Talk:2011 OPERA faster-than-light neutrino anomaly/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Theoretical consequences

The consequences of the experiment, if actually confirmed, cannot be stated as of yet. There are so many possible theories: some being Lorentz invariant (luminal "signal velocity" versus superluminal "group velocity", Tachyons etc.), and some are Lorentz violating. We cannot say anything about that, because no one really knows what exactly cause this behavior of neutrinos (if confirmed). Which part of modern physics is affected, must be decided elsewhere in reputable sources (which we can cite). This is not the place for speculation. --D.H (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Theories about "group velocity" effectively consider the experiment's results wrong, since the researchers claim to have measured neutrino velocity, not phase velocity. The superluminal theories are not part of the standard model. Hence we can safely say the results, assuming no experimental error, violate SM's special relativity constraints. --Ajoykt (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's just too risky drawing conclusions; there are more assumptions underlying them than your rationale makes explicit. Let’s please just leave the conclusions out. That’s not our job. For example, if the speed of light we measure is normally delayed because of the quantum flux (which it is, as per the Scharnhorst effect because the vacuum has an index of refraction), then neutrinos could exceed the speed of light that we measure, since the “theoretical” speed of light is faster than what we measure. That’s just one possibility. Also, I’m not much enamored of the officious language cropping back up in the lede. It reads like some undergraduate paper trying to sound important. Can we please keep the verbiage jargon-free, and keep the sentence structure plain, in the lede at the very least? Strebe (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Faster-than-light isn't jargon; its meaning is clear. Standard Model and Relativity theory aren't jargon either. Superluminal, I admit, is. The Scharnhost effect is a red herring - we are not talking of a Casimir vacuum. Perhaps there is something similar at work, but whatever that is, Tachyons or Lorentz invariance breaking, isn't part of the Standard Model. --Ajoykt (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@Ajoykt: Scharnhorst’s paper also discusses the phenomenon in free space. You can’t just read a Wikipedia article and imagine you know something. I stated for example in order to illustrate AS AN EXAMPLE that there inobvious assumptions we work from. It is wrong to state conclusions based on all these assumptions. Why do you think the OPERA scientists refrained from drawing conclusions? QUIT drawing conclusions and dumping them in the article. QUIT exercising sole discretion over the article's content. I want a better article. If you just want to control everything then go find an article where no one else cares because you’re not going to get your way with your errors. You make some good edits. Quit imagining all your edits are perfect. Give other editors room to improve things. Strebe (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop taking it personally and discuss the issues. I am not exercising any sole discretion - we all have the same editing power. How is faster-than-light jargon? I am going to put that back in since I assume you are not debating it. To begin with, this article had no conclusions at all in its lead. I am ok going back to that point. Right now, you have your conclusion in there - that the result, if confirmed, violates something or the other. How about just taking out the whole thing altogether and stating exactly just what OPERA reported. --Ajoykt (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

K, made the change. Feel free to modify it. I realize you are spending unpaid time making the article better, just as I am. Instead of our various conclusions, all difficult to verify because the issue is broad-ranging, I put in the wording from the OPERA eprint wherein they explain why they consider their result an anomaly. --Ajoykt (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@Ajoykt: Also your last version is much too detailed in it's claims concerning possible consequences. There is absolutely no reason to draw any conclusion from the result as of yet, we don't know nothing at all. Especially in the light of the fact, that we are talking about a result that is not even sent to peer review, and is currently checked by new measurements. Note, that this is exactly in line with the OPERA paper: "We deliberately do not attempt any theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of the results." The only direct consequence would be new physics in the neutrino sector... (relativity and the standard model are not the same: the latter depends on the first, yet the first isn't necessarily affected by revisions of the latter.) --D.H (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The C-G paper

The C-G paper in PRL differs significantly in its conclusions (the part that matters most to us) than the arXiv paper. I am not ok with having an obsolete paper as a reference. An example from the PRL paper:

How might nature evade the energy-loss mechanism we have described? . . . Another evasion might be unconventional dispersion relations of neutrinos, elec- trons and photons such that, in the energy domain of the OPERA experiment, these particles travel with a common velocity. Thus neutrinos would not be superluminal with respect to photons of comparable energies, yet might be superluminal with respect to photons of significantly lower energies. --Ajoykt (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The main topic of both papers is, that superluminal neutrino speed would cause production of electron-positron pairs (this is seen also in this synopsis), so the arxiv-preprint is not "obsolete", as it describes this mechanism. Note that they still say that their argument is a "significant challenge" to the opera result. However, while in the preprint they argue that the conclusion is unavoidable, in their final paper they present other (less probable) alternatives. I think the main difference is correctly described in the footnote, and since everybody else also links to the arxiv-preprint, we should do this too. --D.H (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

They don't say the alternatives are less probable. They just state them. In the arXiv preprint, they bother with no alternatives - they refute the result. For the layman, that is the main point of the article. Also, note that it is in exactly the lines getting cited here that the changes mainly are. --Ajoykt (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

From a scientific viewpoint, only the pair-production mechanism counts. When laymen possibly misunderstand this, then this is sad, but no reason to withheld this free preprint from the readers. btw, I think it's quite clear that the alternatives are less probable, otherwise they would have mentioned them in the abstract. --D.H (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

We do not get to decide what is probable and what is not. Also, no, from an OPERA article point of view, the point is not the pair-production mechanism; the ultimate point is whether the theory disproves the OPERA result or can be used to disprove the result. This is not an article on the Cohen-Glashow effect. On this front, there are significant differences between the eprint and the published paper. In fact, all the differences are on this front. Anyway, as to your point about the abstract, I added a rider that C&G's alternate explanation (concession) was toward the end of the paper. To me, the biggest argument against C&G is that quote from the director of research at CERN, somebody with equal practical credibility - that theory cannot be used to refute an experiment. --Ajoykt (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Replication

As per CERN's bulletin, the Borexino and T2K replications don't seem certain. http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1387897 I would think CERN has more credibility than BBC on this issue, but the CERN bulletin is two weeks older. --Ajoykt (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

"They expect to be done before November 21."

The article cited after this statement does not actually support this claim. The article simply says that the beam will be provided around the last week of October.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The article says they expect to be done in a month, and that was on October 21. "[The OPERA team] has decided that it will carry out a new set of very precise measurements in order to check its controversial result. The decision means the group will delay submitting its result to a peer-reviewed journal by up to a month." There are other sources which say they will collect data from Oct 21 to Nov 6. --Ajoykt (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Setting a specific date seems to carry more weight than the original statement intended. Perhaps rephrasing it to say within a month instead of a date would better reflect the source. N^oformation ^Talk 07:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

NewScientist: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21093-fasterthanlight-neutrino-result-to-get-extra-checks.html says: "The team will take data from 21 October to 6 November, and expect to see between 10 and 15 neutrinos over that time." Interesting, the article also says that 15 OPERA members didn't sign the preprint, "because they considered the results too preliminary". So let's wait and see. --D.H (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Saying within a month solves nothing. Within a month from when? The date the article was published? That would be Nov. 21st. If their data collection completes by 6 Nov., they would have results definitely by Nov. 21. This seems to be a deadline they have broadcast. --Ajoykt (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote reading "the group will delay submitting its result to a peer-reviewed journal by up to a month" does not support the claim in the article. I will change the article so that it's not so misleading.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added a reference to a CERN Bulletin article.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

SR violation

The article currently states that detection of faster-than-light neutrinos "appears to violate special relativity, which does not allow for speeds faster than light". This is not entirely correct. SR allows particles to travel faster than speed of light, it only does not allow them to cross this speed i.e. particles that travel slower than light remain traveling slower than light, particles that travel at speed of light remain traveling at speed of light and particles that travel faster than light remain traveling faster than light. Neutrino could simply have imaginary mass and be tachyon (of which there is currently no mention in the article) and it would not violate SR. Reference used only takes particles with real masses into account.

It should be rephrased that this detection appears to violate special relativity or causality, because between SR, causality and FTL one can choose only two.

Also, this could be useful. --93.139.173.212 (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We could say "appears to violate special relativity, which does not allow communication faster than light". This would cover tachyons (which can't be used for communication). -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 12:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't unusability of tachyons for FTL communication an QFT result and not pure STR result? --93.142.201.65 (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 93.142.201.65, you are correct. Strebe (below), you are wrong. Look up Feinberg reinterpretation. (Or just read the tachyon article). -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the Feinberg reinterpretation isn’t QFT, and yes, it’s special relativity that makes the Feinberg reinterpretation necessary. There are QFT arguments about why tachyons can’t be used for communication, but again, the reason for those arguments is special relativity. Not really interested in going further down this rathole; it’s irrelevant to the topic, and tachyons are science fiction anyway. Strebe (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Feinberg reinterpretation is necessary because of SR but the mechanism seems to be QFT. Regardless your statement below is incorrect; and dismissing tachyons as SF is silly. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It’s all just special relativity. Anything that moves faster than light, whether physically or as information, sets up conditions for violating causality. There is no dependence on QFT. Strebe (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

FTL doesn't violate SR, it's just that if SR and FTL are both true, then causality is violated. SR doesn't assume that causality is true, though Einstein (and I as well) believe it must be true. However, if SR is no longer considered true, and we end up replacing it with Lorentz ether theory (LET), then FTL need not lead to causality violation. However, for LET to be true, it would also require the rejection of a "spacetime" continuum, requiring also the falsification of GR.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 22:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry; you can go find some reliable citation that modern physics defines special relativity not to include causality, or else quit messing up the lede paragraph with that pointless digression. Einstein explicitly included causality in his description of special relativity. What you are talking about is not special relativity; it’s the formulas from it divorced of semantics. Not relevant to the lede. Not cited. Strebe (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"What you are talking about is not special relativity; it’s the formulas from it divorced of semantics." Never thought that Tachyons themselves would violate special relativity! I've never heard of that one before. Why wasn't I told sooner? Hmmm.....siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 12:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"or else quit messing up the lede paragraph with that pointless digression." I never edited the article. What were you saying that for?siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 12:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

With apologies for the confusion, what I wrote was in response to this edit, which seemed to be referring to your entries here. In any case, tachyons are science fiction. Strebe (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comments conflate science with science fiction. The article isn't allowed to do that. And how does the article support your thesis when it states the same thing as the article attached to this talk page? ‘This result, if true, would appear to run against the spirit of Einstein’s special theory of relativity’. Please read the CERN press release. It’s all about appearing to violate special relativity. Strebe (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of the comments of physicists I've seen elsewhere, such as saying that SR could be wrong while also saying that travel back in time might be possible, are ironic nonsense. First of all, if you are going to say that the results of the experiment suggest that travel back in time might be possible, then you are using the logic of SR, which says if you have a particle traveling faster than the speed of light, then it must be also traveling backwards in time. So saying that SR could be wrong is a defense of what? The interpretation that the experiment shows that travel back in time is possible? You can't have it both ways.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 22:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. My impression is that the "spirit of Einstein’s special theory of relativity" is code for (special relativity+causality) because Einstein believed in causality.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 22:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

since for each speed<c, there is some speed > c where two particles have the same momentum, shouldn't it require 0 force and 0 time to switch beween the 2? then you will never be travelling at c? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.193.179 (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

No. As it says at Special relativity#Relativistic mechanics,

$\mathbf {p} c^{2}=E\mathbf {v} \,.$

This cannot be satisfied with the same p and E for both a subluminal v and a superluminal v. In other words, your assumption is wrong. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not the neutrino FTL travel that violates causality, but the neutrino FTL communication. It's all explained at the tachyon article. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add this, you will have to find a credible secondary source (Nature News/ScienceMag/CERN Bulletin, not a blog/news outlet/general readership magazine) which says so. The source we cite right now on the first line says it is neutrinos journeying faster than light that is impossible per SR. Ajoykt (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

My statement does not come from a blog, but from Gerald Feinberg. Read the tachyon article. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

We all (well, at least, the scientists among us) know that what you're saying is correct. Unfortunately, we need a reliable source that says it in regard OPERA. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is not available. So what do we do? Allow the lead of a high profile article contain a howling error, or correct it in line with what any expert would say? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you look? I will also see if I come across something. There is no point citing "ref 1" for your statement; it just doesn't have it. At the very least you will have to take out the citation, and then somebody will add the {citation needed} tag. Ajoykt (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No point looking, there won't be such a source. Arthur, we need a reliable source that says it in regard [to] OPERA.: why? The FTL comms statement made no mention of OPERA, why therefore does a cite to support it need mention OPERA? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? Because this digression into tachyons and causality doesn’t belong in the lede where it’s only going to confuse people, since it’s a confused idea. What’s there is not a “howling error”; it’s mainstream physics. Tachyons are science fiction: A plausible but hypothetical construct with no experimental evidence. If OPERA confirms tachyons, then it’s huge news, but we know that it cannot without violating causality because the OPERA mechanism clearly transmits information. Meanwhile causality is built into physics from the ground up. The only formalisms that don’t require causality also do not allow FTL communication. If you want to say something about tachyons or causality in regard to the OPERA experiment, then cite it or quit wasting everyone’s time with your pet theories. Injecting it into this article is WP:OR. It’s practically impossible to get any useful work done here with this kind of “I know something special that you don’t!” childishness. How much time are we going to waste on this one word in the lede? Strebe (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comments, Strebe, would be easier to take seriously if you didn't keep dismissing tachyons as "science fiction". Everything hypothetical in science is SF until proven otherwise. And you can quit with the absurd claim that tachyons are my "pet theory". That also makes you look kinda dumb. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything hypothetical in science is SF until proven otherwise. That’s right. Perhaps you have a more negative view of science fiction than I do. I do not “dismiss” an idea because it is science fiction; I dismiss the application of speculation devoid of credible sources in this article. Strebe (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is no apparent violation of causality in the experiment; indeed it shows every evidence of being causal. The neutrinos emitted from the CERN machinery caused the detection at San Grasso. You can only infer, from special relativity, that there must exist inertial frames in which the causal ordering is reversed if the experimental results hold up AND if our understanding of special relativity is precisely correct AND if there were no systematic errors in the experiment AND if there are not other physics involved in the transmission of neutrinos within dense matter and photons in the vaccuum which have not been taken into account. Meanwhile no such inertial frames have been demonstrated.

And lastly, you cannot credibly argue against the truth that special relativity was formulated in order to preserve causality. Hence, though you may wish to argue against the semantical assertion that special relativity includes causality, at this point you’re again way out in the weeds of WP:OR and far, far from what practicing physicists have anything to say about. Inferences about inferences about inferences don’t belong in ledes unless those inferences are supported in the literature. Strebe (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As any physics historian should know, it is false to assert that special relativity was formulated "in order to preserve causality". Also, if it is to be asserted in the lead that a particle traveling faster than light violates special relativity, then the fact that relativists do not concur should also be asserted. We need a source (I got rid of my relativity textbooks before 2000, so I can't confirm), but, if we can find one, it should be there, in spite of claims of WP:SYNTH. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As any physics historian should know, it is false to assert that special relativity was formulated "in order to preserve causality". Poppycock. Read Einstein. I have, many times. It’s all there in black and white. I’m quite done with this. Strebe (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I’m quite done with this. as you have stated a couple of times already, yet you keep coming back. And stop being so obtuse, Strebe, SR was formulated to preserve Maxwell's equations, not causality. (And, yes, Einstein does say that.) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You are lying and you are trolling. I wrote once that I did not want to go further down a rathole. Once. Not a couple of times, nor did I say I was done, and never about this specific matter. Moreover the readers of this thread surely don’t care about your relativity alpha-male-ing. Yes, SR was formulated to preserve Maxwell’s equations. It ALSO was formulated to preserve causal ordering for all observers. Obviously. Give it a rest. Some of us want to get some work done. Strebe (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine, be obtuse then, but the causality issue is not trolling, but rather the central point here. No, SR was not formulated to preserve causality. Arthur was correct in his original statement on this. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A reference for the compatibility of FTL with SR would be Feinberg, G. (1967). "Possibility of Faster-Than-Light Particles". Physical Review 159 (5): 1089–1105. Title says it all. Clearly relevant to this article. If blind adherence to policy prevents inclusion then clearly policy needs changing. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather, perhaps your understanding of the reasons for the policies needs changing. Strebe (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No, my understanding is clear. But what is also clear are the consequences, which are factual inaccuracies in a high profile article. Perhaps that doesn't bother you. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You toss around the term “obtuse”. If causality is part of SR then there is no factual inaccuracy in the lede. You have failed to document that causality is divorced from SR. You are being disingenuous in pretending the question is SR vs causality. Are we done calling names now? Strebe (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Causality is not a consequence of the Lorentz transformations.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Lorentz transformations ≠ special relativity. “causality is not a consequence of…” ≠ “causality is a component of…”. Mess. Strebe (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Poppycock. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Maybe this can be solved by writing a new section about "FTL and relativity". There, we could simply write some well-known facts, for which we don't need OPERA-related sources (since this article is indeed also about FTL, this isn't off-topic). For instance:
1) Superluminal speed consistent with relativity: a) signal velocities versus group velocities, b) tachyons
2) Superluminal speeds not consistent with relativity: c) Lorentz violating models which allow superluminal speeds, d) Extradimensions.
3) Also, that general relativity requires light constancy only locally, while in gravitational fields, deviating coordinate velocities are allowed. --D.H (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If we are allowed to simply write some well-known facts, for which we don't need OPERA-related sources (since this article is indeed also about FTL, this isn't off-topic). then there is no problem and we can use the Feinberg reference. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 11:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I think this can only be written in a separate section, so that the other sources in the article are not directly affected by it, to avoid WP:Synth. And of course, any conclusion regarding OPERA must be avoided. --D.H (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)--D.H (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is one secondary source on Tachyons (the Encyclopedia Britannica):

tachyon',' hypothetical subatomic particle whose velocity always exceeds that of light. The existence of the tachyon, though not experimentally established, appears consistent with the theory of relativity, which was originally thought to apply only to particles traveling at or less than the speed of light. Just as an ordinary particle such as an electron can exist only at speeds less than that of light, so a tachyon could exist only at speeds above that of light, at which point its mass would be real and positive. Upon losing energy, a tachyon would accelerate; the faster it traveled, the less energy it would have."

OTOH, Nature News says (http://www.nature.com/news/2000/000530/full/news000601-5.html), 30 May 2000:

But physics textbooks give no credence to the tachyon. That the speed of light represents the cosmic speed limit is, after all, the central tenet of Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity.

That article goes on to say

But problems with causality would arise only if faster-than-c transmission were able to exert any effect -- that is, if it were to carry information.

A post-OPERA article in Science News, agrees with the Nature News source we quote (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6051/1809.full?sid=88369043-a70a-44ba-b943-e554615380ae) :

After all, the observation would contradict Einstein's special theory of relativity, which says that nothing can travel faster than light.

Scientific American says (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ftl-neutrinos-new-physics-implications)

That [neutrinos moving a smidgen faster than light-speed] might seem impossible, given the universal speed limit set by Albert Einstein's long-standing and well-tested special theory of relativity . . .

So, yes, secondary sources do conflict on whether faster than light violates SR. Encyclopedia Britannica cannot be easily dismissed, but in the OPERA article, the post-OPERA sources count more, and they agree on the statement we have in the article. I would say create a separate article on the lines DH suggests, and add a link from this one. Ajoykt (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

DH is suggesting a separate section, not article. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What would be the scope of such a section? FTL/SR/Tachyons are very broad topics. It is still hard to find secondary-source citations (references meant for a non-physics audience) linking these to OPERA. A general non-OPERA-linked discussion of FTL/SR/Tachyons would swamp everything else here, making the article's title irrelevant. On a related note, at some point we do have to mention the consequences of what if the OPERA results are correct. The OPERA team may have abstained from that discussion, but others haven't. Unfortunately, secondary sources haven't picked up most of the stuff. Ajoykt (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

To Strebe: Above, you said "Read Einstein. I have, many times. It’s all there in black and white." in reference to "special relativity was formulated in order to preserve causality". Please provide a quotation from Einstein to support this, with the publication and page number. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

E.g. Einstein’s tribute to Newton. Strebe (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't say causality is built into SR. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

About sensationalism

There is no need to communicate, in this article, the idea that the FTL result, if correct, is a sensation. Whether or not this result is a sensation is a matter of point of view. If you want to implicate the reader in the thrill of scientific discovery, then give them the facts and let them decide for themselves, instead of telling them to be thrilled.--83.89.0.118 (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fix it if it’s broken. Strebe (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a media fuss. That's sensational NPOVly. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Publications and news

Another OPERA related paper has been published in Physical Review D: "Consequences of neutrino Lorentz violation for leptonic meson decays" by Brett Altschul: PRD home, arXiv:1110.2123.
There are also some rumors that the new OPERA measurement confirmed their previous FTL results. --D.H (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, DH. With the new OPERA approach, there is little in common between their experiment and the old MINOS one, which showed superluminality at two-sigma. Ajoykt (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we got a credible source ('Science'): http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/faster-than-light-neutrinos-opera.html?ref=hp Unfortunately, the whole business looks messy. For what could be a truly momentous discovery, the 'human' background and politics seem unfortunately less-than-stellar. Ajoykt (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I notice this sentence in that science-insider report: "Some researchers are also unhappy that only a small fraction of the analysis, which was carried out by Autiero, has been independently checked by others within the collaboration.". JRSpriggs (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is now a section concerning this issue in the article. --D.H (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The new paper arXiv:1109.4897v2 is online now. --D.H (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've compared the names on the lists of the two files (preprint and JHEP) and found, that 9 authors have been added, while 3 authors have been removed. So when we assume that 15 authors didn't sign the first paper, we have 15-9+3=9. So the "Science" number of 15 (for JHEP) seems to be incorrect. And the NewScientist source speaks about "6 or 7" that didn't sign. --D.H (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Tommaso's blog repeats what "Science" claimed: "UPDATE: I was wrong on that one. It was pointed out to me by a member of Opera that while four of the physicists who had not signed the paper in September now accepted to sign it, four more who had signed the first one now dropped out of the new one! A quite mysterious thing in my opinion, maybe brought by the fact that some (small) mistakes were indeed found in the original analysis (none affecting much the result, however)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajoykt (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, three v1-names (D. Naumow, A. Schembri, P. Strolin) disappeared in v2, (F. Cavanna appeared twice in v1, and once in v2). --D.H (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not mysterious at all, there could be a number of reasons, the most important being that they most likely weren't actually involved! You really can't speculate on such things, there are well over a hundred authors, there is no way they all had the same level of contribution. It's not for us to speculate (there is some clear WP:OR above) why they are not on the paper and it's not for us to promote views that there are some dissidents in the group when there is no credible evidence for that view. Polyamorph (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This makes no sense. I only cited the opinion of ScienceInsider in the article, for which the sources are given. You won't find any statement by me on this talk page where I "speculate on the motives" of the researchers. I only stated who those four (or three) missing authors are - which of course is not used by me in the article per WP:OR. We have to cite sources, even if we don't like them... On the contrary, it is you who speculates without sources, for instance, that "they most likely weren't actually involved".--D.H (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I offered an alternative explanation to the "mystery" as to why some of the authors are not on the article. It's speculation yes but so is the idea that there is some conflict among the researchers. I don't like the sources because they don't actually give any evidence for their views. Hence they are irrelevant. Polyamorph (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The Cartridge article talks at length about some problems between Autiero and the "dissenters". Do you think he simply invented all of this? Well, if that's the case, then it would be scandalous and incredibly damaging for "Science", that they have allowed to publish this. However: I'm sure that there will be other sources soon, which clarify all of this. --D.H (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't present any evidence. I'm not saying he's making it up but simply that he hasn't declared his sources. Hence we can't use his article as a source. As for damaging the reputation of "Science", well it's not actually Science, it's ScienceInsider. Besides it's irrelevant to us, all I'm trying to say that it is not a reliable source because there is no evidence to back up his claims, so we shouldn't blindly believe it. Polyamorph (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure has never been a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia - why should it be here? I think you got confused by this article's citation of Ereditato in NYT. WP:VNT exists exactly to safeguard against such confusion.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It's always possible that I have got confused! But WP:VNT is not a licence to arbitrarily include everything someone says just because it's in a reliable source. Cartridge doesn't give any context, it might be right that the people he spoke to didn't agree with the results. But they might not have been part of the actual experiment. In which case they wouldn't necessarily be on the paper anyway. But we don't know, because he doesn't say what their involvement in the project is. They may not be significant academically, they could just be PhD students. Who knows, certainly not us if we go soley by the Cartridge article. I think it's possibly blowing it up out of all proportion. I don't think it's significant, at least not at this time and I don't think we should be encouraging it. Polyamorph (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm confused too. I'll need to wait until some source clarifies on the whole deal.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is true that some authors did refuse to sign the paper, I cannot see how this sentence "Around 15 of the almost 195 researchers in the OPERA collaboration had not signed on to the first preprint of the paper, since they thought the publication was premature and further experimental checks were required" from the article is backed up by any of the sources. Where do the sources actually say that? Polyamorph (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The actual paragraph in the Cartridge article cited to support that sentence states "Some members of the 160-strong collaboration, however, believe that further checks are needed to be absolutely sure that the result was not due to an error. And there has been intense discussion within the collaboration about whether those extra checks should be carried out before submitting the result to peer review. It now appears that those urging caution have prevailed, with a new set of measurements to be carried out ahead of any submission." This doesn't support the sentence in the article. There is no indication that 15 of the members refused to sign the paper from this...only that some members wanted to check the results, which is surely just good science. I don't like that we're effectively blowing up a non-event out of all proportion. Polyamorph (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This is because the NewScientist source was removed. It is now re-included (read both of them [1] and [2]). It says: "Stanco was one of 15 team members who did not sign the original preprint of the paper because they thought the results were too preliminary." It think the sentence in our article correctly reflects the content of the sources. As you correctly said, this is all good science. --D.H (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The Cartlidge article[3] says there was a "group of around 15 who did not sign the preprint".--Anders Feder (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I removed ref. 23. But I didn't notice the reference remaining was to the older Cartlidge article. Ajoykt (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense, in the context described in the article, with the other citations re-added by D.H. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Measuring the distance

Hi, can someone explain how the distance that the neutrinos had to travel was measured? Using my admittedly basic knowledge I would have thought that the distance was probably harder to measure accurately than the time, and therefore the speed measured would be affected. Or is the distance irrelevant here? 193.163.248.12 (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The Giulia Brunetti thesis (reference 5) explains the initial experiment in detail. Ajoykt (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's easier, if for no other reason than that the laboratories don't move (much) after their positions are measured. Basically, it involves a series of high-resolution GPS-surveyed surface reference points, and conventional surveying techniques (angles and distances in a redundant grid) to transport those points underground. Laser rangefinders are used much more than is classical angle-only trangulation. They allow a traverse down a long narrow tunnel without ridiculous loss of accuracy. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A list where CERN/LNGS people are discussing how to recheck the time transfer

http://lists.ohwr.org/sympa/info/cngs-time-transfer

One of the comments on Tommaso Dorigo's blog had this.

It is open subscription. The subscription is not just read only, but I guess common courtesy means no tutorial-style questions there. Ajoykt (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ereditato says everyone signed the final submission

NYTimes: "In response to reports that some members of the Opera group had refused to sign a preliminary version of the paper in September, Dr. Ereditato said of the new paper, “They all signed.”" Since NYTimes is clearly credible when it comes to who said what, I think we will have to take the entire section on "Opera team deliberations" out. Erediato's three-word statement is unambiguous. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/science/space/neutrino-finding-is-confirmed-in-second-experiment-opera-scientists-say.html?_r=1 Ajoykt (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

D. Naumow, A. Schembri, P. Strolin signed the first paper arXiv:1109.4897v1, but didn't sign the second one arXiv:1109.4897v2. What happened with those names? (F. Cavanna appears twice in v1, and once in v2.) This supports the "Science" report, so I re-included the passage, presenting both views. Hopefully, those conflicting reports will be clarified soon. --D.H (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps they weren't involved? When you have a paper with more than 100 authors then clearly they are not all leading scientists, I suspect that many are just only had a minor role with respect the analysis of the results and interpretation of the data - if any at all. I wouldn't really read much into the fact that some authors that appear in v1 don't appear in v2! You don't put your name on a paper if you haven't been actively involved in the experiment/analysis. Polyamorph (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The Science Insider article (which is actually from the Blogs and Communities section of the Science website, not not an actual Science article at all) cited above lacks credibility. It's purely the opinion of Edwin Cartlidge who provides absolutely no evidence to support their views. I don't see any point in including this. People are often left off author lists for a number of different reasons, there's no evidence that suggests anyone actively involved in this specific experiment refused to sign the paper. As such we shouldn't be promoting such a view. Polyamorph (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, this article is of course lacking credible sources, because almost all non-peer reviewed "News-articles" are worthless - but if we ignore "Science" news articles (which are maybe more credible than others), then we can delete 90% of the rest of this article as well... --D.H (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You either improve the sources or delete the content. We're not in the habit of promoting unreliable information on wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. Both sources are WP:RELIABLE.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Lets stop blindly believing that something is reliable just because the publisher generally meets WP:RS. The author of the article provides no credible evidence for the views. Polyamorph (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. It is posted in the "News" section of the website.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I found it in a link to Blogs and Communities section, yes it's news but it's not reliable because they don't give adequate evidence for the statements they make. It might as well be made up, and probably is. Polyamorph (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The criterion is verifiability, not truth. Besides, what reason do you have to doubt the Science Insider report? Unless a reliable source directly contradicts it, the choice is between your criteria for adequate evidence and AAAS' criteria for adequate evidence.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You have completely mis-interpreted the meaning of "verifiability, not truth". It means that if something is true but there are no reliable sources to verify it then it cannot be included in wikipedia. It doesn't mean, that if something is verifiable it absolutely has to be included in wikipedia even if it is untrue. The fact remains that regardless how verifiable the source is, the content is complete bollocks! They don't give adequate evidence for their claims and is hence irrelevant. Polyamorph (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You failed to answer the question.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat my reply incase it wasn't clear. "They don't give adequate evidence for their claims". Hence the source is not reliable.Polyamorph (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion. You are not a WP:RELIABLE source. AAAS is. Hence the truth of the statement is not contested.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Editors should always have discretion when using sources, you don't blindly believe that something is correct. Polyamorph (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we should. But "they don't meet my personal criteria" is not a valid objection.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The NYTimes article came a day after the ScienceMag report. Things could well have changed. The ScienceMag article was poorly sourced - it quoted unnamed people from the Opera team. The NYTimes article quoted the person in charge of speaking to the press. As for the 179-odd count of arXiv-v2, maybe people have left the collaboration? Or maybe the JHEP submission was signed by more people than the arXiv submission? We have no way of knowing. We can't possibly conclude the OPERA spokesperson has lied to the NYTimes. Our article, as of now, implicitly states that. We need to go by what gets reported, and what gets reported last and comes from the most credible person. Ajoykt (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The spokesperson didn't lie. He said all who didn't sign the preprint did sign the final paper, which is what the article says.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That is quite a strained reading of: "In response to reports that some members of the Opera group had refused to sign a preliminary version of the paper in September, Dr. Ereditato said of the new paper, “They all signed.”" And that is not what ScienceMag reported, by the way. ScienceMag claimed only 4 of the original 15 had signed on. As DH noted earlier, ScienceMag's numbers never added up. And their sources were unnamed people inside OPERA. Personally I find it hard to believe why anybody would drop their names after a successful replication. Ajoykt (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Ereditato and ScienceMag are not really in agreement. However, I think we should let the opinions stand side by side in the article, and wait for further development. --D.H (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if that is a strained reading, but you are right there is still some kind of discrepancy. I have no reason to believe that ScienceInsider is wrong, and it is corroborated by the blog post you cited in the section above as well as by New Scientist[4].--Anders Feder (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I've sent Dennis Overbye (NYT) an e-mail asking if he can clarify.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It could well be that more and more people signed on in the days between the ScienceMag report and the NYTimes one. There is a good chance they were jockeying for changes to the paper or what to do in the future and so on. I think we should mention the reports and, briefly, their time order in the article. Hence added the "previous" qualification to the ScienceMag report. As to the reading of the NYTimes line, what would a reader who hasn't read the ScienceMag report conclude from that line? 17:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajoykt (talk • contribs)

An uninformed reader would conclude that the whole team signed. But this could still be the intended meaning, if the NYT reporter got something wrong.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

True. I guess that is what the credibility of the news outlet is about - how they stitch together information from various sources to form the whole story. For now, I think we have to assume Overbye got it right. Note that the Nature News report is still more different: Autiero then said "most" of the dissenters had come on board. There is no mention of new dissenters: http://www.nature.com/news/neutrino-experiment-replicates-faster-than-light-finding-1.9393 Ajoykt (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary:

a) ScienceMag (anonymous, 17. 11.): 4 added, 4 removed

b) NewScientist (Stanco, 17. 11): Some added (probably 8), while 6 or 7 did not sign; removals not mentioned

c) Nature (Autiero, 18. 11): Most of them signed; removals not mentioned

d) NYT (Eriditato, 18.11.): All have signed; removals not mentioned

a disagrees with b, c, d.

b agrees with c, and disagrees with a and d.

c agrees with b, and disagrees with a and d.

d disagrees with a, b, c...

This happens, when one relies on non-peer reviewed News-Sources. --D.H (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In which case the editor who has removed the content in the article on this is completely justified. It's clearly unreliable and on wikipedia we should be cautious. If something needs additional validation then we should err on the side of caution and remove the content until it can be accurately verified. Polyamorph (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, almost everything in the article needs "additional validation", that is, peer reviewed publications, including all statements that are about the possible consequences for modern physics or relativity. Apparently we have to wait for the MINOS result, before we actually get such sources... --D.H (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course but that's not my point. My point is that these sources disagree on some specific information. Therefore it is not verifiable. It is different to the rest of the article because no one disagrees that an experimental team has done this experiment and reported the findings that they have reported. The fact that it might all be bollocks is neither here nor there, it is a verifiable and notable experiment. Polyamorph (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

First line of "Internal Replication"

Exact quote from the cited reference: "Two elements of the experiment receiving particular scrutiny include the GPS-synchronization system and the profile of the proton beam that generates the neutrinos as a by-product of colliding with a target." That line doesn't require more citation, let alone from a non-peer-reviewed unpublished-more-than-a-month-after-the- arXiv-posting article. OPERA's paper itself has been submitted to JHEP and will likely be published soon. Ajoykt (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia, references are supposed to be always welcome. Of course, not a (too) long list (this would bother the reader) but enough to allow anybody to get a chance to check what is written by himself. Anyway, "This line does require either a note, more citations or to be expanded. The second part about the "proton beam" is expanded in the next sentances. This is fine. The first part, about the "GPS-synchronization system" is not expanded anywhere, and if I go to the quoted Nature News, there is no detail, no reference, about this point. To my knowledge, the OPERA team has already worked hard on the GPS side. So, for the GPS case, what "receiving particular scrutiny" means ? What kind of problems left ? In the " non-peer-reviewed" references I added, some potential GPS problems are discussed, at least. I agree that peer-reviewed references would be much more satisfactory but, once again, there is not yet any peer-reviewed reference available for this topic (To my knowledge, Nature News and similar stuff from Science are not peer-reviewed).

A detail: I had changed "neutrino community" by "scientific community" and you reverted this as well. Looking at the "exact quote" above I see no reason why. But maybe you think this page (and the interpretation of this experiment) is owned by the "neutrino community" ?

James.zweistein (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

To answer the second question first, the source says neutrino community. "The release of the team's data on the arXiv server . . . now have the neutrino community looking for sources of error that might explain the result. Two elements of the experiment receiving particular scrutiny include the GPS-synchronization system and the profile of the proton beam . . ." For the first question: Wikipedia prefers secondary sources since it is edited by non-experts and primary sources are usually targeted at a specialist audience. If secondary sources have not expanded on a particular topic we keep our coverage to the level and depth those sources provide. Arxiv, in particular, is a major problem since it is barely vetted. There is no way for us to know which references there are credible. Vixra has no vetting at all.The van Elburg citation, in particular, has been discussed to death here, and nobody suggested we keep it for its credibility (there were a few suggestions to the opposite, that we keep it to highlight its lack of credibility). Note Elburg hasn't managed to publish anywhere--his arXiv paper has been out for a while. But beyond those specific details, there is the issue we should cite sources aimed at a general audience (the secondary sources which pick up notable information), and primary sources (peer reviewed) as backup. The secondary sources we have considered credible so far for physics news are Nature News, CERN Bulletin, Science (news), Scientific American, New Scientist and Encyclopedia Britannica. For other news we do quote newspaper articles. As for the OPERA paper itself, they have submitted to JHEP and should soon be published (it is probably a few weeks, not a year). The other arXiv references we have are comments and summaries and have been published or presented elsewhere. Ajoykt (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Detail first: "the source says neutrino community". This is an encyclopedia, not a farm of contents ! If the source says that, let us switch to another source: numerous people from various scientific "communities" are interested in solving this problem, not only the "neutrino community". Telling it otherwise is not correct, and removing this kind of modification is not acceptable. "Elburg hasn't managed to publish anywhere": this is not a serious statement. Elburg put his paper in the arXiv one month and a half ago. What do you think is the average time scientists have to wait before one of their papers is accepted for publication ? (even when the referees say "publish it as is"; note that this is not so usual). Actually, this is because such average times are much too large that the arXiv was founded.

Anyway, I do not care about Elburg or others, I do not care if they are right or wrong: I just say that the point about the "GPS-synchronization system" needs to be really referenced, or expanded, or to provide papers where this matter is discussed (even if their main points may prove wrong: at least, they provide elements for a discussion: references, etc). Especially now, since the hypothesis that the "profile of the proton beam" may be responsible for the anomaly seems to have been dismissed. Of course, when enough refereed papers will become available all this stuff will have to be removed. James.zweistein (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If the source says that, let us switch to another source? You mean you just want to ignore what Nature News has to say? And you didn't cite any sources for "physicists" - you can't just arbitrarily add what you think is the right interpretation, especially when it directly differs from what the cited source in the sentence says. If you want to change "neutrino community" to "physicists" you have to cite a source which says so.

There are many papers on arXiv about the synchronization issue. How are you going to pick which ones are credible? There are more on viXra. More objections related to synchronization on the many blogs - Tommaso's, Siegel's, Strassler's and so on. This is the real reason we depend on secondary sources, to avoid having to do such filtering ourselves. Ajoykt (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead section

It looks to me, in the lead for the OPERA neutrino anomaly, we should just tell the world why the OPERA team thinks their result is an 'anomaly.' Their logic is very clear. Quoting from their eprint paper: "An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 ± 6.9 (stat.) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured. " This is what they define as the anomaly, in the Abstract section. In the Introduction, they elaborate on the why: "a larger deviation (than 10^-19) of the neutrino velocity from c would be a striking result pointing to new physics in the neutrino sector." Why don't we just include this information in the lead (changing 'c' to speed of light in vacuo), instead of writing up our own ideas of what here is anomalous? --Ajoykt (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We have not written up our own ideas; we have paraphrased what the researchers wrote. Wikipedia:Lead_sections need simplicity and clarity. The researchers were writing for physicists, not lay people. We have the original excerpt below in the Detection section. Without being exhaustive, from the guidelines: The lead should... be written in a clear, accessible style. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article. This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions... In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. (Emphasis mine.) Strebe (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

None of which explains why we have to say 'special relativity' when they say 'new physics in the neutrino sector.' I don't know whether they meant the standard model, beyond just its special relativity part. Ajoykt (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Then why did you not state your objection to 'relativity' specifically? You are wasting people’s time. You yourself have blathered on about both special AND general relativity in your edits, so it is becoming increasingly difficult to view your edits and comments as being in good faith. Strebe (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My central objection is the result likely violates SR, GR and the standard model, at least per what C&G says about the standard model with modified SR (and this was the wording I added once upon a time). The OPERA team states the consequence as "new physics in the neutrino sector." I think that is the best available summary, since the word 'anomaly' is their creation. My citation request wasn't really for faster-than-light disallowed in SR, it was for a citation that the OPERA-defined anomaly is that SR issue. I guess I didn't make that clear. --Ajoykt (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If the result violates special relativity, then it must violate general relativity because general relativity is a generalization of special relativity. It must also violate the Standard Model because the Standard Model assumes special relativity. But so do hundreds of other physical theories, so why would we constrain ourselves to those three? Why not mention them all, eh? Because it all funnels through special relativity. What the OPERA team states isn’t the best source; they’re primary and what they’ve written includes all kinds of implications that any physicist recognizes and therefore that they don’t need to say blatantly. Meanwhile go read the press release from CERN. It’s all explicitly about special relativity even though the term is not mentioned once in the OPERA preprint. Strebe (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Strebe keeps appending "because it is unprecedented" to "The detection is anomalous". Wiktionary specifically defines anomaly as: "Any event or measurement that is out of the ordinary regardless of whether it is exceptional or not." If you want to include "because it is unprecedented", the WP:BURDEN is on you to find citations for it before adding it again.--83.89.0.118 (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Major logic FAIL there, 83.89.0.118. “Unprecedented” is a subset of out of the ordinary, not contradictory to it. Anything unprecedented has even more “anomalous-ness” to it than something merely out-of-the-ordinary. I added a citation, but it isn’t necessary because any reasonable person can grasp that “unprecedented” is an uncontroversial paraphrasing of the cause of the uproar in the physics community. Can we please quit hectoring obvious, uncontroversial, useful edits, and get down to work? Strebe (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, try using logic if you have a point to express. This agitational nonsense is tiresome to read, and doesn't really change the fact the result is not anomalous because it is unprecedented. You are suggesting that if the measurements being taken this month come up with the same result, it won't be anomalous because it is precedented by the result reported in September. And regardless of whether you are a reasonable person or not, and whether or not your post above was a major FAIL, the uproar was not due to the result being unprecedented - physicists are not in the business of tracking down sensations, they are in the business of testing theory, and in this case the test outcome deviated from the theory, hence the anomaly. Finally, the result was not unprecedented in the first place - it is quite common to get FTL results due to systematic errors. What is unprecedented, according to your source, is the news of it.--83.89.0.118 (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

“You are suggesting that if the measurements being taken this month come up with the same result, it won't be anomalous because it is precedented by the result reported in September.” More logical fail. The lede states two reasons why the result is anomalous, not one. Hence, even if one reason goes away, that still leave the result as anomalous, predicated on the other reason. So no, I am not suggesting that a second, positive result would not longer be anomalous. Please, try using logic if you have a point to express. (Agitational nonsense.)

Try looking at it from the perspective of a reader who doesn’t understand anything about the situation. If the lede simply states “appears to violate special relativity”, then the reader is left with, “So? Is that uncommon?”

“And regardless of whether you are a reasonable person or not, and whether or not your post above was a major FAIL”: Agitational nonsense.

The result is unprecedented for its rigor in achieving an FTL result, not for achieving an FTL result. It’s so clearly unprecedented that it sparked 80 responses on arXiv in the first couple of weeks. Apparently physicists are in the business of tracking down (credible) sensations. (Agitational nonsense.) Strebe (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have used logic to express my point. That you dismiss it with blabbering, doesn't really change the facts.

"Try looking at it from the perspective of a reader who doesn’t understand anything about the situation. If the lede simply states “appears to violate special relativity”, then the reader is left with, “So? Is that uncommon?”"

That's a fine consideration. You should have stated that to begin with. However, it doesn't explain why incorrect information has to be included in the article.--83.89.0.118 (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My job is to contribute to a good article, not read your mind. What “incorrect information”? Strebe (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The implication that the FTL-result-likely-due-to-systematic-error measurement is unprecedented--83.89.0.118 (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC).

It reads, “It appears to be an unprecedented violation of special relativity.” There is no such implication as you describe. Strebe (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that is the first time we appear to have observed it is not reason to assume it hasn't ever happened in the universe before. The confusion arises because you conflate theoretical anomality with absence of observational precedent. Both points are correct. Both points are relevant. But neither has any bearing on the other. However, it is impossible to rectify because you just keep adding the same conflation back in.--83.89.0.118 (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finally getting to the point. What you say is true of a pedantic reading. I doubt many, if any, readers would actually choose that interpretation in their reading, but perhaps there are better ways to get the point across. Strebe (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't care what doubts you have. Just stick to the facts and everything will be fine. Adding incorrect information is your mistake, not mine.--90.184.154.70 (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish 83.89.0.118 had stated something along the lines of “Unprecedented is stronger than it needs to be: Other experiments have resulted in FTL measurements too, and “out of the ordinary” suffices to qualify as anomalous. We would not have wasted the time on this belligerent exchange. I would have agreed and we could have fixed it and moved on. I don’t care about “unprecedented”. I care that a reader understands that a “violation of special relativity” is not an expected result for a physics experiment. I also care that the explanation be clear to the average reader and concise. I see now that 83.89.0.118 cares about “sensationalism”, which is where the push against “unprecedented” came from. That’s fine. Let’s keep the sensationalism out. But “just the facts” do not suffice. There is more than one way to read 83.89.0.118’s posting that incited this unfortunate exchange. I apologize for my part in it. There is also more than one way to read almost anything if there isn’t enough context, including this article’s lede. Strebe (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the lead section is not expressing the nature of the anomaly well. It is not the detection of FTL neutrinos that is the anomaly. The anomaly is the outcome of the time-of-flight measurements performed by OPERA. The outcome of this measurement "implies" that the neutrinos have traveled faster-ten-light, which in turn, assuming that a neutrino has real mass, violates special relativity.ThorAvaTahr (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Special relativity has no provision for non-real mass. Strebe (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

True. It does have provision for non-real rest mass and tachyons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is that there exists no such thing as a faster-than-light neutrino detector, the OPERA experiment was used for time of flight measurements of neutrinos. I suggest to change the first sentences in the following. The OPERA neutrino anomaly is the time of flight measurement result of neutrinos travelling from CERN to the OPERA detector at Gran Sasso. The results are anomalous as the measured time of flight is lower than the time of flight expected, when the neutrinos are assumed to travel at the light speed in vacuum. The results contradict with the special relativity theory, as it predicts that nothing can travel faster then light (in vacuum) Or something like that. Here you may want to change nothing in the last sentence into no information (carrier). 194.53.253.51 (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"As computed, the neutrinos' average time of flight turned out to be less than what light would need to travel the same distance in a vacuum." How can ToF and distance be found other than by computing them?--Anders Feder (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

To Anders Feder: The point is that the computed ToF might not be the true value. This is not to suggest that there is any other way for us to find the value. Some people might consider this to be weaseling. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, when Strebe added/defended it, his point was that the sentence implied an indirect calculation. I am not sure how "as computed" implies "as indirectly computed" but I left the discussion because there were other edit issues pending. As for the ToF not being the true value, that is implied in our very first sentence - the "apparently" adverb. We don't need to bring that up in every sentence. Ajoykt (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How can ToF and distance be found other than by computing them? In the original experiment the "average" was not just a mean of measured flight times. It was a statistical inference of what “must” be going on given the emission/detection profiles. That statistical inference was removed by the second iteration of the experiment, where the neutrino emissions were isolated into clearly defined bursts so that direct causality could be established between emission time of a burst of neutrinos, and the later detection of that specific burst. Since the results of the two iterations match, the team has effectively demonstrated that their statistical analysis from the first experiment carried no inferences that were unaccounted for and no computational errors.

Certainly any detection of velocity is “computed”, and so is any average. But by stating it explicitly in this case, it ought to evoke the extra analysis required beyond the mean of distances divided by times. At least it does to me, since mentioning the calculation would be pointless otherwise. I want to be as complete as reasonable. Too pedantic, and things get gummed up to the point of distraction and stultification. But without concession to the actual subtleties, we end up promoting incorrect models in readers’ thinking. I understand not everyone will read it the same way, particularly given the inevitable editorial inconsistency arising from multiple authors. I’m not wedded to the exact words there. Anything to make it clearer without proliferating words would be welcome. Strebe (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"The average time of flight of the neutrinos were found to be less than what it would have taken light to travel the same distance in vacuum."? I think 'found' does not imply any particular method of calculation.--Anders Feder (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words

"Even after OPERA's replication, most in the field disbelieve the light-speed limit has been truly broken."

We need to be careful about weasel words sneaking into the text. While verifiable, and most likely not untrue, these undocumented claims do diminish the quality of the article. Ultimately, the laws of physics are not enacted by majority vote.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The words are an exact quote from Nature News, which so far has been the most credible source for OPERA news (even better than the CERN bulletin). The statement can be read many ways, not necessarily detrimental to OPERA's credibility. I read it more as a statement on how tradition-bound physicists are than as a statement on OPERA's correctness. Ajoykt (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying it is untrue. I only question its relevance per WP:WEASEL.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:WEASEL applies to sentences added by editors, not exact quotes from credible secondary sources (supported attributions). As to relevance, isn't the fact that "most physicists disbelieve OPERA's results" relevant? The meaning of that factoid can be interpreted different ways - either OPERA is wrong, or physicists are too traditional, but we leave that interpretation to the reader. Ajoykt (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My gripe is that it is sort of fuzzy what is meant. Who qualifies as being "in the field"? Who "in the field" has actually been asked? It conveys a sort of authority that doesn't really exist except as an abstract idea in the Nature News journalist's mind. It can't be independently tested.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is that the reporter has asked a small random sample of physicists she knows and summarized their take. Whether the sample represents the general physicist population depends on how well the sampling was done, and this is linked to the credibility of the reporter. We assume Nature News is credible, and when it says "most in the field" we believe it is willing to stand behind that statement. Not all such statements have to be backed by scientific statistical studies. Granted, news organizations do not live up to that ideal, but, by and large, we have to accept on face-value statements from the most credible source on Science news. Ajoykt (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, what statement are they standing behind? It's like if they had said: "We will bet the entire credibility of Nature Magazine that God exists." Sure, the stakes are high, but the statement still should not be taken face value because the central claim that "God exists" is not falsifiable. They are merely using their name to push a particular POV. This may be fine for the casual Nature News reader, who is just trying to get an impression of what's fashionable to think at the moment, but it isn't encyclopedic.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement that most physicists consider the OPERA results wrong. Unlike your example, the statement on OPERA is falsifiable. One could just survey physicists and see how many agree or disagree that OPERA's results are right. Nature believes most do not. I don't know whether they are right, but we can't second-guess a credible science news source. Their statement may be pushing a POV, but it is a statement of hard fact. At least that is how they present it, and I can't find a secondary source which comes even close to contradicting them. The "initial" reaction by physicists to the OPERA results, even if transient, is something of note, something to be remembered, and hence encyclopedia-worthy. Time will tell what that reaction says of the OPERA experiment and of the attitude of physicists. Ajoykt (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

They didn't say "most physicists", they said "most in the field". If I went out and asked a bunch of physicists and they all said, like Stephen Hawking, that commenting on the matter is premature, Nature News could just say: "Oh, well, we don't consider those people part of the field."--90.184.154.70 (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The full quote is: "Physicists have replicated the finding that the subatomic particles called neutrinos seem to travel faster than light. It is a remarkable confirmation of a stunning result, yet most in the field remain sceptical that the ultimate cosmic speed limit has truly been broken." That does seem to mean the field of physics. Ambiguities of parsing are common even in peer-reviewed papers, when it gets to the discussion section. And, as I said, I haven't seen even one secondary source (credible or otherwise) say anything that contradicts the Nature report (however you interpret the word "those in the field"). All sources seem to implicitly or explicitly say those in the physics field, in the neutrino field, in the subatomic particle physics field, all remain skeptical. Those opinions may not be based on scientific surveys, but nevertheless it is the consensus opinion. Ajoykt (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, it says "most physicists in the field". Is Stephen Hawking a physicist in the field?--Anders Feder (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The standard of precision you are asking for does not exist even in peer-reviewed papers. They barely exist in documents put out by international committees. Some ambiguity exists in every sentence. The statement we have is thought to be likely correct, is reliably sourced, and is relevant. I am not sure what the objection is. All sources I have seen agree the statement holds whichever way you define "physicists in the field." Ajoykt (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My objection is that it diminishes the neutrality of the article. It suggests that Stephen Hawkings position is fringe, when in fact it is either very widespread or at least very reasonable. The OPERA team, also, did "not attempt to interpret" the results one way or the other, because that just isn't very scholarly to do when you don't have the evidence to back it up. Cohen-Glashow initially "refuted" the results, but they too had to moderate their statement to say that the result is "challenged". So we have three scholarly sources, all very much experts in the field, not wanting to opine on the subject, yet for some reason we have to state in the article that "most in the field" do have a categorical opinion on the subject, because some dude at Nature News says so.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but other secondary sources agree with Eugenie's position. I can't find even a single one which says most physicists are reserving judgment. We have ScienceMag which says even some of OPERA's own people don't believe their result. There is Tommaso, Siegel, Strassler, all saying the results are still likely wrong. We have the many Nobel laureates quoted in our article not saying anything after the repeat measurement. And virtually every news outlet reports "many" physicists consider the results likely wrong. There is Lawrence Krauss who claimed the ICARUS result should end the OPERA controversy. There is the ICARUS preprint, still unrevised, signed by over 60 physicists, claiming their results "refute" the "hereby alleged anomaly" (they predicate their conclusion on C&G being right only in the Abstract, not in the body of the paper). There is Jim I-will-eat-my-boxer-shirts Al-Khalili saying OPERA is likely wrong even after the repeat. There is Michio Kaku, "kind of doubt"-ing the results would hold, and Columbia prof. Brian Greene ready to "bet just about everything I hold dear that this won’t hold up to scrutiny" (http://www.acceler8or.com/tags/michio-kaku/). And all are comments after the repeat measurements. These are influential people and credible, authoritative, voices in the physics community. I too agree with you it would have been better if the physics community had been more circumspect, but all published evidence points to the contrary. Ajoykt (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Suppose the result holds up. Have "most in the field" then been proven wrong?--Anders Feder (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess so, yes. Ajoykt (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We're even worse than the tabloids with their "Einstein was wrong" headlines, then.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why, because we point out, quoting reliable sources, physicists now mostly believe OPERA results are wrong? If (IMO when) the OPERA results turn out to be right, that most physicists had the wrong view of the results will become even more relevant. After all, the section is titled "Reception by the physics community." You claim that reception is a reasonable wait-and-see one. Secondary sources do not bear you out. We can't tweak quotes to protect reputations. Ajoykt (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be relevant that most physicists had the wrong view, if that had in fact been established methodically. But it hasn't, it's just an opinion being pushed by Nature News. It isn't reasonable to suggest that most of the particle physics community had it wrong just because of a single journalist's lack of research. I understand that the source is reliable for hard science, but IMO it is problematic to leave such statements in when it's specifically discouraged by WP:WEASEL.--Anders Feder (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to find support for your statement that the Nature News report isn't reasonable. The sources I can find corroborate it. ScienceMag, NewScientist ("Einstein's theory of special relativity posits that nothing can travel faster than light, and many physicists believe the result could disappear in a puff of particles." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21188-new-results-show-neutrinos-still-faster-than-light.html ) ABCNews, NYTimes ("Other physicists said they remained skeptical that the universe was about to be overturned. " http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/science/space/neutrino-finding-is-confirmed-in-second-experiment-opera-scientists-say.html In context that means they disbelieve the results), the various blogs (Tommaso, Seigel, Strassler). Just arguing the Nature News report may be based on Eugenie's personal take isn't enough. There is nothing I can find in what is quoted and published on the web to suggest that is so. Ajoykt (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The support is WP:WEASEL. Such generalizing statements are bad style, whether they are made by an anonymous Wikipedian or Nature News.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL is titled "Unsupported attributions." It seems to apply to qualifications added to unattributed (source-less) statements by editors, to make the statements palatable.

"Phrases such as these present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They are referred to as "weasel words" by Wikipedia contributors. They can pad out sentences without adding any useful information and may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed."

In our case, I think we clearly "attribute" the statement. The "most" is not something we added. The source of the viewpoint is clearly mentioned. Ajoykt (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

[Changing indentation to make this easier to read]. Direct quote from WP:RS:

"

Academic Consensus

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. "

Reliable sourcing that directly says "most" hold that view is exactly what we have. Ajoykt (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ajoykt’s position here. The sources exist; there is no reason to doubt the sources; and the sources state the commonly expressed opinion in physics texts. Does anyone editing this page actually doubt the “most” description, or is this an argument on principle? Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion are not as rigorous as Anders Feder portrays them to be, and the verbiage as it stands neither violates WP:WEASEL nor the various instructions for notability. It would be good to let this rest so people can put the time into the article instead of into debating. It is true we chose some high standards for reporting alleged refutations of the CERN results, for several reasons. We do not need to apply the same standards to everything in the article; nor do I think readers are well-served by doing so. A reader really is going to want to know what the “consensus” opinion is in the field. It is important for context. If we deliver that within the guidelines then we have rendered a service to readers. Strebe (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I do doubt the "most" description, I think most scientists have a more detailed position than the binary either-or that the Nature News article wants to afford them. I'll accept Ajoykt's quote from WP:RS as the last word on the matter, but I don't think it is fair or honest to let a news source speak on behalf of most of a scientific community.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Most people believe that the Sun rises every morning in the East. Most scientists believe that the "laws of physics" have an objective existence outside of human understanding of what the laws of physics actually are.. Ultimately, the laws of physics are not enacted by majority vote.^{who says so and why should we pay any attention to him?}. Nine out of ten philosophers of science who chew gum and walk at the same time, are naive realists. How can you all believe in absolute idealism when there's so much evidence for logical positivism? Is Plato's cave darker than Tom Cruise's closet? OPERA can see Narnia, and all I got was this T-shirt SBHarris 02:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you on crack? I specifically wrote that the claims most likely are not untrue. But that is not in itself grounds for inclusion. Most people worship supernatural beings, but that doesn't make it relevant to state in an encyclopedia. What is relevant is methodic studies of the religious observance of precisely defined demographics. Also, in case you weren't aware - this is a talk page, and the criteria that apply to the article space doesn't apply to the talk space.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Most people worship supernatural beings, but that doesn't make it relevant to state in an encyclopedia. What is relevant is methodic studies of the religious observance of precisely defined demographics.

Sez you. Excuse me, but can you point out somewhere that scientism has now replaced WP:IRS (along with WP:V) as the chief inclusionist policy criterion for WP? It's easy to tell if a source is verifiable-- the point of WP:V just means I can look it up someplace else in a publication. The real problem is telling whether a published source is "reliable" (which means, likely to be TRUE). That gets us to WP:RS and epistemology, which then gets us farther down the road to the ultimate argument between idealism and realism. It would be nice if all that had been resolved on Wikipedia. Alas it has not. So you're working from false premises. WP's basic problems in how to decide who to quote, never resolved to this day, come up precisely in places like this page. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" might be a good mantra for life, but it's not yet a Wikipedia policy. If you want it to be, I can point you do a number of policy talk pages where you can make this proposal (I've been there and done that-- good luck). Soon you will be pounding your head against the wall about newspapers and journalists. But THIS PAGE is not the place to declare that you've done that already, and won. Actually, you haven't even started. That includes religious and philosophical topics. WP:RS has all the problems it always had, and there's no point in pretending it doesn't, okay? Don't B.S. me, Anders. You really don't have enough experience on WP (unless you're a sock) to know what you're talking about. SBHarris 18:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't care where you've been. I am not a troll - that is what separates you from me.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say it's rather 29,000 edits that separate you from me. SBHarris 03:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's so hilarious I don't even need to respond.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:OPERA neutrino anomaly/GA2 The templates , , , or are available for editors to request that an individual statement be more clearly attributed