Another Crackpot Theory: Neutrinos

AI Thread Summary
Neutrinos have been discussed as a potential explanation for the universe's "missing" mass, but this idea has largely been dismissed due to insufficient observed mass. While neutrinos are often called "ghost particles" due to their low mass and lack of charge, they are real and can be detected. They do not travel at the speed of light but rather very close to it, which is consistent with their small mass. The conversation highlights common misconceptions about neutrinos and their properties in astrophysics. Overall, the discussion clarifies the nature of neutrinos and their role in the universe's mass composition.
theLHC
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hey guys. Just before you read this, let it be known that I am merely a 16 year old, and so these are basically ideas from one who is not as educated in the field of astrophysics as others, so forgive me if this concept may sound utterly rubbish to you.

Ok. So here it is. Neutrinos. There is a debate going on (or was going on:confused:) that the neutrinos may amount for the "missing" mass of the universe that is unobservable. Once again, I am not in step with the astrophysical community, so please update me on this if there have been any developments, but nevertheless, here are my thoughts.

Supposedly, there are so many of these neutrinos that if they had even a tiny, insignificant mass, in total they would equal to a significant portion of that so called "missing" mass. The flaw that I see with this argument is that if the neutrinos can have mass, then why are they still referred to as ghost particles? This reference to them being ghost particles means that they pass through this unnoticed due to their almost unexisting mass. On top of that, the neutrinos travel at the speed of light, further complicating my confusion. I then came to the conclusion that the neutrinos have no mass what so ever, since if they had any sort of mass they would be detected in size because they would increase in mass since they are traveling at the speed of light.

Isn't it true that in order for an object to travel at the speed of light, it must be massless?

But then again, I may be mistaken, seeing that this was out of a book that I read 2 years ago and am trying to recall all that I read, so there may be some discrepancies to what I just stated.

Please give your thoughts on this.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
theLHC said:
There is a debate going on (or was going on:confused:) that the neutrinos may amount for the "missing" mass of the universe that is unobservable.
I think that has been discarded the observed mass is too low.
if the neutrinos can have mass, then why are they still referred to as ghost particles? This reference to them being ghost particles means that they pass through this unnoticed due to their almost unexisting mass.
They pass through things unnoticed because they have no charge, and very low mass. Ghost particle doesn't mean anything in physics, neutrinos are completely real and observable
On top of that, the neutrinos travel at the speed of light, further complicating my confusion. Isn't it true that in order for an object to travel at the speed of light, it must be massless?
They don't travel at c, having very small mass they travel very close to c but not quite at it.In almost every medium other than vacuum they do travel faster than light but this perfectly allowed - the rule is only against going faster than 'c' = speed of light in a vacuum.
 
Hmm, yes I see what you mean. Well thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding sir.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top