Slashdot Mirror
New Paper Claims Neutrino Is Likely a Faster-Than-Light Particle
HughPickens.com writes Phys.org reports that 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. 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 check on Ehrlich's claim could come from the experiment known as KATRIN, which should start taking data in 2015. In this experiment the mass of the neutrino could be revealed by looking at the shape of the spectrum in the beta decay of tritium, the heaviest isotope of hydrogen.
But be careful. 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. When their speed was measured again the original result was found to be in error – the result of a loose cable no less. "Before you try designing a "tachyon telephone" to send messages back in time to your earlier self it might be prudent to see if Ehrlich's claim is corroborated by others."
But be careful. 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. When their speed was measured again the original result was found to be in error – the result of a loose cable no less. "Before you try designing a "tachyon telephone" to send messages back in time to your earlier self it might be prudent to see if Ehrlich's claim is corroborated by others."
Yay!
No worries. I have peered review this paper and corroborate it.
Me too. I read it one week before it was published, and posted my comments last month. As I said tomorrow, there's no reason I can see that neutrinos aren't tachyons. In fact Prof. Robert Ehrlich agreed with me yesterday, after he accepted his Nobel prize for non-casual phenomena next year.
Since they travel back in time, you have to test the result before you do the experiment.
If your test was successful, you see little reason to do the experiment, which causes the test result to not have happened -- which can make your co-workers quite angry with you. The frustrating nature of this type of work requires extreme dedication.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Nor did the Opera team claim any such thing, they observed faster than light tachyons, couldn't find why they had got those results and contacted another team to ensure their equipment was faulty. People in those positions don't just make wild speculations with corroborated evidence.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.2804
Complaints are better when you also tell us what the answers should be. How do you call a number when its square is negative?
0.645793919 != 2/3, but it's reasonably close.
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 m^2_v_e = 0.11±0.016eV 2 tachyon. The data are from areas including CMB fluctuations, gravitational lensing, cosmic ray spectra, neutrino oscillations, and 0v double beta decay. For each of the six observations it is possible under explicitly stated assumptions to compute a value for m^2_v_e , and it is found that the six values are remarkably consistent with the above cited _e mass (\Chi^2 = 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.
Ummm...according to my calculator, 0.33 eV / 510998 eV = 0.646 x 10^-6, which is reasonably close to "two thirds of a millionth" quote
As for the imaginary mass, let's say that some particle had 0.33i eV as its mass. Then if you squared that, you would end up with -0.108 eV^2. How is that not "negative mass squared" ?
There are lots of potential problems with Erlich's theory, but the ideas you chose to nitpick are not at issue..
Imaginary isn't "negative mass squared"
The sentence is slightly ambiguous, however;
The result relies on tachyons having ... a negative (mass squared)
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Any positive mass, you mean. Imaginary numbers aren't positive.
You just need a thiotimoline target in your detector.
How is that not "negative mass squared" ?
A "negative mass squared" would be a positive-magnitude square mass, whatever that is.
You have the squaring backward - imaginary is the square root of a negative. But worse than that, it is completely ignoring the units. Square mass is not mass.
Well, since Professsor Coward has spoken, I guess all science should stop, our understanding of the universe obviously being entirely complete.
drdread66 doesn't have it backwards, the original article is unclear in its phrasing. It should have stated that the square of the mass is negative, which can be assumed when it accurately states that the mass is an imaginary number. Another commenter has linked back to the original paper on archiv.org; I always recommend going back to the source for science reporting anywhere online. As Einstein said when asked about his thoughts on a one page summary of the theory of relativity from a local paper, "things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- W. Blaine Dowler
http://www.bureau42.com
If it brakes causality, doesn't that disprove it right there?
not from your parents basement it wont!
A telephone to send messages back in time... but sending information back wouldn't change the time we are in now, it would simply cause a split, an alternate time line to occur, and nothing would change at the time we are in now.
Example: Sending information back to stop the assassination of Kennedy wouldn't change that fact in our time, its already occurred.
It would create a new time line, one of which we are unaware.
If multiple Universe, and multiple time lines exist, would changing a time line we could have no knowledge of be meaningful in any way?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
it can't break the speed limit of light
I would say that you misread Einstein, Dr. Powell. May I call you Mark? You see Mark, what Einstein actually said was that nothing can accelerate to the speed of light because its mass would become infinite. Einstein said nothing about entities already traveling at the speed of light or faster.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
In that supernova (the first observed in 1987 hence the name), the supernova was close enough that we were actually able to detect the neutrinos from it. The neutrinos arrived about three hours before the light from the supernova. But that's not evidence for faster than light neutrinos, since one actually expects this to happen. In the standard way of viewing things, the neutrinos move very very close to the speed of light, but during a core-collapse supernova like SN 1987A, the neutrinos are produced in the core at the beginning of the process. They then flee the star without interacting with the matter, whereas the light produced in the core is slowed down by all the matter in the way, so the neutrinos get a few hours head start.
The problem for FTL neutrinos is that if the neutrions were even a tiny bit faster than the speed of light they should have arrived much much earlier. This is strong evidence against FTL neutrinos. In the paper in question, he mentions SN 1987A in the context of testing his hypothesis in an alternate way using a supernova and the exact distribution of the neutrinos from one but doesn't discuss anywhere I can see the more basic issue of the neutrinos arriving at close to the same time as the light.
How many times have we been through this, if it has mass, ANY mass, it can't break the speed limit of light, end of!
People assume too much. They assume "flavor oscillation" requires time.
"it can't break the speed limit" manages to pack quite a number of assumptions into one compact sentence.
We can't describe gravitation from even one solitary photon yet undeserved hubris is nonetheless palpable.
Why do I suspect this is horse crap?
A hyphen between mass and squared would help.
Saying "has a negative mass squared" can be misinterpreted more easily than "the square of the mass is negative." One person read it as intended, and another read it as "you take a negative mass and square it." If the wording was completely clear, that misinterpretation couldn't have happened. Different brains will associate the words "negative mass" as a complete unit while others will associate "mass squared" as a complete unit.
- W. Blaine Dowler
http://www.bureau42.com
Could tachyons be where the dark matter mass comes from?
There is no way to validly misinterpret "has a negative mass squared" and then you proceed to misinterpret it?
"The square of a negative mass" is a positive number. The square of an imaginary mass is negative, which is what they are talking about. It is clearly possible to misinterpret this. Before someone cries out that an imaginary mass is nonsense, I should point out that imaginary numbers appear in several legitimate places in science. I don't believe the results of this paper are correct, but I'm not about to dismiss them out of hand.
- W. Blaine Dowler
http://www.bureau42.com
What the OPERA collaboration claimed was that they had an anomaly in their data, which led to a possible interpretation of nneutrinos travelling faster-than-light. Since they found that a very extrordinary claim, they knew they needed extrordinary evidence, and after a few months of searching within, they opened up to the scientific community to help find their mistake, if any. They were very scientific about the whole thing, and didn't at any point claim "hey look here, we found neutrinos to go faster than lightspeed!".
In summary, TFS contains crap on the part I know about, so I'm not inclined to go read TFA... I'll hear it from a more reliable source if it turns out to be anything important.
Did any of you who moderated parent up actually look at the link posted? It's a personal website defending his pet crackpot theory of everything.
nothing postulated in the search for atomic energy violated the laws of physics "cough"
Isaac Newton would beg to differ.
-- Alastair
If the only valid interpretation of "A B C" is "C of A B", then I suppose that "liquid motor oil" is oil for liquid motors, and "downloadable computer software" is software for downloadable computers. I learned something today... that you're an idiot.
So, not only are neutrinos tachyons, but the whole thing is a formal phenomenon as well. Fascinating.
Time is monotonic. Nothing can return to its own past.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I'm waiting for the next episode of The Big Bang Theory to hear what Dr.Copper thinks of this paper before I take sides. He's the man...
This is a scientific paper being written for the author's peers, none of whom would ever misinterpret it. I've seen this issue come up in a couple of places where laypeople are confused by the language of physics.
This is not a problem with the language of physics: it is a problem with laypeople.
I'm all for clear scientific communication, but at the end of the day, communication is hard and worrying about how some random person on the 'Net might misinterpret a term you use every day in your professional work is just not a good use of anyone's precious attention.
When I write poetry I do so in a pretty technical way. If people don't appreciate that, sucks to be them, because they are not my audience. I'm the same way in scientific communication: I write for my peers, and everyone else does the same. Let the popular science authors do the translation. They need the work.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
It is not a number, it is a number with units.
If you square an imaginary distance, you do _not_ get negative distance, you get negative area. Totally different, and an important one.
Actually, "mass squared" is a completely relevant concept in this context. The reason is that the equation everybody thinks they know as Einstein's special relativity equation is NOT E = mc^2. That is the simplified version for objects at rest. The version that includes particles in motion is E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4, where p is the momentum of the particle. Note the presence of an m^2 term in that equation. Thus, a negative mass squared -- which others have pointed out should be read as "negative (mass squared)" -- implies that the particle's energy is *decreased* by its mass rather than increased by it. This is a counterintuitive idea, but quite plausible mathematically.
One thing that I should point out is that it is possible that Erlich wrote this paper not because he actually believes it, but because he did the math. Got a surprising result that did not obviously contradict known principles of experiments, and is challenging the world to tell him where he went wrong. We used to do this all the time when I was in grad school. It was a lot of fun. The main difference is that when you stake out an outrageous position and your friends catch your mistake over some beer, no one calls you an idiot on Slashdot. When you publish a paper, the results can be less ... um .. . "civil."
There is no way to validly misinterpret "has a negative mass squared" it clearly means "has the square of a negative mass" which is nonsense.
Translation: "I am ignorant of what this term means to physicists, and I declare my ignorance trumps their knowledge."
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
For those interested in time travel, the inaugural meeting of the International Time Travel Association will be held at the Perimeter
Institute last Tuesday at 20:00.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
True! If it has imaginary mass it can't break the speed of light from above.
In particle physics, a massless particle is a particle whose invariant mass is theoretically zero. Currently, the only known massless particles are gauge bosons, the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force).
The belief is that Neutrinos have mass. However, if they don't then, they are a W boson and can qualify.
What is more likely to happen is that either a) no FTL particle, ever or b) the standard model will have to be amended. What makes some people think going back in time (and violating causality) is possible, is the elegance of the mathematics that fits what we know about physics. Would not be the first time that when more becomes known, the mathematics loses significantly in elegance. Just look at the mess of the current mathematical modeling (not: "foundation"!) quantum physics has.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I can already see some CTO at a high frequency trading data center putting together a proposal to use this information to reduce latency in trade orders from New Jersey to the exchange. Not sure they can do a little relativity backglip and get orders in before the information they're based on exists but they might get closer to zero than the guy with the shorter fiber optic cables down the road...
And also true (as far as we can tell).
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
I know. Sorry, I read the paper.
I'm not a physicist, either. Maybe someone can clear these questions up for me.
The paper cites neutrinoless double beta decay as one of its six observations, but from my understanding this phenomena has not yet been observed, and experiments that have claimed to observe it have not been "disputed", but unambiguously discredited.
Also - from my understanding - previous theoretical work stipulated that the FTL component would only be found in internal reference frames via quantum interactions, and the neutrino itself would not and need not travel FTL.
Special relativity (a very well-tested theory) also shows that faster-than-light travel or information transfer allows travel or information transfer back in time. (The converse is obviously true: if you take five years to go to Alpha Centauri, and then go back four years, you've traveled FTL.)
Lots of people are rather attached to the idea of one-way time and having non-paradoxical causality, which means they don't want it to be possible to send information faster than light.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Got any evidence for monotonic time? There are legitimate scientific theories that mean some forms of time travel are consistent with the laws of physics as we understand them.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Why do people think FTL allows for backwards time travel? It's called Special Relativity, and is much more convincing than people's general ideas. p> Suppose you're in a spaceship traveling at a speed relative to another spaceship such that time dilation is 2, meaning that for each of you time appears to pass at half speed for the other one. When you meet, you exchange ansible (instantaneous communicator) settings. An hour after, you put your coffee cup on the edge of the console, and it falls and breaks. You send a message to the other guy. You observe him getting it when, from his point of view, it's half an hour after meeting. He relays the message back, and observes you getting it when you are fifteen minutes from the meeting, and the message has therefore returned forty-five minutes before you sent it.
In order to argue with this, you need to at least understand it. You need to understand that "forward" and "back" are not determinate with any FTL phenomenon. (There is an objective forward and back as long as things stay under the speed of light. FTL is "sideways", using this classification, and has no "forward" or "back".)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
One of the strange things about a tachyon is that it can be traveling in one direction for some real inertial reference frame, and be traveling in another direction for some other inertial reference frame. For yet another reference frame intermediate between those two, the tachyon is traveling at infinite speed, yet has zero dynamic mass and a finite momentum of +/- i mc, where i is the square root of -1, m is the imaginary rest mass of the tachyon, and c is the speed of light.
The direction of the momentum vector is ambiguous.
Since this is a total contradiction, I assume that tachyons cannot exist.
The part of thermodynamics you're referring to is statistical in nature, not absolute, and doesn't apply on the quantum level. It applies to closed systems, and one in which we supply something new (from outside, or the future) isn't closed. Suppose I had a time machine, waited five minutes, and then went back in time five minutes. Everything not actually moving through time would get older at the normal rate, and suddenly something appears.
The Wikipedia article on time travel provides a few possible time travel ideas that are consistent with what we know of physics. The FTL ideas go sideways in time (and two sideways movements can become one backward), while wormholes would just go backwards.
I'm saying these theories are consistent with what we know of physics. This doesn't mean that they're predicted by the known laws of physics (lots of these involve matter with negative mass, and I haven't seen any good arguments that this exists or must exist), just that they aren't ruled out yet.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes