Thread: It is always darkest before dawn - for neutrinos?

Originally Posted by PaddyX21

Am I being foolish by suggesting that, over the distance travelled in this experiment, the error in the instrumentation must be within the standard deviation of the results?

I don't know - tell me first what is the standard deviation of the results and we can take it from there!

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I don't know - tell me first what is the standard deviation of the results and we can take it from there!

I'm afraid it is a little beyond my ability to understand, but here are the results in question: http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf

Yes.

The error margin of the entire system was 10 ns. The observed discrepancy was 60 ns, which is way beyond the error margin.
There are over 100 names on the paper, and teams of scientists spent months covering all possible sources of interference, ranging from positioning error to the tidal influence of the moon. They came up blank.

Btw, similar observations have been made before, but in those cases they were at the edge of the error margin. One place where they made such an observation is going to repeat the CERN experiment and hopes to be done within a couple of months. Technically, they already have the data of the current experiments. Now they need another couple of months to interpret data.

Yeah, I got the 7.4 ns systematic uncertainty, plus the 18ish ns statistical uncertainty, but only after I had asked the question lol!
And with an n=16111 then it looks pretty compelling.

*waves hand semi-convincingly*
These are not the neutrinos you are looking for.

Originally Posted by PaddyX21

I'm afraid it is a little beyond my ability to understand, but here are the results in question: http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf



Yeah, I got the 7.4 ns systematic uncertainty, plus the 18ish ns statistical uncertainty, but only after I had asked the question lol!
And with an n=16111 then it looks pretty compelling.

It would be uber-cool if this can be confirmed.
Not only because of exciting new prospects, but also because we finally have something which can be used to test new theories.
We needed the accelerator in CERN to rule out SUSY. And CERN cost a lot of money.
If we have a verified new observation, new theories can be falsified much quicker (and cheaper).

Still a big 'IF' of course.
Much will hinge on the next couple of months.

All this assumes the stated accuracies are, well, accurate. If there's any variation in timing accuracy that isn't accounted for then things could be far less, or far more, interesting.
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

Originally Posted by PaddyX21

Am I being foolish by suggesting that, over the distance travelled in this experiment, the error in the instrumentation must be within the standard deviation of the results?

Yes.

The error margin of the entire system was 10 ns. The observed discrepancy was 60 ns, which is way beyond the error margin.
There are over 100 names on the paper, and teams of scientists spent months covering all possible sources of interference, ranging from positioning error to the tidal influence of the moon. They came up blank.

Btw, similar observations have been made before, but in those cases they were at the edge of the error margin. One place where they made such an observation is going to repeat the CERN experiment and hopes to be done within a couple of months. Technically, they already have the data of the current experiments. Now they need another couple of months to interpret data.