Breaking the light speed barrier (ArXiv preprint)

[Zurab Silagadze]

I just like to bring to your attention: http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4714
(O. I. Chashchina, Z. K. Silagadze, Breaking the light speed barrier)

As it is well known, classical special relativity allows the existence
of three different kinds of particles: bradyons, luxons and tachyons.
Driven by a striking analogy of the old Frenkel-Kontorova model of a
dislocation dynamics to the theory of relativity, we conjecture in
this note a remarkable possibility of existence of the fourth type of
particles, elvisebrions, which can be superluminal.

[Zurab Silagadze]

Post by Zurab Silagadze
I just like to bring to your attention: http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4714
(O. I. Chashchina, Z. K. Silagadze, Breaking the light speed barrier)

The same story in a more entertaining form: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.10739 (Olga Chashchina, Zurab Silagadze, Relativity 4-ever?).

[Jonathan Thornburg [remove color- to reply]]

Post by Zurab Silagadze

Post by Zurab Silagadze
I just like to bring to your attention: http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4714
(O. I. Chashchina, Z. K. Silagadze, Breaking the light speed barrier)

The same story in a more entertaining form: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.10739
(Olga Chashchina, Zurab Silagadze, Relativity 4-ever?).

To clarify and refresh memories: The 1112.4714 paper is a semi-parody
from a decade ago (proposing an "elvisebrion" particle), inspired by the
OPERA collaboration's apparent observation of neutrinos moving faster
than the speed of light. The OPERA collaboration later reported two
experimental errors in that result (a loose fiber-optic cable connection,
and a miscalibrated oscillator), and after correcting these their
measurements of neutrino speeds were consistent with the speed of light.

[If neutrinos have a nonzero rest mass, special relativity
requires that they travel slower than light. But given the
known bounds on neutrino masses, the difference between the
neutrino speed and the speed of light would be too small for
the OPERA experiment to distinguish.]

The 2107.10739 paper is a "serious" survey of various aspects of special
relativity and its speed-of-light limits.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Jonathan Thornburg [remove color- to reply]
To clarify and refresh memories: The 1112.4714 paper is a semi-parody
from a decade ago (proposing an "elvisebrion" particle), inspired by th=

e

Post by Jonathan Thornburg [remove color- to reply]
OPERA collaboration's apparent observation of neutrinos moving faster
than the speed of light. The OPERA collaboration later reported two
experimental errors in that result (a loose fiber-optic cable connectio=

n,

Post by Jonathan Thornburg [remove color- to reply]
and a miscalibrated oscillator), and after correcting these their
measurements of neutrino speeds were consistent with the speed of light=

.

Yes, brings back memories. That wrong result generated a lot of=20
discussion, including a paper with one of my favourite abstracts:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2832

Another favourite is Max Tegmark's abstract in heroic couplets:

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9610094

[Eric Flesch]

Post by Zurab Silagadze
The same story in a more entertaining form: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.10739
(Olga Chashchina, Zurab Silagadze, Relativity 4-ever?).

The problem with sub-c neutrinos is that they would all need to be
accelerated to near-c speed by their emitters. Why so uniform? You'd
expect to find some at slower speeds.

An old notion of mine was that c is its own frame with its own
physical laws. By this notion, neutrinos are bound to c and vary from
it by virtue of their energy, but the deviance is too small for us to
measure. In this way neutrinos would travel arbitrarily close to c
just because of their nature. Sort of like tachyons but on this side
of c, not the other side.


[[Mod. note -- Neutrino-matter interaction cross sections tend to fall
steeply as the neutrino energy drops, so low-energy (i.e., slow-moving)
neutrinos would be very hard to detect. In other words, there could be
a *lot* of them around without their being detected.
-- jt]]

[Tom Roberts]

Post by Eric Flesch
The problem with sub-c neutrinos is that they would all need to be
accelerated to near-c speed by their emitters.

That's no different from any other decay or emission, in which the
daughter particles emerge at high speed, often approaching or equal to
c. But they are not "accelerated" to such speeds, they are created with
such speeds -- a common aspect of elementary particle interactions.

Post by Eric Flesch
Why so uniform? You'd expect to find some at slower speeds.

The upper bound on the mass of the electron neutrino is 1.1 eV. The
lowest-energy neutrinos detected are far above that energy, so one would
NOT expect to detect such neutrinos with speeds measurably slower than
c. Ditto for muon neutrinos, for which the upper bound on mass is 0.19 MeV.

As the moderator says, lower-energy neutrinos have smaller interaction
cross-sections, and even high-energy neutrinos have very tiny ones. So
it is very difficult to detect them. On earth there are billions of
low-energy neutrinos per cubic meter, but we don't notice them at all,
except for the largest and most sensitive neutrino detectors (which
are unable to measure their speed).

Tom Roberts

[Gary Harnagel]

Post by Tom Roberts

Post by Eric Flesch
The problem with sub-c neutrinos is that they would all need to be
accelerated to near-c speed by their emitters.

That's no different from any other decay or emission, in which the
daughter particles emerge at high speed, often approaching or equal to
c. But they are not "accelerated" to such speeds, they are created with
such speeds -- a common aspect of elementary particle interactions.

Post by Eric Flesch
Why so uniform? You'd expect to find some at slower speeds.

The upper bound on the mass of the electron neutrino is 1.1 eV. The
lowest-energy neutrinos detected are far above that energy, so one would
NOT expect to detect such neutrinos with speeds measurably slower than
c. Ditto for muon neutrinos, for which the upper bound on mass is 0.19 MeV.

Hmm, isn't the different in m² between the three neutrinos less than 0.1 eV?
Since the electron antineutrino mass is less than an eV or so, wouldn't the
muon neutrino have mass on the same order?

Gary