Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: esquire on 10/06/2019 23:19:51
-
what if a neutrino and was not a particle? but was instead a hole. a hole in the space/time fabric, moving at the speed of light.
-
what if a neutrino and was not a particle? but was instead a hole. a hole in the space/time fabric, moving at the speed of light.
-
edit
what if a neutrino was not a particle? but was instead a hole. a hole in the space/time fabric, moving at the speed of light.
-
if two points actually never touch and an atom is comprised of empty space, a wave is essentially empty space. a neutrino travels through matter unimpeded, as a hole through empty space/time.
-
two points never touch. an atom is comprised of empty space. a wave is essentially empty space/time matter. a neutrino hole traverses the empty space/time matter unimpeded.
-
does an exploding super nova create holes in the space/time fabric? Does it separate gravity?
-
It behaves like a particle. It has energy, spin, momentum and interacts via the weak nuclear force.
-
Neutrinos don't travel at the speed of light as the do not have zero rest mass. They have 1/2 spin and interact via the weak sub-atomic force. They also come in three varieties, Electron, muon and tau. All of these characteristics point to it being a particle and not a "hole in the space/time fabric".
-
Why have you also posted the same question in New Theories?
-
Some of the terminology here is rather unconventional, but I'll try to read between the lines...
an atom is comprised of empty space
An atom has mass. So it is not entirely empty space.
99.9% of this mass is concentrated in the very small nucleus, so you could almost say that the atom is mostly empty space (as some introductory science books state).
Except that the atom is surrounded by electrons, and the electrons take up the entire volume of the atom (but at a much lower density than the nucleus).
This model of the atom was the conclusion of a landmark experiment in Rutherford's laboratory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment
a wave is essentially empty
An electron has mass, so its not empty.
- But it also has some properties of a wave.
- So I think this statement is vacuous
does an exploding super nova create holes in the space/time fabric?
A supernova with mass more than about 3 times the mass of the Sun will collapse into a black hole.
- Some introductions to astronomy might try to explain a black hole as a "hole in the space/time fabric".
- But I expect that it would take an extraordinary set of circumstances to produce more than one black hole from a supernova explosion
Does (a supernova) separate gravity?
When measured at a distance, the gravitational field of a star is unchanged before, during and after the supernova. So this does not "separate gravity".
However, there is an exception if the supernova is asymmetric - the gravitational field does not entirely cancel out, and part of the gravitational field travels away as a disturbance at the speed of light. In a sense, this "gravitational wave" has separated from the source.
what if a neutrino ...was moving at the speed of light
Neutrinos move very close to the speed of light - in fact, it's so close than no-one has managed to measure the difference in speed (yet).
However, neutrino oscillation was awarded a Nobel Prize in 2015.
This immediately meant that neutrinos had to travel at less than the speed of light; if they travelled at the speed of light, neutrino oscillation would not be possible.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation
-
It behaves like a particle. It has energy, spin, momentum and interacts via the weak nuclear force.
a particle is unable to alter its state. neutrinos can alter their states, between their different forms. a smaller neutrino energy state can adopt a larger energy state and also revert to a smaller state. a hole can change it's volume state a particle cannot.
neutrinos annihilation ends abruptly, it flashes a light. there is no decay as in the weak nuclear force. rather this flash is more akin to the splitting of air molecules where matter (air molecules) collides to form lightening . the neutrino hole collapses, causing a brief but intense clashing of matter.
-
Neutrinos don't travel at the speed of light as the do not have zero rest mass. They have 1/2 spin and interact via the weak sub-atomic force. They also come in three varieties, Electron, muon and tau. All of these characteristics point to it being a particle and not a "hole in the space/time fabric".
a particle, doesn't alter its state nor can two particles occupy the same location in space time. a neutrino does both, it changes its energy signature when two neutrino share a space time location. this capability of a neutrino makes it more akin to a hole than a particle.
-
Why have you also posted the same question in New Theories?
when posting this question the naked scientist was acting quirky.. because of a long delay, I reposted, a moderator, undoubtedly, moved the duplicate post.
-
Some of the terminology here is rather unconventional, but I'll try to read between the lines...
an atom is comprised of empty space
An atom has mass. So it is not entirely empty space.
99.9% of this mass is concentrated in the very small nucleus, so you could almost say that the atom is mostly empty space (as some introductory science books state).
Except that the atom is surrounded by electrons, and the electrons take up the entire volume of the atom (but at a much lower density than the nucleus).
This model of the atom was the conclusion of a landmark experiment in Rutherford's laboratory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment
a wave is essentially empty
An electron has mass, so its not empty.
- But it also has some properties of a wave.
- So I think this statement is vacuous
thank you. I do respect your opinion as a moderator, more so then your compatriots. I understand your adherence to a certain vernacular.
introductory science states that in perspective, a hydrogen atom and its single electron if viewed in the contrast of scale, the 99% nucleus mass would be viewed as a point in the middle of a football field and its 1% electron mass would located in outmost reaches of the stadium.
I understand the concept of the aether like cloud surrounding the electron in its valance energy shell. however when viewing the scale of the atom in the terms described above, the atom is essentially empty space in a larger energy container. density is antithetical to motion of a wave, this why rocks don't flow.
does an exploding super nova create holes in the space/time fabric?
A supernova with mass more than about 3 times the mass of the Sun will collapse into a black hole.
- Some introductions to astronomy might try to explain a black hole as a "hole in the space/time fabric".
- But I expect that it would take an extraordinary set of circumstances to produce more than one black hole from a supernova explosion
so, tell me what are your thoughts about wormholes and how they are created? please do so in any terms of complexity you feel comfortable in explaining . if worm"holes" exist they require a means of creation. if they exist, they represent holes in the spacetime fabric. if wormholes exist, they must have a fractal property. a neutrino could represent that fractal property.
Does (a supernova) separate gravity?
When measured at a distance, the gravitational field of a star is unchanged before, during and after the supernova. So this does not "separate gravity".
However, there is an exception if the supernova is asymmetric - the gravitational field does not entirely cancel out, and part of the gravitational field travels away as a disturbance at the speed of light. In a sense, this "gravitational wave" has separated from the source.
so does a gravitional wave exist in perpretuiy or does it decay? neutrinos are not subject to gravity. matter is fundamental to gravity, neutrinos are unaffected by matter. is science 101 incorrect? if a gravitional wave a field? if its a field that exists without matter, it is extremely vaccous and can function as an empty wave or hole. if it oscillate it can produce light.
what if a neutrino ...was moving at the speed of light
Neutrinos move very close to the speed of light - in fact, it's so close than no-one has managed to measure the difference in speed (yet).
However, neutrino oscillation was awarded a Nobel Prize in 2015.
This immediately meant that neutrinos had to travel at less than the speed of light; if they travelled at the speed of light, neutrino oscillation would not be possible.
yes, if the neutrino was a particle, not so if its a hole.
energy is motion, oscillation is light, is the latter restricted to a single form?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation - introductory science 102?
-
what are your thoughts about wormholes and how they are created?
Wormholes are permitted by general relativity, but at this stage they are purely hypothetical.
At this time, noone knows if they actually exist, or how they could be created. Researchers have found several impossible ways that they might be created...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole
so does a gravitional wave exist in perpretuiy or does it decay?
Gravitational waves are thought to spread out through the universe "to infinity", getting weaker with distance (just like light does).
So I guess I would have to say "both"!
neutrinos are not subject to gravity.
I see no experimental evidence for this - what is your experimental evidence?
In theory, neutrinos would slow down as they rose out of Earth's gravitational field. But they would still be travelling so close to the speed of light that you can't measure it with today's techniques.
matter is fundamental to gravity
Gravity also affects light, which has no rest mass; but it does have energy and momentum, and this is affected by gravity.
Neutrinos also have considerable amounts of energy and momentum, and so will be affected by gravity.
Neutrinos are produced in very energetic nuclear processes, and carry around a million times more energy than visible photons.
-
neutrinos are not subject to gravity.
I see no experimental evidence for this - what is your experimental evidence?
In theory, neutrinos would slow down as they rose out of Earth's gravitational field. But they would still be travelling so close to the speed of light that you can't measure it with today's techniques.
neutrinos are only lefthanded chiral, a neutrino will not couple to a higgs field because of this. gravity couples anything with mass together.
-
In theory, neutrinos would slow down as they rose out of Earth's gravitational field. But they would still be travelling so close to the speed of light that you can't measure it with today's techniques.
neutrinos are only lefthanded chiral, a neutrino will not couple to a higgs field because of this. gravity couples anything with mass together.
Neutrinos have energy. Anything with energy also generates a gravitational field (and therefore responds to a gravitational field) as required by relativity's E=mc2. So yes, neutrinos are subject to gravity.
a particle is unable to alter its state.
What is your evidence for this? How are you defining the word "state"?
neutrinos annihilation ends abruptly, it flashes a light.
As far as I am aware, neutrinos have never been observed annihilating (in the sense of the normal definition of "annihilation", where interaction with anti-neutrinos would be needed). Do you have a link to support this?
-
In theory, neutrinos would slow down as they rose out of Earth's gravitational field. But they would still be travelling so close to the speed of light that you can't measure it with today's techniques.
neutrinos are only lefthanded chiral, a neutrino will not couple to a higgs field because of this. gravity couples anything with mass together.
Neutrinos have energy. Anything with energy also generates a gravitational field (and therefore responds to a gravitational field) as required by relativity's E=mc2.
So yes, neutrinos are subject to gravity.
you only have too refute 3 things to make the above true.
neutrinos are only lefthanded chiral
a neutrino will not couple to a higgs field
gravity couples anything with mass together.
what's your evidence?
a particle is unable to alter its state.
What is your evidence for this? How are you defining the word "state"?
Can turn iron into gold? I don't think so! can a particle alter it's basic structure? if you have evidence for this please present it.
A neutrino can alter its basic structure depending on the environment it's traversing.
neutrinos annihilation ends abruptly, it flashes a light.
As far as I am aware, neutrinos have never been observed annihilating (in the sense of the normal definition of "annihilation", where interaction with anti-neutrinos would be needed). Do you have a link to support this?
it the ice box, neutrinos are infrequently observed. neutrinos like proton are their own antiparticle. as such they don't decay but they annihilate. the ice box in antarctica observes blue light flashes when a neutrino annihilates. does
any energy expel light in a decaying process? please present any evidence.
-
you only have too refute 3 things to make the above true.
neutrinos are only lefthanded chiral
a neutrino will not couple to a higgs field
gravity couples anything with mass together.
what's your evidence?
The Higgs mechanism is not the source of all mass:
The Higgs field doesn't couple to photons either, but photons are still affected by gravity. This is demonstrated by both gravitational lensing and gravitational redshift. Relativity states that energy and mass are equivalent, so anything with energy generates a gravitational field as well. Since neutrinos have energy, we know that they must respond to gravity.
Can turn iron into gold? I don't think so!
Nuclear transmutations happen all the time. Haven't you ever heard of radioactive isotopes? Iron atoms can spontaneously turn into manganese, chromium or cobalt if it's the right isotope.
can a particle alter it's basic structure? if you have evidence for this please present it.
A neutrino can alter its basic structure depending on the environment it's traversing.
Given that we don't know what the structure of a neutrino even is, how can you know that the "structure" is what is changing? Particles can change into different kinds of particles and do so quite often. Muons and Tauons decay into electrons and neutrinos. Photons of sufficient energy can change into electron-positron pairs when they interact with atomic nuclei.
it the ice box, neutrinos are infrequently observed. neutrinos like proton are their own antiparticle
Protons are not their own antiparticle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiproton
as such they don't decay but they annihilate.
That does not follow. Photons are their own antiparticles but they don't annihilate. Particles interacting their antiparticles is what causes annihilation (when the antiparticle is different from the particle, that is).
the ice box in antarctica observes blue light flashes when a neutrino annihilates.
Are you talking about the IceCube Neutrino Observatory? Neutrino annihilation is not what IceCube is observing. It's detecting Cherenkov radiation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCube_Neutrino_Observatory#Experimental_mechanism
does any energy expel light in a decaying process?
I don't understand the question. Are you asking if particles can release photons when they decay? Some can, such as neutral pions (which decay into gamma rays): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion I don't see how it's relevant, though, since IceCube doesn't require any such thing anyway.
-
you only have too refute 3 things to make the above true.
neutrinos are only lefthanded chiral
a neutrino will not couple to a higgs field
gravity couples anything with mass together.
what's your evidence?
The Higgs mechanism is not the source of all mass:
The Higgs field doesn't couple to photons either, but photons are still affected by gravity. This is demonstrated by both gravitational lensing and gravitational redshift. Relativity states that energy and mass are equivalent, so anything with energy generates a gravitational field as well. Since neutrinos have energy, we know that they must respond to gravity.
a photon, has the helicity of it momentum, this can be righthanded or lefthanded. a neutrino is strictly lefthanded. a photon cannot transverse matter in the same way a neutrino transverses matter, basically unobstructed. the effect of matter on a photon is different then the effect of matter (energy'momentum} on a neutrino, where matter, energy and momentum, have no effect on neutrinos. the fact that a higgs field also doesn't couple with a massless photon is not pertinent to a discussion about neutrinos. please explain how neutrinos transverses the earth unaffected if they are under gravity's auspices. "gravity couples anything with mass {energy'momentum) together".
photons have a wave property. i have not heard of neutrinos demonstrating a wave property. photons and neutrinos are apples and oranges. would you conduct an experiment on one element and declare the results pertinent for other elements?
I will acquiesces the remainder of my points as being flawed in their presentation.
although the transmutations of neutrinos donot take place as nuclear transmutation, requiring excessive amounts of energy but rather they transmute Innocuously, depending on the local matter environment.
-
a photon, has the helicity of it momentum, this can be righthanded or lefthanded. a neutrino is strictly lefthanded.
So?
a photon cannot transverse matter in the same way a neutrino transverses matter, basically unobstructed.
That's because photons interact via the electromagnetic force while neutrinos do not. The electromagnetic force is much, much stronger and much, much longer-ranged than the weak nuclear force.
the effect of matter on a photon is different then the effect of matter (energy'momentum} on a neutrino,
Yes, because they interact via different forces.
where matter, energy and momentum, have no effect on neutrinos.
They do have an effect on matter. If they didn't, it would be impossible to detect them.
the fact that a higgs field also doesn't couple with a massless photon is not pertinent to a discussion about neutrinos.
It is if you claim that the lack of coupling to the Higgs field means that something is unaffected by gravity. Relativity requires anything with energy to respond to gravitational fields.
please explain how neutrinos transverses the earth unaffected if they are under gravity's auspices.
Whoever said they travel through the Earth unaffected by gravity? Are you claiming that they should be captured by the Earth's gravity or something? They are moving far, far in excess of the Earth's escape velocity, so that can't happen. In theory, their paths should be deflected by gravitational fields in the same way that the paths of photons are deflected. However, detectors like IceCube aren't designed to look for neutrino gravitational lensing.
photons have a wave property. i have not heard of neutrinos demonstrating a wave property. photons and neutrinos are apples and oranges. would you conduct an experiment on one element and declare the results pertinent for other elements?
You might want to read this: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/SpecialROWMINOS111408.html
although the transmutations of neutrinos donot take place as nuclear transmutation, requiring excessive amounts of energy but rather they transmute Innocuously, depending on the local matter environment.
Radioisotope decay doesn't require "excessive amounts of energy" either. It happens spontaneously even when the nucleus is in its ground energy state.
-
neutrinos like proton are their own antiparticle.
There are protons and anti-protons; they are different particles.
It is very hard to study neutrinos, as they are slippery little suckers...
- It's hard to get neutrinos to interact with matter - that's why Ice Cube is monitoring a billion tons of matter for them to interact with...
- It is even harder to get neutrinos to interact with each other
- Given this, at present, it is not clear if neutrinos have separate particles & anti-particles (like a proton) or the neutrino is its own antiparticle (like a photon)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion
transmutations of neutrinos donot take place as nuclear transmutation, requiring excessive amounts of energy but rather they transmute Innocuously, depending on the local matter environment.
I think the technical term you are looking for is "neutrino oscillation" rather than "neutrino transmutation".
- Unlike nuclear decay, neutrino oscillation is not a 1-way process, but more a quantum uncertainty about the "flavor" of a neutrino at any point in time
- Neutrino oscillation (or almost anything about neutrinos) is not greatly affected by its matter environment
- The symptoms of Neutrino oscillation were first detected as a shortfall in the number of neutrinos emitted by the Sun - they detected about 1/3 of the expected quantity. Eventually this was explained by the fact that 2/3 of the neutrinos produced in the Sun changed into other flavors of neutrino before they reached Earth, and were undetectable by this apparatus (very pure dry cleaning fluid). So the oscillation occurred in 150 million km of vacuum (not matter).
- More recent experiments conducted near nuclear reactors have been able to study neutrino oscillation in more detail, as the neutrinos pass through the air.
- For a visible photon, there is little difference between vacuum and air; for neutrinos, there is little difference between vacuum and the element Lead. So I don't see what difference matter makes (although I read that neutrinos may be affected by the Hydrogen core of the Sun, which is far denser than lead).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation
neutrinos are only lefthanded chiral
In theory, Neutrinos must have the opposite chirality to Anti-neutrinos.
- It's true that only left-handed neutrinos have been observed to date, and only right-handed anti-neutrinos.
- But this is tied in to the (currently unanswered) question about whether neutrinos are their own antiparticle.
It is possible that neutrinos propagate as an oscillation of left and right chirality. If so, it's because they are traveling so close to the speed of light that very few Solar neutrinos have changed chirality before they reach detectors on Earth.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Chirality
-
neutrinos like proton are their own antiparticle.
There are protons and anti-protons; they are different particles.
yes, please understand that a typo is difficult for a dyslectic to detect. photon not proton. lol
It is very hard to study neutrinos, as they are slippery little suckers...
- It's hard to get neutrinos to interact with matter - that's why Ice Cube is monitoring a billion tons of matter for them to interact with...
- It is even harder to get neutrinos to interact with each other
- Given this, at present, it is not clear if neutrinos have separate particles & anti-particles (like a proton) or the neutrino is its own antiparticle (like a photon)
again, for clarification, if the discussion is pertinent to photons and not protons, even an average intelligent person makes the connection.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion
transmutations of neutrinos donot take place as nuclear transmutation, requiring excessive amounts of energy but rather they transmute Innocuously, depending on the local matter environment.
I think the technical term you are looking for is "neutrino oscillation" rather than "neutrino transmutation".
- Unlike nuclear decay, neutrino oscillation is not a 1-way process, but more a quantum uncertainty about the "flavor" of a neutrino at any point in time
- Neutrino oscillation (or almost anything about neutrinos) is not greatly affected by its matter environment
- The symptoms of Neutrino oscillation were first detected as a shortfall in the number of neutrinos emitted by the Sun - they detected about 1/3 of the expected quantity. Eventually this was explained by the fact that 2/3 of the neutrinos produced in the Sun changed into other flavors of neutrino before they reached Earth, and were undetectable by this apparatus (very pure dry cleaning fluid). So the oscillation occurred in 150 million km of vacuum (not matter).
- More recent experiments conducted near nuclear reactors have been able to study neutrino oscillation in more detail, as the neutrinos pass through the air.
- For a visible photon, there is little difference between vacuum and air; for neutrinos, there is little difference between vacuum and the element Lead. So I don't see what difference matter makes (although I read that neutrinos may be affected by the Hydrogen core of the Sun, which is far denser than lead).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation
kidkrypt is the one that chose "nuclear transmutation" as a example in an attempt to prove particles change their elemental states. my original point was that neutrinos alter their states without an excessive amount of energy employed.
as a neutrino transverses different densities it does if fact alter its energy signature. this is the coping mechanism for neutrino coupling to alter between it's three flavors.
the difference between a vacuum and air, and a vacuum and lead is substantial. this goes to the point that kidkypt was attempting to compare photon and neutrino, apples and oranges, in an attempt to dispute my original point.
neutrinos are only lefthanded chiral
In theory, Neutrinos must have the opposite chirality to Anti-neutrinos.
- It's true that only left-handed neutrinos have been observed to date, and only right-handed anti-neutrinos.
- But this is tied in to the (currently unanswered) question about whether neutrinos are their own antiparticle.
It is possible that neutrinos propagate as an oscillation of left and right chirality. If so, it's because they are traveling so close to the speed of light that very few Solar neutrinos have changed chirality before they reach detectors on Earth.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Chirality
charge parity appear to be violated by neutrinos and anti neutrinos, as such, their properties are not reflective. this means they are incapable of an explosive interaction. this inability to interact, again defies gravity.
the fact that neutrinos unlike particles can occupy the same point in space and time, again defies gravity. this excludes it from being a particle. if is not a particle and it is not a boson, the simplest solution is that neutrinos are holes in the fabric of spacetime. this implies that neutrinos and anti neutrinos pass though each other.
please excuse any spelling or grammar issue, my limitations no longer cause me concern.
-
my original point was that neutrinos alter their states without an excessive amount of energy employed.
So does uranium-238.
charge parity appear to be violated by neutrinos and anti neutrinos, as such, their properties are not reflective. this means they are incapable of an explosive interaction. this inability to interact, again defies gravity.
CP violation has nothing to do with gravity. Anything with energy (which would include both neutrinos and antineutrinos) can interact via gravity.
the fact that neutrinos unlike particles can occupy the same point in space and time
(1) How do you know that neutrinos can occupy the same point in space-time? The fact that they have fractional spin (making them fermions) means that quantum mechanics would forbid such a thing from occurring.
(2) Bosons can occupy the same point in space-time, which contradicts your claim that this is something that particles cannot do.
again defies gravity.
Whether or not something is a fermion or a boson has nothing to do with gravity. If it has energy, it interacts via gravity.
this excludes it from being a particle.
Again, bosons do exactly that.
if is not a particle and it is not a boson, the simplest solution is that neutrinos are holes in the fabric of spacetime. this implies that neutrinos and anti neutrinos pass though each other.
So you think that holes in space-time (whatever that means) can have momentum, energy, velocity, spin and interact with the weak nuclear force? Because neutrinos have all of those things.
-
uranium 238 is transmuted by a fast neutron in a fission process, external energy required!.
gravity is what causes the attraction between particles and anti particles, which result in an explosion.
neutrinos and anti-neutrinos don't interact a cp violation. gravity doesnot produce an attraction between neutrinos and anti-neutrinos.
neutrinos occupy the same spacetime location. a neutrino is capable of transmuting into a different flavor and reverting again. this transmution and subsequent reversion is one neutrino joining another to result in a higher energy neutrino.
a boson is not a fermion particle, it is a field within field, a wave within a wave. the higgs boson develops an energy signature as a result of a concussion, forcing a field inside a field. a boson is a force carrier (a field), a field by itself is not a particle, it is a component that comprises an elementary particle, field, energy and spin. not a particle in the sense of fermion particle. bosons are now classified as particle because not to do so, would refute the higgs boson's experimental finding of an energy charge signature. researcher are clueless to explain.
a field within a field, a wave with a wave, has no fermion basis. it is a charge devoid of matter, a hole with a spin. not bound by gravity, not the first contradictory statement uttered in science!
bosons belong in the quantum realm, they are zero mass, zero charge, with a twist(spin) i.e. a photon. zero mass = not a particle. a photon is a particle that lack a basis for it's charge! not at contradictory.
is the warping of space/time a homogenous feature without imperfections, some academics, obviously think so!
-
uranium 238 is transmuted by a fast neutron in a fission process, external energy required!.
I'm not talking about nuclear fission, I'm talking about radioactive decay. Uranium-235 decays on its own, without any external neutrons required, with a half-life of around 4.5 billion years.
gravity is what causes the attraction between particles and anti particles, which result in an explosion.
Not in most cases. Gravity is far too weak on subatomic scales for that to work.
neutrinos and anti-neutrinos don't interact a cp violation. gravity doesnot produce an attraction between neutrinos and anti-neutrinos.
This is the second time you've stated this non-sequitur. Gravity has nothing to do with CP violation.
neutrinos occupy the same spacetime location.
This is the second time you've made this claim without providing evidence for it. We know that two neutrinos can't occupy the same quantum state because they have a spin of 1/2. Quantum mechanics forbids it.
this transmution and subsequent reversion is one neutrino joining another to result in a higher energy neutrino.
That would violate conservation of lepton number.
a boson is not a fermion particle
Well of course not. No one said that they were. One has integral spin and the other has half-integral spin. Neutrinos are fermions, though. They have a spin of 1/2.
bosons are now classified as particle because not to do so, would refute the higgs boson's experimental finding of an energy charge signature.
That's plainly untrue. Bosons were known to be particles long before the Higgs boson was discovered.
researcher are clueless to explain.
Clueless to explain what?
a field within a field, a wave with a wave, has no fermion basis.
Nobody said that bosons were fermions. You are creating a straw-man argument.
it is a charge devoid of matter, a hole with a spin. not bound by gravity
Some bosons don't have a charge, like photons and gluons. Some do, such as the W+ and W- particles. Helium-4 nuclei are bosons as well, and they have a positive net charge due to their proton content. But neutrinos aren't bosons.
Bosons do interact via gravity. Remember gravitational lensing? Photons, which are bosons, are known to have their paths distorted by gravitational fields.
not the first contradictory statement uttered in science!
The "contradiction" is all in your mind.
bosons belong in the quantum realm, they are zero mass, zero charge, with a twist(spin) i.e. a photon. zero mass = not a particle.
The W+ and W- bosons actually have a very high rest mass and they also have electric charge. Also, photons don't have zero total mass. They have a mass equal to their energy content through the relationship E=mc2.
a photon is a particle that lack a basis for it's charge!
Photons don't have a charge.
is the warping of space/time a homogenous feature without imperfections, some academics, obviously think so!
I don't understand what this sentence means.
-
kyptid
"Photons don't have a charge."
van physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2348&t=photons-as-carriers-of-the-electromagnetic-force
"high-energy photons produced in particle accelerators may collide with themselves readily."
this insinuates a contradicts in regards to a charged photon.
me " is the warping of space/time a homogenous feature without imperfections, some academics, obviously think so!
kyptid
"I don't understand what this sentence means."
me - it's a reference to space time foam or bubbles or holes. many with your level or greater expertise favor this.
kyptid
"The "contradiction" is all in your mind."
yes, they are they should be in yours.
kyptid
"Some bosons don't have a charge, like photons and gluons" "Bosons do interact via gravity."
presenting both sides for a better possible understanding.
www quora.com/Does-a-moving-charged-particle-have-any-effect-on-gravitational-field
"So once again, the answer to your question is yes: any particle with mass is gravitationally attracted to any other particle with mass, regardless of whether these particles are charged or not."
physics stackexchange.com/questions/87874/why-does-the-standard-model-predict-neutrinos-are-massless
"However the experimentally established phenomenon of neutrino oscillation, which "mixes" neutrino flavour states with neutrino mass states (analogously to CKM mixing), requires neutrinos to have nonzero masses.
yet a neutrino which you claim to have gravitational mass is not attracted to an anti neutrino. contradiction?
too wordy?
a foamed warped space/time fabric is essentially holes. fermion matter on the atomic level is essentially empty space. a neutrino is a bosonic empty field carrying a spin without mass, same as a bosonic photon. a higgs field only develops an energy signature after concussive event that forces one higgs field into another, an empty field in an empty field, wave in a wave. for the lack of a better analogy, a hole in a hole, creating a "well" negative potential. after the higgs field develops an energy signature, it escapes with at least the speed of light, or does it utilize a foam spacetime to appear to do so?
-
kyptid
"Photons don't have a charge."
van physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2348&t=photons-as-carriers-of-the-electromagnetic-force
"high-energy photons produced in particle accelerators may collide with themselves readily."
this insinuates a contradicts in regards to a charged photon.
Photons are carriers of the electromagnetic force, but they themselves do not have an electric charge. The reason that high-energy photons can sometimes interact with each other is because they can briefly transform into electron-positron pairs.
me - it's a reference to space time foam or bubbles or holes. many with your level or greater expertise favor this.
What does that have to do with "warping" in the Einsteinian sense of the word?
yet a neutrino which you claim to have gravitational mass is not attracted to an anti neutrino.
When was it ever demonstrated experimentally that neutrinos are not attracted to antineutrinos? Do you have any concept of how incredibly weak that attraction would be? Do you think we have equipment sensitive enough to measure it?
a neutrino is a bosonic...
Nope, gotta stop you right there. Neutrinos are fermions by the very definition of what a fermion is: a particle with half-integral spin. Neutrinos have the exact same spin value as electrons and quarks (a spin of 1/2). They are firmly fermions.
-
kyptid,
Thank you for your replies, my research of them has broaden my understanding of many peripheral considerations to the topic at hand. I do wish to end my part in this discussion with a reply to your last comment.
Quote from: esquire on Yesterday at 16:35:00
a neutrino is a bosonic...
Nope, gotta stop you right there. Neutrinos are fermions by the very definition of what a fermion is: a particle with half-integral spin. Neutrinos have the exact same spin value as electrons and quarks (a spin of 1/2). They are firmly fermions.
the link below discusses this question and is obliquely ambiguous. I don't believe science is 100% certain as to the status of the neutrino*, again I wish to thank you and evan-au for your time and input, it is much appreciated.
physics stackexchange.com/questions/259667/the-electron-and-neutrino-spin
-
I don't believe science is 100% certain as to the status of the neutrino*
We know that the neutrino and antineutrino have to have a spin of 1/2 due to conservation of angular momentum. When a free neutron decays, it turns into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. Since neutrons have a spin of 1/2, the total spin of all of the decay products must add up to either +1/2 or -1/2 (depending on the direction of the neutron's spin). The proton and electron both have a spin of 1/2 (which can also either be +1/2 or -1/2). If the proton and the electron have the same spin (either both +1/2 or both -1/2), then the antineutrino must be of the opposite spin sign and magnitude in order to make the total spin add up to the original neutron's spin. So the antineutrino must have a spin of 1/2. Since antineutrons decay into antiprotons, positrons and neutrinos, the same 1/2 spin must be possessed by the neutrino as well.