| Revision as of 16:47, 28 September 2017 editInternetArchiveBot (talk | contribs)Bots, Pending changes reviewers5,387,806 edits Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.5.4)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:37, 17 January 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,273 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: paws [2.2] | ||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | 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 | {{ArticleHistory | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| |currentstatus=FGAN | |currentstatus=FGAN | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Articles for creation |
{{WikiProject Articles for creation|ts=20111009013932|reviewer=Ajoykt}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Physics |
{{WikiProject Physics |importance=high }} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Old merge full |otherpage=OPERA experiment |date=19 October 2011 |result='''don't merge''' |talk=Talk:OPERA_experiment#Merge_proposal}} | {{Old merge full |otherpage=OPERA experiment |date=19 October 2011 |result='''don't merge''' |talk=Talk:OPERA_experiment#Merge_proposal}} | ||
| {{Archives |search=yes |bot= |
{{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 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == 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) | |||
| == GPS time sources and monitoring == | |||
| It seems a bit strange. From my experience, in industrial setups, monitoring is used to detect problems in components. | |||
| 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. | |||
| So how did this happen? In a setup as complex as this, did they go without industrial-style monitoring? | |||
| ] (]) 20:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Preliminary May results == | |||
| 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 | |||
| OPERA has also revised their 2011 results and will resubmit it to JHEP | |||
| :δt = (6.5 ± 7.4 (stat.)+9.2 (sys.)) ns | |||
| Also MINOS corrected their former results | |||
| :δt = −11.4 ± 11.2 (stat) ± 29 (syst) ns (68% C.L) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Removal of references to Quantum Spring Theory's explanation of the anomaly == | |||
| 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--> | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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--> | |||
| :::I have nothing to do with the archiving. It is normal procedure because Talk pages get unwieldy in length. In the case of this article, when the editing and discussion was fast and furious, the archival frequency was set as low as two weeks, if I recall. It’s much longer now because the article is not very active. As for link spam, that’s not my call, either. See ]. Basically, no, you are not allowed to use Talk pages or Misplaced Pages in general to publicize your stuff. ] (]) 05:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK, thanks for the info about how the wiki pages get archived. So that appears to mean that if there is a Talk issue that is unresolved then it would have to be manually added back into the Talk page? That doesn't seem very good. And who sets the archiving frequency? I would have thought that would be under the control of those involved with the page in question. On the issue of the removal of 'link spam' you said it was not your call. Yet it would appear that you did delete it. I have read ] and I see some room for argument that the link was relevant to the topic under discussion. You may say you were only following Misplaced Pages policy, however there was still a measure of interpretation on your part to reach the conclusion that the link was spam as defined by the policy. Thor Prohaska 15:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::::Yes, I made the judgment call in this instance. I meant I did not set the policy. The policy is clear in this case, without realistic room for argument. Besides ]'s ''“Source solicitations are messages on article talk pages which explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article,”'' such as ''“Is the source controversial, such as being non-peer reviewed, old or polemic (see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources)?”'', please familiarize yourself with ]. The theory you refer to was never a reasonable candidate for inclusion in the article, and now that the anomaly has been accounted for, any discussion of the theory on Misplaced Pages would only be construed as a publicity tactic by other editors. ] (]) 17:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Your comment, "The theory you refer to was never a reasonable candidate for inclusion in the article" indicates that you are 100% sure that there is no merit in Quantum Spring Theory. Well that is unscientific of you to close a door when you haven't analysed QST in detail. I don't even say it is correct, all I am saying is that it contains a logic based on evidence that I wish to see further explored. If QST is correct ( and I challenge anyone to explain how it is 7 times more accurate in predicting the 'binding energy mass defect' over the current models ) then the application of the QST model to the way the neutrino wave passes through the atomic nuclei is theoretically valid. And then your comment, "... and now that the anomaly has been accounted for" is also not 100% accurate for three reasons. Firstly from the reviews I have done of the 'new results' there is no definite statement that completely rules out the 'anomaly'. Secondly there is still a margin of uncertainty in the results themselves. Admittedly not as big as the 70 odd nanoseconds but none the less still a margin ( I also note that everyone is taking the new results as being free from any measurement issues which I find a bit overconfident ). And if these results prove that it was definitely a measurement error then why haven't the OPERA folks with the most 'skin in the game' not updated their website to state that ( see http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it/spip.php?rubrique14 ). In summary my advice to you is to not be too black and white in your statements in an area that is so difficult to pin down with absolute precision.Thor Prohaska 03:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::::::It has nothing to do with my being “100% sure that there is no merit in Quantum Spring Theory”. Misplaced Pages editors are not the judge of scientific merit. Please familiarize yourself with ] and ]. ] (]) 05:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Incorrect result? == | |||
| The lead starts (my bold), ''In 2011 the OPERA experiment '''mistakenly''' reported neutrinos appearing to travel faster than light'', but the body of the article does not contain such a clear indication of the current status of he results. | |||
| We do have: | |||
| ''In February 2012, the OPERA collaboration announced two possible sources of error that could have significantly influenced the results. | |||
| *''A link from a GPS receiver to the OPERA master clock was loose, which increased the delay through the fiber. The glitch's effect was to decrease the reported flight time of the neutrinos by 73 ns, making them seem faster than light. | |||
| *''A clock on an electronic board ticked faster than its expected 10 MHz frequency, lengthening the reported flight-time of neutrinos, thereby somewhat reducing the seeming faster-than-light effect. OPERA stated the component had been operating outside its specifications. | |||
| ''In March 2012 an LNGS seminar was held, confirming the fiber cable was not fully screwed in during data gathering. LVD researchers compared the timing data for cosmic high-energy muons hitting both the OPERA and the nearby LVD detector between 2007-2008, 2008-2011, and 2011-2012. The shift obtained for the 2008-2011 period agreed with the OPERA anomaly. The researchers also found photographs showing the cable had been loose by October 13, 2011. | |||
| ''Correcting for the two newly found sources of error, results for neutrino speed appear to be consistent with the speed of light.'' | |||
| Although this suggests that the original results were mistaken there is no clear statement from a good source confirming this. | |||
| We need either to change 'mistakenly' to something less strong, such as 'controversially', or to find a very good source that clearly states that the original results were wrong. ] (]) 14:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :{{arxiv|1206.2488}}, {{arxiv|1206.2840}}, LNGS seminar etc. --] (]) 14:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::If we are going to say 'mistakenly' we need something better that a couple of arxiv papers. Is there anything indicating that the original claims have been withdrawn. ] (]) 14:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Note that {{arxiv|1206.2488}} was co-written by OPERA themselves. And they stated in a , (''Dracos Marcos, The neutrino velocity measurement by the OPERA experiment''), that their {{arxiv|1109.4897}} will "soon revised and resubmitted to JHEP". --] (]) 15:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is all fine but I would still suggest that we need a clearer statement from those that made the original claim that they got it wrong, preferably in a peer reviewed or respected media source, before we should say in the lead 'mistakenly'. ] (]) 18:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I’m puzzled by your objection. Are we stuck with America being in Asia because Columbus never acknowledged he was wrong? Since when do we require someone to confess they made a mistake before we call it a mistake? The party in error is the ''least'' objective source. In any case, OPERA has implicitly acknowledged the error and moved on through the resignations of the science and publicity team leads, through the corrections they made to the original paper, through their final results refuting their original, and through their cooperation in the CERN announcement that all of the CERN-sourced neutrino experiments measured speeds consistent with that of light. They admitted they were wrong long ago; they just never had any particular reason to say it that way since it was obvious and everyone already knew it anyway. Science doesn’t care what you call it; it cares what it is. As for peer review, well—the original paper wasn’t peer-reviewed, so now we’ll hold the retraction to a higher standard than the dubious claim itself…? ] (]) 19:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Sorry, I missed the CERN announcement. The article is fine. ] (]) 20:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == End result == | == End result == | ||
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: