Oops

formatting link

It appears that the faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame. ... According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer. After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed.

John

Reply to
John Walliker
Loading thread data ...

formatting link

That isn't too plausible unless they have really, really slow edges on that light pulse. I sort of suspect that they loosened a connector, removed 40 feet of fibre, and then tightened it again.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Phil Hobbs

formatting link

One of my customers (you know who) tested one of my timing boxes and complained that the delay was 700 ns, about 600 ns more than we measure. It's fiber in and out, and they were using available 60 meter pigtails. Oh, they are in the laser business; you'd think they might have heard of the speed of light.

--
John Larkin, President
Highland Technology, Inc
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

formatting link

That's another one of those mistakes that only happens with a large and appreciative audience. Of course, the CERN guys shouted their mistake from the housetops of their own free will, no doubt with visions of Nobel Prizes and immortal fame. I rather suspect that there are a lot of damage control meetings going on there at the moment.

As the poster says,

The Six Stages of a Project:

Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the Guilty Punishment of the Innocent Praise and honours for the non-participants

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Phil Hobbs

I saw this and my thought was "Why are these physicists trying to prove something that has been proven logically true"? I know they want so bad to prove multiple worlds, black holes, time travel, etc... but sometimes you just gotta accept the facts. Einstein proved beyond any reasonable doubt, given some very reasonable assumptions, that FLT travel is impossible(and IIRC information cannot travel FLT is a consequence). Surely there is better things to spend grant money on than chasing a pipe dream? There seems to be very little real physics going on today...

Reply to
Jeffery Tomas

Like 1 watt blue laser diodes for $20 or less. Who'd a thunk it 10 years ago.

Reply to
tm

o

ter

be

Einstein didn't prove anything. He produced a remarkably coherent explanation of a very wide range of observations, and his explanations have yet to be falsified, which is as close to "proved" as any scientific theory gets.

You can prove a mathematical theorem, but mathematics is an art, rather than a science.

The CERN crew got an odd result, couldn't - at the time - find any plausible explanation of the oddness, and eventually (and rather reluctantly) published it. The how science works. Experimental observations are sacred (if they can be replicated) but theories last just as long as they fit the facts. Huxley talked about the scientific tragedy of the death of a beautiful theory slain by a single ugly fact.

formatting link
y_a/225165.html

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

formatting link

Light fibers are THAT slow? Then why not use less costly coax?

Reply to
Robert Baer

formatting link

Well, since it is obvious to all that you are a non-participant, then...

Reply to
Robert Baer

formatting link

About 2/3 c or something like that. About the same as coax.

We use fiber because of the horrible pulse transmission of coax over tens of meters... rise times go to hell, and ground loops make things worse. You can shoot a 10 ns pulse over a kilometer of multimode fiber and it hardly changes. You can get 10 ps RMS edge jitter with cheap parts. Ditto a hundred km of singlemode.

Multimode fiber is cheaper than good coax anyhow.

--
John Larkin, President       Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com   
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Grin... Yeah I hope we hear the details of how that 'connection' was tightend.. perhaps they meant time-wise.

George H.

t -

Reply to
George Herold

formatting link

Well, that's what you get when you let physicists do electronics.

--
John Larkin, President       Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com   
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

undoes-faster.html? rss=1&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.T0VAu8O-G8w.twitter

But, according to Wikipedia, there's a bad crystal oscillator in there that affects the results the opposite way.

I have sympathy for the Opera folks -- they've found results that flies in the face of what they are trained to believe, and which makes them look profoundly silly to announce, yet are solid enough that they are compelled by honesty to do so. You can feel their discomfiture when you read their press releases.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott

formatting link

Loss. Fibres have bandwidth-distance performance that coax can't get anywhere near. Coax has about the same propagation speed as fibre, v=c/n, where n=sqrt(epsilon_r*mu_r) is the refractive index.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Phil Hobbs

formatting link

As Elvis used to say, "Thankyuh. Thankyuh vemuch." ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Phil Hobbs

formatting link

;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Phil Hobbs

r
u

ttdesign.com

Hmm, mixed reports. The BBC article says the faulty connection worked to increase the apparent speed?

formatting link

So a bad oscillator was the 'main' problem?

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

Yeah, really. They think "well, all electronics is really dependent on physical laws, so any physicist knows all there is to know about electronics...." You ought to see what it looks like when physicists do FPGA design! No synchronizers, no attention to clock boundary crossing, no timing constraints, and on and on. it gets pretty UGLY!

Jon

Reply to
Jon Elson

formatting link

As bad as chemists...

Reply to
krw

About the same as programmers.

Reply to
krw

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.