Another Crackpot Theory: Neutrinos

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the role of neutrinos in the context of the "missing" mass of the universe. Participants clarify that while neutrinos are often referred to as "ghost particles" due to their low mass and weak interactions, they are indeed real and observable. It is established that neutrinos do possess a small mass, allowing them to travel close to, but not at, the speed of light. The misconception that massless particles can travel at light speed is addressed, emphasizing that neutrinos do not travel at the speed of light in a vacuum.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic particle physics concepts
  • Knowledge of neutrino properties and behavior
  • Familiarity with the concept of "missing mass" in astrophysics
  • Awareness of the speed of light and its implications in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of neutrinos and their role in the Standard Model of particle physics
  • Study the concept of dark matter and its relationship with missing mass
  • Explore the implications of neutrino oscillation and mass on astrophysical observations
  • Learn about the experimental methods used to detect neutrinos, such as the Super-Kamiokande detector
USEFUL FOR

Astrophysicists, particle physicists, students of physics, and anyone interested in the fundamental properties of matter and the universe's 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
21K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K