Neurinos are massless paricles

  • Thread starter colinr
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Massless
In summary: Kinetic energy is a classical concept that has little use in a relativistic framework. Good quantities to use are rest energy (Lorentz invariant) and total energy (Lorentz covariant). The difference (total - rest) corresponds to the classical kinetic energy (the classical formula only picks up the lowest order term). However, since it is neither absolutely conserved nor an invariant quantity, it is not a terribly useful concept.In summary, it is thought that Neurinos have kinetic energy, but this has not been confirmed.
  • #1
colinr
29
0
I've heard that it is thought that Neurinos are massless paricles, but I'm now hearing that they have kinetic energy.

Can something with no mass have kinetic energy?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Kinetic energy is a classical concept that has little use in a relativistic framework. Good quantities to use are rest energy (Lorentz invariant) and total energy (Lorentz covariant). The difference (total - rest) corresponds to the classical kinetic energy (the classical formula only picks up the lowest order term). However, since it is neither absolutely conserved nor an invariant quantity, it is not a terribly useful concept.
So the question can be restated as "Can something exist that has no rest energy?". The answer to that is yes. Such particles are required by SR to have no rest mass and to always move at the speed of light. Examples are photons and gluons, but apparently not neutrinos, since they are no longer considered massless due to observed oscillation effects.
 
  • #3
massless particles can have momentum, so having kinetic energy is not far from it.
 
  • #4
zefram_c said:
Kinetic energy is a classical concept that has little use in a relativistic framework. Good quantities to use are rest energy (Lorentz invariant) and total energy (Lorentz covariant). ...

Hi there.

Could you tell me what you mean by a quantity being "covariant"?

I thought that "covariant" made only sense when referring to an *equation*, not a quantity. An equation is covariant when the two sides transform the same way under Lorentz transformations (in SR) or general coordinate transformations (in GR). On the other hand, a quantity may be invariant or not. But I don't know what it would mean for a quantity to be "covariant". A quantity may transform as a vector, a spinor, a tensor of a certain rank, etc. In that case it is not invariant, but I have never seen (or I did not notice) the adjective "covariant" used in that context.

Pat
 
  • #5
nrqed said:
Could you tell me what you mean by a quantity being "covariant"?

I thought that "covariant" made only sense when referring to an *equation*, not a quantity. An equation is covariant when the two sides transform the same way under Lorentz transformations (in SR) or general coordinate transformations (in GR).
Ooops, sorry. My terminology was very sloppy on that one. I meant that the four-momentum transforms as a Lorentz vector between frames of reference. This would not be true for the kinetic energy, which would transform in a more complicated manner.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
colinr said:
I've heard that it is thought that Neurinos are massless paricles, but I'm now hearing that they have kinetic energy.

Can something with no mass have kinetic energy?

Neutrinos are definately not massless, they have a rest mass. Particles with no rest mass, for example photons, DO have energy, which can be calculated by using the equation...

[tex] E = h \nu[/tex] Where E is the energy, h is plank's canstant and [tex]\nu[/tex] is frequency of the light.
 

What are neurinos?

Neurinos are subatomic particles that are similar to neutrinos but with different properties.

What does it mean for neurinos to be massless?

Being massless means that neurinos have no rest mass, or mass when they are not moving. However, they do have energy and momentum.

How do scientists know that neurinos are massless?

Scientists have conducted experiments, such as the Super-Kamiokande experiment, that have shown that neurinos have very little mass, if any at all. Additionally, the Standard Model of particle physics predicts that neurinos are massless.

What are the implications of neurinos being massless?

The fact that neurinos are massless has implications in various fields of physics, such as cosmology and particle physics. For example, it could help explain the abundance of neutrinos in the universe and the behavior of particles in the early universe.

Could there be exceptions to the masslessness of neurinos?

While the current evidence suggests that neurinos are massless, there is always the possibility of new discoveries or theories that could challenge this concept. However, for now, it is widely accepted that neurinos are indeed massless particles.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
775
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
29
Views
923
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
434
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
885
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
994
Back
Top