Institute or Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle A, 72076 Tübingen, F.R.G.
Institute or Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle A, 72076 Tübingen, F.R.G.Abstract
CERN’s apparent superluminality result can be partially explained subluminally.
(October 24, 2011)
Simultaneity on a rotating sphere is non-unique — forming not a circle but a helix at a given latitude — as is well known, cf. [1 ] and references quoted there.
The neglected deviation from global simultaneity — being incorporated by design in the Global Positioning System employed by CERN [2] — is 0.1032 microseconds or 30 meters for an equatorial circle [1]. On the mean longitude of Geneva and Gran Sasso, the full-circle deviation is about half as large: 0.05 microseconds or 15 meters.
Since the latitudinal separation between Geneva and Gran Sasso (7.3 degrees) covers only the fiftieth part of a circle, the applicable deviation is 50 times smaller: 1 nanosecond or 0.3 meters. The sign is the same as that found empirically by CERN, but the magnitude of the deviation measured by CERN is 60 times larger than predicted: 60.7 nanoseconds or 18 meters [2]. Thus, CERN’s result has been qualitatively confirmed from first principles for the first time, but so with only 2 percent of its size.
Experience teaches that once a mistake has been found in the design or interpretation of an experiment, further errors along the same line are likely to be unearthed. Whether or not there is a chance to quantitatively compress the improved new result by a factor of 60 is, of course, open.
A minor possibility of improvement is as follows. CERN failed to measure the light flight time between two long parallel rods of 35km length, one erected above the neutrino cannon at CERN and the other above the detector in the Gran Sasso. Two ultrahigh balloons could do the job in principle; or else a chain of alpine mirrors could be used as a substitute necessitating a more complicated discussion. This proposal was made because experience tells that radically new measured data ought to be compared with measured data directly. A second experimental proposal offers itself: To repeat the experiment in the U.S., not in the same but in the opposite (East-West) direction. In this case the rotation-specific apparent superluminality will predictably give rise to a matching subluminality. Finally, I dare mention that the present experiment — unlike other current experiments at CERN – deserves planet-wide support for its ingenuity and innocuousness.
To conclude, a partial subluminal explanation for the newest CERN experiment has been offered. I thank Eric Penrose and Walter Wagner for discussions. (For J.O.R.)
References
[1] O.E. Rossler, D. Fröhlich, N. Kleiner and F.J. Müller, Nonunique simultaneity on isochrones of the rotating disk: a timeloop in special relativity? Journal of New Energy 6(4), 210–214 (2002).
[2] T. Adam, N. Agafonova, A. Aleksandrov, O. Altinok, P. Alvarez Sanchez, S. Aoki, A. Ariga, T. Ariga, D. Autiero, A. Badertscher, A. Ben Dhahbi, A. Bertolin, C. Bozza, T. Brugiére, F. Brunet, G. Brunetti, S. Buontempo, F. Cavanna, A. Cazes, L. Chaussard, M. Chernyavskiy, V. Chiarella, A. Chukanov, G. Colosimo, M. Crespi, N. D’Ambrosios, Y. Déclais, P. del Amo Sanchez, G. De Lellis, M. De Serio, F. Di Capua, F. Cavanna, A. Di Crescenzo, D. Di Ferdinando, N. Di Marco, S. Dmitrievsky, M. Dracos, D. Duchesneau, S. Dusini, J. Ebert, I. Eftimiopolous, O. Egorov, A. Ereditato, L.S. Esposito, J. Favier, T. Ferber, R.A. Fini, T. Fukuda, A. Garfagnini, G. Giacomelli, C. Girerd, M. Giorgini, M. Giovannozzi, J. Goldberga, C. Göllnitz, L. Goncharova, Y. Gornushkin, G. Grella, F. Griantia, E. Gschewentner, C. Guerin, A.M. Guler, C. Gustavino, K. Hamada, T. Hara, M. Hierholzer, A. Hollnagel, M. Ieva, H. Ishida, K. Ishiguro, K. Jakovcic, C. Jollet, M. Jones, F. Juget, M. Kamiscioglu, J. Kawada, S.H. Kim, M. Kimura, N. Kitagawa, B. Klicek, J. Knuesel, K. Kodama, M. Komatsu, U. Kose, I. Kreslo, C. Lazzaro, J. Lenkeit, A. Ljubicic, A. Longhin, A. Malgin, G. Mandrioli, J. Marteau, T. Matsuo, N. Mauri, A. Mazzoni, E. Medinaceli, j, F. Meisel, A. Meregaglia, P. Migliozzi, S. Mikado, D. Missiaen, K. Morishima, U. Moser, M.T. Muciaccia, N. Naganawa, T. Naka, M. Nakamura, T. Nakano, Y. Nakatsuka, D. Naumov, V. Nikitina, S. Ogawa, N. Okateva, A. Olchevsky, O. Palamara, A. Paoloni, B.D. Park, I.G. Park, A. Pastore, L. Patrizii, E. Pennacchio, H. Pessard, C. Pistillo, N. Polukhina, M. Pozzato, K. Pretzl, F. Pupilli, R. Rescigno, T. Roganova, H. Rokujo, G. Rosa, I. Rostovtseva, A. Rubbia, A. Russo, O. Sato, Y. Sato, A. Schembri, J. Schuler, L. Scotto Lavina, J. Serrano, A. Sheshukov, H. Shibuya, G. Shoziyoev, S. Simone, M. Sioli, C. Sirignano, G. Sirri, J.S. Song, M. Spinetti, N. Starkov, M. Stellacci, M. Stipcevic, T. Strauss, P. Strolin, S. Takahashi, M. Tenti, F. Terranova, I. Tezuka, V. Tioukov, P. Tolun, T. Tran, S. Tufanli, P. Vilain, M. Vladimirov, L. Votano, J.-L. Vuilleumier, G. Wilquet, B. Wonsak, J. Wurtz, C.S. Yoon, J. Yoshida, Y. Zaitsev, S. Zemskova, A. Zghiche et al. (117 additional authors not shown), Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam, http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 (Sept. 22, 2011).
[Main result, quoted from the abstract: “An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 ± 6.9 (stat.) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured. This anomaly corresponds to a relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity with respect to the speed of light (v-c)/c = (2.48 ± 0.28 (stat.) ± 0.30 (sys.)) ×10–5.”]
(Paper simultaneously submitted to Nature and Science)
“Thus, CERN’s result has been qualitatively confirmed from first principles for the first time, but so with only 2 percent of its size. ”
ROFL. Of course this must be the explanation. 2%, yes, the experimental foud results must be compressed to it, sure. A real scientist would say: this is not the explanation. But not Rössler. If there is the right sign, it must be the explanation. And of yourse it is worth wo be published in Science AND nature.
And the nobel? Of course!
Is this the kind of science done in Tübingen?
(No, Otto, this is not a discussion of the experiment. It is not even quantitative. This “paper” is below the standards normally required for experimental protocols in undergraduate courses.)
Journal of New Energy
OOOOH, you have published in a crackpot journal? Nature and Science rejected the manuscript?
Congratulations!
i forget to add that submitting a paper simultaneously to two journals is rude. No serious scientist is doing that.
Except the cranks who want to impress some simple minds like Robert Houston.
Otto,
sure you wanna submit this odd text to Nature and Science under address of
“Institute or Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle A, 72076 Tübingen, F.R.G. “?
GG
Hi HAnsel!
A general “Kudos!” to you.
Just had this idea: what about stopping all Rössler-replies for some weeks? Only short peeks as a silent reader from day to day if some new crazy stuff is online.
(If you or I or somebody else really really REALLY feel absolut unbearableness; this person is allowed to do a small blog-reply. It is maybe like stopping smoking?)
My conclusion: Rössler has lost the battle. His behavior did sabotage the infamous “LHC-resistance” itself. His last imagination is that this blog is a widely opened door and a bullhorn to the world. But — and that’s fine — THE MASSES DO NOT LISTEN to Rössler or give any shit.
If there are good arguments against my proposal, I want to assure you: I am just a little mouse with best intentions.
For example: I am the inventor of the TeChFat-theorem. Every cheese cake is based on fresh cheese with > 35 % fat in dry matter. I do shrinking experiments with this cake in my famous but secret lab. Yesterday I reached 1.8 cm (which is the cheese-cake-scherzschild-pinky-radius CCSPR).
Disproofing the unprovable,
Pinky, an almost nobel-mouse
I take side with the mouse. Mice are ruling the Earth anyway!
Interesting. Have you reviewed Mathematics Prof. van Elburg’s paper [1] which appears to correct CERN’s result by just more than the full 60ns.
It should probably not be surprising that it may be so challenging to formulate these complex calculations to precisely account for all the physical effects of relativity on a rotating planet with orbiting detectors in a space and time-warping variable gravitational field.
[1] Ronald A.J. van Elburg, University of Groningen, 12 October 2011, Time-of-flight between a Source and a Detector observed from a Satellite http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2685v3
Thank you very much, dear colleague jtankers, for this most interesting reference. While professor Elberg’s paper could eliminate most or all of the effect described by the CERN group, mine shows that they were up to something real if still luminal. So their paper remains a milestone.
First, Rössler, to call this 2 % “result” a important result ist already ridiculous.
Second: Obviously you are not familiar with standards of scientific working when you are apparently not aware of ongoing discussions and explanations.…instead you are citing aga9in yourself in a crackpot journal. Really, you are a nobel-candidate.
“The sign is the same as that found empirically by CERN, but the magnitude of the deviation measured by CERN is 60 times larger than predicted:”
So you admit yourself that your “result” is meaningless. Who should take something like this serious or consider it to be worth a publication in Science or Nature?
No scientist would come out with such a poor “result”.
Look, my dear two friends: I proved that there predictably exists a measurement which gives a two-percent superluminality value just like the 60 percent of CERN’s. I bet with you that CERN will be grateful for this finding. For these scientists are good.
The point was that no serious scientist would consider this 2% as significant enough tpo be a result.
BTW you have not even shown the calculations with error-esimations etc. Therefore this paper does not meet the quality criteria of any serious journal. t does in fact not meet the criteria normally applied to undergraduate work.
To call it a “proof” is delusional.
Submitting the same paper to multiple journals simultaneously is not just rude, it’s unethical: see, e.g., http://publicationethics.org/case/repetitive-duplicate-submi…ublication
For most major publishers, simultaneous submission also violates the agreement the author has to accept upon submission. Thus, even if the paper happens to be the best thing since sliced bread, it can’t be published because the author has falsified said legal agreement.
Science was not angry. They cited a different reason why they could not publish. I quote: “as the work you are commenting on has not been peer-reviewed and published, we don’t feel that it would be appropriate to consider an expanatory paper at this time.”
Oh, there are many reasons for not publishing it. First of all it does not meet basic scientific standards as I have explained above.
This is not a paper.
Short Public Statement Regarding the New Paper by CERN on the Internet:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 8:04 AM Swiss Time
Subject: Important information on neutrino experiment
Dear Dr. Autiero:
You did not quote in your new paper my results which I had published on the Internet. ( http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/%E2%80%9Ctwo-percent-explai…ting-earth )
This is a major omission which shows you did not put into regard an important source of error.
Please, reply or make a correction in your paper.
Thank you very much,
Sincerely yours,
Otto E. Rossler, Chaos researcher, University of Tübingen
The uncertainty of the measurement is already bigger than your two percent. You have bnot ecen checked that, isn’t it?
poor Rössler. When will you learn to work scientifically? :D
No rational defense visible far and large between, dear colleagues from CERN?
Defense against what? Your crap? :D
no one has to fear this “work”.
The question is more “why have you not even discussed errors andso on :D
I should add that Rössler is the fearflu here. He is fearing the result of a proper derivation of his equation knowing that his complete “theory” w0ould collapse immediately.
He is so fearful that he prefers to insult people rather than deriving his equation. :D