Re: starship-design: Neutrinos

[Timothy van der Linden <Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl>]

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?

"Anomaly" neutrinos? I'm sorry, I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
(The neutrinos from the Sun and space aren't anomalous and are likely of
all 3 generations (electron-, muon-, taon-neutrinos).)

>>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.

Ah, coherent as in unidirectional. OK, that's right.

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

Ah yes I see, my interpretation of the 0.07 was incorrect.

Timothy