Re: starship-design: Neutrinos

["AJ Crowl" <ajcrowlx2@ozemail.com.au>]

Hi Group,

Timothy van der Linden wrote....


>Adam,
>
>
>Recent research has indicated that neutrinos are NOT massless. (Best guess
>upto now is 0.07 eV/c^2)
>I added an article from AIP (June) at the end of this letter.
>
Yes I know about those results, and if they were massless they wouldn't be
useable as tachyons. Cramer suggested they might be tachyons if they had
negative mass values. Aren't atmospheric anomaly neutrinos muon neutrinos
anyway?

>Regarding plugging in values for v>c in Einstein's equations:
>For some odd reason people use known formulas to extend predictions without
>having ANY reason that the known formula is even slightly more valid than
>any other odd equation.
>So, I see no reason for Einstein's equations to be valid for values of v>c,
>since there is no data available to make ANY extension more valid than an
>other. Hence suggesting that we need to find imaginary mass or energy
>before thinking about FTL makes little sense.
>It could be just as well that no energy at all is needed for apparant
>velocities larger than c. After all translation doesn't need any energy.
>
>>Coupled to a suitable power source a
>>coherent beam of tachyons could act as a "space drive" that'd travel the
>>Universe.
>
>Any reason for a *coherent* beam? Do incoherent tachyons not transfer
>momentum?
>
If neutrinos were tachyons they'd need to be produced in a coherent beam,
else there'd be NO net thrust, aside from the slight absorption by the
ship's structure. Neutrino reactions with the chlorine and other neutrino
reactive atoms in our bodies would kill us before there was a useable thrust
achieved.

Also note the report was of a mass DIFFERENCE between neutrino species, not
the actual mass. The case is still open.

Adam