Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 106 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 11 of 12 1 2 9 10 11 12
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
I can not in good faith participate on a site where moderators will give me a warning for calling someone "mentally retarded" yet allows a discussion of "whether the holocaust really happened".

The site moderators are a disgrace there should not even need to be a thought about it and so I must leave.


this is a science forum whether you believe it or not , orac
the holocaust is not a science topic , if you participated in
a thread about the holocaust, which I'm sure you did then you
participated because of your personal belief system what ever belief system that is.

the moderators warned you because calling
SOMEONE "mentaly retarded" is harassment.

you are a disgrace orac , not the moderators.

the moderators are only doing what they must do in order to
comply with internet rules and regulations.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Paul
I think your right TT , the thread should have remained


Quote:
the moderators are only doing what they must do in order to
comply with internet rules and regulations.


In your opinion, then, would the Mods not have been “doing what they must do in order to comply with internet rules and regulations” if they had done what you think they should have done?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
LATE EDIT: Matt Strassler has a much better discussion of the effect

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-an...-what-are-they/


I've just got round to reading this article. I recommend it to other "hitch-hikers". Given time, I intend working through the responses, that may answer some of the multitude of questions that the article stirs up.

It the moment I'm thinking that the flavour changing of neutrinos is something akin to the exchange of virtual particles described in the article. At least, that's the direction my thinking will be going in for the present.

Any comments will be welcome.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Just some preliminary thoughts.

1. A neutrino is a neutrino… is a neutrino… is a neutrino… The flavours do not represent different types of neutrino.

2. The neutrino flavours indicate different relationships between the particulate (massive) facet of the neutrino and its associated wave package.

3. Most of the energy associated with a neutrino is kinetic energy; it can, therefore, be ignored when considering the actual mass/energy of the neutrino.

4. If one considers the particulate facet of the neutrino as containing the mass, and the associated wave as containing the energy; changes of flavour simply signify changes in mass/energy proportions.

5. A possible drawback to this model is that a less massive flavour will necessarily have greater energy than will a more massive flavour. Is this really a problem?

Comments (preferably reasonably polite) please.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
So much for trying to drag this thread back in the direction of science. Should I have mentioned Gods, Mods or Trolls in order to elicit a response?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
5. A possible drawback to this model is that a less massive flavour will necessarily have greater energy than will a more massive flavour. Is this really a problem?


ok, I was wondering if you meant

less massive flavour will (not) necessarily have greater energy.

because the energy is kinetic.
the neutrino mass does not actually change does it?

was I wrong in thinking that way?

I agree on the flavor assessment however.
the three flavors are the 3 neutrino states
pitch , yaw, roll and the 3 mass states
corresponding to the 3 flavors.














3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
I was thinking that if the energy/mass remained constant, as it would have to if energy were conserved, the less massive flavours would have to have greater energy in order to maintain the balance. This is not what one would expect, which is why I considered it as a drawback.

If, as seems to be the case, the masses of the different flavours are eigenstates, both energies and masses must change, and the changes must be measurable.

It would seem that any uncertainty regarding neutrino (flavour) mass(es) must arise as a result of shortcomings on the part of our equipment and/or ability to make the necessary measurements.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I dont know much about this stuff.

I can only go by what little bit I have read.

but classical physics is going to fall in there no matter what
is always my opinion , the flavors are only motions of the neutrino as in pitch , roll , yaw.

its such a tiny mass that the least amount of influence will
spin it it a direction.

as it is in motion it is constantly changing its spin , and these
changes in motion are the three flavors.

these changes can have a effect on the kinetic energy of the
neutrino much like a gyroscope effect has on a rocket.

now lets consider the reason the neutrino flavor changes.

perhaps , and I've never read this anywhere , but to me
it would be a classical way to examine these changes of spin
direction.

1) the neutrino has a shell that is charged both + and -
one side positive one side negative.
causing the shell to interact with any near particle's charge
and changing its flavor.

2) the neutrino has a shell that is more massive on one side.
like our moon.
causing the shell to interact with any near particle's gravity
field and changing its flavor.

3) the neutrino has a internal particle or particles that
interact with the neutrinos shell due to charges , mass / gravity
causing the shell to interact with the internal particles
charge or gravity field and changing its flavor.

even a combination of the above , including magnetic fields
surrounding the particles.

light stimulating the particles , giving them a massive change
in energy , the particles then reassessing their position due to
the increased energy.

when they do find out out why the neutrino changes its flavor
there will be a classical reason that is observed.

the above is my opinion on the neutrino and its flavor changes
I cant link to any info.

but in my opinion the energy/mass does change in magnatude
due to the absorption of light energy and the gyro effect
of the unknown shell and internal particles.

of course you wont find any of that in a book.
its just my opinion.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
the flavors are only motions of the neutrino as in pitch , roll , yaw.


That seems to jibe with current thinking, but leaves the question as to why a change in spin direction should bring about a change in mass.

Quote:
these changes can have a effect on the kinetic energy of the neutrino much like a gyroscope effect has on a rocket.


Presumably this should result in a change of speed. Has that been detected?

I always like to come across ideas that are not mainstream! Have you thought of running your neutrino ideas past the “boffins” on Physics Forums?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Have you thought of running your neutrino ideas past the “boffins” on Physics Forums?


nope , hadn't given it a thought.
got to maintain my low profile.
your welcome to it , if you want.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: BS
Presumably this should result in a change of speed.


It looks as though a change of speed might be involved. I'll do a bit more digging.

Originally Posted By: P
your welcome to it , if you want.


Thanks; don’t you think I get enough stick for my own off-beat ideas? smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
these changes can have a effect on the kinetic energy of the
neutrino much like a gyroscope effect has on a rocket.

Paul, I just looked closer at your reply here and I noticed this part of it. What is the gyroscope effect on a rocket that has an effect on kinetic energy?

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
a gyroscope is used to maintain a rockets orientation.

gyroscope's can also be used to direct the rocket in a direction.

to keep it simple , if the neutrino has a shell which is more massive on one side and the shell slips around because of an attraction or repulsion of an external or internal force , then the movement of the more massive side of the shell away from the direction of neutrino motion would temporarily increase the neutrino's overall kinetic energy or its speed because of the overall momentum of the neutrino.

kind of like temporarily lessening the load until the more massive side has completed its move due to the external or internal attraction or repulsion.









3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Thanks; don’t you think I get enough stick for my own off-beat ideas?


But , think about it this way , you could have a good story to
tell everyone in the retirement home some day.

I guess you've already noticed the changing in speed.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
I never likely to be able to afford a retirement home; but if your theory turns out to be correct I could always "do an Einstein" and claim credit. smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
kind of like temporarily lessening the load until the more massive side has completed its move due to the external or internal attraction or repulsion.


Would it not be the case that when the heavier side was at the front or back the "load" would be the same?

Only when the heavy side was moving front to back would there be a temporary lessening, but that would be countered by an increase when the heavy side was going back to front.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: paul
a gyroscope is used to maintain a rockets orientation.

gyroscope's can also be used to direct the rocket in a direction.



Assuming that we are talking about a launch system, not some small rotation stabilized rocket, the gyroscope does not directly affect the momentum or direction of the rocket. Gyroscopes are part of the guidance system. They are used to detect changes in orientation of the rocket and the signal from the inertial measurement unit (IMU) (which contains the gyros) is used to determine how the attitude thrusters are fired to achieve or maintain the desired orientation. So the gyroscopic effect directly on the rocket, which is what your previous statement implied, is not a factor.

On small rockets a rotation can stabilize the trajectory of the rocket just as it does a bullet, because it keeps it pointed in the same direction. In this case of course the rotation is imparted as part of the firing sequence.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
kind of like temporarily lessening the load until the more massive side has completed its move due to the external or internal attraction or repulsion.


Would it not be the case that when the heavier side was at the front or back the "load" would be the same?

Only when the heavy side was moving front to back would there be a temporary lessening, but that would be countered by an increase when the heavy side was going back to front.

Actually a rotating system with an imbalance will wobble badly. Just think about your car when you have wheel out of balance.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
So the gyroscopic effect directly on the rocket, which is what your previous statement implied, is not a factor.


its called a control moment gyroscope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_moment_gyroscope


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
I never likely to be able to afford a retirement home; but if your theory turns out to be correct I could always "do an Einstein" and claim credit.


that's right , and I can back you up on that!

dont you remember when you PM'ed me a while back?

LOL


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Page 11 of 12 1 2 9 10 11 12

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5