I would find it quite strange if the original team did not take all of the relativistic effects into account before publishing. If true, however, there are bound to be some embarrassed faces, given that the error is rather elementary in retrospect (as opposed to a hard-to-pinpoint unexpected systematic error in a state-of-the-art one-of-a-kind detector).
We will have to wait for the confirmation from the CERN team that they missed this correction, and if so, what the exact value of the correction is. What I find alarming is that van Elburg, a neuroscientist by training, apparently did not contact the CERN team with his calculations first, but instead rushed to publish them. He certainly does have some credentials in theoretical condensed matter physics, but does not appear to have worked in the area related to the problem in question.
Based on this, I would assign larger than even odds that this FTL refutation will be refuted first, but not large enough to take any bets on it.
However, the whole concept of synchronization of clocks makes it hard to determine in which reference frame the OPERA experiment was set. I propose the experiment was set in the satellite reference frame and has been treated (at least partially) as if it were set in the CERN-Gran Sasso reference frame.
Can someone explain why one would even think the experiment was set in the satellite reference frame? As far as I can tell they never used any clocks on satellites. They just synchronized two clocks—in the same reference frame—to an event outside that reference frame. The satellite doesn’t even need to keep time so long as its signals each have a unique identity and we know the location of the satellite when it sends the signal to set the clocks. You can alter the clocks to account for difference in signal travel time—from the satellite to each clock.
I’m glad you found that. He made the following comment that I found very important:
Apology to the GPS community
Admittedly the first version of the paper was written in a rush. My latest version, which due to the workings of the archive is only available here, is more careful in pointing at the potential pitfalls of the GPS and puts more stress on the fact that my proposal is just a hypothesis. Furthermore I removed the remark on the potential use of these corrections for improved GPS positioning as I am becoming aware that that is untenable.
Since the Author is retracting the comments about GPS, I’ll update the original post accordingly.
The uncertainty of close-to-even-odds tends to be so high, figuring out comfortable odds for a bet is quite hard (10:1? 100:1?). Thus, I only bet on the things I am extremely confident about, and even then only at even odds. Sorry if it is not overly Bayesian of me.
I would find it quite strange if the original team did not take all of the relativistic effects into account before publishing. If true, however, there are bound to be some embarrassed faces, given that the error is rather elementary in retrospect (as opposed to a hard-to-pinpoint unexpected systematic error in a state-of-the-art one-of-a-kind detector).
We will have to wait for the confirmation from the CERN team that they missed this correction, and if so, what the exact value of the correction is. What I find alarming is that van Elburg, a neuroscientist by training, apparently did not contact the CERN team with his calculations first, but instead rushed to publish them. He certainly does have some credentials in theoretical condensed matter physics, but does not appear to have worked in the area related to the problem in question.
Based on this, I would assign larger than even odds that this FTL refutation will be refuted first, but not large enough to take any bets on it.
From his apology:
Can someone explain why one would even think the experiment was set in the satellite reference frame? As far as I can tell they never used any clocks on satellites. They just synchronized two clocks—in the same reference frame—to an event outside that reference frame. The satellite doesn’t even need to keep time so long as its signals each have a unique identity and we know the location of the satellite when it sends the signal to set the clocks. You can alter the clocks to account for difference in signal travel time—from the satellite to each clock.
I’m glad you found that. He made the following comment that I found very important:
Since the Author is retracting the comments about GPS, I’ll update the original post accordingly.
Presumably you mean not enough to take any bets on it at even odds?
The uncertainty of close-to-even-odds tends to be so high, figuring out comfortable odds for a bet is quite hard (10:1? 100:1?). Thus, I only bet on the things I am extremely confident about, and even then only at even odds. Sorry if it is not overly Bayesian of me.