor is:

    (v-c)/c =3 x EXP-[SQR (alpha electromagnetic coupling constant]^-1)] = 2,47 x 10^-5

  43. Kea says:

    So the experiment is more accurate than they care to admit, as usual!

  44. Simplicity says:

    Every particle is in mainstream physics associated with a wave-package stretched out in space and time. Is it possible that it is the front of the neutrinos wave-package that is registered as the arrival of the neutrino ?

  45. Bert Hubert says:

    I just posted which might be a helpful reflection & lay summary. Please let me know the inevitable mistakes, I’m not a professional..

  46. […] hold, this would be a spectacular discovery for particle physics. See also the coverage at Science, viXra, TRF or OPS. Eco World Content From Across The Internet. Featured on EcoPressed Water […]

  47. CipE says:

    The neutrinos were moving faster than the measured speed of light in vacuum. This is very interesting if correct.

    We assume that the speed of light in vacuum equals the maximum speed for the transmission of information. That is not _necessarily_ true since vacuum contains quantum fluctuations, dark energy and other quantum effects. In this case “c” would only be an approximation for the maximum speed for the transmission of information. Proposed Explanation: the speed of light in vacuum (c) and the observed neutrino speed are both less than the maximum speed for the transmission of information ( c++ ?).

    • wl59 says:

      As I said already, if the travel time difference will be verified by more observations (the apparatus for detect the neutrinos is much larger than 18m which potentially could result in uncertainties of this amount), then it’s simply that both the speed of light and of neutrinos are below the limit speed, but the light even slower than neutrinos. That’s no problem for the relativity, nor means neutrinos ‘tachyons’ or really ‘supraluminous’ above the limit speed. And to explain why light is slower, that’s not difficult – f.ex. assuming that any World Point / event / interaction with matter or something else observed in the frame, world and dimensions of the observer also results in a lag / delay of the time mesaured by the observer, in order to keep invariant the whole sum or 0 = dS² – L² dt² + … , because in its own frame the photon feels no interaction between emission and absorption.

      • ohwilleke says:

        “it’s simply that both the speed of light and of neutrinos are below the limit speed, but the light even slower than neutrinos. That’s no problem for the relativity, nor means neutrinos ‘tachyons’ or really ‘supraluminous’ above the limit speed”

        Absolutely. This would be a far less radical conclusion that would not bring all of the foundations of modern physics to a crashing collapse.

        For example, perhaps in Earth’s magnetic fields and cluttered mass field that are locally not electromagnetically neutral (and in similar fields found in supernovae), extremely high energy neutrinos actually do travel faster than photons because like the turtle and the hare, the theoretically faster photons get bogged down in “conservations” with other photons and electrons in the vicinity of their path, while slightly slower high energy neutrinos that are not diverted by colliding with other matter are not, even though in the mass free, charge free vacuum itself, photons actually travel slightly faster than high energy neutrinos.

  48. Maybe we are all wrong and what should to be explain is why light seems to be slower than neutrinos. 60 ns is too few to be explained by a radical deviation of known theories, unless a new experiment can confirm the data.
    1) A mistake /systematic error is found ( like the one in the Pioneer anomaly, now almost solved). Then we will not so happy.

    2)Other experiment confirms the data. Then, we should have to explain seriously these data. What should be the proposals?

    -Minimal solutions: matter effects on c or v_neutrinos, modified dispersion relationships. Any relation with LSND and reactor anomalies? Don’t seem reasonable since the neutrino beam energy is around 100MeV-1GeV.

    -Intermediate solutions: Non-standard interactions in the energy range of the beam energy ( to avoid the SUPERNOva data), some nonlocal effect about the speed of light, varying speed of light.

    -Radical new solution: CPT violation, quantum gravity/gravitational physics effect, extra dimensions/stringtheory-branes, some radical new theory…

    • wl59 says:

      All that isn’t necessary. It’s sufficient to assume, that on any world point, any event, happens a little delay in the same observer’s frame, which compenses it, so that the sum remains zero. 0 = -dS²/E² + dt² – 1/c² dl² , that’s the Action S or Proper time dtau = dS / E (Jacobi-Hamilton) discretized and considered as an own dimension. Like macroscopically we have 0 = dt² – 1/c² dl² and an observer in a system where the light travels dl this also takes time dt, in a rest system we have 0 = -dS²/E² + dt² and any Action or event produces a jump in the time dt .

      From the astronomy and optical or CCD observations of faintest stars, which we see normally sharp and focussed, we know that diffraction and thus a lower speed c/n is present also for single photons. As Sommerfeld remarked already 1914, and what didn’t improve since then, is that the oscillator (or absorption/stimulated re-emission) models of refraction don’t work with single photons, and even on low intensities refraction should be proportional to the luminousity. Any theory which will be made for this, however should work also with normal intensities, so that, hardly spoken, the mentioned models are superfluid and wrong. On the other side, the delay hipothese above would explain exactly the refraction as a geometrical condition for l resulting from discrete numbers of actions S or events S/h, inclusive the delay or lower speed of light f.ex. in glass, assuming that on each event the light lags one wavelength behind.

      And, as said, w.r.t. the neutrino results this could explain that light, by any interaction with matter or anything else, or better by any ‘event’ in the observer’s frame, also would delay a little in the observers frame’s time coordinate. The neutrinos interact with fewer things, thus have a lower number of events on their path, and thus aren’t slowed down so much as light and remains nearer the limit speed.

  49. Excellent

    finally superluminal matter

    one of the major problems in the Warp Drive spacetime is the causally disconnected portion of spacetime called The Horizon

    see for example

    pages from 6 to 8

    look at the figure in the top of pg 8

    in the interior of the Warp Bubble X=0 but in the exterior of the Warp Bubble X=vs (from pg 4 definition 1.9) with vs > 1 (c=1)

    imagine a photon being sent to the front of the Warp Bubble

    assuming a continuous growth of X travelling from inside the Warp Bubble to the outside X grows from 0 to vs but at a given point X must pass by 1 X=1 and the photon stops….never reaching the region where X=vs….this region is calusally disconnected for the light speed…..Et Voici Le Horizon see eqs of pg 6

    so an observer inside the Warp Bubble cannot signal the front at light speed….these Superluminal neutrions perhaps are the beginning of the study of Superluminal particles…..and we need the Superluminal behaviour for the exotic matter

    • Hi Fernando Loup! I read your paper a few weeks ago because Mohammad Mansouriar suggested me to take a look at your works. Because of that, I made a vague suggestion…

      What actually I thought was that the earliest nucleon model, the MIT bag model, uses a similar construction to Notario’s warp drive when it comes to the use of casimir forces, but instead of EM field, you have strong force. Given that Ws and Z are related to quark decays, these particles are just phonons of the strong force, and a brief variation of EM field would create a pair of electron and anti electron, muon and anti muon or tau anti tau. One of them would change the quark charge, the other would be a free particle and a photon would be confined in a warp bubble, which would be the neutrino.

      • hi Daniel De Franca

        nice to know that somebody is reading my papers

        Mohammad Mansouriar is a good physicist

        .(as a matter of fact he is very good )

        .i am glad he recommended me for a reading

        as for superluminal neutrinos on LHC i am not concerned right now

        but i wiill make a Bet And Win Poker Gambling

        the LHC will synthethise the first amounts of exotic matter nedded to assemble the Warp Drive

        i am waiting for LHC

        i know something about particle physics Standard Model etc see gr-qc/0603106 the author would look familiar to you

      • Hi Fernando!

        Well, not to clutter this discussion, I will send you an emal right now. I have a few ideas to exchange with you. BTW, I will talk to you in my mother language, it will be more comfortable.

  50. Kasuha says:

    Assuming it is error, incorrect calibration of about 26 km of transfer line for c=300,000 km/s instead of real value may result in exactly the difference they have found. LHC circumference comes on mind.

  51. for those interested in the mathematical demonstrations of these calculations for the Horizons in the Natario Warp Drive see section 6 of

  52. […] Several physicists seem excessively alarmed and have raised a concern that if this is true “it would violate everything we think we know about causality.” […]

  53. jal says:

    Here is my “out of the box” question?
    What would an astronomer say?
    Did we find a way to measure the speed of the earth vs CMB?
    Since our galaxy is moving with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) in the direction of the constellation Hydra with a speed of 550 km/s, the Sun’s resultant velocity with respect to the CMB is about 370 km/s in the direction of Crater or Leo.

  54. Ray Munroe says:

    Hi Number 26,

    I agree that superluminal neutrinos may be evidence of extra dimensions, but I can explain this with 7 dimensions – no need for more dimensions (yet), the fine structure constant, or variants of El Naschie’s ideas. I hope you publish a paper about these ideas – I intend to. By the way, do I know you? I have had some contact with many of the El Naschie followers…

    For Everyone Else – I kept quiet about this rumor for the past week because I feared that it may be an experimental error or another “sighting” released before its time (like the recent Higgs rumors). But having read the results, I am convinced that the Universe is a larger place today – we are finally starting to uncover some of the science behind “Stargate”! It seems only logical that neutrinos with small, but non-zero, rest masses would be the first to demonstrate this hyperspace anomaly.

    Have Fun!

  55. […] A thorougher explanation in the following article: […]

  56. cyberdyno says:

    Maybe what’s traveling faster than light is state, not information.

  57. Maenander says:

    If you worry about energy dependence have a look at the neutrino events from SN1987A, they all occur within a timespan of 14(!) seconds, while the energies vary between 7.5 and 38 MeV.

    Any substantial energy dependence (as would be needed to reconcile both results) would in fact have destroyed the signal, there would have been no detection in 1987.

  58. ohwilleke says:

    If the effect is real, it doesn’t necessarily imply that neutrinos are actually tachyonic relative to the proper measure of “c” for special and general relativity (which implies Lorentz invariance and all sorts of other causality mischief). It could be that the true value of “c” is actually closer to 1+3*10^-5 times the value for “c” used in the calculations of the speed of the neutrinos.

    After all, it is elementary that photons do travel at less than “c” in a non-vacuum medium (e.g. water).

    How could this happen?

    Perhaps, the experimental values of the speed of light used to reach a tachyonic result in the OPERA calculation are in fact less than the true value of “c” (a classic systemic error). This could be due to photons traveling at an effective rate lower than “c” due to factors such as photons having more interactions en route with other photons and electrons and quarks than do neutrinos in environments that are not free of electromagnetic fields and charged matter.

    If so, the “effective” speed of light is close enough to the true value to avoid any major flaws in other high energy physics experiments that operate a short distances, and in engineeering applications where real world photons interact with real world objects in a space that has small backgrounds of photons and charged matter for the photons to interact with en route, the “effective” speed of light, rather than the relativistic equation true value of that constant may work perfectly well when used on a consistent basis.

    This would also explain why the deviation is smaller in supernovae tests, where the vast majority of the trip a neutrino and photon from that source take really is in a near vacuum with a much lower density of charged matter and photons, and the additional interactions of photons with their environent that might give rise to a measurable velocity difference take place only in the star where they originate and the immediate vicinity of the Earth before they are detected.

    The lack of energy dependence may be due to the fact that the non-linear relationship between velocity and kinetic energy in special relativity is so flat at energies anywhere near 10 MeV, due to a very low electron neutrino mass, that it is smaller than the margins of errors in the measurements.

    In this scenario, it would be true that “a lack of energy dependence would be if the universe had two separate [effective] fixed speeds, one for [high energy] neutrinos and one for photons [in electromagnetic and charge matter rich environments].” And this would “explain why the SN1987A neutrinos were not affected” as much.

  59. ohwilleke says:

    Correction to paragraph one: “. . . which implies Lorentz invariance IS BROKEN . . .”

  60. Torbjörn Larsson, OM says:

    So … has everybody caught where they goofed yet?

    It is an easy one. According to the paper the distance measurement procedure use the geodetic distance in the ETRF2000 (ITRF2000) system as given by some standard routine. The european GPS ITRF2000 system is used for geodesy, navigation, et cetera and is conveniently based on the geode.

    I get the difference between measuring distance along an Earth radius perfect sphere (roughly the geode) and measuring the distance of travel, for neutrinos the chord through the Earth, as 22 m over 730 km. A near light speed beam would appear to arrive ~ 60 ns early, give or take.

    Of course, they have had a whole team on this for 2 years, so it is unlikely they goofed. But it is at least possible. I read the paper, and I don’t see the explicit conversion between the geodesic distance and the travel distance anywhere.

    Unfortunately the technical details of the system and the routine used to give distance from position is too much to check this quickly. But the difference is a curious coincidence with the discrepancy against well established relativity.

    • ohwilleke says:

      That would be a really embarassing error for OPERA/CERN if that turns out to be what is happening.

    • Bert hubert says:

      Wouldn’t this effect work just the other way?

    • Daniel says:

      My calculations gives 360 m difference. Could you recheck yours?

    • Luboš Motl says:

      Sorry, I originally thought that your point was that they confused measurements on a perfect sphere with the measurement on the geoid.

      But now I think that you suggest that they confused trajectories through the Earth with trajectories along the surface of the Earth.

      Which of the two mistakes are you talking about? You seem to be mixing several things and it’s hard to understand.

      • chimpanzee says:

        According to diagram at:

        (website of researcher Dario Autiero, co-author), they seem to in fact have the correct distance: “straight chord”, not geodesic “curve”.

        However, it ASSUMES the distance they pulled from GPS (geodesic curve) is *converted* the “linear chord”!! The diagram in the arxiv paper (“The April
        2009 earthquake in the region of LNGS, in particular, produced a sudden displacement of about 7
        cm, as seen in Fig. 7”) shows Up [ height ], North [ lat ], East [ long ]diagrams — the 3D coordinates for GPS. This indicates they are using data (coordinates) for Geodesic model.

        Key question: did they IN FACT convert this GPS metric (“geodesic curve”) to the linear chord? Or, did they have a huge blunder & ASSUME they had the “linear chord” metric??? If latter is true, it would be a huge blunder.

        Your calculation below, seems (343m difference) would not account for the 60 ns delta-T? BTW, I don’t understand your calculation. 2 x Sin (angle/2), where angle = .114 rad. Can you elaborate?

    • Luboš Motl says:

      Otherwise concerning the distance through the Earth and along the Earth: 730 km corresponds to the angle 730/6378 = 0.114 rad or so. Let’s use the exact figure 0.114 as the angular distance

      Imagine that this is the distance along the surface. Then the distance through the Earth is 2 sin (0.114/2) = 0.11393828 rad which is shorter by 0.0000617 rad. Multiply by 6 378 000 meters and you get 393 meters of difference. So I (more than) agree with Daniel’s figure. And it seems implausible that they have made a 393-meter error. So if your issue was the very first-order “along the Earth” vs “through the Eart”, I think that the numerical size of the difference falsifies your suggestion.

      • chimpanzee says:

        I don’t understand this calculation. I see angle = 730 km /6378 km = .114 rad, what is 6378 km? What is 2 x sin (angle/2) ..?? Is this a basic formula in spherical trigonometry?

        I myself prefer 3D vector analysis (point on the geodesic is a 3-vector), use vector operations (subtraction, formulas, etc) & Euclidean norms (to find vector magnitude). The GPS data (height, lat, long) would yield the 3D coordinates.

      • Luboš Motl says:

        Jesus Christ, chimp. 6378 km is the radius of the Earth – that’s the planet of apes, apparently, given your ignorance about this basic number.

        Yes, the sine is a formula from basic-school trigonometry. The coordinates of a point separated by angle “alpha” on the circle are (cos alpha, sin alpha), never heard of it? If I draw one half of the angle 0.114 rad on the left and one half of it on the right, they will have the same first coordinate, cos(0.114/2), and their second coordinate will be plus minus sin(0.114/2), so the distance between thes two points will be 2.sin(0.114/2).

        Please think at least five times before you admit once again that you don’t understand these elementary things because it is really hugely embarrassing given the fact that you expect me to read your super long e-mails.

      • Luboš Motl says:

        By the way, if you’re good at languages, you may remember the radius of the Earth by learning Czech. Once you learn Czech, you may memorize the sentence “Šetři se, osle”, which means “save yourself, ass”. The syllables of the sentence, “še”, “tři”, “se”, “os”, clearly indicate the digits “šest”, “tři”, “sedm”, “osm” which are 6378. By learning Czech, you can avoid further embarrassing events in which you show to the world that you don’t have any idea how big is the planet you occupy.

      • Luboš Motl says:

        One more comment. It’s completely irrelevant whether one uses 3D coordinates. I am making a geometric calculation of an informally defined problem so I may choose my own coordinates. I choose the coordinates in which z=0 for the center of the Earth, CERN, and Gran Sasso. In the plane defined by these three points, the problem I want to calculate reduces to 2-dimensional geometry because z=0, and the problem was solved so that most kindergarten kids will understand it in the previous comments.

      • chimpanzee says:

        Using 3D coordinates (N+1=3 space) on 2D (N=2 space) topological sphere is known as Homogeneous Coordinates, a powerful technique recognized in Computer Graphics & Computer Vision. A 3×3 matrix multiply (where rows or columns are unit 3D vectors, corresponding to points on 2D topological surface of sphere) can accomplish Affine transformation (rotation + translation) of your “points on a circle”. It completely avoids using Sin, Cos, etc, like you use. It would trump any calculation you try to make with Sin, Cos, since it doesn’t involve any transcendental functions (sin, cos, tan, cot, etc). My model is effectively a simpler generalized theory (comparable to the argument that String Theory trumps every other theory)

        Vector Analysis is a generalized theory for Geometry, Trigonometry (what you are using), & Algebra. Look up UICSM (U of Illinois Curriculum Secondary Mathematics), which was part of the New Math initiative & taught to me..Stanford Univ was the other effort.

        Of course, now I see your calculation (taught as basic high school stuff). We are from “2 universes” in terms of geometrical calculation. BTW, your calculation ASSUMES CERN & GS are at the *same* elevation (perfect circle model), but it’s not (geodesic model includes elevation). So, you forgot to include that as an assumption.

        “Assumption is the mother of all screwups”

        This paper is filled with assumptions, like Gaussian PDF (probably density function) & independent uncorrelated PDFs..which is reflected in their “std-devs added in quadrature”. As per the famous theorem on adding 2 independent Gaussian RVs. In fact, the PDFs are NOT Gaussian, & are they really independent? Matt Strassler pointed this out:

        He is now at Rutgers (met him at SUSY ’06, where you were nice enough to spend time with me on the phone to prepare me for ST, & I said hi to your PhD advisor Tom Banks), your alma mater.

        I am wondering at these “scales”, that the statistical models (Gaussian, independent, uncorrelated) during the “dicing/slicing” could be source of errors. I.e., it’s not as good as a 6 sigma result. NOTE: this is a valid argument against ANY experimental Particle Physics paper!!

        There are other statistical models out there, Kolmogorov models, etc.

        Note that their experiment had fixed # of trials to build their “experimental PDF” (to measure TOF (neutrino), TOF = Time of Flight ), it’s NOT an infinite set. PDF is based on an infinite set of trials

        Another thing. THere is NO mention of “Quantization Noise”, noise = std-dev (aka “sigma”) Quantization is a source of uncertainty, & will affect the sigma. The GPS & rest of their equipment is all DIGITAL. 16-bit, 12-bit, 32-bit, it’s never mentioned. Maybe the systematic error is the accumulation of quantization noise!! WOW.

        I give you a result from my field Computer Graphics. They do hidden surface calculations, using z-buffer (z coordinate, along optical axis of virtual camera). Because of roundoff & truncation errors, sometimes the “behind surface” will appear in FRONT!! A blunder result, because of ACCUMULATION of roundoff/truncation errors. SCARY. Could the OPERA 60 nsec disparity be the result of roundoff/truncation?? All these fancy digital programs, when they import data, they will do n-bit conversions. I.e., an 8-bit Photoshop program will down-convert 16-bit data from digital camera. Did OPERA have proper controls of the various software??

        The above suggests a more Interdisciplinary Approach in peer review, given that their equipment involves digital signal processing devices. Need Electrical Eng & Computer Science reviewers (my PhD is in Electrical Eng).

        See website, did you contemplate the above issues?

    • chimpanzee says:

      “Of course, they have had a whole team on this for 2 years, so it is unlikely they goofed. But it is at least possible. I read the paper, and I don’t see the explicit conversion between the geodesic distance and the travel distance anywhere.”

      Not necessarily.

      “Simple answers, to simple questions..turned out to be REALLY EXCITING”
      — M. Gell-Mann

      “Groupthink” (e.g., peer pressure, “accomadation” = get-along-types, etc) can be a powerful force, is independent of #’s of people. I’ve seen entire FIELDS (not just a group) swayed by phony/junk research. I personally led a breakthrough in my field (PhD candidate) in early 80’s, using a simple Geometrical concept (topology in N-1 dimensional space, to solve an N-dimensional problem)..missed by the so-called “experts” (tenured profs at big-name universities, their students, collaborators, etc).

      I also suspected what T. Larsson is saying, applying a consumer-product (GPS navigation using geodetic model, “curved path”) for a “linear path” application..a neutrino beam. I recall Lisa Randall/Harvard mentioning that (consumer) GPS used relativity calculations. This is possibly ANOTHER thing that needs to be investigated: algorithm correctness (valid or not) & implementation (computer programming). 1 of my grad-school classmates told me “there is no such thing as error-free software” (written by error prone humans).

      I think the experiment needs to be re-done, this time with custom dedicated hardware/software (done by the science team engineers). Any of us knows how UNRELIABLE computer hardware/software can be: they have BUGS. Remember that Stanford mathematics Prof whose program came up with a “erroneous” value (back in the 80’s).. it was traced to a defect in the CPU chip!! (the silicon chip designers goofed!!).

      “I keep telling you, use the right tool…for the RIGHT JOB”
      — Scotty, engineer (Starship Enterprise), Star Trek

      This is a common fault in every field: using the wrong tool for a certain job. Yes, it would be embarassing if a consumer GPS was inadvertently applied for a hard-science experiment. If so, they relied on a SINGLE method for determining the linear-distance. To minimize risk, they should have tried multiple hardware solutions. Or, figured out SOMETHING was creating the systematic error.

      A leading researcher in my field (Dr James Blinn/Caltech/JPL/Computer Graphics Lab) once stated:

      “I always get asked about my toolset. I have a set of tools, that get from point A to point B [ redundancy ]”
      — he did all the famous JPL Voyager animations & was part of the Caltech education initiative (Project Mathematics!) in assn with Dr Goodstein (protege of R. Feynman)

      i.e. the concept of a diversified portfolio. A universal concept in Business, War, Stock investing..Game Theory in general”

      Having an engineering background, I am always faced with perplexing problems day-to-day. Always, the SIMPLEST explanation usually ends up solving the problem (90% of the time). I always 1st address the most obvious/intuitive solution. Sometimes, there are multiple factors, which are non-orthogonal (“coupled”). Gets complicated then.

      If T. Larsson’s computation is correct (distance miscalculation), then the 60 ns disparity is explained. I agree with J. Hernandez, when he points out the Pioneer anomaly (asymmetrical thermal radiation pressure by RTG)..something simple.

      “Simplicity is the ULTIMATE SOPHISTICATION”
      — Leonardo da Vinci, seen at Caltech Computer Science hallway

      It solves problems most elegantly & cleanly, with robustness.

      • chimpanzee says:

        Here is an example of how “right tool for right job” is a maxim in Engineering.

        I found this website (software product)

        When to use Ncqrs

        Scotty said in Star Trek V: “How many times do I have to tell you, the right tool for the right job!“. Ncqrs isn’t the right tool for every job. Which means that not every application will benefit from Ncqrs. Simple CRUD based systems without much behavior will not benefit from it. But there is a wide variety of applications that do benefit from Ncqrs.

        Applications will most likely benefit from Ncqrs when they have one or more of the following characteristics:

        Long life time – The project will exists for a longer period or time and therefore has the needs to organically grow.
        Need to be scalable – The application needs the be scalable when needed.
        Contain business logic – The application contains business logic that needs to stay maintainable.
        Demand for integration – Other applications need to be able to integrate with it.
        Having multiple views – There are multiple screens, reports or application that have there own view on the data.
        Must have a audit log – All state changes must be logged and a auditable log needs to be build.

        The characteristic in question is: “distance measurement for geodesic model”

      • chimpanzee says:

        I want to point out that “mistakes” is NOT the issue, but that the Check/Balance system (peer-review) worked. If so, it would point out the power of Science Blogs (in this case Vixra, the “alternative model” for Arxiv) as a tool for Research.

        Huge kudos to Vixra, increases their brand-name & might get them external funding ($$). A victory for an “open architecture” system for Science R&D. Just like open-architecture Android smartphone OS is beating out Apple’s iPhone (“walled garden”, many barriers), in terms of market-share. It’s been said that desktop computers (& even laptops) will be replaced by “mobile media solutions”. I.e., Vixra peer-review could ENTIRELY be done over smartphone. That would attract funding by the big computer companies (Intel, HTC, Apple, Samsung, ARM, Nvidia, Motorola, Qualcomm, Nokia, RIM) who are moving towards “Essential Computing” (embedded processors in daily “mobile computing”). RIM is interesting, since they fund the Perimeter Institute (theoretical physics research).

        I commend the leader of OPERA, who made the results public for purpose of “scrutiny” (Web 2.0 peer review). They were compelled to go Public, after repeated analyses of the data.

        Dr Arkani-Hamed pointed out in

        how the (old fashioned) system of talks would have worked. But, that takes TIME & is tedious/expensive (air-travel to goto conferences). With the connectivity of Internet, this happened quickly (using the near “speed of light” electron tranmissions over wire, Fiber-optic cable, etc). Victory for Vixra & Web 2.0

        Everyone makes mistakes. Failure is a part of Life. It’s dealing with Adversity (overcoming your mistakes) that is the challenge.

        “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me”

        I think OPERA has something to offer in Neutrino research, in conjunction with the other experiments (MINOS/Fermilab, others). The naive Science-challenged Public might react to this public debacle negatively, but in fact it is a testament to the Scientific Method:

        “It is a self-correcting self-organizing system, in pursuit of the Truth. It is an open system, which accepts new data-points, & allows modification of theories, or replacement altogether”

        whereas the Public is ruled by religion/opinion (based on “Belief”, w/o peer review), i.e. junk.

        “Science begets Knowledge..Opinion — ignorance”
        — Hipparchus, inventor of star-magnitude system

        In terms of “Bigger Picture”, it was a success of the Scientific System

        “I’m locally pessimistic, GLOBALLY OPTIMISTIC”
        — Dr. Jordan Pollack, CS prof/Brandeis (my colleague in grad-school, Edge colleague w/Dr Maria Spiropulu/CERN/Caltech)

        Science is fundamentally an ill-conditioned problem (insufficient data-points, but continually acquiring new ones), which creates non-unique solutions (multiple theories). Eventually, a threshold is reached where a dominant (“most correct”) theory is determined. The classic example is Evolution, where the evidence is so dominant (“preponderance of Evidence”).

        “Evolution is a fact, not a theory,”
        — Carl Sagan

        The evidence-trail is in the DNA, which reflects the evolutionary path (e.g., yeast DNA in humans, Chimpanzees & Humans share 98% of DNA). Humans are the evolutionary descendants of “star stuff” (Carl Sagan term)

        Eventually, Physics/Astronomy/Cosmology will have a “finality” end-game.

  61. wl59 says:

    It’s simply not a reason of this kind. From special measurements, they determined the distance precisely. And we should remember that with simple GPS we get already positions precise to a few m, what in fact corresponds to light travel times of the same accuracy.

    It’s a team of enough specialists, so it’s not a trivial error. It remains the possibility of any instrumental effect depending on just this instruments and which could be avoided only by repeating the measurement by other laboratories.

    Anyway, it’s necessary a repeated and again repeated reproduction of these results.

  62. John Ståhle says:

    Re.: SN1987A.

    The neutrinos would have arrived some 3.95±0.1 years before the photons, given a neutrino speed of (1 + 10^-5) c.

    Did they? (rethoric Q).

    • Daniel says:

      Many already mentioned a controversy between the superluminal fraction observed in the Opera experiment (2×10^-5) and what has been observed in the 1987 supernova. If that fraction is applied to the supernova, the time delay must be about a year, but actually it was just 2 hours. Interesting, that the controversy could be resolved if one suggest that the neutrino, when it “virtually” goes through the electron, somehow manages make it instantly. It is interesting, because the required cross section of such virtual interaction (let call it “swap”) have to be about the typical neutrino-electron cross section 10^-48 m^2. With that assumption, we would have that the neutrinos in the supernova become superluminal just when they go through the matter, as well as across the rocks in the Opera experiment. In vacuum their velocity is equal to the speed of light. What remains with that model, that one should prove that the causality didn’t suffer from “swap”.

      • John Ståhle says:

        SN1987A distance app. 157 000 light years
        Photons: 157 000 * 9.46073473^12 * 1000 / 299 792 458 = app. 4 954 545 429 000 sec
        Neutrinos: 157 000 * 9.46073473^12 * 1000 / 299 799 953 = app. 4 954 421 000 sec

        (4 954 545 429 000 – 4 954 421 000) sec = app. 123 860 000 sec = app. 3.925 years

        If the distance is 160 kly the time diff. is 4.0 years, at 168 kly it’s 4.2 years.

        Whichever it’s way off what we observed: 3 hours from neutrinos to photons.

      • Ulla says:

        Were there any measurements of supernova excess of neutrinos over 4 -3,5 -1 years before the 1987 supernova?

  63. […] excellent accounts of the measurement and implications, see, for example, viXra log and Matt Strassler, among […]

  64. wl59 says:

    If we assume anyway L < N < G , then this explanation works only so long as L and N are very near and G much mure higher. If N approaches G then N-L should reach a limit. Otherwhise the explanation would get G < N and are in disagreement with the RT.

  65. wl59 says:

    (in my last post: L light, N neutrinos, G limit speed)

  66. number 26 says:

    he reason for the OPERA experiment seems to correspond to prove violations of Lorentz invariance due to the interaction of particles with the foamy structure of space time, quantum gravitational effects
    Speaking out: the geometry of spacetime at the quantum level would generate different curvatures depending on the energy of the particle, the actual space-time geometry of this 11 dimensional and more or less interaction with other particles.
    The neutrino would be an ideal particle, by its very low interaction with other particles, to prove this violation as well as an opportunity to establish indirect evidence but not negligible for the discrete quantum geometry of spacetime, which in my opinion must reside in a geometry based on superstrings, branes, etc.
    This paper is a good example of the OPERA experiment.

    “Probes of Lorentz Violation in Neutrino Propagation”

    Very low interaction with other particles, in this case, the virtual particles of the vacuum must involve shortest paths in the displacement of particles thrgouh quantized space-time and non-Euclidean geometry. Geometry which should take a quantum curvature function of generating energy and modes of interaction of the particles.

    A natural mass that relates the gravitational and electromagnetic field should be:

    SQR( e+- ^2 / ( Gn ) ) ; Where e + – is the quantized electric charge

    = 1,602176565 x 10^-19 C , and Gn is Newton’s gravitational constant = 6,67428 x 10^-11 Nx m^2 / Kg^2

    A space-time of 11 dimensions, 7 of them rolled into torus.
    This torus can be considered formed by two radius, R larger and small radius r

    The larger radius relative to the Planck length would be applied to the n-dimensional gravity, to obtain a larger radius for rolled 7 dimensions,equal to:

    R/ lenght planck = [ 2 x ( 2 x PI ) ^7 / Vt(7D)]^(1/9) =3,0579009561024… = Rout ( torus 7D)
    , where Vt(7D) is the volume torus in 7 D =( 16 x (PI )^3 ) / 15

    The small radius of the torus could be considered the quantum black hole. so the radio would:

    [ 4 x ( 2 x PI ) ^7 / 8 x Vt(7D)]^(1/8) = r/ lenght planck = 2,9569490582229…

    Note that the maximum surface of a sphere is given n dimensional precisely when n = 7 dimensions, or equivalent to the volume of a torus in 7 dimensions

    There is the possibility of representing an n-sphere or hypersphere of n dimensions as another bundle of lower-dimensional hypersphere. This happens only in three cases:

    S3 Can be represented as a nontrivial bundle base S2 space and fiber S1, this construction can be obtained from algebraic geometric construction using complex numbers.
    S7 Can be represented as a nontrivial bundle base S4 space and fiber S3, this construction can be obtained from algebraic geometric construction using quaternionic numbers.
    S15 Can be represented as a nontrivial bundle base S8 space and fiber S7, this construction can be obtained from algebraic geometric construction using octonions numbers.

    I’m still working on it, but in a preliminary way that equality can occur with very good approximation

    SQR( e+- ^2 / ( Gn ) ) ; Where e + – is the quantized electric charge

    = 1,602176565 x 10^-19 C , and Gn is Newton’s gravitational constant = 6,67428 x 10^-11 Nx m^2 / Kg^2

    Planck mass / ( SQR( e+- ^2 / ( Gn ) ) ) =[( Rout^7( torus 7D) x 16 x (PI)^3 ) / 15 ] x 15 -Sum( i=1, to 6 )[ Fi] – alpha^-1 x zeta[-7]

    Where Fi is the fibonacci numbers divisors of kissingg number for 8D

    = value [zeta Rienmman function for -7]^-1 = 1/ zeta[-7] = 240

    Fi = set ( 1,1,2,3,5,8 ) , fibonacci numbers divisors of 240

    2 guesses.

    a) violation of Lorentz invariance due to the geometry of space rolled quantified in 7 dimensions would be a function of

    Planck mass / ( SQR( e+- ^2 / ( Gn ) ) )

    More specifically: Violation of Lorentz invariance due to quantum geometry effects 11 dimensional space = VL(11D) =( v -c )/ c = Function [1/ Planck mass / ( SQR( e+- ^2 / ( Gn ) ) ) ]

    b) violation of Lorentz invariance due to the geometry of space rolled quantified in 7 dimensions would be a difference function due to curvature radii R and r of the torus in size rolls

    FLambdaK = curvature Function difference curvature due to sphere radius R torus a r radius torus ( Black hole radius )

    FLambdaK = 1/R^2 – 1/r^2

    FLambdaK = 1/(3,0579009561024)^2 – 1/(2,9569490582229)^2.

    Minimun VL(11D) =( v -c )/ c = EXP-(SQR |1/( 1/(3,0579009561024)^2 – 1/(2,9569490582229)^2 )

    The symmetry of scale invariance should play:

    d(VL(11D) )/ VL(11D) = SQR[1/( 1/(3,0579009561024)^2 – 1/(2,9569490582229)^2 ) ]


    God is the creator of the universe

    All Glory to Him

    • John Ståhle says:

      – and the god’s name is Zolzhar.

      – wait, no it’s Amon-Ra.

      . no wait, it’s Zeus … or Ta’Aroa or Odin or …

      • number 26 says:

        Why such a funny comment?

        You to know that this year is the start of World War III, did you make this more fun?

        Respect and you will be respected


      • Giovanni says:

        Are u kidding ? This is a blog where 99% of articles are about physics, most of these people are atheist (as myself) and you write a long comment with complex thoughts about the matter. After that you just write “God is the creator of the universe All Glory to Him”. If this is not pure troll made by you I don´t know what is it anymore. You should at least be more careful and keep your faith with yourself. It is rubish to make “propaganda” of your faith (specially in a cientific blog), I don´t say to everybody I know that I´m an atheist, and I don´t care if one is a believer or not. Thus, be more receptive and flexible with the jokes. As told in a popular brazilian quote : “Se não aguenta, bebe leite.” what literally means “If you can´t handle, drink milk”.

  67. number 26 says:

    Minimun VL(11D) =( v -c )/ c = EXP-(SQR |1/( 1/(3,0579009561024)^2 – 1/(2,9569490582229)^2| )

    The symmetry of scale invariance should play:

    d(VL(11D) )/ VL(11D) = SQR[|1/( 1/(3,0579009561024)^2 – 1/(2,9569490582229)^2| ) ]

    absolute values

    Negative curvature would lead to negative pressure of the quantum vacuum


  68. John Ståhle says:

    Mixing non-existing deities with science is silly.

  69. number 26 says:

    Your opinion matters very little to me.

    And must prove his claim.
    Answer me of where they come out the mathematical laws that govern the physics of the universe.
    These laws are not a quantum fluctuation and can not leave the silly theory of the multiverse
    Silly for you no for me

    • Kea says:

      If you think quantum gravity does not involve quantum physics, you indeed have much to learn.

      • Kea says:

        Given a simple $d/t$ measurement, of course there should exist a description using the correct classical geometry, as you point out. But fitting this geometry into a theory of quantum gravity is another matter entirely. The string theorists have been wrong about many, many things, including this, and almost noone else seems to be doing anything even remotely acceptable from the mathematical standpoint. A theory is a theory, made up by humans, who ought to demonstrate more humility.

  70. John Ståhle says:

    Mixing supernatural prejudices with science is silly.

    Believe what you want, based on some bronze- and iron age philosophers’ attempt to explain the world, but keep it to yourself; it is not part of science which is related to the natural world only.

    • Ulla says:

      Neither do you know, so why not be silent. Ancient philosophers were not that stupid, they could think, and observe, and associate the natural world, three things forgotten today when we rely on authorities too much. You see, now authorities ASK US to come with ideas, also wild. Their brains cannot associate enough well:) Respect, please.

  71. number 26 says:

    writing error corrected:

    SQR( e+- ^2 / ( Gn ) ) ; Where e + – is the quantized electric charge

    = 1,602176565 x 10^-19 C , and Gn is Newton’s gravitational constant = 6,67428 x 10^-11 Nx m^2 / Kg^2

    Planck mass / ( SQR( e+- ^2 / ( Gn ) ) ) =( [( Rout^7( torus 7D) x 16 x (PI)^3 ) / 15 ] x 15 ) / (In( Rout( torus 7D)=3,59009561…) –Sum( i=1, to 6 )[ Fi] – alpha^-1 x zeta[-7]

    ( [( Rout^7( torus 7D) x 16 x (PI)^3 ) / 15 ] x 15 ) / (In( Rout( torus 7D)=3,59009561…) ) +Sum( i=1, to 6 )[ Fi^2] + alpha^-1 x zeta[-7] =

    {( [ ( 3,0579009561024)^7 x16 x (PI)^3 ]/ 15 ) x 15 }/ In(3,0579009561024 ) +Sum( i=1, to 6 )[ Fi^2] +( alpha^-1 x zeta[-7] ) =

    = 1109782,8727871 = Planck mass / ( SQR( e+- ^2 / ( Gn ) ) )


  72. In TGD the explanation of neutrino mystery is based solely on the kinematics implied by sub-manifold gravity (manysheeted space-time etc). No assumption about tachyonicity.

    The energy independence of the results mentioned by Phil fits perfectly with the findings when neutrinos are relativistic. There can be dependence on length scale in other words distance scale and this is needed to explain SN1987A -CERN difference in Delta c/c.

    The space-time sheet along which particles propagate would correspond to a small deformation of a “massless extremal” (“topological light ray”) assignable to the particle in question. Many-sheeted space-time could act like spectroscope forcing each (free) particle type at its own kind of “massless extremal”. The effect is predicted to be present for *any* ultrarelativistic particle.

    If I were a boss at CERN, I would suggest that the experiment would be carried out for highly relativistic electrons whose detection is probably much easier and using much shorter scale.

    *Could one use both photon and electron signal simultaneously to eliminate the need to measure precisely the distance between points A and B.

    *Or can one imagine using mirrors for photons and relativistic electrons and comparing the times for A–>B–>A?

    As a matter fact, there is an old result by electric engineer Obolensky that I cited probably already in my thesis (see <a href="" which said that in circuits electrons seem to travel at superluminal speed.

    Obolensky, A. (1988), Electronics and Wireless World.

    It must be emphasized that if the finding is true it will mean for TGD what Mickelson-Morley meant for special relativity.

    For details see my blog posting at .

  73. me says:

    Maybe neutrinos are more “transparent” to time slowing caused by gravity. So they are traveling faster than light on out slower time cause by earth gravity well.

    It would mean that the galaxy and star from 1987A allowed neutrinos escape faster than light, but once they escaped the galaxy, they just were as fast as light. That would explain why they only were 3 hours faster, instead of 4 years.

    • John Ståhle says:

      “… from 1987A allowed neutrinos escape faster than light, …”

      Not faster, but earlier.

      The matter of an evolving supernova is transparent to neutrinos before it becomes transparent to photons. The 3 hours the neutrinos arrived earlier to Earth is consistent with pre-1987 theory about supernova opacity.

    • ohwilleke says:

      The notion that all of the 1987A effects happened in the vicinity of the star and the Earth, and not in between, is the only way I can imagine to explain the differences in the order of magnitudes of the effects if they are real.

  74. […] so much has been written about these results in the last few days, it’s tough to know where to begin, though […]

  75. From a more general view scale matters on this higher space effect, That is space scales. The idea of such relativistic invariance applies in the higher reaches of analogs to relativity. This reminds me more of old Steady State Cosmology of Hoyle’s creation fields of which the materials of a planet are much the same near that more general event radius. These were in their day Minkowski derived. It does imply a certain directionality based on the string theory mentioned in Kea’s post update recently from 2002. As many suggest this solves the new problem of how certain higher elements are made in the novas. This is a whole new world that needs more imagination and awakening to the simplicity and greater relaxed freedom of the views. If we restrict ourselves to what seems to make sense of how dimensions and group can be applied no matter how impressive the formulas and arguments we will miss a lot of the physical and the philosophic implications. Do we not imagine that stars go nova in the first place via the rapid emission of neutrinos whereas the photon from a stars center takes an order of time equal to that to the so called Big Bang?

    It is time that the rest of the academic world climb up from the sea and walk upright with some of our alternative bloggers- and they too should clear their eyes and ponder the stars.

    The PeSla

  76. Mike says:


    Is it usually the case that when comparing astrophysical observations (such as SN1987) with laboratory measurements, that we take the astrophysical observation with more of a grain of salt based on potential unknown (and uncontrolled) conditions? I would guess such conditions could be any form of weakly-interacting matter between Earth and SN1987, as well as slight inaccuracies about theories of neutrino generation in SN1987’s core. Maybe I am missing some for fundamental details about SN1987?

  77. AZSquib says:

    I have read the paper and I was curious on one particular item that I did not see documented: The 100 MHz clock source accuracy that is the time base for the “fine counter” in the OPERA Detector FPGAs on the front end cards of the Target Tracker (you will need to read the paper).

    The fine counters in the FPGAs are slaved to the highly accurate OPERA master clock which increments a “course counter” in each FPGA every 0.6 seconds. The fine counters are reset every 0.6 s by the arrival of the master clock signal that also increments the coarse counters. These two counters together provide the time stamp of the arrival of a detected event. This means that, over enough time (> 0.6s) there is no clock drift from the master clock, so the overall accuracy is that of the master clock. However, for each and every event recorded, the local clock drift of the “fine counter” will come into play since it’s last re-sync with the master clock.

    The paper meticulously accounts for the delays in resetting the fine counter and the quantization error of the FPGA’s 100 MHz clock (10ns period) appropriately. However, I don’t see the 100 MHz clock source accuracy described. Even if the clock source to the fine counter is a temperature and voltage compensated oscillator of +/- 1 parts per million (ppm), that would mean an average error of up to +/-300 ns could exist for the given clock source (average arrival time of an event will be 0.3 seconds from the master clock pulse, which is up to 30 100 MHz clock pulses off at 1ppm). Since there are multiple front end cards and thus multiple of these local clocks, the sum of their errors can cancel out quite a bit of the error. For the minus 60ns discrepancy that is reported, that works out for the average 100 MHz clock sources to have an error of -0.2ppm.

    So I’ve looked around the internet and the best source of information I could find on this clock source is from this paper:

    It describes the 100 MHz clock source as a local clock on a board called the “Ethernet Controller Mezzanine” (ECM) and the picture in the paper shows that the mezzanine board to have a simple crystal oscillator(!). Those type oscillators are commonly used in Ethernet communications and are usually specified around +/-50ppm, but in practice usually have much better performance. Summing the local clock errors for multiple of these clocks could easily result in -.2 ppm that would be needed to account for the result of -60.7 ns.

    There is an easy test to see if this is an error term, if the raw data exists (which it may not). With the raw time stamp data (fine counter and course counter data), bin the 16,111 detected events into two bins: Those detected events that have a time stamp with fine counter of less than 300 milliseconds and those that are greater than 300 milliseconds. The average detected event arrival in each bin (assuming a flat PDF of arrivals) would be 150 milliseconds and 450 milliseconds respectively and each bin would have approximately 8000 events. The 0-300 millisecond bin would have a new “early arrival time discrepancy” of 30ns and the 300-600 millisecond bin would be 90ns. Of course, with less samples in each bin, the statistical error would grow, but it would still be enough to show whether this is the culprit.

  78. Spectacular thing.. Our children will be learn about this.

  79. Tony Smith says:

    Are there any 1-sigma and 2-sigma Brazil bands
    for uncertainty in the proton PDF red line whose translation is used to get the 60.7 ns ?

    See screen shots from the OPERA video that I put on my web site at


  80. chris bolger says:

    Maybe the neutrinos are really moving closer to the true speed of light in the Special Relativity sense and photons have a very small mass that has not been looked for.

    • Ulla says:

      the mass change at c acc to GR, but mass =0 should not change.How can some mass be 0? Interchangeable with E?

      • chris bolger says:

        The full equation for energy/mass equivalence also includes momentum. It is:

        (E)(E) = (Px)(Px)(C)(C) + (Py)(Py)(C)(C) + (Pz)(Pz)(C)(C)
        + (m)(m)(C)(C)(C)(C)

        So if your mass m is zero you still have an energy by the momentum of the massless particle.

      • John Ståhle says:

        I assume you mean to show the complete relativistic energy formula:
        E^2 = m^2 * c^4 + p^2 * c^2

  81. Daniel de Franca says:

    Phil, I found something that correlate between the different results between SN1987A and those of MINOS and OPERA:

    “The impetus behind MiniBooNE was to follow up a previous experiment, conducted at Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 1990s, which had shown evidence for a fourth type of neutrino. Called the sterile neutrino, this putative particle would be even more elusive than the three ordinary flavors because it would not be subject to the weak nuclear force as the other particles are but would interact only through gravity. Because the existence of sterile neutrinos would challenge the Standard Model, researchers were eager to run a similar experiment to confirm or refute the findings. The results from MiniBooNE, however, were a mixed bag. For neutrinos with energies ranging from 475 million to three billion electron volts, the number of flavor oscillations nicely matched the Standard Model predictions, but at lower energies investigators found a significant excess of electron neutrinos.”

    So, something happens above 475MeV neutrinos.

    Neutrinos below that threashold are luminal, like those of SN1987A, and do not oscilate much. Those above that threashold oscilate more and are superluminal.

  82. says:

    waiting for your email Daniel

    i checked my mailboxes and none appears..but i believe that our mother language is Portuguese are welcome to send me emails..i am Portuguese but i lived many years in your country.Brazil

    ..i lived in Rio De Janeiro….i lived in Ipanema .

    as for the superluminal neutrions the key is the scalar field Phi^2 that appears in Ponce De Leon equations gr-qc/0207108 or gr-qc/0310078

    or in gr-qc/0603106

    ps: i was a blackllsted scientist from arXiv even with papers published in peer review see the references of gr-qc/0603106

    I understand the Hamilton-Jacobi equation applied to particle physics….. applying the geodesics of a spacetime metric tensor dS^2 < 0

    dS^2 < 0 but dS^2 is dS^2 = ds^2 + Phi^2 d5^2

    ds^2 is the spacetime mteric tensor in 3+1 dimensions

    a immaginary scalar field makes the neutriuno superluminal and the 5th geofesics negativel

    like a said i am waiting for LHC

    if you are Brazilian i say "TCHAU AMIGO…TUDO DE BOM…ESPERO POR VOCE"

  83. schizoid says:

    Am I the only one bothered by the blatant circularity of the SN1987A arguments? The neutrinos we detected were not stamped “Made in SN1987A.” We concluded they came from SN1987A because they arrived at about the same time as the light from SN1987A, and we assumed that neutrinos traveled at the same speed as light. To claim this conclusion is proof of the assumption is textbook circular logic.

    • anna v says:

      Well, considering the extent of the celestial sphere the fact that the neutrinos came from the same angular source as the light three hours later, seems conclusive enough. There could be a probability of there being two independent events; to calculate it we would have to know the number of neutrino bursts, the number of light bursts, within a three hour period over the total sphere. I believe that would be a very small number, and that is why the argument is not circular. In a sense they were stamped, +/- a small error.

      • schizoid says:

        Angular source yes, but the three hour time difference is only evidence in your favor if you assume that CERN is wrong, which is what you’re trying to prove. If instead we assume CERN is right and their results generalize to all neutrinos then the three hour time difference is proof that the neutrinos did not come from SN1987A.

        To make the argument noncircular you have to prove that the neutrinos came from SN1987A without making any assumptions about their speed. The fact that they came from the same angular source is not enough. A lot of stuff has come from that direction over the years.

      • Ulla says:

        I wondered if ANY KIND OF MEASUREMENTS of those neutrinos were made 3-4 years before we saw the nova burst?

      • John Ståhle says:

        If those 20 neutrinos did NOT come from SN1987A, they were surprisingly close to predictions from pre-1987 theory + as ‘anna v’ writes above …

      • Ulla says:

        Now the SN 1987a, which according to this new result should have correlations 3 -4 y earlier.Nobody looked? And correlation itself is no evidence. So we has to admit it is no ‘evidence’ only a hint against. And note, it went through the atm, not through vacuum.and at much lower energylevel. If it has travelled in vacuum maybe the result would fit better?

        If those were 20 this is 16000 fabricated.

      • John Ståhle says:

        Let’s call it a s-t-r-a-n-ge coincidence.

        The neutrinos from SN1987A travelled some 160 000 ly through vacuum, so ought to move faster than through air.

        The neutrino luminosity from SN1987A is calculated to have been ≈ 2.7E38 W, more than needed for 16 000 hitting Earth. The burst lasted ≈ 12.5 sec.

        It’s interesting that

        Of the gamma photons received by the Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cerenkov (MAGIC) telescope from Markarian 501 (year 2005), those at 0.5 TeV arrived ≈ 240 seconds before the 5 TeV after travelling ≈ 135 Mpc (they MAY have been from two events, perhaps the second triggered by the first).

        Something similar was observed when the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope received the gamma rays from GRB 080916C in September 2008 (distance ≈ 3.74 Gpc).

      • But 5TeV neutrinos would require some higher energy than the one provided by the supernova. Probably it was due to an extremely strong collision of nucleus collimated by the magnetic polo of the GRB. It took some minutes for the nucleus achieve that energy, so, I guess it would explain the delay…

      • John Ståhle says:

        The Markarian 501 burst (which AFAIR lasted more than 24 hours) were from an (obvously hyper- 🙂 active galactic core.

      • John Ståhle says:

        The two incidences may – may! mind you – be indications of a need to correct the Lorentz relativistic quantities; or they may simply be coincidence * 2.

        And BTW: they were not 5TeV neutrinos but gamma photons.

      • Ulla says:

        Can something be concluded from the neutrinos energy content,and the photons energy 0,5 -5 TeV, note 10 pot. difference? Also gravity must change the energy, and all other interactions. The primal energy is left somewhere.

  84. Jin He says:

    Honestly say, astrophysical scientific papers are majorly bussiness garbage.

  85. The attitudes towards superluminal neutrinos seem to divide theoreticians to two groups. If theoretician has some -even vague- idea about how to explain the anomaly he tries to dot this. This group of theoreticians is for obvious reasons rather small. If not then then only denialism allows to keep the face. Brings in mind Mickelson Morley for century ago. There are still those who deny the notion of maximal signal velocity: nowadays they are called crackpots.

    The hegemony of theoretical physics has suffered blow after blow during this year. Practically every expectation has turned out to be wrong. Something is badly wrong and neutrino problem is only one of the many symptoms of the disease. Let us hope that the long stagnation in theoretical particle physics will finally end.

    For additional details to the neutrino problem see the new posting at my blog.

  86. What a year!

    1. weak measurement experiments support de Broglie ‘pilot wave’ model

    2. INTEGRAL polarization experiment shows ‘graininess’ 13 orders smaller than Planck length.

    3. not even a hint of SUSY seen at LHC yet

    4. only a hint of Higgs seen at LHC

    5. proton radius experiment shows quantum electrodynamics 4% discrepancy

    6. no sign of “collisions” between multi-worlds — argues against ‘eternal inflation’

    7. Gravity Probe B confirms existence of C-field

    8. ‘fly-by’ anomalies all consistent with postulated C-field density

    9. indication that neutrinos may travel faster than light.

    10. I’m sure I’ve missed or forgotten a few recent results.

    Every one of these results (except proton radius?) has been in the last 12 months (and every one of them appears to be compatible with my theory.) I think 2011 will go down as a ‘miracle year’ in physics.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

  87. Ervin Goldfain says:

    Neutrinos are conventionally thought of being absolutely neutral in order to comply with all symmetries imposed by SM Lagrangian. But this may not be entirely true in a “fine-print” analysis, see below:

    Did anyone consider how a non-vanishing neutrino charge may impact OPERA results?

    • Ulla says:

      the neutrinos are not at all symmetric in masses. So they tell us more about the asymmetry? This is one reason for the mention of two entirely different scales, by Phil. And a reason we have actually measured some of them. We don’t know which one/field.

  88. Kea says:

    Re SN1987A: does anyone know whether or not there was any directionality on the 5 Mont Blanc neutrino events?

    • Kea says:

      Or when we will see results for the recent supernova.

      • John Ståhle says:

        Which of the recent SNs?

        If you have 2011dh in mind, in M51/NGC5194, some 6.4 to 8.9 Mpc away – we may have caught 1 (one) neutrino, unknowingly – if we are very lucky.

        (We are now at 2011fw) + lots of PSNs and PTFs)

      • Ulla says:

        Can that be an indication that 1987 was wrongly interpreted?

      • Kea says:

        Ulla, no. I would be agreeing with the astrophysicists about LOCAL conditions.

      • Ulla says:

        What exactly starts the supernova thing?

      • Ulla says:

        What is time, eg? Usually it is interpreted as an energetic arrow of thermodynamics. In this neutrino measurement the thermodynamics is essential? What happen if the dissipation vanish?

      • John Ståhle says:

        “What exactly starts the supernova thing?”

        To give a reasonably complete answer would fill 2-3 A4/Letter pages.

        SN1987A was a type IIP-sp, rather special as the progenitor Sanduleak -69° 202a was very metalpoor, thus a blue B3Ib supergiant (and also the most massive component in a double star system).

        Very, very incomplete: At the end of a > 8-9 sunmasses star’s life, a large proportion of its “iron”core photodisintegrates to helium, using an enormous amount of energy, which should be used to counter the star’s own gravity. Gravitational collapse of core in ≈ 1/4 second. A star of ≈ 18 sunmasses B3 metalpoor subluminous supernova like SN1987A then releases ≈ 2.8 * 10^38 W as gravitational energy, ≈ 98% as neutrinos.

      • John Ståhle says:

        “Seems not so clear…”

        This is a very different type of SN, a SNIA, a white dwarf, which has exceed a certain maximum mass (Chandrasekhar limit) and collapses because the degerate atoms countering its gravity isn’t sufficient to counter a mass above ≈ 1.44 sunmasses.

        We get that kind of “sensations” about SNIA every week. They are all about *details* in the mechanism, which is well understood, see: “Nature article: Supernovae Mystery Solved”

      • John Ståhle says:

        Note that the “What makes a supernova?” article is dated February 2010 – sometime in the middle ages (according to an astrophysic’s calender). Our knowledge is evolving very fast.

      • Ulla says:

        I did notice. The fast evolving also strengthen my view that the 1987 nova is not that reliable ‘evidence’. Have you any opinion, is l neutrinos born earlier, or later than light in the explosion? 98% neutrinos is a lot. So it mostly goes on undetected (= dark by 98%?)?

      • John Ståhle says:

        “neutrinos born earlier, or later than light”

        Born at almost the same time.

        It takes a sheet of lead (Pb) ≈ a lightyear thick to block 50% of a neutrino flow, but less than 0,001 mm to block photons, light.

        The reason why neutrinos travelling slower than photons arrived earlier (SN1987A by ≈ 3 hours) than the light, is that the matter of an evolving supernova is highly compressed, thus transparent to neutrinos several (15-25) hours before it becomes transparent to photons.

        The high opacity causes photons to be “released” later, when the outer layers of the SN – the beginning supernova remnant – have moved a couple of billion km away from the center (typical speed 10-20 000 km/s) thinning so the opacity is reduced. Before that, the photons hit the material, bounce or get bound, then get released only to bounce or get bound again and again.

        Also remember that SN1987A was in the southern hemisphere. The 24-25 neutrinos went straight through the Earth before detection, and at the same time thousands of accompanying neutrinos passed undetected straight through the detectors.

        As a matter of fact you and I have been penetrated by millions of neutrinos since you wrote the question – they pass through without any interaction.

      • Ulla says:

        What are your opinion, are neutrinos depending on energy or time, or are they creating energy/time? This in the light of the Pb shield. Note the difference in dissipation sensitivity, creating anisotropic conditions, acting as a filter. This would make up only 1mm difference in this case for our solar system, not 20cm? Note, there has been emphasis laid on mass, not energy. You say now that neutrinos make up for a more primordial time.

        Are neutrinos bent by gravity, as photons are?

      • Ulla says:

        Could Wilczek mean this when he said neutrinos was a bigger CD-cone?

      • John Ståhle says:

        I have no opinion on that subject (depending on energy or time, or creating energy/time?), which is speculation too far from my specialty, massive stars.

        Yes, neutrinos are not only bent by gravity, but also braked by gravity when they leave the supernova.

        This braking effect, however is of extremely little influence as the LOCAL gravitational acceleration depends on
        distance above surface h
        the gravitational constant G
        mass M and radius R of supernova
        g = (G * M) / (R + h)², and when the distance from center of mass is in billions of km, the local gravitational acceleration is extremely low.

      • Ulla says:

        As a non-expert I just try to get a figure of how the neutrino experience the Universe. The picture is very different from the usual one. Leptogenesis, born in stars, from nucleus (quarks), but how can 98 % of the outflow be neutrinos? What is left in the star?

        -It sense gravity, but not mass. Photons see leptons. What is the interaction photon/neutrino and electron/neutrino?
        -it is dark compared to us.
        -it sense other neutrinos, as it can change flavor.This is quite odd, in my opinion. What might be the mechanism? I have my opinion, but want to know if there is any consensus.
        -antineutrinos detected from SN1987a, so neutrinos ‘dance’ around matter/antimatter. Why is it not annihilated? How big part is in form of antimatter?

        This may be simple for you, but i would appreciate an answer.

      • John Ståhle says:

        Wrote a little more about SN type II (e.g. SN1987A) on this blog:

      • Ulla says:

        John S,
        “Born at almost the same time.”

        Isn’t 60ns almost at the same time? What minutes, days? How longlived is a supernova, incl the dark aspects?

      • John Ståhle says:

        nanoseconds, seconds, minutes, hours – all of no consequence.

        The 15-25 hour delay from caused by opacity is what matters, I described it in

        “Because of the high compression from the outer shells … “

      • John Ståhle says:

        “How longlived is a supernova, incl the dark aspects?”

        There are 6 main types of core collapse supernovae (plus two very different types of SN: PISN and Ia) and for 2 of them a mass range is from 30 to 50 sunmasses, for the other 4 the mass range is from 7-8-9 (depends on chemical composition) to 120-150 sunmasses, so the answers to the question can’t even be presented in compressed form in a 60 page monograph.

        Most core collapse SN last some 20-60 days at high luminosity and after about a year or three they have fainted to progenitor luminosity, but this differ widely based on type and mass. The SN1987 light curve is found here:

  89. John Ståhle says:

    The sum of SN1987A neutrinos was 24 or 25, not 20.

    The LSD (Mont Blanc) had a neutrino signal (1987.02.23.124 UT – IAU Circ. 4223, C. Castagnoli, not counted, no direction)

    Kamiokande II Cerenkov caught 11 or 12 (1987.02.23.316 UT) but none at (1987.02.23.124 UT)

    The IMB Cerenkov caught 8 (1987.02.23.317 UT) but none at (1987.02.23.124 UT)

    The Baksan scintillation telescope in (then) Sovjet Union caught 5 after (1987.02.23.317 UT) (initially there was an embarassing discussion about timing at the IAU meeting, the timing problem was later solved)

  90. Glenn S says:

    I’m no physicist, but could the earth’s frame dragging or geodetic effect be responsible?

  91. JollyJoker says:

    If 10 MeV neutrinos were emitted 15-25 hours before the light and arrived here 3 hours before after 168 000 years, doesn’t this mean we can calculate their rest mass?

    • JollyJoker says:

      I get something like 100-200 meV from that. Seems a bit high, but I may be off by an order of magnitude or two.

      • John Ståhle says:

        We are not sure how long it takes the matter of a special supernova like 1987A (subluminous, progenitor a blue B3Ib, very metalpoor) to reduce opacity for neutrinos and later for photons.

        Calculations of restmass are at 0.1σ (or even -1σ 😀 ).

        Latest neutrino restmasses I have seen (published 12 July 2010) are:

        0 < M(νe) < 0,47 eV – under certain circumstances < 0,28 (electron neutrino)

        0 < M(νμ) < 170 KeV (≈ 1/3 elektronmasses) (muon neutrino)
        0 < M(ντ) < 15,5 MeV (≈ 30 elektronmassers) (tau neutrino)

      • John Ståhle says:

        Re.: neutrino restmasses see also

        Hajdukovic’s combined empirical and theoretical paper: “On the absolute value of the neutrino mass” (2011), p. 3 w/ much lower values, NOT “checked against known experimental constraints, which unfortunately still have no a satisfactory accuracy”.

        and Chaturvedi & al.’s purely theoretical paper: “Analytic Calculation of Neutrino Mass Eigenvalues” (2011), p. 5, which is closer to the above figures.

      • JollyJoker says:

        “0 < M(νe) < 0,47 eV – under certain circumstances < 0,28 (electron neutrino);

        The abstract talks about the _sum_ of masses being < 0,28 eV. Along with the known differences in mass squared, this would give us pretty decent bounds.

      • John Ståhle says:

        You are supposed to follow the lead and also read the paper 🙂
        – where it says “One can relate this density to the sum of the mass *eigenstates*” – it has to do with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and not the sum of all 3 types of neutrinos: μ (mu), e (electron) and τ (tau) – 4 if we include the still undetected “sterile” neutrino – if it exists.

        TABLE I in the paper gives a summary of the bounds (m(mu-neutrino) < 0.471 eV from analysis of WMAP5 + SNe + BAO + MegaZ + HST) when quasi non-linear scales are removed.

      • JollyJoker says:

        Thanks for the explanation; I’ll see if I understand any of the paper.

  92. […] as usual for Tommaso, a very good description of facts. Similarly, you can find good posts about at vixra and Jester’s blog. Meantime, OPERA Collaboration published its paper on arxiv (see here) and, […]

  93. Les Hardison says:

    I think they experimenters might have used the wrong distance for clocking the speed of the neutrinos. Given that their distance measurement was quite precise, it was done, according to reports, using GPS. As a pilot, I know that the GPS does not give the linear distance between two points, but rather the great circle distance connecting them, That is, the distance as it would be measured by a tape measure along the surface of the earth at sea level.

    Neutrinos, reputedly, do not follow this curved path, but instead go straight through the earth between the two points, which is a significantly shorter distance. In this particular case, instead of 725Km approximately, the chord of the arc distance is about 723,8KM, using the mead radius of the earth as 6471 Km.

    Using the shroter distance and the roughly 60 nanoseconds sooner arrival than light speed bave me a calculated speed of 299,638,769 m/sec, rather than 299,792,458 m/sec, or a velocity of about 0.99948735 timrd ther speed of light.

    If the experimenters did, in fact, neglect to correct the path link in this way, it would not only leave the “laws of physics as we know them” intact, but would also suggest some interesting things about the nature of neutrinos. For example, consider that they might, like photons, not really be particles, but rather attributes associated with a particular kind of radiatin. That is, they would travel through pace just as light does, at the “apparent speed of light”, but travel through matter more slowly. Neutrinos might be a form of very high energy radiation. They would be to x-rays what x-rays are to visible light, passing through all but the most energetic atoms of ordinary matter without interaction, except for an occasional head-on collisio with an electron or proton.

    If this were the case, what the Sasso experminters did was to measure the refractive index of the radiation we describe as neutrinos through dirt/rock/etc.

    I have my own ideas about the limitations on the velocity of light and of massive bodies, but that is another story.

  94. I wonder if these researchers have taken into account the Coriolis effects on the path seen by these neutrinos? ABReeves

  95. Jin He says:

    If the result had been open for the public three years ago, it would have been proved or disaproved already.
    This confirms dictatorship’s evil.

  96. Suresh Yegnashankaran says:

    According to my own theoretical work on a TOE, the speed of neutrinos as measured by OPERA – to be 20 parts in a million faster than the speed of light – correctly matches theoretical prediction, based on my theory for the Cosmos.

    As a matter of fact, these turn out to be the first ‘proof’ based on measurements of mere earthly events.

    Additionally, the TOE theory I have developed predicts that:

    The speed of neutrinos as measured in the CERN-OPERA experiments will be inversely proportional to the distance travelled –
    reaching near infinity at about 20 meters, and approaching the speed of light at very lary large distances.

    I wonder if it is possible to verify the above prediction within the CERN-OPERA projects.

  97. Ervin Goldfain says:

    While it may be amusing to witness so many ad-hoc claims on superluminal neutrinos, it is worth recalling that OPERA anomaly is very likely the result of systematic timing errors. A major contributor are uncertainties related to precise modeling of proton pulse shape. And there are others as well, as theoretical and experimental neutrino physics is a field with many unsettled questions.

  98. Maybe the way out of useless discussion producing endlessly ad hoc models and not-so-educated guesses about measurement errors is to see the situation from a more general perspective.

    *For instance, could one test the situation for say relativistic electrons in lab scale? Or for neutrino beams which travel much longer distance, say from CERN to Pyhasalmi mine in Finland (near my childhood home by the way) which has laboratory possibly able to detect the neutrinos?

    *Can skeptics demonstrate convincingly that super-nova neutrinos are emitted several hours earlier than gammas? What this would mean for super nova models?

    *In which models (or preferably theories) the superluminal velocity really means breaking of causality and in which models it does not? What are the other predictions of various models and is there any support for them?

    *What kind of generalizations of space-time concept of special and general relativities can be imagined if one believes that the maximal signal velocity can depend on particle and length scales
    as data require if taken seriously?

    • John Ståhle says:

      “Can skeptics demonstrate convincingly that super-nova neutrinos are emitted several hours earlier than gammas? What this would mean for super nova models?”

      That IS (part of) the supernova type II model.

      The only neutrinos we have, corresponded rather well in number to pre-1987 SN theory.
      All others supernovas post neutrino detectors have been too far away to detect in numbers and direction, at Mpcs distances.

      Extremely briefly and incomplete, the supernova type II model tells us that:

      Because of the high compression from the outer shells (helium, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc.) in supersonic free fall towards the star center (energy production in a SN type II is an almost total gravitational event, nuclear processes adding a few procent of the energy) meeting pressure waves moving outwards from the rebounding core, the opacity is too high during many hours for photons to propagate through the compressed shells in the SN (the poor little buggers are caught and re-emitted and caught etc. again and again), while on the other hand, a neutrinosphere is developed ’cause of photodisintegration of the “iron”core and electron capture.

      As we all know, the neutrinos interact so extremely little with matter, that they can escape much earlier than photons, which are trapped until the opacity is reduced by a several billion km expansion of the matter.

      We haven’t actually been there and seen it with our own eyes (anyway, if … then we would have died immediately 🙂 ).
      We are talking models, which correspond very well with observations.

      Also the direction was a good fit to LMC, but with the then uncertainty in direction, it’s impossible to guarantee anything.

      It MAY have been a marvellous coincidence that supernova light arrived from approximately the same 20-25° of the sky some 3 hours after the neutrino flow. In science, and in particular astrophysics, almost anything is possible – too many independent parameters.

      Our problem is, of course, nobody were present when it happened some 160 000 years ago.

      Here in Chile it’s late at night, so I add an S.E. & O.

  99. V. Flaminio says:

    Another way to look at the disagreement between the OPERA result and the SN1987A observations, is to look at the expected timing of the SN1987 signal, assuming the OPERA result. Neutrinos should have arrived about 4 years earlier ! Luckily enough they came only hours (or days) before photons. A possible energy dependence would hardly explain the disagreement. If you take the OPERA values as a function of energy and make a simple linear extrapolation to the SN energy, you would at most get 3 years instead of 4 ! Of course other energy dependences are possible, just provide the data as a function of other energies.

  100. number 26 says:

    The CPT violation in neutrinos bounded implies violation of Lorentz invariance is due to interaction with magnetic nonoplos modes of the quantum vacuum string, ultimately responsible for the matter antimatter asymmetry.
    The natural solution of Dirac is imposed by the symmetries of the equations of electromagnetism.
    Dirac strings are actually toroidal n-dimensional strings.
    Necessarily the natural mass that connects the gravity and electromagnetism is:

    SQR[ e^2+- / (Gn ) ] ; Where e + – is the quantized electric charge

    e+- = 1.60217565 x 10^-19 C

    Gn = And is the constant of Newton’s gravity

    Only certain particles, we assume only the CPT violating elementary particles interact, with these modes of quantum vacuum monopoles

    Seen in this way the mass of magnetic monopole must be a quantized as:

    Mmp = SQR[ e^2+- / (Gn ) ]

    This violation of Lorentz invariance has to have two cuts-off

    1) A mass-dependent cut-off unification in GUT

    By the model MSSM is known that the unification mass meets:

    In(Mgut / mz ) = [(10 x PI)/28 ] x { alpha2(mz) – alpha1(mz) };

    Where Mgut is the mass of GUT unification

    alpha2(mz) = It is the second electroweak coupling constant at the scale of the Z boson energies

    alpha1(mz) = It is the first electroweak coupling constant at the scale of the Z boson energies

    1) must meet to : In[ (In( mv(E)/ Mgut ) – ([(10 x PI)/28 ] x { alpha2(mz) – alpha1(mz) } ]

    Where mv(E) is the mass equivalent to the energy of the neutrinos

    Thus we have two cuts-off:

    a) If In( mv(E)/ Mgut ) or = ([(10 x PI)/28 ] x { alpha2(mz) – alpha1(mz) } ] )

    then the result is a singular point when In1=0

    In short, the CPT violation of Lorentz invariance of the neutrino can be expressed:

    (c-v) / c =

    = { mpk / SQR[ e^2+- / (Gn ) ] } x In[ mv(E) / Mmp ] x In[ ( In[ mv(E) / Mmp ] ) – { [(10 x PI)/28 ] x { alpha2(mz) – alpha1(mz) } }

    Cut-off : In[ mv(E) / Mmp ] < or = ([(10 x PI)/28 ] x { alpha2(mz) – alpha1(mz) } )

    Max In[ mv(E) / Mmp ] = [(10 x PI)/28 ] x { alpha2(mz) – alpha1(mz) }

    Max c^2 x mv(E) = 2.1 x 10^14 Gev

    Min c^2 x mv(E) = c^2 x Mmp x { exp -( [(10 x PI)/28 ] x { alpha2(mz) – alpha1(mz) } ) } = 51.2 Mev



  101. number 26 says:

    writting error corrected:

    (c-v) / c =

    = { mpk / SQR[ e^2+- / (Gn ) ] }^-1 x In[ mv(E) / Mmp ] x In[ ( In[ mv(E) / Mmp ] ) – { [(10 x PI)/28 ] x { alpha2(mz) – alpha1(mz) } }


  102. Simplicity says:

    3 question from a layman (me):

    Is it proven that neutrinos doesn not have electric charge ?

    If they have no electric charge as detected so far, could this be due to the fact that they have so little mass/are so much smaller than the other elementary particles that their electric charge is way to small to be detected ?

    And is it possible that the speed of light (c) that is used in mainstream physics today only holds true for elementary-particles that have electric charge as detected so far, and, hence, that the speed of light will be slightly different for neutrinos since they have so far non-detectable electric charge ?


    • number26 says:

      It is difficult to make an image non-mathematical, but it could be something as elementary charged particles would be attracted repelled by the empty virtual monopoles, which in reality would be both black holes, which would cause the particles to stick somewhat to sharp bends or rolls of string monopoles were making their journey longer.
      The photon by its being a pure swing Electromagnetic field, I would do the same.
      Now not ask me how it would behave for example the graviton, etc, I have not the faintest idea

      It is difficult to make an intelligible image, but a charged particle.
      I suppose in principle that this anomalous behavior would only be possible with neutrinos , but in any case to the laws of relativity does not imply any break. E = mc ^ 2, will be E = mc ^ 2

      One thing is the speed of propagation is quite another energy

      Excuse me, but my English is poor and I can hardly write, being Spanish, apologies


  103. number26 says:

    wrtting error corrected, final

    writting error corrected:

    (c-v) / c =

    = { mpk / SQR[ e^2+- / (Gn ) ] }^-1 x In[ Mmp / mv(E) ] x In[ ( In[ mmp / mv(E) ] ) + { [(10 x PI)/28 ] x { alpha2(mz) – alpha1(mz) } }

    Cut-off : In[ mv(E) / Mmp ] < or = ([(10 x PI)/28 ] x { alpha2(mz) – alpha1(mz) } )

    Max In[ Mmp / mv(E) ] = [(10 x PI)/28 ] x { alpha2(mz) – alpha1(mz) }

    Max c^2 x mv(E) = 2.1 x 10^14 Gev

    Min c^2 x mv(E) = c^2 x Mmp x { exp -( [(10 x PI)/28 ] x { alpha2(mz) – alpha1(mz) } ) } = 51.2 Mev

  104. John Ståhle says:

    I have been giving this OPERA superluminal neutrino thing some thoughts and have come to realize, that I hope the OPERA measurements are correct.


    Think of all the new science it’s going to spawn. The next 3-4-5 generations of scientist won’t just work on run-of-the-mill confirmation of the relativity theories and other known science, but instead work on some brand new ideas.

    I doubt, though, that the adjustments of SR and GR (if OPERA is upheld) will be more than minor, albeit important, given the huge amount of experiments and observations, which concur with the consequences, “predictions”, from the two R’s.

    More or less like Newton’s mechanics works just fine in the everyday context – two objects moving in opposite directions with each a speed of 100 km/h still crash head on at 200 km/h, oh well at 199.999999999978 km/h – SR and GR will also continue to work just fine, except in special cases.

  105. number26 says:

    Neutrino time travel
    James Dent, Heinrich Päs, Sandip Pakvasa, Thomas J. Weiler

    “(Submitted on 12 Oct 2007 (v1), last revised 9 Dec 2007 (this version, v2))
    We discuss causality properties of extra-dimensional theories allowing for effectively superluminal bulk shortcuts. Such shortcuts for sterile neutrinos have been discussed as a solution to the puzzling LSND and MiniBooNE neutrino oscillation results. We focus here on the sub-category of asymmetrically warped brane spacetimes and argue that scenarios with two extra dimensions may allow for timelike curves which can be closed via paths in the extra-dimensional bulk. In principle sterile neutrinos propagating in the extra dimension may be manipulated in a way to test the chronology protection conjecture experimentally.”

    • Ray Munroe says:

      Hi Number 26,

      I suppose that you were not one of the authors because I did not see the use of alpha-bar in this paper. I have never referred to a comic book in a serious research article. Certainly we can introduce tachyons into reality by adding a 2-D M2 Black-brane that obeys Anyonic Statistics, but we should normally expect the M2-brane to be paired with an NS5-brane (so we have to add at least 7 dimensions). I am also writing a serious paper about this subject. My paper is 6 pages long so far, but not quite finished.

      Have Fun!

  106. number26 says:

    Indeed I am not the author. I just thought it of some interest this paper, nothing more

    Have Fun!

  107. number26 says:

    I’d like to read your paper

    • Ray Munroe says:

      Hi Number 26,

      Jonathan Dickau and I are working on this paper together – I hope to have it ready soon. Are you writing a paper? Some of your ideas sound a little wild to me, but violating the speed of light is a *VERY* wild thing! It seems that most physicists are trying to explain away OPERA’s results – like OPERA made a mistake, but I would rather try to explain the new physics. These are interesting times indeed!

      Have Fun!

      • number26 says:

        I’ll be happy to read your paper. To your question about whether I’m writing a paper, uff. I have a lot of writing done at home. I have so many ideas bubbling to choose from. At the moment I prefer this method because I do not mind sharing with others my crazy ideas and results
        Yes, my ideas can be a bit wild.
        But in the case of the OPERA experiment do not doubt its accuracy.
        On the other hand some things I worry about it.
        a) As time goes by with a watch on the neutrino?
        b) What is the value of the relativistic mass of the neutrino?
        I think these questions should be considered important because they allow us to establish that variation in the Lorentz transformations preserved leaves

        For example, the omega coefficient relativistic transformation is SQR (1 – [v / c] ^ 2)

        It is sometimes said that if there are two possible solutions to an equation then why
        physical solution to accept as real?
        I mean the negative solution of the root of the ratio I mentioned earlier.

        A negative solution involves imaginary masses in many ways its existence does not seem plausible.

        So is there any way to keep Lorentz invariance preserved without having to invent great gadgets?
        Well, if neutrinos do make a shortcut through shortest paths for extra dimensions, one can assume that they may have made ​​a turn to walk by them. But how to distinguish a shift in our 4 dimensions to a 5, etc?
        Maybe by turning 180 degrees quaternions or octonions?

        What this case is plausible relativistic factor change the speed ratio using the imaginary hyperbolic function, representative of the Lorentz transformation?
        In other words:

        SQR[ (1 + vi/c ) x ( 1 -vi/c ) ] = SQR[ (1 + v^2/c^2 ) ]

        So as a clock measures the passage of time from a neutrino with respect to another moving object with a speed less than c, or with respect to a fixed observer?

        Is it correct to think intuitively that the time clock in the neutrino will go faster with respect to both observers, fixed speed ac or less?

        Is the relativistic energy neutrinos in the same endpoint in the origin of its emissivity?

        What is the total energy function for relativistic neutrinos at the end of your journey?

        It is correct to think that this turn into another dimension as shortest path is produced from certain energy and that there is also an upper bound, for example the energy of unification of the GUT where the magnetic monopole appears as a function of boson X?


      • Ulla says:

        What about this old paper? You don’t have to give up the symmetry. But there is something else too? Think of the flatness problem.
        What you say about the 180 degrees polarizations sounds very interesting. But how can neutral neutrinos achieve that? The flavor change? Can it be enough?

        I think we have entered the post-Einsteinian era now, regardless of errors or not in the OPERA 🙂

      • Ray Munroe says:

        Dear Ulla,

        Thanks for the reference, but I already had Gerald Feinberg’s paper as reference #4 in my paper. Regarding a 180 degree polarization that neutrinos may be able to perform that other particles can not – do we really understand flavor mixing and the Weak force as well as we think we do?

        Dear Number 26,

        Tachyons are a legitimate solution to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. But most tachyons either 1) induce a broken symmetry, and are absorbed as degrees of freedom of that broken symmetry (such as Higgs Theory), or 2) fly off to infinity at an infinite speed. Somwhow, these tachyons do not seem to do either.

        As a Particle Physicist myself, I am approaching the problem more from a particle perspective than from a violation of Lorentz invariance. But violation of Lorentz invariance may likewise imply violation of CPT symmetry.

        Have Fun!

  108. carlbrannen says:

    Assume that there is a flat background metric on which gravitational radiation determines the curvature of space. It does this by influencing clock rates and speeds appropriately. What’s unusual about extremely high energy neutrinos is their extremely high velocity (close to c). For such a particle, we should consider the eigenstates of velocity rather than position and momentum. It’s well known that a Dirac particle has only +-c as its eigenvalues for the velocity operator. (Google zitterbewegung+velocity+eigenstate if this is unfamiliar or see: )

    Now consider small fluctuations in the graviton background. If one assumes that particles move by alternating +-c velocities, then most particles vibrate between these velocities so quickly that they are always seeing a completely different graviton environment. The rate at which a particle moves from +c to -c is the zitterbewegung rate.

    Fluctuations in the background graviton level cause fluctuations in the curvature of space / background metric. Matter sees these as changes in the local speed of light. For example, with the usual metric, light slows down as one nears a massive body and stops on the event horizon. Other choices of coordinates give somewhat different pictures but the point is that a coordinate system in GR defines a collection of local speeds of light relative to the coordinates. If the choice of coordinates is identical to the background metric, then fluctuations in the gravitational field correspond to real (local) fluctuations in the speed of light.

    The Zitterbewegung period (pi h-bar / m c^2) is longest for the particles with the smallest mass. It is these particles that have the opportunity to see the longest fluctuations in the gravitational background. Suppose that these fluctuations last considerably longer than a Zitterbewegung period. Thus as a particle approaches the speed of light gravitational fluctuations will be seen by it to last longer and longer.

    One would instinctively think that the fluctuations would average to zero but this is not the case. Instead, the process is nonlinear as a particle moving with the wave sort of surfs on it; the effect is that the particle spends more time at the faster speed of light and so the upward fluctuations speed it up more than the downward fluctuations slow it down.

  109. Quote from article: “If you are wondering about theories that allow tachyonic neutrinos the least wacky one I can find is that neutrinos can take “shortcuts off the brane through large extra dimensions””.

    Here’s a thought: What if neutrinos are slightly tachyonic only when moving through solid matter, and move at c in vacuum? In that case the speed of neutrinos from supernova 1987a would not be distinguishable from c. Assuming the superluminal departure from light speed for neutrinos is roughly proportional to the amount of matter they traverse, the arrival time of the 1987a neutrinos would be advanced by only a small fraction of a second. For example, if the amount of matter the 1987a neutrinos had to traverse was equivalent to 1000 times the distance in the Gran Sasso experiment, then these neutrinos would have arrived about 6 microseconds earlier than expected. That would have been completely unnoticeable.

    That neutrinos, (in earlier experiments), have been measured to possess negative, or imaginary, mass is intriguing, and dovetails with the Gran Sasso results. Imaginary numbers also lie at the heart of the Quantum Mechanical formalism. Might there be a connection? Here’s an amateur’s stab at a possible explanation:

    While trying to imagine a perfect gravitational analogue to Maxwell’s electromagnetic field, I hit upon a simple solution – just replace the electric and magnetic variables with Length and Time variables. These variables define the strength of a gravitational field, at any given point, in General Relativity. This hypothetical Length-Time Maxwell field would have interesting properties, which are relevant both to Quantum Mechanics and the perplexing results of neutrino experiments. Only a few highlights will be mentioned since the idea is covered under “Schrodinger’s Intuition on Matter Waves” at the link below.

    Firstly, it’s apparent that to allow negative excursions for these length and time variables, an additional background space-time is required, since lengths and times have only positive values in our Universe. Perhaps something like the “bulk” space, in the Randall-Sundrum Planck Brane theory would fill the bill. Secondly, the quanta of this field must have a mass in a range that hasn’t yet been searched for the Higg’s boson, since nothing like it has yet been observed in nature. Actually, an intriguing idea is that the quanta of this field – a length-time ‘photon’, might actually be the Higg’s boson. Oh well, enough speculating.

    • Kea says:

      David, in modern particle physics there are ABSTRACT higher dimensions, where the dimension is roughly linked to the information content of the system under consideration. We already use complexifications of Minkowski space at a fundamental level in twistor particle physics. The possibility of tachyons was built into the foundations of twistorial M theory back in the 1970s. It is only because String Theorists took the extra dimensions too literally (to be spatial) that they mistakenly gave up on the idea of tachyons.

  110. wl59 says:

    Meanwhile, I see that nowadays experimental results about the special relativity limit the difference Limit Speed – Light Speed much lower than this could explain the ‘observed’ Neutrino Speed – Light Speed (if confirmed)

  111. […] a good theoretical basis for expecting neutrinos to do anything like this. One physics blogger who commented on the results wrote, “If you are wondering about theories that allow tachyonic [faster than light] […]

  112. Murod says:

    Did they take into account that the Earth is not an inertial frame? Could anyone quantify the effect of it?

  113. Janko Kokosar says:

    What is your opinion about “Scharnhorst effect”:

    This effect shows that photons propagating through vacuum are modifying in virtual pairs electron-positron for a while and thus the measured speed of light is really lower than one maximal possible speed of light in short moments. Because neutrinos are not modifying so, author supposes that their speed is larger than speed of photons.

  114. a very good paper on this subject

    this can perhaps expalin the superluminality of the Neutrino

    • Ervin Goldfain says:

      Incorrect modeling of kinematics may be one reason for the OPERA anomaly, as this paper implies. But there are many other potential sources of error. For example, underestimation of neutrino beam divergence, gravitational deflection of the beam, timing uncertainties related to proton pulse shape and neutrino detection, residual interaction of neutrino with low-density matter, incorrect modeling of flavor oscillations and so on.

  115. Huping Hu says:

    There are two pieces relevant news items at :

    CERN’s New “Information for World Transformation” ?


    Follow-up on CERN’s OPERA Neutrino Results

    • Ray Munroe says:

      Dear Huping,

      I also have an explanation based on prior ideas (some of which were published in PSTJ). I wrote 6 pages on these ‘superluminal’ neutrinos, and then turned it over to Jonathan Dickau because I feel that few people have really understood my prior ideas, and I’m hoping that Jonathan can help relate these ideas to a larger audience.

      Have Fun!

    • Kea says:

      Except that he takes fairy fields seriously. FFS, just try to imagine for 5 seconds that the neutrinos REPLACE the Higgs field.

      • Mitchell Porter says:

        It was proposed long ago that the sneutrino could be the Higgs,

        but this has difficulties

        I give Costella credit for logical economy – he found the one thing in the standard model that is already tachyonic. If you really want neutrinos to replace the Higgs, surely you’ll be looking at exactly the same jigsaw that he is, but just “from the neutrino side”.

      • ohwilleke says:

        Well, there are papers in which neutrino condensates do replace the Higgs field, and a least one paper that links neutrino condensates to potential Lorentz invariants, although the author doesn’t quantify it.

        Then again, neutrino condensates have also been claims to account for dark energy, to give rise to electroweak symmetry breaking, to be the source of gravity, to arise due to gravity, to have their own neutral current attractive force, to account for Kaon and top quark decay rates and to invent kiwi fruit juice and vodka cocktails garnished with Pavlova slices and mint. Well actually, the last one is kind of a side effect of the papers on all the others.

      • Kea says:

        Ohwilleke, the title of that 0211 paper sounds very promising, but it is entirely lacking in reasonable mathematics. In order to prove that neutrino ‘condensates’ are the answer, one must fully derive M theory, GR etc, complete with Higgs mechanism explained.

      • Kea says:

        The 2009 Dark Energy paper is much more interesting, and I have noted it on my blog.

  116. Ervin Goldfain says:

    For some compelling counter-arguments against superluminal neutrinos see:

    • Kea says:

      Ervin, new physics can always be refuted by the rules of old physics, when misapplied. These arguments are not at all compelling.

      • Ervin Goldfain says:

        Would you care to elaborate? What “rules of old physics” are misapplied here?

      • Kea says:

        Ervin, I have been working on ‘non local neutrino physics’ for some years. In this particular framework, there are no little billiard balls zipping through the rock emitting anything. One cannot necessarily use the physical picture that we have for other particles, because it has yet to be tested with neutrinos, about which we know very little. A theory is a theory is a theory.

      • Kea says:

        In fact, I would not be surprised if the authors had deliberately written some science fiction, just for the laugh of getting citations.

  117. number26 says:

    HI Kea

    Since I can not comment on his blog, I leave this to your account


    If we have the inner surface of the torus; has 16 other colors or fillers. A total of 32, the maximum allowed and that you know very well that holds that

    32= 2^ (11-1)/2

    The difference ratio between baryons and antibaryons and number of photons:

    (nb – _nb )/ n(photons) = SQR[ s x ( s + 1 ) ] x EXP-[ (R(26) )^2 /2 ] = 6.2 x 10^-10
    Where s = spin = 3/2
    SQR[ R(7)^2 + Rh(7)^2 ] x EXP-[ R(26)^2 ] x Planck mass= ( 3 x H^2 ) / 8 x PI x Gn
    Where R(7) is the radius torus 7 dimensions ( ratio to length Planck ); Rh(7) is the small radius backhole torus 7 dimensions
    And ( 3 x H^2 ) / 8 x PI x Gn is the cosmological mass of universe , density for
    Volume unity
    And finaly the number o bits Chatin`s constant = 41
    a) 7 x In(41) very aprox = 26

    b) EXP[ R(26) ] very aprox = 744 + In[ Rh(7)^(1/4) ]

    In mathematics, monstrous moonshine, or moonshine theory, is a term devised by John Horton Conway and Simon P. Norton in 1979, used to describe the (then totally unexpected) connection between themonster group M and modular functions (particularly, the j function).

    J(t) function. J(t) =1/q + 744 + 196884q +…..

    EXP[ PI x SQR( 163 ) ] very very aprox = 744 + 640320^3
    The Monster, number theory and 163
    The number 163 plays a special role in connection with theMonster group. It — or rather the square root of -163 — also plays a special role in number theory. It is not yet known if there is a direct connection between these two appearances, though other connections between the Monster and number theory have been proved and explained under the general heading of Moonshine.
    The Monster
    The significance of 163 for the Monster has to do with itscharacter table, which has 194 columns. Each column yields a ‘moonshine function’, but these funtions are not all linearly independent, and the space they span has dimension 163.

    163 = sum total states squares Fibonacci numbers divisors of 240:

    1^2 + 2^2
    1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2
    1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 +5^2
    1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 + 5^2 + 8^2
    This sum table have 4^2 elements and 6 rows

    The arithmetic mean : 163/6

    Total sum = 163 ; 1 x 1 x 2 x 3 x 5 x 8 = 240

    R(7) = [ {2 x (2 x PI)^7}/{(16 x (PI)^3/15}]^(1/9)

    [(163/6 )+ [R(7) x InIn(26)]^-1 +137 = (electromagnetic fine structure constant)^-1

    And 1 => SU(1) 2 => SU(2) 3 => SU(3) 5 => SU(5) ( 24 = 6 leptons + 6 quarks + 8
    Gluons + 3 Bosons W+, W- and Z + 1 photon ) 8 => SU(8)


    • Kea says:

      His blog? If you mean Kea’s blog, then I can assure you that I am female. In order to comment on my blog, one must (i) register (a trivial matter) and (ii) aim for some theoretical coherence in one’s comments, using dollar signs for inline latex, and without unnecessary repetition of statements. Almost everyone fails this extremely elementary test, which my 1 yr old could pass.

  118. number26 says:

    Hi Kea

    These very close to physical reality

    You have connected all things exceptionally well.
    If you do not mind I put just a few things to consider to study for you

    Calculate the rolled-up dimension d = 26 as the dimensionless number between the ratio to the radius of the Planck length in dimension 26 and the Planck length standard
    Now calculate the size of a rolled 26 black hole as the smallest radius of the torus of dimension 26, in relation to the Planck length
    R(26) = [ ( 2 x (2 x PI )^26 ) / ( PI^13/239500800 ) ]^(1/28 )
    R_Blackhole small radius torus 26D = Rh(26) = [ ( 4 x (2 x PI )^26 ) / ( PI^13 / 239500800 ) x 27 ]^(1/27 )

    Where (PI^13) /239500800 , is the volume radius unitary torus 26D

    Watch as: 120 = 5! = 11 ^ 2-1, implies SU(11)

    And 11 ^ 2 + 6 ^ 2 = 137 = 2 ^ 7 + 2 ^ 3 + 2 ^ 0

    A torus with g = 26 implies that its outer surface colored with 16 colors.

    SU (4) has dimension 15, isomorphic to the multiplication table of octonions, which via tachyon-higgs reduces the dimensionality d = 26 to 11, 26 to 15 = 11

    nc = [7 + SQR (24g +1)] / 2, and for g = 26

    nc = 16 for the outer surface of the torus
    For a torus with g= 7 ( torus 7D ) ; nc = 10 = nº generator SU(3) + nº generator SU(2) + nº generator U(1) + number two doublets Higgs

    • Kea says:

      the ratio to the radius of the Planck length in dimension 26 and the Planck length standard…

      The relation of information dimension with a scale hierarchy is quite acceptable, so this line makes some sense. It remains to motivate the length/volume formulae from the full moduli setting. It is not clear to me that you are able to do this.

  119. number26 says:

    [(163/6 )+ ( [R(7) x InIn(26) ) – 3 ]^-1 +137 = (electromagnetic fine structure constant)^-1

    • Ray Munroe says:

      Hi Number 26,

      Bits and pieces of what you mention sound interesting – for instance I have used Octonions, 7-D tori, multi-dimensional lattices, and SU(11) in some of my prior ideas – but your ideas bounce all over the place. And would you really expect alpha or alpha-bar (I know El Naschie uses that number and ’26’ extensively, and perhaps he would not use his real name if he is running for President of Egypt) to appear in a weakly interacting (left-handed neutrinos carry Hypercharge, but not electric charge) event that might involve Quantum Gravity (it seems that quantum gravity and a TOE are the only theories that we might expect to modify Relativistic Gravity)?

      Are you serious? Are you trying to get attention? Or are you making a joke out of other people’s ideas?

  120. Neutrino Speed in the Everlasting Theory

    Neutrino speed depends on lifetime of particles which decay due to the weak interactions. Here, within the Everlasting Theory (the ET), I present the physical interpretation and math concerning the results obtained in the MINOS and LHC-OPERA experiments and relating to the supernova SN 1987 A. The calculated neutrino speed for the MINOS experiment is 1.000051(21)c. The maximum neutrino speed is 1.000072c. The calculated time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams for the LHC-OPERA experiment is 59.3 ns whereas the neutrino speed is 1.0000172(71)c i.e. maximum neutrino speed is 1.0000243c. The calculated time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams, observed on the Earth, for the supernova SN 1987A is 3 hours whereas the neutrino speed is 1.0000000014(6)c.

    The Einstein spacetime, i.e. the gas composed of the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos, behaves as almost ideal gas so the neutrinos from the weak decays also. We should observe a broadening in the spectrum of the neutrino speed. From formula presented in my first post in this thread follows that speed of neutrinos depends on lifetime of particles which decay due to the weak interactions with nucleons. The ET shows that square of a lifetime is inversely proportional to increase in speed in relation to the c (see the first post). This means that lifetime increases by a half when an increase of neutrino speed in relation to the speed of photons increases by sqrt(2). To obtain the maximum speed of neutrinos, we will multiply the central value by the sqrt(2).
    For lower energies, such as in the MINOS experiment, there are mostly the neutrinos from the decays of muons. The ratio of the lifetime of neutron to lifetime of muon is smallest (see the first post)
    Sqrt(lifetime-neutron/lifetime-muon) = v/(v-c) = 20,000
    so obtained neutrino speed is the upper limit. From the first post and the sqrt(2) follows that for the more precise MINOS experiment, for the neutrino speed we should obtain 1.000051(21)c i.e. the maximum neutrino speed should be 1.000072c.
    For higher energies, such as in the LHC-OPERA experiment, there are mostly the neutrinos from the weak decays of the relativistic charged pion-antipion pairs produced in the d=2 state (the mass of such relativistic pion is 181.704 MeV) i.e. in the ground state above the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions. The Everlasting Theory shows that lifetime is inversely proportional to four powers of mass. This is the conclusion from the theory of stars. This means that lifetime of the relativistic charged pion in the d=2 state which decays due to the weak interactions at once into 3 neutrinos and electron, is 8.74 times shorter than lifetime of muon. This leads to conclusion that the neutrino speed is 1.0000172(71)c i.e. the maximum speed is 1.0000243c so the time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams is 59.3 ns.
    For highest energies, such as in the explosions of the neutron cores of supernovae, dominate the neutrinos from the decays of the W boson-antiboson pairs produced near the point mass in the core of baryons. The distance of mass between the point mass and the torus in the core of baryons is equal to the mass of muon whereas the mass of the point mass , which is responsible for the weak interactions of baryons, is 4 times greater than the muon. The four neutrino symmetry (the eight gluons lead to two families of neutrinos only) shows that creation of systems containing 4 elements is preferred. This means that the lifetime of the muon is characteristic also for the point mass (i.e.424 MeV = 4*105.7 MeV – each one of the four muons lives 2.2*10^-6 s). This leads to conclusion that lifetime of the W bosons which decay due to the weak interactions is
    2.2*10^-6 s/(80,000/424)^4 = 1.74*10^-15 s.
    This leads to following neutrino speed 1.0000000014(6)c i.e. maximum speed is 1.000000002c. The time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams, measured on the Earth for the SN 1987A, should be
    168,000 ly*365 days*24 hours*0.000000002 = 3 hours.
    If before the explosion mass of the SN 1987A was close but greater than four masses of the Type Ia supernovae, i.e. greater than 5.6 times the mass of the sun, then due to the four-neutrino symmetry, during the gravitational collapse, there could arise the system containing 4 the Type Ia supernovae. After simultaneous explosion of the 4 supernovae, we should not observe there a remnant i.e. neutron core.

    Neutrino speed depends on lifetime of particles which decay due to the weak interactions. The calculated maximum neutrino speed is 1.000072c. The MINOS and LHC-OPERA experiments and data concerning the supernova SN 1987A, lead to the Everlasting Theory i.e. to the atom-like structure of baryons, to my electroweak theory and to two families of neutrinos only. In MINOS dominated neutrinos from decays of muons, in LHC-OPERA neutrinos from decays of the relativistic charged pions whereas in the supernova SN 1987A explosion, the neutrinos from the decays of the W bosons.

  121. Sywester,

    I like your term everlasting for I may have posted it in relation to these neutrino ideas but certainly concerning the philosophic distinction between that an the term eternal- as in Eternal Inflation cosmology.

    Yours is quite interesting theories with some conclusions the same as others have made. In particular where it involves conclusions that the fundamental, original and comprehensive theory of the universe, involves electroweak thus chiral influences as the grounding.

    I have imagined two types of neutrinos more from a biological model and have reached a time of going back to the drawing board at this level of paradox. I am not sure these are the same entities of which you speculate.

    Hope springs everlastingly…

    The PeSla

  122. Number26,

    The issues of which you are concerned, due to the nature of number, seems to me a little limited, a borderline numerology really which in the end treats what cannot be distinguished as coincidence from the general picture of the importance of dimensionless constants.
    There are many such relations of numbers which in the totality can seem miraculous to find or mere trivial artifacts. (Such discoveries are ancient also as in the sacred number of Plato 192 – rigid hypercube rotation?) or the 240 of Babylon as a sacret number rediscovered in 64 in relation to hypernumbers and the close packing of 8D spheres.

    The feeling I get is that a young intern can autopsy a corpse and see the intricate design and say how great the intricate design of the Creator. This may be so (but outside the provence of science so far) but in any case the living organism is much more awe inspiring and complex- as well the wider ideas of the universe that go beyond the idea of a lesser model of God.

    But I do not mean to discourage anyone willing to dedicated their lives to the quest of knowing. There are much wider connections between these fundamental numbers than what some seem to find as group theoryin in its little rigid classifications and we should see such concepts as more a living system than that which has lost its life force for everyone.

    Beyond a certain point no ghost of theories past can come back to haunt us.


  123. Huping Hu says:

    Hot off the Press: PSTJ V2(9): The End of an Era: Tevatron Is Shutting Down & Can Neutrinos be Superluminal?

  124. Ervin Goldfain says:

    @ Kea,

    You say:

    “One cannot necessarily use the physical picture that we have for other particles, because it has yet to be tested with neutrinos, about which we know very little. A theory is a theory is a theory.”

    Almost nobody is denying that neutrino physics is a field of research with many unknowns and challenges. But this is a far cry from saying that we need to throw out everything we learned from relativistic QFT when it comes to neutrinos.

  125. Kea says:

    Ervin, most theorists who were thinking about neutrinos (before last week) are working on some form of quantum gravity. They have no intention of ‘throwing out everything we know’, but rather the eventual aim of recovering everything we know from deeper principles. You should know this. It is basic logic that one does not ‘derive’ the SM or GR using established techniques, and it is already known that twistor theory (now = bread and butter CERN HEP) point to non local physics for the SM.

    • Ervin Goldfain says:

      I agree that some form of non local physics will likely provide a basis for deriving both SM and GR which are, after all, “effective” frameworks to begin with. I happen to believe, however, that nonlinear dynamics and physics outside equilibrium are key tools to get us there.

      • Kea says:

        This can only be a small part of the picture, because deriving GR means understanding classical geometry in general at a deep level.

  126. dear Doctor Phillpp Gibbs

    Congratulations for this post…it was the first time a viXra theme reached 300 posts….. as far as i can tell…..i NEVER got so many emails from vixra blog….and i am enjoying it

    when i started to read about Superluminal Neutrinos i became skeptic

    the Hamilton-Jacobi equation in 5D can explain this as a shortcut to an Extra Dimension or so….but this can have another explanation beyond 5D…or an explanation in 4D

    the 5D Spacelike geodesics for a neutrino can indeed be superluminal ….see arXiv gr-qc/0603106 published in Gen Rel Grav

    You know but other readers dont know that yes it was me before i became a “renegade” or a “blacklisted” scientist…see the Elementary Particle Tables for the Neutrino in the end of gr-qc/0603106…….

    this was before i abandoned the 5D Extra Dimensions and returned to 4D to study the Warp Drive

    as for an experience i inserted the equations of the speed of the Superluminal Neutrinos taken from the available literature from OPERA CERN etc inside the Natario Warp Drive Spacetime and….the Suplerluminal Neutrino can maintain the Warp Bubble causally connected if the speed of the Superluminal Neutrino exceeds the Superluminal speed of the Warp Bubble Walls

    if the speed of the Superluminal Neutrino is inferior to the speed of the Warp Bubble Walls the neutrino will stops…there will be also an Horizon for neutrinos…but Superluminal Neutrions will mainted the Warp Bubble connected….if their speed is faster than the o ne of the Warp Bubble Walls ..

    .for the readers see viXra:1101.0085 Section 6 the part i mentioned that two Lockheed Martin SR-71 Blackbirds with the radios broken and communicating with “phonon” machines are the option available one becomes causally disconnected from the other if both accelerates to Mach 3

    but the more interesting feature is the fact that LHC will synthetise
    Exotic Matter in the next years

    LHC will synthetise exotic matter

  127. Ervin Goldfain says:

    @ Kea,

    You say:

    “This can only be a small part of the picture, because deriving GR means understanding classical geometry in general at a deep level.”

    Keep in mind that nonlinear dynamics is deeply linked to fractal topology and the concept of metric endowed with Hausdorff dimension. It may not just be a simple coincidence that fractional field theory on Minkowski space-time has the same form as conventional field theory formulated on curved space-time.

    But I think we’re getting too far off topic here.



  128. Kea says:

    Ervin, I am not saying that your ideas are irrelevant. I am simply claiming that the full picture requires a generalization of topology and logic, using category theory. That is my field.

  129. Carl Brannen says:

    Kea and Phil; It’s somewhat ironic that Tommaso leaked the neutrino news. Four years ago he let me put up a guest blog. I chose to show how relativity could result naturally from straight Newtonian physics (small vibrations in an elastic medium), and that it would give two different wave speeds. From the comment section:

    “Every now and then I get the urge to include a first slide at a physics conference that says “Einstine was Wrong”, preferably in a green crayon. So far I’ve suppressed it. I think that eventually we will find plane waves that travel faster than c, and that the evidence will be undeniable. Until then, I really don’t think that there is any way anyone can be convinced by these sorts of arguments. On the other hand, I didn’t think my guest post would convince anyone either, LOL.”

    • Kea says:

      LOL, Carl. Personally, I think all the HEP leaks are carefully orchestrated to test the response. Tommaso can’t really be that irresponsible.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      For the record Tommaso was not the one who leaked it. There were detailed anonymous comments at Resonaances, NEW and here before his post and they did not come from him. By the time he first posted there was not much doubt what the seminar was going to be about.

      I suspect he would stand by that comment even now until the result is confirmed independently, but it is good that he allowed you to do a guest post. That is the important thing I think.

  130. Les Hardison says:

    The simplest explanations are often the est ones.

    My simple explanation is that the OPERA researchers took the distance the neurtinos traveled as the distance between the source and receptor as measured by GPS. The GPS measures the length of the arc between the two points, following the curvature of the earth. The path the eutrinos follow is the straight line distance, through the earth. The path length this way is about shorter, yielding a speed for the neutrinos of about 0.9995 times the speed of light in a vacuum.

    This is a lot simpler most of the other explanatins offered, Can anyone find the distance correction in the cakcuations published to date. I couldn’t.

    • Janko Kokosar says:

      Distance is not a problem. It is enough precisely measured. The problem is time synchronisation:

      • Nikolai Pavlov says:

        They should be capable to check clock synchronization by physically moving ( by car and plane) an atomic clock from one place to another. This clock are to precise to 10^-14, so the error in 3 hours will be just 0.1 nSec

  131. like Primordial Black Holes perhaps Primordial Warp Bubbles may have been formed in the Early Universe
    in this case we only need to find one and enlarge it to our needs

    see this

    see the abstract of this
    The introduction of the warp drive metric by Alcubierre1 has aroused great interest over the past few years. Using an uncertainty-type principle, Ford and Pfenning2 proved that the warp drive transport of a spaceship in a regular bubble having a radius of 100 m is unrealistic. However, Van Den Broeck3 has shown that the situation largely improves when one uses a warp drive bubble with a small surface area and large spatial volume.
    Putting aside many physics problems related to the realization of the warp drive concept, we show in this paper4 how to modify Van Den Broeck’s idea to improve his results. We find new lower bounds for the warp drive energy by working on parameters whose latitude has never been considered before. We also consider micro warp drive bubbles which can be treated as physical entities of their own and could possibly be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light. The conditions prevailing just after the Big Bang allow the spontaneous formation of such micro bubbles which could still be present in our period of time.

    or perhaps this one

    if LHC from a unknown process generated a Micro Warp Bubble with the Neutrino inside i…the Neutrino would look Superluminal…for an observer outside the Warp Bubble

    amazing…..we are witnesses of something so important as the Michelson-Morley experiment that destroyed Newton theory

    count the Authors…173 authors i “carckpot” can be wrong but 173 guys from CERN…..

    and this is the main communication from France Government


    so please do not invent “aether” theories for the Supeluminal Neutrnio like people did from 1887 to 1905

    forget about E^ª2 = c^2 P^2 + m_o ^2 C^4

    in French i would say

    “Adieu Monsieur Einstein..Voici Le Warp Drive”

    “Au Revouir Monsieur Einstein”

  132. Nikolai Pavlov says:

    I wonder if observed decay rate variations of beta decay that are correlated to the Sun-Earth distance (gravitational potential changing) and GSI anomaly oscillations can be tied to some superluminal neutrino theory

  133. Kea,

    That 2/9 value is certainly interesting to think about. (I wish I could say more about this and knew more). This does seem to me to relate to the things like dimensionless constants and so on and our systems of units in the physics- but as such what seems physical to one really is but a metaphysical statement to others and indeed may be one or the other despite what we may feel. I feel still that yours is the best of meaningful explanations that has sound intuitions and a careful program of research. The others need to adjust their theories and world views a bit and should feel great joy in our era of new enlightenment.

    It was once thought that the reason a neutrino only had one spin observed was that we could never go faster than light so not get ahead of it to see it spin the other way. Then we find it may have mass, albeit small. Then that it can be superluminal From my view the theoreticians of these seemingly incompatible speculations do not realize they are dealing with half a deck to which claims can be made, but not very scientifically about the rightness another view.

    Most I imagine have not tried to generalize enough and what is freedom for some a restraint for others depending on what their subjective perception is as to what vanishes on whatever side of some mathematical mirror.


    The choices of coordinates for a physics system may be all important in the new physics- as a point of view or an objective fact. Our idea of motion is after all that things vanish when we impose arbitrary curved spaces in and Euclidean frame. In this sense the most general of values of the coordinates reduce to one thing of the matrix involved all other zero. This describes an orthogonal view of space frames. But we can imagine that a space exists where the minimum motion is the maximum change of all coordinates and the zero is left as room for differences in singularities for interactions. Both ideas of motion can apply and objectively without appeal to some idea of human subjectivity that may underlay the theory for some insistence of world view. The super-symmetric view itself is subject to such possible false bias constraints of which the experimental jury may long be out of reach.


    In view of these new topological possibilities organizing the ideas of such bubbles, black hole like objects, merging boundaries and so on can hardly reach the depth of new physics to realistically make any measure that can help us manipulate space time in the way you imagine- nor an explanation of micro bubbles be the foundations for a more rational cosmology in themselves.


    We are close enough to deeper truths that our notions can be seen as reaching more complexity and chaos, or some new level of pointlessness.

    Happy Enquiring! The Pe Sla

    • Kea says:

      Good to hear from you, The Pe Sla. There are still many things to be sorted out here. It would be a good time to be a young physicist.

  134. Ulla says:

    The aether theory comes by force in mind, indeed. We are carried by an unseen matter like in a mothers womb, only that it is part of all of us, everything. Maybe time to again look at the Mickelson-Morley-experiment and what it really told us? Then the DM was not considered. Can it be made in another way?

    Yes, Kea, I know.

  135. John Ståhle says:

    The Michelson–Morley experiment told us, that if an ether exists, it is moving with the Earth = geocentric worldview, the universe is revolving around my navel (my favorite obsession :). <- look! a wart on his chin!

    Similar experiments have been performed many times since, the latest one I know of was Herrmann et al. (2009) "Rotating optical cavity experiment testing Lorentz invariance at the 10^-17 level",

    • Robert Clark says:

      Actually, even Einstein acknowledged relativity did not disprove the existence of an ether. It only provided an explanation of effects like time dilation without requiring a preferred frame.
      However, if superluminal speeds are possible then the relativity explanation is no longer viable, and physicists would have to go back to a preferred frame explanation.

      Bob Clark

  136. well it seesm that is confirmed…..not an equipment malfunction or whatever

    HAL quotes the Superluminal Neutrinos twice in its home page

    the paper is in HAL as HAL-00625946

    excellent…..because i already have a clue of what triggered the FTL motion

    and if the paper is stored in arXiv and in HAL…guesss what??? i will cite the HAL reference…..

  137. John Ståhle says:

    Having read “Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam” a couple of times, I may have a solution to the SR/neutrino conflict.

    In the OPERA experiment was produced 1 neutrino for each 6.2E15 protons = 1.61E-16 neutrino per proton.

    The data analysis (p. 14f) clearly shows how the production of neutrinos has been calibrated against the production of protons, and shows an almost perfect correspondance.

    Problem: Based on the data analysis, the OPERA team assumes that the production of 16 111 muonneutrinoser is synkronous with the production of 1E20 protroner.

    Possible explanation: If, however, for some unknown reason, neutrinos are produced mostly early in the proton burst – say 90ns early out of 1E-7 seconds, or 1/117 of the duration of a proton burst – data will show an almost perfectly symmetric Poisson distribution, as in the paper’s fig. 8, but in reality the distribution is skewered, with a top in the neutrino curve 90ns before the top in the proton curve.

    If this is the (rather simple statistical) explanation, then neutrinos move as usual at about 0.999999999c.

    S.E & O., John Ståhle

    • Murod says:

      Honestly, I do not understand what kind of “SR/neutrino conflict” is there. Why neutrino cannot be superluminal? See, for instance,


      The article is dated 5-Mar-2001 and provides reasonable theory of superluminal neutrinos.

    • John Ståhle says:

      Gilles Henri’s paper “A simple explanation of OPERA results without strange physics”, 4. OCT 2011, provides the “or some unknown reason” above, as a difference in the shape of head and tail in the proton bursts.

      G. Henri: “… it is enough that the beam composition varies during the leading and the trailing edges to explain an apparent time shift in the detected neutrinos.”

  138. John Ståhle says:

    Problem #1: All neutrinos do have masses > 0

    Several papers (long list) provides hypothesis about superluminal neutrinos.

  139. V. Flaminio says:

    The conflict is in the fact that taking the OPERA result at face value, neutrinos from the Supernova 1987A should have been seen four years earlier than photons, while they were essentially in coincindence (a few hours earlier – consistent with SN models). The old article you mention assumes a negative square mass for the neutrino, an old hint never confirmed.
    Recent evidence goes moreover againts the OPERA result. See the article by Cohen and Glashow: “new constraints on neutrino velocities” (arXiv:1109.6562).

  140. John Ståhle says:

    Another problem is that if neutrinos, flying pigs, anything, are superluminal, you can in principle mount a mirror far away and send today’s result of the horse races back to yourself yesterday.

    The mass > 0 problem is that it takes a serious amount of energy to move anythinhg to c.

    In both cases you get into troubles with SR, which has been confirmed umpteen times, latest in the new Nature vol. 477, September 29th 2011, p. 567.

  141. Daniel says:

    I predicted those exact results (superluminal neutrinos) a little more than a year ago, in the early drafts of my treatise on quantum-geometry dynamic ( see or on Vixra).

    At the time, considering the outrageous predictions the theory made, more than a few of the researchers who I have been in contact with thought that QGD was some kind of crackpot theory, but in the last few months a number of its predictions have gained some support from experimental data.

    QGD predicted the exclusion of the Higgs boson, refuted supersymmetry and the idea of extra dimensions, put in question the theory of relativity’s explanation of the constancy of the speed of light and, specifically predicted that neutrinos and only neutrinos shared structural properties with photons, which would allow them to move at superluminal relative speeds.

    No one will argue that the ultimate test of any theory is the observation of its predictions. If this is true, than QGD is certainly in a very good position.

    Getting back to the topic of the OPERA results, QGD not only predicted but also provided an interpretation of the results which goes as follows: Since, according to QGD, neutrinos can only move at the absolute speed of light (the absolute speed being the speed measured against the quantum-geometrical space itself), then the difference in between the relative superluminal speed of the neutrinos of the OPERA experiment and speed of light must be due absolute speed of the Earth along the axis of motion of the neutrinos. What the OPERA experiment unexpectedly allowed to measure would actually be the speed of the Earth relative to quantum-geometrical space.

    If as I believe the OPERA results are duplicated, then QGD predicts that other experiments will show neutrinos’ speed will vary slightly depending on the orientation of the axis between the source and target of neutrinos. The relative speed of the neutrinos will be exactly the speed of light when the axis is perpendicular to the absolute direction of the Earth (relative to the quantum-geometrical space background). It’s important here to insist that I’m not talking about the speed of the Earth relative to the Sun, the centre of the galaxy or relative to any other object.

    The relative speed will be at its minimum but less than c when the axis between the source and target is parallel to the axis of direction of the Earth but move in the same direction. And the maximum relative speed, which will be higher than c, when the axis between source and target is parallel with the absolute direction of the direction of the Earth and move in the opposite direction.

    I think the biggest prediction of QGD is that space is both discrete and emergent from the interactions between one of only two types of fundamental particles the theory admits. If space is discrete as QGD predicts, than it is not matter that determines the structures of space, but the structure of space that determines the structure of matter and how it propagates and interacts.

    Discreteness of space also precludes the existence of time. This implies that time being a purely relational concept; it should not be unified with space. Discreteness of space is alone sufficient to explain the constancy of the absolute speed light (time dilation being the unavoidable consequence of the continuity of space is unnecessary if space is quantum-geometrical).

    If you take time out of physics, then the universe becomes strictly causal and deterministic. All states are the result of series of physical events, local interactions, etc. So superluminal speeds in that context do not affect causality in any way.

    When working on QGD, one of my biggest concern was to follow the laws of the initial axiomatic set rigorously so as to avoid coercing the theory into agreeing with any other theory. In other words, I wanted to let the theory develop in a manner consistent with its axiom set. Keeping this in mind, Newton’s universal law of gravity followed naturally. So did the equation E=mc (not c squared since QGD takes c as the fundamental unit of speed). I must add that the E=mc equation in QGD is not a equivalence relationship, but rather a relationship between two properties of matter. So essentially, I think that even if the OPERA results hold and and as a result refute special relativity, E=mc as a non equivalence relationship still would hold.

  142. Murod says:

    Dear John Ståhle:

    What do you mean by “All neutrinos do have masses > 0”? Dirac masses or Majorana masses? Majorana mass can be interpreted as imaginary Dirac mass.

    Your example with mirror is not relevant in the case of neutrino, because they violate parity and cannot be reflected by the mirror. It seems that you deny the very idea of superluminal motion. But with superluminal motion we probably can resolve some open questions in physics, such as quarks confinement. Just imagine a superluminal particle moving along the curved line. What shall we observe? Superluminal particle can be at different places at the same time (just like subluminal particle can be at the same place at different times). Let’s assume that particle is at three different places at the same time. We shall interpret it as observation of “three subluminal quarks” instead of one superluminal particle. But we would not be able to observe a “single quark” because it does not exist. Moreover, from the moving reference frame we will observe more than 3 “quarks” (5, 7 or more “quarks” depending of velocity of the reference frame), as it happens in experiments with protons.

    Well, I think the best way to identify whether or not neutrinos are superluminal is to undertake another experiment.

  143. John Ståhle says:

    Dear Murod,

    “Your example with mirror is not relevant in the case of neutrino, because they violate parity and cannot be reflected by the mirror.”

    Depends on the mirror – I don’t mean an aluminium coated piece of glass. A neutrino detector followed by an automatic retransmission of the detected message will suffice.

    All known neutrinos have a mass equivalent > 0.

    0 < M(νe) < 0.47 eV (or possibly 0.28 eV)
    ( "Upper Bound of 0.28 eV on Neutrino Masses from the Largest Photometric Redshift Survey" arxiv astro-ph 0911.5291 abstract )
    0 < M(νμ) < 170 KeV
    0 < M(ντ) < 15,5 MeV
    Sterile, if exists, higher.

    Haven't slept for 26 hours, so not in a condition to answer coherently but refer to the not-real-superluminal-neutrinos postings:

    Good night.

  144. John Ståhle says:

    Oh, and the neutrino masses are based on the sum of the eigenstates for each type.

  145. John Ståhle says:

    – and before I tumble: Nobody knows if a neutrino is a Majorana fermion, AFAIK none have ever been observed, but the possibility exists that neutrinos are Mfs, and the (as yet hypothetical) neutralino is/should be.

  146. John Stahle,

    It does have something to do with our ideas of mirrors- in any case these can be Majorana and not be and it can be shown theoretically in terms of information theory. It is a matter of counting the right bits, and even on one side of the “mirror” we can show (as in Penrose’s idea of “quantanglement” that this has to be the case.) If by neutralino you mean to divide the concepts from the general case- well that is a matter of taste. I am sure the sensibility of theory will stand even if such speculations cannot be observed.

    But does this matter when we deal with hyperbolic models of the universe? I can image a world where the standard model and cosmology is the ground- but it is only a small part of disjoint possibilities as we see a wider sea of foundations.

    The PeSla

  147. Murod says:

    With all due respect, John, whatever mirror you use, it could never happen that “you can in principle mount a mirror far away and send today’s result of the horse races back to yourself yesterday”. I checked this with straighforward calculation.

    I also found “Tachyonic antitelephone” page in Wikipedia. Calculation presented there is not accurate and erroneous, since it does not take into account that “superluminal signal” speed is different in two frames.

    • John Ståhle says:

      Dear Murod,

      I am not going to debate this in detail.

      However, if you can detect a burst of neutrinos at a distance, counting one burst per time unit as 0 and two bursts as 1, you can transfer messages faster than the good old telegraph and retransmit them.

  148. Murod,

    There are a few respected physicists who would disagree with you – but they are theories. What are we to make of the setting up of two or four bit stations that it takes the speed of light travel to establish them but once they are the exchange of messages is non-local and instantaneous? How do you account for this especially if of all the mirrors the totality may in a sense have a mirror? This is also a multiverse issue is it not? Perhaps we need to generalize this concept of what frames are? On what does anything bounce back, silvered or abstract that we can establish something to react against and measure the direction of flow.

    Have we not detected particles sent from the future? Have you never thought the phone may ring and it does? OK, we scratch off a lottery ticket and have some remarkable series of wins- was this coincidence or if we take the quantum theory at face value the actual numbers changed before they were scratched off? How can you be so sure of such calculations with such a possibility of numbers?

    With due respect also,
    The PeSla

  149. Ulla says:

    Does anybody remember Holger Nielsens ‘projectiles’ from the future attacking LHC? There is a theory?

    • John Ståhle says:

      Holger Bech Nielsen is a brilliant scientist (who happens to work some 300 m from where I do) and a funny fellow who loves to express his thoughts in a very untraditional way. He always expects you to give his statements some deep thought.

      • John Ståhle says:

        Holger’s serious joke about “God is sabotaging the Large Hadron Collider”:

      • dear John

        God is not sabotating the Large Hadron Collider

        the neutrino IS Superluminal….no errors in experiments or failures in the Standard Model of Particles and Fields etc…..

        in less than two weeks wait for the appearance of a paper on viXra and HAL(since i am still an arXiv blacklisted scientist) that can explain why the neutrino is Superluminal…..

        my paper must be ready before 19 October 2011

        this day the Natario Warp Drive celebrate 10 years…the first version of the Natario Warp Drive appeared in arXiv as gr-qc/0110086 in 19 October 2001

      • John Ståhle says:

        Querido Fernando, la palabra “joke” significa un chiste.

        . John

      • Dear John

        i know but thanks anyway

        i am reading everything available on viXra arXiv and HAL about these Superluminal Neutrinos… see if other people figures what i already figured out…..

        i will be the first to propose this idea..the work is in “pencil and paper” i am still TeXing …next week it will be uploaded

      • Ulla says:

        This ‘joke’ was only a good way to get attention to his idea about signals from the future? The point was not LHC, but the signals. Compare the idea that ET’s here from the future.

      • John Ståhle says:

        The joke part was the wording “God is …”.

        Holger is reasonably serious about the “sabotage”, as part of a new and interesting theory he is working on in collaboration with Astri Kleppe. Have read part of it at its present form, juicy.

  150. port says:

    DNS Port…

    […]Can Neutrinos be Superluminal? Ask OPERA! « viXra log[…]…

  151. […] Dorigo posted a report about the findings on Quantum Diaries Survivor. Posts quickly followed on viXra and The Reference Frame and other blogs. Dorigo then withdrew the […]

  152. John Ståhle says:

    A brother in arms has drawn my attention to ch. 6, p. 14 in the OPERA paper (“Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam “), where it says: “This TT delay has an average value of 59.6 ns with a RMS of 7.3 ns, reflecting the transverse event distribution inside the detector.”.

    They couldn’t have added these 59.6 ns to time of burst in the transmitting end at CERN and then have forgotten to add them to the neutrino arrival time at OPERA?

    Nah, they couldn’t, could they? It’s only me who make that kind of mistakes.

  153. […] the announcement of the OPERA result there have been numerous theory papers written about the Faster Than Light neutrinos and posted to […]

  154. […] la mañana y no la encontré, ¿había soñado haber leído dicha entrada?; gracias a otros blogs (viXra y TRF) quedó constancia de la existencia de dicha entrada. Acabo de leer la historia de la […]

  155. hi guys

    here is the title and the abstract of my new viXra should appear by tomorrow….now everyone can see that my idea was original

    \title{Can The Natario Warp Drive Explain The OPERA Superluminal Neutrino At CERN??}
    \author{Fernando Loup \

    Recently Superluminal Neutrinos have been observed in the OPERA
    experiment at CERN.Since the neutrino possesses a non-zero rest
    mass then according to the Standard Model,Relativity and Lorentz
    Invariance this Superluminal speed result would be impossible to
    be achieved.This Superluminal OPERA result seems to be confirmed
    and cannot be explained by errors in the measurements or break-ups
    in the Standard Model,Relativity or Lorentz Invariance. In order
    to conciliate the Standard Model,Relativity and Lorentz Invariance
    with the OPERA Superluminal Neutrino we propose a different
    approach: Some years ago Gauthier,Gravel and Melanson introduced
    the idea of the micro Warp Drive:Microscopical particle-sized Warp
    Bubbles carrying inside sub-atomic particles at Superluminal
    speeds. These micro Warp Bubbles according to them may have formed
    spontaneously in the Early Universe after the Big Bang and they
    used the Alcubierre Warp Drive geometry in their mathematical
    model.We propose exactly the same idea of Gauthier,Gravel and
    Melanson to explain the Superluminal Neutrino at OPERA however
    using the Natario Warp Drive geometry.Our point of view can be
    resumed in the following statement:In a process that modern
    science still needs to understand,the OPERA Experiment generated a
    micro Natario Warp Bubble around the neutrino that pushed it
    beyond the Light Speed barrier.Inside the Warp Bubble the neutrino
    is below the Light Speed and no break-ups of the Standard
    Model,Relativity or Lorentz Invariance occurs but outside the Warp
    Bubble the neutrino would be seen at Superluminal speeds.Remember
    that the CERN particle accelerators were constructed to reproduce
    in laboratory scale the physical conditions we believe that may
    have existed in the Early Universe so these micro Warp Bubbles
    generated after the Big Bang may perhaps be re-created or
    reproduced inside particle accelerators. We believe that our idea
    borrowed from Gauthier,Gravel and Melanson can explain what really
    happened with the neutrinos in the OPERA experiment

  156. Fernando,

    I will look forward to your paper.

    This reminds me of the conclusion of Fred Hoyle’s book on the Quasars after the so called big bang evidence. That perhaps the world does not start with a big bang but many little bangs.

    One idea for me is that of micro-time travel – what this amounts to is that such invariance or uniformity of universal laws is not as radically superluminal but some degree of this, perhaps a generalization of symmetry where in a sense the same Lorentz invariance occurs with a hierarchy of values if we can distinguish the inside from outside of things within finite considerations. That is to say that Einstein is not abandoned in principle just applied a little more comprehensively. Nor can we say quantum theories are likewise abandoned.

    How might this relate to some beginning where theoreticians have postulated some left over mini-black holes? What is left when all such entities evaporate if not some unlimited acceleration?

    And more to the point as it begins to dawn on us there are other ways to see and unify the physics- can there be micro-warp bubbles in the micro-warp bubbles and so on?

    Sorry, I am not familiar with any of the names you mentioned.

    The PeSla

  157. Ulla says:

    Collective Neutrino Oscillations, Yong-Zhong Qian, 2010

    The same as Wilczek claimed.

  158. dear Pesla you are more than welcome to look for my paper

    if you need some help i am more than happy to help you

    but it is not only on viXra

    it is also in HAL

    HAL is where the main paper on Superluminal Neutrinos resides

    so it is important to me to be accepted in HAL since this e-print is moderated…just like arXiv

    so for the guys that think viXra is for second-rate papers…
    totally wrong!!!!viXra can store first rate papers and i am not mentioning my papers

    since arXiv rejected me…i reject arXiv,,,i did not submited this paper to arXiv…why???? to give a pleasure to the “scuffy-fools” moderators…..

    read my paper….you will gonna love it…..

    i am not Arnold Schwarzennegger but for the arXiv i would say

    “hasta la vista baby”

  159. website bouw says:

    website bouw…

    […]Can Neutrinos be Superluminal? Ask OPERA! « viXra log[…]…

  160. ProfChuck says:

    the accuracy of the measurement seems to rest on two fundamental issues; synchronisation of clocks and measurement of distance. It is my understanding that clock synchronisation was accomplished by using portable atomic time standards and distance measurement by means of GPS. Consider the relativistic effects on atomic clocks when they are moved from one location to another, including the velocity history of the transport process, Also consider that GPS measurements include relativistic compensation


    to remove “undesirable” relativistic effects. Is it possible that the GPS data are corrupted by this process?

    I suspect that a solution to the question will be found without the invocation of new physics but wouldn’t it be exciting if the findings turn out to be real.

    • John Ståhle says:

      – add synchronisation of proton burst and neutrino arrival.

      If more protons (thus also neutrinos) are generated in the head than towards the tail, this skews statistics (Poisson curve) towards seemingly fast neutrinos.

      • ProfChuck says:

        That is a good point the dimensions of the emitter and the sensor along the transmission axis can also introduce broad timing uncertainties. Neutrino detectors tend to be rather bulky.

  161. wl59 says:

    It would be nice to return to the reality, and to remember that GPS with cheapest devices nowadays obtains an accuracy of a few meters or better. And this are distances principally confirmed / adjusted to dircet distance measurements, so that we can consider both as equivalent.

    To my opinion, the most probable source of errors is simply the size of the instruments for production and detection of the neutrinos, so that can occur anyhow a systematic error of a small part (less than 1/20) of this size.

  162. Paul Ireland says:

    I believe there may be a simple explanation for the OPERA findings that neutrinos appear to travel faster than the speed of light.

    Consider a beam of light passing through a transparent material. While the level of interaction between the photons and material is low (i.e. the level of absorption is low), their passage is affected by the material. They are refracted. The refraction index is a measure of the speed of the photons in the material relative to their speed in free space. While all naturally occurring materials have a positive refracted index (i.e. the photons travel more slowly in that material than in free space), it is theoretically possible to have materials where the refracted index is negative. Photons will travel FASTER than the speed of light through these materials.

    While neutrinos interact weakly with matter, as far as I am aware, there are no measurements as to if they are refracted by matter. Given wave particle duality, it is reasonable to assume neutrinos may behave in the same way as light when they pass through matter, i.e. they refracted.

    Previous measurements of neutrino speeds detected events from distance supernova where the neutrinos had passed through free space. However, the OPERA team detected neutrinos that had passed through matter, the earth’s crust. If we assume that matter refracts neutrinos and the refractive index is negative, then OPERA would observe the neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light in free space. The observation is, in effect, a direct measurement of the refractive index of matter for neutrinos.

  163. ProfChuck says:

    What you are referring to is the observable velocity of light in a refractive media which is always less than c in a vacuum. When a particle with charge and mass passes through a refractive media faster than the velocity of light IN THAT MEDIA Chernkov radiation is produced. I don’t think that is what is happening here. Also the bending of a beam of light in a gravitational field has nothing to do with the mass of the photons. Gravitational lensing is a consequence of the equivalence principle and the resulting change in the shape of space-time curvature caused by a gravitational field. The problem is that very little is known about the behavior of neutrinos and how the different flavors behave under varying circumstances. If the observation is not a measurement error then we may be looking at a new phenomena in particle physics. So far there is no evidence that causality has been violated. Clearly we must dig deeper, much deeper.

    • Paul Ireland says:

      I agree with your statement, however, you have missed two key points.

      Firstly, materials with a negative refrative index are theoretically possible. While travelling through such a material the velocity of light is GREATER than its velocity in free space. Place a block of such material between a light source and detector and you would observe the beam of light travelling faster than its free space velocity.

      Secondly, I am likening neutrinos to light in that they are influenced by a similar property we could refer to as the neutrino refractive index of the material. If the neutrino refractive index is negative, they will travel faster through that material than through free space.

      I make no reference to gravitational lensing.

      • ProfChuck says:

        The only reason I brought up gravitational lensing is because it is an example of how the equivalence principal drives general relativity. As far as negative refractive index is concerned as far as I know that is a theoretical consequence of Maxwell’s equations. It has never been observed. If negative refractive index is responsible that would clearly constitute new physics and would be a profound discovery. As you suggest there may be some significant property issues with neutrinos that do not fall into the standard model of quantum physics. Neutrinos are very strange (not quark strange) particles so much remains to be discovered about them. Regardless of what is going on here it is very exciting.

  164. ProfChuck says:

    Another point. The fact that some neutrinos are observed to oscillate between “flavors” during flight means that they must have some mass. The amount of mass can be inferred from the propagation velocity (according to the standard theory). At zero mass neutrinos would propagate at c. Interestingly, the equations reveal that for superluminal velocity the mass must be imaginary, not negative, as in the square root of a negative number. It is not clear what that might mean if it means anything at all.

  165. ProfChuck,

    Of course it can mean a great deal that such things are imaginary and as mysteriously outside the question of causality.

    Now, the sun will not blow up if the neutrinos have some mass and change flavors. Nevertheless, this is how they blow up is it not? I mean light from the center of a star takes billions of years if that is the medium so to come out (neutrinos then not in sinc with the value of h either as we imagine it) but the neutrinos escape rapidly.

    So, part of it is how we handle exponential values, real and imaginary, say to define radioactive decay or even hyperbolic trig spaces. Some say this decay rate can vary. Some say we can imagine over a more integrated view of time a value like light slowing down (or if we insist on this causal world also speeding up in a more concrete sense things gaining mass, cosmic rays for example).

    One might say that if light is slowing down the neutrinos would appear faster than light in the causal world- an alternative presumption of doubt in the judgment of a theory. A sort of relativity on steroids. But we already know the problem of a photon in a field is not just that of the equivalence principle as it is affected by and affects the gravitational field while apparently string theory as complicated as it is does not explain mass, even ad hoc in value.

    But if the world is discrete in so many ways, then this result of faster than light neutrinos would also have is limitations as a discrete phenomenon as would presumably quantum gravity – so what persists as invariant, including dimensionless constants and perhaps some changes over time and causality for them, both c and h can in a higher sense remain assumed invariant.

    Nature renormalizes herself in these matters whether we have to invent some concept of something like asymptotic freedom as a principle or perspective to do it.

    The PeSla

  166. ProfChuck says:

    The PeSla

    re “One might say that if light is slowing down the neutrinos would appear faster than light in the causal world- an alternative presumption of doubt in the judgment of a theory.” True but my understanding of the measurement is that only the time of the events and the distance between the generator and the detector are involved. Synchronization of clocks is a challenge but doable and distance measurement to a few cm is within the capability of GPS. There are some artifacts in the GPS process where the operators of GPS “compensate for relativistic effects”. This compensation process would be one of the first places I would look for a source of measurement error or a hidden assumption.

    • ProfChuck,

      Sounds like you are doing some great enquiring and I liked your replies to Paul – I think there are negative indexes of refraction observed now for photography anyway.

      Reading the foundations lately (Peter Rowlands in particular) I almost think there are too many problems to bother with and we should simply start from a blank slate totally.- the corrections are not my concern as if for whatever reason the scientist have an interest in keeping some conflicts the way they are- that or we are not smart enough.

      For one thing, the way things are, measurements are intrinsically uncertain- Time relativity is not the same as space relativity- both involve the idea of Leibniz of infinitesimals or of Newton as time fluxions and it all is a question of what is set as continuous or discrete. The directionality of time thus is an issue and we might say imaginary time is virtual as an arrow- but one view what is virtual to the other can be seen as not. Lorentz while can be shown universal can still be a paradox as to what is virtual or to how far it applies beyond say the concept of zero point energy and so on..

      By the way, Paul, missing each others points in philosophy is often the norm when there is a resolution of the paradox that the same concepts are held.

      Thanks ProfChuck, sounds like you try to be considerate too in indulging others as if you would make a great teacher.


      • ProfChuck says:

        As an instructor I have always thought there is no such thing as a dumb question or a stupid idea. I have taught relativistic physics, quantum cosmology and astrophysics at both the under grad and graduate level. One of the things I have learned is that my students are frequently more enlightened than I. (If a teacher you would be by your students you will be taught). I find science fascinating and the potential for new physics almost as exciting as sex (almost). I am retired now from NASA and lead a relatively sedentary life but the notion of hyperluminal neutrinos stirs my bodily fluids. Science need a vigorous shakeup from time to time to get rid of the cobwebs and let new blood and ideas in to the game. The OPERA experiment may be just such an agitation, I genuinely hope so.

  167. guys another work on OPERA Superluminal neutrino is about to appear on viXra and on HAL

    Glashow says the neutrino could not be superluminal in arXiv:1109.6562 and he refutates OPERA…

    .this can be seen in the abstract….he used the word refutates in the abstract

    but OPERA still retains the Superluminality of the neutrino and they are not worried about Glashow …i check this site everyday where the OPERA Superluminality can be seen,,,,twice

    i can now explain why the neutrino did not desintegrated
    and i can explain the 17 GeV seen by OPERA

    remember that the neutrino was close to c to give an energy
    of about 17 Gev while its rest mass is of 10^-9 GeV/c^2

    the neutrino was STL (Slower Than Light) but close to c when
    according to the micro Warp Bubble theory a micro Warp Drive
    involved the neutrino…..inside the Warp Bubble the neutrino
    was STL so Subluminal…..outside the Bubble the neutrino
    is seen Superluminal….or FTL

    ..but what happened to the 17 Gev ?? the Warp Bubble geometry can explain it

    i think it is not OPERA that needs to be refutated

    again the explanation of the microscopical Warp Drive
    generated by the OPERA experiment in a still unknown
    process fits very well

    he used the word refutated in the abstract

    ..the same word will appear again in the abstrac
    t of my next work

    stay tuned….only the English and the LaTeX remains
    to be done

  168. Ray Munroe says:

    Dear Fernando,

    Cohen and Glashow said “refute” not “refutate”. I realize that English is not your first language, but they might not take you seriously if you misspell such a key word in your Abstract (I use spell check). Furthermore, their rejection was based on the idea that a neutrino – itself – cannot be FTL because of bremsstrahlung radiation into electrons. But this constraint is based upon the Standard Model. We could devise a TOE model that contains new FTL particles that couple to neutrinos, such that the coupling to electrons may be minimal.

    Stay tuned for my model and Have Fun!

    • Dear Ray…as a matter of fact English is not my first language

      when i wrote “refutated” i was meaning “refute”

      anyway the neutrino was STL but close to c in order to have a rest mass higher than 10^-9 GeV/C^2 nearly 17 GeV but subluminal….before the creation of the Warp Drive around it…..when OPERA created the Warp Drive around the neutrino the neutrino entered in the Warp Space but not at the rest…it entered woth a speed close to c c … inside the Warp Bubble the neutrino is subluminal but close to c….outside the Warp Bubble it is being seen at FTL when the neutrino entered in the Warp Bubble it was moving to the front…so he will meet the front of the Bubble…..since a neutrino is subluminal inside the Bubble it do not desintegrate into pairs but something happens when the neutrino arrives to the neighborhoods of the Warp Bubble HAL-00599657 HAL-00630737 or viXra:1101.0085 or viXra:1110.0033 can give a clue…..and i need only my works and nothing more to counter-argument Glashow in favor ot the OPERA

      Glashow cannot explain OPERA using SR…he needs GR….

      OPERA for me was a gift from the Heavens…

      a clue that FTL and Warp Velocities exists as a matter of fact in Nature and are no longer mathematical or academic


      as for English Spell Check my LaTeX editor have a Spell Check

      • Ray Munroe says:

        Dear Fernando,

        I agree that whatever is happening at OPERA seems to be beyond Special Relativity and the Standard Model (which were the basis of Cohen & Glashow’s paper). You are exploring the General Relativity angle, and I am exploring the Quantum Gravity angle. We should expect one or both of these effects to trump Special Relativity, but any violation of SR must be weakly coupled so that we may agree with the last hundred year’s worth of apparently consistent SR measurements (as long as we do not count Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the extreme smallness of the Cosmological Constant against SR and GR…).

        No Problem – It turns out that neutrinos couple to everything weakly!

        I agree with your “gift from the Heavens” concept. This OPERA result may reinforce ideas that I have published over the last three years.

        Have Fun!

      • Dear Ray

        yes you got it right…OPERA is beyond SR or SM….

        a new form of QM or GR perhaps is needed

        i choosed GR because i am familiarized with GR

        and specially i am familiarized with Warp Drives

        when i heard about OPERA first time i already knew about the theory of Gauthier-Gravel-Melanson of micro Warp Bubbles carrying particles inside….and these micro Warp Bubbles may have been generated in the Early Universe after the Big bang etc etc etc

        it fits very well in the OPERA profile

        i have in “pencil and paper” all the math to counter-argument Glashow

        this part was easy…now the most difficult part is coming

        to type the LaTeX English document

  169. ProfChuck says:

    Considering quantum gravity as a part of this puzzle is an interesting approach. Consider that much of general relativity is strongly supported by experiment and observation but some of the more difficult experiments await technology that is up to the task. Gravitational wave detection and verification of their propagation velocity. Wouldn’t be interesting if it was discovered that g waves propagate at some velocity other than c in contradiction to the GRT. Once more we live in exciting time as far as physics goes.

  170. Alan says:

    Hey All,
    How did they synchronize the clocks at both ends of the experiment? I am curious because if the clocks were physically next to each other when sync’ed, I would expect the act of moving them to cause some very small time shift due to relavistic effects of acceleration / velocity difference. It’s just a thought, probably totally wrong 🙂

  171. ProfChuck says:

    In order to fully appreciate the significance of the OPERA experiment findings it is essential to understand the motivation behind the experiment and the efforts made by the researchers to assure accuracy. I urge everyone interested in this phenomena to visit the OPERA website.

    The underlying rationale for the experiment was to observe flavour oscillations during the flight of neutrinos from one point in space time to another. General relativity and the standard model of quantum mechanics dictate that any particle with mass will propagate at a velocity slower than c. From the perspective of a clock travelling with a photon a photon is created and absorbed in the same instant of time regardless of how far the photon has travelled in space. Distance means nothing to a photon whether the length of the flight is a centimetre or a billion light years. However, if a particle has mass, even infinitesimal mass the particle will propagate at a velocity that is less than c. Because neutrinos have been observed to oscillate between flavours during transit it is concluded that a clock travelling with the neutrino would exhibit a finite time span between the creation and the observation of the particle. This can only occur if the neutrino has some finite mass. It is the primary purpose of the OPERA experiment to measure time of flight and from that information to determine the mass of the neutrinos and if that mass changes as a result of the oscillation. For this experiment to be successful very precise clock synchronisation and distance measurement is essential. The discovery of what appear to be superluminal neutrinos was completely unexpected. Because of the consequences for both special and general relativity such a measurement was immediately suspect. However, after an exhaustive and unsuccessful search for measurement error it was decided to release the findings so that other experimenters and theoreticians could examine the data with the possibility that other eyes might see a flaw in the procedure. This is how good science is done. If the experiment can be repeated by other independent researchers the conclusions will be strengthened. If this occurs for superluminal neutrinos the implications are profound in the extreme. Every once in a while new science and new physics emerges, usually in an unexpected venue. I hope that is what is taking place here.

  172. Eugene Stefanovich says:

    Here is another theory: Neutrinos move with the speed of light, however they start their journey from an advanced position. They emerge not at the meson decay point but 18 meters away in the direction of Gran Sasso. This explains the 60 ns early neutrinos arrival in the OPERA detector. This idea is not as stupid as it looks from the first sight. Check it out:


  173. Dear Eugene

    i had the privilege to read your work

    mathematically elegant and with a good presentation

    but between ourselves OPERA did not started this fuss with interviews on Sky News CNN BBC etc(go to Youtube and browse for OPERA Superluminal Neutrino) if the neutrino departed from a point different than the photon….would be easy for the OPERA oppositors to destroy the OPERA experiment

    what happened to the neutrino is not due to the neutrino.itself

    with energy and power other particles with non-zero mass will break-up light speed .

    OPERA generated a micro warp bubble that carried the neutrino with non zero rest.mass to FTL….dont ask-me how…science must discover how

    ten years ago 3 scientists from the French Province of Canada…Le QUEBEC wrote a theory that micro warp drives may have been formed in the beginning of the Universe

    OPERA proved their theory.the neutri no was carried in a micro warp drive

    they published in a Russian publication Gravitation And it is..see pg 306

    • Fernando,

      If that clear but speculative paper states the facts of things, and perhaps from another alternate universe some particles enter ours as if a miniwarp neutrino a little earlier than our space time would hold as constant and that encountered in the experiment duplicating such early conditions, then I ask you:

      “Is there a mini warp drive physics inside the mini warp drive physics and one inside that and so on?”.

      This is the case if we allow such things yet under one unified theory as a possibility. So from my view the speculation can overreach as well as our probes as science.

      That said, while some of us have long lived in the new physics essentially of higher spaces (ProfChuck there is a great new breath of physics and it needs not be unexpected), Let us be thankful the physicists have support for their work and give us a reality check.

      The PeSla

  174. ProfChuck says:

    Your theory is crazy. It might even be crazy enough to be true. Wouldn’t that be fun.

  175. the theory is not mine….

    .it belongs to Gauthier-Gravel and Melanson..and the theory is not crazy..,,,

    anyone with background to follow the math will understand it

    but in blogs perhaps is more easy to criticize….than to analyze..

    the background of General Relativity and Einstein Field Equations,that can explain what happened in OPERA

    ,this mathematical background of course requires Differential Geometry and Geometry of Curved Spaces….Riemann Geometry

    this background is different than the trigonometric demonstration of the Lorentz Transformations etc etc etc is different than the one required to demonstrate that e=mc2 in textbooks of Special Relativity for undergraduante students….eg the Feynmann Lectures on Physics etc etc etc

    the theory of Gauthier-Gravel and Melanson

    and for the guys that are not familiarized with the Warp Drive i would recommend

    bur first a course in General Relativity

    what happened in OPERA is not a particular feature of the neutrino

    with energy enough it would happen with neutrons

    if ICARUS or APOLLO or POSEIDON or whatever cannot confirm the results of OPERA is due to the fact that these do not have the machinery power of OPERA

    the FTL of the neutrino is generated by the machinery of OPERA….it is not a property of the neutrino… would happen with neutrons with energy enough

    in arXiv:1109.6562 Glashow dont know how to explain a FTL neutrino with 17 Gev without desintegrations

    i finished the math calculations that will explain it under the framework of GR

    i will not even cite Glashow he was Nobel Prize in 1979 good…..i have respect for him…..because in 1979…i was a teenager

    and OPERA seems that they are not bothered with Glashow

    he appealed Kamiokande and Ice Cube…to counter argument OPERA… the abstract

    Kamiokande i know but Ice Cube for me is the guy of “rap” or the “hip-hop”

    i do care only on the opinions of Dario Authiero(FRANCE) or Antonio Ereditato(ITALY) the heads of OPERA

  176. i am in this blog because this is the blog of Dr Phillip Gibbs the creator of viXra…..anyone browsing this blog must see posts of rigorous scientific context.and fortunately i am not the only one to place valuable scientific context here ….

    i watched other blogs……… comments

    .i read all the arXiv papers on OPERA ….no comments

    but Dario Authiero(FRANCE) or Antonio Ereditato(ITALY) they are not bothered about arXiv papers–they keep the FTL of OPERA…twice

    and as a matter of fact no arXiv paper gave a correct explanation for OPERA

    i am in this blog because this is the blog of Dr Phillip Gibbs the creator of viXra…

    • Ray Munroe says:

      Dear Fernando,

      I do not think that Prof Chuck was trying to insult you. It sounded more like a Niels Bohr quote “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.”

      I consider myself to be a physics maverick with ‘crazzy’ ideas. I have my own original way of explaining ‘superluminal neutrinos’ with quantum gravity and extra dimensions (my paper is not quite finished, but I hope to finish in time for the November issue of Prespacetime Journal), but I now realize that the question of ‘superluminal neutrinos’ has been around at least since Mont Blanc’s Liquid Scintillation Detector measured 5 neutrinos prior to the visual detection of SN1987a.

      Have Fun!

      • Dear Ray

        i am back again

        in this paper i counter.argument Glashow-Cohen and Gonzalez-Mestres

        it is already in viXra…and in HAL

        OPERA is already on the Wikipedia

        i loved the position of Dario Authiero French scientist leader of the OPERA(from the French part..the Italian part is leaded by Antonio Ereditato) and Ricardo Bertolucci Director of research at CERN..both says …..Glashow is not 100% right and we cannot limitate new theories on basis on observations that contradicts the “Old School” theories

        they are not bothered with declarations of scientists from the “Old School”

        some Nobel Prize Winners are in fact Old School

        my papers requires knowledge in General Relativity and one particular solution of the Einstein Field Equation…the Warp Drive

        those that do not understand General Relativity will simply call me crazy but i am not bothered any longer

        now i have two papers on the OPERA Superluminal Neutrino
        in viXra and in HAL

        but i selected a bunch of arXiv papers and one by one i will counter argument all the authors……so i am not the Strategic Fleet of Artic at Nyerpichiya Naval Base but you can expect more Typhoon Submarines in the sea…i have 3 papers to come

        see how my new paper terminate…see the Legacy

  177. Jose G Vargas says:

    I have never posted a paper in arXiv, but I have a long tradition in publishing in foundations of physics, differential geometry and mathematical physics. I do not want to ask anybody to sponsor me for arxiv since this is a delicate matter for a sponsor. But one day my paper (ready) will see the light.

    My prediction is 60 ns again, and approximately the same effect at MINOS (because it is at about the same latitude, same length baseline; longitude does not count when averaging).

    Title: Opera’s neutrinos and the revised Robertson test theory of special relativity.

    The difference in light’s travel time from CERN to GPS to Gran Sasso, on the one hand, and light going the direct route in vacuum (mimicked by neutrinos), on the other hand, is analyzed with a modified Robertson test theory of the Lorentz transformations. The modification consists simply in removing the restriction of what Robertson referred to as agreement to equate the to and from speeds of light. For reasons that will be contained in a paper to soon follow, we restrict ourselves, within the new freedom, to the case of preferred frame kinematics with absolute simultaneity.

    At the level of not assuming any concomitant dynamical changes in this alternative, the analysis yields zero effect, i.e. no change with respect to special relativity (to be expected). The 60 ns would thus remain unexplained. However, a gravitation related effect that would likely accompany an alternative kinematics yields that value up to uncertainties due to the need to simplify the experimental set up for analysis. The effect amounts to (λ/2)(D/c)(V/c)^2, where D is distance to GPS, V is speed with respect to the frame of isotropy of the cosmic background radiation and λ is a factor greater than 1, but likely not greater than 1.2, that reflects lack of precise knowledge of the average distance to the common view GPS satellite. A λ of 1.2 yields 60 ns. END OF ABSTRACT
    The factor of 1/2 is actually two times an average of a trigonometric function which is virtually 1/4.
    These are not superluminal neutrinos, but the 60 ns are not necessarily spurious. According to the thesis developed in the paper, there is a deeper reality; special relativity is its facade, but here to stay. We shall keep teaching it.

    • Dear Jose

      you dont need to publish your paper in arXiv…you dont need an endorser

      i came from aXiv i had endorsers…see gr-qc/0603106

      i had sponsors….i even published on the so called peer-review…

      see again gr-qc/0603106

      but science is not ditacted by policies…

      i abandoned my work on Extra Dimensions Randall-Sundrum Braneword Models etc

      in the cause of the Warp Drive….my endorsers and sponsors said “Au Revoir Fernandoi”

      you can publish you work here on viXra…and in HAL…..the French version of arXiv…..HAL is moderated so be careful on what you say..

      as for errors in OPERA

      i dont believe it

      OPERA is right…..i have two papers on the subject…but i have 3 more papers coming out….to counter argument arXiv scientists against OPERA

      OPERA is right….

      my papers are on viXra and HAL

      bring your paper here

      perhaps we can start a discussion


      • Ervin Goldfain says:


        I feel bad for curbing your enthusiasm. Please read this recent post and draw your own conclusions:



      • Fernando’s enthusiasm is unharmed since he proposes a way to make neutrino’s “faster than light” without they go beyond the speed of light at a local reference frame. Meaning, neutrinos have a little bit of negative mass that makes them warp drive.

        He directly addresses the arguments of the paper on which these paper is based on. Ref. [2]:

        [2] A. G. Cohen and S. L. Glashow. New constraints on neutrino velocities.

      • Lawrence B. Crowell says:

        If the neutrino has an imaginary mass then 0 > m^2. The infinite momentum frame is where one uses E^2 = p^2 + m^2 and break up p^2 = p_x^2 + p_y^2 + p_z^2 with p_z huge. In other words the system is boosted enormously. We then have

        E = sqrt{ p_x^2 + p_y^2 + p_z^2 + m^2} = p_z sqrt{1 + (p_x^2 + p_y^2)/p_z^2 + m^2/p_z^2}

        This means the physically relevant Hamiltonian is H’ = (p_x^2 + p_y^2)/p_z^2 + m^2/p_z^2, where for p_z huge this acts a bit like an inertia and dilates the transverse momenta p_x^2 + p_y^2 to small values.. The longitudinal modes are then factored out. Strings are then described in a Newtonian fashion in one dimension less. The mass term is then m^2/p_z^2, which is negative. So the tachyon in this infinite momentum frame is then a particle with a negative mass term. So we have “converted” the tachyon with an imaginary mass to a system with a negative mass term.

        This is terribly unstable for a number of reasons. It could be argued that this is a quantum Alcubierre warp drive. This violates the Hawking-Penrose energy conditions T^{00} >= 0. The stress-energy is composed of quantum fields, and a violation of this condition means their eigen-spectrum is not bounded below. As a result the quantum field can transition downwards along a bottomless pit of states and emit an infinite amount of radiation. Further, if we just look at a Klein-Gordon equation with a negative mass μ^2 = m^2/p_z^2

        ∂^2φ – μ^2φ = 0,

        with the Hamiltonian H = |∂φ|^2 + μ^2|φ|^2, the potential term μ^2|φ|^2 is then quadratic and increasingly negative for nonzero values of the field φ. This is saying much the same about the stability of the quantum field, for the vacuum state becomes unstable.

        Consequently I doubt these things are physically real. It is best to think about general principles which enforce conditions which prevent these things. There are likely general principles which prevent these conditions from happening, which have connections to the chronology protection or cosmic censorship hypothesis.

        Cheers LC

      • Jose G Vargas says:

        Thank you very much. I think our world lines have intercepted in the past. The paper is going to be made public in the arxiv on Monday in phys-gen. thank you in any case.

        Jose G. Vargas

      • @Lawrence There is no imaginary mass in this case. The neutrino is warping drive here so it is like riding a kind of gravitational wave with negative and positive regions.

      • Ray Munroe says:

        @ Lawrence and Daniel,

        It seems that purely imaginary and purely real mass components should be forever separated by the light cone. But what if we have a quaternion mass set with 3 real eigenstates (perhaps the electron, mu and tau neutrinos) and one imaginary eigenstate (the FTL neutrino component)? And suppose that these mass states oscillate between one another via the PMNS matrix?

        To Lawrence’s point, anything of a tachyonic nature – even if it turns out being part of a quaternion component – would have drastic effects on Spacetime (comparable to the effect that the Higgs boson has). Perhaps this can generate micro warp bubbles. Regardless, I think it is safe to say that anything that contradicts General Relativity must be weakly coupled to our reality. That sounds a lot like a neutrino – doesn’t it?

        Have Fun!

      • Lawrence B. Crowell says:

        The infinite momentum frame might be thought of as transforming the imaginary mass term into a negative mass. One might think of this negative mass as due to some tiny warp bubble, which has negative averaged T^{00}. The only thing this does is to transform one nasty problem into another.

        For various reasons I am pretty certain these things do not exist. The light cone in relativity is a projective subspace geometry of the Lorentz or Minkowski spacetime. This is associated with the constancy of the speed of light, a conversion factor between space and time. There is another conversion factor, which is between conjugate pairs, such as momentum and position. This is the Planck unit of action ħ, which is a constant unit factor for another projective geometry; the projective Hilbert space with a U(1) or U(n) principal bundle. These two are related to each other. The relationship between the two is an enforcer that prevents things like warp drive bubbles or tachyons.

        Cheers LC

      • Daniel de França MTd2 says:

        The bubble is causaly disconected from any observer that would measure a faster than light speed. This is similar to the disconnection that happened during inflation and still hides matter behind a cosmic horizon..

  178. Jose,

    The foundations of physics… well, Lorentz transformations are not foundational. Nor are they a facade and will be here to stay even in a deeper reality.

    While the truth of it, its group concept and so on, will stand even if some reference frame is space acceleration, invariant light constants, or a finer grain for reality than h and all working together in the mystery of all our crazy paper crazy enough to come to light.

    Our thoughts or speculations can be superluminal in this metaphorical sense- but it is not clear that the truth of them objectively depends or not on someone else to hear it.

    These are foundational issues and I praise the efforts and hopes of all you alternative theorists so do not give up- for one thing I would welcome any new insights expanding my interest in the universe and showing where we all are still in a fog or in error.

    Ray, I was going to mention that quote myself and I agree, thanks.

    Ate Logo

    The PeSla

  179. Ervin Goldfain says:

    @ Daniel De França,

    “Meaning, neutrinos have a little bit of negative mass that makes them warp drive”

    Negative mass solutions are disturbing. Even the weakest interaction of neutrinos with matter would reduce their energy and create an excess of negative mass states. This means that all positive mass states would eventually collapse into negative mass states and would destabilize the theory.


    • I didn’t say they would have negative mass, but that some neutrinos have a component of negative mass.

      • Ervin Goldfain says:


        Perhaps we can debate off-line to avoid cluttering Phil’s blog with countless points and counterpoints. All I can say is that one can easily open up a can of worms by introducing these radical concepts.



    • haaaahhh!!!

      how many times i need to say….

      the neutrino have always a positive mass

      do i am speaking in Chinese????Mandonese???Quantarim???

      read my work PLEASE pages 11 to 12

      just in case if you dont know about the micro Warp Bubbles please read this

      the neutrino do not interacts with the micro Warp Bubble

      i dont have too much time to come here

      because i have 3 more arXiv papers to “kill”

      so please Bloggers when discuss a matter of General Relativity and Warp Drive… the theory first…because i m getting tired to come here…

      like i said Glashow was the first….

  180. antonio crivotti says:

    Something puzzling in the CERN Sept.23 paper, at page 18, last line: if the calculated time of flight of light over about 730 km were 987.8 ns as suggested there, the velocity of light would be close to 7.3 x 10 to the thirteenth cm/sec. Not the case! So which is the correct interpretation of that line?


  181. Ervin Goldfain says:

    It is important to recall that quantum mechanics allows for tiny excursions outside the light cone that are perfectly consistent with Relativity. This may provide the most natural interpretation of OPERA anomaly, see below:

    It also may lend support to the idea that photons and long-range neutrinos having ultra-relativistic rest-frame masses (consistent with zero) can be described as components of the same gauge doublet:


    • Kea says:

      Ervin, my work has been discussing such a symmetry for some years now. You might consider doing a better literature search before you post preprints.

      • Gentlemen,

        Why is particle physics in such a mess? Kea is on the right track and has been for some time. From my point of view at least in the bloggers world I am honored to cite her – for that is usually a measure of the influence of a theory and its creator.

        We should be aware of incomplete solutions in R3 still and other problems which she carefully strives to address.

        This goes beyond what things may be described outside the light cone- and some of you alternative theorists have come very close- our intuitions and reality have always been a tightrope and narrow the gate to reach higher science.

        Catlin’s constant – btw poster number26 is making more sense to me in some areas now that I understand things better. Kea’s views with a more general idea of space symmetries shows remarkable coherence and unity in our sums of numbers all the complicated formulas tend to work around.

        The PeSla

  182. dear Erwin .i read your work.

    ..mathematically well-written and consistent….you wrote in an elegant form…..

    you are the kind of blogger viXra blog needs…

    .posts ok but backed by serious work…….like yours….i hope you not consider myself preposterous if i say works for viXra blog like my works

    not chat. not balblabla …not “tecnobabble” but works for real

    …perhaps i am being a boresome guy but this is the only blog where i am still participating..

    .because this is the blog of Phillip Gibbs…

    and i praise the work of Phillip Gibbs anyone browsing this blog cannot say “it is a poor quality blog”

    .otherwise i would give not a damm for the blog

    QM is a very good theory and i can see you deal very well with the Bra and Kets ..

    but remember that CERN scientists knows about ultra relativistic frames…and they are still waiting for an answer

    i still maintain my opinion..on the micro waro bubbles

    HAL keeps the superluminality of the neutrino twice

    my works in HAL

    and in the Consell Nationale de la Recherche Scientific de France

    my ideas are not mine:it cames based on these works

    again the OPERA superluminal neutrino anomaly
    A spokesperson for OPERA, Dario Autiero, has responded that Cohen and Glashow’s premises may not be universally valid.[1] Dr. Sergio Bertolucci, director of research at CERN, contends if every new measurement is interpreted with older theories, a new theory is impossible.[


    my latest work is to counter.Glashow.Cohen…but i am studying arXiv papers……i have 3 more papers coming up

    see how i terminated my latest paper on 19

  183. ProfChuck says:

    I don’t have a problem with scientific thinking that lies “outside the box” of mainstream theoretical dogma. Frequently that is where the new discoveries come from. However, a fundamental cornerstone of scientific enquiry is testability and repeatability. I am reminded of a “discovery” by astronomer T J J See. One night of observing he captured spectrographic evidence of a phosphorous flare star. Such a phenomena had never been observed before and such a star falls well outside the the standard models of stellar evolution. The observation has never been repeated and there is considerable doubt regarding the rigor with which the observation was made. Considering that See was a pipe smoker and usually lit his pipe with a wooden kitchen match (which contains phosphorous) the scepticism is understandable. No one was ever able to show how a match flare could show up on the spectrographic plate but because the observation has never been duplicated most stellar specialists doubt that such a star can exist. I simply point this out to show that experimental data can be contaminated in some very unexpected ways. Error can creep into experiments like a “thief in the night” and when a discovery challenges well supported theories like relativity one must be especially rigorous to make sure the observation is a true reflection of reality.

  184. ProfChuck says:

    Another thought. General relativity does not specifically prohibit faster than light motion, shadows or light beam images can move FTL. What it does say is that transport of physical objects or the transfer of information at speeds greater than c requires greater than a first order infinity of energy. Also, such transport or transfer violates causality.
    It has been pointed out in an earlier post that some quantum phenomena appear to take place at FTL velocities over very small distances. This is just one of many areas where classical physics and quantum physics require unification.

    • Ervin Goldfain says:

      QFT predicts a finite probability amplitude for propagation between two points separated by a space-like interval. It is a purely quantum effect with no classical analog. I cannot see how understanding this phenomenon would require unification of classical and quantum physics.



      • ProfChuck says:

        In this case “unification” may not be the correct term. “Extension” may be a better way to describe what is necessary to close the gap between the two views of the world. It can be argued that Einstein did not overturn but “extended” Newtonian physics to include extreme conditions of mass and velocity. This is because Newtonian physics does a very good job of describing behavior of objects in the macroscopic world. You don’t need GRT to predict the motion of planets in their orbits, at least to the first order. The gap between quantum and classical physics occurs when you look at what the two theories predict under extreme conditions. In the case of classical physics the world is viewed as a continuum of space and time. In quantum physics the view is of discrete increments or steps where the notion of continuum is an illusion just like the frames of a movie produce the illusion of motion. The problem is that there are regions in space-time where the theories overlap. And where this occurs the theories should provide the same predictions if they are to be valid. So with FTL particles there is a conflict between quantum and classical physics that must be resolved if a complete picture of reality is to be provided.

    • Ray Munroe says:

      Hi ProfChuck,

      You said “It has been pointed out in an earlier post that some quantum phenomena appear to take place at FTL velocities over very small distances.”

      Basically, we are saying that an off-mass-shell quantum interaction is occuring here.

      Have Fun!

      • ProfChuck says:

        Re “off-mass-shell quantum interaction” I am not sure what that means. What I was referring to was quantum tunnelling. There are some observations and theory that suggest the process is instantaneous. When you get down close to the Planck length some very weird things happen.

  185. Simplicity says:

    Hey. I think the OPERA experiment wich measured FTL neutrinos was done in a fundamental wrong way:

    In stead of measure how long light uses to travel from A Cern to B OPERA by using GPS and so on, what they should have done in order to get the relevant answer is this:

    They will only be able to know if the neutrinos is faster than light from A to B only if they first have sent a light pulse in vacum from the same A to the same B. If the path goes through earth and rock, then they have to dig out a tunnel from A to B, lay a pipe with vacum from A to B through the tunnel, and then send a light pulse throug the vacum-pipe from A to B. Only then they can be totally sure how long time it takes for a light pulse in vacum to go from A Cern to B OPERA. Then I gurantee you folks that the neutrinos will not be faster than that light pulse, but it is possible that the light pulse will go slightly faster than C down there beneath the earth in that vacum pipe in that local place, but the neutrinos will not go faster than that local light pulse.


  186. ProfChuck says:

    A 730 km long vacuum tunnel? Wow! I think it would be cheaper to put a modulated neutrino source and detector in orbit.

  187. ProfChuck says:

    I just finished re reading the OPERA report. I am convinced that they have done everything possible to eliminate timing and distance measurement error. If this experiment can be repeated and independently verified It sure looks like new physics.

    • Kea says:

      Hopefully we will hear soon about the latest run with shorter pulses.

    • quoting ProfChuck
      ProfChuck says:
      November 8, 2011 at 7:51 pm
      I just finished re reading the OPERA report. I am convinced that they have done everything possible to eliminate timing and distance measurement error. If this experiment can be repeated and independently verified It sure looks like new physics.

      i agree at 100% 1000% a Googol % a GoogolPlex %

      anyone that reads the OPERA report with “eyes to read” will agree with you…or with me
      it will be new physics for real

      fortunately the years when i studied the mathematics of General Relativity and Warp Drive prepared myself for this

      although i am not a devoted religious man i am Catholic and i had a Religious Education…..a rigorous Religious Education

      many times i spoke to God “Please God give me a clue that Superluminal Velocities and Warp Drives can exist really in Nature and this is something beyond the mathematical tricks……..come on Lord is all that i asks”

      OPERA is the answer from my prayers

      • Fernando,

        Many physicists think their work was to the glory of God. This is a rather traditional stance- and some work against this.

        Ramanujan said he got his inspiration from the local village goddess, one of ten thousand or so- and few have argued with his work and still some have not understood it. Today, some of his pure thoughts have turned out to have practical applications.

        Now, when I was in my early teens and more naive I reasoned if God made the world I could pray and ask Him how it was made- It led to a series of dreams in an alpha state in which I imagined things like quarks and quasars before they were a part of things, and what happens having studied relativity and such, the lightning in the background as I read of time and lightning, As to what happens if I crash into a nucleus.

        Thing is, sen~or, I was given a different answer… Could God make an atom smasher without the help of those that built and used it? Or without a Lawrence?

        If there is a Heaven, I am sure they have no need for a theoretical physicist.

        ate logo, the PeSla

  188. Jose G Vargas says:

    A few weeks ago, I announced analysis of the Opera measurement with the Robertson test theory of the Lorentz transformations. I am pleased to inform that my paper on this subject is now available at arxiv physics gen-ph 1111.2271.
    Jose G. Vargas

  189. quoting Daniel
    Daniel De França says:
    September 19, 2011 at 6:23 pm
    Unless they warp drive and the distance they run is actually smaller than the ………………………….

    well Daniel……i can say that my works

    also on HAL

    and since HAL is where everything started(two times a day i check the status of the OPERA Superluminal Neutrino in the link below )

    i can say that my works came from your inspiration

    i owe the micro warp bubble idea to explain the OPERA Superluminal Neutrino to you.

    .although i knew the theory i would never dare to apply it so quickly

    for the Natario Warp Drive


    now i am ready to produce more works on the OPERA Superluminal Neutrino..

    .please no errors in GPS measurements… variable light speed in the Gran Sasso tunnel….no different Lorentz Transformations or bymetric relativity or etc

    CERN scientists know what to do

    there are 3 possible explanations but i favor only one

    1)-neutrino used a shortcut to extra dimension to arrive first……

    see this one from arXiv

    Oldie but Goodie


    excellent work…however to break the Israel Junction Conditions to pass from one dimension for the another.hmm the output would be detected …..

    2)-neutrino used a microscopical wormhole to arrive first but as smaller as the wormhole is it evaporates in Hawking Radiation

    no Hawking detected in OPERA

    3)-neutrino used a micro Warp Drive created by the OPERA machinery in an unknown conditions science still have to explain

  190. a long time ago i was an higher dimensional physicist with works published on…..i am a young guy..i started my career early

    i do not give too much importance to peer review and if i have to choose between a good viXra work with bold new ideas but correct ideas.written by an unknown scientist .against an old fashioned work published on peer review written by a “Very Good and Known But Old School Scientist”

    what would be my choice?????i dont need a peer-reviewer to say what i must read….or not.!!!!!.perhaps Dr Gibbls must launch a pool on what would be the choice not only me but the choice of a REAL scientist

    lets see that the OPERA generated a portal to an extra dimension that allowed the neutrino to pass Superluminally according to the arXiv work hep-ph/9910235

    i have published works in peer review on this matter

    General Relativiry and Gravitation is one if the best… Journals in the World…..although i did not submitted my OPERA works there ..

    energy to break the Israel Junction or Jumping Conditions… would be possible to make the neutrino jump but it would be detected by OPERA instruments…no strange energy detected at OPERA

    hmmmm difficult

    as for a micro wormhole inside OPERA…the Penrose mechanisms of energy production would be detected..or the micro black hole evaporation Hawking Radiation etc

    no Hawking Radiation detected at OPERA

    hmmmm difficult

    so i am left with the Warp Drive

  191. this is meant to Dr Phiipp Gibbs the creator of viXra
    your blog is the best one…i browsed other blogs…read posts…but i do not detected signs of creativity……all i detected was the so-called “conventional wisdom”…etc……etc etc blablabla….
    keep up the good work Dr Gibbs….because i am keeping my own mine

    i dont know if you remember what i told you two years ago…one day viXra will outperform or surpass arXiv…..

    i am keeping faith to my promise… we speak i can guarantee that CERN is reading my works….

    .perhaps not because i am the best alternative but because they simply lacks alternatives .

    .GPS coordinates….Lorentz transformations different wirh correction factors ….etc etc etc???

    OPERA will be the prove that your ideas of free-speech in modern science against Ginsparg and arXiv moderators were entirely correct…….or should i say..the battlegroud???

    because for me OPERA is a matter of time..and for me arXiv already passed away..

  192. ProfChuck says:

    Considering the number of interesting ad-hoc explanations for the OPERA results that have been submitted I thought I would toss in a couple of mine. It has been suggested that the observations may be related to a “naturally occurring” warp field. If one examines the Alcubierre equations they suggest that a transverse effect may be produced and that this effect may be observable as either gravitational lensing or local violations of causality at the quantum level.
    The other thought is even more “far out”. It may be that one of the neutrino oscillation states produces a naked Higgs boson. If the Higgs field theories are correct it is this particle that is responsible for the phenomena we know as mass. The sudden appearance of mass (due to quantum state oscillation) in an otherwise almost massless particle travelling near c would produce some very strange results. Such a particle, if it exists, would rapidly decay but its presence could be detectable with the appropriate experiment.

    I know both of these ideas are crazy but as the saying goes…

  193. Ray Munroe says:

    Dear Fernando and Chuck,

    I’m glad to see that people are still talking about the OPERA results. My latest paper with Jonathan Dickau has been published in Prespacetime Journal, and uses a minimum 10-D TOE to provide an explanation for ‘superluminal neutrinos’.

    Have Fun!

    • well 300 years from now in the midde of the Century XXIV people will tell about the OPERA experiment like today we talk about HAMLET or WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

      OPERA was the experiment that proved FTL is possible…..


    • ProfChuck says:

      Opera will be discussed until it is either disproved or verified. If disproved it will be an interesting footnote. If verified, it will change physics as we know it.

      • quoting ypu

        ProfChuck says:
        November 13, 2011 at 10:01 pm
        Opera will be discussed until it is either disproved or verified. If disproved it will be an interesting footnote. If verified, it will change physics as we know it.

        OPERA already changed physics as we know it

        i remember the Spanish Inquisition against Galileu

        look for OPERA on the wikipedia

  194. the Alcubierre equations are fine but not suitablle for this case

    no definitely not….

    .the Natario equations are the correct ones

    coupled woth the gauthier-Gravel Melanson equations

    see all my papers on viXra or HAL etc

    as for ad.hoc ideas….well CERN will decide who is ad.hoc…or not

    because CERN is reading my papers

  195. Simplicity says:

    Keep up the good work and spirit Fernando, Ray Munroe and ProfChuck ! I just love happy, searching and creative souls like you guys.

    Must our universe be with you and give you all an exciting and happy life 🙂

  196. Dear Simplicity.

    .i would love if science would make the things in science so ease as in your lovely and sweet comments

    happy to read your kind words Simplicity

    as for Ray and ProfChuxk they are not really my concerm

    my concenr is to see a guy watching this blog and think “this blog is nothing”

    this is exactly i did when browsing other blogs

    i cannot demand everyone here to know General Relativity Wormholes and Warp Drives

    but at least talking about the OPERA please do not make mistakes

    because CERN guys are reading all the blogs…

    ok ok my work is in HAL just like the work of CERN guys….

    but when i mentioned Israel Conditions(Werner Israel Physicist contemporary of Einstein)..Penrose radiation mechanism..the extra dimension tunnels and black holes….

    .these comments were made for CERN scientists that will read this blog…..i wanna make them see that this blog is not “chatcharchat”…

    as for you dear Simplicity..the Warp Drive is the best choice for OPERA

  197. William Taylor says:

    Rest assured many are watching this blog , I for one hope it never stops if it is written down it’s infomation & never dissapers 😉

    Many including myself are not formally trained , but physics is my first & foremost thought any given day ..

    Good luck and keep it comeing please !

%d bloggers like this: