Faster than light puzzle claim puzzle explained

[astroron (Ron)]

A possible explaniation for the faster than light claim puzzle
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog...7260/?p1=blogs
I like the bit at the bottom which says

QUOTE
If it stands up, this episode will be laden with irony. Far from breaking Einstein's theory of relatively, the faster-than-light measurement will turn out to be another confirmation of it.
Cheers

[Robh (Rob)]

Clever! And a nice piece of scientific detective work if it holds up.

Seems too "simple" to have been overlooked.
You would have thought the physicists had factored this in right from the start.
Time-based relativistic effects from orbiting satellites are well known.

Thanks for posting.

Regards, Rob.

[Shiraz (Ray)]

thanks for posting Ron - fascinating. regards Ray

[CraigS]

I don't buy this one …

The clocks used by the OPERA team were stationary with respect to the ground based experiment. (I understand they synchronised their clocks to the GPS .. they didn't directly use the GPS clocks ..).

Van Elburg has assumed that the time was measured by moving clocks in the GPS satellites. He has then appled the Lorentz transformation of time, as seen from the moving reference frame of the satellites.

Surely a team of 30 or so Physicists would have considered all of this already?

I think it'd have to be considered a 'gross blunder' by the OPERA team, if this one turns out to be correct ?? (Somehow, I don't see 30 particle physicists making any such 'gross blunders' .. ??)

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

I don't buy this one …

The clocks used by the OPERA team were stationary with respect to the ground based experiment. (I understand they synchronised their clocks to the GPS .. they didn't directly use the GPS clocks ..).

Van Elburg has assumed that the time was measured by moving clocks in the GPS satellites. He has then appled the Lorentz transformation of time, as seen from the moving reference frame of the satellites.

Surely a team of 30 or so Physicists would have considered all of this already?

I think it'd have to be considered a 'gross blunder' by the OPERA team, if this one turns out to be correct ?? (Somehow, I don't see 30 particle physicists making any such 'gross blunders' .. ??)

Cheers

Nor 30i imaginary mathematicians.

Steven