Requiem for Relativity

Hi Jim, that wasn't a good answer, I was a bit busy. What I'm after is the possibility of gaining some insight into the "speed" of gravity by looking at the neutrino. The problems are the perennial ones of trying to tease stuff from the mantra of Einstein.

Neutrinos were thought to be massless, so they went at the speed of light. Then it was found that they do have mass, so they must move slower than light. But id we say that all matter has its own "space" then we can say that the speed of light is a little slower where there is concentrations of matter. This would mean that galaxies lets say, are actually a little further from us than we think.

Well, neutrinos barely see mass, a neutrino could go through a light year of solid lead. it can go at the "local" speed of light and not violate any law.

m / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)= m / sqrt(1 - 8.988E 16 / 9.4802E 16)

A neutrino could have a relativistic increase in mass then. (I don't think it actually does but we have to play the game)

Now let's look at that mass of the electron neutrino. ignore for the moment how I arrived at said mass just ear in mind that it's in the all park. What's its wavelength?

lambda = h / m*c = 6.626E-34 /2.3656E-40 * 2.998E 8 = 6.6256E-34 / 7.092E-32 =9.34E-3 metres for our wavelength.

It's horribly tempting to alter that neutrino mass to get the fine structure constant "a" I haven't done that yet, working backwards to find what I need to divide the neutrino mass by to get an electron mass.

How does this relate to Joe's equation? I reckon that a jolly good speed of gravity is such that
hbar = c^2 / b^2 (where b is the speed of gravity) That's just a ratio, so we can stick any numbers we like in. Well let's divide h by the Hubble constant squared. We get about 126.3 We don't know exactly what the Hubble constant is but I think it's suspicious that it's very nearly 137 here.

Onto the Planck mass. This is a micro black hole, it's Compton wavelength being equal to it Swartchild radius.

h / m*c = 2Gm / c^2

m = sqrt(h*c / 2G) then what's normally done is to write it in the form of a reduced mass

m = sqrt(hbar *c / 8piG) to give us a mass of about 4.34E-9 kg

i don't think that's quite right but it is in the ball park and i think we're stuck with using it for the moment. We'll call that m_p and stick it into the famous E = m*c^2 equation to get
v = m*c^2 /x*pi*m_p
where the x is any alteration in relativistic mass. Note it's not energy but a velocity.

Back to Joe's equation again, if we hold P constant, about 2E 11 seconds then with a neutrino mass in the equation, the Hubble constant would have to fall to very nearly the reciprocal of Joe's P value. Let's assume for the moment that all of the reduced mass of the electron is a hidden velocity, due to this dividing by the Planck mass. Then we can multiply that velocity by the speed of gravity, which I think is 2.919E 25, and we get something which is about twice Joe's number.

What can this mean? I haven't a clue, its early days. Can neutrinos play funny tricks? Well if we have "space" made of particles which are spaced at about the wavelength as our neutrino i.e. at aout the fine structure constant, then they can look as though they are in a negative refractive space. They are going "seemingly" faster than light in a space of a certain refractive index, where light has slowed down.

There is something I've always wondered about neutrinos. I've read that Einstein's equations don't forbid something traveling faster than light, but lightspeed c itself acts as an impenetrable barrier. Is it possible that neutrinos, having so little mass, can get so close to c that they could "jump" the barrier due to the uncertainty principle? This would be something like quantum tunneling.

Sloat, OK then since neutrinos are just an artifact invented to save a model in my world I'll define my method of reading your posts rather than attempting any understanding.

Hi Jim, I think one of the problems people have with the neutrino, is that someone said we need that as a particle. Then lo and behold it's found; that almost looks like a fix.

I think you have to remember though, that the environment that the people who can say, go and look here, 8s a hot house. They might be laying on the lawn of Oxford or MIT but it really is twenty four seven for them. Behind the scenes of the neutrino, is weeks and weeks of talking. Then at some point, someone gets the money to do the experiment. In the case of the neutrino, that was one hell of a hard slog. We need thousands of gallons of cleaning fluid, oh and did we mention it has to be placed in a deep mine for best results.

Think of the battle to get funding for the Antarctic "ice cube" neutrino telescope. if neutrinos are that elusive, then why spend millions on a telescope that can only catch the odd one. The answer is that there are a hell of a lot of them.

I don't think anyone doubts that they exist, or that they have mass. Though the sheer newness of them having mass, is causing a few problems with having to do a complete theoretical rethink.

Sloat, I more than doubt they exist I totally dismiss them as a gimic invented to salvage a model. But. no matter I'm not anyone who will get a huge grant to prove they don't exist.

Hi Jim, the only way to legitimately throw out the "model" is to produce a better, simpler, more beautiful model. Someday some kid is going to do it and everyone will immediately see just how silly some ideas had been. It will still be a model.

I have no problems at all with neutrinos having mass but then again, I've no doubts at all that the "ice cube" telescope works. I believe that photons have rest mass. I think an electron emits a photon, it loses some mass. The lowest photon energy that can possibly be lost is going to be the reduced mass times Planck's constant h 9.6E-65 kg.

Let's take the reduced mass of the Plank mass an multiply it by h, that's about 4.34E-9 times 6.626E-34 to give us, 2.87E-42 kg Stick that into E = mc^2 to get 1.613E-6eV Pop that into Lambda = h /(m*c) to give us a wavelength of 0.77 metres, very low microwave. I do think that that is too low a mass for the neutrino but it's in the ball park.

I think we need to look at the oscillation of the neutrino and see if giving a speed value, over that of light to gravity, can help us explain what appears to be happening.