From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:00:51 +0100 Archived: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:36:34 -0400 Subject: Re: D'oh! Light Speed Threshold Broken? >From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:32:35 +0100 >Subject: Re: D'oh! Light Speed Threshold Broken? >>From: Albert Baier <albertgbaier.nul> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >>Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:02:38 -0500 >>Subject: Re: D'oh! Light Speed Threshold Broken? ><snip> >>Guys, List >>The CERN paper: >>http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf >Thanks Albert. >Interestingly it now seems that Fermilab (Chicago) might've >made >the discoveryfirst, a coupla years ago Here's the relevant >quotes from an interview in the UK's Daily Telegraph: >http://tinyurl.com/3autbnh Thanks Albert and Ray I wanted to point out that superluminal neutrinos are not necessarily forbidden in existing physics. The basic explanation of 'why' seems to be that the limits on neutrino mass are limits on a quantity which is really mass (or momentum actually) squared, so the root can be negative. Negative or imaginary rest mass - with consequent speed >c - is allowed in the equations of relativity, but is usually just ignored as "unphysical". There's been a lot of hysterical gee-whizzery in the media to the effect that "Einstein was wrong" and we'll have to tear up all the text books and start again. In fact superluminal or tachyonic (tachyon = faster than light particle) neutrinos is an idea that has been around in theory for many decades. There have even been previous experimental results hinting at it, including anomalous neutrino pulses arriving before the photons from supernovae, and similar advanced pulses seen in Fermilab experiments in 2007. The idea has had loads of attention from lots of serious people. Yet physics (last time I looked) is still here. I put together a few items that might be of interest and give some background: I think tachyons were "invented" or at least named by Gerald Feinberg about 1960 but the idea goes back to Arnold Sommerfeld, one of the pioneers of early atomic physics in the early 20th C. It's misleading to say that they refute Einstein. On the contrary, they are an implication of special relativity which was fiurst discussed systematically by Tolman as early as 1917. They were given a place in a mature relativistic field theory in 1962 (O.M.P. Bilaniuk, V.K. Deshpande, and E.C.G. Sudarshan. Meta-relativity. Am. J. Phys., 30:718-723, 1962.) In fact what has been wanting (IIUC) is not a relativistic theory of tachyons but a quantum theory of tachyons. Lots of physicists have worked on this. From the Wikipedia article on tachyonic neutrinos: "In 1985 it was proposed by Chodos et al. that neutrinos can have a tachyonic nature. Today, the possibility of having standard particles moving at superluminal speeds is a natural consequence of unconventional dispersion relations that appear in the Standard-Model Extension, a realistic description of the possible violation of Lorentz invariance in field theory. In this framework, neutrinos experience Lorentz-violating oscillations and can travel faster than light at high energies. On the other hand, the above-mentioned proposal by Chodos et al. was strongly criticized by some researchers." [Wiki notes: 1.. ^ Chodos, A. (1985). "The Neutrino as a Tachyon". Physics Letters B 150 (6): 431. Bibcode 1985PhLB..150..431C. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)90460-5. 2.. ^ Chodos, A. (1992). "Null Experiments for Neutrino Masses". Modern Physics Letters A 7 (6): 467. Bibcode 1992MPLA....7..467C. doi:10.1142/S0217732392000422. 3.. ^ Colladay, D.; Kostelecky, V. A. (1997). "CPT Violation and the Standard Model". Physical Review D 55 (11): 6760-6774. arXiv:hep-ph/9703464. Bibcode 1997PhRvD..55.6760C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.6760. 4.. ^ Colladay, D.; Kostelecky, V. A. (1998). "Lorentz-Violating Extension of the Standard Model". Physical Review D 58 (11): 116002. arXiv:hep-ph/9809521. Bibcode 1998PhRvD..58k6002C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.116002. 5.. ^ Kostelecky, V. A. (2004). "Gravity, Lorentz Violation, and the Standard Model". Physical Review D 69 (10): 105009. arXiv:hep-th/0312310. Bibcode 2004PhRvD..69j5009K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.105009. 6.. ^ R. J. Hughes and G. J. Stephenson Jr., Against tachyonic neutrinos, Phys. Lett. B 244, 95-100 (1990).] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard-Model_Extension http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz-violating_neutrino_oscillations Physicist John Cramer (of Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics fame) wrote a readable popular article about theory and evidence for tachyonic neutrinos in 1992, referencing the anomalous Supernova 1987A detection by the Kamiokande experiment of neutrinos arriving before the photons, but allowing that this could have another explanation (which has been generally preferred hitherto). See http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw54.html Mathematical physicist Marek J Radzikowski (U of Brit Columb) thinks that Cramer was over-conservative and cites 'the Mont Blanc neutrinos (flavour not known) that were received 4.7 hours earlier than the Kamiokande II and IMB neutrinos pulses (the Kamiokande burst consisted entirely of electron neutrinos)' which were 'labelled as a "highly improbable spurious burst", but the only reason given for this is that its existence doesn't fit the most plausible model of supernova core collapse.'..." http://mjradzikowski.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/short-intro/ He has "...a blog to promote consideration of the tachyonic neutrino hypothesis (TNH), originally suggested in an article by Chodos, Hauser and Kostelecky (Phys.Lett.B150:431,1985). I have already posted 3 articles related to this topic on the arXiv.org website, namely http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1957 http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.4534 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.5418 At present, I am working on the aspects of the theory involving renormalization of the underlying quantum field theory (QFT) and unitarity of the S-matrix resulting from this QFT." http://mjradzikowski.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/hello-world/ Radzikowski also cites 'the 2007 results of MINOS concerning a direct time-of-flight measurement of the speed of the neutrino: http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.0437 which finds it to be 1.75 sigma in excess of the speed of light.' MINOS was a series of experiments at Fermilab. That result has been referenced anew in many articles and blogs in recent days in connection with the Italian neutrino finding. At the time it was deprecated - by the MINOS team itself - as a measurement artefact. So, if tachyonic neutrinos are not a new concept, why the fuss? The real issue is not about exceeding the speed of light as such, nor is it even about the possibility of detecting them. It is about the possibility of causality violations that could theoretically arise if the particles can be used to send information, as in the much-discussed "tachyonic antitelephone" thought experiment whereby a signal is sent back in time. Even if superluminal neutrinos are detectable in the CERN conditions it may yet be the case that there is a sort of cosmic censorship going on, which somehow prevents information being transferred and so preserves causality on the light cone, as happens all the time (so far as anyone yet knows) with "instantaneous" nonlocal entanglement in quantum theory. If you think about it the situation is analogous: the very tiny superluminal margin is not found from simply timing individual particles but is calculated by a very complicated statistical analysis done after the fact on distributed bursts of many detections, and most importantly the reference frame of measurement includes both emitter and detector with everything callibrated and locked together by GPS and atomic clocks. This reference frame is a local frame, i.e. it is made of light-speed signals. To determine the neutrino time of flight crudely speaking requires requires information to be sent separately at light speed from A to B where a comparison is made afterwards. In a terrestrial lab-scale setting this may seem over-subtle. But imagine if the emitter is on a distant star 10 light years away: How does one callibrate the reference frame of measurement to prove that a neutrino has arrived a millionth of a second earlier than it "ought" to have done? You cannot just "look and see". You have to do it by sending radio or other local signals at the speed of light, and 10 years later you can cal;culate the result. This seems closely analogous to the quanglement 'problem' whereby remote events are instantaneously correlated, but in a subtle way so that the correlation cannot be used for signalling. I'm not sure if this is a valid line of argument, but I suspect it might be. Any thoughts? At any rate, if the CERN experiment is validated I'd fully expect to see much argument along similar lines before causality-breaking neutrino signalling is finally accepted as inevitable. Martin Shough Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp