Re : Your_manuscript LL13016 Henry-Couannier De :Frédéric Henry-Couannier À :prl@aps.org Mercredi 28 Décembre 2011 20h21 Corps du message Dear I have just a few comments i would appreciate to be sent to the second referee please (the first one just basically says that he doesnt believe in Opera results nor in the theories i refered to but without giving any technical objection that i could try to answer) ... This short article was obviously not written to defend the three theories in references (one of which was published in Physical Review D) and convince referees that they are well motivated because this was already done in the articles cited in references... i suppose that all the critics of the second referee in particular was already answered by S Hossenfelder who published in PRD but i could have clarified them also because these are very basic questions i already dealt with 8 years ago when i started to explore these ideas and published in IJMPA ... Of course this article is just a confrontation between theories that dont have to be discussed here because this is a phenomenological article and the recent Opera results ... But may i just answer the few objections: 1) The referee says: "Perhaps these are not the coordinates in which the "flat" non-dynamical background metric has the form $\eta_{\mu \nu}$, but then what coordinates are?" indeed in the coordinates in which the "flat" non-dynamical background metric has the form $\eta_{\mu \nu}$, the cosmological conjugate solutions have the conformal form a^2(t) $\eta_{\mu \nu}$ and a^-2(t) $\eta_{\mu \nu}$ , not the standard form!... the cosmology is far from being trivial . It is treated in details in [6] and the conjugate forms are also motivated by symetries : it is not at all the correct place to discuss it here, moreover if i start to discuss such questions in details here i will need many many more pages!! 2) Basically all three theories in references describe a complete standard model of particles propagating in one metric (following its geodesics) and another complete standard model of particles propagating in the other metric (following its geodesics) . So at this point there is absolutely no way to have a field coupling to one of the metrics also able to couple to the other metric at the same time: so for instance a muon and a neutrino are always in the same metric when they interact. But the article explains that at some places where the metrics are discontinuous (actually a(t) is there flipped into a^-1(t) and vice versa) any given wave paquet can jump from one metric to the other one: this process is not at all decribed by an action because it is fundamentally discontinuous and the rules here are a new kind of discrete rules that i'm just postulating to allow particles to jump from one metric to the other ... for instance think about the wave packet collapse in QM : it's fundamentally discontinuous and not described by continuous symmetries, it is added by hand just because we know that nature behaves that way ... Actually starting from a framework where you can have genuine discrete symmetries and genuine field discontinuities and a new kind of discrete rules not derived from actions etc ... is the only way i can see to may be hopefully explain where a relation such as E = h nu (quantization fundamental postulate ) comes from. This is why i believe such kind of approaches are extremely well motivated. 3) Everything that has to be generally covariant is generally covariant : the actions of the theory and the relation linking the two conjugate metrics about the non dynamical background are of course generally covariant (equalities between tensors). As for what's going on at the discontinuities it is not even described in the paper, i dont even know if it has some sense to ask if this is generally covariant. Is the collapse of the wavefunction in QM a generally covariant process ? Can E = h nu be derived from a generally covariant framework ? I have seen no such kind of derivation yet all modern physics includes E = h nu ! If you want you can imagine a third class of fields (a third complete standard model) living in eta_munu but this is not the case in my framework where the introduction of eta has the same motivation as in all background dependent theories devellopped in the 70s (by Rosen for instance , such theories are treated in details by Cliff Will in his book) : the motivation was to be able to use the same quantization rules as in usual QFT without gravity and avoid the still not solved problem of quantizing gravity ... ... i can add that since eta is from the starting point a non dynamical object everywhere equal to (+1, -1, -1, -1), in at least one coordinate system , an Einstein Hilbert action built from this tensor would trivially vanish ... Conservation of energy-momentum in QFT on flat spacetime is derived from the Noether theorem provided there are no field discontinuities: so here it applies everywhere except at a discontinuity ... By The Way the collapse of the wave funcion as it is described in all QM book is also a strange non local process which of course does not locally conserve the energy of the field ... "I strongly doubt that this scenario can be made consistent with everything we know." Is QM (discontinuous and non local physics) consistent with classical gravity (every thing local and continuous) ? Best Regards, F H-C De : "prl@aps.org" À : fhenryco@yahoo.fr Envoyé le : Mercredi 28 Décembre 2011 16h50 Objet : Your_manuscript LL13016 Henry-Couannier Re: LL13016 Do dark gravity theories predict OPERA superluminal neutrinos? by F. Henry-Couannier Dear Dr. Henry-Couannier, The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referees. A critique drawn from the reports appears below. On this basis, we judge that the paper is not appropriate for Physical Review Letters, but might be suitable for publication in another journal, possibly with some revision. Therefore, we recommend that you submit your manuscript elsewhere. Yours sincerely, Jerome Malenfant Senior Assistant Editor Physical Review Letters The premier APS journal for current research Email: prl@ridge.aps.org Fax: 631-591-4141 http://prl.aps.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Report of Referee A -- LL13016/Henry-Couannier ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This article suggests an interpretation for the superluminal neutrino velocity measured by the Opera experiment. It is based on the idea that we, and the neutrinos, leave in conjugate metrics. Basically the interest relies in the fact that the difference between such metrics, on Earth, implies a difference of speed compatible with the one measured by Opera. In addition, as the oscillations between the two metrics are expected to occur within matter, this might explain why this effect was not seen with SN1987A neutrinos. In my opinion, this article cannot be published in PRL. First because the Opera measure in itself is highly controversial -to say the least- and I don't think that tons of interpretations are welcome before any confirmation. Then, more importantly, because the model (implicitly or explicitly) used in this work is far too exotic and poorly motivated. Even worth, the model not much developed and cannot even lead to clear predictions for the role of matter. However, I think the basic idea is interesting and the article could be considered for publication elsewhere if the author makes some efforts to explain the basics of the model itself (for example making shorter the explicit textbook computation of CTCs) and develops the interesting point of possible tests with photons (is it true that this has never been done ?). Finally, I would like to make a personal comment to the author. Obviously, the author seems to have difficulties to be published or recognized. I would recommend him to make some efforts about details to be more seriously considered. For example, this letter is not well written, is not well presented (see, e.g. how ref 5 is presented), does not use"standard" latex, and makes to many references to extremely "contestable" works (e.g. Ref. 7). Maybe that's only details but even if one wants to push unconventional ideas, maybe he should nevertheless follow the rules that "standard" researchers try to follow. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Report of Referee B -- LL13016/Henry-Couannier ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I do not think this paper can be published. There are a number of obvious objections to its basic idea that it does not mention let alone address. Perhaps these are addressed somewhere else, but that is of no help to someone who would be reading this in PRL, who would be inclined to dismiss the paper as nonsense if no indication of how these objections can be answered is presented, at least in outline. To mention just a few objections that occurred to me as I read the paper: (1) What is one to do with the FRW metric of the expanding universe? If $g_{\mu \nu}$ has the usual for with the scale factor $a(t)^2$ in the diagonal spatial components, then the barred metric $\overline{g}_{\mu \nu}$ would have the inverse of this $a(t)^{-2}$ in the spatial components. Distances between objects would differ in the two metrics by a factor of the scale factor to the fourth power. Depending on how one normalized $a(t)$ this could be a huge factor. Perhaps these are not the coordinates in which the "flat" non-dynamical background metric has the form $\eta_{\mu \nu}$, but then what coordinates are? It is not clear that it makes sense to posit a flat non-dynamical metric in a cosmological setting. It seems likely that if one does, one will have some version of the problem I adverted to. (2) If muon neutrinos are propagating at speed 1 in the barred metric, then how can it be that muons propagate at speed 1 in the usual unbarred metric? How can one write down a Lagrangian for the muons and muon neutrinos in which they ``feel" different metrics without grossly and explicitly violating the gauge symmetries of the electroweak interactions, specifically $SU(2)_L$? (3) If one violates general coordinate invariance explicitly, as this idea does, by what principle does one write down only the usual Einstein Hilbert action for GR? Why doesn't the flat non-dynamical metric appear in the lagrangian all over the place in terms that looks just like the usual ones but with $\eta_{\mu \nu}$ where $g_{\mu\nu}$ normally is? Can one even prove that energy is conserved (i.e. that the stress-energy tensor is covariantly conserved)? If standard model particles like muon neutrinos have couplings with non-dynamical metrics appearing in them, it seems unlikely that neutrino processes even conserve energy and momentum. That would be a major problem. One could go on, but it is not necessary. Any publishable paper on this idea would have to address these objections. I strongly doubt that this scenario can be made consistent with everything we know. But if it could be, the paper must show it.