Finding faster-than-light particles by weighing them

December 26, 2014, George Mason University
The Sudbury Neutrino Detector. Credit: A. B. McDonald (Queen's University) et al., The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Institute

In a new paper accepted by the journal Astroparticle Physics, Robert Ehrlich, a recently retired physicist from George Mason University, claims that the neutrino is very likely a tachyon or faster-than-light particle. There have been many such claims, the last being in 2011 when the "OPERA" experiment measured the speed of neutrinos and claimed they travelled a tiny amount faster than light. However, when their speed was measured again the original result was found to be in error – the result of a loose cable no less.

Ehrlich's new claim of faster-than-light neutrinos is based on a much more sensitive method than measuring their speed, namely by finding their mass. The result relies on tachyons having an imaginary mass, or a negative mass squared. Imaginary mass particles have the weird property that they speed up as they lose – the value of their imaginary mass being defined by the rate at which this occurs. According to Ehrlich, the magnitude of the neutrino's imaginary mass is 0.33 electronvolts, or 2/3 of a millionth that of an electron. He deduces this value by showing that six different observations from , cosmology, and particle physics all yield this same value within their margin of error. One observation, for example, involves the tiny variations in left over from the big bang, while another involves the shape of the cosmic ray spectrum.

Skeptics of tachyons often cite conflicts with relativity theory. In fact, the idea of faster-than light tachyons was first suggested in a 1962 article by George Sudarshan and colleagues Bilaniuk and Deshpande as a kind of loophole in relativity. Einstein had shown that it is impossible for particles (or space ships) to be accelerated up to or beyond the speed of light because of the infinite energy required. Sudarshan and his colleagues suggested, however, that if particles were created initially with faster-than-light speed in particle collisions no acceleration or infinite energy would be necessary – something not possible for space ships unfortunately!

Several decades after tachyons were first proposed, and after many fruitless searches for them, three theorists Chodos, Hauser, and Kostelecky suggested in 1985 that they might be hiding in plain sight – specifically that neutrinos are tachyons. This idea led them to propose that protons should beta decay when they travel at sufficiently high towards us. Normally, this process is forbidden because it could not conserve energy, but that changes if neutrinos are tachyons, energy can be negative in certain reference frames – in effect negative energy tachyons travel backwards in time. The Chodos-Hauser-Kostelecky proposal is what first led Ehrlich to take up the hunt in 1999 when he claimed support for being tachyons based on several cosmic ray studies. His new result, however, relies on data from four other areas besides cosmic rays, and is therefore more robust.

In addition, unlike the initial erroneous result in the OPERA experiment his claim cannot be dismissed because of the absence of some phenomena that should be observed and is not assuming the claim is correct. One check on Ehrlich's claim could come from the experiment known as KATRIN, which should start taking data in 2015. In this experiment the mass of the neutrino could be revealed by looking at the shape of the spectrum in the beta decay of tritium, the heaviest isotope of hydrogen. Another test based on high energy cosmic rays could even be made using existing data. Of course, before you try designing a "tachyon telephone" to send messages back in time to your earlier self it might be prudent to see if Ehrlich's claim is corroborated by others.

Explore further: 3 Questions: Faster than light?

More information: Six observations consistent with the electron neutrino being a tachyon with mass: m2νe=−0.11±0.016eV2, arXiv:1408.2804 [physics.gen-ph] arxiv.org/abs/1408.2804

Related Stories

3 Questions: Faster than light?

September 26, 2011

The news media were abuzz this week with reports of experiments conducted at the Gran Sasso particle detector complex in Italy, apparently showing subatomic particles called neutrinos had traveled from the giant particle ...

X-ray telescopes find black hole may be a neutrino factory

November 13, 2014

(Phys.org) —The giant black hole at the center of the Milky Way may be producing mysterious particles called neutrinos. If confirmed, this would be the first time that scientists have traced neutrinos back to a black hole.

Recommended for you

Scientists produce 3-D chemical maps of single bacteria

November 16, 2018

Scientists at the National Synchrotron Light Source II (NSLS-II)—a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science User Facility at DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory—have used ultrabright x-rays to image single bacteria ...

Bursting bubbles launch bacteria from water to air

November 15, 2018

Wherever there's water, there's bound to be bubbles floating at the surface. From standing puddles, lakes, and streams, to swimming pools, hot tubs, public fountains, and toilets, bubbles are ubiquitous, indoors and out.

Terahertz laser pulses amplify optical phonons in solids

November 15, 2018

A study led by scientists of the Max Planck Institute for the Structure and Dynamics of Matter (MPSD) at the Center for Free-Electron Laser Science in Hamburg/Germany presents evidence of the amplification of optical phonons ...

100 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
5 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2014
paging Batmanuel.
Modernmystic
4.6 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2014
If this were true wouldn't we see neutrino bursts BEFORE a supernova explosion? In fact, depending on how long they've been "traveling", wouldn't they appear to not be causally linked to any phenomena at all?
imido
Dec 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Dec 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
imido
Dec 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (18) Dec 26, 2014
"Einstein had shown that it is impossible for particles (or space ships) to be accelerated up to or beyond the speed of light because of the infinite energy required. Sudarshan and his colleagues suggested, however, that if particles were created initially with faster-than-light speed in particle collisions no acceleration or infinite energy would be necessary – something not possible for space ships unfortunately!"

Now I can understand why this so-called physicist is "retired", he's unable to comprehend the most basic & rudimentary premises of Einstein's Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle (E=mc2). Seems like a lot of "retireds" around here have the same problem.
Sean44
1 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2014
So they finally built it.
Modernmystic
4.5 / 5 (11) Dec 26, 2014
I actually did know about the neutrino burst from SN 1987A, but (and I'm just quoting this from memory so please correct me if I'm wrong) that burst had finally been explained in two ways...

1. The reason the neutrinos leave star before the light is because the photons have trouble making it to the surface even after the actual explosion has taken place...neutrinos, being what they are, have no such problems flying through dense stellar material to make it to the surface of the star instantly.

2. 168,000 years is a long time to travel, and hence actually magnifies any initial discrepancy between the neutrinos and photons.

I could look this up online, but frankly am too lazy ATM. Anyone else hear this explanation or am I truly starting to go senile?
justindadswell
not rated yet Dec 26, 2014
This certainly has potential, but I think a few questions need to be addressed first.
It's very likely that small energy particles vibrating at a high frequency would be less effected by the curve of time near a gravity well. Think of this small particle as ice, and larger energy waves as a 5lb. brick. Attempt to slide them both across a wood floor, the brick slides a little then stops - but the ice keeps going at a pretty quick speed.
Think of our solar system as a wood floor. Energy waves move at equal speed until they hit us, it just takes the smaller wave longer to slow down - so it seems to be moving faster then the speed of light. By E=mc2, it's still moving at the constant - but it's bending that constant around itself. Sort of like a black hole.
It's smaller, so it can slip by other energy waves with less transference of energy. So it maintains the higher speed longer. Still relativity, still within Einstein's realm - but it still allows for one particle to move "faster".
jgreimer
5 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2014
"The result relies on tachyons having an imaginary mass, or a negative mass squared."

It's not negative mass squared, it's the square root of negative mass.

imido
Dec 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
IMP-9
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 26, 2014
If black holes resides there, then the neutrinos should somehow pass the event horizon.


Which rides on the baseless assumption it was created inside the event horizon.

SN1987a doesn't prove superluminal neutrinos because it requires a model of collapse and is hence completely model dependent.

Given the observation of neutrino oscillation, the result from Gran Sasso points to all three known neutrinos being massive, slower than light particles. Otherwise you would have particles magically transforming into tachyons and back. Statistically some of the SN1987a neutrinos will have oscillated and there lack extreme dispersion from converting to slower than light particles and back again conforms to the strongest hypothesis that all neutrinos are slower than light particles.
imido
Dec 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
techieatwork
1 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2014
"there exists much smaller particles of mass and energy which pass easily through the containment walls, and which strip off particles from the containment vessels themselves as they pass through. This results in a unforeseen and rapid decay of the containment structure itself weakening it greatly within a decade - which in turn allows even larger particles ( still smaller than an electron ) to escape. "
https://www.faceb...50335394

Some evidence of these claims have been detected this year (2014):
http://phys.org/n...tly.html
imido
Dec 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rotoscience
5 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2014
Very, very, very, very unlikely.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (10) Dec 26, 2014
I actually did know about the neutrino burst from SN 1987A, but (and I'm just quoting this from memory so please correct me if I'm wrong) that burst had finally been explained in two ways...

1. The reason the neutrinos leave star before the light is because the photons have trouble making it to the surface even after the actual explosion has taken place...neutrinos, being what they are, have no such problems flying through dense stellar material to make it to the surface of the star instantly.

2. 168,000 years is a long time to travel, and hence actually magnifies any initial discrepancy between the neutrinos and photons.

I could look this up online, but frankly am too lazy ATM. Anyone else hear this explanation or am I truly starting to go senile?

Senility is just a state of mind...
kriminy
4.7 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2014
As stated if the object started FTL then we're good. What I don't hear explained,

- how FTL would solve, break, or making even more confusing QM probability calculation even ``simple stuff" like two-slit and work by Aspect et al
- how can a FTL neutrino be ``created" in a star? we said if it existed (some how, some way) during the big bang that's one thing. But created after?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Dec 26, 2014
It's smaller, so it can slip by other energy waves with less transference of energy. So it maintains the higher speed longer. Still relativity, still within Einstein's realm - but it still allows for one particle to move "faster".

Careful... sounding dangerously close to "aether"...:-)
IMP-9
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 26, 2014
evaporation of black holes


Nope. No evidence for it and evaporation happens though tunneling and doesn't require faster than light particles. Again you have just dodged the question. You believe imaginary mass particles are required to fit evaporation therefor neutrinos are accelerated inside the event horizon therefore they faster than light. This is completely logically unsound. Your claims are completely circular.

Normally massive particle don't do it


Neutrinos a rent just any particle. The requirement for oscillations as nonzero mass not imaginary mass, that isn't how it works.
imido
Dec 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2014
Imido: "Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle. This principle is broken with light itself."

Actually it's not, because the principle applies to "rest mass", the mass of a particle not moving. Photons have no rest mass, thus always travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. When converting mass to energy, the "rest mass" of the particle becomes energy, and determines the wavelength of the photon, not its speed. There's no acceleration involved in the conversion, so no contradiction.

Pretty well done explanation except to add a feature about "rest mass" & explaining its transformation to energy. No particle has absolute minimum "rest mass" unless it exists at a temperature of absolute zero, a temperature not known to exist anywhere in the universe.

When mass is transformed there is no acceleration of the transformed mass to light speed, however the momentum at which a mass was accelerating determines its frequency at the moment of transformation.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2014
When mass is transformed there is no acceleration of the transformed mass to light speed, however the momentum at which a mass was accelerating determines its frequency at the moment of transformation.


To clarify an omission from above, I meant to say: ....momentum at which a mass was accelerating determines the frequency of energy to which mass is transformed.
Wake
2.8 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2014
Imido - wouldn't you think that attitude is precisely the opposite of scientific curiosity? The real problem is promoting theories as facts.

The global warming coalition has done more to harm the reputation of science than anything before or since. For instance - the measurements of CO2 at the IPCC came from only THREE papers and they discounted some 317 papers NOT because they could demonstrate anything wrong with the "science" but because the results they achieved, although completely coherent among all of the papers, did not fit their theory. And in one of the papers they used they actually misrepresented the findings. It turns out that over the last 180 years CO2 has been as high as 480 ppm on several occasions and that CO2 follows the temperature and not the other way around.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 26, 2014
@Benni, here's an easy challenge re your claim

You've so often blurted claim re others NOT able to solve Differential Equation (DE), implying U easily can :-)
Strange Y U provoke & as thermodynamics politely advised U its not as easy as U imagine..!

So Benni, here's a simple challenge for U & Water_Prophet who claimed to graduated as a Physical Chemist (PC) :-)

1. Total Solar Insolation (TSI) has more short wave (SW) energy than long wave (LW) radiance
https://en.wikipe...m_en.svg

2. Earth converts SW to LW (SW emission is negligible)
3. LW to space interfered with by absorption/re-radiation of GHG (esp CO2)
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Here Benni, re your claim on DEs, offer an estimate of LW radiation resistivity due to CO2 & for Water_Prophet suggest Y it's so much more than the thermal energy contributed by burning fossil fuels ~230,000L petrol/sec (0.1% of TSI) ?

Or google scholar ;-)
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 26, 2014
Wake claimed
It turns out that over the last 180 years CO2 has been as high as 480 ppm on several occasions and that CO2 follows the temperature and not the other way around
Really ?

Where is there ANY evidence for this - even a little worthy of examining with attention ?

The instrumentation approach ?

The experimental methodology ie including instrument calibration & technique ?

Anything even a little bit quantifiable ?

Details matter, claims don't cut it anymore, last attempt with Moses/Jesus/Mohammed failed :-(
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2014
If black holes resides there, then the neutrinos should somehow pass the event horizon.


Which rides on the baseless assumption it was created inside the event horizon.

It would seem more likely that they become dimensionally evident AT the event horizon...
Benni
1.5 / 5 (15) Dec 26, 2014
@MM, how many websites or churches did you need to visit to assemble the above cacophony of material about which you have never had any firsthand knowledge had it not been for the resources of a Google search engine to patch your above quilt together.

You have been a parishioner for too long at the Church of the Holy Hockey Stick, it has gotten in your way of coming across with productive cogent thinking. Most of the rest of us live in a real world, a world where most people do not live in a retirement enclave with nothing to do all day long except living in a dream state over a keyboard.
imido
Dec 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
IMP-9
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 26, 2014
We already observed the evaporation of black holes


And your argument loops around completely. Somebody suggests neutrinos come from the SMBH, therefore it is evaporation (baseless), therefore neutrinos have imaginary mass (baseless). Nope logically unsound.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2014
So he introduce an imaginary parameter and makes the mass model more complex [sic!] than the standard fit, while not improving on the latter. (Or at least not trying to.)

Ehrlich didn't retire fast enough, apparently.
EWH
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2014
Regarding the 1987 supernova - the observations are consistent with the neutrinos being faster-than light; it could easily have gone the other way and completely refuted the idea, so those suggesting other explanations for the observation are just explaining away evidence.

The prediction of superluminal neutrinos and the observation of negative mass-squared are both decades old. The idea that there would be no increase in light output from a supernova until hours after the explosion seems hardly credible. Nor would the time gap increase with distance unless the neutrinos really did go faster than light - the refractive index of the medium between us and the Magellanic Clouds is negligible, even counting interstellar gravitational fields' effective refractive index is far too low to account for such a gap even over 168,000 light-years, even if one assumed, contrary to the principles of relativity, that the effective refractive index affected only light and not neutrinos.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 26, 2014
Imido - wouldn't you think that attitude is precisely the opposite of scientific curiosity? The real problem is promoting theories as facts


And in one of the papers they used they actually misrepresented the findings. It turns out that over the last 180 years CO2 has been as high as 480 ppm on several occasions and that CO2 follows the temperature and not the other way around.


..and this cogent point has not been lost by the average person living in the real world. Two coincident points of ppm of CO2 & temperature that occurred in 1998 was turned into a funny farm science of hyperventilating, its purpose only being to separate a gullible portion of population from their money.

With the widespread use of free speech over the internet, the purveyors of "funny farm apocalyptic science" are being called to account for their self serving use of Hockey Stick data in 1998. People don't like it when they feel someone has deliberately lied to them, now the backlash.



Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (14) Dec 28, 2014
Benni claimed & without a shred of ANY Physics
@MM, how many websites or churches did you need to visit ...
No, Wikipedia is a fair source especially the references. Start with energy in & determine energy out, a simple energy eqn, why can't U see that ?

Asked simple questions for someone claiming knowledge of differential equations (DE) but, if U need to address first propositions

1. TSI as per link supplied
2. Earth converts SW to LW
3. GHG's add resistivity

Don't need DE to accept/reject, as they arise from EVIDENCE, U yes/no ?

Benni claimed
You have been a parishioner for too long at the Church of the Holy Hockey Stick, it has gotten in your way of coming across with productive cogent thinking
No, U appear very mixed up, not into religions or arbitrary curves.

Look at Evidence, though this is of interest:-
http://www.realcl...cott.png

Three Q's not a "cacophony" doh ! Y didn't U address Q1 to 3 directly ?

Physics please :-)
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (14) Dec 28, 2014
Benni claimed
..Two coincident points of ppm of CO2 & temperature that occurred in 1998 was turned into a funny farm science of hyperventilating, its purpose only being to separate a gullible portion of population from their money
Evidence seems to be against U (again), along with my three simple questions to U, which U haven't addressed, tell me what U think of the relationship (Note: It includes CO2 as well as temps)

http://woodfortre...ormalise

U make many disparate claims, can u substantiate/quantify them ?

How about a real simple one, Total Solar Insolation (TSI), is there ANYTHING from any other source of energy eg Magnetohydrodynamics which ADDs to TSI in any way shape or form ?

Eg.
https://upload.wi...m_en.svg

Anything else adding to TSI anywhere ???
Benni
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 28, 2014
Anything else adding to TSI anywhere ???


Retired Old Codger, I see it's Sunday morning & you are still reading from a funny farm science book called Revelation, the source of all this Holy Hockey Stick fiction. I have young preteens who are already beyond where you are in your apocalyptic vision of their futures, and except maybe for the two year old their proficiency in math is well beyond where you have ever been.

Find something productive to do with what little is left of your years, give Einstein's thesis on General Relativity a good read then come back & we can discuss his math.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 28, 2014
Benni replied without ANY Physics or ANY Science offering at all :-(
Find something productive to do with what little is left of your years, give Einstein's thesis on General Relativity a good read then come back & we can discuss his math.
Why try to switch to SR/GR, this has no relevance to the direct questions you have been asked ?

Y be so obviously feeble & blurt personal comments, not good example of dialectic :-(

What is it U don't like about being challenged & engaged to come up with tangible Science instead of your arbitrary claims, your interaction goes to prove U have no substance to the common implications you make re DE's, trig etc

Benni, whats wrong with the last link I offered ?

Whats wrong with the issue; TSI SW, earth converting SW to LW, LW interfered by GHGs etc ?

These R simple issues; Y is it so clear U just REFUSE to accept or reject them AND indeed offer NO rationale either way ?

Physics for a change please :-)
gsvasktg
1 / 5 (7) Dec 28, 2014
The neutrino is a stress wave that transmigrates as a particle when it has mass of 53 EV otherwise it is the 13.6 EV Hydrogen spectrum as 53 *0.259921. . Only when seven neutrinos are accelerated as a group a quanta or photon is formed. Why? A centered quanta MUST have a density of 2 at least and that delay proves that Neutrinos mast transmigrate faster. The neutrino when it transmigrates as a wave of stress MUST have 53 volts of energy for 7 of them create 371 volts as the Planck's constant quanta. See the derivation in www kapillavastu dot com as an axiomatic theory that derives all masses from fundamental axiom of 2.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (11) Dec 28, 2014
Still waiting for Benni to provide an example of how his DE applies to Neutrino generation and acceleration...
McIek
Dec 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (6) Dec 28, 2014
So many quasi-religious dogmatists...oh my!! Think one would make a mint designing a tachyon 'radio' for interstellar communication. Probably find out who are neighbors are a LOT sooner. Neighbors do not use e.m. radios....wayyyy too sloowwwww.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (9) Dec 28, 2014
Hey Benni, I like your spunk. Many of your ideas are very good, but when it come to religion you suck. Like I have said many times over the years explain from where the big bang originated before you knock religion! Both the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit are able to travel faster-than-light you moron.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2014
It would seem more likely that they become dimensionally evident AT the event horizon
Whatever - it's just another interpretation of the same phenomenology: the black hole is losing its matter, whereas the neutrinos escape from it without any apparent infalling matter. IMO what we can observe at the event horizon of black holes INSIDE of large galaxies is actually interior of it from more distant perspective.

You seem to be saying they are generated AT the event horizon, then...

padillacury
1 / 5 (7) Dec 28, 2014
After OPERA, I formulated an alternative to Special Relativity, it"s at googlesites: Quantum Entanglement And Relativuty.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Dec 28, 2014
The issue is that Electro-magnetic based matter and energy cannot travel faster than the electromagnetic constant, the "speed of light," c.
It does not say anything about non-E&M based things. For example, gravitational potential changes instantly everywhere.

A Neutrino may fit the bill for being non-E&M, except one of the ways it is generated is by the collapse of a proton and an electron.

Just because a particle travels faster than c, does not mean it necessarily arrives before it left: This is a mathematical trick of reference frame mechanics. Energy is 1/c^2 the strength of matter, so perception (/reference frames) play something like millionth fiddle when it comes to effecting change on matter.

If a particle or observer could travel faster than light, in someone's perception they might arrive earlier than they left, but that would just be a trick of the light. :o)
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 28, 2014
Still waiting for Benni to provide an example of how his DE applies to Neutrino generation and acceleration...

Why are you waiting for me?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 28, 2014
Hey Benni, I like your spunk. Many of your ideas are very good, but when it come to religion you suck.[q/] I don't care about anybody's religion, I only care about what is provable through science & math & I'm pretty good at both.


Like I have said many times over the years explain from where the big bang originated before you knock religion!
I don't care about some BB Theory & all the hoopla of pros & cons on the issue, I just know what's here & deal with it, it's called science, anything else is faith.

Both the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit are able to travel faster-than-light you moron.


I take it you've already had that footrace & lost?

Frankly I'm just too busy in the real world to spend a lot of time dealing with funny farm science, I leave that to the mostly "retireds" who spend so much time on this site from dusk to dawn.
GraemeMcRae
not rated yet Dec 28, 2014
jgreimer, "negative mass squared" is intended to mean the mass squared is negative. I realize it's ambiguous, but only one meaning makes sense.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Dec 28, 2014
the source of all this Holy Hockey Stick fiction
@benniTROLL
this comment right here, more than ANY OTHER comment you have ever made, is one reason that i don't believe one word about you being an engineer, let alone you having a degree in any scientific field (unless, of course, you are bought and paid for by koch, et al)

besides you being off-topic and a reason to look completely stupid publicly...

since you are so mathematically inclined and love to tell us all about it, post (here) where the following studies got it all wrong so i can forward the mistakes to the original authors

http://www.scienc...abstract
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

I kept it nice simple for you to start with (only 2 studies)

Feel free to be as specific as possible and show all us "retired old codgers" up

thanks
TabulaMentis
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 28, 2014
@Benni:

If you are going to insult religious scientists, then you need to back it up with science.
You say you do not care about the BB theory. I guess you have not heard about inflation.
Is not that a big enough hint that something FTL exists out there.
Maybe you should look into the subject of inflatons, negative absolute zero!
Maybe you believe humans are the smartest life forms in the universe, that the universe evolves around humans, that humans were first to exist???

Come on dummy, sock it to me you stupid agnostic atheist fool!!!
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 28, 2014
@Benni:

If you are going to insult religious scientists, then you need to back it up with science.
I guess you have not heard about inflation. Is not that a big enough hint that something FTL exists out there.
So, according to your FTL Inflation theory, there are whole galaxies way somewhere out there somewhere that are moving FTL?

Maybe you should look into the subject of inflatons
I have, just not convinced about it.
negative absolute zero!
Now here's a topic for conjecture. If you can't even reach absolute zero anywhere in the universe, how do you conjecture for negative?

Maybe you believe humans are the smartest life forms in the universe, that the universe evolves around humans, that humans were first to exist?


Come on dummy, sock it to me you stupid agnostic atheist fool!!!
Go back to church, temple, mosque or wherever it is you learn your name calling proclivities.

TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2014
@Benni

I provided you with some info and what did you do with it, you proved again that you are stupid.
gsvasktg
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2014
This comment page is for jokers !!!! Instead of looking at the axiomatic theory that creates all the particle masses from basics there is an intense bout of verbal diarrhea on fairy tales that said once upon a time a wizard named Einstein produced the Universae from EMPTY SPACE. Poor Houdini must be writhing in pain for having missed that opportunity. On that website you will see exactly how much faster that light neutrinos travel and what exactly is a Neutrino . It is a stress wave that has a momentary mass of 9.23 E minus 35 kgs for 10 billinth of a second
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2014
So, according to your FTL Inflation theory, there are whole galaxies way somewhere out there somewhere that are moving FTL?

Relative to us, yes.
McIek
Dec 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EnricM
1 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2014
Imido - wouldn't you think that attitude is precisely the opposite of scientific curiosity? The real problem is promoting theories as facts.

The global warming coalition has done more to harm the reputation of science than anything before or since. For instance - the measurements of CO2 at the IPCC came from only THREE papers and they discounted some 317 papers NOT because they could demonstrate anything wrong with the "science" but because the results they achiev...


The IPCC is working on neutrinos? BAD GUYS!!! Let the Neutrinos in Peace. Damn Climate Histerics do whatever they can to tax the hardworking US citizen en try to ban gun use!!

McIek
Dec 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2014
So, according to your FTL Inflation theory, there are whole galaxies way somewhere out there somewhere that are moving FTL?

Relative to us, yes.

> Yes is excessively definite. You would need to prove that 'we' are moving FTL relative to something/somewhere else. The implications? Dumbs down to philo. If you can't observe something then it does not physically exist. No tachyons and no FTL galaxies, relative or not.

I'd like to believe but this is about science. Not faith.

McIek
Dec 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2014
Q) What was Kiri-kin-tha's first law of metaphysics?

A) "Nothing unreal exists."
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2014
The final question given was:

Q) How do you feel?

Spock, however, did not understand the question.

Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2014
So, according to your FTL Inflation theory, there are whole galaxies way somewhere out there somewhere that are moving FTL?

Relative to us, yes.


.........and "relative" is not FTL, do you understand the difference? And why? Presuming you don't comprehend why I asked those two questions, I'll explain it for you yet again as I have already done in past posts for those who believe the Universe has infinite parameters.

The answers for both questions is Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle (E=mc2). Galaxies cannot move FTL because if you simply plug the equation the amount of energy required is "infinite". All energy is derived from transformation of "mass". It is provable by observation & calculation that the universe contains a finite quantity of mass, therefore no source of energy is available after all the fuel (mass) has been transformed, thus negating the end result of never ending expansion that the inflation theory prognosticates.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2014
Benni claimed
....and "relative" is not FTL, do you understand the difference?
It seems U Benni don't - all motion is relative ALL the time & EVERYWHERE ALLWAYS - there's NO absolute, that's the point of "relativity", otherwise what are U trying to claim ?

Benni claimed
The answers for both questions is Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle (E=mc2)
This is only "apparent" in a (truly) relative frame.

Benni further claimed
Galaxies cannot move FTL because if you simply plug the equation the amount of energy required is "infinite"
No. Don't be so simple. Equation is much like the "Ultraviolet Catastrophe" it is far more complex (& interesting) than U imply. If any FTL relative to an observer were to be approached or reach an asymptote of occurrence those in the inertial reference frame of the FTL craft have no sensation other than acceleration. Relative origin or 'stationary' source observer would no longer see past the "equivalent" event horizon...
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 29, 2014
...........OK MM, plug the FTL theory you described into Einstein's Mass/Energy Equivalence equation (E=mc2) & see what happens........Whew, it's nice having the holidays off, but playing wetnurse to ROC's is an excercise in futility
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (13) Dec 29, 2014
@ Bennie-Skippy. How you are Cher? I'm good thanks. You have the Merry Christmas with Santa being good to you? He was better to me than I deserve, maybe he lost the list of naughty peoples with my name, eh? Or he forget to check him twice or something.

Why can you not write to explain what you are thinking like all the peoples you are disagreeing with do? If you would explain some of your thinking and reasons, maybe (only maybe but probably not) peoples would take you more seriously.

Just saying over and over that nobody knows what you know and you know that they are wrong is what the troll-Skippys do. That's what the Really-Skippy does to make everybody feel as frustrated as he is. That's reason everybody figure out real soon he just is pretending to be the science-smart-Skippy and does not know too much about anything.
TimLong2001
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2014
The Tachyon curve is essentially identical to the acoustic compressibility effect curve for Mach calculations. It is based upon the notion (false) that the velocity of light, c, is an "upper limit to velocity" rather than what it really is: the CHARACTERISTIC VELOCITY of E-M radiation. It was deemed a limit before the various forms of radiation (radio, microwave, IR, visible, UV, Xray and gammaray) were understood as one thing, only with varying amounts of energy. Other aspects of special relativitic effects can be demonstrated by considering rates of information reception using thought experiments. For example, say you are accelerating toward a laser beam transmitting data directed at you. The rate you receive the information increases, but it is due to the relative velocities rather than any "dilation" effect. Similarly, traveling faster than a light beam heading in the same direction as yourself, you would be able to "scoop up" its data in reverse sequence: "reverse time".
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 29, 2014
Why can you not write to explain what you are thinking like all the peoples you are disagreeing with do? If you would explain some of your thinking and reasons, maybe (only maybe but probably not) peoples would take you more seriously.


.........because during these holidays I spend my time doing more productive things with the kids. In a few minutes we'll be out in back with three of them cross country skiing on the hillside trails I made on our property some years ago. When I'm spending time with my kids, I don't have the feeling I'm playing the kind of wetnurse to them as with ROCs (retired old codgers) like you.

Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 29, 2014
Benni proves he doesn't understand Special Relativity with this blurt & STILL no Science in his replies
........Whew, it's nice having the holidays off, but playing wetnurse to ROC's is an excercise in futility
Why do U imagine U can apply E=mc^2 to non-inertial reference frames ?

Your question betrays fact U haven't thought this through or been trained or both :-(

Please read
http://en.wikiped...of_light

Another question for U (missed the other simple 3 ones didn't U?), get on a spaceship (please) & accelerate at 1G for 20yrs, how far will U travel re Inertial Reference Frame (IRF) of the Earth & over what period versus the (Non-Inertial) Frame of Reference of the spacecraft ?

Do U need assistance re Lorentz & Minkowski space perhaps ;-)

No DE's required, should be dead simple, no E=mc^2 issue re FTL either !

*grin*
acronymous
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2014
An imaginary mass should be described, if you're going to try and explain it along those lines, not as the square of a negative mass, but as the square ROOT of a negative mass. That way, at least, the description is consistent with how imaginary numbers are defined and understood in mathematics.
acronymous
not rated yet Dec 29, 2014
Water Prophet wrote:
"...It does not say anything about non-E&M based things. For example, gravitational potential changes instantly everywhere." But this is wrong. The same logic that explains electromagnetic waves as a consequence of relativity and static electric fields applies, word for word, to gravity waves as a consequence of relativity and "static" gravitational fields. And we observe orbital decay of pairs of neutron stars consistent with the calculations relativity provides for how much energy should be radiated as gravitational waves.

Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (11) Dec 29, 2014
Well ohkay with you being busy with the little-Bennie-Skippys. That does sound like more fun. But you got the one part wrong you.

as with ROCs (retired old codgers) like you.


I'm not the retired or old anything. I still have a really good job and probably will keep him for another 20 or 19 years. Maybe the codger part is right or maybe is not right, I don't know what that one is.

Anyhow, maybe after the little-Bennie-Skippys go back to school you will have more time for explaining stuffs to us still-working-not-old-cogers, eh?
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2014
@acronymous
If General Relativity is right, you're right. But it has problems, as I am sure you know.
Believe it or not, gravitational scalar potential does change instantly, if that what you are talking about.
If you were going the other direction; you're right to, mass --> gravity, and it is difficult to imagine mass that is not composed of electromagnetic "things."
It is cool and educational to look up particles arranged by mass.

Thanks!

I choose to disbelieve in GR for the simple reason it means no warp drive!
Severiano
3 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2014
I read the paper at Arxiv.org and the explanation seems to me too complex. I´d rather to say that the secret of the spraluminal neutrinos is more simple and that the process that is responsible to the effect is just on the neutrinos oscillation. No neutrino travels faster then light, just if we could track the displacement of a neutrino in relation to a frame the total time spent by a neutrino travellig between two points would be that if we calculate the expected time minus the time spent at each oscillation. The secret it is just on the oscillation phenomenom.

McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014
The secret it is just on the oscillation phenomenon.

I personally think oscillation is just a "2d" representation of spin...
(But don't quote me on that...:-)
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014
I personally think oscillation is just a "2d" representation of spin
Why do you think so and what would that imply? Without answering of these two questions we are dealing with ad-hoced claim, i.e. the tautology, which cannot be falsified.

Actually, quite surprised you asked those questions (thusly adding credence to my hypothesis...:-)
As to why - just a growing gut feeling based on how I observe/quantify things in motion.

As to the implications - I'm still working on that, but will try and fill you in as it develops.
Before you jump in with an awt solution, please understand that I am not sure spin(or oscillation, if you prefer) occurs in vacuum space. However, I am not discounting it, either...
Just call it a - work in progress...:-)
McIek
Dec 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2014
In AWT analogy the neutrinos are analogy of Falaco solitons at the water surface. These solitons do oscillate too, which may illustrate, what the neutrinos are actually doing in vacuum, when they oscillate. It's even commented loudly at the end of https://www.youtu...wZ39EDmw and they're changing into vortices of another particle generation during it. I don't see any indicia for claim, that the "oscillation is just a "2d" representation of spin.

Considering it from a hydrodynamic perspective (after watching your vid) - horizontal vortices derived from the (generally) perpendicular vortices and vice versa. Harmonic vortex (which look like waves) generation, if you will - generated by "spin"...
McIek
Dec 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2014
OK, but why "2D representation" of it? BTW Mesons also oscillate and they're 1-spin bosons...

I guess I am referring to how we "view" oscillation on paper or a scope. I think it spins (on 3 different axises) and we are viewing different sides at any given moment.
And I'm not quite sure what you mean by 1-spin...
McIek
Dec 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osiris1
5 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2014
Imaginary numbers are square ROOTS of negative numbers, not squares of negative numbers. All know that the square of a negative number is a positive number. Such is taught in most...I have to say... Algebra I classes. Had to say 'most' because many schools have gone to a 'core math' curriculum that guts the teaching of real math, reducing it to gibberish unusable by society and certainly not industry.
Osiris1
5 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2014
Maybe we are dealing with a strange kind of preon or two, subunits of quarks that we can only guess about so far until we can get sufficient energies in accelerators to find them. Problem is if we manage to make something that we never would want in our world. We need an asteroid for a lab to make some of these research projects.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
Anyway.. Happy New Year, all...
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2014
The oscillations of neutrino don't imply superluminal speed by itself. It just means, that the neutrino is lightweight enough for being periodically annihilated with vacuum fluctuations and restored again after while...


That is so sexy.

How about this theory as a result:
Since while it is annihilated it technically doesn't exist, it could spontaneously arise in the short term in a gravitational of other potential-favored gradient, in such a consistent way, iaw uncertainty, that it effectively "teleports" through part of its journey, making it superluminal.

It travels a bit, towards a gravity well, say, ceases to exist for a bit, and reforms in a region more favorable to its existence, closer to the well, than existing the entire time at c.

It's a neat chew-toy anyway. Something that doesn't exist can certainly exceed c. Something annihilated...?

No imaginary mass required.
Severiano
not rated yet Dec 31, 2014
As I told above the secret is on the oscillation of neutrinos, for which I devised a mechanism something simpler, and that occurs at room temperature (alias its allaways occurring) in which we may have a kind of "tunneling". The project OPERA, was a project where this could be tested. I did a "thought" experiment in which if we could trace the path from a single neutrino it would look like a "dashed" track, where you have the gaps, there the process of oscillation was working. Just we had to "count" the number of oscillations between LHC in Swiss and Gran Sasso in Itally, and we would have the "lacking time".
Severiano
not rated yet Dec 31, 2014
And more, each oscillation should be detected as a pulse (+/-).
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2014
I see, so you're trying to say, that the spin of more complex heavier particles is continuous composition of vibration motions across many dimensions at the same moment - but at the case of lightweight simple neutrinos the number of this dimensions is so low, that their projection into 3D space-time exhibits undulations and "blinking" too....

Well.... not Exactly...
Selena
Jan 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2015
Well, it wouldn't be true anyway, as the oscillations of particles heavily depend on undulations of neighboring vacuum, not just particle itself..


Insert "spin" instead of oscillation or undulation.
Severiano
not rated yet Jan 02, 2015
Indeed I gave a lecture, here at Petropolis on the OPERA´s experiment. Sincerelly I personally doubt from teh excuse given "problems with equipments". The experiment was conducted (if I am not wrong) ate least 9 times, and in those that were detected neutrinos, all the equipments were tested.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
If General Relativity is right, you're right. But it has problems, as I am sure you know
What PARTICULAR "problems" any Evidence ?

Spit it out man, I'm fed up with your obfuscation & immature approach & arbitrary claims !

Water_Prophet claimed
Believe it or not, gravitational scalar potential does change instantly, if that what you are talking about
Any Evidence ?

Water_Prophet claimed
If you were going the other direction; you're right to, mass --> gravity, and it is difficult to imagine mass that is not composed of electromagnetic "things."
What does this mean in scientific terms, Evidence ?

Water_Prophet uttered
It is cool and educational to look up particles arranged by mass
Hmm, Periodic Table re your claimed degree in Physical Chemistry (PC), 1st yr ?

Water_Prophet utters sheer idiocy
I choose to disbelieve in GR for the simple reason it means no warp drive
PC's grounded in relativity re materials ie Gold ?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2015
Mike: I'd usually ignore you, but you asked some good q's, and I get logged off between screens sometimes:
General Relativity is an excellentl theory, explaining alot but it misses some particulars, eg, but not all inclusive: http://www.gallup...vity.pdf

This should answer another:
http://en.wikiped...lativity

An electron (-)is the smallest bit of matter with non-relativistic mass, the next stable one is the proton (+). The neutron = p(+) + e(-) + neutrino, etc..

Elementary Particles are not the same as Periodic Elements, education, my friend, get one.

Thought because of Physical Chem, I don't know physics? Bad bet.

Anyone mildly educated in physical science wouldn't need these questions answered.

Just saying.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
.. I get logged off between screens sometimes
Yeah ! U STILL haven't answered re TSI, SW, LW to space re 3 Q's ?

Water_Prophet offered/implied
http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/UnsolvedProblemsRelativity.pdf
At 319 pages implying U have read through & understood, what r top 3 points re failure of GR, one sentence ea will suffice, can U do that ?

Water_Prophet noticed
Elementary Particles are not the same as Periodic Elements, education, my friend, get one
Doh U fell for it. From asking U on several forums to answer those simple 3 Q's, had to generate a trigger so U would get your ego up to respond, Y r u so predictable goes to prove U have no physics training as U still haven't answered re 3 Q's ?

Water_Prophet claimed
Thought because of Physical Chem (PC), I don't know physics
Claiming PC doesn't mean U know even high school physics, U don't write as if U have ANY formal training, So very obvious since the bowl :-)
jesse_v
not rated yet Jan 04, 2015
I remember as a child posturing the conundrum of verifying a Tachyon's existence. Our observation capabilities were constrained within the laws of relativity. For a faster-than-light object to be detected, then the laws of relativity would have to be ignored, because when you see it, it isn't there. I figured the best way to prove this type of "object" was to predict a future/past encounter and be ready/were ready with the necessary tools to test it. I too came to the conclusion that some part of the formula would have to be negative to result in an acceleration as other factors dissipated. With the probability of negative mass confined within relativity laws, it seems likely that we have observed this object as it travels backwards in time, but we wrote it off as some sort of anomaly. It would be interesting to go back to prior experiments of such instances to see if they conform to some sort of predictability. I am just posturing as a simple layman who lacks understanding.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2015
jesse_v:
That's no problem that predestination doesn't cure. LOL.
It is important to realize that there is a difference between reference frames, observation and physical reality.

Physical reality does not change if you are passively observing it, a fire burns whether you are watching it or not.
Now if you are actively shining a light on something to observe it, now matter how weak the light, you change what you are observing.
and a reference frame is all about you, if you are in a reference frame going faster than light, you may witness events "before they occur," but in reality it would just be how you are seeing them. The physical reality won't change.

I hope I haven't oversimplified what you were asking.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
..and a reference frame is all about you, if you are in a reference frame going faster than light, you may witness events "before they occur," but in reality it would just be how you are seeing them
This rubbish statement yet again goes to prove you CANNOT have graduated as a Physical Chemist (PC) as all PC's get a grounding in Special Relativity (SR) if at least to explain issues such as the colour of Gold & other chemical interactions where orbitals approach relativistic speeds.

Water_Prophet muttered
..hope I haven't oversimplified what you were asking
How about answering rigorous Science re your obviously false claims that "CO2 is a red herring" or that "CO2's effect is trivial" or the inane errors implicit in ever imagining any brass bowl/candle can possibly model IMMENSE permutations in climate just because "ice melts" - yikes !

R U on weed or found some other way to significantly dull intellect, Y claim U were a PC FFS ?
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2015
Elsewhere Water_Prophet made idle claims:-
What is the basis of your claim that CO2's effect to space is negligible when U ONLY focuson incoming Total Solar Insolation (TSI) ?

Evidence abundantly clear, u ignore CO2's increased thermal resistivity of IR to space !

Why Would U Water_Prophet ignore something so vitally important ?
==========================================================

Its as if you have some serious mental block to even THINK of that issue ?

Did U look at Mars as I urged:-
- Less than 1% of Earth's atmosphere
- Farther away from sun
- High CO2 of ~95%
yet can reach a balmy 20 to 30C in the shade...!

As a claimed Physical Chemist, why can't u even find any link to support your claim, let alone an educated opinion based upon your university training ?

Look forward to integrity & mature dialectic here Water_Prophet - can you please communicate well, just like a trained uni graduate ?

Can U be smarter please Water_Prophet - Physics please ?
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2015
Modernmystic claimed
If this were true wouldn't we see neutrino bursts BEFORE a supernova explosion?
Its plausible we can ie See neutrinos before the light, primarily because the reaction that causes the light also causes the neutrinos but, the light can take ages to pass through layers due to absorption/emission.

In Earth's case we see visible light from the sun's surface BUT, this visible light that is from the surface & most of it ostensibly from the core's fusion left the core several hundred thousand years ago & has taken that long to pass through the immense density & interactions between the core & the apparent surface - whilst neutrinos bypass that & are mostly unaffected hence arrive at Earth much sooner.

In the case of a Supernova there is not so much material & it is also expanding, in many cases relativistically too !

Therefore quite understandable that at the early part of a Nova neutrinos pass easily through the expanding front whilst light takes longer.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.