English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We found three mistakes in the article " The OPERA neutrino velocity resultand the synchronisation of clocks" by Contaldi \cite{Contaldi}. First, thedefinition of the angle of the latitude in the geoid description leads to aprolate spheroid (rugby ball shape) instead of an oblate spheroid with theusual equatorial flattening. Second, Contaldi forgot a cosine of the latitudein the centripetal contribution term. And last but not least, a profoundconceptual mistake was done in believing that an atomic clock or any timekeeperapparatus was carried in a journey by car or plane between CERN and Gran Sasso;instead of that atomic clocks are continuously resynchronized through a GPSdevice, and the variation of the potential term applies only for the neutrinotravel itself. Thus instead of a $\Delta t \approx 30ns $ correction claimed bythe author in a travel of 12 hours plus 4 days at rest for an atomic clock, wehave found a time correction only for the neutrino itself $\Delta t=3.88 \,10^{-16} s$! That means, that this paper \cite{Contaldi} does not give theright explanation why the neutrino is seen travelling faster than the speed oflight in the OPERA neutrino experiment.

Three errors in the article: "The OPERA neutrino velocity result and the synchronisation of clocks"