Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:05:13 -0800: > Hi, > [snip] >> First, let me be very clear that I said neutrinos may be comprised of >> graviphotons, not gravitons the messenger particles. > [snip] > ...and that's exactly what I meant. Is it possible that neutrinos and > graviphotons (not gravitons) are identically the same thing, rather than > neutrinos being comprised of graviphotons? > > Note that we normally think of neutrinos as being particles, but surely there > is > every reason to believe that they have a wave aspect, given that they must > have > a frequency. If they don't have a frequency, then how can they have differing > energies if they all travel at the speed of light?
I had the impression that their velocity was an open question, but that current evidence points to it being less than C. They (apparently) oscillate, which, at least according to my limited and rather primitive understanding of relativity theory, means time passes for them, which suggests pretty strongly that their speed must be subluminal. At C, 1/gamma=0 and the particle must remain immutable between events, because its internal "clock" has stopped. More sophisticated people than I have claimed that neutrino oscillations imply they have a nonzero rest mass, which in turn also seems to indicate they're subluminal (else they'd be MDH (Might Darn Heavy) when they got revved up to C). (Unlike the naive "time passes for them" argument I don't see the connection between oscillations and rest mass, but whatever...) See, for example: http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jgl/nuosc_story.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation Entering "neutrino/oscillations" in Google got 195,000 hits. > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >
