Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Are there any other facilities that would be capable of independantly verifying the opera result? In other words, a completely different source/detector for $\nu_{\mu}$ beams?

Alternatively, there might be another source that could send a beam to the same detector at Gran Sasso, with a different baseline, looking to verify the value of $\frac {v-c}{c}$ with a different value of $\delta t$?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 8 down vote accepted
  • T2K is running right now. They might (probably) need to improve their understanding of the distance and timing.
  • LBNE is still in the planning stages, but will have a longer baseline which could be very helpful

disclaimer: I am vaguely involved in LBNE--specifically doing MC work for the near detector design.

share|cite|improve this answer

The original observation of neutrinos exceeding the speed of light was by MINOS in 2007. What OPERA did was to verify this observation, with better statistics. These two experiments were the US and Europe, respectively, and have enough differences that it appears that they can be considered as independent.

If this were not a complete earthquake for the special theory of relativity, it would be accepted as a recent observational fact about neutrinos (and largely ignored). The reason it's getting so much attention is because it IS a verification.

share|cite|improve this answer

The OPERA superluminal neutrinos were shown to be an artifact of a clock synchronization error. As such, the only appropriate answer to this question would be simply: no.

share|cite|improve this answer
What's with the necroposting in three year old threads about the OPERA discrepancy? You posted here as well. These posts are long dead. – user27578 Mar 10 '14 at 0:52
@dgh please keep in mind that "necroposting" (posting an answer to an old question) is welcome and encouraged on Stack Exchange sites. Daniel, remember that civility is expected at all times on this site. I've deleted your comment as it was inappropriate. (Later I'll come back and clean up all these comments.) – David Z Mar 12 '14 at 1:45
On a separate note, you seem to be answering something other than the question posed, which is whether there are other experimental facilities that would be capable of running equivalent experiments and thus confirming or refuting OPERA's result. It's irrelevant to this question whether the result is actually valid or not. – David Z Mar 12 '14 at 1:47
@DavidZ, yes, SE encourages the addition of relevant material to questions regardless of how old they are. That is not what Daniel is doing with these posts. This was a question that was about a then-current event, which he is now resurrecting for the purpose of ridiculing the existing answers, despite it no longer being topical. The fact that he seemed to miss the entire point of the question is just a side note to that. He's doing this sort of thing all over Physics.SE these days - posting low quality answers and lashing out at his critics - and so my objection to this post was on point. – user27578 Mar 12 '14 at 2:06
@dgh if you want to complain about ridiculing existing answers, or about not answering the question, sure, go ahead and do that. (Though I would suggest doing so via flags, in addition to or instead of commenting.) However there's no problem with necroposting, so you're not going to get anywhere by objecting to the mere fact that the question is old. – David Z Mar 12 '14 at 2:23

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.