Of Particular Significance

Blog – Of Particular Significance

On Friday I learned, and reported to you, that the OPERA experiment’s investigations into its early-arriving-neutrino anomaly (widely reported as `faster-than-light neutrinos’), performed with help from the nearby LVD experiment, have basically confirmed that a combination of (1) an optical fiber within the main timing system that was incorrectly screwed in, and (2) a timing drift in OPERA’s main synchronizing clock, together caused the observed 60 nanosecond early-arrival time.  The fiber provides the main effect, with the clock drift playing a subsidiary role.

However, in Friday’s post I only gave you the main idea of how this was done.  I have now finished an article that goes through the OPERA story in detail, to the extent I understand it, from the initial discovery and diagnosis of the two problems through the scientific investigation that demonstrated that the two problems probably caused all of the effect that OPERA observed.  On the one hand, the solution of the mystery is a classic scientific detective story,  instructive and interesting, and for its rather convincing and successful conclusion, the OPERA team deserves applause.  On the other hand, it leaves one wondering if this whole episode could have been avoided; why didn’t some of these investigations, which don’t seem exceptionally subtle, happen before OPERA announced its results?

Be that as it may, preliminarily (which means unofficially in this context — OPERA still has more work to do before they can announce a result officially) the revised result from OPERA-2 (the short-pulse version of OPERA) agrees with Einstein’s prediction that neutrinos at these high energies should travel at a speed unmeasurably close to the speed of light.  And thus it agrees with the ICARUS experiment’s recent result. So we now have two preliminary confirmations that the neutrinos coming to the Gran Sasso lab from CERN obey Einstein’s speed limit.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON April 2, 2012

[QUICK UPDATE April 2: I’ve now finished an article giving more details of how OPERA, with LVD’s help, solved the mystery.]

[UPDATE March 31 2 a.m.: following study of the slides from a mini-workshop recording the results of investigations by OPERA and LVD, I now have the information to remove all the guesswork from my original post; you’ll see outdated information crossed out and newer and more precise information written in orange.  I’ve also added figures from the talks.]

March 30 5:30 p.m. Two main scientists at OPERA, one leading the OPERA team as a whole and the other leading the neutrino speed measurement, resigned their leadership positions today.  The suggestion from the press is that this is due to personal and scientific conflicts within the OPERA experiment, rather than due directly to the errors made in the neutrino speed experiment; but of course the way the measurement was publicized by OPERA caused serious internal conflicts at the time and are surely part of the issue.    [Oh, and meanwhile, back over at the CERN lab, some good news: collisions at the Large Hadron Collider with 8 TeV of energy per collision were achieved this afternoon.]

The mystery surrounding OPERA, the Gran Sasso experiment which (apparently through a technical problem) measured that neutrinos sent from the CERN lab to the Gran Sasso lab in Italy arrived earlier than expected by 60 nanoseconds, seems to be on the verge of being is resolved.  Statements made by an OPERA scientist in the Italian language press, pointed out to me by commenters (Titus and A.K.), seem to imply that OPERA has more or less confirmed that the problematic fiber optic cable (along with the clock problem, to a lesser extent) was responsible for a 60 nanosecond (billionth-of-a-second) shift in the timing, creating the false result.  We do not yet have official information from OPERA about this, but talks given at a mini-workshop a couple of days ago make clear that this is the case.

The way this was done if I/we understand the Italian correctly is something like is the following  with all details still very uncertain. (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON March 30, 2012

Ok, folks: yesterday’s first installment of my mass and energy article, discussing energy and momentum, has been extended with a second installment.  Mass has made its appearance now, along with Einstein’s famous relations between energy, momentum, mass and speed, which are described and analyzed using… triangles.  Yes, if you can remember what Pythagoras had to say about triangles, you can understand quite a lot about what Einstein was saying about relativity when he proposed his striking revision of Newtonian thinking.  And I also address some obvious puzzles that bother everyone the first time they hear about this stuff…

The new material from today starts with the section marked “Mass … “.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON March 29, 2012

Quick update today; just wanted you to know that some qualitative discussion of energy and momentum appears in this new article, to which I will add a discussion of mass over the next day or two.  The article also has a bit more about Emmy Noether, the mathematician whom I wrote about yesterday.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON March 28, 2012

It is quite amusing to find that just as I am drafting an article on mass and energy, in which Emmy Noether, one of the important mathematicians and mathematical physicists of the last century, makes a central appearance, the New York Times decides this is the day to make her deservedly famous among the wider public.  A contemporary of Einstein’s, whose respect for her intellect is well-documented, Noether is certainly revered among physicists, but is surprisingly unknown outside of physics and mathematics.

If it’s any indication of her influence on my field, a search of a repository of papers in particle physics, quantum field theory and string theory over the last four decades finds her name in the title of 279 articles, which is pretty darn good for a mathematician who died over 75 years ago; for comparison, Einstein and Feynman’s names appear in over 5000 and over 1500 paper titles respectively, though they were full-time physicists and many things in modern physics were named after them.  What Noether did in mathematics I can’t properly characterize — an expert in modern algebra will have to describe that — but within physics, Noether’s name is most commonly associated with a profound mathematical theorem of great importance for physics.  It is the theorem that clarifies why some quantities in nature (such as energy and angular momentum) are conserved (physics language for “preserved”, or “unchanging over time”.)   We’ll be celebrating the centenary of this theorem in 2015 (it was written down in 1915, though only published in 1918).

I’ll be putting up my mass and energy article up in stages; some part of it should go up tomorrow.  In the meantime, enjoy the well-written and apparently correct New York Times article, whose only flaw, perhaps, is that it slightly over-states  Noether’s role in physics (she wasn’t as important as Einstein, but that’s hardly a criticism) while almost completely neglecting her important achievements in pure mathematics, some of which also had a later role in physics.  And also enjoy Einstein’s memorial tribute to her, which is likely the first time that her name appeared in the Times, and which gives perhaps a more properly balanced description of her achievements.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON March 27, 2012

Today I am beginning a long sequence of articles that will allow me to address some very basic and easily misunderstood concepts in physics: mass, energy, matter, force, and so on.  Along the way I will be dealing with some of the questions that readers have been asking me, such as whether mass and energy are or are not fundamentally the same; why the neutron is stable inside many atomic nuclei even though it decays when it is on its own; why the proton has a mass which is larger than those of the quarks that it contains; etc.  I’ve just completed the first link in this long chain, an article on the annihilation of particles with anti-particles.  I’ve described some (not all!) of the rules that govern this process, which is one of the most important in all of particle physics.  (You can also read a shorter and older article about anti-particles here.)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON March 26, 2012

Search

Buy The Book

Reading My Book?

Got a question? Ask it here.

Media Inquiries

For media inquiries, click here.