The Neutrino & The Telescope?

[Atheist-Lite]

If neutrinos do go faster than light, backwards in time, what would a neutrino telescope be seeing as it detected their presence throughout the cosmos? and what does this say about the nature of our physical reality?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't think it would be as hard as viewing Ratskep.

[Atheist-Lite]

I don't think it would be as hard as viewing Ratskep.

What's it like on mars these days? Have they got their biosphere working or still living in those modules?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't think it would be as hard as viewing Ratskep.

What's it like on mars these days? Have they got their biosphere working or still living in those modules?

How would I know?

[Warren Dew]

If neutrinos do go faster than light, backwards in time, what would a neutrino telescope be seeing as it detected their presence throughout the cosmos? and what does this say about the nature of our physical reality?

A neutrino "telescope" that detected neutrinos moving backwards in time would look like it was spontaneously emitting antineutrinos going forwards in time - because a time reversed neutrino is an antineutrino.

[Atheist-Lite]

If neutrinos do go faster than light, backwards in time, what would a neutrino telescope be seeing as it detected their presence throughout the cosmos? and what does this say about the nature of our physical reality?

A neutrino "telescope" that detected neutrinos moving backwards in time would look like it was spontaneously emitting antineutrinos going forwards in time - because a time reversed neutrino is an antineutrino.

I would have thought a cloud of anti-neutrinos would be generated within the telescope structure itself and be 'exchanged' instantly within whatever lens structure is available before being 'matter transported' directly to the distant object in a circular decaying manner until the telescope is moved away from the object...at which time all neutrino activty ceases....the neutrino is a byproduct of the existance of the telescope itself, interacting in someway in a time flat field containing instanteous neutrinos(that is neutrinos capable to go from point A to B with no intervening time)....I'm just waffling a bit but the horizon problem would easily be resolved by neutrinos being in a almost time flat field yet interacting very weakly with the rapidly expanding 'big time' field we inhabit? Perhaps the Higgs Boson isn't quite enough, the neutrino? These ideas are all pretty difficult to field....I'm not a expert and don't blame me if you follow my advice and waste 11 billion euros looking for a anti-neutrino inside a telescope?

[FBM]

Neutrinos rarely, rarely interact, so they would pass through the telescope and lens (and viewer) constantly without exchanging anything.

[Atheist-Lite]

Neutrinos rarely, rarely interact, so they would pass through the telescope and lens (and viewer) constantly without exchanging anything.

You wouldn't expect much interaction if they had the amount freedom of a travel envisaged. Maybe they could be ade to interact by moving things in the direction directly counter to the rotation of the 'cosmos' so recently discovered? That way things would stay in one place no matter when, past present or future, the neutrino was about? As it stands the earth rotates, orbits and circles. And so even a small step into the past would make something essentially non-reactive except for gravity with its long tail?

[FBM]

Erm. Just a quick question before I respond to that: ??

[Atheist-Lite]

Erm. Just a quick question before I respond to that: ??

No, just a very vivid imagiation for these kind of things. I've constructional tendancies....a modellers minds.

[FBM]

Erm. Just a quick question before I respond to that: ??

No, just a very vivid imagiation for these kind of things. I've constructional tendancies....a modellers minds.

Oh.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Neutrinos rarely, rarely interact, so they would pass through the telescope and lens (and viewer) constantly without exchanging anything.

You wouldn't expect much interaction if they had the amount freedom of a travel envisaged. Maybe they could be ade to interact by moving things in the direction directly counter to the rotation of the 'cosmos' so recently discovered? That way things would stay in one place no matter when, past present or future, the neutrino was about? As it stands the earth rotates, orbits and circles. And so even a small step into the past would make something essentially non-reactive except for gravity with its long tail?

Neutrinos only interact with the weak force and gravity. Since the weak force only exists within atomic nuclei, and the nucleus of an atom only occupies about 0.0000000000001% of the atom's volume, it is not surprising that detected interactions are rare!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Doesn't "2012" start off with a visit to a neutrino detector in India?

[Schneibster]

Neutrinos only interact with the weak force and gravity. Since the weak force only exists within atomic nuclei, and the nucleus of an atom only occupies about 0.0000000000001% of the atom's volume, it is not surprising that detected interactions are rare!

Not to mention it's not called the "weak" force for nothing.

[Schneibster]

If neutrinos do go faster than light, backwards in time, what would a neutrino telescope be seeing as it detected their presence throughout the cosmos?

It wouldn't "detect their presence throughout the cosmos," only at the image plane of the telescope. That's what "detect" means. And all of them would have decohered from their sources to such an extent that very little would be apparent from their detection. Finally, you can't technically make anything anyone would reasonably call a "telescope" other than as an analogy for neutrinos, because they interact so rarely that you can't affect them to focus them.

As far as, supposing we could detect them more reliably than to wait somewhere from minutes to days for just one neutrino to be detected in a tank of water larger than an olympic swimming pool while billions of them per second are passing through every single cubic inch of it, "seeing" anything with them, we'd see places where neutrino-producing nuclear reactions were the most plentiful, which is the cores of stars.

The fact that they were putatively moving a very small amount faster than light would be immaterial to what we'd see.

and what does this say about the nature of our physical reality?

Not much we didn't already know from looking at much more plentiful and easily detected EM radiation photons.