Tachyonic Neutrino Fermion Equations

[Goldstone]

deleted until my question is answered....

[Shaula]

When speculating on the existence of Tachyonic Fermionic Neutrinos it is also very important to define the terms used in your equations.

[Goldstone]

Yes well, I had a great deal more equations than that to even give here.... the damn system here will only let you post seven equations at a time. With the work I have, that will be equivalent to something like 10 parts, or even more. Is there any moderator who can overide this for me and post the whole thing for me? Or do I need to write it out somewhere else and post a link?

[tusenfem]

Yes well, I had a great deal more equations than that to even give here.... the damn system here will only let you post seven equations at a time. With the work I have, that will be equivalent to something like 10 parts, or even more. Is there any moderator who can overide this for me and post the whole thing for me? Or do I need to write it out somewhere else and post a link?

Welcome to BAUT!

Sorry if the system is limiting you, but I am not even sure if a mod is limited or not by the system, I think they are. And mod's don't have admin privileges.
However, you could just start with the start, no need to present everything at once here. A link to futher material is fine, but you have to present your case here on BAUT. As the OP was rather incomprehensible, I think you would have to explain a lot more, and the question then still remains whether what you present is mainstream or not (which will decide in which part of BAUT this thread will be). Another method is to not only use the latex command but you can also just do text typesetting with the [sup/b] and [/sup/b] commands for super and subsrcripts and if you use firefox you might want to use the abcTajpu plugin, which will let you insert symbols at a mouseclick.
Also, it is not appreciated that one deletes a whole post, please refrain from doing that again.

[Goldstone]

Welcome to BAUT!

Sorry if the system is limiting you, but I am not even sure if a mod is limited or not by the system, I think they are. And mod's don't have admin privileges.
However, you could just start with the start, no need to present everything at once here. A link to futher material is fine, but you have to present your case here on BAUT. As the OP was rather incomprehensible, I think you would have to explain a lot more, and the question then still remains whether what you present is mainstream or not (which will decide in which part of BAUT this thread will be). Another method is to not only use the latex command but you can also just do text typesetting with the [sup/b] and [/sup/b] commands for super and subsrcripts and if you use firefox you might want to use the abcTajpu plugin, which will let you insert symbols at a mouseclick.
Also, it is not appreciated that one deletes a whole post, please refrain from doing that again.

Thank you for the welcome. I do a fine job explaining my post:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...php?p=34243885

If anything is not clear, then please hit away.

[trinitree88]

Before we get carried away. It's also important that the Italian result is duplicated, which is doubtful. They really aren't all that sure of exactly when the neutrinos are released. The protons striking the target produce a cluster of pions/kaons which have half-lives. That produces a bunch of closeley related decays, like a stochastic bunch of protons in the LHC.....not quite the same as a rifle shot.

[Goldstone]

Basically, the general idea is to take the Tsao Modified dirac equation, where mass is treated as the proper mass M_s, and the wave number is replaced with the four momentum \hat{p} and thus we begin:

-i(α\hat{p})cψ + β_sM_sc²ψ = i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ

and move everything to the left

i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ - (i(α\hat{p})c+ β_sM_sc²)ψ = 0

To calculate the tachyonic neutrino Tsao Langrangian, you need to multiply this by ψ*:

ψ* i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ - ψ*(i(α\hat{p})cψ - ψ*β_sM_sc²)ψ = L

In covariant language, if you multiply β by ψ*, you get ψ'. Simplifying the equation more by using gamma notation

ψ'Y°(iħ∂/∂t)ψ - (ψ'(Y(i)\hat{p})cψ + ψ'M_sψ) = L

Which completes the Covariant four vector tachyonic fermion Neutrino equation.

[Goldstone]

I'm so sorry, I linked it wrong http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...php?p=34243885

[macaw]

Basically, the general idea is to take the Tsao Modified dirac equation, where mass is treated as the proper mass M_s, and the wave number is replaced with the four momentum \hat{p} and thus we begin:

-i(α\hat{p})cψ + β_sM_sc²ψ = i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ

and move everything to the left

i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ - (i(α\hat{p})c+ β_sM_sc²)ψ = 0

To calculate the tachyonic neutrino Tsao Langrangian, you need to multiply this by ψ*:

No, Reiku, I don't know why you call yourself Goldstone or Carstein and why you are spamming multiple fora with the above but your posting style (and mistakes) give you away, this is not how one gets the Lagrangian. What you posted above is total nonsense.

ψ* i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ - (i(α\hat{p})c - β_sM_sc²)ψψ* = L

Nope. Zero multiplied by anything is ...zero, so you did not derive any lagrangian.

PS: to make matters worse , you also inserted, in classical Reiku style, a laughable error into your above expression. Can you spot it?

[Goldstone]

Nope. Zero multiplied by anything is ...zero, so you did not derive any lagrangian.

For your information, (and I can't believe I am even teaching this, this stuff is standard), you don't need the equal sign seperating the parts of the equation, so we had the dirac equation, moved everything to the left which automatically makes the equation equal zero (a standard operation nowadays). What is even more standard is how you derive the langrangian from here. Anyone who has done this, worked out a langranian for the dirac equation will know that mutliplying our equation (which equals zero) to psi bar and using gamma notation makes the dirac Langrangian. This is just variational calculus.

Big words your opening post, from someone who can't even calculate a standard Langrangian.

[macaw]

Nope. Zero multiplied by anything is ...zero, so you did not derive any lagrangian.

For your information, (and I can't believe I am even teaching this, this stuff is standard),

Reiku

I don't think that this is true: beside the phony "derivation" of the lagrangian , you made a SECOND, more egregious error. Can you spot it?

[Goldstone]

Macaw

Show me how you derive the langrangian. Don't say ''i don't think,'' especially when ''i know''.

You will just make yourself look like a fool right?

[tusenfem]

Reiku

macaw, you WILL use the BAUT user's appropriate name for this board!

And you will stop with comments like:

you made a SECOND, more egregious error. Can you spot it?

If you have something to comment, THEN DO SO, or otherwise don't comment at all.
This is a board for more people than just you, who may want to know what you mean, as they may not be able to spot the alledged egregious error.l

[Goldstone]

And since you like qouting from other web forums, then here is a quick search on a popular one: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=333988 here someone else has written the dirac equation in a little more compact form, but he sets the dirac equation to zero then derives the langrangian.

[Goldstone]

So my equations are perfectly fine. If anyone else shares your sentiment, they can speak up, and show evidence what I have posted is nonesense.

[macaw]

Basically, the general idea is to take the Tsao Modified dirac equation, where mass is treated as the proper mass M_s, and the wave number is replaced with the four momentum \hat{p} and thus we begin:

-i(α\hat{p})cψ + β_sM_sc²ψ = i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ

and move everything to the left

i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ - (i(α\hat{p})c+ β_sM_sc²)ψ = 0

Basic algebra says:

i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ +(i(α\hat{p})c- β_sM_sc²)ψ = 0

The above, combined with the "derivation" of the lagrangian pretty much discredits any claims that you are actually "teaching" this subject.

[Goldstone]

Wait a minute.... calculate this macaw

i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ +i(α\hat{p})cψ- βsMsc²ψ = 0

that gives units of energy. i(α\hat{p})c- βsMsc² should have units of energy but this is zero, and so here you are adding an extra energy term i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ. This is not zero.

[Goldstone]

What we really want is:

i(α\hat{p})cψ+ βsMsc²ψ - i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ = 0

But I admitted I made a mistake four days ago on another site without any one pointing it out, yet you proclaim it here as though i am unaware of this.

[macaw]

What we really want is:

i(α\hat{p})cψ+ βsMsc²ψ - i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ = 0

.

Nope, still wrong. You seem unable to perform basic algebraic operations involving basic sign changes.

[macaw]

i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ - (i(α\hat{p})c+ β_sM_sc²)ψ = 0

To calculate the tachyonic neutrino Tsao Langrangian, you need to multiply this by ψ*:

ψ* i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ - ψ*(i(α\hat{p})cψ - ψ*β_sM_sc²)ψ = L

Here you introduced the SECOND (and a THIRD) mistake. You'll excuse me that I don't believe your claims of "teaching" this subject but I don't believe you're teaching anything.

[Goldstone]

Here you introduced the SECOND (and a THIRD) mistake. You'll excuse me that I don't believe your claims of "teaching" this subject but I don't believe you're teaching anything.

Macaw you've been warned already. Since your last warning we've actually not progressed a singal bit have we?

[tusenfem]

Macaw you've been warned already. Since your last warning we've actually not progressed a singal bit have we?

Don't start playing moderator yourself.

[Goldstone]

Don't start playing moderator yourself.

I wouldn't dream.

[macaw]

In covariant language, if you multiply β by ψ*, you get ψ'. Simplifying the equation more by using gamma notation

ψ'Y°(iħ∂/∂t)ψ - (ψ'(Y(i)\hat{p})cψ + ψ'M_sψ) = L
.

Sorry, SIX mistakes in just two posts.

[macaw]

Simplifying the equation more by using gamma notation

ψ'Y°(iħ∂/∂t)ψ - (ψ'(Y(i)\hat{p})cψ + ψ'M_sψ) = L

Which completes the Covariant four vector tachyonic fermion Neutrino equation.

Not even close, here is the correct expression:



You are missing terms, you have terms that shouldn't be there, in one word, you haven't derived anything and what you wrote down is contradicted by mainstream science.

[Goldstone]

Not even close, here is the correct expression:



You are missing terms, you have terms that shouldn't be there, in one word, you haven't derived anything and what you wrote down is contradicted by mainstream science.

I'm going to take great pleasure in correcting you. Took me some while to actually find the relevent information, but eat this macaw:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD8SE...eature=related

Follow it for the first half hour or something along those lines. Susskind derives the langrangian exactly how I, and another previous poster on another site had presented it. You know... susskind, the brilliant scientist.

[macaw]

I'm going to take great pleasure in correcting you. Took me some while to actually find the relevent information, but eat this macaw:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD8SE...eature=related

Follow it for the first half hour or something along those lines. Susskind derives the langrangian exactly how I, and another previous poster on another site had presented it. You know... susskind, the brilliant scientist.

The errors in your so-called derivation and in your so-called "lagrangian" are already outlined in post 53. I don't have to spend half hour to know that what YOU are doing is just developing a fringe theory riddled with gross mistakes.

[Goldstone]

Oh.... did you even watch the lecture by susskind, he seems to disagree with you 100%.... not 10, not 20, but 100%.

[macaw]

Basically, the general idea is to take the Tsao Modified dirac equation, where mass is treated as the proper mass M_s, and the wave number is replaced with the four momentum \hat{p} and thus we begin:

-i(α\hat{p})cψ + β_sM_sc²ψ = i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ

"Wave number replaced by four-momentum"? This is total gibberish. Do you even understand what each one of these is? Because if you did, you'd have never posted such nonsense.

Besides, what you wrote above is nowhere close to the Tsao Dirac equation. This is ATM in its purest form.

[Goldstone]

"Wave number replaced by four-momentum"? This is total gibberish. Do you even understand what each one of these is? Because if you did, you'd have never posted such nonsense.

Besides, what you wrote above is nowhere close to the Tsao Dirac equation. This is ATM in its purest form.

How would you know? I was the one who coined ''Tsao Dirac Langrangian''.

You obviously don't know Tsao's work. Or how to do basic physics, by checking equations out for yourself. I don't know how many times yesterday I told you the algebra did not change the physics, I also told you finding the langrangian was a matter of variational calculus, but you refused to listen.