A Follow Up On Neutrinos

[Photonic]

Well the neutrinos aren't moving much faster than light, which brings forth the term "The invariant velocity" aka to the layperson speed of light. But not really so, you see photons may have rest mass which means they can't reach the invariant speed, so neutrinos which do have rest mass may actually have less rest mass than photons! Which would explain why they can move faster than photons. If we calculate the difference between the velocity of photons to those of neutrinos than we get the mass difference between the two and then...we can get the invariant velocity. Fun stuff!:drool:

But looking at the Lorentz factor there can be imaginary mass. This is where the Lorentz factor can produce solutions to negative terms, in other words moving faster than the invariant speed, You see mass can not be accelerated or pushed to the invariant speed because it would take infinite energy to do so. With imaginary mass by the same token can not be decelerated to the invariant speed. But ending up faster than the invariant speed is not illegal. So what moves without acceleration? Photons do not accelerate to their velocity, they just end up moving at 300,000 km per second, nothing pushes them to get to that speed. If the neutrinos truely are moving faster than photons, then photons have mass and that would mean that rest mass can be intialized to a velocity without any need to acclerate it, at least at the quantum level...

You could just say it means instantaneous velocity with massive objects is a potential reality. No need to complicate it.

 

[PolyHedral]

If we calculate the difference between the velocity of photons to those of neutrinos than we get the mass difference between the two and then...we can get the invariant velocity. Fun stuff!:drool:

Photons don't have rest mass. We know this because we know the value of c, the fundamental speed limit of reality, and we also know that photons match it very, very precisely.

 

[Photonic]

Photons don't have rest mass. We know this because we know the value of c, the fundamental speed limit of reality, and we also know that photons match it very, very precisely.

They match it depending on the environment but yes, that is essentially true.

 

[PolyHedral]

(The variable speed of light in materials is just because photons get absorbed and re-emitted. They always travel at c.)

 

[Leonardo]

Photons don't have rest mass. We know this because we know the value of c, the fundamental speed limit of reality, and we also know that photons match it very, very precisely.

As I mentioned in my post, if neutrinos are in fact moving faster than photons then it proves photons do have rest mass. c has always been a measure based on photons. The fact that relativity works so well and accurately means that the velocity of photons is so close to the invariant speed that its good enough to do real work with. Remember the velocity of the neutrinos isn't much faster than photons so the ramifications aren't the violation of Enstien's theory but the proof that photons do in fact have rest mass. And it has long been suspected that they do...

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Does this mean that speed doesn't cause time to slow down?

 

[Leonardo]

Does this mean that speed doesn't cause time to slow down?

No; speed does cause a maniforld distortion that lengthens paths for reactions to happen. This is actually an artifact of geometry, the limits of which however are the rules of matter and described by Enstiens theory of relativity.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

No; speed does cause a maniforld distortion that lengthens paths for reactions to happen. This is actually an artifact of geometry, the limits of which however are the rules of matter and described by Enstiens theory of relativity.

So is going faster then the speed of light time travel?

 

[Photonic]

No; speed does cause a maniforld distortion that lengthens paths for reactions to happen. This is actually an artifact of geometry, the limits of which however are the rules of matter and described by Enstiens theory of relativity.

Please tell me I'm not going to have to explain hyperbolic geometry to you.

 

[PolyHedral]

c has always been a measure based on photons.

And time dilation, and every experiment involving conversion of matter to energy and vice versa. If c is higher than we think it is, all sorts of things go wrong quite quickly. For instance, you'd probably end up rewriting most, if not all, electrodynamics, and that controls how atoms work.

So is going faster then the speed of light time travel?

Yes.

Please tell me I'm not going to have to explain hyperbolic geometry to you.

This place is so educated! *waves camply* :flirt:

 

[Photonic]

And time dilation, and every experiment involving conversion of matter to energy and vice versa. If c is higher than we think it is, all sorts of things go wrong quite quickly. For instance, you'd probably end up rewriting most, if not all, electrodynamics, and that controls how atoms work.


Yes.


This place is so educated! *waves camply* :flirt:

:rainbow1:

 

[Leonardo]

And time dilation, and every experiment involving conversion of matter to energy and vice versa. If c is higher than we think it is, all sorts of things go wrong quite quickly. For instance, you'd probably end up rewriting most, if not all, electrodynamics, and that controls how atoms work.

Not at the minute differences between the velocity of neutrinos and photons, the differences would fall into acceptable error variances.

 

[Leonardo]

Please tell me I'm not going to have to explain hyperbolic gometry to you.

Noting I said was inaccurate.

 

[Photonic]

Not at the minute differences between the velocity of neutrinos and photons, the differences would fall into acceptable error variances.

Except those variances are being experimentally declined now, at this point we need to simply wait for the data.

 

[Leonardo]

So is going faster then the speed of light time travel?

Into the past? No...

 

[Photonic]

Noting I said was inaccurate.

The universe has shown us that your answer is not entirely correct, and has exceptions.

Singularities namely.

 

[PolyHedral]

Not at the minute differences between the velocity of neutrinos and photons, the differences would fall into acceptable error variances.

We know the photon to be massless with more confidence than we know that neutrinos travel faster than light.

 

[Leonardo]

The universe has shown us that your answer is not entirely correct, and has exceptions.

Singularities namely.

Ah yes, you are correct, but IMHO singularities won't happened and are mathematical simulation obscenities. My view of space time is defined by the dimensional degrees of freedom of matter. The reason hyper-dimension at the gauge level are not experienced is because they cancel out. At the quantum level however they are very real and much larger than what M-theorist claim hyper-dimensions can manifest as. From this perspective of matter being the dictator of how space time can be defined we can explain how sub-atomic particles can just magically appear behind solid walls, entanglement correlations and yes; what happens when a black hole gets very small. When a black hole gets to an atomic size matter can manifest hyper dimensions! When that happens gravity falls apart. Remember, gravity only works in three dimensions. Once the black hole is of an atomic size gravity looses control and the black hole expands in a massive explosion that starts out in hyper dimensions and then eventually form gauge structures in three dimensions.

Again that is my opinion only...

 

[Leonardo]

We know the photon to be massless with more confidence than we know that neutrinos travel faster than light.

Good point.

 

[PolyHedral]

Again that is my opinion only...

Maths is, fortunately, backed better than opinions.