Re: Time for a photon.

Okay, maybe I can work with this. I think I'm going to have to start referring to the "LRD", the "link refutation defense," where a bunch of links are provided, and the person claims that "all the answers are in the links, just read them," only no one can find the answers, and the person cannot be "bothered" to post the relevant part of the post.

Let me see if I follow you, because I probably do not have all the understanding of physics necessary here. In response to my comment that:

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

You said:

"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."

I won't pretend that I know enough to fully understand this explanation, but I can certainly follow that equal rest masses would prevent oscillations because of "something." However, your first words were "That is not true." Ummm ... does that mean that oscillation COULD occur even if neutrinos were massless? The websites I saw definitely said what I quoted, and while I certainly CAN believe that it was "simplified," I can't quite see what the quotes could possibly be a simplification of. In other words, if massless particles can oscillate, how could even reporters -- including all the science reporters -- claim that oscillation implies rest mass when it has no implications whatsoever for rest mass? This includes the guys I saw on the NOVA show (I so need to find a transcript of that). Are you CERTAIN that massless particles can oscillate, or perhaps more to the point, that physicists BELIEVE that massless particles can oscillate? Before you answer, let me add that I do not expect you to do my homework for me, but if you can provide some links -- I know, I know -- that would be greatly appreciated (the "LRD" refers to claims that "these links provide the info" as a way of dodging the question, as opposed to actually pointing to the answer).

and later you said:

"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."

My one remaining question is, assuming that massless neutrinos cannot oscillate, does that have ANYTHING to do with what I heard on the show, namely that a change of state = "time passing," and it is impossible for "time to pass" for any particle, massless or otherwise, when its speed = c? Again, I won't ask you to "do the homework" for me, but do you know, off the top of your head, where I might look for the "official" answer to those questions?

Thanks,
Phil


Bilge wrote:
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.
    ... time stops for massless particles? ... ability of neutrinos to transform mean that they ... Google nova neutrino rest mass ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time for a photon.
    ... sho, NOVA, ... did they NOT conclude that neutrinos have ... the neutrino to have mass. ... of whether they have rest mass. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time for a photon.
    ... "time-rate" (an object moving at high speed ... object WITHOUT mass must also be zero. ... neutrinos the sun makes. ... How are the photons ...
    (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: How to shut down the Sun?
    ... the neutrinos necessary to result from the p-p ... The big contributors to returning mass to the ... asymptotic giant branch stars. ... than mass loss in general. ...
    (sci.astro)