5.9 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 OPERA faster-than-light neutrino anomaly | 4/5 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_OPERA_faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T12:40:44.478096+00:00 | kb-cron |
== The analysis == The OPERA team analyzed the results in different ways and using different experimental methods. Following the initial main analysis released in September, three further analyses were made public in November. In the main November analysis, all the existing data were reanalyzed to allow adjustments for other factors, such as the Sagnac effect in which the Earth's rotation affects the distance traveled by the neutrinos. Then an alternative analysis adopted a different model for the matching of the neutrinos to their creation time. The third analysis of November focused on a different experimental setup ('the rerun') which changed the way the neutrinos were created. In the initial setup, every detected neutrino would have been produced sometime in a 10500 nanoseconds (10.5 microseconds) range, since this was the duration of the proton beam spill generating the neutrinos. It was not possible to isolate neutrino production time further within the spill. Therefore, in their main statistical analyses, the OPERA group generated a model of the proton waveforms at CERN, took the various waveforms together, and plotted the chance of neutrinos being emitted at various times (the global probability density function of the neutrino emission times). They then compared this plot against a plot of the arrival times of the 15223 detected neutrinos. This comparison indicated neutrinos had arrived at the detector 57.8 nanoseconds faster than if they had been traveling at the speed of light in vacuum. An alternative analysis in which each detected neutrino was checked against the waveform of its associated proton spill (instead of against the global probability density function) led to a compatible result of approximately 54.5 nanoseconds. The November main analysis, which showed an early arrival time of 57.8 nanoseconds, was conducted blind to avoid observer bias, whereby those running the analysis might inadvertently fine-tune the result toward expected values. To this end, old and incomplete values for distances and delays from the year 2006 were initially adopted. With the final correction needed not yet known, the intermediate expected result was also an unknown. Analysis of the measurement data under those 'blind' conditions gave an early neutrino arrival of 1043.4 nanoseconds. Afterward, the data were analyzed again taking into consideration the complete and actual sources of errors. If neutrino and light speed were the same, a subtraction value of 1043.4 nanoseconds should have been obtained for the correction. However, the actual subtraction value amounted to only 985.6 nanoseconds, corresponding to an arrival time 57.8 nanoseconds earlier than expected. Two facets of the result came under particular scrutiny within the neutrino community: the GPS synchronization system, and the profile of the proton beam spill that generated neutrinos. The second concern was addressed in the November rerun: for this analysis, OPERA scientists repeated the measurement over the same baseline using a new CERN proton beam which circumvented the need to make any assumptions about the details of neutrino production during the beam activation, such as energy distribution or production rate. This beam provided proton pulses of 3 nanoseconds each with up to 524 nanosecond gaps. This meant a detected neutrino could be tracked uniquely to its generating 3 nanoseconds pulse, and hence its start and end travel times could be directly noted. Thus, the neutrino's speed could now be calculated without having to resort to statistical inference. In addition to the four analyses mentioned earlier—September main analysis, November main analysis, alternative analysis, and the rerun analysis—the OPERA team also split the data by neutrino energy and reported the results for each set of the September and November main analyses. The rerun analysis had too few neutrinos to consider splitting the set further.
== Reception by the physics community == After the initial report of apparent superluminal velocities of neutrinos, most physicists in the field were quietly skeptical of the results, but prepared to adopt a wait-and-see approach. Experimental experts were aware of the complexity and difficulty of the measurement, so an extra unrecognized measurement error was still a real possibility, despite the care taken by the OPERA team. However, because of the widespread interest, several well-known experts did make public comments. Nobel laureates Steven Weinberg, George Smoot III, and Carlo Rubbia, and other physicists not affiliated with the experiment, including Michio Kaku, expressed skepticism about the accuracy of the experiment on the basis that the results challenged a long-held theory consistent with the results of many other tests of special relativity. Nevertheless, Ereditato, the OPERA spokesperson, stated that no one had an explanation that invalidated the experiment's results. Previous experiments of neutrino speed played a role in the reception of the OPERA result by the physics community. Those experiments did not detect statistically significant deviations of neutrino speeds from the speed of light. For instance, Astronomer Royal Martin Rees and theoretical physicists Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking stated neutrinos from the SN 1987A supernova explosion arrived almost at the same time as light, indicating no faster-than-light neutrino speed. John Ellis, theoretical physicist at CERN, believed it difficult to reconcile the OPERA results with the SN 1987A observations. Observations of this supernova restricted 10 MeV anti-neutrino speed to less than 20 parts per billion (ppb) over lightspeed. This was one of the reasons most physicists suspected the OPERA team had made an error.