Well done!
Neutrinos don’t generate Cherenkov radiation, there is a Cherenkov-like effect, due to weak interaction, but it’s a different thing entirely.
Frankly, I’d go with Lorenz violation due to the much higher energy level of the neutrinos.
Read Pasta’s excellent post 272 to see where the Cherenkov radiation comes from.
That’s exactly the interpretation Cohen and Glashow show is problematic due to weak Cherenkov radiation.
Lorentz violation 
a Lorentz violation, is a violation of Lorentz symmetry. Lorentz symmetry is the (local) symmetry of spacetime and it requires that the physics of a situation stays the same even if you change your relative velocity (or orientation) to that situation. Lorentz violation usually leads to a preferred frame of reference and it could possibly allow FTL particles.
If we accept that these neutrinos are indeed travelling FTL, then Lorentz violation would be the preferred explanation (despite tachyons not being in conflict with the very basics of SR, they can be fairly terminal in many theories based on SR) as there are reasonable arguments that Lorentz symmetry may infact be a broken symmetry (one that is violated, albeit only noticeably in extreme situations).
However what the paper by Cohen and Glashow (a pair of physicists who could be considered experts in Lorentz violation, having created their own framework for Lorentz violation: very special relativity) argues is that considering the anomalous measurements by OPERA to be an example of Lorentz violation is in direct conflict with previous experiments involving neutrinos.
So the idea that C is constant in all reference frames no longer applies? I understand that that is the surface reaction simply to the observation of putative FTL events; I’m just asking about this new-to-me framework. I have a layman’s understanding of Lorenz contraction and time dilation.
Pssta, you’re a prince/princess for your long post.
Some thoughts, questions:
-
The issue of phosphenes has not been addressed. I do not know whether a 3Mv energy particle is overkill for the total mass of optical cortexes in the world. The brain is mostly liquid; it too would have its own C/c refractive index quantities. As for direct stimulation, I have read (15 years ago, and with experimental result limited by the size of electrodes and the risk of psychophysical damage–“kindling”) of the perception of phosphenes (a single phosphene event?) at a pulse rate of 100-200 msec, amplitudes of 10mAmp, and repetitions of 10-250Hz. I do not know how to translate these figures into terms suitable for our discussion. I do know that repetition rates is a deal-breaker, but you can always play the odds.
-
Pasta, why are you taking no note of the subsequent impingement towards the optical nerve–“cheating,” as you put it? The single photon-single rod effect, whatever it may be, simply isn’t an effect w/o the optic nerve and the grey matter.
-
Back to the eyeb
If those models are correct, at least. But there’s very little reason to believe that they are, and I think that, for the most part, even the folks who propose such models expect that they’re not true.
I don’t know that much about it, but yes it would certainly seem to imply the non-constancy of c (though only within certain types of constraints).
The models exists for a reason and I think the main reason is to do with quantum gravity.
To expand on my last post (I hit submit by accident):
In general relativity the field that describes gravity is also the same field that describes spacetime geometry on a the manifold. If you quantitise the gravitational field, you also quantitise the geometry of spacetime and this gives good reason to think that the smooth local symmetry of spacetime be in fact be a broken symmetry.
In Cohen and Glashow’s theory, very special relativity (VST), I believe that Lorentz symmetry is conserved in all CP conserving processes. However CP symmetry is known to be violated in weak interactions.
Yes, but all anyone’s really doing with quantum gravity just yet is brainstorming. There’s a huge difference between saying that the world might work this way, and saying that it does.
I was calling “cheating” any sensation that wasn’t caused by light hitting the retina. While a charged particle might induce sensation by passing through neurons, I wouldn’t say that is “seeing” anything, and I take the original claim as implying that one literally sees the flash of light. So, I limited the scope of my post to that.
? ? ?
I think he was hit in the eye by a neutrino.
Just throwing this out there:
Clarke’s Three Laws are three “laws” of prediction formulated by the British writer and scientist Arthur C. Clarke. They are:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
More likely my thalamus. I had to go look for some data, hit submit instead of preview, said fuck it, and crashed.
CP symmetry is known to be violated by the universe itself, hence our preponderance of matter in favor over antimatter. 
EVENTUALLY, the math will catch up with the observations to explain why that is. Perhaps a false vacuum?
Tis a wise person who knows when to say, “Screw it, I’m tired and going to bed”, rather than persevere into the absurdities induced by excessive fatigue.
I think the confusion here is that of a weakly interacting particle with a mass between 01 and 3 eV and ionizing radiation triggering neural stimulation.
Astronauts are known to see flashes caused by ionizing radiation either stimulating the retina, optic nerve or visual cortex directly. One key difference between a potential neutrino interaction and ionizing radiation is scale.
Rather than one ATOM having a weak interaction with a neutrino, ionizing radiation can cause MANY atoms to ionize. Hence the risk involved with ionizing radiation, rather than the rather harmless neutrinos.
How long should it take for others to replicate or refute these findings? Are there similar setups around the world that could relatively (snerk) quickly perform the same experiment?