What is the true nature of neutrinos and their role in the universe?

[Jay Buckner]

As a neutrino is capable of movement at a rate greater than that of light, and as such flows backwards through time relative to our own perspective, then why do we attempt to understand it through causality, rather than effect and cause as opposed to cause and effect? Why should we expect that a particle which transverses time in the reverse would be born of the decay of radioactive elements as opposed to possibly being the catalyst for the decay of those elements? Perhaps our sun isn't a producer of neutrinos but is instead a magnet for them, where neutrinos are attracted to massive objects and heavy elements, thus stars and singularities tend to absorb neutrinos, but our observation of this interaction is in reverse, leading us to conclude that the opposite is true.

Might it even be that neutrinos originate from the time of Big Freeze, progressing backward through time, lacking in both mass and energy as is consistent with estimations of the state of the universe at the time of Big Freeze, traveling backward toward that which it's attracted to, which is mass, where the most massive object to ever exist would in fact be the point of Big Bang, the singularity which once contained all that there is and ever will be?

Could it in fact be that neutrinos are more than the cause of radioactive decay, but in fact the catalyst for the universe itself, the very inspiration for Big Bang? If they have zero energy, no definite mass and originate from the future, wouldn't a neutrino be the perfect tool for the creation of something from nothing?

 

[Orodruin]

As a neutrino is capable of movement at a rate greater than that of light

No, it is not. The experiment that claimed this was flawed and the error was found several years ago.

Edit: Also note that personal speculation is not allowed at Physics Forums according to forum rules.

 

[PWiz]

You're talking about a tachyon, a hypothetical particle (as of yet), not a neutrino (which does not violate causality).

 

[Orodruin]

You're talking about a tachyon, a hypothetical particle (as of yet), not a neutrino (which does not violate causality).

In September 2011, the OPERA experiment reported experimental measurements of neutrinos traveling faster than light (and thus being tachyons). This turned out to be experimental error (loose wiring essentially), but people dig up this result every now and then and the layman will generally not be familiar with the refutal.

It gave rise to jokes such as:
The barman says "We don't serve tachyons here." A neutrino walks into a bar.

 

[PWiz]

the layman will generally not be familiar with the refutal.

That's funny, I always considered myself a layman (layboy maybe?)

 

[ZapperZ]

As a neutrino is capable of movement at a rate greater than that of light

Your starting premise is faulty, and thus, all subsequent consequences that you imagined coming out from this are rendered moot.

It is imperative that, if you are going to put all your eggs in one basket, that you check first and foremost, that the basket is secured and well-made. Otherwise, you might end up with eggs on your face. In this case, you should have thoroughly checked if "... a neutrino is capable of movement at a rage greater than that of light..." first, before making further speculations based on that.

Zz.