[time-nuts] Neutrino timing

Tom Van Baak tvb at LeapSecond.com
Mon Oct 24 23:45:59 UTC 2011


The US experiment (MINOS) got the slightest hint there might be a
problem but my understanding is that their error bars were as wide
as the effect they saw and thus no conclusion could be reached.

The error bars were not because of GPS timing. It's simply because
they only detected a small number of neutrinos. Really small, like
tens or maybe hundreds. So they have large statistical uncertainty.

By contrast the European result was from 3 years of data collecting
and something like 15,000 neutrino events. So their error bars are
much smaller.

I could be misrepresenting the actual numbers; I'm no expert in any
of this, but the gist should be correct.

These might help:

There's also a Japanese neutrino experiment. Between the three
of them I understand we'll see better results within a few years.
There's obviously a lot of interest in the subject.

One thing it has done is give the niche of precise timing another
15 minutes of fame. More people now understand our obsession
with nanoseconds.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ws at Yahoo" <warrensjmail-one at yahoo.com>
To: <time-nuts at febo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Neutrino timing

> Tom
> Thanks
> I see how your comments apply to the later reported test but not so much to 
> the US experiment IF one accepts as accurate the statements that  Marvin 
> Marshak posted which said in part;
> "This U.S. beam has been used to make a similar measurement,
> but the GPS timing equipment that was used resulted in an estimated 
> uncertainty of about 70 ns
> in the neutrino time-of-flight, too large to test the recently reported 
> effect.
> I am one of a group of physicists working with the neutrino beam in the 
> U.S."
> Are you saying that the 70ns  uncertainty statement was not due to Just the 
> time of flight as he stated?
> Or did he mean "error" and Not "uncertainty" ?
> What I also find interesting is that the US  test  "Uncertainty" was about 
> the same number as the others "reported results"
> .More unbelievable to me that they have the skill and money and a 100 people 
> envolved for 5 years in this to shoot neutrinos and hit a target that far 
> away, but can not measure relitive time at two known points any better than 
> 70ns.
> There's got to be something missing and more to this story than that.
> ws

More information about the time-nuts mailing list