REFUTATE THIS

  • 85 Replies
  • 19154 Views
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #60 on: March 11, 2010, 09:48:18 AM »
oh yeah, don't I feel like an idiot

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #61 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.

Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #62 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.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #63 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?

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #64 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.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #65 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?

Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #66 on: March 16, 2010, 01:48:10 AM »
I thought it was a forum not a two person conversation

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #67 on: March 16, 2010, 06:42:39 AM »
So, was your post just a random declaration you made without replying to any previous posts?

Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #68 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.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #69 on: March 16, 2010, 06:55:10 AM »
Have you ever heard of the semi-classical approximation of quantum mechanics?

Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #70 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.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #71 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.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #72 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?

Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #73 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.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #74 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.

Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #75 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.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #76 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?

Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #77 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?

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #78 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.

Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #79 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.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #80 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?

Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #81 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

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #82 on: March 17, 2010, 04:17:54 PM »

*

Lorddave

  • 16037
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #83 on: March 17, 2010, 08:21:23 PM »
A Wizard Did it.

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

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #84 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.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: REFUTATE THIS
« Reply #85 on: March 18, 2010, 04:13:34 PM »
I think we were done anyway