Received from Michael Watterson at 09/24/11 00:07 UTC: >Jim Higgins wrote: >> >>Supposing the speed measurements are confirmed beyond doubt, next must co= me=20 >>a coherent theory explaining it, otherwise all we have is an unexplained= =20 >>anomaly. I imagine the theorists are off and running already. > > >If the Neutrinos have negative rest mass, which is feasible since they are= =20 >never at rest, then they can go faster than speed of light. I'm not a physicist, just a curious layman who avidly read Scientific=20 American way back when it published more articles on particle physics than = on=20 sociological topics after scrubbing them politically correct. As I understand it (which isn't saying a whole lot)... the neutrino's=20 observed interactions are all via the gravitational and weak forces and the= =20 gravitational interactions are "positive" (meaning they attract other=20 positive masses) suggesting positive (though incredibly small) mass for the= =20 neutrino. A massless neutrino could travel *AT* the speed of light...=20 actually *must* travel at the speed of light. But one with positive mass=20 cannot. I don't begin to be able to do all the necessary math, but the math I can d= o=20 doesn't seem to allow a theoretical neutrino with negative mass to travel=20 FTL. It seems that requires one with imaginary mass - mass that if squared= =20 would be negative. Then FTL speeds seem possible, but that neutrino would = be=20 a new neutrino not previously discovered and not predicted by the Standard= =20 Model... which isn't to say it can't be, just that we haven't seen=20 it. Perhaps we don't see it because we don't look for it because we don't= =20 predict it. I have no clue how to observe a particle with imaginary mass. >The fine print of current theory isn't actually that nothing can go faster= =20 >than the speed of light, but that the max speed of something with no mass = is=20 >speed of light in a vacuum and anything with mass becomes infinitely heavy= =20 >as it tends to speed of light, thus no particle with mass can be accelerat= ed=20 >to speed of light, only very close. I'd be inclined to think that the *only* speed at which a truly massless=20 particle can travel is the speed of light. But with any mass at all, howev= er=20 infinitesimal, speed would be limited by the speed of light. (Based on=20 current knowledge and fully peer reviewed observation.) >Perhaps Neutrinos can have a wavelength equal to size of Universe with=20 >maximal energy. With Minimal energy it then slows to speed of light... An= =20 >in between energy neutrino thus will be some speed between speed of light= =20 >and everywhere at ones (infinite energy Neutrino). Or could neutrinos simply be nodal wave points (a better descriptive term=20 eludes me) made up of the sum of several/many waves each with different=20 frequencies. If so the nodal point (the neutrino) could be observed to mov= e=20 faster than light even though none of the individual waves comprising it do= =20 so individually. >Could then Neutrinos of some kind account for discrepancies in observation= =20 >of Universe as it looks increasingly likely that the current ideas of Dar= k=20 >matter and Dark energy are hogwash. I haven't heard anything yet that makes either or both of the "dark"=20 explanations hogwash, though "dark matter" does seem to stand apart from an= y=20 other theory of physics. Last I heard the proponents were hanging their ha= ts=20 on the mass of the neutrino, which is "known," but with an uncertainty that= =20 straddles the fence. A hair heavier and we have an oscillating (expanding= =20 now, but eventually collapsing) universe, a hair lighter and we have a=20 constantly expanding one. It will take a more precise determination of the= =20 mass of the neutrino to determine the fate of the "dark" theories. And=20 that's about all "dark" has to do with neutrinos as far as I know. It's=20 unrelated to their ability (or not) to travel FTL. >Really I know nothing about this except that the "Speed of Light" law=20 >applies to Light and regular particles. Neutrinos even if they don't have= =20 >negative mass are sufficiently odd that it's likely nothing other than our= =20 >understanding of Neutrinos will change if they are going "faster than ligh= t=20 >in a Vacuum" Through loads of rock too. Well, observations all seem to confirm that neutrinos have incredibly small= ,=20 but positive, mass. Their interactions with other matter are at least part= ly=20 gravitational. I don't see how those two things can be and yet the neutrin= o=20 still be so "alien" as to "violate" the universal speed limit. I see terms= =20 like "regular particles" and "sufficiently odd" above, but those have no=20 definitions in particle physics that I'm aware of. But then there's a *lot= *=20 in particle physics I'm not aware of. I'm guessing this whole FTL thing will be explained in time and when it is = I=20 don't expect to see the universal speed limit broken. Why not? I guess=20 because it would break too much else that fits together too nicely. "Nicel= y"=20 not being a term well defined in particle physics. ;-) What I'm most interested in is the Higgs boson, something the LHC is intend= ed=20 to find. Finding it supports the Standard Model while conclusively=20 demonstrating it doesn't exist supports one of the Higgsless models. I'd=20 prefer to find it because conclusively proving it doesn't exist is a messy= =20 proposition. You essentially have to select something in a Higgsless model= =20 that isn't in the Standard Model *and* that conclusively rules out the=20 existence of the Higgs and then you need to experimentally observe that=20 thing. I'm not so sure (meaning I really don't know) whether the Higgsless= =20 models lend themselves to physical observation as well as the Standard Mode= l=20 has, so that could be problematic also. All in all I'd really like to find= =20 the Higgs. --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .