I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic communication and the limitations thereof. DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 present a proof that tachyons, even if they existed, could not violate causality by sending a message into the past. Some of the salient points in that paper are listed below.

(1) The four-momentum formalism (4MF) isn't immune from criticism because it's declared to be a "definition. Nature doesn't care about what humans assert.

(2) By (1), the 4MF, particularly its transformation into other inertial
frames, must be justified only if it can be derived from more basic
considerations.

(3) The basic energy equation, which can be derived from Lagrangian mechanics, is E = mc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5. For tachyons, m --> im.

(4) E = imc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5 is the accepted relationship for tachyons..

(5) E' = imc^2/(1 - u'^2/c^2)^0.5, where u' = (u -v)/(1 - uv/c^2).

(6) Equivalently, E' = mc^/(u'^2/c^2 - 1)^0.5

(7) E' never becomes negative for ANY real value of u', therefore the 4MF
is invalid for tachyons when u > c^2/v. For u < c^2/v, tachyons are
detectable by a stationary receiver, and there is no causality violation
described by Method I.

(8) u' becomes asymptotic as u approaches c^2/v. Going beyond that
is mathematically inappropriate.

(9) Tachyons with u > c^2/v can be detected by moving the receiver
toward the tachyon source such that u' < c^2/v, which converts the
situation to Method II.

(10) Claims that Method II violates causality are based on switching
frames in the middle of solving the problem. Figures 4 and 5 in
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 show that the two frames disagree
with the position of the observers, which is due to the relativity of
simultaneity. THAT is why switching frames in the middle leads to
incorrect conclusions, namely causality violation. The moral is to
stay in ONE frame and solve the problem, as emphasized by such
physicists as D. Morin and E. Recami, as well as J. Wheeler and E. Taylor. Then it's okay to go to the other frame and STAY there and solve the problem. When you do that, you cannot complete a path that violates causality, as described in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.

Mannerly discussion requested. No response will be made to pejorative posts.

Gary

On Thursday, 26 October 2023 at 18:01:24 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic communication and the limitations thereof

And I think it would be better to discuss what is the
second from insane prophecies of your idiot guru.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic
> communication and the limitations thereof. DOI:
> 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 present a proof that tachyons, even if they
> existed, could not violate causality by sending a message into the past.
> Some of the salient points in that paper are listed below.
>
> (1) The four-momentum formalism (4MF) isn't immune from criticism
> because it's declared to be a "definition. Nature doesn't care about
> what humans assert.

idiot, you don't undrestand anything. If "tachyons" doesn't, so doesn't
light, hence photons. You don't undrestand Nature and manifolds.

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 9:01:24 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic communication and the limitations thereof. DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 present a proof that tachyons, even if they existed, could not violate causality by sending a message into the past. Some of the salient points in that paper are listed below.
>
> (1) The four-momentum formalism (4MF) isn't immune from criticism because it's declared to be a "definition. Nature doesn't care about what humans assert.
>
> (2) By (1), the 4MF, particularly its transformation into other inertial
> frames, must be justified only if it can be derived from more basic
> considerations.
>
> (3) The basic energy equation, which can be derived from Lagrangian mechanics, is E = mc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5. For tachyons, m --> im.
>
> (4) E = imc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5 is the accepted relationship for tachyons.
>
> (5) E' = imc^2/(1 - u'^2/c^2)^0.5, where u' = (u -v)/(1 - uv/c^2).
>
> (6) Equivalently, E' = mc^/(u'^2/c^2 - 1)^0.5
>
> (7) E' never becomes negative for ANY real value of u', therefore the 4MF
> is invalid for tachyons when u > c^2/v. For u < c^2/v, tachyons are
> detectable by a stationary receiver, and there is no causality violation
> described by Method I.
>
> (8) u' becomes asymptotic as u approaches c^2/v. Going beyond that
> is mathematically inappropriate.
>
> (9) Tachyons with u > c^2/v can be detected by moving the receiver
> toward the tachyon source such that u' < c^2/v, which converts the
> situation to Method II.
>
> (10) Claims that Method II violates causality are based on switching
> frames in the middle of solving the problem. Figures 4 and 5 in
> DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 show that the two frames disagree
> with the position of the observers, which is due to the relativity of
> simultaneity. THAT is why switching frames in the middle leads to
> incorrect conclusions, namely causality violation.

In classical crank fashion, hardened crank Gary Harnagel abandons the thread in which he has been pantsed and opens a new thread. Repeating the same crank claims doesn't make them true, it makes you a harder crank, Gary.

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 9:01:24 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic communication and the limitations thereof. DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 present a proof that tachyons, even if they existed, could not violate causality by sending a message into the past. Some of the salient points in that paper are listed below.
>
> (1) The four-momentum formalism (4MF) isn't immune from criticism because it's declared to be a "definition. Nature doesn't care about what humans assert.
>
> (2) By (1), the 4MF, particularly its transformation into other inertial
> frames, must be justified only if it can be derived from more basic
> considerations.
>
> (3) The basic energy equation, which can be derived from Lagrangian mechanics, is E = mc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5. For tachyons, m --> im.
>
> (4) E = imc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5 is the accepted relationship for tachyons.

What if light speed is a variable?
What does that do to E=mc squared?

Mitchell Raemsch
>
> (5) E' = imc^2/(1 - u'^2/c^2)^0.5, where u' = (u -v)/(1 - uv/c^2).
>
> (6) Equivalently, E' = mc^/(u'^2/c^2 - 1)^0.5
>
> (7) E' never becomes negative for ANY real value of u', therefore the 4MF
> is invalid for tachyons when u > c^2/v. For u < c^2/v, tachyons are
> detectable by a stationary receiver, and there is no causality violation
> described by Method I.

If they are detectable why are the no detected in certainty?
There is no evidence for them coming back from the future...
>
> (8) u' becomes asymptotic as u approaches c^2/v. Going beyond that
> is mathematically inappropriate.

Right. Negative Gamma has never belonged.
>
> (9) Tachyons with u > c^2/v can be detected by moving the receiver
> toward the tachyon source such that u' < c^2/v, which converts the
> situation to Method II.
>
> (10) Claims that Method II violates causality are based on switching
> frames in the middle of solving the problem. Figures 4 and 5 in
> DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 show that the two frames disagree
> with the position of the observers, which is due to the relativity of
> simultaneity. THAT is why switching frames in the middle leads to
> incorrect conclusions, namely causality violation. The moral is to
> stay in ONE frame and solve the problem, as emphasized by such
> physicists as D. Morin and E. Recami, as well as J. Wheeler and E. Taylor.. Then it's okay to go to the other frame and STAY there and solve the problem. When you do that, you cannot complete a path that violates causality, as described in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
>
> Mannerly discussion requested. No response will be made to pejorative posts.
>
> Gary

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:39:29 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail..com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 9:01:24 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic communication and the limitations thereof. DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 present a proof that tachyons, even if they existed, could not violate causality by sending a message into the past. Some of the salient points in that paper are listed below.
> >
> > (1) The four-momentum formalism (4MF) isn't immune from criticism because it's declared to be a "definition. Nature doesn't care about what humans assert.
> >
> > (2) By (1), the 4MF, particularly its transformation into other inertial
> > frames, must be justified only if it can be derived from more basic
> > considerations.
> >
> > (3) The basic energy equation, which can be derived from Lagrangian mechanics, is E = mc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5. For tachyons, m --> im.
> >
> > (4) E = imc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5 is the accepted relationship for tachyons.
> What if light speed is a variable?
> What does that do to E=mc squared?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> > (5) E' = imc^2/(1 - u'^2/c^2)^0.5, where u' = (u -v)/(1 - uv/c^2).
> >
> > (6) Equivalently, E' = mc^/(u'^2/c^2 - 1)^0.5
> >
> > (7) E' never becomes negative for ANY real value of u', therefore the 4MF
> > is invalid for tachyons when u > c^2/v. For u < c^2/v, tachyons are
> > detectable by a stationary receiver, and there is no causality violation
> > described by Method I.
>
> If they are detectable why are the no detected in certainty?

How long did it take to verify that neutrinos really existed? There's the answer
to your question. The point of the paper is not whether tachyons exist, but
that even if they do, they cannot send messages into one's past. This is
important because nearly all physicist who discuss tachyons claim that they
can, and use that to claim that they cannot exist.

> There is no evidence for them coming back from the future...

And there never will be, as DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 demonstrates
that tachyons, even if they exist, cannot send messages into one's past.

> > (8) u' becomes asymptotic as u approaches c^2/v. Going beyond that
> > is mathematically inappropriate.
>
> Right. Negative Gamma has never belonged.

There is no "negative gamma" in relativity (the square root of a negative
number is not negative). In the derivation of the relativistic velocity
equation, the gammas cancel out, leaving u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2), which
CAN become negative if uv/c^2 is greater than 1. Note that in
E' = mc^2/(u'^2/c^2), negative u' values do not produce negative values
for E', which the 4MF does.

> > (9) Tachyons with u > c^2/v can be detected by moving the receiver
> > toward the tachyon source such that u' < c^2/v, which converts the
> > situation to Method II.
> >
> > (10) Claims that Method II violates causality are based on switching
> > frames in the middle of solving the problem. Figures 4 and 5 in
> > DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 show that the two frames disagree
> > with the position of the observers, which is due to the relativity of
> > simultaneity. THAT is why switching frames in the middle leads to
> > incorrect conclusions, namely causality violation. The moral is to
> > stay in ONE frame and solve the problem, as emphasized by such
> > physicists as D. Morin and E. Recami, as well as J. Wheeler and E. Taylor.
> > Then it's okay to go to the other frame and STAY there and solve the
> > problem. When you do that, you cannot complete a path that violates
> > causality, as described in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
> >
> > Mannerly discussion requested. No response will be made to pejorative posts.
> >
> > Gary

Thank you, Mitch, for replying in a civilized manner :-)

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:32:22 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:39:29 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 9:01:24 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic communication and the limitations thereof. DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 present a proof that tachyons, even if they existed, could not violate causality by sending a message into the past. Some of the salient points in that paper are listed below.
> > >
> > > (1) The four-momentum formalism (4MF) isn't immune from criticism because it's declared to be a "definition. Nature doesn't care about what humans assert.
> > >
> > > (2) By (1), the 4MF, particularly its transformation into other inertial
> > > frames, must be justified only if it can be derived from more basic
> > > considerations.
> > >
> > > (3) The basic energy equation, which can be derived from Lagrangian mechanics, is E = mc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5. For tachyons, m --> im.
> > >
> > > (4) E = imc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5 is the accepted relationship for tachyons.
> > What if light speed is a variable?
> > What does that do to E=mc squared?
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > >
> > > (5) E' = imc^2/(1 - u'^2/c^2)^0.5, where u' = (u -v)/(1 - uv/c^2)..
> > >
> > > (6) Equivalently, E' = mc^/(u'^2/c^2 - 1)^0.5
> > >
> > > (7) E' never becomes negative for ANY real value of u', therefore the 4MF
> > > is invalid for tachyons when u > c^2/v. For u < c^2/v, tachyons are
> > > detectable by a stationary receiver, and there is no causality violation
> > > described by Method I.
> >
> > If they are detectable why are the no detected in certainty?
> How long did it take to verify that neutrinos really existed? There's the answer
> to your question. The point of the paper is not whether tachyons exist, but
> that even if they do, they cannot send messages into one's past. This is
> important because nearly all physicist who discuss tachyons claim that they
> can, and use that to claim that they cannot exist.
> > There is no evidence for them coming back from the future...
> And there never will be, as DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 demonstrates
> that tachyons, even if they exist, cannot send messages into one's past.
> > > (8) u' becomes asymptotic as u approaches c^2/v. Going beyond that
> > > is mathematically inappropriate.
> >
> > Right. Negative Gamma has never belonged.
> There is no "negative gamma" in relativity (the square root of a negative
> number is not negative). In the derivation of the relativistic velocity
> equation, the gammas cancel out, leaving u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2), which
> CAN become negative if uv/c^2 is greater than 1. Note that in
> E' = mc^2/(u'^2/c^2), negative u' values do not produce negative values
> for E', which the 4MF does.
> > > (9) Tachyons with u > c^2/v can be detected by moving the receiver
> > > toward the tachyon source such that u' < c^2/v, which converts the
> > > situation to Method II.
> > >
> > > (10) Claims that Method II violates causality are based on switching
> > > frames in the middle of solving the problem. Figures 4 and 5 in
> > > DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 show that the two frames disagree
> > > with the position of the observers, which is due to the relativity of
> > > simultaneity. THAT is why switching frames in the middle leads to
> > > incorrect conclusions, namely causality violation. The moral is to
> > > stay in ONE frame and solve the problem, as emphasized by such
> > > physicists as D. Morin and E. Recami, as well as J. Wheeler and E. Taylor.
> > > Then it's okay to go to the other frame and STAY there and solve the
> > > problem. When you do that, you cannot complete a path that violates
> > > causality, as described in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
> > >
> > > Mannerly discussion requested. No response will be made to pejorative posts.
> > >
> > > Gary
> Thank you, Mitch, for replying in a civilized manner :-)

How have we detected a neutrino in a supermassive detector?
What atom in it can we watch? How could we watch more?
where it passes through billions of miles of material?

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 1:50:58 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> How have we detected a neutrino in a supermassive detector?
> What atom in it can we watch? How could we watch more?
> where it passes through billions of miles of material?

This is off-topic, but I suggest you check neutrino on wikipedia/
Then, if you want more, check the references at the end of that
page.

On 2023-10-26 16:01:21 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:

> I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic
> communication and the limitations thereof.

The most important limitations are that there is no known way to create
tachyons, that there is no known way to detect tachyons, and that there
is no good idea about where to look for such methods.

Mikko

On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 12:44:01 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
> On 2023-10-26 16:01:21 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:
>
> > I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic
> > communication and the limitations thereof.
> The most important limitations are that there is no known way to create
> tachyons, that there is no known way to detect tachyons, and that there
> is no good idea about where to look for such methods.

It's making them slightly similiar to purple unicorns
spitting with acid. Well, physics.

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:44:01 AM UTC-6, Mikko wrote:
> On 2023-10-26 16:01:21 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:
>
> > I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic
> > communication and the limitations thereof.
>
> The most important limitations are that there is no known way to create
> tachyons, that there is no known way to detect tachyons, and that there
> is no good idea about where to look for such methods.
>
> Mikko

I'm sure you're aware of the recent history of the attempt to discover the
mass of the electron antineutrino from tritium decay:

2C. Kraus et al, “Final Results from phase II of the Mainz Neutrino Mass
Search in Tritium Decay,” Euro. Phys. J. C, 40:4 (2005), Pp 447-468

3M. Aker et al.,”Improved Upper Limit on the Neutrino Mass from a Direct
Kinematic Method by KATRIN,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 221802 (2019)

The value obtained from the Mainz experiment was M^2 = -0.6 eV^2,
indicating that the mass was imaginary (indicating a tachyon), but the
error bars were +/- 4.3 eV^2. The initial results from KATRIN were more
encouraging: -1.0 +0.9-1.1 eV^2, indicating a significant probability that
the mass of the electron antineutrino is imaginary.

The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, because
their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20% probability
that the mass is imaginary. I read somewhere that this last value was
obtained by rejecting some of the data because it was "unphysical," but I'm
not making any any accusations at this point.

There is a lot of older papers hypothesizing that neutrinos might be tachyons,
but we'll see how KATRIN does in its ongoing experiment.

If neutrinos are indeed tachyons, that doesn't bode well for communicators
using tachyons. At present, detectors involve a cubic kilometer of ice or a
huge take of cleaning fluid :-(.

The point of DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, however, is not to prove the
existence of tachyons but to prove that if they DO exist, they still cannot
violate causality. That's an important point because a conventional view held
by most physicists is that they cannot exist because they DO violate causality.

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:38:48 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, because
> their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20% probability that the mass is imaginary.

Repeating your same misconceptions about the KATRIN experiments doesn't make them true, it makes you a hardened crank. Unlike you, the mainstream physicists at KATRIN never claimed the mass being imaginary.

> to prove that if they DO exist, they still cannot
> violate causality. That's an important point because a conventional view held
> by most physicists is that they cannot exist because they DO violate causality.

Unlike you crank misconceptions, mainstream physicists know better.

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:28:12 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 1:50:58 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > How have we detected a neutrino in a supermassive detector?
> > What atom in it can we watch? How could we watch more?
> > where it passes through billions of miles of material?
> This is off-topic, but I suggest you check neutrino on wikipedia/
> Then, if you want more, check the references at the end of that
> page.

I don't recommend anybody getting their science from the internet gary.

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 7:07:25 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:38:48 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
> > The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, because
> > their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20% probability that the mass is imaginary.
> Repeating your same misconceptions about the KATRIN experiments doesn't make them true, it makes you a hardened crank. Unlike you, the mainstream physicists at KATRIN never claimed the mass being imaginary.
> > to prove that if they DO exist, they still cannot
> > violate causality. That's an important point because a conventional view held
> > by most physicists is that they cannot exist because they DO violate causality.
> Unlike you crank misconceptions, mainstream physicists know better.

Mainstream is lamestream...
Your authority makes you a bigot.
That is all you want.

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 1:21:06 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:28:12 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 1:50:58 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > How have we detected a neutrino in a supermassive detector?
> > > What atom in it can we watch? How could we watch more?
> > > where it passes through billions of miles of material?
> >
> > This is off-topic, but I suggest you check neutrino on wikipedia/
> > Then, if you want more, check the references at the end of that
> > page.
>
> I don't recommend anybody getting their science from the internet gary.

Ummm ... this discussion group is ON the internet. Why is it any better?

Anyway, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino I followed to the
Cowan-Reines neutrino experiment in 1956 where, for the first time,
neutrinos were detected coming from a nearby nuclear reactor.
They used large tanks of water in which the neutrinos interacted
with protons in the nuclei of the hydrogen atoms, producing a neutron
and a positron. The positron immediately found an electron and
produced two gamma rays with a particular energy.

Even though the flux of neutrinos from the reactor was quite large, the
detection rate was very low because the cross-section for the reaction
was very, very small. That's why such large tanks were used.

The problem with present detectors is that high fluxes of neutrinos are
needed in order to detect a few. The neutrino is a very strange particle
with its exceedingly small mass (less than 1 eV, 500,000 times less
than electron. and its unbelievably small cross-section (less than 10^-43
cm^2, 20 orders of magnitude less than other elementary particles).
Perhaps this strangeness may be because it's a tachyon?

On 2023-10-27 10:43:57 Mikko said:

> The most important limitations are that there is no known way to create
> tachyons, that there is no known way to detect tachyons, and that there
> is no good idea about where to look for such methods.

On 2023-10-27 15:38:48 Gary Harnagel said:

> I'm sure you're aware of the recent history of the attempt to discover the
> mass of the electron antineutrino from tritium decay:
>
> 2C. Kraus et al, “Final Results from phase II of the Mainz Neutrino Mass
> Search in Tritium Decay,” Euro. Phys. J. C, 40:4 (2005), Pp 447-468
>
> 3M. Aker et al.,”Improved Upper Limit on the Neutrino Mass from a Direct
> Kinematic Method by KATRIN,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 221802 (2019)
>
> The value obtained from the Mainz experiment was M^2 = -0.6 eV^2,
> indicating that the mass was imaginary (indicating a tachyon), but the
> error bars were +/- 4.3 eV^2. The initial results from KATRIN were more
> encouraging: -1.0 +0.9-1.1 eV^2, indicating a significant probability that
> the mass of the electron antineutrino is imaginary.
>
> The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, because
> their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20% probability
> that the mass is imaginary. I read somewhere that this last value was
> obtained by rejecting some of the data because it was "unphysical," but I'm
> not making any any accusations at this point.
>
> There is a lot of older papers hypothesizing that neutrinos might be tachyons,
> but we'll see how KATRIN does in its ongoing experiment.

All of those are compatible with zero mass of neutron. Even if a neutron
were a tachyon it's speed is so close to the speed of light that for
communication purposes it does not make a difference.

Mikko

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 7:54:31 AM UTC-6, Mikko wrote:
> On 2023-10-27 10:43:57 Mikko said:
> >
> > The most important limitations are that there is no known way to create
> > tachyons, that there is no known way to detect tachyons, and that there
> > is no good idea about where to look for such methods.
>
> On 2023-10-27 15:38:48 Gary Harnagel said:
> >
> > I'm sure you're aware of the recent history of the attempt to discover the
> > mass of the electron antineutrino from tritium decay:
> >
> > 2C. Kraus et al, “Final Results from phase II of the Mainz Neutrino Mass
> > Search in Tritium Decay,” Euro. Phys. J. C, 40:4 (2005), Pp 447-468
> >
> > 3M. Aker et al.,”Improved Upper Limit on the Neutrino Mass from a Direct
> > Kinematic Method by KATRIN,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 221802 (2019)
> >
> > The value obtained from the Mainz experiment was M^2 = -0.6 eV^2,
> > indicating that the mass was imaginary (indicating a tachyon), but the
> > error bars were +/- 4.3 eV^2. The initial results from KATRIN were more
> > encouraging: -1.0 +0.9-1.1 eV^2, indicating a significant probability that
> > the mass of the electron antineutrino is imaginary.
> >
> > The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, because
> > their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20% probability
> > that the mass is imaginary. I read somewhere that this last value was
> > obtained by rejecting some of the data because it was "unphysical," but I'm
> > not making any any accusations at this point.
> >
> > There is a lot of older papers hypothesizing that neutrinos might be tachyons,
> > but we'll see how KATRIN does in its ongoing experiment.
>
> All of those are compatible with zero mass of neutr[ino].

Yes, the error bars include zero, but neutrino flavor oscillation proves that it's NOT
zero.

> Even if a neutrino] were a tachyon it's speed is so close to the speed of light that
> for communication purposes it does not make a difference.
>
> Mikko

Neutrinos are produced by nuclear interactions so their energies are quite high;
however, there are ways to reduce their energies. For example, move the source
away from the receiver: u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2), as v --> c^/u, u' approaches \infty.
As u' --> \infty, E' --> 0. The source would be particles in an accelerator undergoing
a decay process that creates neutrinos.

Detecting them is still a problem, though. We don't know how to detect the low-
energy neutrinos produced by stars in galaxies moving away from us at, say,
z = 10 :-(

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 8:00:01 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 7:54:31 AM UTC-6, Mikko wrote:
> > On 2023-10-27 10:43:57 Mikko said:
> > >
> > > The most important limitations are that there is no known way to create
> > > tachyons, that there is no known way to detect tachyons, and that there
> > > is no good idea about where to look for such methods.
> >
> > On 2023-10-27 15:38:48 Gary Harnagel said:
> > >
> > > I'm sure you're aware of the recent history of the attempt to discover the
> > > mass of the electron antineutrino from tritium decay:
> > >
> > > 2C. Kraus et al, “Final Results from phase II of the Mainz Neutrino Mass
> > > Search in Tritium Decay,” Euro. Phys. J. C, 40:4 (2005), Pp 447-468
> > >
> > > 3M. Aker et al.,”Improved Upper Limit on the Neutrino Mass from a Direct
> > > Kinematic Method by KATRIN,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 221802 (2019)
> > >
> > > The value obtained from the Mainz experiment was M^2 = -0.6 eV^2,
> > > indicating that the mass was imaginary (indicating a tachyon), but the
> > > error bars were +/- 4.3 eV^2. The initial results from KATRIN were more
> > > encouraging: -1.0 +0.9-1.1 eV^2, indicating a significant probability that
> > > the mass of the electron antineutrino is imaginary.
> > >
> > > The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, because
> > > their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20% probability
> > > that the mass is imaginary. I read somewhere that this last value was
> > > obtained by rejecting some of the data because it was "unphysical," but I'm
> > > not making any any accusations at this point.
> > >
> > > There is a lot of older papers hypothesizing that neutrinos might be tachyons,
> > > but we'll see how KATRIN does in its ongoing experiment.
> >
> > All of those are compatible with zero mass of neutr[ino].

They measure near light speed. They have mass.

>
> Yes, the error bars include zero, but neutrino flavor oscillation proves that it's NOT
> zero.
>
> > Even if a neutrino] were a tachyon it's speed is so close to the speed of light that
> > for communication purposes it does not make a difference.
> >
> > Mikko
> Neutrinos are produced by nuclear interactions so their energies are quite high;
> however, there are ways to reduce their energies. For example, move the source
> away from the receiver: u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2), as v --> c^/u, u' approaches \infty.
> As u' --> \infty, E' --> 0. The source would be particles in an accelerator undergoing
> a decay process that creates neutrinos.
>
> Detecting them is still a problem, though. We don't know how to detect the low-
> energy neutrinos produced by stars in galaxies moving away from us at, say,
> z = 10 :-(

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:29:38 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail..com wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 8:00:01 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 7:54:31 AM UTC-6, Mikko wrote:
> > >
> > > All of those are compatible with zero mass of neutr[ino].
>
> They measure near light speed. They have mass.

Present detection capabilities are unable to discern the speed of neutrinos
from that of light. The only way we know that neutrinos have mass is that
they oscillate among flavors while traveling from one place to another.

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:44:23 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:29:38 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 8:00:01 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 7:54:31 AM UTC-6, Mikko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > All of those are compatible with zero mass of neutr[ino].
> >
> > They measure near light speed. They have mass.
> Present detection capabilities are unable to discern the speed of neutrinos

How then would you know they only qualify for no mass?

> from that of light. The only way we know that neutrinos have mass is that
> they oscillate among flavors while traveling from one place to another.

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 5:10:37 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:44:23 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:29:38 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > They measure near light speed. They have mass.
> >
> > Present detection capabilities are unable to discern the speed of neutrinos
>
> How then would you know they only qualify for no mass?
>
> > from that of light. The only way we know that neutrinos have mass is that
> > they oscillate among flavors while traveling from one place to another.

Time stands still for massless particles like photons, so they can't change
in flight. Neutrinos change from one flavor to another, so they're not not
massless and they're not raveling exactly at c.

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 6:45:31 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 5:10:37 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:44:23 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:29:38 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > They measure near light speed. They have mass.
> > >
> > > Present detection capabilities are unable to discern the speed of neutrinos
> >
> > How then would you know they only qualify for no mass?
> >
> > > from that of light. The only way we know that neutrinos have mass is that
> > > they oscillate among flavors while traveling from one place to another.
> Time stands still for massless particles like photons, so they can't change

Light moves and waves in time. There is no place for still time for it...
Time cannot be stopped mathematically.
Show how finite slow time can jump to the infinitely slow gary?

> in flight. Neutrinos change from one flavor to another, so they're not not
> massless and they're not raveling exactly at c.

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 6:45:31 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 5:10:37 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:44:23 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:29:38 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > They measure near light speed. They have mass.
> > >
> > > Present detection capabilities are unable to discern the speed of neutrinos
> >
> > How then would you know they only qualify for no mass?
> >
> > > from that of light. The only way we know that neutrinos have mass is that
> > > they oscillate among flavors while traveling from one place to another.
> Time stands still for massless particles like photons, so they can't change
> in flight. Neutrinos change from one flavor to another, so they're not not
> massless and they're not raveling exactly at c.

Would traveling at c not give infinite kinetic energy?

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:21:11 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Would traveling at c not give infinite kinetic energy?

That's what theory says and what experiment confirms.

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 7:20:14 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:21:11 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Would traveling at c not give infinite kinetic energy?
> That's what theory says and what experiment confirms.

Then why does it not happen?
Every photon would have it.
But clearly they do not.
Only a finite energy manifests as real gary...
How does an atom absorb infinite energy?

Mitchell Raemsch