Sunday, November 06, 2011

Superluminal neutrinos and censorship in Science2.0 again

Paolo Ciafaloni wrote a blog posting with the title "Faster Than Light Neutrinos And Relativity II - A Million Dollar Bet". As a long term unemployed happy to receive even the 100 dollars (not million) promised in the posting, I posted a comment to his blog. Since Science2.0 has already earlier (but strange enough, not before these nasty superluminal neutrinos) censored out my comments, I find it reasonable to publish the comment also in my own blog. May be Paolo sees my comment and sends these 100 dollars. I really need them.

Here is my comment.


All boils down to what one means with maximal signal velocity. I have tried to explain at my blog and also in Science2.0 blogs that the situation changes completely, if one accepts a modification of special and general relativities in which space-time is 4-surface in some higher-D space-time time of form M4×S, S internal compact space (fixed to S=CP2 from the condition that one obtains standard model symmetries). Poincare invariance is not lost and gravitation transforms to sub-manifold geometry.

The point is that light-like geodesics representing orbits of relativistic particles in geometric optics approximation at space-time surface are not light-like geodesics of M4×S nor M4 in general unless the 4-surface is just the flat canonical imbedding of M4. Space-time surface is in general warped and curved and although the motion still takes with light-velocity locally it is not along straight line in M4 so that it takes longer time to travel from point A to point B. The maximal signal velocity is reduced its absolute upper bound assignable with a travel along light-like geodesic of M4.

Using the terminology of TGD: the maximal signal velocity along neutrino space-time sheets of many-sheeted space-time could be (but need not be) higher than for photons. This velocity could depend on the length of the travel explaining SN1987A case or scale this length. It could also depend on particle species and relativistic electrons would provide a highly interesting test case. The velocity could slightly differ for different neutrinos. Given particle species could even arrive along several different space-time sheets: this could explain two arrival times for SN1987A neutrinos and the problem of two Hubble constants that has caused heated discussions among cosmologists. Needless to say, OPERA could be for TGD what Mickelson-Morley was for special relativity.

See this. this and this.

Matti Pitkanen

To my surprise I managed to get my comment to the Science2.0 and received a question from Eugene Stefanocich. I tried to answer but censors were awake at this time and I got "Access denied" as a responce. Therefore I will answer to Eugene here. I can only hope that Eugene happens to pop up at my blog.

Here is Eugene's question.



what are predictions of your theory for future neutrino experiments? In particular: 1) what will be the time advance if OPERA-type experiment is repeated with a different base length? 2) do you expect to see any difference if tau-neutrinos (which emerge from mu-neutrinos as a result of oscillations) are registered by the OPERA detector? 3) what is your prediction for the MINOS experiment if it is repeated with better accuracy and statistics?

Thanks. Eugene.

And here is my response which failed to pass through the censorhip.



thank you for good questions. I would be happy if I could answer at precise quantitative level but I cannot. This would require a detailed model for neutrino space-time sheets and this I do not possess. What I have to say about the effective superluminality can be found from this article.

The general predictions and partial answers to some of your questions are here.

  1. There is no energy dependence. There is particle and scale dependence. There is an argument suggesting that the velocity is higher for neutrinos than for photon and for photon higher than for relativistic electron. The difference between neutrino families is expected to be small if the proposed mechanism based on electroweak interactions is correct: this because of the universality/flavor independence of electroweak interactions.
  2. The dependence on the length scale of the orbit should be via p-adic length scale and therefore piecewise constant. This kind of jump would come at half octaves of basic length scale and might be therefore observable. Increasing or decreasing the distance between CERN and receiver by a factor of sqrt(2) could reveal this effect.
  3. The distance between CERN and Gran Sasso is 750 km. If I understood correctly, the distance travelled by neutrinos in MINOS experiment is 734 km (see this). 734 km is slightly above p-adic length scale L(151+2*46)= 2^(46)*L(151)=2^(46)*10^(-8) meters= L(243)=703 km. If I take p-adic length scale hypothesis seriously then the result should be same.
  4. In cosmic scales one can estimate maximal signal velocity for photon: a very rough estimate using imbedding of Roberston-Walker cosmology as Lorentz invariant 4-surface is 73 per cent from absolute maximum (for light-like geodesic of M^4). For SN1987A neutrinos and photons the velocity difference would be much smaller than in shorter scales suggesting that the deviation from absolute maximum approaches to zero at very long distance scales.
    1. One possibility is Delta v/c (Lp) propto Lp-n propto 1/p-n/2, where Lp propto p1/2 is the p-adic length scale. By p-adic length scale hypothesis the p-adic prime p satisfies p≈ 2k. n is an exponent which need not be an integer.
    2. Second suggestive possibility is logarithmic dependence on Lp and therefore on p.


The censorship in Science2.0 has transformed to a farce. I registered to the group as Eugene proposed (he believed that a technical problem was in question). I was accepted to Science2.0 as a registered member and went to the group only to find that it was not possible to write a comment!! After that I found that my earlier comment and Eugene's response to it had mysteriously disappeared! It is clear that complete idiots are behind this insanity and they are rapidly spoiling the credibility of Science2.0. I can understand the psychology behind this kind of insane activities: jealousy is a horrible disease. This kind of discussion group should be however immune to the actions of people who do not realize that dirty tricks are not science.


At 1:30 PM, Blogger Eugene Stefanovich said...


thank you for putting forward your experimental predictions. They are quite different from what I predict with my theory . I claim that

1) In the OPERA setup with mu-neutrinos the time advance effect (60 ns) is independent on the distance between the proton target and the OPERA detector.

2) If the OPERA experiment is repeated, but tau-neutrinos are registered instead of muon neutrinos, then we will see a 60 ns time delay instead of the time advance.

3) The MINOS experiment will not see any time advance or delay, because they measure the time of flight between two neutrino detectors, and in my model the speed of neutrinos is just slightly below "c".

Hopefully, new experimental results will come soon. Then we can compare our predictions with actual data.


At 12:41 AM, Anonymous said...

You are right. Our explanations seem to be based on rather different assumptions. Thank you for the link.

I tried again to answer to your comment but with no success. I also registered in the hope that the comments might go throuh but I have not yet received any information.


At 12:50 AM, Anonymous said...

I looked through your article. If I understood correctly, the crucial assumption is that n_mu and nu_tau are created at spatial positions differing by 18 meters or so: this corresponds to temporal advance due to - as I believe - effective super-luminality. This is a macroscopic distance and certainly colleagues will argue that this is not possible. Certainly this assumption requires good justification.

One model assume space-like momenta for neutrinos explain the effect: to my opinion is the problem is that continuum of super-luminal velocities are predicted and the probability for this kind of propagation is very low.

At 3:27 PM, Blogger Eugene Stefanovich said...


I guess that registration will solve your problems with Science2.0. In my case it took a couple of days to become registered. So, be patient.

I agree that the idea of neutrino creation 18 meters away from the pion-muon decay vertex is kind of weird. But, on the other hand, it does not violate any fundamental physical laws, as I've tried to show in the paper.

Regarding the space-like momenta, you posiibly mean article
I agree with you that even if this effect exists, it should be very small and cannot explain OPERA observations. See my latest comment at


At 4:54 AM, Anonymous said...

Dear Eugene,

I registered and my registration was accepted and I thought that these mysterious events were over.

I went to the group to answer your comment to only find that it was not possible to type the comment! Then I found that my comment and your response to it had disappeared in mysterious manner! This farce began after I made my first comment neutrino super-luminality in two Science2.0 blogs.

Something is badly wrong with Science2.0 and I wrote a separate posting about the situation since the idiots behind this farce are destroying the respectability of this forum.

There is not reason to pretend that if the effective neutrino-superluminality is real it means a revolution in physics. The fact is that TGD is the theory providing a natural explanation for it among many many other anomalies besides reproducing fusion of standard model and quantum gravitation.

I made my thesis 1982: during the three decades after that I have been systematically silenced. Without the emergence of web no-one would know about TGD. There is no need to be a genius to understand that the breakthrough of TGD would be accompanied by a scientific scandal of century. Some colleagues know this and are desperate and acting accordingly.

At 11:09 AM, Blogger ThePeSla said...

Matti and Eugene,

So, for a theory to get some attention there has to be dramatic experimental new results? Just what does it mean to be on the internet with its inadequacies anyway- I mean in a world where the usual views of causality and relativity can be much more complicated, well, the relative velocity of such neutrinos is also a deeper relativistic effect?

We are too hung up on the old traditions of and formalisms of imagines spaces and mathematics- at least the string theories made a breakthrough despite the questions of tachyons and so on. I wonder just how deep these focused issues are.

Maybe, those who made predictions (apparently as a measure of the soundness of a theory) also are in a sort of relative time that in a sense draws reasonable spaces and velocities outside their comfortable Hilbert spaces and Poincare universes (dark fluid or dark flow no?) which come back with ideas like where the energy of things is not directly involved.

So somewhere at a certain weird distance from the interaction, from my hyper reference frame I made the prediction of such particle reactions at a distance before the new neutrino evidence and yes it does not ultimately demolish the relativity's.

One day perhaps the personalities in the web cannot be disguised or hidden where things like the physics are real. In that sense the theories are living philosophies not lagged in the halls of secrecy and rationed lags publications. The truths will be known and some for centuries even if no one has heard them- and they will pop up again like the violets in the field story and the non-euclidean geometers.

One defect I feel is the thinking we can solve this with only the two neutrino flavors and find a solid picture of what is happening- in that sense no one should be describing three space as the "real world" as in the pdf paper above. We have to begin by knowing the nature of flavors and generations and the reasons for such oscillations in the first place.

Worry over the loss of important ideas will not be healed by the publishing in the internet to show the world a deep hoax or scandal or any political conspiracy. Yes these are real enough sometimes. One cannot get revenge when the object of that revenge is no longer with us- but one can feel the worth of his own and our shared discoveries- and uniquely so. That said, our universities have lost their way and do no better.

The PeSla

At 1:41 AM, Blogger Mitchell said...

If your comments disappear, it is probably the individual blog owner who deletes them, e.g. Paolo in this case.

At 2:53 AM, Anonymous said...

Probably so.

First various tricks such as "Access denied" or the confirmation that I am not a robot requiring that I can produce symbols like \nu! After the registration it was not possible to write to the window at all! And at this stage my comment and Eugene's question related to it had disappeared.

Very sad if colleague would behave in such a silly manner. The trickery however suggests to me that code writing level does the dirty job and therefore also higher levels of hegemony is involved. There seems to be a systematic effort to clean up the net from my comments about neutrino super-luminality. This is disgusting and extremely stupid but this is the situation in theoretical physics nowadays.

At 11:54 PM, Blogger Rob R. said...

Tried to post this for you... we will see if it shows:

Noticed a response to your blog on another blog that I follow, TGD diary. He seems to be having some trouble getting his comments published here and feels he may be being deliberately censored. Thought I would post a link for you just in case it's just a glitch (seems you have no trouble letting people disagree with you in the comments section(s). Cool blog, by the way. Enjoying it so far.

At 1:58 AM, Anonymous said...

Thank you.

I got enough for trying again and again to in vain.


At 4:38 PM, Blogger Rob R. said...

No problem, Matti. It does indeed seem to be a glitch that Hank (et al) have been trying to sort out without much luck. In his comments on Paolo's blog he suggests trying to reset your password... hope that helps.


At 8:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Matti, just to let you know that I have reposted your very interesting comments regarding superluminal neutrinos that you say were deleted on the Science20 blog at Helen


Post a Comment

<< Home