Re: Time for a photon.


Phil wrote:
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.

You are misunderstanding what link references mean. They are usually
a direct admission that the poster is stumped by your claim and has
no way to rebut it. IOWs, you win the point!

But those who provide a link and just below it quote or paraphrase the
parts of the link that support his point are valid rebuttals to your
point
and you can rebut that if you so wish. That way, the rules of debate
are upheld, and a decent conversation can be maintained. Those who
refuse to follow the rules show they are genuine trolls out for revenge

upon those who have a better knack for reasonable thought.

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."

Above, the poster (a well-known troll hereabouts) offers support for
his
claim that what you quoted is untrue, but the support offered does not
show
at all that your quote is false. It just simply explains the quote
more in detail
and does in fact support it and thus contradicts his falseness claim.

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?

That only means he thinks so, and not that your quote is wrong or
false.

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?

That is not as unusual as you think. Indeed, it can and does happen.
In
this case, however, they try to make it sound more official by using
the
term "rest mass" redundantly to describe the basis for saying the
particle
in such a case can be said to have mass. The process involved is not
that simple to understand, so it's no wonder the poster cannot
understand it well
enough to argue the details and so instead makes a pointless rebuttal.

As I understand it, so long as the three neutrino types do not
"oscillate"
- i.e., transform into a different type, there is no mass in any of
them.
When any one of them changes into another type by interacting with it,
mass is created in the process. To me, this supports my model where
real matter (RM) is created by Dark Matter (DM) interactions where
negative mass (DM) interacts with other DM and RM is created in the
process. The RM neutrino acquires its mass through that same
process. There's a little more to it than that, but in a nutshell,
that's it.

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).

The experiment revealed that muon neutrinos were absent where they
should be evident. It was determined that they were there originally
as
expected, but that at times they went into the tau neutrino (and were
transformed from a muon to a tau neutrino). From there, it was stated
that no transformations (oscillations) can occur unless some mass was
present in the process. You read the research correctly and the other
poster, if he saw it, misunderstood it completely. I would not look to
him
for help with anything dealing with physics.

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."

Not if, but _when_, "neutrinos oscillate". All neutrinos have up to
this
new research been thought of as massless and not a single physicist
I've heard of ever contested that notion. My model hints at the
possibility for neutrino particles to have some mass, but it went right

through the poster's brains cells without setting off a single synapse.

Now he has worked out in his head how to argue against the findings
that everyone is readily accepting, and which he believes is a rational

argument. His argument that at least one neutrino must have a mass
different from the others shows that he does not understand the process

revealed by the experiments. None of the neutinos have mass until the
muon interacts with the tau and is CHANGED into a tau in a process
that creates mass!

Next, he argues that the mass of the three neutrinos is equal to zero,
which is true before the said interaction occurs, but after that, the
muon
has disappeared into the tau particle and in the exchange mass was
created!

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?

That was the result of some hedging on the part of the scientists on
the
show who do not want to talk about time. My model explains the above
in suggesting that for change to occur, time must pass. Oscillations
cannot occur unless time is involved. It has nothing to do with c!

The speed of light is c, which is a finite number. That means light
travels
at a certain speed which requires the passage of time for it to get
from
here to there. Some people correlate that to the claim that light is
massless because it consists of em waves and massless photons. They
have found at least two ways to support their claim, but no way to
reconcile the claim where it directly contradicts the Principle of
Conservation of Mass and Energy nor to the formula E=mc^2.

If light was massless, it would exist external to the time dimension
and
it would not experience the passage of time. It would not age. Some
wonder how light speed can be finite if light does not experience time.

While it takes light time to get somewhere, that does not have to do
with whether or not light ages. The two are distinct arguments
unrelated
to each other such that they can both be true.

.