deleted until my question is answered....
deleted until my question is answered....
Last edited by Goldstone; 2011-Oct-04 at 10:56 AM.
When speculating on the existence of Tachyonic Fermionic Neutrinos it is also very important to define the terms used in your equations.
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?
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.
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.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC
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.
Last edited by Goldstone; 2011-Oct-05 at 02:57 PM.
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_{s}M_{s}c²ψ = i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ
and move everything to the left
i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ - (i(α\hat{p})c+ β_{s}M_{s}c²)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_{s}M_{s}c²)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_{s}ψ) = L
Which completes the Covariant four vector tachyonic fermion Neutrino equation.
Last edited by Goldstone; 2011-Oct-07 at 01:45 PM.
I'm so sorry, I linked it wrong http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...php?p=34243885
Has no one any criticsm's?
No criticism?
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.
Nope. Zero multiplied by anything is ...zero, so you did not derive any lagrangian.ψ* i(ħ∂/∂t)ψ - (i(α\hat{p})c - β_{s}M_{s}c²)ψψ* = L
PS: to make matters worse , you also inserted, in classical Reiku style, a laughable error into your above expression. Can you spot it?
Last edited by macaw; 2011-Oct-06 at 03:36 AM.
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.
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.
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.
Goldstone:
Without going into your equasions here, while even I have fun thinking about what the possibility of what FTL particles might mean. There is one thing about the observations of these FTL nutrino's that don't match up with known physics. They main one being that the observation most definately did not display the expected behavior of a Tachyonic particle, in that they did not travel backwards in time to outside observers (they arrived at the detectors in normal forward time). Additionaly observations showed that higher energy ones arrived slightly ahead of lower energy ones, again this is in reverse of how a Tachyon is expected to behave where the lower energy ones move faster.
Overall this new observation needs to be repeated by another collider or two before anyone calls it anything more then an odd reading. My understanding is that atleast two other collider's are ramping up to either verify or debunk this result, but might be a few years before results are seen from those.
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?
macaw, you WILL use the BAUT user's appropriate name for this board!
And you will stop with comments like:
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
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC
Citation: reference to the dirac equation being set equal to zero and being the langrangian using the appropriate multiplication by psi star.
http://www.ufaqs.com/wiki/en/la/Lagrangian.htm
There isn't any mention about multiplying an Euler-Lagrange equation by an operator in order to obtain a....Lagrangian. This is not how you obtain a lagrangian, mainstream physics does this the other way around. Besides, the correct expression for the Dirac lagrangian (different from what you wrote) can be found in any textbook. See here
Follow the link down to the Langrangians in Quantum Field Theory.
Now you're not even taking the time to study links. This is symonymous with trolling.
It's standard stuff. Macaw, is it not your job to provide evidence or support your contentions that I have it somehow wrong? Provide references please.
I already did. See above.
Macaw
\mathcal{L}=\bar\psi(i\gamma_\mu\partial^\mu-m)\psi
a massive oversimplification of this is
p^2 + M^2 - E^2 = 0
When you multiply psi star on both sides of the dirac equation, even when set to zero, gives the langrangian. It still equals zero, but it's a special covariant form.
You're massively mistaken, and trying to show you or tell you is ... a failing effort.
Yes, that was moved incorrectly. But don't change the subject. The equation still works out, and you said the equation being set to zero somehow can't be the langrangian, which is demonstratably false.