Antineutrinos? Is this a plausible theory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Physgeek123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theory
AI Thread Summary
Neutrinos are indeed fundamental particles, with three known types: tau, electron, and muon neutrinos. Anti-neutrinos exist and are produced during nuclear beta decay, exhibiting right-handed helicity, in contrast to the left-handed helicity of neutrinos. The concept of "neutrinoprotons" and "neutrinoelectrons" is not supported by current scientific understanding, as these entities do not exist. The discussion highlights confusion surrounding the nature of neutrinos and their potential counterparts. Overall, while the theory of antineutrinos is plausible, the proposed extensions into new particle types lack scientific backing.
Physgeek123
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Since neutrinos have no charge and are not visible, could it be possible that neutrinos could be a new fundamental particle? Since every particle has a anti matter part, nuetrinoparticles might as well have an antinuetrinoparticle counterpart? Maybe things like neutrinoprotons and neutrinoelectrons could exist. I'm confused about all this, but you tell me. This is just a random theory that came to mind.
 
Space news on Phys.org
Physgeek123 said:
Since neutrinos have no charge and are not visible, could it be possible that neutrinos could be a new fundamental particle? Since every particle has a anti matter part, nuetrinoparticles might as well have an antinuetrinoparticle counterpart? Maybe things like neutrinoprotons and neutrinoelectrons could exist. I'm confused about all this, but you tell me. This is just a random theory that came to mind.

Neutrinos are a fundamental particle, and there are 3 types of them: tau neutrinos, electron neutrinos, and muon neutrinos. Also, anti-neutrinos do exist, they are produced in nuclear beta decay, and have right-handed helicity (compared to the neutrino's left-handed helicity).

About the 'neutrinoprotons' and 'neutinoelectron' part, no such things exist. Here is a list of all known particles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles

You should read this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top