But Neutrinos need to have some physical characteristics. Else why would these particles exist??
[quote=Profpat;46486]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dipayankar
Do you think they form the Dark matter???
Hi Dipayankar;
I wouldn't think so in that dark matter has a gravitational effect and therefore mass. Neutrinos, if they have mass is very little. But maybe, I'm not sure.
[quote=dipayankar;46501]But Neutrinos need to have some physical characteristics. Else why would these particles exist??
I agree with you Dipayankar. I believe they are created when a neutron breaks down to a proton and electron. At that point a neutrino is also emitted necessary to balance the equation. They actually, after some difficulty, were able to capture some of them, thus proving their physical existence. Your guess is as good as anybodies as to what is their ultimate purpose.
Right but nature works in an optimised way. Just to balance an equation, I dont believe a particle will be created. We really need to know more about this particle.
[quote=Profpat;46512]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dipayankar
But Neutrinos need to have some physical characteristics. Else why would these particles exist??
I agree with you Dipayankar. I believe they are created when a neutron breaks down to a proton and electron. At that point a neutrino is also emitted necessary to balance the equation. They actually, after some difficulty, were able to capture some of them, thus proving their physical existence. Your guess is as good as anybodies as to what is their ultimate purpose.
I agree with you Dipayankar, and you may be right that they relate to dark matter. Even if they have a little mass I guess there are trillions and trillions of those little buggers, and as we all know that could add up to a lot of mass.
I think physicists did consider that but still came up way short to explain dark matter.
So we still have a mystery regarding neutrinos. In my idea I ignore them but I guess they really do exist.
I located this which may be of interest to you Dipayankar;
The neutrino and its friends
Neutrinos are one of the fundamental particles which make up the universe. They are also one of the least understood.
Neutrinos are similar to the more familiar electron, with one crucial difference: neutrinos do not carry electric charge. Because neutrinos are electrically neutral, they are not affected by the electromagnetic forces which act on electrons. Neutrinos are affected only by a "weak" sub-atomic force of much shorter range than electromagnetism, and are therefore able to pass through great distances in matter without being affected by it. If neutrinos have mass, they also interact gravitationally with other massive particles, but gravity is by far the weakest of the four known forces.
If gravity is the interaction of matter with gravitron, then probably then probably by studing whether neutrinos interact with gravity, we can find out more about gravitron..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profpat
I located this which may be of interest to you Dipayankar;
The neutrino and its friends
Neutrinos are one of the fundamental particles which make up the universe. They are also one of the least understood.
Neutrinos are similar to the more familiar electron, with one crucial difference: neutrinos do not carry electric charge. Because neutrinos are electrically neutral, they are not affected by the electromagnetic forces which act on electrons. Neutrinos are affected only by a "weak" sub-atomic force of much shorter range than electromagnetism, and are therefore able to pass through great distances in matter without being affected by it. If neutrinos have mass, they also interact gravitationally with other massive particles, but gravity is by far the weakest of the four known forces.
The problem with the graviton, is that like the Higgs Boson, it's hypothetical and we don't know if it truly exist. The neutrino existence however, I believe has been confirmed.
I stumbled upon a nice article about the Higgs particle recently. Apparently, in 1993, the UK science minister issued a challenge to physicists to describe the Higgs boson and why we want to find it on one piece of paper. Here is a list of the winners: I especially liked this article, written by Tom Kibble, which seems to explain the problem, and what the Higgs is, in a rather simple way!
__________________ ~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
Thanks neutralino for the link. In my theory I deal only with the proton, electron , neutron and photon. The other particles, except for the quark and strings, I eliminated as not being necessary.
This was my attempt to keep my Idea as simple and as understandable as possible.
Prior to my discovery of Gell-Mann’s theory of the quark I was stuck with Fritjof Capra’s THE TAO OF PHYSICS, which seemed to give up on any meaningful physical discovery of a true GUT. We seemed stuck with a particle zoo, where only philosophy and metaphysics could help us understand our reality. The Tao and the I Ching were his main principles.
With the quark, to me everything seemed to make sense. Suddenly I could see the strong force as a form of the electro/magnetic force of positive and negative binding and even the weak nuclear force as a limitation to this binding. ( I wish I was computer literate enough to try a computer simulation on this theory to see if it works )
I too incorporate in my Idea of the Tao and I Ching, but have a real physical reality underlying it.
Now it’s back to the particle zoo again with real, hypothetical and virtual particles plaguing me and my Idea.
I appreciate that I cannot wish them away, but the remaining particles do seem esoteric and not crucial at least to my theory.
And so like Einstein with the original ether, if it’s not necessary just eliminate it. Of course Einstein had to revisit the issue and accept the ether as being real.
As it stands now I eliminate all hypothetical and virtual particles. The neutrino does present me with problems however, in that they are apparently real.
Hi Prof... is this book ' The Tao of Physics' any good scientifically? I was about to buy it. But decided against it.. I am awaiting your suggestion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profpat
Thanks neutralino for the link. In my theory I deal only with the proton, electron , neutron and photon. The other particles, except for the quark and strings, I eliminated as not being necessary.
This was my attempt to keep my Idea as simple and as understandable as possible.
Prior to my discovery of Gell-Mann’s theory of the quark I was stuck with Fritjof Capra’s THE TAO OF PHYSICS, which seemed to give up on any meaningful physical discovery of a true GUT. We seemed stuck with a particle zoo, where only philosophy and metaphysics could help us understand our reality. The Tao and the I Ching were his main principles.
With the quark, to me everything seemed to make sense. Suddenly I could see the strong force as a form of the electro/magnetic force of positive and negative binding and even the weak nuclear force as a limitation to this binding. ( I wish I was computer literate enough to try a computer simulation on this theory to see if it works )
I too incorporate in my Idea of the Tao and I Ching, but have a real physical reality underlying it.
Now it’s back to the particle zoo again with real, hypothetical and virtual particles plaguing me and my Idea.
I appreciate that I cannot wish them away, but the remaining particles do seem esoteric and not crucial at least to my theory.
And so like Einstein with the original ether, if it’s not necessary just eliminate it. Of course Einstein had to revisit the issue and accept the ether as being real.
As it stands now I eliminate all hypothetical and virtual particles. The neutrino does present me with problems however, in that they are apparently real.
Linear Mode
