Banner
    Opera Result Affected By Instrumental Error !
    By Tommaso Dorigo | February 22nd 2012 04:42 PM | 73 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Tommaso

    I am an experimental particle physicist working with the CMS experiment at CERN. In my spare time I play chess, abuse the piano, and aim my dobson...

    View Tommaso's Profile
    This just in: the controversial Opera result on superluminal neutrinos is affected by a previously unaccounted for experimental error, which completely overturns the conclusions.

    This is explained in detail here. Note that the source is James Gillies, head of Communications at CERN, and thus hardly a "unofficial leak". In fact, tomorrow there will be a CERN press release on the matter.

    The relevant quote is the following:

    "earlier this month scientists found a problem in the GPS system used to time the arrival of neutrino particles at an underground lab in Italy.

    Gillies says only further measurements planned for later this year will confirm whether the problem introduced an error that made the neutrinos appear to move faster than light."

    It appears that the source of the problem is a connection of a fiber optic cable to a hardware board, which introduces a time delay which gets subtracted in the neutrino timing measurement.
    So, no new physics from Opera neutrinos after all. Einstein may rest in peace, Relativity holds, and new physics model builders can have a good night of sleep tonight.

    An additional link is here. From it you get to know (but I am not sure one should trust this information literally) that the time delay, after fixing the connection, equals 60 nanoseconds - exactly the discrepancy with the expected timing of neutrinos.

    It remains to wait for the press conference. I must say I am relieved -I was never a big fan of the Opera finding. If new physics needs  to emerge somehow from the present generation of particle physics experiments, I have all reasons to believe it will do so at the LHC. And still, I believe it won't... But that is another story.

    Comments

    "It appears that the source of the problem is a connection of a fiber optic cable to a hardware board, which introduces a time delay which gets subtracted in the neutrino timing measurement."

    LOL!!!

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Its interesting that the Global News article you linked to says :-
    Two separate issues were identified with the GPS system that was used to time the arrival of neutrinos at an underground lab in Italy, James Gillies, spokesman for the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, said Wednesday.

    One could have caused the speed to be overestimated, the other could have caused it to be underestimated, he said.

    "The bottom line is that we will not know until more measurements are done later this year," Gillies told The Associated Press.

    Couldn't small computer errors be occurring everywhere, how do we know for sure that there aren't any in the Large Hadron Collider's 3 tier trigger system, if there were tiny errors in just a few of the computer connections how would we even know? Surely they could cause statistical bumps in the data that could then be misinterpreted as being signs of new physics and/or particles? I suppose that this is where comparisons and corroborations between different scientific establishments becomes very important. However, there is only one Large Hadron Collidor operating at such high energies, in order to properly corroborate the LHC results surely you need two large hadron colliders to compare and now even the Tevatron has gone?
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    "I must say I am relieved -I was never a big fan of the Opera finding."

    Why not? IF it had been something, that would have been great, not bad. Too bad it wasn't, though.

    As isn't the possibility of revolutionary new knowledge always a good thing? That's what science is all about, and so that is why I consider this a bummer. Though given the other blows that had been dealt to the result (like Cohen & Glashow, etc.) and the high bar such a result would have to pass, this is not surprising, but it is still a bummer nonetheless.

    dorigo
    What I mean is that I never believed it mike3. The longer we live with a wrong result the more our science is affected by it.

    Cheers,
    T.
    "I must say I am relieved -I was never a big fan of the Opera finding. If new physics needs to emerge somehow from the present generation of particle physics experiments, I have all reasons to believe it will do so at the LHC. And still, I believe it won't... But that is another story."

    So then it seems like you wouldn't have liked having to change your beliefs. But shouldn't a good scientist be willing and even eager to change his beliefs if something interesting appears?

    Or he has a good handle on the difference between real science and fantasyLand falsifications of a truly impregnable theory.

    But that doesn't seem to make sense as to why it would need to be a "relief" that it was not "falsified" here. Even if it's not likely to happen, that doesn't mean one should actively hate the prospect of it happening if it seems like it could at some moment.

    There's a big difference between being skeptical that a result will prove correct (which is good) and being scared of new knowledge coming from unexpected directions.

    "But shouldn't a good scientist be willing and even eager to change his beliefs if something interesting appears?"

    Yes, but in this case nothing interesting appeared. It was quite reasonable for a good scientist to recognize that there were far too many opportunities for error in the equipment for this to be an interesting report.

    dorigo
    I am not talking of varying my beliefs. I was sure from the beginning that this was an instrumental effect, as I wrote several times in this blog. What I meant with my "relief" is that I am happy if we get back to reality asap.

    A good scientist should be sceptical in the face of extraordinary claims. 6 sigma are not sufficient for claiming that relativity does not hold....

    Cheers,
    T.
    So the errors go in opposite directions? So the delay might really be 120 ns, thereby falsifying all 230 papers citing the OPERA paper! Great news, now we can write another 230 papers explaining the new 120 ns discrepancy, right?

    It's cold fusion all over again ;')

    Poor Sascha, his whole card house of ad-hoc superluminal jump theories collapses in oblivion...

    In Lorentz covariance we trust...

    rholley
    The fat lady has sung.
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    Has she? Are you sure? She might just have cleared her throat!

    Thor Russell
    Not until Chesterton has been quoted ...
    Thor Russell
    Let's have it right:

    "It appears that the source of the problem is a connection of a fiber optic cable to a hardware board, which introduces a time delay which gets subtracted in the neutrino timing measurement." . Instead of added, I understand?

    So the error was not in the instrument, but in the calculations. Shame on all you smart guys at CERN.

    I can't tell whether you're joking or not, so let me assume you are serious.

    With an experiment like this, it is important to take into account the time it takes for a signal to propagate through the hardware. This time must be subtracted to obtain the true arrival time of the neutrinos. If the signal takes 60ns longer than expected, due to some hardware problem, then an extraneous 60ns is being subtracted to find the arrival time, making it seem that the neutrinos have arrived 60ns early.

    John Hasenkam
    Another good reason for scientists NOT to rant and rave about a peculiar result until the dust settles. Happens too often these days, too much publicity and a loss of intellectual prudence. 
    If new physics needs to emerge somehow from the present generation of particle physics experiments, I have all reasons to believe it will do so at the LHC. And still, I believe it won't... But that is another story.

    What!? You can't throw the stone and then hide your hand ... its not allowed. Now, speak!

    dorigo
    Six years ago I have bet $1000 that the LHC experiments will not find new physics in 10/fb of pp collisions...

    Cheers,
    T.
    Woe on CERN. I tracked this back to 21th of september last year, when Tommaso was threatened to lose his job if he didn't take back his blogpost, because the communication department wanted to make a big scoop at the press conference. After 5 months pondering by what we supposed to be the smartest guys in the world, they found a line of code somewhere that said '-' instead of '+'. How many lines of code were there involved at all? If I were Microsoft I wouldn't hire those kids for the testing department. 5000 men-months down the drain. Swoosh.
    Plus: next time CERN comes with breaking news, like say: 'We found the Higgs with more than 2.3 sigma', I'd ask: Áre you sure there's not a line wrong in your code? They'd say: 'Well we're not sure, we'll tell you in 5 months'.

    This reminds me of a dumb error we had in the easter algorithm. Somebody copied it from Knuth, so it must be right, but it appeared to be one day off. Now Knuth had his algorithm from pope Gregorius, ex catedra, so there's no discussion. Roma locuta, causa finita.
    Being responsible for the right execution of the code, when nobody wasn't looking, I changed the code by adding '+1' somewhere. Meanwhile the discussions had simmered down and I just stayed silent and innocent for a year. Next easter showed me right, and we never discussed about the Gregorian algorithm anymore. You wouldn't make yourself popular by discussing Knuth, but if you wanted to start a discussion with pope Gregorius after 5 centuries, it was time to call the mental hospital.

    dorigo
    Paul, what you say is not correct. It is not a software problem or adding instead than subtracting. Physics is hard, despite the attempts at trivialization. It is the malfunctioning of a cable connection which we are discussing here.

    T.
    The CERN press release gives two reasons http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html ,

    "The first possible effect concerns an oscillator used to provide the time stamps for GPS synchronizations. It could have led to an overestimate of the neutrino's time of flight. The second concerns the optical fibre connector that brings the external GPS signal to the OPERA master clock, which may not have been functioning correctly when the measurements were taken. If this is the case, it could have led to an underestimate of the time of flight of the neutrinos."

    All,

    Please read carefully the official statement:

    http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html

    There are two sources of experimental error due to hardware malfunctioining. Their effect on time-of-flight readings is opposite. Tests are bound to continue with short pulsed beams in May to (hopefully) bring the issue to a close.

    Wth! Why they published the result and only after they did bother to check that everything was carried on properly?

    dorigo
    This is not a correct representation of the facts Luke. The Opera collaboration did an enormous amount of checks before we even got to know about the effect. They continued after they first let us know that they had observed an anomaly. I think it is very stupid of they had hidden the current status of their knowledge for months.

    Cheers,
    T.
    Stupid or prudent? I mean, you are speaking of something like ftl neutrinos....and in fact, it happens that they *did* found something wrong. This must be the unluckiest group of smart people in the world...well, it can happen. However, the surely have courage: first they upset the world by announcing the discovery of faster than light neutrinos, then they say that maybe it was due to a wrong connection...

    "The current status of their knowledge"? The current status of their knowledge back in September was really, "Our gadgets seem to indicate superluminal signals. Obviously that means that there is something wrong with the gadget. We will let you know when we have worked out what that is."
    Of course, that would hardly have warranted an arxiv article.

    Why is it so difficult to just accept the fact that nuetrino's do have mass...about a millionth that of an electron. Special and General Relativity have stood up to rigorous tests on Earth and in our solar system and are sound. The very GPS you are using is corrected for time delay for crying out loud. You are spending gazzilions of dollars and getting nowhere....you should be working on completing and perfecting/ expanding Einstien's work. That in itself is the greatest scientific breakthrough. You are looking in the wrong direction, more research needs to be done in Astrophysics ans Cosmology.

    dorigo
    Sorry Anon, you got this wrong twice.

    1) The speed measurement does not have anything to do with neutrinos having or not having mass. Even if massless, they would have to travel to the speed of light, not faster.
    2) In any case this experiment did not cost really much, since all the technology and the experiments and the beams were there for another purpose. This was a nearly zero-cost measurement.

    Cheers,
    T.
    The Stand-Up Physicist
    I have no idea how someone could show that a connection between a fiber optic cable and a motherboard was "loose" in a way that contributed 60 nanoseconds to a measurement. Being able to find this error is impressive in a way. Experimental physics is hard to do. Theoretical is almost impossible (good bye supersymmetry by summertime?)
    Did they measure the delay with the loose and then tightened cable and find a 60 ns difference? ScienceInsider (Cartlidge) seems to say so, but the other sources (OPERA, CERN, Luca Stanco) are all quiet on that front. BTW, I do agree with Doug S's comment - figuring out this precisely how much difference a loose cable makes to a result seems even less possible than breaking the speed of light :-)

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Why on earth is everyone talking about the loose optic fibre connection to the motherboard somehow being the cause of an overestimate of the speed of the neutrinos when the CERN press release clearly says that this loose connection would have probably underestimated the speed of the neutrinos? They could have been even faster than 60ns above the speed of light if the optic fibre had been connected properly :-
    The second concerns the optical fibre connector that brings the external GPS signal to the OPERA master clock, which may not have been functioning correctly when the measurements were taken. If this is the case, it could have led to an underestimate of the time of flight of the neutrinos.
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Speed = distance / time of flight. If time of flight is underestimated, velocity is overestimated.

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Oh whoops yes! Thanks Anonymous.
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    I noticed two things here:
    first we get information about adding/substracting some delay at the analog/digital interface, now it's about a loose plug that gives a consistent 60 ns for half a year.
    my last post was held up for an hour for moderizing, then i get a sweet answer by Tommaso that the code is ok, it's only that loose plug.
    Tommaso, are you OK? Or are you kept hostage in a 32 kilometer vault by the communication department?
    Oy, Tommaso. Maybe we should all come to Genf to see that most wonderful loose plug and leave some pizza's in the vault, enough to keep you alive for 5 months of plug debugging.

    Dear Tommaso,
    congratulations

    In fact I remember that in September
    you suggested the error could be in the refractive index of optical fibers

    you were right

    dorigo
    I do not understand your comment Roberto. The time delay of the fiber has
    not been remeasured yet.

    Best,
    T.
    Daniel de França MTd2
    But they are still doing the test in May...  So, they are doing "just in case",  right?
    Excuse my uniformed speculation, but the only way that I can see
    to get 60ns is if the board in question is used to convert the leading
    edge of a long pulse to a timing signal; in that case the loss due
    to a loose connection would give a different trigger point.

    The dispersion in long cables would be the reason why the leading
    edge of the pulse is not very steep.

    FWIW

    ryan

    dorigo
    No, apparently the issue is the connector being in a undefined state during
    data-taking, causing the software a fixed delay before accepting a signal.

    Cheers,
    T.
    This is the first real detail I have seen of the issue - Thanks. Weren't they supposed to release a detailed report on the issue?

    Hi Tommaso, I read some old articles from you about the 1K$ bet but I do not know what are
    the reasons of the feelings that bring you to say that no new BSM physics will be found at LHC
    (at least in the first 10pb-1).
    If I remember, I think only the SM Higgs will be found.
    Could you comment? I'm aware that you cannot have a fully scientific explanation to that.
    Do you rely your hopes into the next generation precision experiments? (ILC, B-factories..?)

    Thank for any comment.

    Hank
    Oh well.  This is still funny...

    ROTFL!!!!

    As seen by a patron who is suitably in a hurry!

    gunn
    "OPERA experiment reports anomaly in flight time of neutrinos from CERN to Gran Sasso"


    http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html


    "t has identified two possible effects that could have an influence on its neutrino timing measurement. 
    These both require further tests with a short pulsed beam. If confirmed, one would increase the size of 
    the measured effect, the other would diminish it. "














    CERN is saying "could," so saying by saying "completely overturns" and "is," this article is really jumping the gun:

    CERN has released a statement to confirm that the OPERA collaboration has identified a feature of its experiment that could explain its puzzling superluminal-neutrino discovery

    Great spooky stuff. Sadly CERN prefers to capitalize on the bad publicity too. Is it coincidental to find the problem exactly where the first announcement rush took place?
    FTL neutrinos are debunked, FTL publicity and press conferences when their turn?

    -- s

    Maybe this helps clarifying the apparent discrepancy between the "Science" report and the "CERN press release":

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/science/neutrinos-speed-in-question-be...

    The article's source was OPERA-spokesman D. Autiero. They say, that the OPERA team checked the fiber-cable connection with "dimmer light pulses" and found a 60ns error, "that could bring the neutrinos’ speed back under the speed of light". They also report, without details, about another problem that might increase the speed of neutrinos.

    Luis Gonzalez-Mestres
    You write "Einstein may rest in peace". Its is true that CERN and other institutions have been referring to Einstein concerning this OPERA claim. But actually, OPERA would possibly test the postulate that the speed of light is an absolute critical speed for waves and matter in all inertial reference frames. This principle is not due to Albert Einstein but to Henri Poincaré, and was also considered by Hendrik Antoon Lorentz well before Einstein. Similarly, the theory of special relativity was actually first formulated by Poincaré with an important contribution by Lorentz.

    Here follow three articles I wrote concerning the OPERA result :
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6308 (the first paper pointing out the potential problems related to neutrino spontaneous decays and to pion decay)
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6630 (simultaneously with the paper by Cohen and Glashow on neutrino decay, and previous to other papers on pion decay)
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.1277 (HEP 2011 proceedings)

    Best regards
    Luis Gonzalez-Mestres
    What's the connection between who formulated first special relativity and your papers?
    Maybe you are doing a communication error llike CERN did releasing too early this neutrino result.
    In has been really interesting seeing this story: a crazy result published and the arxive flooded by theoreticians
    trying to explain what at the end was a loose cable.
    Really funny. And you are still advertising your papers?

    On the face of it, your claims to having noted the pion decay and neutrino decay problems earlier do seem credible, even if the calculations don't look as detailed. Why didn't you submit to journals?

    >>This principle is not due to Albert Einstein but

    ....This is why the Lorentz transform is not called the Einstein transform. Still, considering the unlikely contortions and constructions (as well as the fixation on electromagnetism alone) that were made to explain constancy of speed-of-light in all moving reference frames before Einstein just cut to the chase (though not elegantly) in Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, I think designating the young man as keeper of the lightspeed is not up for discussion.

    http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/A._Einstein:_Kommentare_und_Erl%C3%A4uterun...

    Luis Gonzalez-Mestres
    "I think designating the young man as keeper of the light speed is not up for discussion".

    This is just wrong. Poincaré formulated the relativity principle already in the 1890's, and also Lorentz worked on it. The Lorentz transformation (1904) explicitly incorporates the constancy of the speed of light and its role as a critical speed. Poincaré explicitly emphasized these principles in his 1904 St Louis talk. He underlined that they should be general principles of mechanics, and not just for electromagnetism. There were no "contortions" in the work by Poincaré and Lorentz, including the first June 1905 paper by Poincaré published before Einstein had sent anything to the editors of Annalen der Physik.

    The propaganda (of German origin) supporting Einstein on the special relativity affair was basically political, less than ten years before the I World War. Henri Poincaré was a French scientist born in Lorraine, and first cousin of the politician Raymond Poincaré who became later the President of France (1913-1920) and led his country during the war. In 1905, some German lobbies did not want Henri Poincaré to get a Nobel Prize. But Henri Poincaré was not supported by several influential French physicists who considered him as a "mathematician" and a sort of "rival", and furthermore did not like his first cousin. 

    Henri Poincaré was also well known for his reports supporting Captain Alfred Dreyfus (an Alsatian !) against some official experts.
    Luis Gonzalez-Mestres
    "What's the connection between who formulated first special relativity and your papers?"

    I did not claim any connection, I just addressed these two comments to the article by Tommaso Dorigo.

    Please notice also that the papers I mention were mainly devoted to the question of the consistency of the OPERA claim with a general context of (in principle) well-established results in Particle Physics and Astrophysics. They were quite critical and I did not try to explain the OPERA result at any price.

    The day before Cohen and Glashow posted their article, I pointed out two possible sources of theoretical inconsistency for the OPERA statement : i) the superluminal neutrino can decay spontaneously ; ii) the pion can be prevented by kinematical considerations from emitting such a neutrino.  These remarks concerned globally the available data, and not just the energies of the OPERA pions and neutrinos.

    Subsequently, Cohen and Glashow confirmed point i) for the neutrino propagating from CERN to Gran Sasso, and I further developed point ii) confirming my claim. As I emphasize in my HEP 2011 article (published by PoS, Proceedings of Science), the consistency problem for OPERA from my calculations concerning neutrino emission by the pion appears already before introducing neutrino masses.

    I have not sent to a review my papers http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6308 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6630 , but they are cited by colleagues. The OPERA collaboration does not seem to have sent to a review the article http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 . But in any case, I have always been very skeptical with respect to the so-called "refereed reviews" whose crisis is now becoming more and more apparent. See my blog here and my comments to this article in Nature : http://www.nature.com/news/elsevier-boycott-gathers-pace-1.10010 . By now, more that 7000 colleagues have signed the statement The Cost of Knowledge, http://thecostofknowledge.com/, and this is just the financial side of the crisis.
    Correction: OPERA did send their paper to JHEP. They probably will withdraw it now. But I am still curious as to the state of the connector at data collection time. Why don't they know? When they first checked the connector after the last round of data collection in Oct/Nov 2011, did the connector look loose? Or was it they went around pulling and pushing at things to see if they could simulate a 60 nsec error? Their statements dance around this point.

    Luis Gonzalez-Mestres
    "OPERA did send their paper to JHEP"

    Thank you. Are you sure of your source ? To my knowledge, they never specified this in arXiv and there is nothing in INSPIRE. Or did I miss something ?
    The INFN website (agency which runs the Gran Sasso lab) says so:
    http://www.infn.it/news/newsen.php?id=629

    Another source:
    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/faster-than-light-neut...
    That doesn't say exactly which journal.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/nov/18/neutrinos-still-faster-tha...

    That mentions JHEP.

    A fairly reliable source for general information on what has been happening with OPERA is:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly

    Here is another link--an interview with Hagner, an OPERA team lead, where she mentions the JHEP submission may have to be withdrawn (if you don't read German, you can use Google translate - this particular point kind of shows up).
    http://science.orf.at/stories/1694983/

    While none of the above sources, even INFN, are fully credible in themselves, I think the submission to JHEP is pretty much well established. I don't know at what stage the peer review is.

    Luis Gonzalez-Mestres
    Thank you indeed. The JHEP site does not seem to contain any track of the OPERA paper.
    The error is not instrumental, it is a universal law. The clocks underground will move faster than the clocks on the earth surface. This difference in time produced by the difference between the reading of clocks on the earth surface and the clocks underground. Review my solution for the opera, Icarus ans Sn 1987a  http://vixra.org/pdf/1112.0071v1.pdf
    Comment on your last paragraph:

    "It remains to wait for the press conference. I must say I am relieved -I was never a big fan of the Opera finding. If new physics needs to emerge somehow from the present generation of particle physics experiments, I have all reasons to believe it will do so at the LHC. And still, I believe it won't... But that is another story."

    LHC and OPERA have worked in conjunction with each other. In fact, the OPERA experiment took its neutrino source from LHC hardware being fired. I'm not sure why you are expressing what appears to be an implied disconnect between OPERA and the LHC by saying that new physics will emerge only at the LHC.

    dorigo
    No Felix, you are wrong. The LHC has nothing to do with the Opera experiment nor with the beam of neutrinos. The neutrinos come from fixed target collisions of protons extracted from a lower energy machine. The LHC has a different physics program. It shares some of the resources with the facility producing the neutrinos, but that's little more informative than saying that two organizations share a building where they have their offices.

    Cheers,
    T.
    "tomorrow there will be a CERN press release on the matter."

    "It remains to wait for the press conference."

    So, has the press conference/press release been made public already?

    Well it was alway like to be error in measurement, and I hope its not to embrassing for CERN. I was just about to post an article on a solution to stopping closed timelike loops when there are faster than light neutrinos in matter, no need for that now. I'll leave that matter buried, unless CERNs next run, with there GPS cable plugged in, finds super fast neutrinos again.

    There is more in Science on this. The connector is coax and screwed in. What they did was check what happens when the connector is unscrewed a bit. It introduces an extra delay, with the value depending on how much the connector is unscrewed and the strength of the pulse. As far as I can make out, there is no apriori reason to believe the connector was indeed loose to begin with. This doesn’t seem as big an issue as the initial reports had it. If one goes about pulling and pushing things out, one definitely will find ways to pry things loose enough to produce the needed 60 ns discrepancy.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6072/1027

    So looks like we are back to square one–either OPERA is right and we have new physics, or there is an experimental error waiting to be either discovered or implicitly proved with a refuting replication. Note that assuming a connector stayed exactly and precisely loose enough to produce the same delay across many years is an impossible explanation (that 60 ns was the mean of the error doesn't wash either; the OPERA repeat also showed exactly 60ns for each neutrino detected); the simpler explanation is the connector stayed tight throughout. The tight state is its stable state.

    A small correction - the connection is coax and plugged in (not screwed in). So they unplugged it a bit to check (didn't unscrew it). So their measurements related to how unplugged (tilted, crooked, German 'schief' per Carol Hagner - a project manager at OPERA) the connector was. But the central point above stays.

    Is general relativity theory 100% correct with regard to GPS timing? According to the Rañada-Milgrom effect based upon Milgrom's MOND, the answer to the preceding question is no.
    http://www.ucm.es/info/electron/personal/ranada.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_McGaugh
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Kroupa
    The Rañada-Milgrom effect is approximately true for low gravitational accelerations due to the work of Milgrom, McGaugh, and Kroupa. The Rañada-Milgrom effect is approximately true for high gravitational accelerations because of the facts on gravitational lensing. See http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0016v1.pdf “Anomalous Gravitational Acceleration and the OPERA Neutrino Anomaly (Updated)”.
    Is the equivalence principle true for VIRTUAL mass-energy?
    See http://vixra.org/pdf/1202.0092v1.pdf “Finite Nature Hypothesis and Space Roar Profile Prediction”