- #1

- 32,870

- 11,369

http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.2804

It says it has been accepted for publication. I'm wondering if anyone has seen it and can comment on the paper's arguments.

- Thread starter PeterDonis
- Start date

- #1

- 32,870

- 11,369

http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.2804

It says it has been accepted for publication. I'm wondering if anyone has seen it and can comment on the paper's arguments.

- #2

ShayanJ

Gold Member

- 2,792

- 594

Weren't tachyons only instabilities in fields and not actual particles?

- #3

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 26,350

- 9,835

It is absolutely true that the neutrino mass experiments that measure m-squared allow it to go negative in their fits. To do otherwise biases the result high. It is also true that these measurements come out negative - the PDG average is -0.6 +/- 1.9 and the statement "Given troubling systematics which result in improbably negative estimators of m2 in many experiments we use only Kraus 05 and Lobashev 99 (I think they mean Aseev 11) for our average." They then go on to comment on exactly how these two measurements are better than the ones they supersede and how the systematics are better controlled.

As for the cosmological measurements, I am not at all surprised that if one replaces constants in the calculation that the results shift, nor that with the right set, the mass squared can go negative. However, what I don't see is a good argument that these are the right constants to use, apart from the fact that they give interesting conclusions.

For me to believe neutrinos are tachyons, I would prefer to see one strong piece of evidence rather than a lot of weak ones.

- #4

- 5

- 0

Existence of Tachyons is not yet established. But If it establish it would be actual particles with imaginary mass energy and negative time. Further they will loss energy with increase in time.Weren't tachyons only instabilities in fields and not actual particles?

- #5

- 5

- 0

It is absolutely true that the neutrino mass experiments that measure m-squared allow it to go negative in their fits. To do otherwise biases the result high. It is also true that these measurements come out negative - the PDG average is -0.6 +/- 1.9 and the statement "Given troubling systematics which result in improbably negative estimators of m2 in many experiments we use only Kraus 05 and Lobashev 99 (I think they mean Aseev 11) for our average." They then go on to comment on exactly how these two measurements are better than the ones they supersede and how the systematics are better controlled.

As for the cosmological measurements, I am not at all surprised that if one replaces constants in the calculation that the results shift, nor that with the right set, the mass squared can go negative. However, what I don't see is a good argument that these are the right constants to use, apart from the fact that they give interesting conclusions.

For me to believe neutrinos are tachyons, I would prefer to see one strong piece of evidence rather than a lot of weak ones.

http://phys.org/news/2014-12-faster-than-light-particles.html

This article is mentioning it to be accepted in journal

However On Journal Webpage It is not there

- #6

ChrisVer

Gold Member

- 3,373

- 459

- #7

ShayanJ

Gold Member

- 2,792

- 594

I read it here:Existence of Tachyons is not yet established. But If it establish it would be actual particles with imaginary mass energy and negative time. Further they will loss energy with increase in time.

(From this page.)Wikipedia said:In the 1967 paper that coined the term,[1] Feinberg proposed that tachyonic particles could be quanta of a quantum field with negative squared mass. However, it was soon realized that excitations of such imaginary mass fields donotin fact propagate faster than light,[5] and instead represent an instability known as tachyon condensation.[3] Nevertheless, negative squared mass fields are commonly referred to as "tachyons",[6] and in fact have come to play an important role in modern physics.

- #8

- 5

- 0

check this part of your link containing details http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon#Fields_with_imaginary_mass

It is for field whose uncondensed states are tachyons but after tachyonic condensation they become positive squared mass.

But its only one case which is partially tachyonic as final excitations are not tachyons, only intermediate are. Even Higgs Boson has imaginary mass in uncondensed phase

Tachyons is rather general term whether possible or not, but include excitation which would actually travel faster than light

- #9

mfb

Mentor

- 35,248

- 11,502

I don't see enough evidence to introduce negative squared masses and violations of special relativity just to get better fits to current experimental data. It does not help to have 6 measurements consistent with the proposed negative value - they also have to be completely inconsistent with positive values to make the model interesting.

- #10

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 26,350

- 9,835

Yes.Do they want to violate special relativity?

- #11

- 32,870

- 11,369

This Usenet Physics FAQ article has a good discussion of tachyons:Weren't tachyons only instabilities in fields and not actual particles?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html

- #12

- 32,870

- 11,369

This was my sense after skimming the paper, that it was giving multiple very weak pieces of evidence but no strong evidence (AFAIK no strong evidence exists of neutrinos, or any other particles, being tachyons). Thanks for the confirmation. :)I would prefer to see one strong piece of evidence rather than a lot of weak ones.

- #13

mfb

Mentor

- 35,248

- 11,502

Then they need really strong evidence. Especially in a field where 2-3 sigma effects come and go all the time and even 5 sigma effects can disappear.Yes.

- #14

ShayanJ

Gold Member

- 2,792

- 594

Thanks for that. But this only treats scalar tachyons which isn't useful when we talk about neutrinos. I checked some QFT texts but non of them treat tachyons(which isn't surprising). Not much was on internet too. Can you suggest a text that treats tachyons?(Specially fermionic ones)This Usenet Physics FAQ article has a good discussion of tachyons:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html

- #15

- 32,870

- 11,369

The original paper by Bilaniuk and Sudarshan (referenced in the article) turns out to be available online:this only treats scalar tachyons

https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jcuevas/Teaching/Taquiones.pdf

It doesn't explicitly discuss solutions of equations of motion the way the Usenet article does; however, the considerations raised in the paper appear to me to apply to any tachyonic particle, regardless of spin.

Google shows a number of articles that appear to discuss tachyonic solutions of the Dirac equation. AFAIK the general solution properties of the Klein-Gordon equation that are discussed in the Usenet article should also hold for the Dirac and Maxwell equations, since both of those are known to be consistent with relativistic causality.Can you suggest a text that treats tachyons?(Specially fermionic ones)

- #16

ShayanJ

Gold Member

- 2,792

- 594

But I think whether or not the following sentence is true, depends to a high extent on the equation that the particle obeys. This is the main reason I ask for further references. Or its a general thing not depending much on spin?The original paper by Bilaniuk and Sudarshan (referenced in the article) turns out to be available online:

https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jcuevas/Teaching/Taquiones.pdf

It doesn't explicitly discuss solutions of equations of motion the way the Usenet article does; however, the considerations raised in the paper appear to me to apply to any tachyonic particle, regardless of spin.

Google shows a number of articles that appear to discuss tachyonic solutions of the Dirac equation. AFAIK the general solution properties of the Klein-Gordon equation that are discussed in the Usenet article should also hold for the Dirac and Maxwell equations, since both of those are known to be consistent with relativistic causality.

localized tachyon disturbances are subluminal and superluminal disturbances are nonlocal.

- #17

- 32,870

- 11,369

I don't have a reference, as I said, but I'm curious why you think this would depend to a high extent on the equation of motion. The Dirac and Maxwell equations share a lot of properties with the Klein-Gordon equation, including, as I mentioned, consistency with relativistic causality. Indeed, multiplying the Dirac equation by its complex conjugate gives you the Klein-Gordon equation (this is one way of expressing the fact that two fermions with opposite spins can form a zero-spin bound state). So I'm not sure why you would expect a drastic difference in the behavior of tachyonic solutions to these equations.I think whether or not the following sentence is true, depends to a high extent on the equation that the particle obeys.

- #18

Matterwave

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 3,965

- 326

- #19

- 32,870

- 11,369

Not if their energy was large enough for their velocity to be sufficiently close to the speed of light. (Of course, that "sufficiently close" might be a problem--I haven't run the numbers to see if the required energy would be compatible with what was detected.)If neutrinos are Tachyons, wouldn't the neutrinos from SN1987A have arrived here much earlier?

Not as far as I can see.Is this addressed in the paper?

- #20

Matterwave

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 3,965

- 326

- #21

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 26,350

- 9,835

No. The limit is determined by the dispersion in arrival times - we don't have an absolute measurement of when SN1987A happened. That limit can be expressed as the |mIf neutrinos are Tachyons, wouldn't the neutrinos from SN1987A have arrived here much earlier?

- #22

- 5

- 2

- #23

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 26,350

- 9,835

Isn't it if their energy wereNot if their energy was large enough for their velocity to be sufficiently close to the speed of light.

However, as I mentioned earlier, we don't have a stopwatch that tells us when SN1987A went off, so we can't use absolute time measures (except the very crudest - we know the neutrinos arrived the same day as the light, and probably only about 3 hours before). One needs to look at the difference in arrival times, and that suggests that (assuming non-tachyonic neutrinos) that the mass is less than about 15-20 eV, and probably less than 10.

- #24

- 5

- 2

- #25

- 32,870

- 11,369

As a tachyon gains energy, it slows down closer and closer to the speed of light. So the more energy it has, the closer its speed is to the speed of light. A tachyon with small energy would have a speed much, much larger than the speed of light.Isn't it if their energy weresmallenough for their velocity to be sufficiently close to the speed of light? As a tachyon gains energy, it slows down.

- Last Post

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 21

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 14

- Views
- 6K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 809

- Last Post

- Replies
- 26

- Views
- 5K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 21

- Views
- 5K