Starship Asterisk*

Markus Schwarz wrote:

puhbrox wrote:These neutrinos sound to me an awful lot like dark energy. I am merely hypothesizing but to me but what else would they fall under? Maybe dark matter? Or do neutrinos fall under ordinary matter? I am clearly not a physicist...

Neutrinos are part of the established standard model of particle physics, and thus are ordinary matter. They are electrically neural, and therefore don't interact with light. Since they don't interact with light, they can be considered as dark matter. But neutrinos don't form the majority of dark matter. The origin of dark matter is currently not known. In any case, dark matter again has completely different properties from dark energy, which is currently a mystery.

Chris Peterson wrote:

puhbrox wrote:These neutrinos sound to me an awful lot like dark energy. I am merely hypothesizing but to me but what else would they fall under? Maybe dark matter? Or do neutrinos fall under ordinary matter? I am clearly not a physicist...

No, they sound an awful lot like dark matter, a completely different thing. And indeed, the current view on dark matter is that it's most likely that those particles are very similar to neutrinos in many respects, except for having much higher mass.

Neutrinos are generally categorized as non-luminous ordinary matter. But the entire concept of "ordinary" in this sense is somewhat vague and subject to change.

neufer wrote:

DavidLeodis wrote:
According to linked information "Neutrinos...come in three flavors".
A Choc Ice one would be my favourite but it seems impossible to get!

Just remember: that's 383 x 10^-25 Calories per scoop.

DavidLeodis wrote:
According to linked information "Neutrinos...come in three flavors".
A Choc Ice one would be my favourite but it seems impossible to get!

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:
It seems like studying neutrinos has the pre-requisite of being out in the middle of nowhere or deep underground or floating around in large volumes of very clean water. Is that because neutrino physicists like their solitude or just don't like the masses?

That left-handed spin thing is very odd. Maybe they're all left handed too - that would be an interesting symmetry.

Dad is wattching wrote:
Does a neutrino have mass when it at rest? Can a neutrino ever be at rest (no velocity) ?
Does a neutrino require velocity to have existence and therefore mass?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Mass wrote:

[b][color=#0000FF][size=150]If neutrinos were massless they would all be left handed[/size][/color][/b]

---

<<The Standard Model of particle physics assumed that neutrinos are massless. However the experimentally established phenomenon of neutrino oscillation, which mixes neutrino flavour states with neutrino mass states, requires neutrinos to have nonzero masses. Massive neutrinos were originally conceived by Bruno Pontecorvo in the 1950s. Enhancing the basic framework to accommodate their mass is straightforward by adding a right-handed Lagrangian.

The strongest upper limit on the masses of neutrinos comes from cosmology: the Big Bang model predicts that there is a fixed ratio between the number of neutrinos and the number of photons in the cosmic microwave background. If the total energy of all three types of neutrinos exceeded an average of 50 eV per neutrino, there would be so much mass in the universe that it would collapse. This limit can be circumvented by assuming that the neutrino is unstable; however, there are limits within the Standard Model that make this difficult. A much more stringent constraint comes from a careful analysis of cosmological data, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, galaxy surveys, and the Lyman-alpha forest. These indicate that the summed masses of the three neutrinos must be less than 0.3 eV. In July 2010 the 3-D MegaZ DR7 galaxy survey reported that they had measured a limit of the combined mass of the three neutrino varieties to be less than 0.28 eV. A tighter upper bound yet for this sum of masses, 0.23 eV, was reported in March 2013 by the Planck collaboration, whereas a February 2014 result estimates the sum as 0.320 ± 0.081 eV based on discrepancies between the cosmological consequences implied by Planck's detailed measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background and predictions arising from observing other phenomena, combined with the assumption that neutrinos are responsible for the observed weaker gravitational lensing than would be expected from massless neutrinos.

On 31 May 2010, OPERA researchers observed the first tau neutrino candidate event in a muon neutrino beam, the first time this transformation in neutrinos had been observed, providing further evidence that they have mass.>>

Chris Peterson wrote: Neutrinos are generally categorized as non-luminous ordinary matter. But the entire concept of "ordinary" in this sense is somewhat vague and subject to change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli wrote:

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

<<In 1930, [Wolfgang Ernst Pauli (25 April 1900 – 15 December 1958)] considered the problem of beta decay. In a letter of 4 December to Lise Meitner et al., beginning, "Dear radioactive ladies and gentlemen", he proposed the existence of a hitherto unobserved neutral particle with a small mass, no greater than 1% the mass of a proton, in order to explain the continuous spectrum of beta decay. In 1934, Enrico Fermi incorporated the particle, which he called a neutrino, into his theory of beta decay. The neutrino was first confirmed experimentally in 1956 by Frederick Reines and Clyde Cowan, two and a half years before Pauli's death. On receiving the news, he replied by telegram: "Thanks for message. Everything comes to him who knows how to wait. Pauli."

At the end of 1930, shortly after his postulation of the neutrino and immediately following his divorce in November, Pauli had a severe breakdown. He consulted psychiatrist and psychotherapist Carl Jung who, like Pauli, lived near Zurich. Jung immediately began interpreting Pauli's deeply archetypal dreams, and Pauli became one of the depth psychologist's best students. He soon began to criticize the epistemology of Jung's theory scientifically, and this contributed to a certain clarification of the latter's thoughts, especially about the concept of synchronicity. A great many of these discussions are documented in the Pauli/Jung letters, today published as Atom and Archetype. Jung's elaborate analysis of more than 400 of Pauli's dreams is documented in Psychology and Alchemy.>>

Chris Peterson wrote:

puhbrox wrote:
These neutrinos sound to me an awful lot like dark energy. I am merely hypothesizing but to me but what else would they fall under? Maybe dark matter? Or do neutrinos fall under ordinary matter? I am clearly not a physicist...

No, they sound an awful lot like dark matter, a completely different thing. And indeed, the current view on dark matter is that it's most likely that those particles are very similar to neutrinos in many respects, except for having much higher mass. Neutrinos are generally categorized as non-luminous ordinary matter. But the entire concept of "ordinary" in this sense is somewhat vague and subject to change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCube_Neutrino_Observatory#Indirect_dark_matter_searches wrote:
<<Weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) dark matter could be gravitationally captured by massive objects like the Sun and accumulate in the core of the Sun. With a high enough density of these particles, they would annihilate with each other at a significant rate. The decay products of this annihilation could decay into neutrinos, which could be observed by IceCube as an excess of neutrinos from the direction of the Sun. This technique of looking for the decay products of WIMP annihilation is called indirect, as opposed to direct searches which look for dark matter interacting within a contained, instrumented volume. Solar WIMP searches are more sensitive to spin-dependent WIMP models than many direct searches, because the Sun is made of lighter elements than direct search detectors (e.g. xenon or germanium). IceCube has set better limits with the 22 string detector (about 1⁄4 of the full detector) than the AMANDA limits.>>

puhbrox wrote:These neutrinos sound to me an awful lot like dark energy. I am merely hypothesizing but to me but what else would they fall under? Maybe dark matter? Or do neutrinos fall under ordinary matter? I am clearly not a physicist...

Boomer12k wrote:Why not THE SUN as a source?? The majority of Neutrinos come from Nuclear Reactions in The Sun....why not The Sun????

Markus Schwarz wrote:

puhbrox wrote: They are electrically neural.

puhbrox wrote:These neutrinos sound to me an awful lot like dark energy. I am merely hypothesizing but to me but what else would they fall under? Maybe dark matter? Or do neutrinos fall under ordinary matter? I am clearly not a physicist...

bystander wrote:http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=35087