The difference between science and press release

Thanks to @peppeliberti for sharing the preprint.

Do you remember the famous OPERA preprint about superluminal neutrinos? After the publication of the results about neutrinos' flight time, a lot of preprint was published on arXiv in order to explain results. Some researchers try to explain with esperimental problems (and it could be the right explenation), some researchers propose their theoretical explenation, Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glashow(1) reject results using some simple theoretical arguments:
superluminal neutrinos would lose energy rapidly via the bremsstrahlung of electron-positron pairs(1)
where bremmsstrahlung radiation is the radiation produced by the deceleration of a charged particle. In particular Cohen and Glashow studied the neutrinos' processes analog to Cherenkov radiation for neutral particle caused by weak interaction. Their results
cannot be reconciled with the claimed superluminal neutrino velocity measurement(1)
After a few days ICARUS experiment, based in LNGS (the same laboratories of OPERA), confirm the theoretical arguments discussed by Chen and Glashow:
No Cherenkov like event has been detected in ICARUS(2)
Now ICARUS, an experiment designed by Nobel Pirze Carlo Rubbia, upload a new preprint about superluminal neutrinos' saga: Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the ICARUS detector at the CNGS beam.
In this case, ICARUS, using the same beam send by CERN to OPERA from the 21st october to the 6th november 2011(3), measure the time of flight of neutrinos produced at CERN. In the preprint they describe also some experimental problems, but the collaboration resolve them, and publish they results: neutrinos fly at light speed (or a bit less), like you can see in the following plot(3):
Furthermore, ICARUS' preprint is written like an alternative to the previous OPERA's preprint: indeed they describe the synchronization between CERN and LNGS, using the same timing system of OPERA. I repeat againg: ICARUS, using the OPERA's GPS system, find $c$-neutrinos, and not superluminal neutrinos, so the OPERA's cable problem (the cause of superluminal data) is the most important source in OPERA's mistaken data.
So I think that here is the difference between science, represented by ICARUS, and press release, represented by OPERA: for science the most important thing is the knwoledge of nature, also if this is mean publish results after others; for press release is important to write also about coffe break.
(1) Andrew Cohen, Sheldon Glashow. New Constraints on Neutrino Velocities
(2) ICARUS collaboration. A search for the analogue to Cherenkov radiation by high energy neutrinos at superluminal speeds in ICARUS
(3) ICARUS collaboration. Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the ICARUS detector at the CNGS beam
Superluminal Saga: Waiting superluminal neutrinos (if they exist!) | Waiting superluminal neutrinos: from Maxwell to Einstein | Probably not | News from the OPERA | Experimental problems in OPERA

No comments:

Post a Comment

Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="">FoS</a> = FoS