On 11/22/2011 07:28 PM, Javier Serrano wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Bob Camp<[email protected]> wrote:
in the first paper, the distance uncertainty was given as 20cm
Of which the survey likely contributed next to nothing and stuff like earth
tides contributed the majority of the error ….
See http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it/Opera/publicnotes/note132.pdf
I think most of the uncertainty came from the non-GPS survey. They had
to stop traffic in the highway (OPERA is in a cavern at an exit of the
highway inside of a tunnel) but they could only close one lane. So
bureaucracy is a more plausible answer :)
If the 20 cm uncertainty in position is insufficient, then redoing the
survey is certainly an option. Using the 4 marks outside as reference
and then using a couple of different surveying methods would certainly
help. The LNGS laboratory is a bit of a challenge. It is the LNGS survey
that contributes most of the uncertainty.
Still, even if surveying is being redone on both labs (which could be
motivated by the interest in this find), is this where we expect to find
the 18 meters missing?
Where did the 60 ns go? Uncompensated cables? Uncompensated equipment?
Bias in detectors?
Recall, the installations on both ends are quite large ones. If you want
to find the measurement error, go and check them. If you want to prove
the result, check them. Waving theories and deny the result? Go and
check them.
Cheers,
Magnus
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
