BREAKING: Neutrinos are faster than light

[Anonymous No.6972245]

http://phys.org/news/2014-12-faster-than-light-particles.html

>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 energy – 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 cosmic rays, cosmology, and particle physics all yield this same value within their margin of error. One observation, for example, involves the tiny variations in cosmic background radiation left over from the big bang, while another involves the shape of the cosmic ray spectrum.

[Anonymous No.6972264]

10 buck they don't.

[Anonymous No.6972273]

>>6972264
you're on kiddo! do you have $10?

[Anonymous No.6972283]

>>6972273
Opera + tons of experience proved that they don't go faster than c. Now a retired dude say that they do. OFC I will try to abuse the credulity of someone as stupid as to believe something like that.

[Anonymous No.6972286]

>>6972283
you obviously haven't read TFA. go read it.

[Anonymous No.6972287]

>still falling for this

[Anonymous No.6972359]

Nope. One paper which has had no impact does not make a discovery.

During SN1987a 24 antineutrinos were detected. Statistically several will have oscillated and thus become tachyons and back according to his ideas. This would lead to huge dispersion which wasn't observed.

[Anonymous No.6972363]

>>6972245
>dat pic
Nikola Tesla wasn't that emotionally expressive. I always pictured him as monotone and reserved.

[Anonymous No.6972368]

Phys.org is a shit spam site IMO. Article on phys.org appears to be taken verbatim from a press release written by the paper's author, Robert Erlech.

Here's the actual paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.2804

>Six observations based on data and fits to data from a variety of areas are consistent with the hypothesis that the electron neutrino is a m2νe=−0.11±0.016eV2 tachyon. The data are from areas including CMB fluctuations, gravitational lensing, cosmic ray spectra, neutrino oscillations, and 0ν double beta decay. For each of the six observations it is possible under explicitly stated assumptions to compute a value for m2νe, and it is found that the six values are remarkably consistent with the above cited νe mass (χ2=2.73). There are no known observations in clear conflict with the claimed result. Three checks are proposed to test the validity of the claim, one of which could be performed using existing data.

Looks like good science to me. I think he's onto something.

[Anonymous No.6972369]

>>6972245
Why don't scientist drop that skepticism that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?

[Anonymous No.6972377]

>>6972363

[Anonymous No.6972383]

>>6972369
Skepticism is the basis of science. You only accept something when faced with no other choice. The paper is rubbish. His observations are just tweaking formulae to get masses that agree. There is a reason it wasn't published.

[Anonymous No.6972387]

>>6972369
Because the idea that they might be wrong about stuff intrigues physicists.

[Anonymous No.6972389]

>>6972368
>Looks like good science to me. I think he's onto something.
Then you haven't read it.

[Anonymous No.6972398]

>>6972389
>Then you haven't read it.

oh, and you have. plz, do point out his mistakes you retard.

[Anonymous No.6972403]

>>6972398
Read it. You're quite capable. If you do you would find he has no observations to support his assumptions, he is just deriving masses which approximately agree, apparently pulls errors out of his ass and declares victory. The paper is terrible.

He also combines the magnitude of an imaginary mass in a sum of masses, completely unjustified.

[Anonymous No.6972481]

>Title: Tritium Decay and the Hypothesis of Tachyonic Neutrinos


>Abstract: Numerous recent measurements indicate an excess of counts near the endpoint of the electron energy spectrum in tritium decay. We show that this effect is expected if the neutrino is a tachyon. Results of calculations, based on a unitary (causal) theory of tachyons, are presented. The hypothesis of tachyonic neutrinos also offers a natural explanation of the V-A structure of the weak leptonic current in neutrino interactions.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9810355

[Anonymous No.6972487]

>>6972245

[Anonymous No.6972491]

>>6972481
>We show that this effect is expected if the neutrino is a magic pixie

[Anonymous No.6972507]

>>6972369
It's not scepticism, c as a barrier is a fundamental consequence of one of our most successful theories - it barely even makes sense to say that a particle can travel faster

[Anonymous No.6973521]

>>6972507
Which means you should be skeptical, not dismissive.

[Anonymous No.6973536]

>>6972245
Here, some shit from 2011 that said the exact same thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ0m13iJw0k

>>6972363
>implying davinci had emotions

[Anonymous No.6973541]

>>6972507
You sound like the people who refused to accept Einstein's model of light as a particle, "It flies in the face of all our understanding of light as a wave" were pretty much their objections.

[Anonymous No.6973570]

>>6972507
of course it does, time runs forward from the point of few of protons, time stand still for the photon and time runs backwards for the neutrino

the neutrino time can run backwards as fast as it wants thus traveling at any speed it wants just never slower than c

[Anonymous No.6973576]

>>6972363

[Anonymous No.6973584]

>>6972245
>tachyons having an imaginary mass, or a negative mass squared
>>6972369
>Why don't scientist drop that skepticism that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?

Alcubierre technically goes faster than the speed of light. And the only thing that's preventing us from creating it right now is we don't have access to matter with negative mass. If OP is correct, we just need to use some bottled neutrinos and we have a warp drive space ship. Now how do you bottle up neutrinos? I had a bottle full of them but it appears to be empty now.

[Anonymous No.6973602]

>>6972245
>imaginary mass
>imaginary
>imagination
>i
I never thought I would live to see the day pseudomath wormed its way into real life physics.
>brb killing myself

[Anonymous No.6973607]

>>6972368
>6 observations
Kek.
Talk about shit statistical significance. It doesn't count in particle physics unless your confidence is above 0.99999

So they're short roughly 100k observations.

[Anonymous No.6973616]

>>6973584
If we could have them decay into negative mass "electrons" we might be able to use fucking magnets to hold them in a ring.

[Anonymous No.6973617]

>>6973607
read the article, its six methods of observation. Or six different test cases.

[Anonymous No.6973624]

>>6973602
there is absolutely nothing strange about imaginary mass

[Anonymous No.6973637]

>>6973617
Their whole explanation for why we haven't seen it despite detailed measurements that physicists have already done, is that it is infrequent. Hence, below statistical significance.

[Anonymous No.6973648]

>>6973637
>The data are from areas
including CMB fluctuations, gravitational lensing, cosmic ray spectra, neutrino oscillations, and 0 double beta decay.

by observations he means methods, and each method has had countless events

it's not like neutrinos have only been seen with imaginary mass six times, rather six vastly different experiments came up with the same answer

[Anonymous No.6973751]

>Tachyons distinguish a preferred frame via mechanism of the spontaneous symmetry breaking; consequently the relativity principle is broken, but the Lorentz covariance (and symmetry) is preserved. The preferred frame can be identified with the cosmic background radiation frame.
>http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9607232v2.pdf

Anyone who anything about this?

[Anonymous No.6973983]

>>6973616
>fucking magnets
Those are use in teledildonics, right?

[Anonymous No.6974043]

>>6973648
But what you ignore is that he doesn't make the case with any of these observations that they point to imaginary mass. He simply introduces a formula which acts on a result from these observations to give a mass estimate. Big red flag. Nowhere is their a probabilistic approach. Some of his equations are completely unjustified.

Anyone can mangle formulae to give consistent results.

[Anonymous No.6974985]

>imaginary mass, or a negative mass squared

can someone explain this imaginary mass concept? I don't get it. at. all.

[Anonymous No.6974993]

>>6974985
It just means the mass is an imaginary number.

The weird properties follow from the algebra of imaginary numbers.

[Anonymous No.6974997]

does anyone feel especially skeptical and think these people are kinda stupid. like literally:
>take lorentz factor in sr, put in velocity higher than c
>get imaginary denominator
>cancel that out with imaginary mass
it's all theoretical nonsense that doesn't have a strong connection as to what the nature actually is; sort of like dark matter

[Anonymous No.6975075]

>>6974997
you dont seem to know how physics works

[Anonymous No.6975097]

>>6974043
dude what? he makes a hypothesis based on existing theory, and reformulates existing theory accordingly, and matches these results with experimental observations. the agreement is both strong and robust.

do you even know how theoretical physics is done? im not saying he is right, but its not a weak paper and you dont seem to understand why it was published.

[Anonymous No.6975103]

>>6972359
only 24 events. what is the probability that none of these oscillate back. pretty fucking high if the probability of a single event isnt fucking close to 1.

[Anonymous No.6975112]

>>6975075
not hearing any explanation from you

[Anonymous No.6975123]

Does anyone else feel like the more they read about physics the less they understand anything?

I don't even know how to process the idea of negative mass. Like does this actually make sense to everyone else on this board? Is physics intuitive to everyone but me?

[Anonymous No.6975137]

>>6975123
I mean, ideas like negative mass or whatnot are just theoretical constructs thought of in order to simulate and predict the nature of some system. it may not have any correlation with reality and nature, hence not be intuitive in any real definition of the word

[Anonymous No.6975156]

>>6975137
But it's being used to describe a particle that I think exists.

The "theory", or math usuaully checks out in my head. If you ask me to play the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment in my head, the conclusion makes sense. But the idea of something actually existing in two states as once just does not compute with my brain.

In a similar sense the idea of something having "less than no mass" baffles my mind and just doesn't register with me even if it is true.

[Anonymous No.6975177]

>>6973584
>bottled neutrinos

[Anonymous No.6975192]

>>6974985
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0604/0604003.pdf

there is really nothing to it man, the Higgs field has imaginary mass too

[Anonymous No.6975199]

what are the consequences of neutrinos actually being tachyons?
does this resolve much in quantum mechanics?

[Anonymous No.6975256]

>>6975199
>what are the consequences of neutrinos actually being tachyons?

Some weird causality shit for a start, if something propagates faster than light then you can always find a frame where information propagates backwards in time.

>does this resolve much in quantum mechanics?

I don't think so.

[Anonymous No.6975297]

>>6975256
>Some weird causality shit for a start, if something propagates faster than light then you can always find a frame where information propagates backwards in time.
No, the theory this uses is not normal special relativity, it uses a different sincronisation scheme that is identical to special relativity for anything slower than light ar going at light speed, but tachyons causes spontaneous symmetry breaking of the Lorens group causing a preferred frame of reference to be selected equal to the frame of the microwave background radiation, this means that the theory is still relativistic, but signals traveling faster than light are still causal. I hope this turns out to be true since it will most likely allow FTL travel with no time paradoxes.

[Anonymous No.6975318]

>>6975297
Oh right, that sounds pretty cool.

[Anonymous No.6975328]

>>6975297
>Lorens

[Anonymous No.6975408]

>>6975097
>strong and robust
No
What is the statistical significance of his result?

[Anonymous No.6975534]

>>6972487
Is this carl sagan?

[v No.6975543]

>>6972507
> GE
> Successful
Pick one.

[Anonymous No.6975546]

>>6972245
Didn't they debunk this shit a few years back and said the calculations were wrong and that Neutrinos aren't faster than light?

The only reason neutrinos have such tremendous speed is because their mass is unbelievably small, and that's why they're so fast, but compare them with massless photons, you can't go faster than light in a vacuum.

[v No.6975547]

>>6974985
Read into black holes

[v No.6975561]

>>6975546
No such thing as a perfect vacuum.

[Anonymous No.6975566]

>>6975097
He doesn't reformulate anything. Many of his claims are completely unjustified in the text.

You can't possibly claim a result with no proper statistical analysis is robust. That's shit. You don't understand how physics is done.

The paper wasn't published in a journal.

[Anonymous No.6975570]

>>6975103
With the Sun over half of neutrinos have oscillated by the time they get to earth. It's pretty much certain some of them oscillated.

[Anonymous No.6975576]

>>6975561
I didn't imply vacuum was perfect, I was just talking about empty space in general. Everybody knows that a perfect vacuum doesn't exist since virtual particles pop in and out of existence.

[Anonymous No.6975584]

>>6972377
>dat gif

[Anonymous No.6975607]

>>6974985
it means it travels backwards in time

[Anonymous No.6975624]

>>6975256
>if something propagates faster than light then you can always find a frame where information propagates backwards in time.
no it just means that information can propagate faster than we thought.

[Anonymous No.6975641]

The paper is greatly misleading. He wrongly asserts that 3 of his tests give values for the mass, but they all ride on untested assumptions. If tachyonic neutrinos cause dark energy, if they cause the cosmic ray knee and ankle. As these aren't tested they cannot be assumed. You can use the first as an upper limit, the second and third however lack justification.

[Anonymous No.6975665]

>>6975607
see
>>6975297

[Anonymous No.6976206]

I think I read somewhere that the data from the experiment that said it was had a huge error and when redone it showed that it didn't