Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks.

Are you saying Malus' Law and/or the online calculator for it are wrong?

I am learning to assume nothing. And, drop my bias like a hot thing.

I say learn. I fail it sometimes.

I have given you a scale that is within half of a %.

I have noticed the name drop of George Box.

Obviously i had to find out more.

Admittedly. I have only watched 1 vid in 2 parts. Quality and the art of discovery.

I cannot disagree with a single thing he says.

He's fair dinkum.

I will make time to watch more.

Nice drop.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So why don't you wait until it's done before burdening us with your statements which have no math or predictive power to back them up?

" burdening us with your statements" ?? this is just your perception of what I'm saying...

about the math... well.. it is already done...
check the math for space-time...
the thing is.. it is correct, just the interpretation what it is causing it is WRONG !
You still don't understand, I'm not questioning the experiments, but the interpretation of the outcome MS is telling us, this is why I say main science is BS.

OK, I know I'm rude in explaining, I take things for grounded... and I'm not a teacher...
...also... my days are counted, there is not much left.... ... so I was thinking, I do you another lesson..

and as I'm not aspire a Nobel prize or something, and I hope someone will do understand what I type here, I will explain to you how gravity works.

back to Einstein...
time is not a thing and it can not "combine" with space to be some other thing.. "space-time"
gravity..., it is not a "bend" in anything.
Einstein had it right "as a though" but he didn't understood that time is not a physical thing
time is a name for things that happen in some periodic counting events.
you count, and then you say how many counts it took for this or other event to happen... that's it
...I have already explained it here, so search for it

listen... gravity

I told you more than once, that +1 and -1 counts as 0 for charge, but it is 2 for the field density
I also told that the field density is related to the sped of EM propagation.
I have explained the so called "gravitational lensing" some hundred pages back here...
but you sill ignore this..


OK, so how does gravity work...

let say there is some big number of charged particles on the right. (big mass)
and some other charges on the left, but much less. (little mass)
so.. the gradient in the field goes from right decreasing to left.. get the picture ?

because EM propagates slower is higher E density than lower E density, and the ( let me use QM now so you can comprehend ) "photon distribution probability" has to be more on the right than the left... the "photons" are more on the right.
.. you still following ?
so the attraction between the charged particles goes more right than left, because they move "slower" in higher density, so they attract each other "longer" on the right than on the left...

do have the picture now ? ...all shifted to the right
this is gravity


and once again... light is not a thing that travels from one point is space to another..
light propagates, it does not move from one point in space to another,
"photon" is just a name for a EM wave that propagates...


why the charged particles attract or repeal... I'll tell you if you understand this





BTW: you said gravity can not be electric because electric fields seems not to influence the "gravitational attraction"..
NO.. the slope in the E field is not gravity, the charge amount is responsible for gravity, even if it's net charge is 0... it's the gradient in the field..
+1 and -1 is 2

originally posted by: KrzYma
" burdening us with your statements" ?? this is just your perception of what I'm saying...

It's a fact you provide no math or quantitative analysis to back up what you say, and then you contradict yourself by saying the math is already done and is correct.

about the math... well.. it is already done...
check the math for space-time...
the thing is.. it is correct, just the interpretation what it is causing it is WRONG !

listen... gravity

I told you more than once, that +1 and -1 counts as 0 for charge, but it is 2 for the field density
I also told that the field density is related to the sped of EM propagation.
I have explained the so called "gravitational lensing" some hundred pages back here...
but you sill ignore this..


OK, so how does gravity work...

let say there is some big number of charged particles on the right. (big mass)
and some other charges on the left, but much less. (little mass)
so.. the gradient in the field goes from right decreasing to left.. get the picture ?

because EM propagates slower is higher E density than lower E density, and the ( let me use QM now so you can comprehend ) "photon distribution probability" has to be more on the right than the left... the "photons" are more on the right.
.. you still following ?
so the attraction between the charged particles goes more right than left, because they move "slower" in higher density, so they attract each other "longer" on the right than on the left...

do have the picture now ? ...all shifted to the right
this is gravity

The picture I have is one of you contradicting yourself. You say the math is done?

The math for gravity does not show it is a function of electric charge yet you make some difficult to understand word salad about gravity and charges but show no math or experimental evidence supporting anything you say, which is why it's burdensome. At least some people who propose non-mainstream ideas have some math to describe what they mean, but you never have any math, nor does electric universe. That reminds me, I think some EU proponents have advanced something similar about gravity having something to do with electric charge, also without any quantitative analysis, which makes it completely useless in addition to contradicting your statement that the math is already done.

By the way the mainstream model also says neutrinos are involved in gravitational interactions, and they have no charge that we know of. They comprise some fraction of "dark matter", perhaps 3-5% according to one study.

Study suggests the elusive neutrino could make up a significant part of dark matter

Our results suggest that neutrinos make up between 3% and 5% of the total dark matter mass. This is sufficient to consistently reproduce a wide variety of observations – including the new gravitational lensing measurements.

I have no idea how this research is supposed to fit into your gravity from charges explanation when neutrinos don't have any charge but appear to have gravitational effects. Their mass is very small, but there are a lot of them.

a reply to: mbkennel

originally posted by: mbkennel
People don't use 'relativistic mass' any more. It was a mistake, even Einstein tried to stamp it out. The right idea is to modify Newton's laws appropriately, so that the relationship between momentum and velocity is not as simple.

I'm replying to this old post on relativistic mass, a topic that has come up several times in this thread, because I found an interesting video from Don Lincoln at Fermilab which talks about this and more or less agrees with what mbkennel says.

However, Dr. Lincoln admits that some physicists debate the merits of the relativistic mass concept so maybe it's not 100% completely dead, but he apparently doesn't take the debate too seriously and insists that most physicists who actually work with relativistic concepts don't support the idea of relativistic mass. Yet it's hard to get rid of, because here's another post from mbkennel recommending what I agree is an excellent resource, which unfortunately teaches the "wrong" concept of "relativistic mass":

originally posted by: mbkennel
Have you read the Feynman Lectures on Physics yet?

I imagine the Feynman lectures will be around for a while and I don't see the relativistic mass being edited out completely, but maybe someday they might at least add a note about the concept being phased out. I also see the concept in other places, like this relativity calculator:

Relativity calculator

This was formulated by the German-American physicist and mathematician Albert Einstein (1879-1955) in his Special Theory of Relativity. Basically, an object in motion undergoes 3 relativistic changes:
1) An increase in mass
2) A contraction in the direction of travel (Lorentz Transformation) and
3) A "slowing down" of time. (Time Dilation)

As already mentioned Einstein objected to the idea that mass increases for an object in motion, contrary to what this relativity calculator says, but the misconception is understandable considering that some textbooks and physicists still hang on the the idea. #1 should be an increase in momentum and energy, instead of an increase in mass.

Here is Dr Lincoln explaining why he and his colleagues involved in relativity work "really dislike the concept of relativistic mass":

Is relativistic mass real?

If Jesus played chess, would His ELO rating be infinite?

Not a trolling question.

I'm actually curious on this.

It has crossed my mind that if the universe is possibly infinite. Considering the speed of light with both the observable universe and cosmic background radiation. The cbr would only have travelled from the moment of the event.

The event I speak of is that of perhaps the fabled white hole, where matter, or more likely energy is spewed. Or something which we have no understanding.

As particles pop in and out of existence in a vacuum, could singularities? Our universe like a bubble in an infinite plane of nothing. Or maybe it
happens a lot and this would give the basis of the multiverse theory with multiple bubbles exist on an infinite plane/mebrane.

My three questions are:

Why, considering the possible distances would only the visible universe be the limits.

Considering the use of gravitational lensing, why can we see things that are apparently further away in light years than the universe is old.

If the universe is infinite and our bubble Is expanding into nothing. Surely this would explain expansion. As a normal bubble will expand in the presence of low atmospheric pressure. Especially once the concentration of matter and gravity of the matter has disapated to the point where the balance between gravity and expanding pressure is tipped. Aka a supernova. It would explain why expansion was slower and then sped up.

I would have put this as a post but I'm a watcher, but this has been baffling me for a while and you guys are the best to ask.

This is my first post so please be kind lol.

a reply to: Steffer

Have you read John 20-21?
Probably beat Reubin Fine.

Now that we have found a Boson that fits identification criteria of Higg's Boson, what's next for subatomic particle physics, and what will we do with proton accelerators now?

a reply to: Steffer
That's not really a physics question is it?

originally posted by: Tlbablo
It has crossed my mind that if the universe is possibly infinite.

It's possible, nobody knows if it's finite or infinite.

Considering the speed of light with both the observable universe and cosmic background radiation. The cbr would only have travelled from the moment of the event.

The event I speak of is that of perhaps the fabled white hole, where matter, or more likely energy is spewed. Or something which we have no understanding.

The origin of the cbr is thought to be the big bang, which I would call a theory rather than a fable. We have little understanding of the big bang itself and the first fraction of a second after it, but the more time progresses from the big bang the more we think our theories might explain. I don't know about white holes, they might exist or they might as you said be "fabled".

As particles pop in and out of existence in a vacuum, could singularities? Our universe like a bubble in an infinite plane of nothing. Or maybe it happens a lot and this would give the basis of the multiverse theory with multiple bubbles exist on an infinite plane/mebrane.

Physicists don't like "singularities" which is another way of saying we don't really understand what's going on, like in the big bang or the center of black holes. Those questions about other universes are profound and we have every right to ask them, but I think we should realize that the answers might be unknowable and therefore until that changes, the topic doesn't have a sound scientific foundation which could be verified by observation or experiment.

My three questions are:

Why, considering the possible distances would only the visible universe be the limits.

You mean three more questions, but that's fine. I don't really understand what you mean by this question though. The "observable universe" is the limit of the universe that can be observed; it's not the limit of the actual universe which as you said could be infinite. We don't know what lies beyond the observable universe.

Considering the use of gravitational lensing, why can we see things that are apparently further away in light years than the universe is old.

We can't see them where they are now. We can only see what they looked like billions of years ago when they were not as far away. Here's a rough analogy of the concept.

Scenario 1. John is stationary, and throws a ball back to Sally 4 meters away at 4 m/s, which takes 1 second to reach Sally.
Scenario 2. John is moving away from Sally at 2 m/s. From John's point of view he is again 4 meters away from Sally when he again throws the ball toward her at same speed as before, 4 meters per second, from his point of view.

In scenario 1, the distance is clear, but in scenario 2 when John is moving away from Sally, his distance is changing.
1. How long will it take the ball to reach Sally?
2. When the ball reaches the Sally, how far away is John?

When you answer #2, you now have at least two distances for John:
A. Some distance in the past when the ball left John
B. Some further distance in the present when the ball arrives at Sally

This is an imperfect analogy of the idea of distances as light moves through space between objects whose distance from each other is changing. The distance of a distant a galaxy is now is much further than the distance the galaxy was when the light left it, so it illustrates the general concept, but there are some differences, like the ball is moving through space but in the expansion of the universe it is expanding space which causes not only an increase in distance but also a redshift in light as the light gets "stretched" when the space expands. Here's a technical paper that talks about this and also the "observable universe" if you want to read more details: Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe

If the universe is infinite and our bubble Is expanding into nothing. Surely this would explain expansion. As a normal bubble will expand in the presence of low atmospheric pressure. Especially once the concentration of matter and gravity of the matter has disapated to the point where the balance between gravity and expanding pressure is tipped. Aka a supernova. It would explain why expansion was slower and then sped up.

I don't follow your supernova analogy. When a massive star runs out of fuel, the pressure from the star's fusion that was working against gravity can no longer support the star so what happens is a collapse of the star, (which is the opposite of expansion), then following the collapse is an explosion, and following the explosion matter is dispersed from the supernova in all directions but that expansion of the supernova remnants slows down over time, in contrast to the expansion of the universe which accelerates over time.

Prior to 1998 we thought the expansion of the universe was probably slowing down, more analogous to how the expansion of supernova remnants slows down, but some papers were published in 1998 showing the expansion of the universe has been accelerating.

a reply to: Archivalist
One question is whether there could be another Higgs boson, but I posted this video recently where I couldn't possibly do a better job than Cliff does of explaining what's next for the LHC. He explains one of the more interesting research topics which suggests the possibility of a problem with the standard model.

If you can't watch the video, this paper gives an update on the state of the research Cliff talks about. Cliff dumbs it down for us nicely but the paper is quite technical.

Review of Lepton Universality tests in B decays

...it is of paramount importance to confirm or refute these hints of LU violation promptly. Both the Belle-II and LHCb experiments will be in an ideal position to provide additional information by significantly reducing the uncertainties on the LU observables already studied and by measuring new observables that will further constrain NP models. The present situation should thus evolve rapidly with the combined efforts of experimentalists and theorists, and has the potential to provide very exciting news in the coming years.

Ill also pop in a reply as similar as the above, because, why not Great reply btw Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Tlbablo
It has crossed my mind that if the universe is possibly infinite. Considering the speed of light with both the observable universe and cosmic background radiation. The cbr would only have travelled from the moment of the event.

The event I speak of is that of perhaps the fabled white hole, where matter, or more likely energy is spewed. Or something which we have no understanding.

It is unknown if it is finite or infinite, though as always science keeps an open mind.

The cosmic microwave background is thought to be a basic 'freeze out' like event in which the universe went from being energy dominated to matter dominated, when it became transparent to photons due to decreasing density. In the big bang model, this occurred at roughly 350,000 to 400,000 years after the big bang, the light would have been fairly high energy and due to spacetime expansion has shifted down in frequency. It is interesting because it is incredibly smooth and isotropic, looking basically the same in all directions, and is a near perfect blackbody.

We have no evidence for so called white holes... so, id class them as highly speculative/fabled as said.

As particles pop in and out of existence in a vacuum, could singularities? Our universe like a bubble in an infinite plane of nothing. Or maybe it
happens a lot and this would give the basis of the multiverse theory with multiple bubbles exist on an infinite plane/mebrane.

Particles don't really pop in and out of existence, in the real sense, they would if at all exist as virtual loops and not much more. Not only this but perfect vacuum is hard to find. Other than some fairly edge case like effects, this behaviour hasn't been observed in a particle detector so the existence of real particle pairs id say is another speculation... thus... a singularity... even more so.

It is actually unknown what the universe sits in, or anything existing outside of it.

My three questions are:

Why, considering the possible distances would only the visible universe be the limits.

Unknown what the question is asking.... we are sort of victim of causality, the visible universe is the edge of our causal relationship with the universe, or, observing it.

Considering the use of gravitational lensing, why can we see things that are apparently further away in light years than the universe is old.

The universe is expanding in all directions, and has been doing so since the beginning. THUS if you can get a measure of the distance to the visible edge... that is light that has traveled X distance... THUS the actual edge, at the real same moment in time as your observation is actually C times that distance... its not really magical, the edge by this same description is 46 billion light years away.

If the universe is infinite and our bubble Is expanding into nothing. Surely this would explain expansion. As a normal bubble will expand in the presence of low atmospheric pressure. Especially once the concentration of matter and gravity of the matter has disapated to the point where the balance between gravity and expanding pressure is tipped. Aka a supernova. It would explain why expansion was slower and then sped up.

You can't really assume a pressure like relationship. The big bang is an expansion of spacetime itself, so it is an expansion OF space, and not an expansion/explosion IN space. SO outside the universe by this definition is not just empty and being expanded into. what it is is unknown. Matter doesn't exist outside it, as Matter would appear to be an emergent property/consequence of the universe rather than being some kind of giant bubble exploding into empty space in a pressure bubble.

This is my first post so please be kind lol.

Welcome good first post, some good questions.

Thanks ErosA433 and Arbitraguer. I guess it's just one of those things we dont know about yet and is a theory. Thank you for taking the time to. Respond.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

By the way the mainstream model also says neutrinos are involved in gravitational interactions, and they have no charge that we know of. They comprise some fraction of "dark matter", perhaps 3-5% according to one study.

sure the mainstream model does, it is the particle zoo theory what I told you is just false interpretation of the observed...

you know how neutrino detector is build, do you ??
water, a lot of it, photodetectors ( which work like I told you few pages back ), and what is the source of light ??
Cherenkov radiation !! an electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through a dielectric medium at a speed greater than the phase velocity of light in that medium. ( that is just from Wiki, I could told you more about it... )

Noboby ever have seen or measured the so called neutrino, this particles comes out of misinterpretation of the electric and magnetic field and it's interaction

Dark Mater ???
please... wake up, commenting this would be the same like talking with a priest about angels
there is no such thing, never have bin and newer will be detected

Dark Matter still missing
density fluctuations without requiring the presence of dark matter
Results of a search for sub-GeV dark matter using 2013 LUX data
First results on the scalar WIMP–pion coupling
Search for dark matter in the form of hidden photons and axion-like particles in the XMASS detector

there is much more about the not existence of this made up ghost...



there is... some hope however
The present phase of stagnation in the foundations of physics is not normal

and here some challenges for MS
On the discrepancy between the X-ray and UV absorption measurements of O vi in the local ISM
HIGH-RESOLUTION CHARGE EXCHANGE SPECTRA WITH L-SHELL NICKEL SHOW STRIKING DIFFERENCES FROM MODELS


and here, will give you some thoughts...
The 1D Relativistic Doppler Formula is an Incorrect Approxim ation in Precise Radial Velocity Work
Influence of the local Universe on weak gravitational lensing surveys

originally posted by: Tlbablo
Thanks ErosA433 and Arbitraguer. I guess it's just one of those things we dont know about yet and is a theory. Thank you for taking the time to. Respond.

We discussed a number of different things so I don't know what the "it" in "it's just one of those things we dont know about yet and is a theory" refers to. Usually if we have a theory it means we do know something about the theorized subject.

If you're referring to what's beyond the observable universe, chances are we will never know what is beyond that, because that's not just some limitation of our telescopes, it's a limitation of physical laws as we know them. The only possibility for seeing beyond the observable universe that occurs to me right now would be something like making a warp drive space ship with a telescope, engaging warp drive to a distant point, taking images through the telescope, and then warping back to earth so we can see the images. I can't say that's impossible and to watch science fiction like star trek we might think warp drive is only a few hundred years away but it may never happen. In the far distant future, the expansion of the universe means that future beings will have less universe to observe in their observable universe, because so much is moving away beyond the point where it can be observed.

In the very very far future only a certain number of nearby galaxies might be visible, but if future beings have records of distant galaxies that we photographed, they will have some evidence of what lies beyond their observable universe, namely things that we can see, that future beings won't be able to see, but they know used to be within an observable universe of the past.

a reply to: KrzYma
What is the ground you're standing on made of?

Matter.

Is it luminous? Does it give off light? No.

So the earth is made of matter which is not luminous, thus a type of dark matter called baryonic dark matter.

Dark matter is not just one thing, it's different types of things, some of which we understand and some which we don't understand. We have some understanding of what the earth is made of but when we do searches for these types of astronomical objects (called MACHOs-Massive Compact Halo Objects), we don't find enough of them to account for observations of gravitational lensing or galaxy rotation curves. But we do know there are other planets out there which we have found in abundance in exoplanet searches, it's just the total mass of those and other MACHOs doesn't add up to enough mass to agree with observation. Even after adding the contributions from other things like neutrinos there still has to be a lot more, and we don't know what it is.

Ghosts may be made up, but images of gravitational lensing are real, so saying ghosts are made up does not explain photos like these, how can this strange arc be explained without dark matter?

Abell 370: Galaxy Cluster Gravitational Lens

What is that strange arc? While imaging the cluster of galaxies Abell 370, astronomers had noted an unusual arc to the right of many cluster galaxies...Today, we know that this arc actually consists of two distorted images of a fairly normal galaxy that happened to lie far behind the huge cluster. Abell 370's gravity caused the background galaxies' light -- and others -- to spread out and come to the observer along multiple paths, not unlike a distant light appears through the stem of a wine glass.

The gravity of luminous matter is not enough to cause that much distortion, so there has to be something else causing it. What is it?

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur

you know how neutrino detector is build, do you ??
water, a lot of it, photodetectors ( which work like I told you few pages back ), and what is the source of light ??
Cherenkov radiation !!

Actually yes i do... and no Cherenkov radiation isn't the only method of detecting neutrinos. Wake up, and go back to school.

Methods of detection that have been confirmed.
1) Cherenkov radiation, in water, in oil, in scintilating oil, in doped water and oil. low energy and high energy neutrinos via NC and CC interactions
2) Radiochemical via nuclear transmutation, observed in several different materials
3) High quasi-energy elastic scattering in plastic scintillators

You really have such a tiny bit of information and have attempted to stretch it miles.

Iv built a detector for the search for Dark Matter, obviously it wasn't a solo effort but im one of the people have worked on such a detector... Tons scale detector using Liquid Argon as a target medium.

I have also worked on sensors for neutrino detectors, and am currently working for a neutrino project.

I can say... without arrogance or rudeness that, you really have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to detector technology. Your ideas are logically inconsistent. They do nothing to explain the real world observations of neutrinos or the search for dark matter...

Like for example... where to upward going neutrino signals come from? by your own reasoning, its impossible on a phenomenological level.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

...how can this strange arc be explained without dark matter?

I did told you how... so called "gravitational lensing", few hundred pages back.
the field density ( -1 and +1 is 2 with charge 0 ) and how EM propagates slower in a denser field.

again....
right side, a lot of mass (charged particles )
left side, less mass... so there is a gradient in the field from right ( dense ) to left ( not so dense )

a wave has a with and a length, it propagates, the right wave front propagates slower than the left.
the wave bends... changes direction of propagation, ...due to the propagation density dependent speed in the field.

what is so complicated to understand this ???
ah... you still think light is a particle with no size and it is a "photon" that travels from one point in space to another... well... than you will never comprehend...



@ErosA433

you do your work and you do earn money with this, I'm not trying to take it away from you.
don't be scared the theory your work with is based on is false assumptions, it does not matter, new theory will still give you work. your experience alone gives you the ability to stay in the field and just continue.. under new conditions..
well... I see it will not happen anyway in the next 30 years, so you are save

back to the detectors...

A scintillator is a material that exhibits scintillation, the property of luminescence, when excited by ionizing radiation.

sure one want to use that because..

Scintillation is a flash of light produced in a transparent material by the passage of a particle (an electron, an alpha particle, an ion, or a high-energy photon).

let me rephrase that ... "high-energy photon" term ( it is rapidly changing electromagnetic field )

Luminescence is spontaneous emission of light by a substance not resulting from heat; it is thus a form of cold-body radiation. It can be caused by chemical reactions, electrical energy, subatomic motions or stress on a crystal.

I think to detect "neutrino" you surely need to exclude the chemical reaction and subatomic motion/stress, right ?

electrical energy ???
where is it coming from ?
Arbitrageur said neutrinos are charge less ...

and nuclear transmutation is fun to talk about... you guys have no idea why isotopes decay but now you build an apparatus that is dependent on it.. funny... really really funny

Nuclear transmutation is the conversion of one chemical element or an isotope into another chemical element. Because any element (or isotope of one) is defined by its number of protons (and neutrons) in its atoms, i.e. in the atomic nucleus, nuclear transmutation occurs in any process where the number of protons or neutrons in the nucleus is changed. A transmutation can be achieved either by nuclear reactions (in which an outside particle reacts with a nucleus) or by radioactive decay, where no outside cause is needed.

I repeat... no outside cause is needed !
and this suppose to be a detector for a particle that almost do not interact with matter but is present everywhere ??
and even if an outside particle reacts.. how does it if not due to electric interaction ???
but neutrinos are supposed to be neutral ??


BTW! how many sources of "neutrinos" have been detected so far, the only confirmed extraterrestrial sources so far as of 2018 are the Sun and the supernova 1987A in the nearby Large Magellenic Cloud.
YES ??

???

where to upward going neutrino signals come from?

do you mean the direction of "detection"

Once more you take small bits of information and twist... quite predictable really.

Nuclear transmutation...

Read about the following experiments and realise your "Oh its decay" is like most of what you say, beyond ignorant.
-Homestake Radiochemical experiment
-GALLEX
-SAGE
-GNO

Save you a little bit of reading as we both know, you dont actually bother to read and try to understand, only try to constantly suggest that everything is wrong and you are some sort of keeper of truths... or a troll.

The reaction in question is.
νe + (A, Z) - >e- + (A, Z+1)*

Now, the intersting thing about your "Oh radioactive decay) is that standard beta decay gives us an anti-neutrino... meaning that via the standard model, unless the neutrino is Majorana, the reaction can only proceed with electron neutrinos rather than electron anti-neutrinos. Guess where such a source is predicted to originate? Thats right... the sun.

On sources of neutrinos.... again... you demonstrate you lack of ability to read, or understand.

1) Nuclear power plants
2) Neutrino beam lines, produced via boosted pion decays
3) Cosmic ray air showers
4) Supernovae (1987A)
5) The Sun
6) Geological
7) Ultra high energy neutrinos from an active Blazar (TXS 0506+056)

The reason i say directional is because of this thing in physics we call the principle of conservation of energy and momentum. Neutrinos carry energy and momentum, undergoing an interaction and subsiquent scattering or quasi-elastic scatter maintains that conservation of momentum.

A detector like Super Kameiokande can actually reconstruct an excess of neutrinos that originate from the sun, specifically lower energy electron neutrinos, above the background (from cosmic ray air showers)

Oh dear, looks like i gave you lots of information, which is probably a wasted effort since you will no doubt reply calling me stupid, tell me to wake up, make some reference to drawing salary and such must be corrupt in some manner, or skim read an article, understand 1% of it, but still use that misunderstanding of the 99% to say the whole of science is wrong.

a reply to: ErosA433

Eros, never leave us...we need your extraordinary input to perhaps tweek our minds onto the next level.

a reply to: ErosA433

Once more you take small bits of information and twist...

do I ??
I think you are the one that is twisting stuff...
let me bring you to the basics..
what is information and how is it distributed, more important, how is it understood, and how it should be understood ??

you have the theory with lots "variables" in it, now you sell it as "information", something that is have to be taken for a given fact. Unfortunately, if you take all the "information" into bits and look at them one by one, you realize, that a big part of it is just assumptions !
In the next step, the one assumption is presented as a truth for making another assumption.. and so on, and so it continues...
As a result, you have a lot of "assumed" "truths" that make up a theory that is something more complicated that it really should be, the particle zoo

again...
there is just two thing you can do to discover this world
one is counting, second is comparison.

any detector you can ever build can just and only count the electrons "kicked out" of an material... ( say it ! )
if it is an electric potential change in the material itself, or electromagnetic wave in form of light that comes in, that again is a electromagnetic wave, that is detected by "kicked out" electrons, means electric potential change ( need to repeat twice, some people think those are different things, NO! they are not )... it does not matter. this is what you are able to to, not more !!!

there is just no way to "see" neutrinos, gluons or any of the incepted so called particles
LHC is detecting turbulence in EM and making up particles for the theory sake..
all based on mathematical calculation based on a theory that uses assumptions.

so.. you can CALCULATE things ( compare counting ) and than you say " it is so", or, "it is so"
any detector you can build is not measuring, it is counting...
measurements are done by comparison !

you sure say you measure the speed by comparison of one counting to another, like speed... sure !
but you do not compare one neutrino to another neutrino...

but now, you give them a name and a "flavor"

this is really fun, just talking about it

Anything to actually add here KrzYma? if its just standard "You are all wrong about everything"... you can be reported for trolling or being perpetually off topic.

You appear to absolutely not understand at all what the detection actually looks like on a phenomenological level, and then claim out right silly things about EM fields and radiation.

You have stated before that Photons don't exist and that all EM radiation emanates in a sphere out from a source...

its an interesting statement, not only disproven by countless experimentation and observation, but also is impossible to use to produce what we actually see in something like a vertex detector. hell even a spark chamber disproves it. The reason is that in your model or idea, light can't carry momentum. it is always a zero momentum phenomenon and that somehow, if light is detected in one spot, the whole spherical wave front dies instantly.

Your understanding and observation is quite basic, and once again, you are quite basically trolling, iv said before expect to be ignored... but what i will say is that this thread is ask anything about physics... if you want to start debating your model compared to the mainstream... do so in your own thread. Your constant attempts to derail this one into the surreal is getting quite tiresome. SO make your own thread, present the ideas...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
By the way the mainstream model also says neutrinos are involved in gravitational interactions, and they have no charge that we know of.

In 2019, in view of all the information that is available to us, why do you take the mainstream model seriously?