A paper by retired Prof. Robert Ehrlich claims that data from six experiments could potentially prove that electron neutrinos are consistent with being the hypothetical tachyon particle. The paper has been accepted for publication in Astroparticle Physics: http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.2804
I've not gone through the whole paper, but on a quick look it appears to be a mass based association, that does not include the faster than light componet normally associated, conceptually with the tachyon. I at least could find no match for word searches on, speed, light, etc. It seems kind of like saying we have found evidence of something that has the right mass but does not, fit other criteria...., without saying the later part. Similar to the Higgs boson discovery, that found a short lived particle of an acceptable mass, without confirming the mechanism, it is supposed to be associated with.
They are also discussing the paper @ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/neutrino-mass-paper.789275/ , so I asked Prof. Ehrlich some questions based on the comments there, and here (and some of my own). I also sent him links to the threads. Here's what he said: I also sent the questions to Prof. Chodos. Here's his reply:
Both good replies, tashja. PhysicsForums does have a far stricter moderation. The only other forum I visit much. I did grab a copy of the paper, but have not yet been able to spend much time with it.
Well done tashja. But I have to say I'm not fond of this, because IMHO it misses the crucial understanding of what mass is all about. In Einstein's E=mc² paper you can read that "the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content", and with a little light reading you can understand what he was talking about. A photon has no mass because it is energy, and it's moving at c. When you slow it down to an effective speed of zero by catching it in a mirror-box*, all the energy-momentum is exhibited as mass. When you open the box, it's a radiating body that loses mass. And when you slow down a photon to below c, it exhibits an effective mass. There’s a sliding scale here: mass is a measure of how much energy is there, and how much it’s moving at less than c. So if a neutrino has a small mass, it’s moving at slightly less than c. If the mass varies, it has to be because the speed varies. Think of photon momentum as resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c, then with pair production and electron diffraction and spinors in mind, think of electron mass as resistance to change-in-motion for a wave going round and round at c. Mass really is that simple, and on that basis tachyons are a "non real solution" and wishful thinking. We have no evidence whatsoever of negative-energy particles, or neutrinos going faster than light, or going faster when they lose energy, energy isn't "negative in certain reference frames" as per the physorg article, there are no particles "travelling backwards in time", and dark energy isn't negative energy. Obviously "TachyonBob" is attached to his hypothesis, but methinks if I'd written a thread proposing stuff like this, it would get shunted to pseudoscience pretty damn quick. * See light is heavy by van der Mark and (not the Nobel) 't Hooft.
Your post is full of yourself and should be redacted in its entirety! And as for your reference, are you kidding? I have looked at that paper and it is laughable. It is full of the same kind of conclusions based on misinterpretations, that you generally turn out.
OnlyMe: there's nothing wrong with that paper, it's firmly based on Einstein's E=mc² paper. If you think there is something wrong, please point it out. You can't, can you? Look, the bottom line is that the mass of the body is a measure of its energy content. And a body can't contain less than no energy. Resistance to change-in-motion is what mass is. And when you apply a force to slow that body down, it doesn't speed up. Tashja: what I think is a bit of shame is that Bob's preoccupation with tachyons has blinded him to some rock-solid low-hanging physics. Like the fact that on brute properties as opposed to SM convention, neutrinos and more like photons than they're like electrons. They have no mass or charge to speak of, and they move at c or thereabouts. Another sitter is the massive tautology in the "given explanation" of gamma-gamma pair productoin: "From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion–antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple". This says pair production occurs because pair production occurs. It's garbage. Pair production occurs when a photon interacts with a photon, and then when a photon keeps on interacting with itself so its path is spinorial rather than linear, we call it an electron. So in a way, the electron is a photon. The neutrino isn't. If you talk to Bob again, ask him to find a washing line, sight his eye along it, then twang it. That emulates a photon. Then ask him to get a pair of pliers and twist the washing line, then let go. That emulates a neutrino. Or at least a travelling breather. The neutrino may be something like that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! GFDL image by Danko Georgiev , see Wikipedia
I always believe you have a connection with your future and past self. I believe the ptb have techs to let anyone see there future, probably by stimulating your brain to open up your mind to connect. So maybe something like this exists, but i do think humans already have the techs in mind control to get you to connect with your future self, and see how your life will turn out.
I can't find anywhere that the paper you reference has been submitted for pier review. I do find one thread at Physics Forums where it was dropped in as something that should be considered..., no one even acknowledged it let alone commented on it. However, you wanted me to post some reason why I dismiss the paper, so from that paper comes the following, It does not cite any actual weighing of a box full of light and references as proof drawings! Both you and that paper fail to address the issue of clearly defining what Mass or Inertia are.., and yet seem perfectly at ease attaching both, as well as gravity, to light. You would do well to carefully consider Lev Okun's paper, The Concept of Mass — http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/~des/Phys2320/concept of mass.pdf , and einstein's own words referenced and quoted in that paper, Even Einstein felt that reference to relativistic mass should be avoided, in favor of momentum and energy.
It's peer review, and it's irrelevant anyway. The paper is either right or wrong. You should be able to decide that for yourself, you don't need some other guy telling you what you should or shouldn't read. If some other guy wants to point out the flaws, no problem, but do not let him tell you to dismiss something just because he didn't give it his seal of approval. Because it isn't wrong. If it contained some glaring error they would have said so. So? Everybody knows that a box filled with gas weighs more than a box with just vacuum inside. And everybody knows that a radiating body loses mass. Open the mirror-box and it's a radiating body that loses mass. Have you even read Einstein's E=mc² paper? Because we know what they are, and what Einstein said. Come on, take a look at the last line of Einstein'sE=mc² paper: If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies. I've read it. I don't think you have. Yes, we know that. So what were your reasons for dismissing the van der Mark/'t Hooft paper again? None. You still haven't read it, have you? You haven't read Einstein's paper, or Okun's paper either, have you?
Where is it peer reviewed? Show me a link to the journal. Actually the thread consensus is that the paper is wrong, because the thread consensus is that light has no mass. Gas and light are different things. Where has anyone weighed light trapped in a box? And Einstein's paper does not say that the mass associated with absorption and emmission, is a mass of the free photon. Somewhere in there you just passed right by the Einstein quote, from Okun's paper??? He's your hero, right? I have read all of them and many more. You obviously don't understand any of them. The paper "Light is Heavy" is a joke! If it were not you would not need to keep including the 't Hooft disclaimer, as if just mentioning the name, added some validity to the paper. Provide a link to the peer review! And don't count yourself as meeting that challenge.
Farsight, you say you know what mass and inertia are! So what are they? And don't fall back on 16th/17th century definitions, let's hear the fundamentals. What is mass and what gives it inertia?
I can't because it wasn't. And nor was Einstein's E=mc² paper. You can read about it here. Like I said, you should judge a paper on its merits, you shouldn't let some other guy tell you what to read or what to think. Now, what's your criticism of Light is heavy? The thread consensus is wrong, because light has a non-zero inertial mass because "radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies". The thread consensus is also irrelevant, because scientific progress does not progress by democratic vote. It progresses via hard scientific evidence, which typically proves that some guy like Einstein is right and everybody else is wrong. Because the word photon wasn't around until 1926 when Gilbert Lewis coined the term. Kind of. He got some things wrong and there are some issues, but he got a lot right too. Enough. You clearly haven't read them, you can't fault Light is Heavy, you're just a naysayer clinging to ignorance. So it's back on ignore for you. All: sorry about this. NB: Inertia is resistance to change-in-motion. A photon exhibits inertia in Compton scattering where it is decelerated in the vector sense. Mass is usually taken to be rest mass, which is also resistance to change-in-motion, but for something that you say is at rest. Hence the massless photon adds to the mass of the mirror-box, and when you open the box, it's a radiating body that loses mass.
Exactly no peer review. Maybe you could show where it is used as reference, for a peer reviewed paper? I suspect you don't even have posting privileges on that forum...? You confuse momentum and inertia, yes that is difficult (he says with a chuckle).., one has a clasical kinetic component. Guess which one. (Actually both may but that would be a discussion introducing a perspective beginning in quantum mechanics.) So there it is again.., that image of a red faced child, fingers stuck deep in his ears while he blabbers out loud, so that he cannot hear what he cannot deal with. And Farsight, just how far back in history does that one come from? No progress in thought since then? The question was more along the lines of what is/are the fundamental mechanics, from which what we call inertia emerges. The question was.., who has weighed the box with light trapped inside? ... Not say the same thing again! Some of the blabbering associated with the red faced child.., you think?
Not in the Newtonian or classical sense. However, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Electromagnetism The electromagnetic momentum is Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
damit farsight, i was seriously enjoying this thread. are you seriously going to contaminate this one also. please stay out of it since it's far advance for you. please.
Certainly light has momentum, and just as certainly it has no mass in the accepted sense, or weight. If it had mass, it wouldn't achieve "c"that it always constantly does. It may warp spacetime ever so slightly, due to this momentum/energy, but it could never ever be said by any true thinking scientist, that light is heavy. Or is this just another Farsight joke?
If Farsight is wondering how anything without recognised mass can have momentum, [that is if he does not have me on ignore again] considering that light/photons, only ever travel at "c", we need to consider the Lorentz transformations in line with SR. In other words particles such as Photons, with no rest mass, to have momentum, must by definition, always move at "c". Farsight my old chum, If there is anything more I can help you with just give us a holla Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
