Thanks for the comment (for readers interested in Mr. Pecina- Cruz's referenced paper, please see http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0510/0510163.pdf, but be warned that this was not written with the layperson in mind). I appreciate your opinion on this matter. But I don't think that the mathematical potential of a particle to acquire negative mass is in itself an argument for the possibility of a positive assessment for the OPERA FTL (faster-than-light) neutrino findings, nor for a political motive behind discrediting them, especially in view of the apparent equipment problems and the premature announcement of these findings without collaborative verification. Even were we to set these aside, there is still no evidence, either factual or theoretical, of the presence of any causal constituent in the experiment for these neutrinos to transit through a superluminal state, since it's difficult to imagine their having been emitted superluminally, and inconceivable that the detector could have registered them while they were in a state of negative mass. Of course, the best verification would be the simultaneous transmission of photons along the same path, requiring the boring of a tunnel through the many miles of solid rock through which the neutrinos passed, an unlikely event in today's economic environment, especially considering the possibility of faulty equipment being responsible for the original findings, the absence of a reasonable explanation for the alleged positive results, and the almost unanimous rejection of FTL by physicists. Neither has the resignation of the team leaders helped (http://news.discovery.com/space/opera-leaders-resign-after-no-confidence-vote-120404.html). However, I find elements of your paper to be supportive of my own conclusions: "The mass of a particle itself is not an invariant, but its square. There is nothing to prevent that the rest mass could have different sign in distinct reference frame, as happen with its energy, electric charge and spin." But while quantum mechanics does pose problems for Einstein's relativity, the reverse also holds true, as you observed with comments on another site. Nothing in quantum physics can even begin to describe how relativistic predictability emerges from quantum uncertainty. Of course, my argument is that the guiding principle of a self-determining universe where all material effects have an equally material cause is a defective paradigm. It is only from this perspective that quantum mechanics appear paradoxical; it's a matter of perception colored by a strict materialistic paradigm. From a perspective of a nonlocal, superphysical causality for universal order, one would expect the quantum world to appear as it does, since it represents the very first observable level of that order's materialization from a superspatial and supertemperal causal source to its final ordered state. In its quantum "infancy," the dimensions of spacetime are as yet insufficiently unfolded for anything to be measurable in terms distinct spatial and temporal coordinates. The connective strings of quantum entanglement are not material or dimensional.