Customer Discussions > Science forum

Neutrinos


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 131 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 1:25:43 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 27, 2012 8:31:05 PM PDT
D. Colasante says:
JS >> A photon has spin 1 and is its own antiparticle. Why can't this be for spin .5 particles?

Keeping in mind this is a Speculation Zone, I must repeat that I do not adhere to photons as particles at all. The energy and momenta of light quanta are transmitted completely via pinholes (photo-induced wormholes) aligned with (and described by) a light-like interval between interacting particles. If photons were really "particles", they would be knocking the bejesus out of neutrinos (and vice versa) in their very high, near-solar concentrations.

JS >> [Spin] would be orbital angular momentum, right? So, your neutrino has a spatial distribution of mass or something?

Yes, or something! A neutrino has a spatial extent of its gravitational field, but the morphology may be different than for luminous (electrically charged) particles.

I have stated elsewhere that gravitation is the action of an electric field *upon* its manifold while electric interaction occurs *across* the manifold (via pinholes). That is to say, both phenomina are aspects the SAME field. But here, I assert that dark matter particles exhibit gravitation though electrically neutral!

Photons aside, I don't recognize ANY of the particles of the Standard Model. Trying to describe the multidimensional universe in terms of zero dimensional "point particles" is hopeless. I seek a higher vantage point. I don't reject the Standard Model, I view it from above, not in altitude but in dimension. Specifically, I abandon point particles and work instead with one dimensional rays as the primary elements.

When a ray spins about the unidirectional temporal axis it sweeps out a field with one of two absolute directions. Thus, exactly two kinds of electric charge, positive (say clockwise) and negative (counterclockwise) with respect to the future. Two spin directions provides for two types of interaction, like and unlike across the manifold. Gravitation, as an action upon the manifold, is independent of spin direction (always contracts the interval field), so positrons and electrons both exhibit the same field.

For dark matter, a ray spins about a bidirectional spatial axis. Because of this, the ray is spinning both clockwise and counterclockwise at once (perspectives). The electric field is thus, self-negating. Gravitation being independent of spin direction, persists. But the field may be more disk-like. For large aggregations of neutral elements as in a black hole the gravity fields would still occur in all directions.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 1:34:14 PM PDT
Just be careful to leave open the possibility that your documents might not be as solid as you think, and maybe give them a second 'once-over'.

A lot of what we are talking about is at or near the border of what is known, and is subject to frequent revision. Look at all that's happened to neutrinos in recent times! Twenty or so years ago, there was a big concern that the sun might be giving up the ghost, because only a third of the theoretically calculated neutrino flux was coming out of it. Well, that's because they didn't understand about neutrino oscillations--which, by the way, the standard model still doesn't include. Personally, I only learned of the anti-neutrino issue in the last few weeks. These things are up in the air, and it is probably advisable to be a bit less demonstrative in our pronouncements on these topics.

What is "known" in these areas of physics can have quite a limited shelf-life, I'm afraid.

And if, by chance, I *was* some sort of an authority, would you stop challenging me? (God! I hope not!)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 6:10:00 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
dc, you have that - 'charge is better represented (click both thumbnail images) as a arising from intrinsic spin.'

one of the difficulties with this is that charge is a scalar, and dynamically generated through a u1 local symmetry; intrinsic spin is an su2 dynamically generated entity, but doesn't, as far as we know, have a gauge field associated with it. regardless. su2 can't be represented as a product of simpler groups and so can't have scalar charge as a subgroup. so charge can't come from spin.

but ponder this dear reader...what if you're right and particles aren't 'point' particles. what else could they be? well, the string folks would tell us that they're little strings - closed, and open...the open ones i'm thinking are not too dissimilar from your quantum rays. in any event, points can be anything...we can make trucks points on a road map if we wanted to. we represent these guys mathematically by r0 for a point; r1 for a line; s1 for a circle, s2 for the surface of a ball, etc. the closest entity to an r0 is an s0, defined as the closed set of points [-1,1]. going further, one can 'gauge' these two objects through a local su2 principle fiber bundle such that particles, both real and virtual, actually serve to define the physical structure of the manifold. it's consequences, at least from a particle perspective, closely resemble what poincare had in mind in the 30's when he envisioned particles with the geometry more of a shell, and a vacant interior.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 7:46:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 27, 2012 9:17:00 PM PDT
Randall R Young wrote:
"But a similar sort of accounting method gets used by auditors to detect fraud. They don't actually see the money in the process of being stolen, but they nonetheless are quite prepared to send somebody up the river, purely on the strength of a "mathematical entity". "
======================================
In both case, science and law, the governing statues must be interpreted by people. The laws of conservation of energy led to the screwed up theory of relativity which messed up time beyond hope.

You start with meaningful statue. Get bizarre minds to apply the laws to evidence. You end up with chaos, not order.

But, the neutrino might end up with life sentence without chance of parole if things kept going the way they are as far as the speed and mass of the neutrinos.

Recall that no one has ever claimed or proved that all electrons possess the same mass or charge. There is indisputable uncertainties in the masses and charges of subatomic particles. You cannot devise any experiment that determines the absolute precise values of the physical properties of those particles. With the neutrinos having abysmally small mass, it is even more impossible to ascertain the nature of the neutrinos.

Here is what Wikipedia gives for some physical values:

Electron Mass 9.10938291(40)×10−31 kg
Electric charge −1.602176565(35)×10−19 C
Magnetic moment −1.00115965218076(27) μB
Spin 1⁄2

The only precise constant given is the Spin. The rest entail stated uncertainties, which go far beyond the mass of the neutrino.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 8:42:51 PM PDT
The theory came first. I think others have noted that it was Pauli's proposal, in 1930. The first reported detection was in 1942. The "flavor" experiments weren't done until the early 1960's I think.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 9:14:19 PM PDT
1. I concur that the precise status of the neutrino is still undecided, completely.

2. I'm not sure what you would count as a proof that all electrons have the same charge. For me, this is demonstrated well enough by the fact that electrons and positrons annihilate each other, and leave no particles as residue. It isn't necessary to know what two numbers x & y are, out to an infinity of decimal places, to realize that they are equal. All you have to know is that x - y = 0, or that x/y = 1. Either of these results guarantees the equality of x & y, no matter how wide the error bars might be.

Also, I think I can find one or two claims in the literature to the effect that all electrons are identical in all respects, including in mass and charge. I'm going to test my hypothesis right now...

...tick...tick....

Yes, I can definitely find such claims. One particularly good argument, I think, is that electrons obey the Fermi-Dirac statistics, and thus, the Pauli exclusion principle. This can only work if all the quantum numbers are the same.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 10:07:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 27, 2012 10:11:04 PM PDT
Randall R Young wrote:
"The theory came first. I think others have noted that it was Pauli's proposal, in 1930. The first reported detection was in 1942. The "flavor" experiments weren't done until the early 1960's I think."
=================================
In fact, the neutron that we know today we discovered in 1932 by James Chadwick despite being proposed two decades earlier by Rutherford. It was Rutherford who hinted to his student James Chadwick to jump on the colossal error made by Jean Frederic Joliot-Curie when they bombarded Boron with protons and mistaken the neutron for something else. The couple missed their first definitive Nobel Prize which was given to Chadwick. They almost missed the second prize on artificial radioactivity had not been alerted by mere accident to the possibility of agitating the nucleus with high energy radiation.

But Pauli's initial neutron was renamed by Fermi, who gave it the neutrino title.

Earlier, however, Niels Bohr proposed a statistical version of the conservation laws to explain the phenomenon of beta radiation. Bohr never took the extreme risk which Pauli took in inventing things that might never be proven real. In contrast, Bohr got used to the failure of Classical Mechanics in explaining the subatomic universe.

Back to the uncertainty in the electron's physical properties. The electron-positron pair annihilation requires stringent condition for the pair to annihilate. That goes into the cross-sections of the reactions.

The in uncertainty of physical quantities was explained by Heisenberg' s quantum mechanics. It offered a reasonable explanation for making the mass of a particle related to its energy, rather than its entity. Thus, an energetic electron has different mass than a less energetic electron. When stopped, the more energetic electron emits harder x-ray than the less energetic, with extra relativistic mass going to the x-ray energy.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 11:18:06 PM PDT
But when two particles of like rest mass collide, the particles themselves have the same relativistic mass, with respect to each other. The particles themselves cannot say which of them is moving. From either frame, the situation is symmetrical.

In other words, the added mass from kinetic energy is a relative quantity, and must be equally applied to both. (When your car hits the telephone pole at 100kph, the pole ALSO hits the car at 100kph. The energy of motion is the energy of relative motion, because there simply isn't any other kind of motion.)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 1:14:16 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 1:14:36 PM PDT
Randall R Young wrote:
(When your car hits the telephone pole at 100kph, the pole ALSO hits the car at 100kph. The energy of motion is the energy of relative motion, because there simply isn't any other kind of motion.)
=============================
In fact, that is one of the complex problems in mechanics.

If your car hits a telephone pole at 100 kph, the pole hits the car at 0 kph, not 100. If you meant the relative speed, you must transfer momenta to the reference of masses, not the reference of observer.

Suppose that your car weighs m1, the tree weighs m2. m1 moves at 100 kph, m2 at 0 kph. The speed of approach is then (m1 x 100 + m2 x 0) = (m1 + m2) x v,

where

v = 100 (m1/ (m1 + m2)) kph.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 1:54:53 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 2:00:21 PM PDT
D. Colasante says:
RRY >> ...neutrino oscillations--which, by the way, the standard model still doesn't include.

Once again, you raise a key point. One which suggests that neutrinos don't belong among fermions. The three neutrinos appear to oscillate rather effortlessly into one and other with a process more akin to rotation among three dimensions than the hierarchy of decay stopping at a definite bottom characteristic the other leptons (tao-->muon-->electron). I expect this will be the case with other dark particle families as they are discovered. They will come in threes, demonstrate helicity which distinguishes them from their antiparticles and the triplets will oscillate.

Another dimensional aspect which seems relevant is relative population. If nature, at the beginning, had a bunch of particles (ray objects to me) to distribute within the available manifold, suppose it is also the nature of things to spin. There are four available spin axes, one temporal and three spatial. We end up with 25% luminous particles and 75% dark, originally.

Stellar nucleosynthesis may have driven that ratio further apart if there are not reverse processes among the dark particles, perhaps because they don't think they form stars. If however, we count black holes as dark particles (made from luminous particles) some sort of balance near 3:1 could be maintained (after a lag to get the first black holes).

As for the sterile neutrino of Tom's earlier references, the evidence is intriguing but early and not without conflict. My guess is you can't drop weak interaction without picking up something else. I would be looking for a EM manifestation to surface. This might represent a rare, temporary wobble off a space axis and onto time, occurring as an accident during normal oscillation. There would be some bulge of electric field associated with that.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:10:38 PM PDT
D. Colasante. All particles interact gravitationally, even particles without rest mass. You can figure this out for yourself by considering these comments.

Thought experiment: put a bunch of positronium inside a conducting cavity. The conductor weighs the same before and after the positronium decays into photons, so it is the energy of the conductor you detected gravitationally is caused by the energy of the conductor, not the mass of the things inside.

Equations: Consider Einstein's equations for General Relativity, G=kT, the G is determined by the curvature of spacetime and T is determined by the energy and momentum density and the stress. Not the mass. The symbol m does not appear, again it is energy, momentum and stress that cause gravitation.

Finally, you should put mass in Context. The mass of a system is not the sum of the masses of the parts. Notice that helium 4 does not weigh twice as much as deuterium. Notice that a proton weighs much more than the masses of the quarks inside it. Mass is not the cause of gravitation, what mass does is affect the balance of momentum and energy. And energy, momentum, and stress together cause gravity. so mass has a role. A large mass can make the energy be relatively large even when the momentum is relatively small.

Even particles with no rest mass that have energy and momentum can exert and respond to gravitation.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:37:11 PM PDT
D. Colasante,

Regarding the definition of matter. It is a word that different people use to mean different things.

Some people use the word "matter" to refer to things that take up space. They probably mean fermion but say matter instead.

It seems like you use the word "matter" to refer to things that can be observed at rest. So this include the W+ and Z bosons even though they do not take up space in any traditional sense. You probably mean massive particles but say matter instead.

Some people use the word "matter" to make a distinction between matter and antimatter. I don't know a better word to use in this situation because it seems so arbitrary, like the W+ and the W-, which one is matter, which is antimatter, and does it even matter? (No pun intended.) And as has been discussed, the set of matter and the set of antimatter are not disjoint because the same particle (e,g, photons) can be in both sets.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:38:00 PM PDT
that is totally wron g

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:52:28 PM PDT
Newton would think I'm wrong, but you have the advantage that you can study Einstein's relativity and other parts of modern Physics.

There are more examples than you can shake a stick at. We actually get fusion power from the fact that deuterium weighs more than half what helium 4 weighs.

Mass is like the length of a vector. If a bunch of vectors are pointing in almost the same direction then the length of the sum is approximately the sum of the lengths but in general it isn't true that the length of a sum is the sum of the lengths. Newton thought the mass of a system was the sum of the masses of the parts because the vectors in question all pointed in almost the same direction (i.e. all the relative velocities are small)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 5:02:00 PM PDT
And yet, both the tree and the car share in the damage!

Let's just say that the energy of the collision has nothing to do with anything but the masses, and their relative velocities. The 100 kph in your math can only mean "100 kph, relatively", since it is clear that the energy of the collision is the same for a car moving east as it is for a car moving west, in spite of the fact that the earth is propelling both of them both at 1600 kph to the east.

So, for clarity, I suggest this thought experiment:

Case 1: car M1 hits "stationary" tree M2 while traveling east along the equator at 1670 kph, according to its speedometer.
Case 2: car M1 hits "stationary" tree M2 while traveling west along the equator at 1670 kph, according to its speedometer.

(Coincidentally, the earth just happens to be rotating at 1670 kph at the equator.)

If you will, would you calculate out the energy of collision for these to cases? My 'gut' theory is that the same energy will be expended in the collision.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 5:24:17 PM PDT
I still don't understand what you are suggesting, DC. Are saying that SO(3) is really SO(4) for neutrinos?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 7:35:06 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
i don't think so; there's already a 3d mixing matrix for internal transformations among neutrino flavor states - which are essentially rotation matrices.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 7:36:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 7:38:06 PM PDT
Randall R Young,

The question is not in regard to how much energy was generated from a collision. It is how such energy gets split between the colliding masses.

In your case experiment, both car and tree are riding the rotating Earth. Thus, the direction of rotation should lend no privilege to either masses.

Earlier, you suggested that because an electron and a positron annihilate each other without a trace of particles, therefore, you concluded that the two particles must have the same masses. In fact, the two particles cannot collide and annihilate unless they reach specific energy requirement that allows the particles to interact.

Suppose you (the electron) met a pretty woman (the positron) whom you wish to date. If one of you was flying, the other riding in a car, you cannot interact with the woman (positron) since your energy levels separate you apart. Even if the airplane of the woman (positron) and your car (electron) collide in space and time, the collision would not be considered a dating interaction.

Simply, interaction is a mutual process, or two-way street.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 7:57:13 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 8:03:20 PM PDT
I don't know what the problem is, but I just don't understand what you are trying to say.

Maybe you could lay out what it means to "reach specific energy requirement"? And if different electrons/positrons have differing masses [I assume you mean "rest mass", BTW], over what sort of range are we talking? And could a very fast positron annihilate with a very slow muon, for instance?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 8:18:16 PM PDT
nameinuse says:
No, the only thing that will annihilate a positron is an electron.

Posted on Jun 29, 2012 5:32:31 AM PDT
D. Colasante says:
tk ...ponder this...

Thanks for the thoughtful post, I'm honored its one of your more substantial ones. I don't want you to waste your valuable time, so I must admit that my math training stops at third semester calculus (same for physics). I am illiterate of differential equations, matrix algebra, and group theory (I'm guessing the latter is what I just read!). Sorry. I did read it several times though and I have some thoughts which I couldn't blame you for not reading.

tk >> ...charge is a scalar... charge can't come from spin.

In Phyxed, charge is a ray, a force object. Charge doesn't come from spin. A charge field arises from spinning a charge. A "particle" is the origin of the ray, which coincides with the center of the field.

Either a field is an object unto itself, or it resolves to something smaller. A problem with the field as an elemental object is the mystery of what determines when and where a quantum of light will depart an excited particle. A uniform field object gives no clue. A field generated by a spinning ray does. From uncountable low energy candidate particles, the quanta goes to the first (regardless of spatial separation) to make coincident alignment of its ray with the emitter's.

Note: The probability field of the ray is continuous but the ray is discrete. They ray is not limited in angular velocity despite its infinite extent. The apparent propagation velocity (speed c) of the field is determined only by the angle with its temporal axis. In Minkowski diagrams that's 45 degrees.

tk >> particles with the geometry more of a shell, and a vacant interior.
Sounds like Poincare was describing electron orbitals.

Imagine you swing a rope like a lariat over your head. You're sweeping out a rope field. So is a hefty person nearby. Both of you can adjust the length of the ropes ad lib, but you must maintain angular velocities. The ends of your ropes have Velcro and they adhere. It is only at particular (harmonic) rope lengths that you can coexist with the ropes straight. these are the allowed orbitals and you, being svelte are no longer viewed as a particle but a shell.

The ray of an orbiting electron might point continuously toward the nucleus, its origin (the particle aspect) is in orbit.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 5:56:56 AM PDT
tom kriske says:
dc, just a reminder - particles, at least in so far as they're represented in hilbert space, are already rays. consider brushing up on projective geometry [real and complex], it might aid in your thinking.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 7:55:38 AM PDT
Randall R Young wrote:
"Maybe you could lay out what it means to "reach specific energy requirement"? And if different electrons/positrons have differing masses [I assume you mean "rest mass", BTW], over what sort of range are we talking? And could a very fast positron annihilate with a very slow muon, for instance? "
=======================
A practical example is the capture of neutron by U235 during fission. We design nuclear reactors based on the energy of the neutrons. In order to obtain critical mass in nuclear reactors, neutrons must be slowed down to specific energy level where U235 atoms could capture them and then split releasing energy.

The fission cross section (or the probability of of U235 to split) decreases with increasing the neutron energy. For that reasons, we used moderators such as heavy-water and carbon to slow down neutron.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 9:05:15 AM PDT
nonsense

that is just a model of what happens
it is not reality

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 9:14:23 AM PDT
mo

be honest, admit it, you never designed a reactor in your life did you
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  14
Total posts:  131
Initial post:  Jun 24, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 10, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions