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.

-------------------------

Matti,

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.

-------------------------------

Eugene,

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 (L_p) propto L_p^-n propto 1/p^-n/2, where L_p propto p^1/2 is the p-adic length scale. By p-adic length scale hypothesis the p-adic prime p satisfies p≈ 2^k. n is an exponent which need not be an integer.
   2. Second suggestive possibility is logarithmic dependence on L_p and therefore on p.

Matti

Addition:

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.