Mystery111

I forward it as a conjecture to be thought upon swansont.

The good news is, if the neutrino is a superluminal fermion, then the idea it may interact with an electromagnetic field could be drawn out.

No, read the first link swanson. You are like others here, seem to be taking the EDM as the main part of the investigation. The first link explains that they have measured the electron to be like a sphere. The first experiment is much more decisive than the first: '' What we find is, as best we can tell and we've looked really very carefully, there's no wobble. The electron shows all signs of being round at our current sensitivity.''

I was wrong. The consensus in 2011 may I think, the experiment measured the interaction of the field created by the particle, which was spherical. This did not imply the actual structure.

As a non-zero dimensional particle.

Either way ajb, we could be technical to every point. But I saw people arguing my interpretation of their work does not imply what I said, but to be honest, you cannot have both a pointlike particle and something which has a sphere! The two identities are totally different with the latter containing dimension.

So my interpretation cannot surely be argued with. If their experimentation is correct, then the electron must have a structure, call it the classical radius, or simply a radius. The size of an electron matters not much, so long as we remember it is not as small enough to say it doesn't even have a body-structure!

negative and positive what?

Are we talking about EM charge, mass-charge? My instincts indicate EM charge, but we've been talking about negative mass signs as well, so I need you to be specific.

Let me try this again. Your confusion seems to lye, correct me if I am wrong, in the original state of the antiparticle existing with a negative energy in the vacuum. While it is generally true that particles have negative descriptions before they become real particles existing in the vacuum, implies that the correct equation to represent energy and mass in a Hamiltonian is [math]E= \pm Mc^2[/math]. However, the Mass term does not pick up a negative sign when it becomes a real particle. Recall the equations I showed you concerning the Dirac Equation. The mass term in the equations are identical for those which are particles and antiparticles.

What is a mass term? If theory is correct, it is a symmetry-breaking in the equations. To give a particle mass, you must assume some field [math]\phi = \rho e^{i \alpha}[/math]. Explaining this in terms of a mexican hat potential, you can calculate it to the first approximation in respect to [math]f= \rho[/math]:

[math]\phi = f e^{i \alpha}[/math]

One might know that [math]\phi[/math] is in fact frozen but the alpha field in the exponential is allowed to shift. To calculate the Langrangian, you first need to work out the Covariant Derivative:

[math]D\phi = \partial \phi + iA \phi[/math]

To compute the action, you must multiply this by it's conjugate:

[math] = i(\partial \alpha + A)f e^{i\alpha}[/math]

[math] = f^2(\partial \alpha + A)^2[/math]

Doing so removes the [math]e^{i\alpha}[/math]. Using a special gauge transformation now, [math]A' \Rightarrow \partial \theta + A[/math]

we should notice that in the equation [math] = f^2(\partial \alpha + A)^2[/math] the [math](\partial \alpha + A)[/math] is a gauge transformation where [math]\partial \theta [/math] plays the role of our alpha field. So the final expression is:

[math] = f^2A'^2[/math]

Notice the alpha field has been absorbed by our object [math]A'[/math], that means no more Goldstone Boson, the Higgs field has provided a mass through shifting the potential from the ground state of origin. This is what a mass is. When this effects a particle like a photon, or any massless boson field it gives that quanta a mass. The mass term might be for an electron-positron pair. And analyzing how the mass term enters the Dirac Equation, permitting a positive mass for an electron and positron tells us that the Higgs field did not induce a negative matter description because there is no evidence for it in the Dirac equation.

Here, I should have noted, the [math]f^2[/math] term plays the role of mass.

The [math]A[/math] the electromagnetic potential just comes from the equations of electrodynamics. Note that in the electromagnetic equation

[math]F_{\mu \nu} = \frac{\partial A_{\mu}}{\partial X^{\nu}} - \frac{\partial A_{\nu}}{\partial X^{\mu}}[/math]

where you might see derivates in respect of the [math]A[/math] only, there is no mass term. Also don't ever as a warning mix up the idea of [math]F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu}[/math] with the [math]f^2[/math] term above. They are different.

lol

I just don't think you can read it that way.

I don't think you can say it doesn't imply what I said.

Pointlike particles have no structure - it cannot be described as a sphere. Before the release of the information in the OP, we must have treated the electron; an object which has no structure, pointlike, dimensionless.

Now we can prove that wrong. evidence suggests the electron does have a structure after all and thus can be described by a classical radius, which is simply a line seperating the radius of curvature, or the Compton Wavelength from it's center.

How more classical can you get? And why would it not mean what I've said? I think it's all very clear.

(I was naturally buzzed when I read the article in the OP. I had been saying the electron, indeed all particles must have a structure for while.)

well, we don't know. would they remain travelling faster than the speed of light?

 

the result hasn't been repeated yet so we don't even know if it was an error yet let alone the precise behaviour of neutrinos at super luminal speeds.

 

who'd to say they don't become subluminal after a few hours due to some hitherto unknown effect.

This is why experiments need to be conducted time and time again to find any flaws.

Hmmmm turns out the nuetrino possessing a magnetic moment could in fact interact electromagnetically according to wiki

;The neutrino has half-integer spin (½ħ) and is therefore a fermion. Neutrinos interact primarily through the weak force. The discovery of neutrino flavor oscillations implies that neutrinos have mass. The existence of a neutrino mass strongly suggests the existence of a tiny neutrino magnetic moment^[12] of the order of 10⁻¹⁹ μ_B, allowing the possibility that neutrinos may interact electromagnetically as well.

As far as I know, it requires an electric charge. A magnetic moment is not a charge.

Dipole I meant.

Cherenkov radiation comes from charged particles, which interact electromagnetically. Neutrinos are uncharged.

I know the neutrino would contain a magnetic moment with the advent of it having a mass, so the particle still has a charge. I take it, it would also require an electric moment then?

Could the photons flying by be the product of neutrino back wash?

I've long thought that light was like a sonic boom and that gravity was faster than light. When a jet flys by faster than the speed of sound, it leaves a sonic boom trail behind it. Perhaps photons are the "sonic boom trail" of a neutrino exceeding the time barrier.

 

Here's the train of thought: We smash particles together in an attempt to similate conditions as close as possible to the big bang event.

I've read and heard that very early on, the universe expanded faster than light.

It is also my understanding that gravity broke free of the singularity first, and then e/m, and then strong and then the weak force.

If we consider the sun as an extremely powerful, natural particle accelerator, creating conditions similar to the origins of the universe, than it should really come as no surprise that things radiate out of it faster than light.

 

 

 

They don't leave a boom, but they do leave a trail called '' Cherenkov radiation.''

some have likened this to the sonic boom analogy.

Neutrinos faster than light? That sounds like pretty big news. Kinda blows my theory right out of the water, Unless of course ...

But I wonder if this will cause paradigm shifts in the reasoning lines of mainstream theorists. How much will this change our understanding of physics if proven and realized?

 

 

I remembered doing a little research on faster than light neutrino's 6 years back. I found that it was possible to describe nuetrino's this way because of the negative mass squared term which enters the equations describing it. It is possible to observe this from the decay of tritium.

Also, the idea that the Neutrino is a tachyonic fermion has been investigated by this physicist: http://arxiv.org/PS_...1/0011087v4.pdf

He proposes a superluminal tachyonic-fermion dirac equation.

If the neutrino is moving at superluminal speeds, then why won't they use some other method to test this prediction, like an observable Cherenkov radiation? We see the stuff from test reactors, why wouldn't we notice it from neutrinos? There are effectively billions passing through my body at this very moment in time.

In what sense are you using ''polarity''?

To me internal structure would mean that the electron would be some bound state of some other particles. One would find excited states in nature, analogous to the hardon spectra. We just don't see these excited electrons and no experiment has produced any evidence for such an internal structure.

It is possible now (with the recent evidence of the first link) that the electron could really be a classical object - it is a sphere and it might entail the idea of some substructure. The idea should not be beyond physics at all. Glaswegian scientists have even shown that it is possible to explain the electron in terms of a trapped photon following a toroidal knot.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/1711/

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/69229/title/Sizing_up_the_Electron

Good news for anyone who said mainstream science was wrong in it's contentions about zero dimensionless objects. This evidence suggests that an electron actually does have a classical radius [math]e^2/ Mc^2[/math].

I have three questions. Your response will greatly help me in my research on gravitation.

 

(1) Do gravitayional masses of matter and antimatter have opposite signs?

 

(2) What's the sign of matter-antimatter gravitational force?

 

(3) Does General relativity alllow matter and antimatter to warp the field of space-time geometry oppositely?

 

 

 

 

1) The mass term for all particles we work with have a positive mass. The appearance of a negative charged particle does not imply changing the positive sign of attraction in the mass term. The Dirac Equation describes particles and antiparticles of fermions. The mass term in that equation does some interesting things...

Two specific wave equations, which come to mind are:

[math]i\dot{\psi_R} = -i\partial x \psi_R + M\psi_R[/math]

[math]i\dot{\psi_L} = i\partial x \psi_L + M\psi_L[/math]

both these equations describe right moving waves [math]\psi_R[/math] and left moving wave [math]\psi_L[/math] and they physically represent particles and antiparticles. The mass term is strictly positive, and because of the mass term, it can describe a new type of particle, the majorana particle which is a particle which is it's own antiparticle. The majorana mass term couples left and right movers together. [math]i\dot{\psi}= -i\alpha \partial x \psi + M \beta \psi[/math]

2) This question is hard to understand... what is the gravitational sign of the mass terms for matter and antimatter? They will still attract each other, because they have a real mass.

3) No

Gravitational waves are none trivial in Einsteins Theory, meaning that you can have a curvature of spacetime but not the presense of matter. This is of course the presence of gravitational waves. Gravitational waves would be the curvature itself.

Einstein derived what is called the Einstein tensor which is:

[math]\nabla_{\mu} G^{\mu \nu}=0[/math]

and [math]G^{\mu \nu}[/math] is just the Ricci tensor minus [math]\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu}R[/math]. These equations express the local continuity of energy and momentum.

As a side note, it could be imagined for a universe to be devoid of mass, so this indiates the right hand side of

[math]\nabla_{\mu} R^{\mu \nu} = \frac{1}{2 \nabla_{\mu}g^{\mu \nu} R[/math]

But does the absence of matter imply zero curvature for a metric? The answer is no. Gravitational waves are not trivial, where the Ricci tensor is zero everywhere, but the Reimann tensor is not.

Let us now concentrate on a specific wave equation, quite a famous one:

[math]\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial t^2} = c^2\frac{\partial^2 \phi]{\partial x^2}[/math]

This describes two kind of waves, one wave which moves to the left, another to the right. From now on, we will use natural units. To express this equation in three dimensions

[math]\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial t^2} = [\frac{\partial^2 \phi]{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^2 \phi]{\partial y^2} + \frac{\partial^2 \phi]{\partial x^2}[/math]

We can rewrite this as

[tex]\eta^{\mu \nu} \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial X^{\mu} \partial X^{\nu}=0[/tex]

To make it into a tensorial equation, we can take [tex]\eta^{\mu \nu}[/tex] to be [tex]g^{\mu \nu}[/tex] thus we can state that [tex]g^{\mu \nu} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial X^{\nu}[/tex] and differentiate as:

[math]\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu} g^{\mu \nu} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial X^{\mu}[/math]

We need to bring in the Covariant derivative, and make:

[math]\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu} g^{\mu \nu} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial X^{\nu}+ \Gamma_{\mu \alpha}^{\mu} g^{\nu \beta} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial X^{\beta}}=0[/math]

[math] \nabla g^{\mu \nu} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x^{\nu}}[/math]

To work out the covariant derivative involves Christoffel Symbols. This is by definition, the wave equation in curved coordinates. The equations coeffients depend on position, and describes a wave in curvilinear coordinates.

Curvature varies throughout space, and understanding the relativity of photons, for instance, you disover that photons couple to spacetime - the intrinsic relationship between curvature, matter and energy are numerous.

Of course, you wind the clock back, then the curvature becomes stronger and stronger, it should get to a point where there is a perfect curvature, i.e (an object of infinite curvature, with infinite mass and energy). The parameters are defined in a negative spacetime region. Could it be possible, to have a lot of curvature which typically emanates mass from it's geometry?

The answer might be yes, because you can deal with

[math]\nabla_{\mu} R^{\mu \nu} = \frac{1}{2 \nabla_{\mu}g^{\mu \nu} R[/math]

Where you can remove all the mass from the universe, but still have a non-zero curvature.

Part Two

[math]R_{\mu \nu} - 1/2g_{\mu \nu}R + \Lambda g_{\mu \nu} = kT_{\mu \nu}[/math]

The Newtonian analogue is:

[math]\nabla^2 \phi + \Lambda = 4 \pi G \rho[/math]

where [math]\Lambda[math] is our energy density, the cosmological constant. I ran into a problem with this, because the 00-component tells me that the [math]g_{\mu \nu}[/math] part is close to the limits of special relativity, and as we know, special relativity is a flat spacetime. The idea that this describes our early universe very well seems bleak, but let's work with it for now.

Suppose this is taken as a uniform energy density, then we would have

[math]\nabla \phi + \Lambda = 0[/math]

[math]\nabla \phi = \Lambda[/math]

we must assume that we cannot deal with [tex]\phi[/tex] properly as we did if we have the metric of spacetime any significant time past the first instant of the universe. We would differentiate [tex]\phi[/tex] with the function [math]x^2 + y^2 + z^2[/math] but that is an solution for three dimensional spacetime - this kind of representation for [tex]\phi[/tex] must become obsolete. Of course, normally you do this by saying the del of our function is 6, since differentiating [math]x[/math] twice gives you [math]2[/math]], same with the [math]y[/math] and [math]z[/math] components; you simply end up with

[math]\phi = \frac{\Lambda}{6}[x^2+y^2+z^2][/math]

But of course, the spatial dimensions must vanish to leave a point on the metric - we would also find [math]\Lambda|_{\infty}[/math] since the singularity can permit an infinite volume of energy. This must mean that the curvature is also infinite.

Then again, if we wanted to draw out the use of this energy density when the universe becomes sufficiently large enough, then you simply differentiate the gravitational potential to find the force, and these equations let you retrieve the important terms involving the cosmological constant as a driving force for continued expansion.

Using the cartesian coordinates, we can understand for instance that the x-component of force is given as:

[math]\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} = \frac{\Lambda}{6}2x = \frac{\Lambda x}{3}[/math]

This tells us there is a component of force along the x-direction. This is just basic relativity, but in order to understand my theory, we need a new understanding of how to treat [math]\phi[/math] as a potential in zero dimensions, with an infinitely large [math]\Lambda[/math] which would be related to the identity of either the stress energy or the curvature; you can swap the constant term around to either the right or the left of Einsteins field equation describing how space tells matter how to move, and how matter tells space how to bend, by understanding that the constant can be seen in terms of either it's geometry or by the energy-distribution of spacetime - of course, I have surmized it is more rewarding to think of the geometry in this case, where it contributes to the potential of new particles which are created as you highly stress spacetim.

Energy in Einstein's Relativity is simple a diffused state of matter. That is to say, Einstein's Relativity makes energy and matter as different fascets of the same thing. So energy is a fluctuation and it is a diffused state of matter.

Very often people come to these fora with a belief that our current theories of physics, such as the Standard Model or relativity, are flawed and present some alternative of their own. On the whole, this is a fine attitude to take - we should always be skeptical, and it is good if people can think a little 'out of the box' and generate ideas which more standard thinkers may not have come up with. I have always thought that genius was not an ability to think 'better' than everyone else - it is an ability to think differently from everyone else.

 

However, when coming up with a new theory it is important that it should be better than the old one. Therefore the first step of coming up with a new theory is a sufficient understanding of the old one. You have to make sure that your new theory does everything at least as well as the old theory, otherwise the old theory remains more attractive. This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions.

 

Let me give an example: the magnetic moment of the electron.

 

If we look at the energy (Hamiltonian) of an electron in an electromagnetic field, we find that there is a contribution from the interaction of the electron's angular momentum and the magnetic field. For an orbital angular momentum [math]L[/math], this is [math]vec{mu}_L cdot vec{B}[/math] with a magnetic moment

 

[math]vec{mu}_L = - frac{e hbar}{2mc} vec{L}[/math]

 

(The charge of an electron is [math]-e[/math] and its mass is [math]m[/math].)

 

However, if the particle has 'spin' (intrinsic angular momentum) [math]vec{s}[/math], we also have a contribution to the magnetic moment of

 

[math]vec{mu}_s = - g frac{e hbar}{2mc} vec{s}[/math]

 

[math]g[/math] is known as the gyromagnetic ratio, and its value depends on the theory. Since this can be measured in experiment very accurately, it is a good test of a theory to check if it predicts the correct gyromagnetic ratio.

 

For example, simple QM (the Dirac equation in an em field) predicts a gyromagnetic ratio [math]g=2[/math]. Experiments shows that [math]g[/math] is very close to 2, so this is good news, but since experiment shows that it is not quite 2, the Dirac equation cannot be the whole answer.

 

Quantum Field Theory, in the form of the Standard Model, predicts a deviation from 2. It is usual to write down the prediction for this deviation from 2 rather than the gyromagnetic ratio itself. For the SM this is:

 

[math]frac{g_{rm th}-2}{2} = 1159652140(28) times 10^{-12}[/math]

 

The experimantal result is:

 

[math]frac{g_{rm exp}-2}{2} = 1159652186.9(4.1) times 10^{-12}[/math]

 

(A note on errors: the numbers in brackets denote the error on the prediction/measurement at the same precision to which the value is specified. For example [math]1159652140(28)[/math] means [math]1159652140 pm 28[/math] and [math]1159652186.9(4.1)[/math] means [math]1159652186.9 pm 4.1[/math].)

 

You can see that the theory predicts the correct experimental value to incredible precision (although the experimental error is still better than the theory one). If you want to persuade scientists that the Standard Model is wrong, then you have to explain why this is a coincidence or show that your new theory predicts [math]g-2[/math] to at least this accuracy.

Not just this surely?

Every experimentally confirmed value in physics holds a mystery. The [math]g[/math] in the Yukawa Coupling, with different values for every mass on the standard model is one such example. What about the fine structure constant? In fact there are many precise values in the standard model just begging to be answered for and by another theory. It may just happen that our theory is a mathematical monstrocity.

"Every time you move your moving through time, time is also an object constantly in motion." i suppose all you need to verify a good part of your theory is some form or mathematical proof that shows the selected text, if you can show that time has no end and began at the big bang you will be in luck, but if your not irish then.....

 

HOWEVER time is NOT an object, objects are sets of something generally on a hierarchy and are not unique, time itself is the cause of and caused by motion and therefor acts more functionally than an object. Think of it like this, time is not like a planet, time is like the multiplication function that requires two numbers then adds the second number the first amount of times, that is it requires input and output and is not in a constant state such as an object.

 

 

" And how you enter a different time dimension would recquire the technology able to bend space so much in order to enter a higher level, which would be the only way to really know what created out universe. You would see the exact second what made the atom split." multi-verse and little-verse? i like the concept and although its instinctive to think in this way (i too think this way) the technology is a far way from being reached, so this will be a theory far beyond our life times. Your attempt at saying by scaling *out* to see the cause of the atom split is interesting but i offer this to you.....what if we was able to somehow escape our own universe and observe ourself from some higher dimension, do you not think something similar to what we currently perceive may exist?, lets work with the 10th not 10-13th dimension, on the 10th perhaps we would observe something that replicates quantum mechanics, if this holds true dimensions are pointless because its a cycle, the rules or laws must be set below not above so you'd have to keep scaling inwards to an impossible level, weather or not the laws could be found the creation wont be, the creation if it existed (theres a philosophy that doesnt require creation for existence, probability plays its own games apparently) would have been a spontaneous occurrence of a basic substance in which certain laws held by the uni-verse would then take over and create more elements and eventually make way for life.

 

"So how you can create a universe is by splitting an atom. " nien, if it keeps repeating infinitely then an atom on a smaller level too could create a universe?

 

 

 

Start with a fractal, E=MC2 will get you the exact energy in the universe where the mass is calculable, so by splitting an atom we can calculate the expected force, put the two together and you might have something similar to what your looking for. This will ovcourse will be false because e != mc2 but theoretical scietists may give you a minute of their time.

The universe does not have an exact defined energy. For that to be so, someone would need to be sitting outside of the universe to measure the energy.

Beleiving it is subjective is half the problem... there is the issue of unifying general relativity with quantum mechanics and both their descriptions of time differ greately. Where in GR a theory permits solutions to a timeless universe, in quantum mechanics, time is real, but is a succession of a generated set of beginnings and ends, it's not a smooth river as most often spectulate. So somehow the human is smack in the middle of these two theories - on one hand we have timelessness and the other is quantum mechanics which doesn't reflect our experience of time either.

As far as time is concerned, believing it is objective leads to more problems than it does just assuming we add those details to the world. Time is very subjective in the sense we feel it pass, we also make the distinction between past and future; an inherent property itself of an arrow of time. But we are also told in quantum mechanics that the only ever real time is the present time, as Einstein once said, the past and the future are only an illusion.

rubbish

Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion, but I can assure you science backs up what I tell you. You're quick disapproval of my post tells me you are set within your ways, but wholey unscientific because you are not willing to face the facts about time in General Relativity or what biological science has to say about the perception of time.

Time does not speed up or slow down. Time always progresses, according to any accurate clock, at 1 second/second.

 

What clocks measure is proper time. Proper time is associated with a world line, and two world lines joining joining two identical spacetime points can exhibit different proper times. This phenomena can account for "gravitational time dilation", the "twin paradox" and any other questions involving time.

 

 

http://www.sciencefo...90-proper-time/

Well, to be honest, I think that depends on what time really is. I mean, General Relativity permits pure gravity solutions, where this model is called a timeless model, it is also reflected in the Wheeler de Witt equation. The idea that we live in a timeless universe goes in direct confrontation with our perception of time; so it may be that time is purely a subjective phenomena and as far as we can tell, is a definition itself of the psychological arrow of time. And if time is subjective, then it is also subjected to the effects of a gene called the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus. This gene regulates the speed at which our perception of time occurs at. This is why we may feel time moving faster than at other times. So we might owe our sense of time to a genetic part of our existence. And if so, then time can speed up or slow down. We might be just imposing our experience of the world to the world, simply assuming that time must exist objectively.