| Revision as of 14:21, 17 June 2012 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,026 editsm Signing comment by Thorlp - "→Removal of references to Quantum Spring Theory's explanation of the anomoly: "← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:37, 17 January 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,274 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: paws [2.2] | ||
| (36 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{FailedGA|12:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)|topic=Physics and astronomy|page=}} | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Articles for creation|class=B|ts=20111009013932|reviewer=Ajoykt}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Physics |class=B |importance=high }} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{hidden infoboxes|title=Article history| | |||
| {{FailedGA|19:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)|topic=physics and astronomy|page=2}} | |||
| {{DYK talk|19 October|2011|entry=... that physicists running the ] detected neutrino particles ''']'''?}} | |||
| {{Old merge full |otherpage=OPERA experiment |date=19 October 2011 |result='''don't merge''' |talk=Talk:OPERA_experiment#Merge_proposal}} | |||
| {{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| Line 16: | Line 5: | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| |algo = old(60d) | |algo = old(60d) | ||
| |archive = Talk: |
|archive = Talk:2011 OPERA faster-than-light neutrino anomaly/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{ArticleHistory | |||
| {{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months |index= /Archive index }} | |||
| |action1=GAN | |||
| |action1date=17:45, 16 November 2011 | |||
| |action1link=Talk:Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly/GA1 | |||
| |action1result=not listed | |||
| |action1oldid=460717435 | |||
| |action2=GAN | |||
| |action2date=19:03, 20 November 2011 | |||
| |action2link=Talk:Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly/GA2 | |||
| |action2result=not listed | |||
| |action2oldid=461611171 | |||
| |action3=PR | |||
| |action3date=12:27, 10 December 2011 | |||
| |action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly/archive1 | |||
| |action3result=reviewed | |||
| |action3oldid=465098439 | |||
| |topic=Physics and astronomy | |||
| |dykdate=19 October 2011 | |||
| |dykentry=... that physicists running the ] detected neutrino particles ''']'''? | |||
| |currentstatus=FGAN | |||
| }} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| | |||
| {{WikiProject Articles for creation|ts=20111009013932|reviewer=Ajoykt}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Physics |importance=high }} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Old merge full |otherpage=OPERA experiment |date=19 October 2011 |result='''don't merge''' |talk=Talk:OPERA_experiment#Merge_proposal}} | |||
| {{Archives |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=2 |units=months |index= /Archive index }} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | ||
| |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == End result == | |||
| == Keeping the speculative papers giving explanations for a fictitious phenomenon == | |||
| Since the team members have resigned, users D.H. and Strebe have removed quite a large amount of very well sourced content ().<p>I think that this content should be kept in the article, as it clearly shows how the scientific community reacted to the experiment, so i.m.o. the content remains relevant to the article. While some of these publications and (now probably moot) explanations might be embarrassing for some authors, I don't think it is up to us to decide that. I actually think that the decision to remove all this, could be interpreted as a (mild) form of original research. I propose we keep all of this in the article. Any seconds? - ] (]) 08:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :We can hardly trust NewsSources when it is about the evaluation of scientific results (note this was already problematic before February). I think we should wait for a peer reviewed research article, that actually analyzes all of those explanations. I'm pretty sure that many of those analyses will be published soon. --] (]) 09:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The article describes the flurry of publishing activity following the OPERA announcement. Misplaced Pages articles aren’t accretions of everything connected to the topic; they’re supposed to be tuned for relevance. The content of the article has changed considerably now that the FTL interpretation has no credible defenders, just as it should, because the presence or absence of credible defenders determines the credibility of the topic and the credibility and relevance of the topic’s constituent parts. Therefore, for example, verbiage assuming the topic is a credible phenomenon is no longer appropriate and has been elided or reworked. People can find the papers if they look for them. Meanwhile Misplaced Pages recommends against exhaustive lists of references and external links. Papers which explain the non-existing phenomenon are suddenly much less relevant to people who want to know about the topic. It has nothing to do with who might get embarrassed. What are you proposing is ]? Thanks. ] (]) 09:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand both your points. The removed body of moot papers is indeed less relevant for (alleged) ''Faster-than-light neutrinos''. But this article is not about Faster-than-light neutrinos. It is about a specific ''Faster-than-light neutrinos anomaly OPERA experiment", so, as attempts at explaining the result of the experiment, these papers are i.m.o. still relevant for what ''happened as a result of'' the experiment. Perhaps they can be collected in a section about these attempts. Or perhaps the article title could be changed to reflect the fact that there was no anomaly to begin with. I know, this is a subtle point. Forget about my "mildly-OR-remark", that was even subtler :-) - ] (]) 10:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::When I think about the typical person—even a sophisticated layperson—coming into this article wanting to know about the experiment, I can’t imagine they’re going reference original papers written to rationalize the results of the experiment. Many would be interested in analysis of all such papers, or summaries of the directions the papers went, but not the papers themselves. In other words, secondary sources. There aren’t any (yet), but presumably there will be, and when they come, I would support folding in information from them. Again, the article isn’t supposed to be an exhaustive catalog of everything connected to the topic. I’m not vehemently opposed; I just don’t see who the constituents would be. Meanwhile the article is already long and contains lots of references. ] (]) 19:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yes, fair enough. Good point. - ] (]) 06:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I agree, and I think maybe the title should be changed, such as by replacing the word "anomaly" with "mismeasurement" or removing "faster-than-light" or both. ] (]) 00:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Should the oscillator error be mentioned in the introduction? == | |||
| Regarding , is it a good idea to mention the ~10 ns oscillator error, which made the neutrinos seem slower than otherwise, in the article's introduction? There are many sources of error and noise of almost the same magnitude listed in OPERA's reports. I think we should focus the introduction on the one mistake which caused the unexpected results, and leave mention of all other sources of error to the body of the article. | |||
| Also, should someone upload and the ? ] (]) 23:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The reason that both these two errors are especially worthy of mention is that they were not accounted for in the original error analysis. As unknown-unknowns rather than known-unknowns (see ]), they could and did push the total error outside its expected range. ] (]) 17:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps someone can figure out how to improve the phrasing such that it is less confusing for those who read only the introduction. I'm not convinced that a previously unknown error which did not lead to the unexpected results is very important now that it is a known known. ] (]) 23:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I like your point, though I’m not sure I agree with it for the same reasons ] notes. But more importantly, the sources always mention both errors, so we are obliged to as well without adding our own interpretation about why one might not be relevant. ] (]) 23:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I tried to clarify it by expanding the text without removing mention of the oscillator error. ] (]) 23:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well now we have 70 – 10 = 57, which seems pretty confusing. Plus there is a lot more text. Was there something wrong with how it was? ] (]) 00:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I thought it was very confusing before. I hope most readers understand that "about 70" means that there is only one significant digit on that figure. ] (]) 06:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Could you explain what was very confusing before? And I predict you’ll get an IP edit any time now correcting the arithmetic. ] (]) 07:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: "the sum of two opposing errors but dominated by the one reducing measured time-of-flight" was confusing because errors are not often described as dominating one another, for starters. The new wording doesn't leave people resolving multiple pronoun antecedents, either. ] (]) 07:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Rename? == | |||
| How do people feel about ] or ]? ] (]) 23:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I opposed the change to the current name, and I don’t see why it needs to get changed again, either. What problem does it solve? ] (]) 00:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::The neutrinos themselves were not faster-than-light, but the measurement was wrong. There was no "faster-than-light anomaly" involved. ] (]) 06:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::The title does not mean there were neutrinos that traveled faster than light. The results of the experiment were anomalous, and the anomaly could have been caused by anything. The anomaly turns out to be an incorrect measurement. One of the reasons this article title was chosen was because it would hold up regardless of how events played out. ] (]) 07:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sure, you and I and probably everyone here on the talk page knows that. But don't you think the title should not imply that there were neutrinos which traveled faster than light? ] (]) 07:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It doesn’t. ] (]) 17:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: How about we name it ''']'''? Since these Italians have been amusing us all with their cornball antics for so long? For a while it was Marx brothers stuff, with science magazines printing pictures of Einstein, upside down. Bleh! ]]]] 04:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Looks like result already cleared as measurement failure but faster light possible with Nimtz experiment proofed == | |||
| Here is the corrected version, {{arxiv|1109.4897v4}}, submitted to JHEP. --] (]) 19:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Faster_than_light#Faster_light_.28Casimir_vacuum_and_quantum_tunnelling.29 "Mozart 4.7 times faster." | |||
| Discussion is just if it is against Einstein predictions or not and if | |||
| maybe also neutrinos could have similar effect through earth not vacuum. | |||
| kayuweboehm(at)yahoo.de <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Thanks for taking care of that, ]. ] (]) 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == GPS time sources and monitoring == | |||
| == What kind of neutrino == | |||
| It seems a bit strange. From my experience, in industrial setups, monitoring is used to detect problems in components. | |||
| electron neutrino ν | |||
| Plus, GPS receivers dedicated to clock synchronization usually provide easy ways to read out their state of synchronization with the time source - in this case, GPS. | |||
| e, muon neutrino ν | |||
| μ and tau neutrino | |||
| It's very important or the article is a stub <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| So how did this happen? In a setup as complex as this, did they go without industrial-style monitoring? | |||
| ] (]) |
:The article states muon neutrino. ] (]) 06:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == |
== colocated or co-located == | ||
| In the last dozen edits or so, one "colocated" was changed to "co-located" and one "co-located" was changed to "colocated". Which is correct? — ] ] 06:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| The preliminary results of OPERA, ICARUS, LVD, und BOREXINO: They are all in agreement with the speed of light () | |||
| :Borexino: δt = 2.7 ± 1.2 (stat) ± 3(sys) ns | |||
| :ICARUS: δt = 5.1 ± 1.1(stat) ± 5.5(sys) ns | |||
| :LVD: δt = 2.9 ± 0.6(stat) ± 3(sys) ns | |||
| :OPERA: δt = 1.6 ± 1.1(stat) (sys) ns | |||
| :The dictionary says “colocated”.] (]) 06:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| OPERA has also revised their 2011 results and will resubmit it to JHEP | |||
| :δt = (6.5 ± 7.4 (stat.)+9.2 (sys.)) ns | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| Also MINOS corrected their former results | |||
| :δt = −11.4 ± 11.2 (stat) ± 29 (syst) ns (68% C.L) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| Note that they approach the 10^-6 level. --] (]) 10:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == News from CERN == | |||
| CERN retracted the so called anomaly: http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html. It does not exist. -- ] (]) 14:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| == Removal of references to Quantum Spring Theory's explanation of the anomoly == | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121131736/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/faster-than-light-neutrinos-opera.html?ref=hp to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/faster-than-light-neutrinos-opera.html?ref=hp | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| It appears to me that the Talk page sections re: the proposal to add the paper written by Russ Blake have been removed. See --link deleted--. Is this correct, if not where are they. And if so why was this done? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| :It’s in the archives, where things get shuffled off to periodically. See, for example, . By the way, I’m deleting the link spam. ] (]) 18:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 16:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, 'It's in the Archives'. Well isn't that a convenient place to put things that in your opinion need to be 'shuffled off' periodically. On what basis is an item determined to meet the criteria to be 'shuffled'off? And, you call a reference link a SPAM link. Well that is your opinion. In my opinion it is further evidence that Misplaced Pages pages are not managed on a democratic basis. Thor Prohaska 14:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Latest revision as of 23:37, 17 January 2024
 | 2011 OPERA faster-than-light neutrino anomaly was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | This article was nominated for merging with OPERA experiment on 19 October 2011. The result of the discussion was don't merge. |
 Archives | ||||
Index
|
||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
End result
Here is the corrected version, arXiv:1109.4897v4, submitted to JHEP. --D.H (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of that, D.H. Strebe (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
What kind of neutrino
electron neutrino ν e, muon neutrino ν μ and tau neutrino
It's very important or the article is a stub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.76.98.84 (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- The article states muon neutrino. Strebe (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
colocated or co-located
In the last dozen edits or so, one "colocated" was changed to "co-located" and one "co-located" was changed to "colocated". Which is correct? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- The dictionary says “colocated”.Strebe (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121131736/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/faster-than-light-neutrinos-opera.html?ref=hp to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/faster-than-light-neutrinos-opera.html?ref=hp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Categories: