Notices
Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Neutrinos do not exist...

  1. #1 Neutrinos do not exist... 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Neutrino's do not even exist, so they cant behave like anything. Some neutrnio detectors apparantly detect around 10 neutrino's a year (which is hardly evidence) but even those scientists admit that they might not be detecting what they think they are. The evidence surrounding neutrino's at this point in time appears to be quite fuzzy, so until that improves, we really have no reason to accept their existence.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: 2012-(neutrino) 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Neutrino's do not even exist, so they cant behave like anything. Some neutrnio detectors apparantly detect around 10 neutrino's a year (which is hardly evidence) but even those scientists admit that they might not be detecting what they think they are. The evidence surrounding neutrino's at this point in time appears to be quite fuzzy, so until that improves, we really have no reason to accept their existence.
    Rubbish

    Is there any single element of physics that have learned correctly ?

    If so, what might it be ?

    Your record is unblemished by success.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: 2012-(neutrino) 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Neutrino's do not even exist, so they cant behave like anything. Some neutrnio detectors apparantly detect around 10 neutrino's a year (which is hardly evidence) but even those scientists admit that they might not be detecting what they think they are. The evidence surrounding neutrino's at this point in time appears to be quite fuzzy, so until that improves, we really have no reason to accept their existence.
    What a stunning example of delusional immunity against physics. So, would you argue that falling off a 100 m high bridge is not deadly, just because only a few actually try and really die?

    The existence of neutrinos is an undeniable fact. If you detect only one, the proof is made. And the rate of neutrino detections is even following the predictions of the underlying theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Neutrinos do exist.....a tremendous number of equations and systems base themselves on the existence of neutrinos. And if all of those systems are false, then how can we even drive our cars?

    "Electron neutrinos (or antineutrinos) are generated whenever neutrons change into protons (or protons into neutrons), the two forms of beta decay. Interactions involving neutrinos are mediated by the weak interaction."

    I'm not sure what caused them to declare the existence of them, but at the very least they are a solution to what would likely be missing energy in a number of reactions. We may not know really what they are, however at the very least SOMETHING is generated when nuclear fusion occurs, Beta decay etc....and we call that something a neutrino. Anyways, I do not believe any other known particle can penetrate 1 mile through solid bedrock into the earth? Yet we have seen Cherenkov Radiation light rings generated in water tanks at those depths; what else could have done that?

    Neutrinos have mass, EMR does not; so no, there is not a similarity.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    thank you for all replies~
    so im confused, do neutrinos exist or they dont? All i learnt so far about the neutrinos are that they are produced after certain radioactive decays, or in nuclear reactions like our sun etc...
    In 1930 Wolfgang Pauli proposed the existence of a neutral particle that would hardly interact with matter to explain the continuous electron energy distribution observed in nuclear beta decay. This explanation ``saved'' energy and momentum conservation.

    As early as 1932 Enrico Fermi provided a theoretical framework for beta decay which included the neutrino and was inspired by the structure of the electromagnetic interactions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Anyways, I do not believe any other known particle can penetrate 1 mile through solid bedrock into the earth?
    AFAIK it is even better than that. Neutrino detectors operate at night as well. That means solar neutrinos enter the detector from beneath, having traveled straight through the planet. Another writer claimed that chances are good that a neutrino would be able to pass through a light year of lead unscathed.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    Neutrinos do exist.....a tremendous number of equations and systems base themselves on the existence of neutrinos. And if all of those systems are false, then how can we even drive our cars?
    When you own a neutrino powered car, let me know lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    "Electron neutrinos (or antineutrinos) are generated whenever neutrons change into protons (or protons into neutrons), the two forms of beta decay. Interactions involving neutrinos are mediated by the weak interaction." I'm not sure what caused them to declare the existence of them, but at the very least they are a solution to what would likely be missing energy in a number of reactions. We may not know really what they are, however at the very least SOMETHING is generated when nuclear fusion occurs, Beta decay etc....and we call that something a neutrino.
    I have completed year 12 physics, and we have covered this topic of neutrino's and the weak nuclear force. Yes you are right, there was a slight amount of energy that was apparantly "missing" from certain decay processes. But, my argument is, who says the energy has to be the same for each one? There could be slight differences in energy between protons that could be caused by subatomic factors. Further still, lets say that we did know for absolute certain that all the decays were identical (which is a big and unlikely if, in my opinion), then we still dont have to say that this energy is carried away at virtually the speed of light by a neutral, nearly massless particle. Surely we have better, more logical hypothesis than this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    Anyways, I do not believe any other known particle can penetrate 1 mile through solid bedrock into the earth? Yet we have seen Cherenkov Radiation light rings generated in water tanks at those depths; what else could have done that?
    Well, surely not a particle which is neutral, almost massless, extremely tiny, does not interact and can appartly go through a lightyear of lead! Lets just admit that the energy is carried away by waves, then we dont have to talk about absurdities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    There could be slight differences in energy between protons that could be caused by subatomic factors. Further still, lets say that we did know for absolute certain that all the decays were identical (which is a big and unlikely if, in my opinion), then we still dont have to say that this energy is carried away at virtually the speed of light by a neutral, nearly massless particle. Surely we have better, more logical hypothesis than this.
    Saying there is a difference in the way they decay despite the same ingredients every time....requires an entirely new theoretical frame work for quantum mechanics. You know, the only way to alter the mass and hence energy in protons is to alter the quark number and type, which forms an entirely different particle with difference properties altogether. To say you can alter the mass/energy without changing quark number/type and therefore properties is to say that quarks are divisible or can be partially modulated. Good luck on that theory...not even I would attempt it, there is just not enough backing it to demand a high enough probability of success, merely a 'means to a solution' like all the other bullsh*t theories out there (String Theory, that means you).
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    merely a 'means to a solution' like all the other bullsh*t theories out there (String Theory, that means you).
    wait so string theory is bullshit?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    Saying there is a difference in the way they decay despite the same ingredients every time....requires an entirely new theoretical frame work for quantum mechanics. You know, the only way to alter the mass and hence energy in protons is to alter the quark number and type, which forms an entirely different particle with difference properties altogether. To say you can alter the mass/energy without changing quark number/type and therefore properties is to say that quarks are divisible or can be partially modulated. Good luck on that theory...not even I would attempt it, there is just not enough backing it to demand a high enough probability of success, merely a 'means to a solution' like all the other bullsh*t theories out there (String Theory, that means you).
    Another possible way that protons and neutrons could have variable energies is in the distance between its quarks. As well as this, quarks could vibrate slightly and some quarks could have a higher energy density than others too. My point is, it is a HUGE assumption to assume that the energy for each decay process is going to be the same. Why would it be? Why dont scientists at least consider that they may not all be the same? If not all posibilities are considered, theories can very quickly lead to absurdities (which in my opinion, QM contains many). Yes, my opinion doesnt exactly count for much at the moment, but once I have published this new theory, ill have the right to say "I told you so!". And yes, string theory is the most laughable development in the history of "science".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Another possible way that protons and neutrons could have variable energies is in the distance between its quarks. As well as this, quarks could vibrate slightly and some quarks could have a higher energy density than others too. My point is, it is a HUGE assumption to assume that the energy for each decay process is going to be the same. Why would it be? Why dont scientists at least consider that they may not all be the same? If not all posibilities are considered, theories can very quickly lead to absurdities (which in my opinion, QM contains many). Yes, my opinion doesnt exactly count for much at the moment, but once I have published this new theory, ill have the right to say "I told you so!". And yes, string theory is the most laughable development in the history of "science".
    Then publish.

    So far you have failed not only to correctly understand existing physics, you have faile to say anything that makes any sense at all.

    Your record remains umblemished by success.

    You are right. Your opinion is completely worthless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    @Waveman, Out of curiosity, have you considered the possibility that people have measured the energy from these decays and found them to always be the same?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    And yes, string theory is the most laughable development in the history of "science".
    i wonder what theoretical physicists will react to this...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Yes, my opinion doesnt exactly count for much at the moment, but once I have published this new theory, ill have the right to say "I told you so!".
    That's not a very scientific thing to say. It is a very crackpot thing to say, though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    @Waveman, Out of curiosity, have you considered the possibility that people have measured the energy from these decays and found them to always be the same?
    Yes, scientists have measured the energy from these decays and they found that each one had a slightly different value. What the scientists then did (wolfgang pauli, more specifically i believe) is invented the neutrino to make these energies the same. Why on earth would you do that first, without considering the fact that maybe these decays really do produce different energies?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    but once I have published this new theory, ill have the right to say "I told you so!". .
    But until that time, please restrict your discussion of such to the "New Ideas and Hypotheses" forum. Henceforth, any posts made in that vein to the Physics forum shall be removed.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Cold Fusion wrote:
    but once I have published this new theory, ill have the right to say "I told you so!". .
    You son of a bitch! Trying to slander me like that. Is it because of my crack at religion?

    Haha, just messing with you. :P
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Bender
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Yes, my opinion doesnt exactly count for much at the moment, but once I have published this new theory, ill have the right to say "I told you so!".
    That's not a very scientific thing to say. It is a very crackpot thing to say, though.
    Its not about crackpottery, its a fact: at this stage the most I can do is refute a certain theory based on a logical argument, I dont have any further evidence than common logic at the moment, but it is on the way. Its often hard to explain things too over a forum just in words. Physics is about to be revolutionised by developing simulation software to illustrate theories, instead of just writing words and equations on paper (which are still useful of course). Ive been learning C# and BASIC for almost a year now, just so I can develop software which can simulate the fundamental laws of the universe. From that simulation, I will be able to explain virtually every feature of the universe in a mechanical way, which in addition will show that the neutrino is nothing but a wave beam emitted during decay.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Its not about crackpottery, its a fact: at this stage the most I can do is refute a certain theory based on a logical argument, I dont have any further evidence than common logic at the moment, but it is on the way. Its often hard to explain things too over a forum just in words. Physics is about to be revolutionised by developing simulation software to illustrate theories, instead of just writing words and equations on paper (which are still useful of course). Ive been learning C# and BASIC for almost a year now, just so I can develop software which can simulate the fundamental laws of the universe. From that simulation, I will be able to explain virtually every feature of the universe in a mechanical way, which in addition will show that the neutrino is nothing but a wave beam emitted during decay.
    If you already know what the result of your simulations are going to be, why bother doing them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Bender
    If you already know what the result of your simulations are going to be, why bother doing them?
    So that others can see the results. Derrrr!!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Yes, scientists have measured the energy from these decays and they found that each one had a slightly different value. What the scientists then did (wolfgang pauli, more specifically i believe) is invented the neutrino to make these energies the same. Why on earth would you do that first, without considering the fact that maybe these decays really do produce different energies?
    Well, I don't know but if you consider radioactive element decays (alpha) you have different atomic mass of the nucleus decaying. In beta decay is basically between neutron to proton and vice versa. Both are governed by the same principle (in each case) and are very predictable and measurable. Just because Fermi named them neutrinos it is not “invented”(the name is). You can call it "whatever". They account for something. What is bothering me the most; is your assumption that these decays are not the same. They are the same, every time. Our measurements are not accurate by any means with the current technology. If we just could measure one decay at the time, certainly would make a lot of difference. Slight differences within reason have to be expected. We have detected 10 neutrinos in one year of an extremely elusive particle is rather remarkable. Just calculate the odds (in a very clever trap setting) to catch them and you have to realize, (even if you are as skeptic as I am); what are the odds that one of these neutrinos going to hit something to make it visible in a water tank? Fact is, that you have to come up with some good explanation of what did you "catch” other then "neutrinos"? It is absolute nonsense to me, that nature would produce different energies from the same process? I’m not questioning your devotion to the subject.
    Sometimes. ignorance is a blessing and genius is a crime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by varadinum
    Well, I don't know but if you consider radioactive element decays (alpha) you have different atomic mass of the nucleus decaying. In beta decay is basically between neutron to proton and vice versa. Both are governed by the same principle (in each case) and are very predictable and measurable.
    Yes, they are predictable and measureable. The thing is though, if you actually know the history of the matter, the measured energies were different to what they predicted and these energies also varied from eachother slightly. What Fermi then did is postulated the existance of another particle called the neutrino which would explain the difference in the observed and predicted energies. Scientists then immediately accepted this theory, without ever verifying it or considering that perhaps each decay did produce slightly different energies.

    Quote Originally Posted by varadinum
    Just because Fermi named them neutrinos it is not “invented”(the name is). You can call it "whatever". They account for something.
    Thats correct, you can called it whatever you want, but it makes no difference to whether what you think you are refering to actually exists or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by varadinum
    What is bothering me the most; is your assumption that these decays are not the same. They are the same, every time.
    Well, what bothers me the most is that scientists assumed that the decays were identical. Im not assuming anything at all. I am trying to investigate both possiblities to see which one makes more sense, whereas Fermi and other scientists only investigated one side of the story.

    No, the decays are NOT the same each time, thats why the neutrino was postulated in the first place because the measured energies were different from those predicted by the theories.

    Quote Originally Posted by varadinum
    Our measurements are not accurate by any means with the current technology. If we just could measure one decay at the time, certainly would make a lot of difference. Slight differences within reason have to be expected.
    If our measurements are not accurate, how can you claim that neutrino's DO exist? Especially considering that they can apparantly move through a lightyear of lead without being absorbed.

    Yes, slight differences in energies have to be expected, thats exactly what im saying, and im postulating that these slight differences are caused by subatomic factors in the nucleus. Your assuming that every atom of the same element is perfectly identical, which doesnt seem very reasonable in my opinion. This assumption is fine in most situations, but when talking about processes which occur on this scale, these details become more and more important, which can lead to errors if your assumption is incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by varadinum
    We have detected 10 neutrinos in one year of an extremely elusive particle is rather remarkable. Just calculate the odds (in a very clever trap setting) to catch them and you have to realize, (even if you are as skeptic as I am); what are the odds that one of these neutrinos going to hit something to make it visible in a water tank? Fact is, that you have to come up with some good explanation of what did you "catch” other then "neutrinos"?
    I have offered an explanation for this, what we may be observing is a wave beam emmited during decay.

    Quote Originally Posted by varadinum
    It is absolute nonsense to me, that nature would produce different energies from the same process? I’m not questioning your devotion to the subject.
    I never said nature would produce different energies from the same process. The same cause produces the same effect. Always. However, what I am suggesting is that each of these processes is slightly different, so therefore the resulting energies will also differ.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    @Waveman, Out of curiosity, have you considered the possibility that people have measured the energy from these decays and found them to always be the same?
    Yes, scientists have measured the energy from these decays and they found that each one had a slightly different value. What the scientists then did (wolfgang pauli, more specifically i believe) is invented the neutrino to make these energies the same. Why on earth would you do that first, without considering the fact that maybe these decays really do produce different energies?
    Laws of conservation. If we have learned anything about nature, then that it is governed by laws of conservation. What else would have appeared more logical to assume that the measured deficiency was the result of yet another law of conservation? The conservation of energy is obvious. But then, it is established empirically that these laws also apply to the number of particles, and in particular the number of leptons as well as the conservation of parity and charge. For the neutron decay we have:



    On the left hand side you have a baryon without a charge. On the right hand side you have also one baryon (proton), so the equation holds in this respect. But the positive charge of the proton is compensated by the negative charge of the electron, which is another particle and a lepton. Since there is only one particle and no lepton on the left hand side of the equation, there has to be an anti-lepton without any charge on the right hand side in order to fulfil the equation. This anti-particle was then called anti-neutrino. It later turned out that each lepton has its own kind of neutrino assigned to it. Therefore, it must be an electron anti-neutrino.

    So, the denial of the existence of the neutrino has very strong implications of fundamental laws of physics. I suggest you take that into account, when you finalise your theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Laws of conservation. If we have learned anything about nature, then that it is governed by laws of conservation. What else would have appeared more logical to assume that the measured deficiency was the result of yet another law of conservation? The conservation of energy is obvious. But then, it is established empirically that these laws also apply to the number of particles, and in particular the number of leptons as well as the conservation of parity and charge. For the neutron decay we have:



    On the left hand side you have a baryon without a charge. On the right hand side you have also one baryon (proton), so the equation holds in this respect. But the positive charge of the proton is compensated by the negative charge of the electron, which is another particle and a lepton. Since there is only one particle and no lepton on the left hand side of the equation, there has to be an anti-lepton without any charge on the right hand side in order to fulfil the equation. This anti-particle was then called anti-neutrino. It later turned out that each lepton has its own kind of neutrino assigned to it. Therefore, it must be an electron anti-neutrino.

    So, the denial of the existence of the neutrino has very strong implications of fundamental laws of physics. I suggest you take that into account, when you finalise your theory.
    Conservation of energy is the most fundamental of all laws, and only a true fool would ever deny it. My theory in absolutely no way defies conservation of energy. It merely suggests that each of these decays involves a slightly different AMOUNT of energy. No energy is being created or lost. The best thing about this theory is that it actually explains the energies that are observed experimentally, without the need to invent a new particle which has very bizzare properties (the neutrino).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Conservation of energy is the most fundamental of all laws, and only a true fool would ever deny it. My theory in absolutely no way defies conservation of energy. It merely suggests that each of these decays involves a slightly different AMOUNT of energy. No energy is being created or lost. The best thing about this theory is that it actually explains the energies that are observed experimentally, without the need to invent a new particle which has very bizzare properties (the neutrino).
    Have you actually read my post? There are more laws of conservation than just the one about energy. A neutrino is by no means bizarre. An electron would have similar properties, if it had no charge. Since the neutrino can only interact in two ways, i.e. gravitationally and by weak force interaction (there is a reason for calling it "weak"), it barely interacts with other matter. In those terms, a photon is much more bizarre, because being a particle without a mass, it still has a momentum. How bizarre is that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Have you actually read my post? There are more laws of conservation than just the one about energy. A neutrino is by no means bizarre. An electron would have similar properties, if it had no charge. Since the neutrino can only interact in two ways, i.e. gravitationally and by weak force interaction (there is a reason for calling it "weak"), it barely interacts with other matter. In those terms, a photon is much more bizarre, because being a particle without a mass, it still has a momentum. How bizarre is that?
    Indeed there are more conservation laws than just energy, but this doesnt affect my theory at all, because the phenomena of beta decay only involves energy (and momentum to some extent, which is also covered). I still stand by my opinion that the neutrino is bizzare, and it doesnt really explain the phenomena in a physical, mechanical way. It seems that the neutrino just mysteriously and spontaneously appears during beta decay to satisfy equations, with no physical basis. Lets face facts, it is an Ad Hoc explaination.

    You may cringe at this lol, but yes, the photon is bizzare, so much so that I also refute its existance, light is made of waves, not particles. But that is a seperate issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Indeed there are more conservation laws than just energy, but this doesnt affect my theory at all, because the phenomena of beta decay only involves energy (and momentum to some extent, which is also covered).
    This just plain wrong. The conservation of parity calls for a particle as a reaction product that has a parity inverse to the neutron. Also the positive lepton number that is added by the electron has to be compensated by an anti-lepton - another law of conservation. Both constraints are fulfilled by the neutrino.
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    I still stand by my opinion that the neutrino is bizzare, and it doesnt really explain the phenomena in a physical, mechanical way. It seems that the neutrino just mysteriously and spontaneously appears during beta decay to satisfy equations, with no physical basis. Lets face facts, it is an Ad Hoc explaination.
    That is true for any nuclear or particle reaction. With the same puzzlement you should question, why suddenly a neutron decays into a proton and an electron. One particle more does not make a big difference in that respect. The neutrino was postulated first, yes, but is has been detected and verified. So, it is real.
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    You may cringe at this lol, but yes, the photon is bizzare, so much so that I also refute its existance, light is made of waves, not particles. But that is a seperate issue.
    Indeed, ridiculous. This view is falsified by the photoelectric effect. Care to open another thread here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    This just plain wrong. The conservation of parity calls for a particle as a reaction product that has a parity inverse to the neutron. Also the positive lepton number that is added by the electron has to be compensated by an anti-lepton - another law of conservation. Both constraints are fulfilled by the neutrino.
    This law of parity conservation has no bearing in this situation, because this theory also incorporates a new model of the atom, which can explain the observations of decay. This theory simply states that electrons (which are emitted during decay)must be already present inside the nucleus, so a neutron is a proton with an electron in its center, which cancels out the charge, making it neutral.

    Amazingly, the theory also shows that the only form of matter that exists in the universe is the electron - as well as its other phase forms, the anti-electron, the positron and the anti-positron. Those "particles" are still just the same thing, but with different phases (they are waves). I know that you think the positron and the anti-electron are the same thing, but in this theory they are not. All subatomic particles such as quarks are simply different combinations of these 4 types of electrons. Additionally, this theory is strongly supported by Occam's Razor, which crucifies quantum theories.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    That is true for any nuclear or particle reaction. With the same puzzlement you should question, why suddenly a neutron decays into a proton and an electron. One particle more does not make a big difference in that respect. The neutrino was postulated first, yes, but is has been detected and verified. So, it is real.
    A neutron doesnt "change" from a neutron into a proton and an electron (according to this theory). As was stated before, the neutron IS a proton with an an electron in its center, so the process of beta decay is simply the electron being ejected from the center of the proton through the weak nuclear force. In this way, the theory can explain decay processes without the need of "spontaneously generated" particles, which is a big success.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Indeed, ridiculous. This view is falsified by the photoelectric effect. Care to open another thread here?
    I find it sad that photons were accepted because of 1 experiment, which was very poorly handled by the physicists of the time. One thing that I think people need to come to learn is that sometimes theories become accepted simply because nobody else proposed another explaination. There are many, many websites on the internet at present which show that photons do not exist and that the photoelectric effect can be explained by waves. The discrete nature of the photoelectric effect is obviously due to the properties of the material such as the finte number of individual electrons and their quantised energy levels. Here is one website of probably hundreds which points out the flaws of the photon: Photons dont exist!

    It is good to have someone with a strong knowledge in mainstream physics provide "peer review", so to speak.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    421
    You should watch Feynman's QED lectures, since he talks extensively about photons. One thing that's clear from his lectures is that the theory of photons is not based on one solitary experiment.

    Can I take it as given that you've never studied or taken a course in quantum electrodynamics (and by study, I mean from a real textbook or course notes from a graduate level physics class)? Because if you have not done this, then it would seem silly to object to the existence of photons, since you wouldn't even know what you'd be objecting to.

    If you can't define, precisely, exactly what a theory is, then you can't very well disagree with it can you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •