[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar 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.

I would highly recommend it Dipayankar. It's a real classic.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Here is just a taste of it Dipayankar:


In the Eastern view, then, the division of nature into separate objects is not fundamental and any such objects have a fluid and ever-changing character. The Eastern world view is therefore intrinsically dynamic and contains time and change as essential features. The cosmos is seen as one inseparable reality-for ever in motion, alive, organic; spiritual and material at the same time.
Since motion and change are essential properties of things, the forces causing the motion are not outside the objects, as in the classical Greek view, but are an intrinsic property of matter. Correspondingly, the Eastern image of the Divine is not that of a ruler who directs the world from above, but of a principle that controls everything from within:

He who, dwelling in all things,
Yet is other than all things,
Whom all things do not know,
Whose body all things are,
Who controls all things from within-
He is your Soul, the Inner Controller,
The Immortal.

Best,

Pat

[b1rdman]

Hi Prof,
I can agree with you on the "zoo of particles" being troublesome.
But I don't think that they are necessary to explain our world. A hockey player doesn't need to understand anatomy and physiology to know how to skate. It helps, but it's not necessary.
The same applies for atomic particles and subatomic particles. You don't need to know what makes up the parts of atoms to understand the principles of atomic particles.
It's a different area of study. I don't see neutrinos as being so much a problem as a different school of study than what you are explaining.
Muon Neutrinos are real. They have been detected, but lab created muons can only be detected for nanoseconds (or some such small timeframe) before they dissolve. I briefly address this in my ToE. I believe that because they are the building blocks the smaller level of creation, they are too small to have the cohension necessary to exist in our level of creation. The forces which we take for granted are too powerful for such small particles.

I haven't had much time to look over you paper, but what I've seen looks interesting. I hope to delve deeper into it when I have the time.

Eric

[dipayankar]

Okay thanks Prof.. probably I will go and buy myself a copy.

Originally Posted by Profpat I would highly recommend it Dipayankar. It's a real classic. Best, Pat

[Profpat]

Hi Eric:

Thanks for your input and interest. I agree the neutrino has no electric charge and very likely no mass, and therefor would not interact with the E/M force or with gravity. It appears only when a neutron breaks down to a proton and electron, and its my understanding that a neutrino is necessary to balance that interaction.

Since it goes through everything with little to no interaction I have ignored it in my Idea.

Best to you sir,

Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Okay thanks Prof.. probably I will go and buy myself a copy.

Another good book Dipayankar is:

The Key to the Universe: A Report on the New Physics (Paperback)
by Nigel Calder (Author)

This is the book that most influenced me regarding my Idea. You can probably buy them both pretty cheap on the internet.

Best,

Pat

[dipayankar]

No mass, no charge, no interactions with any force... tell me Prof, why are we studying neutrinos? They do not seem to make any difference at all to anything right?

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Eric: Thanks for your input and interest. I agree the neutrino has no electric charge and very likely no mass, and therefor would not interact with the E/M force or with gravity. It appears only when a neutron breaks down to a proton and electron, and its my understanding that a neutrino is necessary to balance that interaction. Since it goes through everything with little to no interaction I have ignored it in my Idea. Best to you sir, Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar No mass, no charge, no interactions with any force... tell me Prof, why are we studying neutrinos? They do not seem to make any difference at all to anything right?

Matbe we can ask Neutralino, I believe the Neutrino is his cousin.

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by dipayankar No mass, no charge, no interactions with any force... tell me Prof, why are we studying neutrinos? They do not seem to make any difference at all to anything right?

You're correct that neutrinos have no charge, and you may be correct that they have no mass (currently it is believed that neutrinos have a very small, non-zero mass, but that may be open for debate in the coming years), but neutrinos do interact via a force: they interact via the weak force. In fact, according to hyperphysics the neutrino was first postulated to make up for the energy gap in beta decay (the decay of a neutron to a proton via the weak force). Of course, if the neutrino really does have a nonzero mass then it will interact via gravity too, but this will be extremely weak.

[Fluent Piffle]

no interactions with any force

Surely, just by our observations, we can ascertain that at least One interaction is taking place?

"Since motion and change are essential properties of things, the forces causing the motion are not outside the objects," (from above quote of 'Tao of physics')



pif.