[QUOTE=Jeff Gilchrist;272435]Particles faster than light measured
[url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/09/22/technology-particles-light-speed.html[/url][/QUOTE]Fascinating!

I've been musing about fundamental physics over the last few weeks and have been slowly coming to the conclusion that something is profoundly wrong with Einstein's view of the universe --- and I don't mean the dice playing question.

There are two things which I don't understand. Actually, there are many things which I don't understand but two in particular have been puzzling me recently. One has to do with neutrinos but the other doesn't have a clear connection.

The neutrino puzzle is this. Neutrinos apparently oscillate between e, mu and tau varieties. If this is the case, a quantum number is not conserved and so is not exact. Why then, should it be conserved in the corresponding charged particles, the electron, muon and tauon? Why can I find no evidence for electron - muon oscillation? Is there truly no evidence, or am I jmissing some published results? Is it that the mass difference between the electron and muon is so great that the oscillation is (presently) undetectable?

The other puzzle concerns the wave-particle duality and this is the one which really goes to the heart of the relativity / QM dichotomy. It is well known that electrons behave as waves with a frequency given by E = h.nu where h is Planck's constant, E is the kinetic energy and nu is the frequency. The experimental evidence is extensive and convincing.

However, according to Einstein, E=mc^2, where m is the mass of the electron [i]including the contribution from the rest mass[/i]. If Planck's equation is universally true, an electron should show wave properties corresponding to its total mass surely? Where is the evidence for wave properties corresponding to an energy of 511 keV, the rest mass of an electron? Ok, so it's only around 1pm, or 1% of inter-atomic spacing but it ought to be detectable easily enough. Further, why does it show wave behaviour corresponding to its kinetic energy as measured in the laboratory rest frame? What's special about that particular situation?

If anyone can shine a light on these questions, please do!

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;272444]Fascinating!

I've been musing about fundamental physics over the last few weeks and have been slowly coming to the conclusion that something is profoundly wrong with Einstein's view of the universe --- and I don't mean the dice playing question.

There are two things which I don't understand. Actually, there are many things which I don't understand but two in particular have been puzzling me recently. One has to do with neutrinos but the other doesn't have a clear connection.

The neutrino puzzle is this. Neutrinos apparently oscillate between e, mu and tau varieties. If this is the case, a quantum number is not conserved and so is not exact. Why then, should it be conserved in the corresponding charged particles, the electron, muon and tauon? Why can I find no evidence for electron - muon oscillation? Is there truly no evidence, or am I missing some published results? Is it that the mass difference between the electron and muon is so great that the oscillation is (presently) undetectable?[/quote]
Apparently [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation#Theory]so[/url]:
[i]
It is because the mass differences between the neutrinos are small that the coherence length for neutrino oscillation is so long, making this microscopic quantum effect observable over macroscopic distances.[/i]

[quote]The other puzzle concerns the wave-particle duality and this is the one which really goes to the heart of the relativity / QM dichotomy. It is well known that electrons behave as waves with a frequency given by E = h.nu where h is Planck's constant, E is the kinetic energy and nu is the frequency. The experimental evidence is extensive and convincing.

However, according to Einstein, E=mc^2, where m is the mass of the electron [i]including the contribution from the rest mass[/i]. If Planck's equation is universally true, an electron should show wave properties corresponding to its total mass surely? Where is the evidence for wave properties corresponding to an energy of 511 keV, the rest mass of an electron? Ok, so it's only around 1pm, or 1% of inter-atomic spacing but it ought to be detectable easily enough. Further, why does it show wave behaviour corresponding to its kinetic energy as measured in the laboratory rest frame? What's special about that particular situation?[/QUOTE]

Once again, Wikipedia does nice work:
[i]
...the intimate relation between electric charge and electromagnetism had been well documented following the discoveries of Michael Faraday and Clerk Maxwell. Since electromagnetism was known to be a wave generated by a changing electric or magnetic field (a continuous, wave-like entity itself) an atomic/particle description of electricity and charge was a non sequitur. And classical electrodynamics was not the only classical theory rendered incomplete.
...
De Broglie's formula was confirmed three years [after he published his hypothesis] for electrons (which differ from photons in having a rest mass) with the observation of electron diffraction in two independent experiments. At the University of Aberdeen, George Paget Thomson passed a beam of electrons through a thin metal film and observed the predicted interference patterns. At Bell Labs Clinton Joseph Davisson and Lester Halbert Germer guided their beam through a crystalline grid.

De Broglie was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1929 for his hypothesis. Thomson and Davisson shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1937 for their experimental work.[/i]

Regarding your question about what makes the laboratory-centric frame 'special' w.r.to the electron kinetic energy, you use the words 'why does it show'. 'show' implies a measurement by an observer - in which frame would that observer be, in a laboratory setting?

I believe the electron-interferometer experiments all are consistent, i.e. the DeBroglie wavelength measured implies an energy matching E = mc^2, where m means relativistic mass. Similarly, much larger particles have been 'flagged for interference':

[i]In 1999, the diffraction of C60 fullerenes by researchers from the University of Vienna was reported.[15] Fullerenes are comparatively large and massive objects, having an atomic mass of about 720 u. The de Broglie wavelength is 2.5 pm, whereas the diameter of the molecule is about 1 nm, about 400 times larger. As of 2005, this is the largest object for which quantum-mechanical wave-like properties have been directly observed in far-field diffraction.[/i]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;272442]$1000 says the alleged 'result' gets explained away or remains unconfirmed. Any takers?[/QUOTE]If the neutrino has a negative rest mass, it is no problem for it to FTL. IIRC correctly there are 2 articles [URL="http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/#3"]here[/URL] that deal with just such case.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;272459]If the neutrino has a negative rest mass, it is no problem for it to FTL. IIRC correctly there are 2 articles [URL="http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/#3"]here[/URL] that deal with just such case.[/QUOTE]

I'm not a scientist or mathematician so I shouldn't really weigh in but here I go:

[TEX]m=\frac{M_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/TEX]

under this basic equation:

if negative rest mass and v>c is in effect

[TEX]m=\frac{NEG}{\sqrt{NEG}} = \frac{NEG}{IMAG?}[/TEX]

I know I could turn a neg into into a positive time i^2 but the mass becomes imaginary. also if you say multiplying by i^4 to get the same negative value isn't restricted there should be an infinite amount of possible masses.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;272463]there should be an infinite amount of possible masses.[/QUOTE]

found my thought error they come back to the same mass in positive or negative terms but in imaginary mass ( assuming we could define it) there's a multitude of them:

i
i^5
i^9

etc.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;272442]$1000 says the alleged 'result' gets explained away or remains unconfirmed. Any takers?[/QUOTE]

[url]http://xkcd.com/955/[/url]

[QUOTE=xilman;272444]Fascinating!

I've been musing about fundamental physics over the last few weeks and have been slowly coming to the conclusion that something is profoundly wrong with Einstein's view of the universe --- and I don't mean the dice playing question.

There are two things which I don't understand. Actually, there are many things which I don't understand but two in particular have been puzzling me recently. One has to do with neutrinos but the other doesn't have a clear connection.

The neutrino puzzle is this. Neutrinos apparently oscillate between e, mu and tau varieties. If this is the case, a quantum number is not conserved and so is not exact. Why then, should it be conserved in the corresponding charged particles, the electron, muon and tauon? Why can I find no evidence for electron - muon oscillation? Is there truly no evidence, or am I jmissing some published results? Is it that the mass difference between the electron and muon is so great that the oscillation is (presently) undetectable?

The other puzzle concerns the wave-particle duality and this is the one which really goes to the heart of the relativity / QM dichotomy. It is well known that electrons behave as waves with a frequency given by E = h.nu where h is Planck's constant, E is the kinetic energy and nu is the frequency. The experimental evidence is extensive and convincing.

However, according to Einstein, E=mc^2, where m is the mass of the electron [I]including the contribution from the rest mass[/I]. If Planck's equation is universally true, an electron should show wave properties corresponding to its total mass surely? Where is the evidence for wave properties corresponding to an energy of 511 keV, the rest mass of an electron? Ok, so it's only around 1pm, or 1% of inter-atomic spacing but it ought to be detectable easily enough. Further, why does it show wave behaviour corresponding to its kinetic energy as measured in the laboratory rest frame? What's special about that particular situation?

If anyone can shine a light on these questions, please do!

Paul[/QUOTE]

Hi Paul,

Look up "de Broglie wavelength". You'll see that the characteristic quantum wavelength of a non-relativistic electron is dominated by its rest mass in exactly the way you expect that it should.

--Scott

[QUOTE=sichase;272534]Hi Paul,

Look up "de Broglie wavelength". You'll see that the characteristic quantum wavelength of a non-relativistic electron is dominated by its rest mass in exactly the way you expect that it should.

--Scott[/QUOTE]

Hey, Scott:

I was going to ping you on this at some point today, but you beat me to it.

Maybe you can help explain this followup on neutrino oscillation: The Wikipage on that says this:
[i]
It is because the mass differences between the neutrinos are small that the coherence length for neutrino oscillation is so long, making this microscopic quantum effect observable over macroscopic distances.
[/i]
But that still doesn't answer Paul's question about oscillations among the electron, muon and tau leptons themselves. Are these also subject to flavor oscillation, or not? If not, what is it which does not permit them to oscillate? (e.g. Their much-larger masses, or the fact that carry charge?)

[URL="http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-brains-visions-into-digital-video-in-historic-experiment"]Scientists Reconstruct Brains’ Visions Into Digital Video In Historic Experiment[/URL][QUOTE]another group of clips was used to reconstruct the videos shown to the subjects. The computer analyzed 18 million seconds of random YouTube video, building a database of potential brain activity for each clip. From all these videos, the software picked the one hundred clips that caused a brain activity more similar to the ones the subject watched, combining them into one final movie. Although the resulting video is low resolution and blurry, it clearly matched the actual clips watched by the subjects.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;272549][URL="http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-brains-visions-into-digital-video-in-historic-experiment"]Scientists Reconstruct Brains’ Visions Into Digital Video In Historic Experiment[/URL][/QUOTE]

I saw a piece about this on the local news last night - spooky, fascinating stuff.

[QUOTE=Jeff Gilchrist;272435]Particles faster than light measured
[URL]http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/09/22/technology-particles-light-speed.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
I am reminded of Fermi's (or was it Pauli's?) reaction to the
discovery of the muon:
"Who ordered that?"

David