[time-nuts] Those pesky Neutrinos again...

[Arnold Tibus]

Am 20.11.2011 23:50, schrieb Magnus Danielson:
> On 11/20/2011 11:10 PM, Justin Pinnix wrote:
>> I'm no physicist, but is it possible that the speed of light is faster
>> than
>> we thought it is?  Space isn't a perfect vaccum, and we know neutrinos
>> are
>> less affected by "stuff" than photons.  Maybe they travel closer to c
>> than
>> the actual photons we have been able to measure...
> 
> The speed of light is the speed of photons. For all we know we have
> pinned down the speed of light fairly well, and a deviation of 25 ppm or
> so would have been noticed.
> 
> The speed of "normal matter" (electrons, quarks, etc), all being
> particles of charge and thus interacting with photons also seems to obey
> the speed of photons, and then the laws of relativity surely applies.
> 
> The speed of neutrinos might be higher than photons, and current
> measures seems to indicate a slightly higher speed, but then again
> neutrinos does not interact with photons. Possibly this has a deeper
> meaning. It might be that the laws of relativity is relevant within that
> force-carrier system, but not outside it. This doesn't really shakes the
> laws of relativity in its grounds, it just defines a slightly different
> box within the laws applies.
> 
> Recall, physics advances with unexplained observations. Either it can be
> explained within the existing system and everybody is happy about that,
> or new core theories needs to be developed. Neutrinos has been hard to
> do qualitative measures on and looking at the OPERA, MINOS and T2K
> experiments indicates that there is indeed not small efforts.
> 
> Now, regardless if photons and neutrinos has the same speed or not, it
> becomes interesting to ask what makes them have the speed they have. If
> it differs, why is the photons slower than neutrinos? Is there in fact
> some underlying subtle force acting on them?
> 
> If we think we don't quite understand neutrinos, do we really understand
> photons? Their particle/wave duality is indeed strange and just taken
> for granted now, but it is really not explained.
> 
> This little micro-cosmos may have familiar names by now, but even with
> vibrating strings, membranes and other esoterical stuff, we just don't
> really understand it very well, we just have a bunch of theories.
> 
> Cheers,
> Magnus
> 

Hi,
this paper seem to be very interesting. But does it fully explain this
subject-matter correct and fully? I am not in the position to assess it.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1111/1111.0805v1.pdf

Cheers
Arnold