Rare find backs shape-shifting neutrino

Mar 27, 2013
The Sudbury Neutrino Detector. Credit: A. B. McDonald (Queen's University) et al., The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Institute

Physicists announced further proof Wednesday for a theory that mysterious particles called neutrinos which go "missing" on the journey from the Sun to Earth are in fact shape-shifting along the way, arriving undetected.

The evidence: a muon-type neutrino dispatched from the research laboratory near Geneva had arrived as a at the INFN Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy, 730 kilometres (450 miles) away, they said in a statement.

It is only the third time that the mutation has been observed by the OPERA experiment, an international project launched in 2001 specifically to detect the bizarre change.

"Its observation confirms something scientists have been studying for more than 40 years: the fact that neutrinos induced by cosmic rays impinging on the arrive far fewer than expected," said the statement.

A Nobel-winning 1969 hypothesis shed light on the mystery by suggesting the were in fact changing type.

There are three types, or "flavours," of neutrino—an electrically-neutral subatomic particle that rarely interacts with matter.

Under the prevailing Standard Model of physics, neutrinos cannot have mass, but the outcome of the experiment suggests that in fact they do.

For the , a beam of neutrinos produced at CERN is sent to the Gran Sasso , which houses a 4,000-tonne detector.

The detector scans the arriving particles for tau neutrinos, knowing that only muons had set out from CERN.

Finding a tau neutrino proves that "oscillation" or change happened along the way.

OPERA detected its first tau neutrino in 2010 and the second in 2012.

The observation of a third tau neutrino "is an important confirmation of the two previous observations", OPERA scientists Giovanni De Lellis said in a statement.

"From a statistical point of view, the observation of three tau neutrino candidates provides the evidence of oscillations in the muon-to-tau neutrino channel."

The search for tau neutrinos will continue for another two years, said the statement.

Explore further: Thermoelectric power plants could offer economically competitive renewable energy

More information: www.infn.it/news/newsen.php?id=663

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

OPERA observes the second tau neutrino

Jun 07, 2012

(Phys.org) -- The OPERA collaboration has announced yesterday at the Neutrino 2012 conference in Japan, the observation of their second neutrino tau interaction, after the first observation made in 2010.

New results confirm standard neutrino theory

Feb 16, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- In its search for a better understanding of the mysterious neutrinos, a group of experimenters at DOE’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory has announced results that confirm the theory ...

Neutrinos change flavors while crossing Japan

Jun 15, 2011

By shooting a beam of neutrinos through a small slice of the Earth under Japan, physicists say they've caught the particles changing their stripes in new ways. These observations may one day help explain why the universe ...

New software models for understanding neutrinos

Jun 06, 2012

Neutrinos are neutral elementary particles created by nuclear reactions such as those in our Sun and other stars. EU researchers sought to advance our understanding of their interactions in deep space with ...

Physicists: Did neutrinos break the speed of light?

Nov 23, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The revolutionary news that an experiment measured particles traveling faster than the speed of light drew varied ages and backgrounds to a standing-room only physics department forum, "Faster ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 53

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2013
This article seems misleading to me. That neutrinoes from the sun osscilate between flavours has been confirmed for at least ten years, and the different flavours have been previously detected. (see results from Super-Kamiokande , for eg). The mass issue has also been well studied. (see here, for eg: http://physics.pr...ss.html) So the insinuation that both of these conditions is something novel seems disengenuous. Am I missing something?

(PS: btw, the finding of the "missing" neutrinoes pretty much ended the scientific argument of an EU universe, and EU and all of its derivatives became a game of pseudo-science forever after.)
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (21) Mar 27, 2013
Am I missing something?
You probably missed the scientific journalism, which is the way, in which the scientists together with journalists are cheating public information system by pretending, the results of their research are more significant and groundbreaking, then they really are. The journalists seek for sensation to attract the readers and the scientists need to attract the grant agencies.
AntonKole
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 27, 2013
Great work!
weezilla
3.3 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2013
Am I missing something?
You probably missed the scientific journalism, which is the way, in which the scientists together with journalists are cheating public information system by pretending, the results of their research are more significant and groundbreaking, then they really are. The journalists seek for sensation to attract the readers and the scientists need to attract the grant agencies.

Although I'm not generally in support of sensationalism, I have to remember that it's probably better used here than elsewhere. After all, the public wouldn't care about most research being done. At least this way, they think science is valuable and scientists can get their hands on some money, which a lot of the time, is a trustworthy thing.
vacuum-mechanics
1.2 / 5 (20) Mar 27, 2013
"Its observation confirms something scientists have been studying for more than 40 years: ....
There are three types, or "flavours," of neutrino—an electrically-neutral subatomic particle that rarely interacts with matter. Under the prevailing Standard Model of physics, neutrinos cannot have mass, but the outcome of the experiment suggests that in fact they do.

This seems interesting, but the problem is that nowadays we still do not know what it is!Maybe this physical view could help.
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en
Q-Star
3.9 / 5 (19) Mar 27, 2013
This article seems misleading to me. That neutrinoes from the sun osscilate between flavours has been confirmed for at least ten years, and the different flavours have been previously detected. (see results from Super-Kamiokande , for eg). The mass issue has also been well studied. (see here, for eg: http://physics.pr...ss.html) So the insinuation that both of these conditions is something novel seems disengenuous. Am I missing something?

(PS: btw, the finding of the "missing" neutrinoes pretty much ended the scientific argument of an EU universe, and EU and all of its derivatives became a game of pseudo-science forever after.)


I'm thinking the "rare" the article is/may be referring to the fact they started with a mu neutrino and the SAME neutrino returned as a tau neutrino. Actually knowing that a particular neutrino changed flavor.

Am I reading that correctly? Your thoughts?
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2013
Am I reading that correctly? Your thoughts?


Re-reading it a couple of times convinces me you have it right, although the article is pretty, well, sloppy to be generous.

And so, my objections are answered and this is actually a pretty neat finding!
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 27, 2013
Am I reading that correctly? Your thoughts?


Re-reading it a couple of times convinces me you have it right, although the article is pretty, well, sloppy to be generous.

And so, my objections are answered and this is actually a pretty neat finding!


Yeppers, the article lost something in the translation/condensing process, the link at the bottom goes to a much better "short" description of the project and this "find".
zerb
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 27, 2013
Please, this is just bad science. Opera detects a rare tau neutrino. Given the rarity of the event and the general low sensitivity of any detector to neutrinos. Who's to say that this tau neutrino and the other two reported came from CERN? They could just as well have been from a location outside the galaxy and been tau for billions of years. Nothing in this "news" report indicates the predicted conversion rate multiplied by the detection sensitivity to derive the probability of three events over 5-6 years.
yep
1 / 5 (15) Mar 28, 2013
Thornhill points out that the Electric Sun model predicts that fluctuations in the neutrino flux will be correlated with the level of electrical input to the Sun – that is, with such measurable phenomena as sunspot numbers and solar wind activity. This corrlation has already been observed qualitatively. The standard solar model cannot explain it. Neutrinos carry no electrical charge; therefore, the usual 'hidden strange magnetic fields lurking beneath the Sun's surface' cannot be invoked to explain away a correlation between neutrino flux and sunspot number if, indeed, that correlation is real. Any quantitative determination of a relationship between neutrino flux and sunspot number and/or solar wind intensity would absolutely falsify the fusion model once and for all. And it would be further validation of the Electric Sun model. Apparently EU is alive and well whereas priori science needs to catch up.
vlaaing peerd
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2013
Maybe this physical view could help.

Or maybe it won't. I know your kind, you're part of the Swiss/French anti cheese model conspiracy. You know #@$n well cheese can change flavour over time and resembles neutrino behaviour very well ... but nooooo you stupid twats have to build a billion dollar ring because your cheese sucks in modelling the universe.

Go back home to the Alps and stick that lousy cheese in your vacuum.
vlaaing peerd
1.3 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2013
it's been known for some time that neutrino's appear to have mass, while SM predicts it to be massless. This particle had been made up to explain the conservation of energy at beta decay, but if it contains mass, it would take energy away ...at least up till my point of understanding.

Anyone here able to point me in a good direction how it works in the standard model? There seems to be little information about how the neutrino with mass is still explained by SM.

ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2013
If a left-handed neutrino tried to collide with the Higgs boson, it would have to become right-handed. Since no such state has been observed, the left-handed neutrino is unable to interact with the Higgs boson and therefore does not acquire any mass. In this way, massless neutrinos go hand in hand with the absence of right-handed neutrinos in the Standard Model.

In one extension to the Standard Model, left- and right-handed neutrinos exist. These Dirac neutrinos acquire mass via the Higgs mechanism but right-handed neutrinos interact much more weakly than any other particles. According to another extension of the Standard Model, extremely heavy right-handed neutrinos are created for a brief moment before they collide with the Higgs boson to produce light left-handed Majorana neutrinos.
Lurker2358
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2013
Zerb:

1, Calculate a line of origin of the Tau.

2, Check to see if the line intersects CERN.

3, Calculate the travel time the Neutrino would need if it originated from CERN.

4, Check to see if the right type of event at CERN could have occurred at the right time to produce the muon-type neutrino on the correct trajectory.

If all of that is correct, then it's more likely the Tau came from a muon-type at the CERN than from a distant galaxy, although admittedly you might not necessarily be able to prove that 100%; much like a lot of observations, there's always a chance you're making a mistake or misinterpreting the data, but you to draw some conclusion eventually or you'll never "know" anything...
Tuxford
1 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2013
How does one fundamental object suddenly become another fundamental object? How does an apple become an orange? Seems to my simple brain that something is amiss.

If said fundamental object were not actually fundamental, then my brain works again.
Fleetfoot
4 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2013
This article seems misleading to me. That neutrinoes from the sun osscilate between flavours has been confirmed for at least ten years, and the different flavours have been previously detected. ... So the insinuation that both of these conditions is something novel seems disengenuous. Am I missing something?


Solar neutrinos start out as electron flavour, this observation is from muon to tau flavour so measures a different channel.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2013
How does one fundamental object suddenly become another fundamental object? How does an apple become an orange? Seems to my simple brain that something is amiss.

If said fundamental object were not actually fundamental, then my brain works again.


There's an explanation in classical terms here:

http://en.wikiped...illation
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2013
How does one fundamental object suddenly become another fundamental object? How does an apple become an orange? Seems to my simple brain that something is amiss
I already explained it just above your post. For vortices in particle environment it's quite normal, they morph itself into various shapes continuously. You can even check it yourself in your bathroom.
there's an explanation in classical terms
This is a description only - until you don't believe, that the neutrino consist of spring-coupled pendulum pair. It's like the explanation of elephant with water siphon.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2013
How does one fundamental object suddenly become another fundamental object? How does an apple become an orange? Seems to my simple brain that something is amiss
I already explained it just above your post.


You haven't grasped that everyone who has been in the group for more than a month or two knows your posts are pseudo-science and ignores them.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2013
knows your posts are pseudo-science and ignores them
I was never argued, proved the less, that my posts are pseudo-science. The connection of neutrino physics to vortex behavior is quite apparent - and the only way in which it can be ignored is to disprove it in logical way. Which is indeed difficult, but it doesn't mean, that the pure negativism is more scientific approach. After all, at the moment, when you have no better illustrative explanation, wouldn't be more tactical to simply remain quiet about it? Your negativism only makes your ignorance more visible and it just enables me to point to it instead.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2013
In AWT the neutrinos are superpartners of photons and the photons routinely oscillate too in a process, which is known as so-called quantum decoherence. We cannot observe the photon along whole its path - it disappears after while and it reemerges somewhere else along its path. This behavior is closely related to the variable speed of light, as proposed here. In AWT the photon is slightly massive so it moves in slower speed, than the light wave as a whole. So it must dissolve periodically and converge itself into invisible mixture of gravitational waves, which are superluminal and which would make a quantum jump through the space. During this the photons are undetectable, as they would violate the special relativity.

Why not to simply admit, I really DO understand the subject at its fundamental level? Whereas for you all the articles here are just a mixture of mutually isolated ideas.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2013
What is really interesting is, that even quite heavy particles, like the neutrons are able to oscillate. With compare to neutrino the neutron is like the elephant against flea. IMO the neutron doesn't really evaporate physically from our sight, but it loses its lepton charge just because of oscillations of neutrino inside of it, so it becomes undetectable. All its charges are internally compensated in this moment - so that from the outside perspective it appears like the transparent scalar gravity wave for us, which manifest itself only with its gravity at distance. IMO at the huge energy densities even the protons and electrons could lose their electromagnetic charge temporarily - such a process would promote the collapse of supernova's matter into electroweak stars.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2013
knows your posts are pseudo-science and ignores them
I was never argued, proved the less, that my posts are pseudo-science. The connection of neutrino physics to vortex behavior is quite apparent - and the only way in which it can be ignored is to disprove it in logical way.


Wrong again, Russell's Teapot applies, nobody needs to prove the negative:

http://en.wikiped...s_teapot

To turn your comment into science, show that a mathematical analysis of your "vortex" model predicts the numbers observed in all the various experiments that observe flavour oscillation.

when you have no better illustrative explanation, wouldn't be more tactical to simply remain quiet about it?


Check your facts, I gave a link to a qualitative explanation in the post immediately prior to yours. For a look at the actual science, try this:

http://www2.warwi...ions.pdf
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2013
In AWT the neutrinos are superpartners of photons and the photons routinely oscillate too in a process, which is known as so-called quantum decoherence.


Clueless, decoherence is a process that occurs when the photon is detected, not in flight. It describes its interaction with the detector.

Why not to simply admit, I really DO understand the subject at its fundamental level?


Because, as above, in almost every post you demonstrate that you have read all the words but understood none of the meaning.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2013
decoherence is a process that occurs when the photon is detected, not in flight. It describes its interaction with the detector
Decoherence limits the distance, at which the entanglement can be observed.
show that a mathematical analysis of your "vortex" model predicts the numbers observed in all the various experiments that observe flavour oscillation
Well, this is why mainstream physicists cannot recognize even the most trivial analogies, just because they don't give the exactly the same results. But the point of analogies isn't to give the exactly the same results.
in almost every post you demonstrate that you have read all the words but understood none of the meaning
This is just a feeling of yours, i.e. tautology - you haven't proven it. I can say easily with the same relevancy, you didn't understand anything about AWT, because you're too stupid for to understand everything, which cannot be written into math. How do you do the common decisions in your real life?
Humpty
1 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2013
Admnittedly, neutrinos are emitted from within the ring around Uranus.

The higher the thrust energy, the higher the emission speed.

Thus, the faster the speed, the lower the interaction with any matter as they go through the universe.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2013
decoherence is a process that occurs when the photon is detected, not in flight. It describes its interaction with the detector
Decoherence limits the distance, at which the entanglement can be observed.


Greater distance gives a greater chance of a spurious interaction, no medium is perfect. The fact remains that "decoherence" is a term which describes a process which occurs when the photon interacts with its environment at the end of its flight.

in almost every post you demonstrate that you have read all the words but understood none of the meaning
This is just a feeling of yours, i.e. tautology - you haven't proven it.

You have though, see above.

show that a mathematical analysis of your "vortex" model predicts the numbers observed in all the various experiments that observe flavour oscillation
Well, this is why mainstream physicists cannot recognize even the most trivial analogies ..

You are confusing your flawed analogy with reality.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2013
It's like the explanation of elephant with water siphon.


Damn my eyes Zephyr. I was just beginning to get a handle on the electron-ducks on the water waves,,,

This neutrino-elephants siphoning off the water theory is going to set me back a bit.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2013
Damn it Q-star, they are quantum ducks floating on a water ripple!

I want to see the 3rd generation of daughter!
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2013
Damn it Q-star, they are quantum ducks floating on a water ripple!


Unless they are what we call "flying", in which case they blink in and out of existence thereby sometimes oscillating into swans.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2013
Your comments are all of topic (attempts for fun have no place in matter of discussion, the attempts for fun from ideas instead of arguments the more). The neutrinos fit many characteristics of particles, which the mainstream physics seeks for years. For example it seeks for superpartners of photons, it seeks for missing antimatter, it seeks for particles forming dark matter, it seeks for chameleon particles, etc. In Czech we have the proverb: "The darkest place is under candlestick". This is just the consequence of blind pilling of concepts and equations, which are correct by itself - but their holistic understanding is missing.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2013
Your comments are all of topic (attempts for fun have no place in matter of discussion, the attempts for fun from ideas instead of arguments the more).

I have no idea what that might mean, but I'm sure the AWT will explain it.

The neutrinos fit many characteristics of particles,

Zephyr, if ya're correct, and I suspect ya may be, maybe this will be the year that the "mainstream" physicists will get around to listing them with all the other particles.

but their holistic understanding is missing.

Something is missing sure. It might be holes, or it might be something holy. But I'm not qualified to help ya in your search for it.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2013
@Q-Star: Sorry, but I don't see any substance in your posts. Maybe it expresses your feelings, maybe not - but your feelings are volatile and you cannot prove them anyway at public. I'm not here for discussion of my feelings or the feelings of other people here. I'm visiting Facebook for such purposes instead...
Q-Star
3 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2013
@Q-Star: Sorry, but I don't see any substance in your posts. Maybe it expresses your feelings, maybe not - but your feelings are volatile and you cannot prove them anyway at public. I'm not here for discussion of my feelings or the feelings of other people here. I'm visiting Facebook for such purposes instead...


But this is the only place I can interact with ya. I don't do the Facebook or Twitter stuff. I would think ya would be pleased that someone (me) actually reads your postings in their entirety. Most people don't.

And though I do not hold to the "scientific" ideas ya post, I am one of the few (only actually) that takes up for ya, and says nice things about ya.

So if ya don't care for my droll disagreeing with ya, I'll desist interacting with ya in fun. Then ya'll have only the only the people who call ya "fool", "insane", "illiterate", "delusional", "moron" and such responding to ya
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2013
Awww booo hooo Zephyr! Are you feeling made fun of?

GOOD!!!!

How many people over the years, real actual physicists have tried to explain to your stubborn self why your ideas do not hold up to scientific scrutiny? Your responce has always been "I don't care if I don't understand and can't do the math nor understand the physics, my ideas make more sense."

Your ideas are laughed at because they are laughable. You seem like a smart guy, not withstanding your delusions. GO LEARN ABOUT IT! Take a few courses. You might even find it interesting.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2013
The neutrinos fit many characteristics of particles, which the mainstream physics seeks for years. For example it seeks for superpartners of photons,


The maximum mass of the neutrino is ~0.1eV.

The minimum mass of the photino is ~100GeV.

Your suggestion clearly fails by at least 12 orders of magnitude.

it seeks for missing antimatter


No it doesn't. It seeks to understand the reason why there is baryon asymmetry and neutrinos don't explain it.

it seeks for particles forming dark matter, ...


The unknown component of dark matter is "cold", neutrinos are the "hot" component of dark matter.

Your post demonstrates why you get the reactions you see, you perpetually post nonsense which you could find out was hopelessly wrong with just a few minutes search on Google and have been doing so for years, apparently learning nothing.

Stop posting pseudo-scientific disinformation and you might be treated accordingly.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2013
The maximum mass of the neutrino is ~0.1eV. The minimum mass of the photino is ~100GeV
If the neutrino is a fermion, its superpartner must be boson and it should propagated with speed of light. Such a particle cannot have the mass of ~100GeV, or it would violate all postulates, on which supersymmetry is based.
it seeks to understand the reason why there is baryon asymmetry..
which manifests with missing antimatter... Did I forget something?
unknown component of dark matter is "cold", neutrinos are the "hot" component of dark matter
It's not true, the physicists have no idea about components of both warm, cold and hot antimatter. Actually, the WIMPs are attributed to hot dark matter.
stop posting pseudo-scientific disinformation
This is semantic labelling without any argumentation value, i.e. nonscientific by itself. When the mainstream science gets wrong, then every attempt for correction becomes "pseudo-scientific disinformation" automatically for its proponents.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2013
When the mainstream science gets wrong, then every attempt for correction becomes "pseudo-scientific disinformation" automatically for its proponents.


First, BS! 2nd, how the hell would you know? You ADMIT you don't UNDERSTAND the so called "mainstream" science! That you even think there is such a thing speaks volumes to your self-directed and self-reinforced prejudice.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2013
2nd, how the hell would you know?
After seven years of presentation of alternative theories on the web I should know a little bit about it, don't you think? After all, you and Fleetfoot are demonstrating it at public right here. The history of cold fusion suppression speaks for itself about how the mainstream physics handles the unorthodox ideas.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2013
It's not true, the physicists have no idea about components of both warm, cold and hot antimatter. Actually, the WIMPs are attributed to hot dark matter.


Actually the WIMPS are COLD dark matter. Hot dark matter was ruled out years ago. Because if it was hot, it would not be dark enough to go undetected. Think W(weakly)I(interacting)MP. Hot implies that it is strongly interacting.

So again, ya prove everyone's points about the quality of your "theorizing" intuitively. To create a good analogy, ya have to first understand the thing ya are analogizing.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2013
2nd, how the hell would you know?
After seven years of presentation of alternative theories on the web I should know a little bit about it, don't you think? After all, you and Fleetfoot are demonstrating it at public right here. The http://www.infini...port.pdf speaks for itself about how the mainstream physics handles the unorthodox ideas.


Well shoot ya got me there! No sense letting sanity, science or good common sense get in the way. Sheesh.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2013
After seven years of presentation of alternative theories on the web I should know a little bit about it, don't you think?


Don't ya think that after seven years ya could find one adherent to one of your "alternative theories"? How many people have ya convinced?

After all, you and Fleetfoot are demonstrating it at public right here. The history of cold fusion suppression speaks for itself about how the mainstream physics handles the unorthodox ideas.


Ya have never offered one iota of evidence for suppression. Science, good science can't be suppressed. There are to many places that a "suppressed" individual can go. Corporations, universities, and countries love to poke each other in the eye. If it's any good, there is always someone to take it to.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2013
If the neutrino is a fermion, its superpartner must be boson and it should propagated with speed of light.


Fermions and bosons are standard model particles, they have positive R-parity. If super-symmetry is real, their partners would have negative R-parity.

it seeks to understand the reason why there is baryon asymmetry..
which manifests with missing antimatter... Did I forget something?


You forgot a neutrino is not an anti-proton, nor does it exhibit a useful parity violation.

unknown component of dark matter is "cold", neutrinos are the "hot" component of dark matter
It's not true, the physicists have no idea about components of both warm, cold and hot antimatter.


We're talking about dark matter, not anti-matter. This diagram demonstrates the evidence that the missing fraction is "cold":

http://ned.ipac.c...re13.jpg

Again, try to learn a little about the subject to avoid embarrassing yourself.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2013
Actually the WIMPS are COLD dark matter.


That is correct.

Hot dark matter was ruled out years ago. Because if it was hot, it would not be dark enough to go undetected.


That is not correct. Since dark matter doesn't interact with EM, it cannot emit thermal radiation so would remain invisible regardless of temperature.

HDM is ruled out both because it would smooth out the fluctuations in the early universe giving very different statistics for the large scale structure, and because the particles in dark matter halos around galaxies must be moving at less than escape velocity or the halo would simply dissipate.

Hot implies that it is strongly interacting.


"Hot" or "cold" refers to the velocity.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2013
Hot dark matter was ruled out years ago. Because if it was hot, it would not be dark enough to go undetected.


That is not correct. Since dark matter doesn't interact with EM, it cannot emit thermal radiation so would remain invisible regardless of temperature.


I agree that I worded that poorly. It's the standard explanation of why the cold dark matter does not gravitationally collapse. The inability of being able to radiate away energy.

Hot implies that it is strongly interacting.


"Hot" or "cold" refers to the velocity.


Correct, but the higher the velocity, the more energy can be radiated away. Whether in the form of energetic photons as the case with normal matter. Or an unknown particle of the bulk of dark matter. Having the property of "hot" (high velocity), implies a strong interaction with some "thing".
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2013
It's the standard explanation of why the cold dark matter does not gravitationally collapse. The inability of being able to radiate away energy.
It's not standard explanation and it's not explanation at all. Just the radiation pressure is the main force, which can defy gravity. You're just a confused troll, who pretends he's up with mainstream physics for the get social credit here..


Zephyr, ya really need to read more and write less. It's the same reason that stars can't form from hot gas clouds. Only from cold gas clouds. Unless they can radiate away energy then gravity is held in check. It's why the dark matter remains clumped and doesn't undergo further collapse the way normal matter does.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2013
But for people who really understand the stuff you're rather source of fun.


Since we find ya in such a bad mood this morning, I can infer that ya are one of the ones who doesn't really understand the stuff. Otherwise ya would be having fun.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2013
.. if it was hot, it would not be dark enough to go undetected.
That is not correct. Since dark matter doesn't interact with EM, it cannot emit thermal radiation so would remain invisible regardless of temperature.
I agree that I worded that poorly. It's the standard explanation of why the cold dark matter does not gravitationally collapse. The inability of being able to radiate away energy.
That's right, that's what controls the large scale structure.
"Hot" or "cold" refers to the velocity.
Correct, but the higher the velocity, the more energy can be radiated away. Whether in the form of energetic photons as the case with normal matter.
Again it is 'dark' because it cannot radiate photons.
Or an unknown particle of the bulk of dark matter.
The virial theorem results in a statistical tail, as I think you know, so there will be some "evaporation" of DM particles as for stars in a globular cluster but nothing else.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2013
It's the standard explanation of why the cold dark matter does not gravitationally collapse. The inability of being able to radiate away energy.


It's not standard explanation and it's not explanation at all.


Q-Star is absolutely right. If the dark matter is 'cold', the particles move slowly so fluctuations grow and galaxies form early while clusters and superclusters are still forming today which is what we see. If the DM was hot, the small density fluctuations would have dissipated and galaxies would only just be starting to form.

You're just a confused troll, who pretends he's up with mainstream physics for the get social credit here.. But for people who really understand the stuff you're rather source of fun.


That's a good description of yourself, Q-star on the other hand has demonstrated that he understands the topic, what he is talking about leads to what is called "hierarchical structure formation" and is the standard model.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2013
The maximum mass of the neutrino is ~0.1eV. The minimum mass of the photino is ~100GeV
If the neutrino is a fermion, its superpartner must be boson and it should propagated with speed of light. Such a particle cannot have the mass of ~100GeV, or it would violate all postulates, on which supersymmetry is based.


The prediction of those values comes from supersymmetry theory so obviously it doesn't 'violate its postulates'.

The AMS first results have just been announced and if they are as they look, the mass will be higher than the detector limit of 350GeV, probably around or above the TeV range. That would also explain why LHC hasn't detected them yet but they should be just in range though perhaps at a low production rate. Only the lowest mass SUSY particle is stable so the next highest mass may be out of LHC range. The AMS result could still be pulsar background though:

http://www.ams02....eriment/
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2013
After seven years of presentation of alternative theories on the web I should know a little bit about it, don't you think?


Perhaps you should but you don't. However, that's not necessarily a reflection on you. Forums like this only reports news, not the three centuries of development that went into the physics that lies behind it. All the basic physics you need to learn never gets mentioned in these forums (other than by a few knowledgeable contributors) so you won't learn anything until you get some textbooks or courses and do the hard work needed. At the moment, your fantasies are unrelated to any real science.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2013
The prediction of those values comes from supersymmetry theory so obviously it doesn't 'violate its postulates'.


So that this theory is inconsistent. The bosons cannot have mass or they would violate Lorentz symmetry.


The theory is consistent, you just have no understanding of the subject:

W: 80.385 GeV
Z: 91.1876 GeV
Higgs: ~126 MeV

http://en.wikiped...Z_bosons

http://en.wikiped...gs_boson
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2013
I'll not discuss with you here, who understands the contemporary physics better or worse, because it's solely irrelevant to matter of fact discussion. I'm just explaining the layman people, how/why this physics (doesn't) work, ...


You are a layman (as am I), neither of us is a professional physicist. However, there was a great deal of publicity last year on the finding of the Higgs boson with a mass of ~126MeV. Nothing in theory says that bosons have to have zero mass and your suggesting that they should pseudo-scientific disinformation which will do nothing but mislead the average 'layman' (who probably knows more than you if they watched the basic press).

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.