>> ^Ornthoron:

The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.
>> ^juliovega914:
>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)



I'm pretty sure negative mass would still result in complex energy, because the Lorentz transformation factor would still be proportional to 1/i or -i. Complex mass, however, would allow for the energy to be real (which has been theorized as being possible), but that introduces a whole new problem of trying to conceptualize complex mass.

And on a side note, the first ever physical observation of nonpostive/nonreal mass would be groundbreaking in its own right.

I'm pretty sure negative mass would still result in complex energy, because the Lorentz transformation factor would still be proportional to 1/i or -i. Complex mass, however, would allow for the energy to be real (which has been theorized as being possible), but that introduces a whole new problem of trying to conceptualize complex mass.

And on a side note, the first ever physical observation of nonpostive/nonreal mass would be groundbreaking in its own right.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)

The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)

ZING!>> ^messenger:

Not a very popular one because even with Pepto-Bismol they just go right through ya.>> ^rottenseed:
I thought "Neutrinos" was a breakfast cereal

Not a very popular one because even with Pepto-Bismol they just go right through ya.>> ^rottenseed:

I thought "Neutrinos" was a breakfast cereal

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^Jinx:

>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment


No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!

If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?

(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)

>> ^juliovega914:

If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^Enzoblue:

>> ^Ornthoron:
A little cold water for everyone:
If these results turn out to be solid, it will not necessarily conflict with Einstein's theory of relativity. Relativity can accomodate these particles if they have negative mass.

Negative mass doesn't even make sense to me. You either have mass or you don't. You can't really really really not have mass all you want, but it doesn't make you negative. Please explain.


Sorry, I miswrote. I meant to say imaginary mass, just like tachyons. It's the mass squared that is negative.

To a physicist, mass is just a number describing a certain property of particles, namely their inertia and gravitational attraction. To date, all observed particles either have real positive mass or are massless, but that does not mean that some other value (negative or even complex) is theoretically impossible. The Standard Model of particle physics is far from complete, and there are extensions to it that include Lorentz symmetry breaking and thus can accomodate faster than light neutrinos.

>> ^Ornthoron:

A little cold water for everyone:
If these results turn out to be solid, it will not necessarily conflict with Einstein's theory of relativity. Relativity can accomodate these particles if they have negative mass.


Negative mass doesn't even make sense to me. You either have mass or you don't. You can't really really really not have mass all you want, but it doesn't make you negative. Please explain.

Your video, CERN scientists break the speed of light with neutrinos, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^WaterDweller:

I think I'm with xkcd on this one.


When the Cold Fusion results were first publicised I bet an engineer I worked with $50 that the results would be overturned. I won.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Honestly, that's kinda a pretty juvenile comeback. I expected better from you

I promise to internet to your liking next time.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
That analogy is wrong for all kinds of reasons. Firstly, the bully doesn't use your money to build services you can use.

Most of the federal government services I can't use either. War. Unilateral hegemony. Nation-building. Corporate welfare. Etc. Can you?
>> ^ChaosEngine:
You are free to not pay taxes to your government, you are just not entitled to do so while under the protection of that nation. If you do not wish to pay taxes to the US government, you are entitled to leave the nation and live somewhere else.

Emphasis mine. This is what's awesome about your comment: Isn't it always people like you (statist) that say if I don't like the system then get involved and change it? But here I'm doing that and pointing out a major flaw in "our" representational government, that the government is claiming it's spending more than it earns and spending the majority of that money on things the people no longer want, yet you tell me that I need to like it or get the hell out.
You know how many redneck neocons I've met in my life that have told me the same thing? Congratulations.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
If you don't like all the things your taxes pay for, at least stop being a hypocrite and using them. So, to start with, get off the internet (designed by DARPA and CERN, both tax funded agencies).

Translation: "If you don't like the services you're forced to pay for, you should stop using them but keep paying them!"
How about instead I could stop spending that money on... War. Hegemony. Imperialism. Corporatism. Crony capitalism. That option not good enough for you? You'd much rather I GTFO of the country?
And yet the real point of all this is you say the collection of funds is what's important, not what it's spent on. I think that's dangerous. Who cares how they collect. I care more about what this so called "representational government" spends that money on. I'm a bit disconcerted you don't.


You are more than welcome to campaign against war, imperialism, etc. I'm actually right behind you on those issues. But you don't get to just decide not to contribute at all to society.

And I never said that what it's spent on less important than how it's collected. The two are orthogonal. I said I don't have an issue with paying taxes. I have have all kinds of problems with how it's spent.

In fact I pretty much said the direct opposite of what you claimed I said. I buy into the social contract by paying taxes, voting and so on.

You're not "pointing out a major flaw", you just want to throw your toys out of the pram without contributing at all. I think you missed the "without representation" part of "no taxation without representation".