Neutrinos back into the picture?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter urtalkinstupid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Neutrinos Picture
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties and implications of neutrinos, particularly focusing on the push theory of gravity, which suggests that neutrinos may exert a force that contributes to gravitational effects. Participants explore the detection of different neutrino flavors, their masses, and the potential impact on gravitational theories. The conversation includes both theoretical considerations and challenges to the proposed ideas.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants describe neutrinos as fundamental particles with three flavors: electron, muon, and tau neutrinos, each with distinct properties and masses.
  • One participant claims that only electron neutrinos are detected by current methods, raising questions about the fate of the remaining neutrinos emitted by the sun.
  • There is a proposal that the differing masses and energies of neutrinos could lead to a push theory of gravity, suggesting that tau neutrinos, being more massive, might exert a greater force than electron neutrinos.
  • Another participant questions the feasibility of tau neutrinos having a mass of 31 MeV, expressing skepticism about their interaction with matter.
  • Some participants argue that the energy from tau neutrinos is insufficient to account for gravitational effects, citing their rarity and the conditions under which they are produced.
  • Concerns are raised about the previous thread being closed due to personal conflicts, with a call for a more respectful discussion environment.
  • One participant suggests that during solar eclipses, the moon's gravitational effects remain consistent, questioning how the push theory would account for this phenomenon.
  • There is a mention of external sources and arguments that challenge the push theory, with some participants expressing skepticism about the validity of these sources.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the push theory, with some supporting it and others challenging its validity. There is no consensus on the implications of neutrino properties for gravitational theory, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various sources and prior knowledge, but there are unresolved questions regarding the detection of tau neutrinos, their mass, and the implications for gravitational forces. The discussion also reflects differing interpretations of neutrino interactions with matter.

  • #121
chroot said:
It doesn't need to be super-sensitive. Any mechanism that's able to generate 170 lbs. of force pushing me into the floor is going to demonstrate variations large enough to be detected with a bathroom scale.

After all, as others have said: if neutrinos from the Sun push me into the Earth during the day, why don't they push me off the Earth at night?

- Warren

After doing some quick calculations, it appears an object will weigh about .001% [.01 gram per kg] more at midnight than at noon due to the sun and moon's combined gravitational 'pull' [have to do this during a new moon] So, it wouldn't take a very sophisticated scale to detect that much difference
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
hmmm.. but it does make up the majority of mass in the universe... if it is massive, then it should affect space-time just like any other single object
 
  • #123
beatrix kiddo said:
hmmm.. but it does make up the majority of mass in the universe... if it is massive, then it should affect space-time just like any other single object

I'd like to point out that it's a lot farther than the sun. And that a large distance tends to 'outweigh' a large mass.
 
  • #124
have u tested this? and what do ur calculations say about weight if gravity is a "push"?
 
  • #125
do u mean the neutrinos are a lot farther out than the sun? or what?
 
  • #126
They say that almost all forces over distance are proportional to the inverse of distance squared because they have to expand on the surface of a sphere.
 
  • #127
beatrix kiddo said:
do u mean the neutrinos are a lot farther out than the sun? or what?

Yes. If they're surrounding the galaxy they are a lot farther away than the sun and would need to be much much much more massive. (How far is the edge of the galaxy?)
 
  • #128
oh. so then it wouldn't affect the galaxies like that.. but the neutrinos do surround the galaxies and that does give a reason for why the matter in the galaxies aren't flying out of them...
 
  • #129
and, good news for us.. they are much, much more massive... I'm not sure what the edge of a galaxy is... I'm sure a simple google search would be sufficient.. i'll check..
 
  • #130
ok.. i dunno.. i suck at searching...
 
  • #131
I think you need to finish your theory a bit more before you keep arguing. You're starting to jump around wildly, bringing up new points instead of arguing old ones.
 
  • #132
what new points? u asked me why isn't matter in the galaxies being expelled, and i told u because neutrinos surround it. then i asked would the massiveness of the neutinos make galaxies sink into it.. it was totally on topic, but i don't mind re-capping for u, alkatran..
 
  • #133
Alkatran said:
So let me get this straight. Because the galaxy is spinning, creating a centrifuge (sp?) force OUTWARDS, we aren't flying off?

me said:
i'll come up with a better answer in a sec...

and, since u couldn't remember.. that's when i introduced the neutrinos...
 
  • #134
What's making these neutrinos revolve around the galaxy at nearly the speed of light, if gravity doesn't exist for them? It would take an absolutely enormous force to make a neutrino moving at nearly the speed of light move in a circle as small as the galaxy.

- Warren
 
  • #135
And, as has been said, these neutrinos revolving around the halo of the galaxy don't ever hit the earth, so they can't have anything to do with gravity on it.

- Warren
 
  • #136
And, beatrix, inventing some mystical "energy field" in response to a legitimate argument is intellectual dishonesty. It seems you've been cornered for quite some time now, but rather than just sucking it up and admitting defeat, you've now had to bring neutrino halos, dark matter, and "energy fields" into the picture. When is this nonsense going to end? You're apparently smart enough to use a computer, so there's no way you're really stupid enough to believe your own arguments.

- Warren
 
  • #137
there are neutrinos revolving around galaxies because the neutrinos are making this energy field.. I'm trying to explain it as best as i can... I'm saying since there are neutrinos keeping galaxies together, then maybe neutrinos are keeping the solar system together also... if there is a halo of neutrinos around something as large as a galaxy, what's to say that there aren't neutrinos surrounding the solar system, keeping the planets from being expelled? these neutrinos circle galaxies and solar systems at near light speeds because that's how they clumped together when the galaxies and solar systems were first created... they are keeping everything in order.
 
  • #138
ever since the start of the other thread i have been agreeing with stupid about the energy field idea:
http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/
i didn't just come up with this, if that's what u're thinking..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #139
also, jesse babcock thinks everything has an energy field and this plays a part in gravity...
http://www.pioneer-net.com/~jessep/Gravity.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #140
warren.. I'm really not as dishonest as u think...
 
  • #141
beatrix kiddo said:
there are neutrinos revolving around galaxies because the neutrinos are making this energy field..
Riiiiiiiight. This is clearly science fiction. What's next? Aliens in spandex and tractor beams?
i'm trying to explain it as best as i can...
Seeing as you're making it all up on the spot, I guess I can't blame you for your incoherency. No wonder you don't see physicists doing shows at the Improv.
i'm saying since there are neutrinos keeping galaxies together, then maybe neutrinos are keeping the solar system together also...
You've never given any evidence of the premise, so how can you draw any conclusions? Perhaps you don't understand your sources. It is possible that some kind of exotic matter -- neutrinos or other weakly-interacting species -- comprise a lot of the mass of a galaxy. No one is quite sure yet why, but it seems galaxies have more mass than their light implies. The scientists who are considering neutrinos as a reasonably large fraction of a galaxies mass are not supporting the idea that neutrinos are in any way related to the mechanism of gravitation. They are simply considering that their aggregate mass might be substantial.
these neutrinos circle galaxies and solar systems at near light speeds because that's how they clumped together when the galaxies and solar systems were first created... they are keeping everything in order.
As I've said, it would take an enormous force to keep an neutrino orbiting a galaxy at nearly light speed. Why don't you try your hand at basic mechanics and calculate what force would be required? What do you suppose provides this force, since gravity no longer exists in your theory?

Before we go any further, I want you to answer this question: why are you inventing any of this neutrino-orbiting halo crap anyway? These neutrinos never hit the earth, so they can't affect gravity there. Why are you even discussing them?

And please don't provide links to other crackpots who say other similarly stupid things. How does this help your credibility? One day you'll be just like them, if you aren't already, and you'll have your very own link on crank.net.

- Warren
 
  • #142
so u're saying that neutrinos DON'T orbit galaxies? uhhhh that's stupid. everyone knows that's where all the missing mass is. and it has to deal with energy warren, not really force.
These neutrinos never hit the earth, so they can't affect gravity there

god... i have explained this before... ENERGY FIELDS, warren! ... maybe stupid can go more indepth on this one...

Seeing as you're making it all up on the spot, I guess I can't blame you for your incoherency. No wonder you don't see physicists doing shows at the Improv.

i should have been more clear. I'm trying to explain this to the point where ur space-time mind can understand...

Aliens in spandex and tractor beams?

keep ur sci fi fantasy outta this, warren. I'm trying to be serious..
 
  • #143
beatrix kiddo said:
so u're saying that neutrinos DON'T orbit galaxies? uhhhh that's stupid. everyone knows that's where all the missing mass is. and it has to deal with energy warren, not really force.


god... i have explained this before... ENERGY FIELDS, warren! ... maybe stupid can go more indepth on this one...



i should have been more clear. I'm trying to explain this to the point where ur space-time mind can understand...



keep ur sci fi fantasy outta this, warren. I'm trying to be serious..

I have to admit, I laughed at "ENERGY FIELDS, warren!"

Please explain how these energy fields work? Somewhat similar to the way electric fields work? Except with mass/neutrinos instead?
 
  • #144
beatrix kiddo said:
so u're saying that neutrinos DON'T orbit galaxies? uhhhh that's stupid. everyone knows that's where all the missing mass is. and it has to deal with energy warren, not really force.
If they do orbit galaxies, they can't orbit at nearly the speed of light. And if they orbit at any speed, they do so because of gravity. Since you claim that neutrinos themselves create gravity by hitting objects, then how are these neutrinos themselves in orbit? What neutrinos are hitting them?
god... i have explained this before... ENERGY FIELDS, warren! ... maybe stupid can go more indepth on this one...
The phrase 'ENERGY FIELDS,' even when set in capital letters, is not an explanation. It's a phrase devoid of meaning. What is an energy field? Where do energy fields occur? How can I make my own energy field in a laboratory? What do energy fields do to matter? What do energy fields do to each other?
keep ur sci fi fantasy outta this, warren. I'm trying to be serious..
Like it or not, your crap-fountain of a thread here is science fiction.

And stop trying to dodge my question:
Before we go any further, I want you to answer this question: why are you inventing any of this neutrino-orbiting halo crap anyway? These neutrinos never hit the earth, so they can't affect gravity there. Why are you even discussing them?

- Warren
 
  • #145
Wow, busy week. I haven't been able to get on as much as I wanted. So, I'm trying to catch up.

Alkatran, in your scenario with the tree and stuff, could you possibly include dnesity as a rate of emission and absorption of neutrinos to make it more realistic to the theory? That would help out a lot.

Pulling has no opposite force. You grab a doorknob and pull on it. It grabs you and pulls on you back? You push the doorknob. That propogates a force through the doorknob that pushes you back.

If neutrinos don't interact with the the electromagnetic forces, explain how they detect them? They interact by collision. This collision with an electron promotes decay. Through this decay a blue light cone is emitted. This is how neutrinos are detected, through interaction with electrons.

ArmoSkater87, positrons are what are theorized to make up part of the proton. When a collision occurs, this positron breaks off the proton and becomes the anti-particle to the electron.

Entropy, we all know that you think space-time curvature is gravity. So, you just think gravity is a geometric effect? Wouldn't space-time curvature throw out gravity as one of the fundamental forces? As you said previously, "space-time curvature isn't a force." So, there are only three fundamental forces?

Brad Ad23, "gravitational" lensing can be explained int he push theory. Take a beam of light, it is approaching a dense object. This dense object absorbs neutrinos, allowing less to pass through. The beam of light is over the dense object. It is being hit by more neutrinos on the top than bottom. This cause the light beam to bend at an angle.

chroot said:
And indeed, if there were neutrinos pushing you from every direction at once, there'd be no gravity at all -- the net force would be zero.

- Warren

Wrong.

Neutrinos are all over. Since they travel at relativistic speeds, they interact with us constantly. If they pass through the earth, they do not cancel the affect of the sun. The neutrinos that pass through are outnumbered by the ones from the sun. The sun merely overpowers the nuetrinos that pass through. Net force is positive. Weigh is simply a term associated with the pull theory of gravity. The push theory does not regard weight. Neutrino direction is uniform until they go through emission and absorption. This alters the direction of the neutrino flow.

chroot said:
What we can't figure out, beatrix, is how all the other planets and stars know to push us one direction into the Earth at noon (away from the sun), and then to instead push us the other way at midnight (toward the sun). Six months later, the situation is reversed, though, and all the other planets and stars would have to somehow switch gears and send their neutrinos the other way.

How do you respond?

- Warren

They don't "know" when to push in one direction. The push in all directions. Emission and absorption is what makes a difference in the forces of neutrinos interacting. So, density is an ultimate factor determining emission and absorption. I've recently found a site that explains orbit through neutrinos interaction. Although, it is limited to the Earth moon system of orbiting. I'll be happy to give you the site, if you want it.

Dark matter is simply a pushing force. Neutrinos are what make up hot dark matter as beatrix kiddo said.

Alkatran said:
They say that almost all forces over distance are proportional to the inverse of distance squared because they have to expand on the surface of a sphere.

Let's put emphais on ALMOST. Not ALL forces over a distance are proportional to the inverse of distance squared. Neutrinos do not have to expand on the surface of a sphere. Light does, neutrinos don't.


errrr...galaxies being held together

Neutrinos are said to interact through weak forces. What says that they can't interact with each other? Are they able to absorb each other energy, increasing their size? Oscillate as a consequence of this absorption?

As for the response on how neutrinos would account for opposite space-time curvature. Think of a hyperbola. This would account for opposite space-time curvature. Everything is pushed towards the center still. Pull allows everything to fall towards the center. It's the same thing except opposite.

I'm tired of saying stuff...I'll try to get on later and explain more.
 
Last edited:
  • #146
urtalkinstupid said:
Wow, busy week. I haven't been able to get on as much as I wanted. So, I'm trying to catch up.

Alkatran, in your scenario with the tree and stuff, could you possibly include dnesity as a rate of emission and absorption of neutrinos to make it more realistic to the theory? That would help out a lot.

The more matter it passes through, the more is absorbed. Instead of saying that the density was 5kg/m^3 and that there was one cubic meter I just said they had to pass through a Kg of mass.

urtalkinstupid said:
Pulling has no opposite force. You grab a doorknob and pull on it. It grabs you and pulls on you back? You push the doorknob. That propogates a force through the doorknob that pushes you back.

Push and Pull are terms of convenience. There is only force and direction in this context.

urtalkinstupid said:
Entropy, we all know that you think space-time curvature is gravity. So, you just think gravity is a geometric effect? Wouldn't space-time curvature throw out gravity as one of the fundamental forces? As you said previously, "space-time curvature isn't a force." So, there are only three fundamental forces?

GR doesn't combine with quantum physics for good reasons.

urtalkinstupid said:
Brad Ad23, "gravitational" lensing can be explained int he push theory. Take a beam of light, it is approaching a dense object. This dense object absorbs neutrinos, allowing less to pass through. The beam of light is over the dense object. It is being hit by more neutrinos on the top than bottom. This cause the light beam to bend at an angle.

I thought the sun emitted neutrinos, which is why we weren't falling into it and being pushed upwards? Wouldn't this cancel out your inward push?

urtalkinstupid said:
Neutrinos are all over. Since they travel at relativistic speeds, they interact with us constantly. If they pass through the earth, they do not cancel the affect of the sun. The neutrinos that pass through are outnumbered by the ones from the sun. The sun merely overpowers the nuetrinos that pass through. Net force is positive. Weigh is simply a term associated with the pull theory of gravity. The push theory does not regard weight. Neutrino direction is uniform until they go through emission and absorption. This alters the direction of the neutrino flow.

That's great. But it doesn't explain why there's a balance of forces for all the orbiting planets OR why the moon is orbiting earth.

urtalkinstupid said:
They don't "know" when to push in one direction. The push in all directions. Emission and absorption is what makes a difference in the forces of neutrinos interacting. So, density is an ultimate factor determining emission and absorption. I've recently found a site that explains orbit through neutrinos interaction. Although, it is limited to the Earth moon system of orbiting. I'll be happy to give you the site, if you want it.

The reason it's limited the the earth-moon system is that if you start putting other planets in the whole thing breaks down.

urtalkinstupid said:
Dark matter is simply a pushing force. Neutrinos are what make up hot dark matter as beatrix kiddo said.

Pushing how? The same way gravity pulls?

urtalkinstupid said:
Let's put emphais on ALMOST. Not ALL forces over a distance are proportional to the inverse of distance squared. Neutrinos do not have to expand on the surface of a sphere. Light does, neutrinos don't.

What are you talking about?? The further you are from the sun the less neutrinos you're going to get. If the sun emits 5 trillion neutrinos from it's center in random directions (so it's evenly spaced out) these 5 trillion neutrinos can't cover 500 square kilometers as densely as they can cover 100 square kilometers. They spread out! If there's the same force at 5 meters as there is at 2 meters, that means the neutrinos are multiplying as they go.
 
  • #147
i did answer ur question chroot. i never made up the neutrino-halo thing. it says it right there in that source i gave u. I'm not avoiding anything u have to say. neutrinos never hit the earth? what the.. oh i guess u mean the neutrinos around the ss. they DO affect the Earth by keeping it in the ss. weird. if they are keeping the galaxy together, they're keeping the ss together.. a child could grasp this concept..

Like it or not, your crap-fountain of a thread here is science fiction

hahahahahahahaha... like it or not, WARREN, this is theory development. what i think has to be taken seriously because this theory is making ur theories look like crap...
 
  • #148
alkatran, what are u talking about?? they multiply as they go out? but then u say the farther from the sun u are, the less neutrinos there are.. please clean this up..
 
  • #149
beatrix kiddo said:
i did answer ur question chroot. i never made up the neutrino-halo thing. it says it right there in that source i gave u. I'm not avoiding anything u have to say. neutrinos never hit the earth? what the.. oh i guess u mean the neutrinos around the ss. they DO affect the Earth by keeping it in the ss. weird. if they are keeping the galaxy together, they're keeping the ss together.. a child could grasp this concept..



hahahahahahahaha... like it or not, WARREN, this is theory development. what i think has to be taken seriously because this theory is making ur theories look like crap...

But to do that they need to come in contact with us. If they're around the solar system and we're inside... well how are they coming in contact? Flying in, flying back out, maybe doing a few loop-de-loops in between?
 
  • #150
beatrix kiddo said:
alkatran, what are u talking about?? they multiply as they go out? but then u say the farther from the sun u are, the less neutrinos there are.. please clean this up..

My point was that IF the force is the same at any distance from the sun, the only solution is that the number of neutrinos magicly increased.

I was pointing out someone else's error.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K