Re: Time for a photon.

Phil:
David,

Sounds good, I'll try to see if I can be specific here.

First, physicists do think that oscillation = rest mass, and they state
specifically that oscillation could NOT occur if neutrinos were massless
particles.

That is not true. Oscillations occur because the mass eigenstates are not
the weak eigenstates. If all of the masses were the _same_ then there would
be no oscillations, because the eigenstates would be _defined_ by the weak
interacton alone and the mass eigenstates would be the same as the weak
eigenstates.

Second, they think that the recent experimental proof that oscillation
occurs is important, because it proves that neutrinos have rest mass.
Apparently, almost everyone already believed (I deduce this from both
your comments and your links) that when experimental proof did arrive,
it would show that neutrinos do indded have rest mas, but prior to the
oscillaion experiments, they did NOT have proof that neutrinos have rest
mass.

Third, in science, we always want to test and retest our theories,
experiments, logical deductions, etc., because we're humans who make
mistakes, stumble across oversights, etc., so it actually makes sense to
question the current beliefs, even if we don't have a degree in physics
or a noble prize.

Only if you know enough physics to understand the questions.

True, we cannot ASSume that our thoughts are correct,
but the reverse is also true, in part because we cannot ASSume that the
current thoughts of professional physicists are always correct. My point
here is that it is not just logically wrong, but scientifically wrong,
to drop or bypass any apparent inconsistency we see in the beliefs of
physicists.

Such as?

Fourth, I saw just such an possible inconsistency when I heard someone
say, I think a real live famous physicist, that oscillation proves that
neutrinos have rest mass because "time satnds still" -- or words to that
effect -- for any object moving at the speed of light.

Now, there are several explanations for this, such as:

(1) I heard them wrong, they didn't say that

(2) I heard them right, they did say that, but they gave a simplified,
inaccurate explanation that the public could understand. Sort of like
saying that planes fly because of the Bernoulli effect.

(3) I heard them right, and it's true, massless particles cannot
oscillate because time not only stands still for particles with mass
moving at c (or would if we could actually accelerate a particle to c),
it also stands still for massless particles.

Since (3) doesn't really make sense, it was probably (1) or (2).

[...]

(4) I heard them right, but it is NOT true, time does NOT stand still
for massless particles.

This again, is a non-sequitur, except as a simplified explanation
for a general audience.
[...]
Having seen some other reasons for believing that neutrinos have rest
mass, I think I have changed my mind, and believe that they probably
have rest mass, although I would hate to bet on it,

If neutrinos oscillate, then at least one neutrino must have a mass
which differs from the other two. Since m = 0, is a mass of zero, the
existence of oscillations requires that at least one neutrino must
have a mass different from zero.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time for a photon.
    ... "First, physicists do think that oscillation = rest mass, and they state specifically that oscillation could NOT occur if neutrinos were massless particles." ... Oscillations occur because the mass eigenstates are not the weak eigenstates. ... does that mean that oscillation COULD occur even if neutrinos were massless? ... Are you CERTAIN that massless particles can oscillate, or perhaps more to the point, that physicists BELIEVE that massless particles can oscillate? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Only some energy has mass?
    ... >> invariant mass. ... > Invariant mass is not the usual terminology - rest mass or simply mass ... >> physicists refer to the mass nowadays, as I have been told, they mean ... > M most physicists mean when they talk about mass in relativity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Only some energy has mass?
    ... >> invariant mass. ... > Invariant mass is not the usual terminology - rest mass or simply mass ... >> physicists refer to the mass nowadays, as I have been told, they mean ... > M most physicists mean when they talk about mass in relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: BRAIN FRY PROBLEM #1
    ... inertia of the balance wheel is I, and that of the rest of the watch ... so that the force over the spring and over the mass always ... oscillation period. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Only some energy has mass?
    ... >> give the mass of a particle, we almost always mean its rest ... > same argument of conformist physicists today, ... is the "rest mass" since if p=0, the equation gives the "rest energy", ... It is also the "invariant mass" since the quantity, ...
    (sci.physics)