[esquire (OP)]

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.

[esquire (OP)]

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.

[esquire (OP)]

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.

[esquire (OP)]

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.   

[esquire (OP)]

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.

[esquire (OP)]

does an exploding super nova create holes in the space/time fabric? Does it separate gravity? 

[Kryptid]

It behaves like a particle. It has energy, spin, momentum and interacts via the weak nuclear force.

[Janus]

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". 

[The Spoon]

Why have you also posted the same question in New Theories?

[evan_au]

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

[esquire (OP)]

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.

[esquire (OP)]

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. 

[esquire (OP)]

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.

[esquire (OP)]

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?

[evan_au]

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.

[esquire (OP)]

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. 

[Kryptid]

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?

[esquire (OP)]

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. 

[Kryptid]

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.

[esquire (OP)]

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.