faster than light neutrinos :D

[Theorist]

BBC News - Faster-than-light neutrino result queried

Doesn't mean too much yet, but a little more for the non-FTL side

[Clarke]

Cherenkov radiation against the fabric of spacetime itself is a "fun" topic, certainly.

[Theorist]

Can't remember if the BBC article I posted mentioned specifically that the neutrinos aren't emitting the Cherenkov radiation they should be or not, I read about 5, and posted the BBC one cause I feel it's a credible source. But yeah, basically the new doubt is that the neutrino isn't Cherenkoving.

Although, a few questions. These neutrinos are going fasterl-than-light-in-a-vaccum, but the neutrinos are traveling through air correct?

Cherenkov effect occurs in the air, when particles travel faster-than-light's-air-speed. Perhaps it doesn't occur when particles go true FTL (Light in a vacuum speed)? Is that possible, I'm trying to search it, but can't find it

Also, would the Cherenkov effect occur in a vacuum if something went FTL. I understand it occurs in water and air, because of C/N. But, when N = 1, would the Cherenkov effect occur?

If someone can post some links explaining this, I'd be appreciative.

[Theorist]

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?for...rg%3A1003.0657

It looks like the cherenkov (cerenkov? seen both spellings) can occur in a vacuum

[applejuice]

Originally Posted by Theorist

Can't remember if the BBC article I posted mentioned specifically that the neutrinos aren't emitting the Cherenkov radiation they should be or not, I read about 5, and posted the BBC one cause I feel it's a credible source. But yeah, basically the new doubt is that the neutrino isn't Cherenkoving.

Cherenkov radiation occurs only on particles with an electric charge. Neutrinos do not have electric charge, therefore, no fireworks.

Although, a few questions. These neutrinos are going fasterl-than-light-in-a-vaccum, but the neutrinos are traveling through air correct?

These neutrinos are going (preliminary) faster than light through solid rock. CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cherenkov effect occurs in the air, when particles travel faster-than-light's-air-speed. Perhaps it doesn't occur when particles go true FTL (Light in a vacuum speed)? Is that possible, I'm trying to search it, but can't find it

Cherenkov radiation occurs in any dielectric, not just air. It can occur in water, plastic, etc. Cherenkov radiation occurs when the phase velocity of light in such medium is slower than the speed of the charged particle traveling through it (phase velocity is the velocity at which electromagnetic waves travel or propagate). For example: light travels at only 75% of its velocity in the vacuum when it enters the water. If an electron is going through water at 90% of the speed of light, then Cherenkov radiation happens.

Also, would the Cherenkov effect occur in a vacuum if something went FTL. I understand it occurs in water and air, because of C/N. But, when N = 1, would the Cherenkov effect occur?

If someone can post some links explaining this, I'd be appreciative.

Hypothetically, yes. Vacuum is a dielectric so, it should happen. However, the phase velocity of light in vacuum is just the speed of light, current models predict nothing can go faster than light in the vacuum. Therefore, no Cherenkov radiation, premise which is contradictory to real world data (preliminary).
The ever-present Wikipedia has an article about it.
EDIT: The neutrino source has a 1000 meter vacuum tube before solid rock for focusing purposes.

[Theorist]

It sounds like the new doubt is because the neutrinos should be losing energy by the time they arrive, but they aren't

[applejuice]

The major problem with the faster-than-light neutrinos is that the current models involving the ultimate limit of the speed of light actually do work. Supposedly, anything with a non-zero mass should become infinitely massive when reaching c. But that does not happen to neutrinos, apparently, as you point, they seem to be getting "free energy" for the ride without any effort anywhere in the process. Cannot really see how far will the implications go if the results are correct.

[Theorist]

If I'm reading the equation correctly, things would only have infinite mass while traveling at c or approaching it, but if they go FTL, then you get negative radicals involved, so I don't know exactly what that means?

[Clarke]

It means that they're mass is the square-root of a negative number, which in turn makes their kinetic energy negative.

(One of the major reasons that the physicists don't like FTL stuff is because all the math goes wibbly.)

[applejuice]

The duality of the Universe nature is baffling.

[Theorist]

negative kinetic energy, and i's. That's really messed up. I really hope the results turn up true, that'd be very interesting.

[Moco Loco]

Wibbly math Sounds like I may be getting a tattoo soon >.>

[applejuice]

Negative energy could simply mean that the object is absorbing energy from its surroundings, like a sink where water flows when one pulls the plug.

[Clarke]

Oh, no, it means something quite specific: when it crashes into something, it speeds up!

[Human No More]

...which is interesting in itself