Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hey, check these out:

The ships disappearing over the horizon is explained through optics and light physics. youtu.be...
Tue, Sep 18 10:52 AM

This effect is lessened by zoomimg in. youtu.be...
Tue, Sep 18 10:53 AM

youtu.be...


Thoughts?

a reply to: Topato
I gave you a reply on your first three videos and they were all total garbage. How many more garbage videos do you expect me to watch? The comments on the second video in your second batch say it's fraudulent and he stops filming when the video is about to prove him wrong, and I have no desire to waste more time on garbage videos. I did look at the first video you posted on the previous page in some detail a few months ago, since a lot of people were posting that link.

Why don't you explain my objection to the flat earth model that Polaris isn't visible from Antarctica? The only attempt I've seen to try to explain that from a flat earther was something like "it's too far away", but this is not what observation shows. Sailors who sail south looking at Polaris can see it getting lower and closer to the horizon, and finally it just goes below the horizon, it doesn't fade from being too far away. This is only explained by a round earth and I've seen no flat earth model that can explain it.

But in your second video showing the Antarctica cams I actually agree with the youtuber saying you shouldn't believe everything government officials tell you, and I don't, as my rant about the official explanation for the solar observatory closure indicates, that story doesn't add up. But that just means you need to apply critical thinking skills to figure out what's true and what's not true, skills which you are not demonstrating by posting garbage videos, and then when they are destroyed, posting more of them. Why don't you start demonstrating some critical thinking skills and explain the absence of Polaris in the night sky in Antarctica or southern Australia? I mean really think for yourself, instead of just posting more and more mindless youtube videos. How can Polaris drop below the horizon when sailing south if the Earth is flat? It can't and it's only explained by a round earth, something which has been known for many centuries. Similarly there are stars in the southern hemisphere which can't be seen from the northern hemisphere, which again no flat earth model can explain.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hi Arbitrageur

I am asking for a friend for another thread

In your experience , do you think that in Physics and any other field of scientific study , do you think that science brings truth to humanity ?

Here is the original question

Are you still working on getting those scientists to state that science is truth? Did you make a post in the forum, to ask that same question, as suggested?

I would greatly appreciate your answer

I already can make a guess at what your answer will be , but as I said I am asking for a friend

In my own opinion, it is somewhat a philosophical question with a typically scientific sounding hand-wavy answer.

I think the ultimate goal is to understand the universe the best we can at any point in time. By point in time I mean that this understanding is always developing and changing. While ever there is margin for error, then what we consider truth is in some ways flawed or time dependant until something more is unlocked and understood. This isn't to say that science thus knows nothing and we can dream up anything and there be a chance it is true.

It all depends upon the depth you wish to go to, and the simplifications you are happy with accepting. It isn't about people admitting or stating something as truth, more about having confidence that your vision or understanding is clear and supported by un-bais evidence and experimentation using as many observations as possible. If we get something wrong, it is equally not correct to state that science is spreading lies or non-truths, since in general science always strives for transparency and objectiveness.


Example :

The proton is a compound object, made up of smaller bound objects, believed to be fundamental particles.

Evidence :- Many many many gb of data taken over 40 years of proton interactions and deep inelastic scattering experiments, all of which data matches the above statement. For it not to be our current truth, would require an extremely different stipulation for the whole system... OR... a stipulation within the current framework that makes the system more detailed. Those are roughly the two options based on our experimentation, observations and theoretical modelling.

One stipulation is that, no the quarks are not fundamental, but rather made of fundamental particles themselves. Thus far, evidence doesn't support it at all. we cannot thus claim the above to be not true unless we can find good evidence to prove it.
A more extreme example would be to say our entire model of how we understand particle physics is incorrect. Again, this falls into "Sure maybe... but... you must prove it"

originally posted by: sapien82
"Are you still working on getting those scientists to state that science is truth?"

"Science is truth" is not something I've ever heard any scientist seriously say. In my own words, science is the best way we have found yet of understanding things. What makes it the best? The fact that other people can do the same science and should be able to get the same results, which confirms the findings are scientific.

Of course they might get different results, in which case the science is not confirmed and further study may or may not resolve the discrepancies. That's also part of the scientific process, searching for the truth, even if we haven't found it yet. An example that comes to mind is cold fusion research. Some researchers got unexpected results, some didn't. Upon further investigation some correlations in the results were found between batches of material used, and presumably the levels of purity or contamination of the material, but I'm not sure we have all the answers yet for the discrepancies that were found. So in that case science doesn't have any ultimate truth yet, all it can say is the experimental results which can't be consistently repeated have some unresolved scientific issues. It's a learning process.

There is some physics that is done in special lab setups or particle accelerators that we can't do at home, and some of that is also a learning process. Science has no predictive model for the Earth's magnetic field, so we have no way to say when the next pole reversal will be, and no way to explain why the pole flips happened at the irregular intervals they did. But this is a fascinating one-of-a-kind and perhaps somewhat dangerous experiment with a dangerous material, to try to do science, and maybe learn something about the Earth's magnetic field. This is a good example of what science means to me, which is that when we don't understand something, we do research to try to understand it, and the word "truth" doesn't seem especially relevant to me here, see the experiment for yourself:



Do NOT try this at home because it's so dangerous, but you can do what the youtuber did and contact the scientist and ask him questions and to show you his research.

But there is a lot of science you can do at home, and judge for yourself whether it's true or not. Mr Wizard was a science show for kids where they can do experiments in the kitchen at home and see if they really get the same results that the scientists say they should get. I don't normally call this "truth" which is such a loaded word, but you either will or will not get the same results science says you should get. If you get the same results, I don't know if that's any ultimate truth, but it's a way of understanding the world through science that other, non-scientific methods lack. In some sense it's a truth that people can compare and check with each other to see if they all get the same result, so I suppose to some extent that makes it true, but you have to be careful about calling that "truth"; I call it an "understanding". This is a great video on that topic by a physicist who makes this point that physics isn't just something a physicist tells you, or you read in a book or goes on in some remote lab, it's happening every day in your own home and you can check it yourself:

The fascinating physics of everyday life | Helen Czerski


She mentions some examples, and there are plenty of other science experiments you can do yourself, like this simple experiment on conservation of angular momentum:


You can do this yourself and you should get the same result. If everyone gets the same result, then I suppose it seems true in at least that sense, right?

For centuries after Newton his gravity model seemed to be true since many experiments seemed to verify it (and those same experiments still give us the same verification results). But it wasn't until we devised new and unusual experimental conditions that we were able to confirm that Newton's model only holds up under "ordinary" to humans, conditions, and we need the more involved relativity model from Einstein to explain more unusual circumstances, like clocks 33cm higher running at a different rate. That's something Newton couldn't have known about since he didn't have access to such accurate clocks.

the difference is much too small for humans to perceive directly—adding up to approximately 90 billionths of a second over a 79-year lifetime

This is why I think scientists would generally be cautious about saying something like "science is truth", because while Newton's model seemed to be true in all the known observations at the time and for centuries after that, eventually we were able to measure this small difference which amounts to "90 billionths of a second over a 79-year lifetime". Now if you're off by "90 billionths of a second over a 79-year lifetime", do you want to argue that Newton's theory isn't really true? I think you have to admit most people who don't have those fancy clocks would never know the difference. So I still say Newton's theory was pretty much true even though it was off by that tiny amount in that example, but scientists are so picky that's not good enough for them and they point out that Einstein's theory doesn't have that 90 billionths of a second "error" over the course of your lifetime.

This is an example Feynman used to say that science can never prove something is "true", only that it's consistent with observation. When you make more accurate observations as NIST did in that case, you may find out your old model was off by "90 billionths of a second over a 79-year lifetime", but a new model explains that small discrepancy.

If you contrast science to some other methods of knowing things, while science says every experimenter should get the same experimental result if the science is good, other people claim to "know" things which are beyond the scope of science. There are various spiritual beliefs many of which are beyond the scope of science if no scientific experiment can confirm them, and some people seem to think those are some kind of "truth" which science doesn't understand. While it's true science can't understand things which cannot be tested using scientific methods, the reason those spiritual beliefs don't seem like "truth" to me is that different people have different beliefs and they are different from each other, and seem to be more of a function of where someone happens to be born than any higher "truth".

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you so much for your reply , I will check out those videos, I think Ive watched the sodium experiment one before because we were discussing how the earths magnetic field works!

But I will check the others, thanks again mate

originally posted by: Topato
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hey, check these out:

The ships disappearing over the horizon is explained through optics and light physics. youtu.be...
Tue, Sep 18 10:52 AM

This effect is lessened by zoomimg in. youtu.be...
Tue, Sep 18 10:53 AM

youtu.be...


Thoughts?

www.youtube.com...

At 11:11 that mushroom cloud is being shot from 50 miles away from an airplane (probably 1000-10,000 feet high)
The base of the cloud which is several miles high can't be seen. The cloud is enormous, over 15 miles in height. The base of a cloud that is several miles in height would not be effected by the optics described in the video.

At the end of the video is a view from 200 miles away and although it's brighter than a sunset there is no mushroom cloud visible. I don't know much about optics but is a 15 mile high bright fireball completely invisible due to optics? Even though you can still see the intense light?

a reply to: ErosA433
Apparently I was writing my post at the same time as you were writing yours and I didn't see your reply until after I posted mine. I thought it was interesting we both seem to prefer the word "understanding". I think that's a good descriptor without all the philosophical baggage carried by a word like "truth".

a reply to: sapien82
Eros provided a good answer too, did you see that?

That sodium ball experiment is great but it will be even better if they can get it to self-generate a magnetic field. In that video is was acting as an "amplifier" making the input magnetic field something like 10x stronger, but apparently a revised experiment is planned which may not require the input of an external field. So, no TRVTH there yet, but I did learn something from the video, and that's the whole idea of that scientific experiment, to learn.

a reply to: joelr
Either Topato is trolling us about flat earth, or he's not paying any attention to the videos he's posting and just spamming us with garbage links without doing any analysis.

His first post has the video showing ships disappearing over the horizon as "proof of flat earth", which is the first sign he's not paying attention.

Then his next post, the one you replied to, the second link has more ships disappearing over the horizon, as this comment points out:

"how do you expect to disprove the claim that boats disappear over the horizon by showing video of boats disappearing over the horizon? just because you make up some idiot and unevidenced excuses for what you show doesn't mean it's true."

The third link in the post you replied to has this comment pinned at the top of the comments by the same person who posted the video, admitting the curvature of the earth can be measured:

www.youtube.com...

"Pinned by Marko's Entertainment Vault
Marko's Entertainment Vault7 months ago (edited)
Please check the video at the end, where i zoom over 19 miles! and i can admit i was very wrong!! the curve can be measured after a bit of learning!!"

So the video maker now says the curve can be measured, and he didn't even seem sure the earth was flat to begin with. He was doing a lousy job of tracking the boats, zooming in and out, losing track of them, and then when he zoomed back in I don't even think it was the same boat, the one he was tracking before had already disappeared over the horizon. (There were several boats in his field of view). Here's another comment by the maker of that video, maybe Topato can learn something from the video maker if he's not just trolling us:

"...as you rightly say i was almost convinced by flat earthers at one point,so to find i had been basically fooled was abit embarassing tbh. I had 2 choices bury my head in the sand and ignore it .....or own up and try to help others see its ok to admit you were fooled and the real shame would be not to help others as you have helped me. Thanks again mate."

Topato, you didn't bother to look at any of those comments by the person who made the video? Or you did but you still decided to post the video to show...what? That the earth is curved? We already knew that since Eratosthenes measured the size of the earth over 2000 years ago, not as accurately as today's measurements, but it wasn't a bad measurement for his time and technology.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Either Topato is trolling us about flat earth, or he's not paying any attention to the videos he's posting and just spamming us with garbage links without doing any analysis.

His first post has the video showing ships disappearing over the horizon as "proof of flat earth", which is the first sign he's not paying attention.

Then his next post, the one you replied to, the second link has more ships disappearing over the horizon, as this comment points out:

"how do you expect to disprove the claim that boats disappear over the horizon by showing video of boats disappearing over the horizon? just because you make up some idiot and unevidenced excuses for what you show doesn't mean it's true."

The third link in the post you replied to has this comment pinned at the top of the comments by the same person who posted the video, admitting the curvature of the earth can be measured:

www.youtube.com...

"Pinned by Marko's Entertainment Vault
Marko's Entertainment Vault7 months ago (edited)
Please check the video at the end, where i zoom over 19 miles! and i can admit i was very wrong!! the curve can be measured after a bit of learning!!"

So the video maker now says the curve can be measured, and he didn't even seem sure the earth was flat to begin with. He was doing a lousy job of tracking the boats, zooming in and out, losing track of them, and then when he zoomed back in I don't even think it was the same boat, the one he was tracking before had already disappeared over the horizon. (There were several boats in his field of view). Here's another comment by the maker of that video, maybe Topato can learn something from the video maker if he's not just trolling us:

"...as you rightly say i was almost convinced by flat earthers at one point,so to find i had been basically fooled was abit embarassing tbh. I had 2 choices bury my head in the sand and ignore it .....or own up and try to help others see its ok to admit you were fooled and the real shame would be not to help others as you have helped me. Thanks again mate."

Topato, you didn't bother to look at any of those comments by the person who made the video? Or you did but you still decided to post the video to show...what? That the earth is curved? We already knew that since Eratosthenes measured the size of the earth over 2000 years ago, not as accurately as today's measurements, but it wasn't a bad measurement for his time and technology.

Right, I see. Thanks.

originally posted by: ErosA433

The first page of this suggests that kinetic energy is the primary energy transfer process in the form of fission fragments and neutrons moving. The rest is in the fragments being present in Excited states. These states are what produce gammas or the primary EM radiation. The ratio for Uranium 235 is about 12% Radiation in gammas.

The difference in air is that the Gammas penetrate and travel through the air medium. Due to Compton scattering, these gammas depart energy in the electrons in the air, which themselves serve to further ionise and scatter around in the medium. This is where a lot of the heat comes from. It occurs very rapidly, first within the device, and then with the air. There is also the fission fragments and neutrons which also do a similar process. A heavy fission fragment, tramming through a medium, causes ionization of the air and the device, all transfers energy.

So before the bomb detonates there is X quantities of Q quantity of mass present in the bomb (mass in the form of quarks and electrons? .. and gluons?)

after detonation Y amount of air moves with Z amount of 'force'/'energy'?

88% of Y and Z is contained in the fact of X? But ok, the kinetic fact of X?

And what gives X its kinetic energy?

If you say 'the binding force being unleashed', aspects of my intiial questions was regarding the fundamental nature and mechanics and substance of this 'binding force', gluons, its '''material''' (it being something, not nothing) existence, and what causes its kineticality.

How is the vast amount of potential energy contained in such small things, and how does such small things when that potential energy is no longer contained, how does little tiny X move many much Y extremely violently and much.

They are bound taut, but it is assumed there is an equal and opposite expression of the strength of that tautness, it is B difficult to pull the two super taut pieces apart, so when they are pulled past the point of remaining taut, B expresses itself as a powerful repulsion? Or the surrounding parts were partly responsible for so strongly forcing the pieces connectedness, so when the pieces were loosed they are violently repulsed by the surrounding parts that were violently repulsing them into connectedness.

3 little quarks. 3 little quarks. Yes, many times over. 10000000 bundles of 3 little quarks, normally you toss them this way and that and they are not moving 100 cubed yards of air violently 1000s of yards. But, apparently, in a very certain circumstance, 10000000 bundles of 3 little quarks (and electrons) and move that much air. They can do this because, there is the ability to move that much air... stored in...... them somehow....

a reply to: DanielKoenig

The repulsion comes from the coulomb force (electric charge), the attraction from the nuclear force. The nuclear force is much stronger but drops in strength much quicker (exponentially). So it is only stronger than the coulomb force when the nucleons are very close. Beyond a certain separation distance the nucleons split and are violently accelerated away from each other.

If you are interested in the exact details, I'd recommend studying nuclear physics.

originally posted by: ErosA433
Has thou never heard of a process known as pair production? It is observed and occurs in a very well modelled manner, and involves direct conversion of a gamma, into two particles. Yes these particles move, but they are definitely 'massive' and are not EM radiation anymore.

I have heard of it. So there is a gamma (only 1, is required for pair production?), what is a condition under which the gamma, itself, turns into, a pair of particles? Surely in your own few words you can get across the general gist. A gamma and only a gamma itself, can just stop existing and in its place two, what particles, exist? Or the gamma interacts with something and then 2 particles are detected and it is not certain of the gamma that was inputed can be found in the output?

a reply to: moebius

What physically, mechanically causes the repulsion, we can physically mechanically see what causes the repulsion of a person from a trampoline after landing down on it, how do the parts repulse with such force? What would be some ratio analogy to the trampoline repulsion to this nucleon scenario, if the person was shot 100 feet in the air at near the speed of light? (a better or worse example might be something like, a merry go round, just like on at the playground, but if it was entirely covered in metal, and it was spun around like 50, or 100 mph, or 200, and then you threw rocks at it, or its like there are 1000s of these merry go rounds spinning 200 mphs, and when the nucleons split its like 1000000s of rocks being thrown at 1000s of these merry go rounds and all the rocks ricochet off them into other ones and this is the chain reaction that is kinetified material begun in a small volume causing a large volume around it to become kinetified.) Yes, that is where I am at and have been mainly wondering, purely the actual physical existence, and physical inter reaction relations of physical bodies, and their causes of speeds, and the apparent little material, little movement goes in, lots of movement comes out. How, physically, mechanically, the small amount moves the big amount. The little amount of material moves the big amount of air.

When nucleons split, how/why/physically, mechanically, the material parts are forced away at such speed (which cause the chain reaction of chain reactions beyond).

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
we can physically mechanically see what causes the repulsion of a person from a trampoline after landing down on it

Maybe we think we can see what happens, but it's an illusion as the three science videos I recently posted here about the atom said, did you watch those? Depending on how you define "touch", if that means the molecules of the person coming in contact with the molecules of the trampoline, the molecules never really "touch" on that scale. That's partly because of coulomb repulsion, the same thing Moebius mentioned, and partly because of a quantum mechanical effect for which there is no classical analogy called the "Pauli exclusion principle".

What would be some ratio analogy to the trampoline repulsion to this nucleon scenario

In addition to the "Pauli exclusion principle", it's Coulomb repulsion which prevents the person from touching the trampoline. So if you understand those things which keep the person from going through the trampoline then you already understand the Coulomb repulsion which is part of that. I think it's more likely that you don't really understand the trampoline when you start looking into it further.

If you keep asking "why, why, why?" to deeper levels, eventually you end up with fundamental charge, and the reason we call it fundamental is, we don't understand it any more deeply than the fundamental level. Maybe someday we will. We can say some things about charge, like it's conserved, it's quantized, like charges repel and opposite charges attract, moving charges create magnetic fields, and so on. But we can't answer questions like "what is charge made of?"

So the interesting thing about physics is that the things we thought we understood, like the trampoline, end up being not so easy to understand when looked at from an atomic perspective.

If you like simple answers that make you feel good though, you could always ask Russ Blake who made the second video I posted in the opening post who says everything in the universe can be explained as something like a ball bearing on a spring.
I noticed he started Quantum Spring Technology Pty Ltd for making "clean energy power systems" but I'd be cautious when notable physicists like Richard Feynman have said they'd like to tell you the universe works like a ball bearing on a spring, but as far as they can tell, it doesn't work that way so they're not going to tell you that. Anyway it looks like he removed his video that I posted; maybe he doesn't want potential investors showing it to physicists who can cite all the experimental evidence which it contradicts.

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
So there is a gamma (only 1, is required for pair production?), what is a condition under which the gamma, itself, turns into, a pair of particles? Surely in your own few words you can get across the general gist. A gamma and only a gamma itself, can just stop existing and in its place two, what particles, exist? Or the gamma interacts with something and then 2 particles are detected and it is not certain of the gamma that was inputed can be found in the output?

There is a gamma, it must have an energy of greater than or equal to 2x the rest mass of the electron, which is 1.022MeV

In essence this energy is converted into two particles, the electron, and its anti-particle the positron. It must however conserve both energy, and momentum, and as such the process is unable to do so directly in free space. (Vacuum of space example) In order to allow for energy and momentum conservation the process occurs in the vicinity of another atom, this atom allowing the balance to be made.

This process has been observed, and we are able to show that two particles are produced with opposite charge with identical mass. The momentum transfer to the atom is usually very hard to observe, and you do not see a gamma left over.

So on one side you have a gamma, and the other side you have two particles created and no gamma.

originally posted by: DanielKoenig

So before the bomb detonates there is X quantities of Q quantity of mass present in the bomb (mass in the form of quarks and electrons? .. and gluons?)

after detonation Y amount of air moves with Z amount of 'force'/'energy'?

88% of Y and Z is contained in the fact of X? But ok, the kinetic fact of X?

And what gives X its kinetic energy?

I think you are hung up a little on a very classical and out modded concept that everything contains everything else. You touched upon it pages back when you made a comment along the lines of "What is it about wood that stores fire, what is fire?" or words to that affect.

Energy at it's basic level is the ability to do work, now it is in fact a bit more complicated than that. A proton, is a composite object, it is a collection of quarks and gluons.
Depending upon which exact model or interpretation you look at, you can imagine it as 3 objects, with a set of quantum mechanically defined properties. These quarks are required, by one of the quantum mechanical conservation laws to always be neutral or net zero in that quantum mechanical aspect. In this case we called it rather unimaginatively... colour. So for there to be a particle of mass made up on quarks, there must be no net colour.

Alright so we have 3 objects, and a net positive charge (for a proton) that is visible on the outside (at a range greater than i think... 10^-15) So this means that we have at least two of these particles with positive charge confined at a very small distance. This is where the gluons come in, which are effectively able to hold and mediate the conservation of colour AND overcome the coulomb repulsion. Gluons are such a source for great potential and have a finite range over which they operate. If a particle quark can be knocked out of a nucleus, you will still conserve energy, but you will see a release of that 'potential'

Now in atomic physics, we are looking a slight step higher which involves the arrangement of protons and neutrons together inside a nucleus.

Gluons mediate the so called strong force, this force that has something like a 10^11 fall off (its extremely rapid) with distance that stretch outside the confines of single nucleons as decribed above, and allow the binding and confinement of positive charged particles within close range. To do this still means that the storage of coulomb potential is quite high. We also have other effects analogous to atomic physics and electron energy levels. The confinement has configuration specific stability. More neutrons, more protons etc they each require a certain amount of potential energy to be retained by the strong force in the form of gluons.

It is this that makes a uranium atom, not the same mass as its raw constituent parts. SO when you split a Uranium atom, that need for gluons to be holding all those nucleons together is simply not required. But you still need to conserve the energy. So what happens? The nucleons enter excited states and release that energy in the form of neutrons, gammas and also in kinetic energy as the atom splits and is pushed apart from the coulomb potential.

Your want to break things down into "this is stored in that" doesn't allow for complex systems, it is also not what we observe in nature.

Best example or manner I can think of in terms of nuclear and particle physics is that... the classic model and case would have you believe two things.

1) You should be able to store infinite neutrons inside a nucleus if they are neutral... no coulomb effects right?
2) Nucleus should be close to geometrically spherical - A sphere has to be in all circumstances the best configuration right?


Observation of the natural world tells us
1) is not at all correct... and it isn't even something as elegant as a 1:1 relationship
2) that larger atoms with more and more neutrons actually form elongated geometric shapes which give for some interesting effects you can observe.

So I state again... your want to ask deep questions with such simple propositions, while admirable in the search for knowledge, sort of falls over because it also demonstrates you are not really interested in knowledge because you are starting from a starting point where you believe yourself to already be right and know.

originally posted by: ErosA433
I think you are hung up a little on a very classical and out modded concept that everything contains everything else. You touched upon it pages back when you made a comment along the lines of "What is it about wood that stores fire, what is fire?" or words to that affect.

Wood was thought to be composed of phlogiston and ash in the early 1700s but somewhere around 250 years ago, that kind of thinking started proving to be unsatisfactory because it couldn't explain experimental results, and as you say we now have other ideas. So according to that, someone who is still thinking that way could be said to be roughly 250 years behind in their thinking.

Since you know way more about neutrinos than I do, I'd like to ask you a neutrino related question. I thought this article about the 5 neutrino-like particles that were apparently too energetic to be neutrinos and survive a trip through the earth was interesting. Do you think this find could threaten the standard model as the article claims? I'd be interested in any thoughts you might have on this.

Bizarre Particles Keep Flying Out of Antarctica's Ice, and They Might Shatter Modern Physics

Sure, there are low-energy neutrinos that can pierce through miles upon miles of rock unaffected. But high-energy neutrinos, as well as other high-energy particles, have "large cross-sections." That means that they'll almost always crash into something soon after zipping into the Earth and never make it out the other side.

And yet, since March 2016, researchers have been puzzling over two events in Antarctica where cosmic rays did burst out from the Earth, and were detected by NASA's Antarctic Impulsive Transient Antenna (ANITA) — a balloon-borne antenna drifting over the southern continent.

After finding those two, three more were found in another experiment.

Sadly I am not super up to date on neutrino physics however I have heard of this and was also intrigued.

The general way the model works is that the cross section of interaction is made up by the set of Feynman rules for each vertex of the interaction. What happens here is that in a round about way, the probability of an interaction becomes larger, the higher energy you go. There are a few different features, so it isn't just a simple exponential but this review gives a pretty detailed look at the theory.

arxiv.org...

A couple things could be going on, both of which are sort of quite exciting.

1) A physics process we are unaware of currently is suppressing the neutrino cross section when moving to ultra-high energy. Those neutrinos should be all definition have interacted due to their enormous energy and at enormous energy, even for a neutrino, the earth is opaque.
One method for this, could the presence of a sterile neutrino flavour that is coupled to it.

2) There is a production process occurring in the Earth that is not being accounted for by the models correctly. So there could for example be a ultra high energy interaction occurring deep in the ice, below the reach of the detector that results in production of a lower energy lepton partner and an outgoing neutrino of still massive energy.

Out of the two... i have no idea what is most favoured... id hazard a guess that people interested in physics beyond the standard model would love 1 to be true. I don't really think it threatens the standard model at all. I sort of feel that this points at the problems we have extrapolating it 10 orders of magnitude and not really knowing what goes on up there. I mean this is exactly why when people say supersymmetry cannot exist because the higgs has the mass it appears to have, because of 'naturalness' it sort of shows you that, no, there is still we don't get and isn't included or predicted by the model.

One hairbrained idea related to number 1) is that is could be evidence of super symmetry energy physics, that are effecting and suppressing neutrino cross sections at X energy, the effect isn't any kind of factor at lower energy so the standard model works just fine. But cross over X energy and it starts to matter... neutrinos happen to be the first place we see it?

not sure to be honest but none the less really quite interesting

a reply to: ErosA433

Hi ErosA433 - As I recall you were the only serious respondent to point out what you thought was a critical scientific flaw with my ABC Preon Model, and that critical flaw had to do with high energy neutrino cross sections. Maybe you could take another look at the The ABC Preon Model?

The reason my first substantial effort here was on the ABC Preon Model is that the ABC Preon Model answers many questions as well as making 18 predictions for high energy physics, 9 of which have been found, based on 3 settable parameters. I believe the evidence for it is substantial. I do wish it would be seriously considered, and I would appreciate it if you could take another critical look.

Hi All - As an update, I continue to make progress on the aether. Over the past few days I got Maxwell's Equations written up from slightly modified postulates. (The original postulates, as described in The Aether, could not lead to the Lorentz Force Equation LFE, so I have been exploring some modifications.) I have also made a first pass at all individual portions of the LFE from the new postulates. However, I have yet to write things up fully and consistently so I can't say that it is by any means done. (Also, something could be found by peer review if I get that far.) I continue to work on it.

a reply to: delbertlarson

I should take another look at the model, though haven't in some time so hopefully my reply here is a little bit redundant in regard to the neutrino question.

In the model, you had neutrinos are mediators between preons and as I recall I made a statement that was something along the lines of 'Neutrino cross-sections are so low, it would be impossible unless the natural or maybe virtual energy of these neutrinos is enormous, like EeV or even GUT scale.

I think the above observation also throws a spanner in the works as it would appear the neutrino cross section might not scale quite so easily with energy and could contain a few different features due to physics unknown.

I should read through your model again when I have a good chunk of time and see its development. Must be a year or two now since you and I had that discussion. I am also by no means an expert on the theoretical side. I am a tiny bit strapped for time currently, hence my somewhat sporadic replies. I am in the process of moving again (moving experiments too) and part of that is figuring out the age old question of what i want to try and be involved in... Dark Matter... or neutrino physics.