This is more than likely a typo in the article and should have read 62 picoseconds, i.e. 62/1000 of a nanosecond, a nanosecond being 1000 picoseconds. So the beam's apparent transit time was measured to be .138 nanoseconds or 138 picoseconds instead of the expected .2 nanoseconds or 200 picoseconds.

>I'm no scientist, but this isn't making sense to me...
>
>It takes 0.2 nanoseconds through a vacuum, but through their chamber, it taks 62 nanoseconds _less_ than that? So it takes -61.8 nanoseconds? What am I missing?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Michelle
>
>
>>Folks,
>>
>>Thought you might find this interesting: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/000719/nj_nec_sup.html
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>DD