The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: corleone on March 04, 2010, 04:17:19 AM

Title: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: corleone on March 04, 2010, 04:17:19 AM
Hi. I'm a physics student, and last summer I had the chance of working with CSIC, a spanish organization about science and particulary with IFIC, the "institute of corpuscular physics" for two months. It was a practice-like job. Well, one of my jobs was to analyze and process the data from ANTARES, a neutrino detector that lies at the bottom of the mediterranean sea. Neutrino are particles that travels without interacting with mater, almost. And are produced greatly by the sun. They don't reflect, they don't bend and usual matter is transparent to them.

Well, we detected, as we were hoping to find out, a massive source of neutrino from the sun. I saw the data. What is amazing about it is that, even at night, when te sun is "under the earth", we still detect neutrino from it, that came trough the entire earth to our detector. SO WE DETECTED THAT THE SUN WAS UNDER OURSELVES (f.e. over China), AND THATS ONLY POSSIBLE WITH RE THEORY. In your FE theory the sun is ALWAYS over our heads and that's INCOMPATIBLE with our experiment. So, what do you say?

Whoever wants to know more about neutrino, ANTARES, and stuff like that, there is plenty of information at wikipedia.

Also, how do you explain wind and cloud movement across the earth? It's all due to coriolis effect, a thing that only happens in a rotating sphere. That causes hurricans, sea flows, etc etc.

PD: sorry about my english, i'm spanish.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: H1GH3r on March 04, 2010, 05:33:21 AM
There are already a few good busy threads on here about Neutrino experiments and the Coriolis effect. ERTW is a neutrino physicist if I'm not mistaken and his thread on the matter pretty much stumped the FE'rs if I recall correctly. As for the Coriolis effect, Tom Bishop posted some piss poor explanation involving wind gears.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ERTW on March 04, 2010, 10:10:28 AM
Neutrinos have been discussed in the following places.

The sun at midnight (Super K):
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=5844.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=5844.0)

Solar neutrinos (SNO, Super K):
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21793.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21793.0)

Beam Neutrinos (T2K, K2K, MINOS):
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27426.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27426.0)

Neutrino detection hardware and software (to counter claims of conspiracy):
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34703.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34703.0)

It would be great if you posted your experience at ANTARES in a new thread, or add it to the other two solar neutrino threads. Both threads have been inactive for a while due to claims that neutrinos are either too difficult to detector or the data is made up. I countered these arguments by creating the Neutrino Detection Hardware (and software) thread.

The Beam Neutrinos thread is somewhat active since it indirectly examines the shape of the Earth instead of the composition of the Sun.

Welcome to the FES!

PS: I am an engineering student, not a physicist. I just happened to get an awesome Co-op job.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: parsec on March 04, 2010, 10:44:25 AM
Both neutrinos and light bend within FET. Neutrinos, unlike photons, interact negligibly with ordinary matter. This renders the whole Earth as basically transparent to neutrinos. A sketch of the idea is the following:

(http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/6333/neutrinoflux.jpg)
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ERTW on March 04, 2010, 10:47:28 AM
Both neutrinos and light bend within FET. Neutrinos, unlike photons, interact negligibly with ordinary matter. This renders the whole Earth as basically transparent to neutrinos. A sketch of the idea is the following:
Glad to see you have some time to look at the neutrino problem again Parsec. I will see you in the Beam Neutrino thread.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: SupahLovah on March 04, 2010, 10:48:12 AM
Both neutrinos and light bend within FET. Neutrinos, unlike photons, interact negligibly with ordinary matter. This renders the whole Earth as basically transparent to neutrinos. A sketch of the idea is the following:

(http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/6333/neutrinoflux.jpg)
Why would the same thing that effects light effect neutrinos? They're not similar.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ERTW on March 04, 2010, 10:49:41 AM
Also Parsec, this has nothing to do with the OP, since his post was about solar neutrinos not beam neutrinos.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: parsec on March 04, 2010, 10:50:15 AM
Both neutrinos and light bend within FET. Neutrinos, unlike photons, interact negligibly with ordinary matter. This renders the whole Earth as basically transparent to neutrinos. A sketch of the idea is the following:

(http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/6333/neutrinoflux.jpg)
Why would the same thing that effects light effect neutrinos? They're not similar.
I don't know. My guess is it has something to do with how the "UA" works and it is not a result of some interaction with the surrounding matter.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: SupahLovah on March 04, 2010, 10:50:52 AM
UA has nothing to do with light bending, either.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: parsec on March 04, 2010, 10:51:10 AM
Also Parsec, this has nothing to do with the OP, since his post was about solar neutrinos not beam neutrinos.
It has everything to do with the OP, since the yellow circle is the Sun and the green square is the terrestrial detector.

EDIT:
UA has nothing to do with light bending, either.
So certain you are.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ERTW on March 04, 2010, 10:54:16 AM
Also Parsec, this has nothing to do with the OP, since his post was about solar neutrinos not beam neutrinos.
It has everything to do with the OP, since the yellow circle is the Sun and the green square is the terrestrial detector.
If you are claiming bendy neutrinos as an answer to solar neutrino observations you should start a new thread. I can see several ways that bendy-ness to achieve solar observations conflicts with bendy-ness to achieve beam observations.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: parsec on March 04, 2010, 10:57:12 AM
Also Parsec, this has nothing to do with the OP, since his post was about solar neutrinos not beam neutrinos.
It has everything to do with the OP, since the yellow circle is the Sun and the green square is the terrestrial detector.
If you are claiming bendy neutrinos as an answer to solar neutrino observations you should start a new thread. I can see several ways that bendy-ness to achieve solar observations conflicts with bendy-ness to achieve beam observations.
Why should I start a different thread? I was addressing his challenge to refute his argument. Also, until you post a particular example, I find your claim to be mere boasting.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: SupahLovah on March 04, 2010, 10:59:36 AM
-IF- you can explain why UA would be able to pick and choose what it accelerates more or less than other things, have a go.

Otherwise you can recall that bendy light is formally "Electromagnetic Acceleration Theory".
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21912.0

Also Parsec, this has nothing to do with the OP, since his post was about solar neutrinos not beam neutrinos.
It has everything to do with the OP, since the yellow circle is the Sun and the green square is the terrestrial detector.
If you are claiming bendy neutrinos as an answer to solar neutrino observations you should start a new thread. I can see several ways that bendy-ness to achieve solar observations conflicts with bendy-ness to achieve beam observations.
Why should I start a different thread? I was addressing his challenge to refute his argument. Also, until you post a particular example, I find your claim to be mere boasting.
He actually said Refutate, which I assume he meant "refutiate", a 'word' John McCain used. Next he'll be telling us his strategery.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ERTW on March 04, 2010, 11:03:47 AM
Also Parsec, this has nothing to do with the OP, since his post was about solar neutrinos not beam neutrinos.
It has everything to do with the OP, since the yellow circle is the Sun and the green square is the terrestrial detector.
If you are claiming bendy neutrinos as an answer to solar neutrino observations you should start a new thread. I can see several ways that bendy-ness to achieve solar observations conflicts with bendy-ness to achieve beam observations.
Why should I start a different thread? I was addressing his challenge to refute his argument. Also, until you post a particular example, I find your claim to be mere boasting.
As for the UA, it has everything to do with bending, since it is an acceleration. However, this acceleration can only bend things in a parabolic path, which will fail to fit the circular curvature of the Earth and fail to describe beam neutrinos. Also, since the UA is modeled as a constant acceleration and the speed of neutrinos is measured to be near the speed of light, an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 cannot make the observed trajectories required for solar neutrino observations.

You are trying to merge the ideas of EA with UA, but it is going to be very tricky. EA currently has no model or mechanism, since it has to bend light without 'acceleration' to produce non-parabolic trajectories. UA acceleration rates work for macro massive objects, but will fail for tiny neutrinos. To be fair the interaction between GR and QED/QCD has the same problem, but at least both theories extensive models, predictions, and experimental evidence for their validity within their region of interest.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: sandokhan on March 04, 2010, 11:13:17 AM
Neutrinos? Are you sure that you know what those "particles" really are? Think again.

THE ELUSIVE NEUTRINO: In my opinion the neutrino concept is the work of a relativistic accountant who tries to balance his books by making a fictitious entry. He does not recognize the existence of the aether and so, when accounting for something where an energy transaction involves an energy transfer to or from the aether, he incorporates an entry under the heading 'neutrinos'.

Neutrinos can be explained as aether rays in motion.

The neutrino was first postulated in 1930 when it was found that, from the standpoint of relativity theory, beta decay (the decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron) seemed to violate the conservation of energy. Wolfgang Pauli saved the day by inventing the neutrino, a particle that would be emitted along with every electron and carry away energy and momentum (the emitted particle is nowadays said to be an antineutrino). W.A. Scott Murray described this as an implausible ad hoc suggestion designed to make the experimental facts agree with the theory and not far removed from a confidence trick.  Aspden calls the neutrino a figment of the imagination invented in order to make the books balance and says that it simply denotes the capacity of the aether to absorb energy and momentum.


My spanish physics student friend, you are lucky indeed for having found this site, this is where you will learn the facts about the real shape of the atom, you can bet your last neutrino on that:

Here is the best work which does show the catastrophic mistakes committed by both Michelson and Morley in their disastrous experiment of 1877:

http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm

And now the final proof that the Rutherford-Bohr atom model is JUST A HOAX:

http://www.romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/?p=13 (read this carefully, the photographs taken with the electronic scanner of the atoms, shows that there are no orbiting electrons around a nucleus)

See here also:

http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96&Itemid=36

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-flaw.asp (photographs of the atom)

CASE AGAINST THE NUCLEAR ATOM, BY DR. DEWEY LARSON:

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm

See, you have a lot of homework to do...what you learn there is equal to ZERO my friend...

The aether radiation called neutrinos can have many other sources, not just the Sun...


Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ERTW on March 04, 2010, 11:31:00 AM
Neutrinos? Are you sure that you know what those "particles" really are? Think again.

THE ELUSIVE NEUTRINO: In my opinion the neutrino concept is the work of a relativistic accountant who tries to balance his books by making a fictitious entry. He does not recognize the existence of the aether and so, when accounting for something where an energy transaction involves an energy transfer to or from the aether, he incorporates an entry under the heading 'neutrinos'.

Neutrinos can be explained as aether rays in motion.
...
My spanish physics student friend, you are lucky indeed for having found this site, this is where you will learn the facts about the real shape of the atom, you can bet your last neutrino on that:
...
And now the final proof that the Rutherford-Bohr atom model is JUST A HOAX:

http://www.romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/?p=13 (read this carefully, the photographs taken with the electronic scanner of the atoms, shows that there are no orbiting electrons around a nucleus)
...

See, you have a lot of homework to do...what you learn there is equal to ZERO my friend...

The aether radiation called neutrinos can have many other sources, not just the Sun...

While your links to various sources of information on the composition of atoms is interesting, it is irrelevant to current nuclear models. Attempting to refute Bohr's nuclear model in no way refutes QED/QCD or the CKM matrix, which are the modern theories that describe neutrino behavior.

Your links to 'pictures' of the atom to prove the absence of electron orbits is hilarious. Do you know that those pictures are generated using electron currents through the quantum tunneling effect? The absence of a visual image of electrons in orbit from an STM as disproof of the standard model is a straw man at best. The author of the STM article you linked to lacks formal physics training, and as stated in his bio he conducted a "wide ranging study of the historical development of the theories of atomic structure of matter over a period of ten years,which involved searching for out of print publications".

And yes, neutrinos have been observed from many sources, including nuclear reactors and particle accelerators. Regardless of what you want to call them, neutrinos have been observed in dozens of experiments under controlled conditions with statistical significance. Their behavior is under close scrutiny by thousands of scientists around the world. You should read through the Solar Neutrino or Beam Neutrino threads if you want to join the discussion on neutrinos. It is you who has to do some homework.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: H1GH3r on March 04, 2010, 11:40:11 AM
Quote
The author of the STM article you linked to lacks formal physics training, and as stated in his bio he conducted a "wide ranging study of the historical development of the theories of atomic structure of matter over a period of ten years,which involved searching for out of print publications".

Ha ha, win.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ERTW on March 04, 2010, 11:47:37 AM
As for your link to Dr Dewey Larson:

On his website you fill find a vast array of technical papers on many physical phenomenon. It is easy for him to question the accuracy of observations used decades ago since we can now observe much more accurately. And it is also true that some people misuse scientific theories or misunderstand them, even college professors. However, your attempt to use his refutation of the Bohr model of the atom is still irrelevant to the assertions of modern physics.

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana06.htm
'How can there be “much physical and chemical evidence” of the correctness of a theory that is admittedly wrong?" (Larson)

This is similar to the situation with Newtonian gravity. Every engineer uses Newtonian gravity for calculations and predictions. Bridges and buildings have to be designed, and nobody is going to use tensors and GR to design support columns. An enormous amount of evidence exists to support the Newtonian gravity description of nature, which is accurate because nature around us is generally at non-relativistic speeds. It is only when searching in the cosmos that we find the orbit of Mercury and other stellar phenomenon that we need a more general theory. GR describes these relativistic situations, and in non-relativistic situations can be approximated by Newtonian gravity.

In the same way the Bohr model is useful for understanding chemical reactions, since they occur at non-nuclear energies, where the Bohr model breaks down and QCD/QED can more accurately describe events. In the same way the Bohr model can be considered a useful approximation in its region of interest.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: Lord Wilmore on March 04, 2010, 12:14:39 PM
Refutate isn't a word. LOL ur dum.


Please keep low-content posts out of the upper boards.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: Xerox on March 04, 2010, 02:43:45 PM
Anyone who has read Clarke's "Songs from Distant Earth" knows that the sun is running out of neutrino generating power and our solar system is doomed.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 04, 2010, 02:49:02 PM
Neutrinos certainly can't be accelerated electromagnetically. Also they would bend the other way to light as I understand it. As to what they have to do with the Bohr model of the atom I have no idea. This is a rather incoherent thread its rather hard to debate.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ugaboga313 on March 04, 2010, 03:48:06 PM
Levee has his own theories.


But I don't see how the same force that bends photons bends neutrinos. The only reason provided is from Parsec and that is because the earth is flat so it has to bend.

It is pretty silly to assume something and make an assumption based on the original assumption that makes that original assumption correct.

Neutrino's seem to damn FET.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: markjo on March 04, 2010, 06:07:01 PM
Anyone who has read Clarke's "Songs from Distant Earth" knows that the sun is running out of neutrino generating power and our solar system is doomed.

Yes, in about 4-5 billion years the sun will go nova and none of this will matter anymore.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: sandokhan on March 05, 2010, 04:13:57 AM
ertw...I have dealt many times with the likes of people like you...look at your own messages, perhaps you know, at this point in time, about 5% of what you should know in order to debate here...

No atoms had even remotely been seen visually until 1985, when IBM Research Almaden Labs was the first to use an electron tunneling microscope to actually photograph the organization of molecules of germanium in an ink-blot. Here what we see from this experiment are indistinct, fuzzy spherical objects that appear to have some non-spherical geometric qualities to their shape and are in an extremely geometric pattern of organization, which was definitely a surprise for conventional science. How could the random nature of atoms described by the Heisenberg principle, ever result in such an ordered pattern? Perhaps the probability distributions are not 'distributions' at all.

(http://www.blazelabs.com/pics/atomsibm.jpg)

Furthermore, when quantum physicists have studied the electrons of the atom, they have observed that they are not actually points at all, not particulate in nature, but rather form smooth, teardrop-shaped clouds where the narrowest ends of the drops converge upon a very tiny point in the center.

There are no Electron Orbits! Bohr's model, which started the notion of electrons traveling around the nucleus like planets has misled a lot of people and scientists. If you have learned such an idea, forget about it immediately. Instead, all calculations and all experiments show that no satellite-like orbital motion exists in the normal atom. Instead, there are standing wave patterns, very similar indeed to the polar plots of antenna radiation patterns. For example, see the case M=0 and L=0, where the standing wave pattern is entirely spherical, this being equivalent to a pure isotropic antenna radiation plot. Similarly for M=1, L=1, the pattern is exactly the same as that of a half wave dipole, and so on. No one ever asks or requires for an antenna's radiation pattern to be formed of orbiting electrons, and yet we know that the standing wave generated from a typical radio antenna, posseses inertia, and can act upon external matter by means of radiation pressure. The electron path is NOT around and far off the nucleus, nor is the atom made up of 99.999% empty space!. Instead, the center of the electron pattern is also the center of the proton pattern. This is the normal situation of the H atoms in the universe; they have spherical symmetry, not orbits. You see, particulate matter is not requirement to generate the effects known to define matter.

Did you read as I have asked, this http://www.romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/?p=13 ? Certainly the arguments you will find there will lead to the right path, there are no electrons orbiting a nucleus, the first postulate of Bohr does not specify the energy required to accomplish such a task. You have no idea what neutrinos are, or how they would originate from the sun at all, I advise you to read up my take on the solar neutrinos, you might learn something.

Please refrain in the future form making coments without having read the links or having understood what is going on here.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 05, 2010, 05:55:20 AM
It is a little bit unfair to say Bohr was misleading. He realised that there was quantisation in the atom but he only quantised angular momentum. At the time he published his idea (1913? ish maybe) quantum theory was still in infancy neither the Heisenberg or Schrodinger formulations of quantum mechanics had been developed so the probablisitc nature of quantum mechanics was not clear. In the 1920s when Heisenberg developed the matrix forumulation and Schrodinger the wave formulation then things fell into place quite quickly. Actually the energy levels Bohr dervied are suprisingly accurate given the approximations he unknowingly made. For the purposes of biology and much of physics and chemistry the Bohr model is the tradeoff between simplicity and accuracy that is still used today.

It still isn't clear to me what any of this has to do with neutrinos. The neutrino was hypothesised to explain nuclear beta decay. Anyone here who has done physics beyond high school will be well aware that the energy distribution from beta decay is continuous revealing that it must be a three body decay. The exact electron momentum spectrum is;
X(p) = Bp2(Q-Te2)F(Z, p)|M|2S.
I missed out a couple of subscripts as i was going cross-eyed but if you noticed your not getting much out of this post anyway.

Although the kinematics of the beta decay very quickly showed that such a particle must be very light. This concerned Pauli who apologised profusely for predicting a particle that could not be detected. Although it became clear as particle interaction theory developed that the difference between weakly intereacting and non-interactnig was huge. Infact it even became called the weak interaction due to its weakness. Fortunately nuclear reactors generate neutrinos by the gajillion. Reines and Cowan first detected a neutrino for a nuclear reactor in about 1953. After that attention turned to the sun. During the 1990s Superkamiokande made some fantastic plots showing the direction neutrinos were coming from as a function of time of day. During the day most neutrinos came from above and at night most came from through the floor. Now once again attention is turning to intense sources of man made neutrinos fired through the Earth to observe quantum phenomena that occur because they are both light and weakly interacting.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: parsec on March 05, 2010, 09:48:39 AM
nice copypasta. Trying to keep up with levee I see.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 05, 2010, 09:58:35 AM
I'm not where near stoned enough to keep up with levee. Where was that copy pasted from? Most of the neutrino stuff was from the opening paragraph of my thesis. I guess I could have got the beta stuff from anywhere (though unusually for this forum not wiki, i just looked), though my influences include my second year nuclear notes. Its pretty much just the Fermi Golden rule for nuclear beta decay, not rokcet science.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: SupahLovah on March 05, 2010, 10:03:34 AM
I'm not where near stoned enough to keep up with levee. Where was that copy pasted from? Most of the neutrino stuff was from the opening paragraph of my thesis. I guess I could have got the beta stuff from anywhere (though unusually for this forum not wiki, i just looked), though my influences include my second year nuclear notes. Its pretty much just the Fermi Golden rule for nuclear beta decay, not rokcet science.
How does it feel to know you'll never be able to call yourself a rocket scientist? If you were, you'd be part of the conspiracy, though.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 05, 2010, 10:12:21 AM
I'm not where near stoned enough to keep up with levee. Where was that copy pasted from? Most of the neutrino stuff was from the opening paragraph of my thesis. I guess I could have got the beta stuff from anywhere (though unusually for this forum not wiki, i just looked), though my influences include my second year nuclear notes. Its pretty much just the Fermi Golden rule for nuclear beta decay, not rokcet science.
How does it feel to know you'll never be able to call yourself a rocket scientist? If you were, you'd be part of the conspiracy, though.

Im a neutrino physicist so I am in on it. It feels pretty good to be in on a conspiracy. Unfortunately theres so many of us in on it now its kinda lost the exclusivity. Its the little things that cause the problems. When environmentalists started tagging whales we had to buy new ships to move the whales around the ocean because obviosuly they cant move fast enough to do it on their own. Also things like that Tsunami the other week you have no idea how hard it was to make it appear in Australia 12 hours before Japan. Still no rest for the wicked, literally.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ERTW on March 05, 2010, 10:51:31 AM
ertw...I have dealt many times with the likes of people like you...look at your own messages, perhaps you know, at this point in time, about 5% of what you should know in order to debate here...
...
A bunch of stuff about Bohr Model...
...
I am going to let bowler refute your statements, since he is actually a neutrino physicist. However, I must point out that nothing you have stated so far has anything to do with modern physics. You can refute Bohr's model all you want, but it has no bearing on our ability to measure neutrinos.

I think you are also misunderstanding my support of the Bohr model. I never said it was true to nature. I specifically said it was a good approximation in certain situations. If you want to think about simple covalent bonds and simple stoichometry a basic Bohr model of the atom is enough. If you want to understand sp3 hybridization then of course you need the more advanced 'pear shaped' orbitals that you mentioned. Each of these models are tools, useful in their own region of interest.

So, I suggest you make your argument more clear. If you are really arguing that neutrinos don't exist then I suggest you present an explanation for the many underground shielded neutrino observations made to date.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: sandokhan on March 06, 2010, 06:37:19 AM
Fair enough.

The correct model of the atom HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE CORRECT MODEL OF THE NEUTRINO; is the neutrino a particle, or an aether ray?

From one of the most prestigious physicists of the second half of the 20th century, Harold Puthoff:

Classical physics tells us that if we think of an atom as a miniature solar system with electronic planets orbiting a nuclear sun, then it should not exist. The circling electrons SHOULD RADIATE AWAY their energy like microscopic radio antennas and spiral into the nucleus. To resolve this problem, physicists had to introduce a set of mathematical rules, called quantum mechanics, to describe what happens. Quantum theory endows matter and energy with both wave and particle-like characteristics. It also restrains electrons to particular orbits, or energy levels, so they cannot radiate energy unless they jump from one orbit to another.
Measuring the spectral lines of atoms verifies that quantum theory is correct. Atoms appear to emit or absorb packets of light, or photons, with a wavelength that exactly coincides with the difference between its energy levels as predicted by quantum theory. As a result, the majority of physicists are content simply to use quantum rules that describe so accurately what happens in their experiments.

Nevertheless, when we repeat the question: "But why doesn't the electron radiate away its energy?", the answer is: "Well, in quantum theory it JUST DOESN'T". It is at this point that not only the layman but also some physicists begin to feel that someone is not playing fair. Indeed, much of modern physics is based on theories couched in a form that works but they do not answer the fundamental questions of what gravity is, why the Universe is the way it is, or how it got started anyway.


Bohr had no right to propose a postulate WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE SOURCE OF THE ENERGY REQUIRED FOR THE ELECTRONS TO CONTINUE TO ORBIT AROUND THE NUCLEUS. The assumptions made by both Rutherford and Bohr are dealt with in the Case against the Nuclear Atom by Dr. Dewey Larson, and are shown to be dead wrong.

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana02.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana03.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana04.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana05.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana01.htm

W. Pauli introduced the notion of the neutrino, BASED TOTALLY ON THE ORBITING ELECTRON MODEL OF BOHR; here are some comments:

THE ELUSIVE NEUTRINO: In my opinion the neutrino concept is the work of a relativistic accountant who tries to balance his books by making a fictitious entry. He does not recognize the existence of the aether and so, when accounting for something where an energy transaction involves an energy transfer to or from the aether, he incorporates an entry under the heading 'neutrinos'.

Since the 1980s technological advances such as the the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) have made it possible to view, and even manipulate, the individual atoms on the surfaces of solid matter. Such images are widely available, but each one takes a considerable amount of time to produce by moving the tip of the probe slowly back and forth across the target, and in every case the atoms depicted are clearly defined, as in the image below, which is a representation of the image of atoms at the surface of a sample of solid matter.

(http://www.romunpress.co.nz/images/ElectronMicroscopeFig1.jpg)

Such images, when first produced, finally confirmed beyond all doubt the existence of atoms as individual, spherical structures, which in solids are in close proximity to others and arranged in the rows or patterns that could be expected to form for a conglomeration of larger spherical objects such a balls or oranges. But the most striking result is that there is no evidence of discontinuity in these images, and even more significantly there is no evidence of the assumed independent motion or oscillation of atoms in this state.

If as kinetic theory suggests, each of the atoms of a solid are oscillating eternally within a set volume of empty space separating it from adjacent atoms, then instead of the clearly defined images of rows of spherical atoms, the images of the atoms would be indistinct and blurred.

Any independent observer would accordingly conclude that in this state of matter atoms do not have any characteristic of independent motion and that no empty space or vacuum exists, between them, eminent physicists however, instead of accepting these visual images as representing the reality of atomic interactions in solids, cling to current scientific dogma and reject these clear results, inventing vague and patently unsatisfactory reasons as to why these empirical results do not contradict the hypothetical concepts of kinetic motion and discontinuity.


http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm
A fascinating look at the fact that J. Chadwick discovered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 1932, NO PARTICLE CALLED THE NEUTRON...there are some threads which attempt to prove the fake nuclear weapons scenario (see the material I have posted here already)...the physics behind the nuclear atom is completely false...
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=894


Sun Neutrino Paradox.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume9/issue2/features/cull2.html

The explanation offered in the 1930s by H. Bethe (thrown out of Germany for incompetence) is completely wrong, and the modern arguments using the tau-neutrino/muon-neutrino (from electron-neutrino), and a fourth type of neutrino, do not work either.

A site which shows that the sun neutrino problem has not been solved at all:

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm

The 'missing neutrinos' problem is a serious one. *Corliss considers it 'one of the most significant anomalies in astronomy.' (W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 40.) Bahcall comments on the seriousness of the problem:

'At least one part of the theory of stellar interiors is probably wrong, although there is yet no observational evidence that the basic ideas of stellar evolution and nuclear fusion in stars are incorrect. We of course do not know which part of the theory is wrong, but it seems likely that the solution of the solar neutrino problem may affect other applications of the theory of stellar interiors.'John N. Bahcall, 'Some Unsolved Problems in Astrophysics,' Astronomical Journal, 76:283 (1971).


It is hoped that some type of 'barrier' will yet be found which is shielding the earth so that solar neutrinos which ought to be there since the hydrogen fusion theory 'has to be correct'will yet be discovered. But Larson takes a dim view of the situation.

'The mere fact that the hydrogen conversion process can be seriously threatened by a marginal experiment of this kind emphasizes the precarious status of a hypothesis that rests almost entirely on the current absence of any superior alternative. 'Dewey B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984), p. 11.


Scientists have searched for incoming solar neutrinos since the mid-1960s, yet hardly any arrive to be measured. Yet, they dare not accept the truth of the situation?for that would mean an alternative which would shatter major evolutionary theories.

Neutrinos, as N. Tesla showed, COME FROM THE AETHER AND NOT FROM THE ATOM ITSELF.

Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 06, 2010, 06:57:35 AM
This almost makes me angry. The effort that we go to in explaining our work and theres still stuff like this out there.

Electrons, for the record are kept from falling into the atom by statistics. The same statics that means it hurts when you punch a table, despite, as you pointed out, that a table is mostly empty space.

The neutrino HAS NOTHING WHTSOEVER to do with electrons orbiting atoms. It could (and infact will) be created by a neutron in complete isolation of atoms, although in this situation we call it neutron decay not beta decay but the particle process is identical. The discrepancy in the quantity of neutrinos coming from the sun was solved by SNO in 2001. The refernce you gave shows a lack of understanding of physics that is frankly mindboggling. I need to go now but I will gladly write a thread on SNO in as much detail as is required. Essentially they could tell the difference between the types of neutrino made by the sun and the two types not made by the sun. Instead of finding a ratio 3:0:0 they found 1:1:1.

The neutrino oscillations they inferred from this results has now been confirmed by a number of terrestrial neutrino experiments.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: sandokhan on March 06, 2010, 07:05:26 AM
This almost makes me angry. The effort that we go to in explaining our work and theres still stuff like this out there.

Electrons, for the record are kept from falling into the atom by statistics. The same statics that means it hurts when you punch a table, despite, as you pointed out, that a table is mostly empty space.

The neutrino HAS NOTHING WHTSOEVER to do with electrons orbiting atoms. It could (and infact will) be created by a neutron in complete isolation of atoms, although in this situation we call it neutron decay not beta decay but the particle process is identical. The discrepancy in the quantity of neutrinos coming from the sun was solved by SNO in 2001. The refernce you gave shows a lack of understanding of physics that is frankly mindboggling. I need to go now but I will gladly write a thread on SNO in as much detail as is required. Essentially they could tell the difference between the types of neutrino made by the sun and the two types not made by the sun. Instead of finding a ratio 3:0:0 they found 1:1:1.

The neutrino oscillations they inferred from this results has now been confirmed by a number of terrestrial neutrino experiments.

Now you said it Bowler! Electrons, for the record are kept from falling into the atom by statistics, is this what you are saying? How could statistics my friend offer the enormous energy required to keep those electrons going? Have you ever thought seriously about this?

Please read the link to the original paper of J. Chadwick, who did not discover any neutron at all.


The neutrino was first postulated in 1930 when it was found that, from the standpoint of relativity theory, beta decay (the decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron) seemed to violate the conservation of energy. Wolfgang Pauli saved the day by inventing the neutrino, a particle that would be emitted along with every electron and carry away energy and momentum (the emitted particle is nowadays said to be an antineutrino). W.A. Scott Murray described this as an implausible ad hoc suggestion designed to make the experimental facts agree with the theory and not far removed from a confidence trick.  Aspden calls the neutrino a figment of the imagination invented in order to make the books balance and says that it simply denotes the capacity of the aether to absorb energy and momentum.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: Thermal Detonator on March 06, 2010, 07:07:59 AM
Once Levee enters a thread you might as well board it up and paint a red cross on it.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 06, 2010, 07:17:35 AM
It doesn't really require energy to keep the electrons from falling. Theres no where for them to fall to. Its like asking why a golf ball doesnt fall into the hole when its not above the hole. If the energy of the electrons is sufficiently high then in the ultra-relativisitic regime energy levels can break down. Though obviously in normal mechanics this is not important, its becomes very important if you study teh collapse of stars.

Also i'd keep that SNO critique website away from scientists. It lacked even the most basic level of understanding. Whats a 90% confidence level? Thats maths even the biologists can manage.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 06, 2010, 07:19:25 AM
Once Levee enters a thread you might as well board it up and paint a red cross on it.

I'd noticed thats what makes it fun
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: sandokhan on March 07, 2010, 10:18:01 AM
bowler, read the following carefully...

The fuzzy Schroedinger-Heisenberg-Born picture of atomic orbitals as probability waves (in which the probability of finding the electron is proportional to the square of the wavefunction) is completely false.

The involvement of Rutherford:

Around 1911, Rutherford carried out an experiment where he assumed far too much about matter without the necessary tools or equipment to substantiate his notions and beliefs. His research based on observational illusions and the chemical model introduced by Davy around 1810. At the time, Rutherford knew very little about the nature of metals, or the properties of atoms, so he drew his conclusions based on the accepted electro-chemical theory, observations, and here again, observational illusions distracted Rutherford from making the correct conclusions. As the next several Chapters explain, in the explorative research stage, with a high probability of error, Rutherford drew three conclusions far too early, which he promoted as true. Owing to his flawed experimental design, his analysis and research conclusions produced an atomic model that failed to explain Nature's Chemistry. With scientific acceptance coming through the backdoor, 'Since Rutherford shattered the atom which Chemistry states as indivisible, then his atomic model must be true.' As a junction point, the acceptance and promotion of Bohr's atomic model by Rutherford, introduced many scientific mysteries. So poor the Rutherford concept in explanation, Chemistry maintained the 1806 atomic model introduced by Dalton, because many crystal and molecular structures defined chemical precision, described and explained by chemical alignment, bond position, bond-length, bond strength and structure, all of which instantly became scientific mysteries.


When Rutherford proposed his atomic model, he used a Gold-leaf electroscope to measure the strength of the alpha-particle radiation passing through the metal foil. Rutherford's lack on knowledge about matter and the primitive technology of the time, caused him to wrongfully conclude the atom as being 99.9999% empty space. Many years later, the differences between metallic bonds and normal chemical bonds were identified. Unfortunately, Science turned a blind-eye to the fact that the electron cloud atomic models are wrong.

In 1913, there was no knowledge of microwaves, single side band transmissions, frequency modulation, nor was there any knowledge of radio astronomy, and very little known of frequencies above ultra-violet or below infrared. It is accepted as fact that 'all the theories in Physics have limitation that breakdown and that these theories become less accurate as the speed is made to approach the speed of light'. Without any rules to guide him, without following the scientific method, Bohr suggested a radical hypothesis. He quantised mass, energy and the orbital parameters, including the speed of the electron in orbit, at a quantised orbital height, that excited Rutherford and would be accepted in giving credence to an unnatural atomic model. Through direct reasoning Bohr derived a mathematical short-cut to describe what seemed to be Hydrogen spectral lines. His solution is a ruthless empirical short-cut or mathematical trick that appears to work. He did so without involving any natural mechanism or contemplating Hydrogen's molecular and crystalline state. Bohr deduced, the larger his quantum number, the larger the atom and the slower the orbital frequency, thereby increasing the period of time for the atom to transit from one state to the next. Quantum theory needed to explain light in quantum steps, so from this deluded notion about Nature and matter, came another deluded notion.

Thomson battled the terrestrial illusion of exploding chemical batteries, for the ignorant argued that when charges neutralise, the atom must short out and explode. During this time of enormous change, electric lights replaced gas mantles in the streets, theatre, and in the home; motor vehicles began replacing the horse and cart; Marconni retaliated and attacked the arrogant scientific community's pecuniary rejection of radio transmission; while world politics rapidly headed to a point of starting the war to end all wars. With so little known, about the atom, about electricity, about magnetism, about gravity, about radiation, about the magnetic spectrum, speculation and errors hijacked the sciences creating self-proving tendentious theory based on terrestrial illusions.

In point, Bohr suggested a means preventing the atom exploding when charges neutralise. Although the concept of a central positively charged nucleus surrounded by orbiting negatively charged electrons seemed to remove the acceptance problems in Thomson's model, explaining the theory of octaves by deception, it won some academic acceptance. Many found the model very difficult to use, having inherent real world animation problems. By 1912, Rutherford's education, his acceptance of the Bohr construct and his subsequent experiments on thin metal foils, led him to introduce this construct as his revolutionary atomic model; where the negative electrons orbit the positive nucleus. On paper, the static atomic model seems to satisfy the chemist's bonding requirements, placing the bonding electrons in the atom's outer orbital shell. Unfortunately, as Chemical theory promoted the fact of an indivisible atom, Rutherford's atomic model won popular appeal through default, due to the fact that the daily news carried various headlines stating in bold type, 'Rutherford splits the atom.' Because Chemistry got it so wrong, gullible people assumed that Rutherford's other claims must be right, and therefore, electrons do orbit the nucleus. Enthusiastically, the youth of the day accepted the assumption as an assertion of fact, and with these preconditioned beliefs, many knowledge viruses spread and mutated.

Indoctrination created Chemistry's biggest problem, a closed mind-set where the chemical sciences place Davy's electrochemical theory, the electron-cloud atomic model and valency, as being above Nature. The currently accepted electron cloud atomic model may appear wonderful when sketched on paper, however, any three dimensional animation of such a model instantly generates unsolvable problems that serve to confuse. Although claimed to be like the Solar System, with a central body, orbited by electrons, that any astronomer should be able to compute, Chemistry and Quantum theory deliberately mystify the theory's abject failure, calling on the uncertainty principle and peer pressure to give this model credibility. Without giving the student any other option, educators overcome a student's acceptance problem through stealth, 'Well suppose this is true, then, this must occur and here you see that it does...'

Chemistry's acceptance of this flawed electron-cloud atomic model seems enigmatic for it confuses everything, to such a degree that although Chemistry expounds great knowledge about molecular structures, bond lengths, bond angles, bond strengths and molecular properties, the replaced Dalton atomic model must be used when explaining simple molecular structures. As a knowledge virus, the electron cloud atomic model fails Science, with poorly conceived, illogical and invalid atomic-chemical theory presented as fact.

According to Bohr's version of the electro-chemical theory, each atom tends to form a complete inert atom, and so requires a total of eight electrons in the atom's outer orbital shell to satisfy the molecule's over-all atomic structure. This means that each atom must share one or more electrons, so that each atom in the molecule effectively carries '8' electrons in the outer shell. When satisfied, the reaction ceases, as the molecule can no longer enter other reactions. This naive, mystical, and mythical belief established itself in the foundation stone of the modern periodic table and Chemistry. However, since the animated Rutherford atomic model fails to explain simple chemical reactions and molecular alignment, in adopting many of Chemistry's invalid notions, and whatever else fitted, Chemistry gave birth to a mutant off-spring, Quantum Theory. Through a process of guesstimations and closest-fit approximations, Niels Bohr determined the Periodic Table's present shape.


 Rutherford, in deducing the existence of the atomic nucleus from his bombardment of metal films with alpha particles, made a possibly incorrect deduction. Rather than a tiny, massive nucleus at the center of a frothy, electron-filled atom, Rutherford's experiment could be equally well interpreted as indicating a tiny atom surrounded by nothing except energy fields. Thus, a return to the Daltonian atom, a featureless sphere of the size we associate with what we call the atomic nucleus.

With Rutherford's assumption quickly elevated to unquestioned fact, it became necessary to pile assumption upon rickety assumption to account for observed phenomena in terms of an internal atomic structure that did not really exist. The prime architects of this supposedly fallacious mass of atomic theory and the villains of Larson's drama were Niels Bohr, who quantized the nonexistent electrons within the atom, and Werner K. Heisenberg who dragged in Uncertainty to account of everything that could not otherwise be taken care of.


Here, bowler, are J. Chadwick's own words, in which he tells us HE DISCOVERED NO PARTICLE (NEUTRON) AT ALL:

Up to the present, all the evidence is in favour of the neutron, while the quantum hypothesis can only be upheld if the conservation of energy and momentum be relinquished at some point.

Which is it to be? Will you believe, for belief is what is being demanded, in the neutron? Or are you prepared to overturn the laws of physics? Even Chadwick seems shocked at the choice he offers. He relents at the last, and the paper coasts to a close with a postponement of judgement at some point.

W. Pauli used the same terminology and words to describe his "discoveries":

The neutrino must exist, Pauli reasoned, because otherwise the atomic process known as beta decay would violate the physical laws of conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum.

But, the law of conservation of energy will be violated each and every time we access the aether, as Tesla has shown a long time ago.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: Thermal Detonator on March 07, 2010, 10:48:09 AM
It's astonishing he can fit so little content into such a large post.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 07, 2010, 12:25:38 PM
I read carefully and I recognise those words.....
Did you open a book on the history of physics and randomly paste words into a text box? I can't think of any other way those words could end up next to each other.

I'm talking about neutrinos other than the fact none of that makes any sense to me whatsoever i'm even less clear what it has to do with neutrinos. They're not hypothetical they've been detected, numerous times. The background on my computer is of an event display showing a neutrino interaction.

The trouble is that you take a snippet of information, in this case the last sentence from James Chadwicks paper on the discovery of the neutron [Nature 192, 312 (1932)] without really understanding in context in science. At the time it was not known that the proton and neutron were composite particles and thir interaction was via the strong force. Given that the force of the interaction was not even known about much less that mechanics by which it interacts its hardly suprising that the kinematics didn't work out. Infact modern quantum mechanics is built upon conservation of energy. Abraham Pais one of pioneers of the strong interaction does the subject far more justice than I can in his book 'Inward Bound'.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ERTW on March 07, 2010, 04:37:46 PM
Levee, you keep saying that the correct model of the atom is so important to understanding the neutrino, which it is. Then in each following sentence you talk about the Bohr model. I seem to have to continue to repeat myself by saying "Physicists do not rely on the Bohr model to understand neutrino behavior". Perhaps the Bohr model was the most accurate at the time when the neutrino was first envisioned, but that in no way limits us in how we can now understand it.
By continuing to argue the validity of the Bohr model you are showing how you completely misunderstand the physics in question. It is similar to arguing that the Wright brothers used wood in their airplane, and therefore human flight is inherently doomed because wood rots. Luckily today we know about aluminum and carbon fiber. In the same way, today we have much more accurate models of the atom, which you are going to have to refute to prove that we some how misunderstand neutrinos. I can understand why you would instead go after the Bohr model since it is easier to show its flaws with today's understanding, but with regards to neutrino's this is a total straw man.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: sandokhan on March 09, 2010, 10:55:35 AM
ertw and bowler, your tortured logic and innuendos cannot hide the fact that you had no idea that both Rutherford and Bohr simply MADE UP or interpreted without any proofs whatsoever an experiment, which, as you have seen from Larson's book, had a much better interpretation, according to which the atom is a continuous cloud of energy made up of various vortices.

It is also very clear that I understand much better than you the history of the invention of the planetary atomic model, and that both of you have relied so far just on quotes from various textbooks, and that both of you have accepted simple interpretations which had no proofs whatsoever going for them.

The last sentence from J. Chadwick's disertation speaks very clearly for itself: Chadwick had NO IDEA what he was doing or what the data in front of him actually meant.

If you, bowler, would present a disertation which would end in this manner, need we think how the examining committee would reply to you?

They would have told you that you need to research the matter further, and that more experiments are needed, SPECULATION on what happened is very fine, but it belongs in a fictional work and not in a scientific disertation.

Now, W. Pauli built further the notion of the orbiting electrons atomic model, and based his interpretation of the beta decay phenomenon on such an approach. His description of the neutrino, AS A PARTICLE, clearly is just an INTERPRETATION, with no proof whatsoever.

W.A. Scott Murray described this as an implausible ad hoc suggestion designed to make the experimental facts agree with the theory and not far removed from a confidence trick.  Aspden calls the neutrino a figment of the imagination invented in order to make the books balance and says that it simply denotes the capacity of the aether to absorb energy and momentum.



Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: 2fst4u on March 09, 2010, 01:05:38 PM
How can you possibly post so many words, and yet not explain anything?
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ugaboga313 on March 09, 2010, 04:02:31 PM
ertw and bowler, your tortured logic and innuendos cannot hide the fact that you had no idea that both Rutherford and Bohr simply MADE UP or interpreted without any proofs whatsoever an experiment, which, as you have seen from Larson's book, had a much better interpretation, according to which the atom is a continuous cloud of energy made up of various vortices.

It is also very clear that I understand much better than you the history of the invention of the planetary atomic model, and that both of you have relied so far just on quotes from various textbooks, and that both of you have accepted simple interpretations which had no proofs whatsoever going for them.

The last sentence from J. Chadwick's disertation speaks very clearly for itself: Chadwick had NO IDEA what he was doing or what the data in front of him actually meant.

If you, bowler, would present a disertation which would end in this manner, need we think how the examining committee would reply to you?

They would have told you that you need to research the matter further, and that more experiments are needed, SPECULATION on what happened is very fine, but it belongs in a fictional work and not in a scientific disertation.

Now, W. Pauli built further the notion of the orbiting electrons atomic model, and based his interpretation of the beta decay phenomenon on such an approach. His description of the neutrino, AS A PARTICLE, clearly is just an INTERPRETATION, with no proof whatsoever.

W.A. Scott Murray described this as an implausible ad hoc suggestion designed to make the experimental facts agree with the theory and not far removed from a confidence trick.  Aspden calls the neutrino a figment of the imagination invented in order to make the books balance and says that it simply denotes the capacity of the aether to absorb energy and momentum.





Describe Aether Pl0x. Also, try to include how history has only existed for 300 years in your description pl0x. Also try to cite all the fringe sources while ignoring the massive body of research that would be invalidated if what you said was true pl0x.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: Raist on March 10, 2010, 12:05:56 AM
Hi. I'm a physics student, and last summer I had the chance of working with CSIC, a spanish organization about science and particulary with IFIC, the "institute of corpuscular physics" for two months. It was a practice-like job. Well, one of my jobs was to analyze and process the data from ANTARES, a neutrino detector that lies at the bottom of the mediterranean sea. Neutrino are particles that travels without interacting with mater, almost. And are produced greatly by the sun. They don't reflect, they don't bend and usual matter is transparent to them.

Well, we detected, as we were hoping to find out, a massive source of neutrino from the sun. I saw the data. What is amazing about it is that, even at night, when te sun is "under the earth", we still detect neutrino from it, that came trough the entire earth to our detector. SO WE DETECTED THAT THE SUN WAS UNDER OURSELVES (f.e. over China), AND THATS ONLY POSSIBLE WITH RE THEORY. In your FE theory the sun is ALWAYS over our heads and that's INCOMPATIBLE with our experiment. So, what do you say?

Whoever wants to know more about neutrino, ANTARES, and stuff like that, there is plenty of information at wikipedia.

Also, how do you explain wind and cloud movement across the earth? It's all due to coriolis effect, a thing that only happens in a rotating sphere. That causes hurricans, sea flows, etc etc.

PD: sorry about my english, i'm spanish.

So you detected that particles that go through everything hit your detector even at night? How again does that prove they were coming through china?
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: corleone on March 10, 2010, 07:23:42 AM
So you detected that particles that go through everything hit your detector even at night? How again does that prove they were coming through china?

Neutrino enters a water chamber and hits some water, then a "blast" of Tzerenkov radiation is generated and detected by photo-detectors placed at the walls of the chamber. Therefore, the path of the neutrino can be re-created studying the info that detectors provide to us. I assume that neutrino does not "bend", therefore, if I detect a neutrino coming from the direction china is... blah blah blah.

It's all spoken, or written, plenty of times. Neutrino path does not "bend". Otherwise provide proof (reasonable one) or mathematical/physical theory.

I'm enjoying a lot this thread, with a bowl of popcorn. Sorry if i don't say pretty much, that's because all I have to say was already written by another user.

PD: again, forgive my english. Thx.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ERTW on March 10, 2010, 09:35:57 AM
Hi. I'm a physics student, and last summer I had the chance of working with CSIC, a spanish organization about science and particulary with IFIC,
...

So you detected that particles that go through everything hit your detector even at night? How again does that prove they were coming through china?

They can detect the direction of the neutrinos using energy spectrum and the location of the resulting Cherenkov radiation ring.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ERTW on March 10, 2010, 09:44:42 AM
Levee, every time you show the STM picture you make me laugh. Do you know how the STM picture is made? A conductive probe is moved near the atomic surface. There is a small but finite probability that electrons from the measured surface will end up in the probe, a phenomenon known as quantum tunneling (hence the T in STM). This tunneling can be measured as a very small electrical current. The level of current can be measured and the "distance" between the probe and the atomic surface can be estimated.

Because of the the "spherical" nature of a crystalline atomic surface there is a higher probability of the electrons to tunnel when the probe is directly over an atomic nucleus than when it is over a "hole" in the crystalline structure. Hence the fact that you can't see individual electrons in STM images is expected. Again, parading this image around as proof that modern physics is all wrong is a silly straw man argument. Nobody expects to see little whizzing electrons in these images.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 10, 2010, 02:37:21 PM
Hi. I'm a physics student, and last summer I had the chance of working with CSIC, a spanish organization about science and particulary with IFIC, the "institute of corpuscular physics" for two months. It was a practice-like job. Well, one of my jobs was to analyze and process the data from ANTARES, a neutrino detector that lies at the bottom of the mediterranean sea. Neutrino are particles that travels without interacting with mater, almost. And are produced greatly by the sun. They don't reflect, they don't bend and usual matter is transparent to them.

Well, we detected, as we were hoping to find out, a massive source of neutrino from the sun. I saw the data. What is amazing about it is that, even at night, when te sun is "under the earth", we still detect neutrino from it, that came trough the entire earth to our detector. SO WE DETECTED THAT THE SUN WAS UNDER OURSELVES (f.e. over China), AND THATS ONLY POSSIBLE WITH RE THEORY. In your FE theory the sun is ALWAYS over our heads and that's INCOMPATIBLE with our experiment. So, what do you say?

Whoever wants to know more about neutrino, ANTARES, and stuff like that, there is plenty of information at wikipedia.

Also, how do you explain wind and cloud movement across the earth? It's all due to coriolis effect, a thing that only happens in a rotating sphere. That causes hurricans, sea flows, etc etc.

PD: sorry about my english, i'm spanish.

So you detected that particles that go through everything hit your detector even at night? How again does that prove they were coming through china?

Good to see a third neutrino guy here, hope you enjoyed your project, stick with it. These experiments run 24 hours a day collecting data. When neutrino interacts the resulting shower can be reconstructed giving the kinematic properties of the particle that caused it. Superkamiokande in particular have shown some very nice plots of the directional properties of neutrinos they detect in short than can track the movement of the sun around the Earth.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: Raist on March 10, 2010, 03:23:55 PM
Hi. I'm a physics student, and last summer I had the chance of working with CSIC, a spanish organization about science and particulary with IFIC, the "institute of corpuscular physics" for two months. It was a practice-like job. Well, one of my jobs was to analyze and process the data from ANTARES, a neutrino detector that lies at the bottom of the mediterranean sea. Neutrino are particles that travels without interacting with mater, almost. And are produced greatly by the sun. They don't reflect, they don't bend and usual matter is transparent to them.

Well, we detected, as we were hoping to find out, a massive source of neutrino from the sun. I saw the data. What is amazing about it is that, even at night, when te sun is "under the earth", we still detect neutrino from it, that came trough the entire earth to our detector. SO WE DETECTED THAT THE SUN WAS UNDER OURSELVES (f.e. over China), AND THATS ONLY POSSIBLE WITH RE THEORY. In your FE theory the sun is ALWAYS over our heads and that's INCOMPATIBLE with our experiment. So, what do you say?

Whoever wants to know more about neutrino, ANTARES, and stuff like that, there is plenty of information at wikipedia.

Also, how do you explain wind and cloud movement across the earth? It's all due to coriolis effect, a thing that only happens in a rotating sphere. That causes hurricans, sea flows, etc etc.

PD: sorry about my english, i'm spanish.

So you detected that particles that go through everything hit your detector even at night? How again does that prove they were coming through china?

Good to see a third neutrino guy here, hope you enjoyed your project, stick with it. These experiments run 24 hours a day collecting data. When neutrino interacts the resulting shower can be reconstructed giving the kinematic properties of the particle that caused it. Superkamiokande in particular have shown some very nice plots of the directional properties of neutrinos they detect in short than can track the movement of the sun around the Earth.

Makes sense. If electromagnetic acceleration theory is true, then it would be expected that particles would have an upward (excuse the relative term but it's a definite term when considering a fe as a frame of reference) velocity.

The particles would move in a parabola and would therefore have the same speed in the opposite direction as the would during the day.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: markjo on March 10, 2010, 04:43:19 PM
Makes sense. If electromagnetic acceleration theory is true, then it would be expected that particles would have an upward (excuse the relative term but it's a definite term when considering a fe as a frame of reference) velocity.

The particles would move in a parabola and would therefore have the same speed in the opposite direction as the would during the day.

Except that a neutrino is not electromagnetic and thereby immune to electromagnetic acceleration.  Now, in addition to separate universal and electromagnetic acceleration mechanisms, you need a separate neutrino acceleration mechanism.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ugaboga313 on March 10, 2010, 05:03:39 PM
Also, if EAT works on ALL particles, then you better explain why matter can form stable compounds?
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: Raist on March 10, 2010, 05:07:12 PM
Also, if EAT works on ALL particles, then you better explain why matter can form stable compounds?

Because the acceleration is too low to prevent the formation of stable particles?
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ugaboga313 on March 10, 2010, 05:12:31 PM
That little bit of acceleration should really mess up electrons. Besides, we have nice particle accelerators that would notice these weird results.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: Raist on March 10, 2010, 05:14:13 PM
That little bit of acceleration should really mess up electrons. Besides, we have nice particle accelerators that would notice these weird results.

Without a set maximum value of acceleration allowed during particle formation your statement is fairly baseless.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ugaboga313 on March 10, 2010, 05:58:40 PM
Lets say a speed of .000001 m/s (exceedingly high as the atom will cease to exist at far lower accelerations). http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/basics/wonderquest/photonmass.htm says that photon is 0.00000000000000000000039 times the mass of an electron. This seems like acceleration would do nothing, but, the EAT accelerates photons A LOT (enough that even going at lightspeed for a distance of 10-100 km, it has a supposedly significant speed going up). Lets say it a photon 10,000 m/s^2 (remember light will cover 10-100km in very low fractions of a second).

The earth has been around for 4 billion years. Combine that with my very very very high estimate of atom instability, and the extreme accelerations of light particles that the EAT must generate, and the atom cannot exist.


Try the math out for yourself. If you have problems with my values, do tell. I calculated that with these values, an electron would have an speed of 493309.44 m/s in 4 billion years.

EAT = Busted
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: parsec on March 10, 2010, 09:50:47 PM
According to some extensions of the Standard Model, the neutrino might have a magnetic moment and therefore it can be accelerated in inhomogeneous magnetic fields.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ItsFlatJack on March 10, 2010, 09:54:35 PM
photon is 0.00000000000000000000039 times the mass of an electron.
That's why it's called light.
 ::)
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 11, 2010, 01:38:15 AM
Hi. I'm a physics student, and last summer I had the chance of working with CSIC, a spanish organization about science and particulary with IFIC, the "institute of corpuscular physics" for two months. It was a practice-like job. Well, one of my jobs was to analyze and process the data from ANTARES, a neutrino detector that lies at the bottom of the mediterranean sea. Neutrino are particles that travels without interacting with mater, almost. And are produced greatly by the sun. They don't reflect, they don't bend and usual matter is transparent to them.

Well, we detected, as we were hoping to find out, a massive source of neutrino from the sun. I saw the data. What is amazing about it is that, even at night, when te sun is "under the earth", we still detect neutrino from it, that came trough the entire earth to our detector. SO WE DETECTED THAT THE SUN WAS UNDER OURSELVES (f.e. over China), AND THATS ONLY POSSIBLE WITH RE THEORY. In your FE theory the sun is ALWAYS over our heads and that's INCOMPATIBLE with our experiment. So, what do you say?

Whoever wants to know more about neutrino, ANTARES, and stuff like that, there is plenty of information at wikipedia.

Also, how do you explain wind and cloud movement across the earth? It's all due to coriolis effect, a thing that only happens in a rotating sphere. That causes hurricans, sea flows, etc etc.

PD: sorry about my english, i'm spanish.

So you detected that particles that go through everything hit your detector even at night? How again does that prove they were coming through china?

Good to see a third neutrino guy here, hope you enjoyed your project, stick with it. These experiments run 24 hours a day collecting data. When neutrino interacts the resulting shower can be reconstructed giving the kinematic properties of the particle that caused it. Superkamiokande in particular have shown some very nice plots of the directional properties of neutrinos they detect in short than can track the movement of the sun around the Earth.

Makes sense. If electromagnetic acceleration theory is true, then it would be expected that particles would have an upward (excuse the relative term but it's a definite term when considering a fe as a frame of reference) velocity.

The particles would move in a parabola and would therefore have the same speed in the opposite direction as the would during the day.

Apart from the fact that neutrinos don't feel the electromagnetic interaction. Also the angle which they enter the detector evolves as cos(), that you would expect from circular motion. Its not just up and down the entire circular motion can be resolved to within a few degrees. Any theories putting magnetic moments on neutrinos are now very tightly constrained or discounted, although as with a lot of this BSM physics you can stick a new parameter in here and there and do pretty much anything. That said I don't think any of these effects would have a particularly observable effect on any neutrinos from the sun even if they were confirmed to exist.

Of course if we're looking at this whole EA debacle from a particle physics perspective then there is a massive fundamental problem in that the photon only interacts with charged particles. It doesnt even interact with itself, so EA is implicity requires a new force which is evidently fairly strong by the effect it would have, yet has no observable effect in any particle collider. Certainly its not clear to me on how to solve this dilema.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ugaboga313 on March 11, 2010, 04:18:47 AM
photon is 0.00000000000000000000039 times the mass of an electron.
That's why it's called light.
 ::)

Care to read the rest of my post? Or would you like to make more pointless posts. Come on parsec, find a flaw in my equations or values. Hell, I made the critical value for formation of atoms probably like 3-5 orders of magnitude higher.

EAT= cannot exist.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ERTW on March 11, 2010, 07:48:37 AM
According to some extensions of the Standard Model, the neutrino might have a magnetic moment and therefore it can be accelerated in inhomogeneous magnetic fields.
If a magnetic field is causing EAT then we should be able to measure it. The very measurable Earth's magnetic field causes no visible distortion of light and it is 30 to 60 mT. I am holding a 0.5T neodymium magnet in my hand and I can see no visible deflection of light. If there is some super strong multi-tesla field accelerating light upwards I would love to know why we can't detect it.
Also, for T2K the neutrino beam passes through a 0.2T magnetic field 280m from the neutrino source. This should mean we get no hits on Super K 300km away right?

On that note, congrats on first T2K Super K event  ;D
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/02/25/first-t2k-neutrino-event-observed-at-super-kamiokande/ (http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/02/25/first-t2k-neutrino-event-observed-at-super-kamiokande/)
http://www.physorg.com/news183149936.html (http://www.physorg.com/news183149936.html)
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 11, 2010, 09:48:18 AM
oh yeah, don't I feel like an idiot
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: parsec on March 15, 2010, 03:27:18 PM
Makes sense. If electromagnetic acceleration theory is true, then it would be expected that particles would have an upward (excuse the relative term but it's a definite term when considering a fe as a frame of reference) velocity.

The particles would move in a parabola and would therefore have the same speed in the opposite direction as the would during the day.

Except that a neutrino is not electromagnetic and thereby immune to electromagnetic acceleration.  Now, in addition to separate universal and electromagnetic acceleration mechanisms, you need a separate neutrino acceleration mechanism.

According to some extensions of the Standard Model, the neutrino might have a magnetic moment and therefore it can be accelerated in inhomogeneous magnetic fields.
If a magnetic field is causing EAT then we should be able to measure it. The very measurable Earth's magnetic field causes no visible distortion of light and it is 30 to 60 mT.

No one said that magnetic fields affect the propagation of light. My comment was about markjo's reply that neutrinos cannot interact via the electromagnetic interaction. If they have a magnetic moment, they can interact. You gave a figure for the Earth's magnetic field strength. However, this is not what enters the formula for the force on a magnetic dipole. To calculate the force, you need the gradient of the magnetic field (which is a dyadic). Furthermore, you need to calculate the acceleration that this force would impart on the neutrinos. In order to do that, you need to know the mass of the neutrinos. Crunch those nnumbers in and compare it to the acceleration of free fall.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 15, 2010, 04:12:50 PM
Given the experimental limits on neutrino magnetic moment I think we can exclude the idea of the Earths magnetic field bending neutrinos. Quite apart from the fact that it seems unlikely that for any two points on Earth at every energy this interaction conspired to produce exactly what would be expected if the Earth were round. As when you think about it there is no reason for this. Finally if neutrinos were interacting via virtual photon exchange it would ruin the quantum mechanical effects that are the reason we study neutrinos in the first place. So if they are being bent it isn't via a quantum field.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: parsec on March 15, 2010, 04:33:57 PM
Given the experimental limits on neutrino magnetic moment I think we can exclude the idea of the Earths magnetic field bending neutrinos. Quite apart from the fact that it seems unlikely that for any two points on Earth at every energy this interaction conspired to produce exactly what would be expected if the Earth were round. As when you think about it there is no reason for this. Finally if neutrinos were interacting via virtual photon exchange it would ruin the quantum mechanical effects that are the reason we study neutrinos in the first place. So if they are being bent it isn't via a quantum field.
who are you talking to?
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ERTW on March 15, 2010, 05:47:13 PM
Given the experimental limits on neutrino magnetic moment I think we can exclude the idea of the Earths magnetic field bending neutrinos. Quite apart from the fact that it seems unlikely that for any two points on Earth at every energy this interaction conspired to produce exactly what would be expected if the Earth were round. As when you think about it there is no reason for this. Finally if neutrinos were interacting via virtual photon exchange it would ruin the quantum mechanical effects that are the reason we study neutrinos in the first place. So if they are being bent it isn't via a quantum field.
who are you talking to?

He is more qualified to talk about this than I am.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: parsec on March 15, 2010, 05:51:15 PM
Given the experimental limits on neutrino magnetic moment I think we can exclude the idea of the Earths magnetic field bending neutrinos. Quite apart from the fact that it seems unlikely that for any two points on Earth at every energy this interaction conspired to produce exactly what would be expected if the Earth were round. As when you think about it there is no reason for this. Finally if neutrinos were interacting via virtual photon exchange it would ruin the quantum mechanical effects that are the reason we study neutrinos in the first place. So if they are being bent it isn't via a quantum field.
who are you talking to?

He is more qualified to talk about this than I am.
I did not ask what he was talking about, but to whom?
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 16, 2010, 01:48:10 AM
I thought it was a forum not a two person conversation
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: parsec on March 16, 2010, 06:42:39 AM
So, was your post just a random declaration you made without replying to any previous posts?
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 16, 2010, 06:50:48 AM
It was in reference to the discussion about magnetic moments affecting the path of neutrinos. I would have thought that was self evident from the post. I was merely commenting that experimental limits on the neutrino magnetic moments preclude it from explaining the behaviour of neutrinos. Then I went further and posited that as we can observe oscillation we know that if they are interacting its not via a quantum field such as electromagnetism or the weak force.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: parsec on March 16, 2010, 06:55:10 AM
Have you ever heard of the semi-classical approximation of quantum mechanics?
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 16, 2010, 07:26:18 AM
Yes, though i'm curious as to what impact is has here? The semi-classical case is only any good if there is a classical explanation for something. So then, go ahead because i'm certainly not aware of a semi-classical approximation to what we're talking about here. Given it fundamentally has no classical explanation. It has a slightly less rigorous one but its still entirely quantum mechanical.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: ERTW on March 16, 2010, 07:54:15 AM
So, was your post just a random declaration you made without replying to any previous posts?

Btw, you quote too much, without any essence. I guess you think pretending you're an expert in the field by supplying us with irrelevant detail would give you more credibility.

Make up your mind man.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: parsec on March 16, 2010, 02:50:57 PM
Yes, though i'm curious as to what impact is has here? The semi-classical case is only any good if there is a classical explanation for something. So then, go ahead because i'm certainly not aware of a semi-classical approximation to what we're talking about here. Given it fundamentally has no classical explanation. It has a slightly less rigorous one but its still entirely quantum mechanical.
So, when we say neutrinos travel along a particular trajectory, is that a quantum mechanical description?
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 16, 2010, 03:29:49 PM
Almost entirely. You cannot completely describe the motion of a neutrino with newtonian mechanics/special relativity. In practise im not sure there are any useful calculations you can do classically for neutrinos. I guess you can treat their mean free path as you would for radioactive materials. Although thats not really classical thats just a quantum mechanical calculation that we didnt realise was quantum mechanical when we developed it.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: parsec on March 16, 2010, 08:47:47 PM
Almost entirely. You cannot completely describe the motion of a neutrino with newtonian mechanics/special relativity. In practise im not sure there are any useful calculations you can do classically for neutrinos. I guess you can treat their mean free path as you would for radioactive materials. Although thats not really classical thats just a quantum mechanical calculation that we didnt realise was quantum mechanical when we developed it.
So, how do you know a neutrino is travelling along a straight line? According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, this is impossible and this principle is the basis of Quantum Mechanics.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 17, 2010, 12:30:44 AM
Well conservation of momentum and energy still apply so things don't accelerate without interatcing. Your right the neutrino is described as a wavepacket delocalised over all space. Still by far and away the most likely place to find it is straight ahead. But because it is light and waeakly interacting you get effects that classical physics won't predict, they only come out ot of wave mecahnics. Position and momentum can not both be known to arbitrary accuracy. Still that doesnt mean it can turn up anywhere.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: parsec on March 17, 2010, 09:28:08 AM
Well conservation of momentum and energy still apply so things don't accelerate without interatcing.
This is a fallacy. You say conservation of momentum forbids the neutrino from accelerating. This kind of deduction rests solely on classical mechanics (meaning non-quantum) and is irrelevant to Quantum Mechanics.

Your right the neutrino is described as a wavepacket delocalised over all space. Still by far and away the most likely place to find it is straight ahead.
Hence, the semi-classical approximation I was referring to is a good one.

But because it is light and waeakly interacting you get effects that classical physics won't predict, they only come out ot of wave mecahnics.
ORLY? Like what? Do you observe neutrino interference in your detectors?
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: iznih on March 17, 2010, 10:00:02 AM
But because it is light and waeakly interacting you get effects that classical physics won't predict, they only come out ot of wave mecahnics.
ORLY? Like what? Do you observe neutrino interference in your detectors?
what about neutrino oscillations?
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: parsec on March 17, 2010, 10:02:46 AM
But because it is light and waeakly interacting you get effects that classical physics won't predict, they only come out ot of wave mecahnics.
ORLY? Like what? Do you observe neutrino interference in your detectors?
what about neutrino oscillations?
Please show an experiment that is model independent and clearly demonstrates the phenomenon you referred to.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 17, 2010, 03:36:27 PM
Well conservation of momentum and energy still apply so things don't accelerate without interatcing.
This is a fallacy. You say conservation of momentum forbids the neutrino from accelerating. This kind of deduction rests solely on classical mechanics (meaning non-quantum) and is irrelevant to Quantum Mechanics.

Your right the neutrino is described as a wavepacket delocalised over all space. Still by far and away the most likely place to find it is straight ahead.
Hence, the semi-classical approximation I was referring to is a good one.

But because it is light and waeakly interacting you get effects that classical physics won't predict, they only come out ot of wave mecahnics.
ORLY? Like what? Do you observe neutrino interference in your detectors?


No conservation of momentum doesn't forbid the neutrino from accelerating how do you get to that? The neutrino can accelerate in a manner by scattering off of other particles with weak isospin. Its true that the classical idea of an accelerating potential has to go through some levels of quantisation before you get to weak potentials but I guess on some level the principle is similar.

Semi-classical usually means that you are using some aspects of classical and quantum mechanics in a model. Typically this is where fields are classical and particles are quantised, because of the difficulties of full quantum field theory. Show me (i'm only going to accept a mathematical answer) where the classical component is in the wavepacket description of the neutrino.

Yes we can observe effects from interference of quantum properties of neutrinos.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 221803 (2008) arXiv:(hep-ex)0801.4589
Shows that only neutrino oscillations can now be made to fit the observed data. Of course feel free to come up with another explanation.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: parsec on March 17, 2010, 04:00:12 PM
No conservation of momentum doesn't forbid the neutrino from accelerating how do you get to that?
Well conservation of momentum and energy still apply so things don't accelerate without interatcing.
::)

Semi-classical usually means that you are using some aspects of classical and quantum mechanics in a model. Typically this is where fields are classical and particles are quantised, because of the difficulties of full quantum field theory. Show me (i'm only going to accept a mathematical answer) where the classical component is in the wavepacket description of the neutrino.
Dimensions of relative distances covered by neutrinos ~ 1 m. Semiclassical approximation is valid if De Broglie wavelength is much less than these linear dimensions. Since:
λ = (h*c)/(p*c)
and
h*c = 1240 eV-nm,
the semiclassical approximation is valid if:
p*c >> 10-6 eV

Since neutrinos have a negligible mass E = p*c is a good approximation for them. Because all observed neutrinos have energies much greater than the above stated value, we can safely deduce that the semi-classical approximation is viable for analyzing the trajectories of neutrinos.

Yes we can observe effects from interference of quantum properties of neutrinos.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 221803 (2008) arXiv:(hep-ex)0801.4589
Shows that only neutrino oscillations can now be made to fit the observed data. Of course feel free to come up with another explanation.
I didn't see any interference experiments referenced in that article. Also, what do flavor oscillations have to do with the topic at hand?
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 17, 2010, 04:16:20 PM
No conservation of momentum doesn't forbid the neutrino from accelerating how do you get to that?
Well conservation of momentum and energy still apply so things don't accelerate without interatcing.
::)

Semi-classical usually means that you are using some aspects of classical and quantum mechanics in a model. Typically this is where fields are classical and particles are quantised, because of the difficulties of full quantum field theory. Show me (i'm only going to accept a mathematical answer) where the classical component is in the wavepacket description of the neutrino.
Dimensions of relative distances covered by neutrinos ~ 1 m. Semiclassical approximation is valid if De Broglie wavelength is much less than these linear dimensions. Since:
? = (h*c)/(p*c)
and
h*c = 1240 eV-nm,
the semiclassical approximation is valid if:
p*c >> 10-6 eV

Since neutrinos have a negligible mass E = p*c is a good approximation for them. Because all observed neutrinos have energies much greater than the above stated value, we can safely deduce that the semi-classical approximation is viable for analyzing the trajectories of neutrinos.

Yes we can observe effects from interference of quantum properties of neutrinos.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 221803 (2008) arXiv:(hep-ex)0801.4589
Shows that only neutrino oscillations can now be made to fit the observed data. Of course feel free to come up with another explanation.
I didn't see any interference experiments referenced in that article. Also, what do flavor oscillations have to do with the topic at hand?

The 'without interacting' would be the important bit there then. Nothing accelerates without interacting. Even a car accerating does so via the exchage of virtual photons. No exchange particles no acceleration (depending on you philosophy on gravitation).

The De Broglie wavelength refers to the size of the object not the distance it covers. Neutrinos can cover light years without interacting, and most will.

Neutrino oscaillations are basically flavour interference
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: parsec on March 17, 2010, 04:17:54 PM
Keep talking to yourself. Meanwhile:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36931.msg925122#msg925122 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36931.msg925122#msg925122)
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: Lorddave on March 17, 2010, 08:21:23 PM
A Wizard Did it.

That's any and all evidence anyone needs for anything.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: Lord Wilmore on March 18, 2010, 02:46:27 PM
A Wizard Did it.

That's any and all evidence anyone needs for anything.


Please keep low-content posts out of Flat Earth Debate. Consider this a warning.
Title: Re: REFUTATE THIS
Post by: bowler on March 18, 2010, 04:13:34 PM
I think we were done anyway