Faster Than Light Neutrinos

You can leave a message using the contact form below to contact the ISUS Secretary.

Today it was announced that the detection of faster-than-light (FTL) neutrinos in the experiments called OPERA, are not due to certain systematic errors - the results still hold up according to new, more stringent, tests.

Of course, this is good news for the Reciprocal System of Physical Theory (RST), since it requires that there be FTL c-neutrinos, if there are slower-than-light (STL) m-neutrinos, and the Legacy System of Physical Theory (LST) community, has proffered STL neutrinos, as the solution to the missing neutrinos from the sun problem of Larson's day.

So, assuming that they are correct, then, if m-neutrinos are slowed down, when passing through m-matter, c-neutrinos would be slowed down when passing through c-matter, but they would appear to have speeded up, from our perspective in the material sector of the universe. The question is, are these c-neutrinos that are being detected?

The answer would probably have to be yes, but then this raises more questions than it answers. Some of these issues might end up being discussed here, who knows?



It would have to be a CHARGED cosmic neutrino; an uncharged neutrino has zero net displacement and will pass through any space or time displacement, making them impossible to detect by any conventional method. Same reason the c-neutrino captured by the proton to produce the compound neutron must also be charged--if it wasn't, it would depart the pairing in 1 natural unit of time, being carried off by the progression of the natural reference system.

An analysis of the neutrino FTL situation, including why it must be a c-neutrino and a simple equation that predicts (and exactly matches) the observed speed was posted to the RS2 forum, back in September:

c + \frac{(\frac{1}{IRR^2})}{2} - (\frac{1}{128})^3 + \frac{(\frac{1}{128})^3}{9} = 1.00002000 c

Where c = 1 (the speed of light in the RS). The RS calculation would be the same; I just treat the photon rotation and electric rotation as separate quantities, rather than composite them in to the 1-dimensional inter-regional ratio 128(1+1/9). I think the reasoning is clearer with separate terms. (See the original post for details.)

PS: The proper acronym for the Reciprocal System is "RS." The preposition "of" qualifies it to BE a "physical theory"; "of physical theory" is not part of the proper name and is not capitalized. Larson seldom uses "Reciprocal System" in his writings, preferring to call it his "new theoretical development." Use of the Reciprocal System name did not start until around 1965, appearing in his book New Light on Space and Time (p. 6).

"Big mouths usually come attached to small minds." --Burt Gummer