It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: elysiumfire
ErosA433:
...the information in the above quote is incorrect and somewhat misleading.
It is and it isn't. I speculated on two aspects: a) due to detection, neutrino must have mass - which they do; and b) that the neutrino slowed down to a speed where weak interaction can take place?
Without interaction there is no detection. Neutrinos do not interact electromagnetically, and are unaffected by magnetic fields. As you have correctly stated, it is the weak nuclear force that oversees neutrino interaction, but the weak nuclear force only acts across extremely small distances, so for neutrino interaction to take place, it has to encounter a force that acts on it other than the weak nuclear, and that other force is gravity acting on the mass of the particle, which clearly shows that gravity is indeed a force of its own. It is in this context my meaning was meant. Apologies to all.
originally posted by: elysiumfire
It is the same with time. Time is nothing more than the measurement of our perception of duration. That is all it is. Time is like space, it is nothing. When you put nothing with nothing you still have nothing, and because nothing has no properties of any kind, you cannot interact with it. There is no force of any kind that can interact and affect nothing.
(The 'nothing) outside the universe is called space. Here is how to define that void.
I infer that the universe is not expanding, but that newly-created matter is pushing already created matter ever deeper into space...that is the expansion.
Of course, this raises profound questions, especially about the forces creating new matter.
Suppose they never was just one singular 'Big Bang', but that Big Bangs are occurring all the time in other regions of the universe, but so far away that we can only detect their occurrence by the ubiquitous presence of a cosmic background radiation?
Infact, the first neutrino interactions where observed without any requirement in theory for them to have mass, and in many respects, them being massless was always an assumption or placeholder.
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: ErosA433
Infact, the first neutrino interactions where observed without any requirement in theory for them to have mass, and in many respects, them being massless was always an assumption or placeholder.
I remember this from my boyhood — specifically, Arthur C. Clarke writing, in, I think, Profiles of the Future that a neutrino has no mass and no charge, but that 'just to make things more confusing, it does have spin'.