## Wednesday, September 21, 2011

### Rumour of the Century II

This is not the first time that neutrino experiments have exhibited anomalous behaviour. In fact, as anyone who follows neutrinos will tell you, anomalous results are par for the course, giving this insane rumour its suspenseful edge. In particular, Graham notes again that the recent MINOS results are confusing, with the introduction of large new systematic errors required to explain big shifts in the apparent $\Delta m^2$ for $\overline{\nu}$.

We can be inventive when considering such results. Some, for instance, think that neutrinos are tachyonic while antineutrinos are not. Perhaps we should mix up the $(\nu, \overline{\nu})$ sets into tachyonic and ordinary subsets.

But given Louise's cosmology, and a fixed local $c$, a natural thing to ponder is the cosmic time variation of mass. It is important to understand that every observer has a cosmic time, that they observe most simply via their CMB temperature. Since our cosmic epoch corresponds to a large universal mass $M$, we do not expect to detect a variation in $M$ over short laboratory time scales. But maybe the neutrino's tiny rest mass, and hence small associated cosmic period, allows a mass time variation to be observable on human laboratory time scales. Could the strange MINOS results be explained by an oscillation of $\Delta m^2$ values between the limiting $\pm \pi/12$ phases? Such a limitation on the measurement of $\Delta m^2$ would eventually be observable at a number of neutrino experiments. Note that the total mass scale for the triplet of states could be fixed, with the amplitudes for individual states coming from parameters that interpolate between the mixing matrices for neutrinos and their mirror counterparts. This would utterly confuse the measurements of $\theta_{13}$!

Does this have anything to do with tachyons? Recall that the minus sign in the Koide rule occurs for one phase, but not for its mirror conjugate, possibly suggesting only a single tachyonic $\nu$ mass state. Alternatively, five of the six states could be tachyonic, with only one ordinary $\nu$ mass state. On Saturday, we will have many more ideas with which to play.

1. Here we are taking all the MINOS results seriously. It is still possible, and appealing, that the distinction between neutrino and mirror masses is maintained always, as in the last MINOS results.

2. I don't mean to distract from the ruminations about neutrino physics, but allow me to once again express incomprehension:

I know what "my" version of Louise's cosmology would be; that is, I know where I would start if I wanted to make a theory in which the speed of light is slowing down, in order to explain dark energy. It would be a modified gravity theory in which you still had an expanding universe, but in which light interacted with something peculiar to the FRW metric - that way, the slowing down only occurs in deep space between intergalactic clusters.

But I can't tell whether you even think there was a big bang, whether your cosmology is steady state, or somehow observer-centric, as if the unobservable far past and far future are simply indeterminate... You seem to have a T-duality-inspired notion of a relationship between local time and cosmic time, where local time is maybe mesoscopic or in any case related to the immediate physical vicinity of an observer, whereas cosmic time has something to do with the horizon, places far away, and the radius of the universe...

This is somewhat off-topic because these issues aren't visible in this post; your remarks about a mass scale linked to the current cosmological epoch *could* be interpreted in the context of an expanding universe cosmology, just with a holographic twist. But somehow I suspect that your actual ideas aren't that straightforward.

3. Mitchell, you are simply thinking too classically to see my point of view. Almost everything here is observer dependent. We see a Big Bang, but the interpretation is utterly different to the classical one. For most purposes, there is no $c$ variation without $\hbar$ variation. Yes, I like M theory dualities, because they are closely linked to qubit logic, which unifies $S$, $T$ and $U$ a la Duff et al, since everything is really measured in terms of energies.

Actually, your final paragraph is reasonable. I think simple holographic ideas are useful, just not with the prejudices of classical geometry attached to them. There is still a basic FRW expanding universe in Louise's cosmology.

4. Kea, Mitchell,

The big bang concept or expanding of the universe (inflation) is a useful concept but only one part of a more general view that explains mass and energy for example. So the question of if there is a steady state or big bang cosmology is but one of perspective. Nature is not so confused. For that matter we can say that indeterminate past and present time is also a limitation of our perspective.

There is no good general reason to assume that on some other side of a mirror we find negative values that are physically significant- it is but a convention.

I do like the idea more like Weyl of the historical significance of mass in the variations.

In my view the creative focus of what can be changes of our physical constants due to our units of measure only like h or c, this can be creative as in Leo's or Frio's creative cosmology as to what is foundational in physics.

The structure I present today takes account of such views as relative and if we want some idea of reversing but mere formality of signs or complex dualities as if the notion of tachyons. The post is called:
Higgs Particle - The Planet Vulcan of our Era

In this reaching for new physics in such matters we are were we where a hundred years ago- before the concepts of relativity.

The PeSla

5. Cool, The PeSla, but I have long felt that this is more like a Newtonian or Copernican revolution. Special and General relativity never managed to make the leap into Perspective. In order to see how GR emerges from the new view, physicists cannot continue to immerse themselves in century old classical techniques. This only entrenches the ontological prejudice of a Unique Universe, as defined by Man.