Neutrino Oscillations

[Chochawker]

The 2015 Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded to the leaders of two very important neutrino experiments:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2015/

Symmetry magazine has an article here:

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/october-2015/nobel-prize-awarded-for-discovery-of-neutrino-oscillations

And the websites for the two experiments are here:

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/october-2015/nobel-prize-awarded-for-discovery-of-neutrino-oscillations

http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/

[Somnium]

Well deserved !

[AlexN]

I read an article yesterday about this then surprisingly I read another article about an experiment taking place in the US today where scientists are beaming neutrinos backwards and forwards between two giant detectors and accelerators 400m underground over a distance of 800 miles and we're conveying a similar assertion. The total amount of neutrinos making it from accelerator 1 to detector 1 was correct however there were accelerating electron neutrinos and detecting a mixture of muon and electron neutrinos and they seemed quite stumped by their results.

Mind boggling sometimes to think all the things man kind has seemingly figured out and still we know practically nothing about almost anything outside our atmosphere or beneath our oceans.

[Chochawker]

There are a number of accelerator based neutrino oscillation experiments around the world as there is still much to be determined.

In particular, the potential that neutrino mixing might have played a significant role in generating a matter/anti-matter asymmetry in the early universe.

This link likely lists one of the experiments that you were reading about:

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/particle-physics/experiments/neutrinos.html

[xelasnave]

Think of their abundance.
A point in fact any point in the Universe will have infinite trajectories each mapping the course of a neutrino such that their energy could be zero to infinite but they are every where.

[sharpiel]

Quantum poetry in your words Alex. Well said!

[xelasnave]

That is a nice compliment Les thank you.
I try to imagine the sea of them with matter floating in that sea.
I think GR somehow is describing the flow of neutrinos.
Not being a scientist I don't know how to test that idea.

[Eratosthenes]

every "thing" possesses the property of mass (wait til the mass of the photon is measured - all hell will break loose in the Physics departments of University Psychiatric wards around the world)

Again the reductionist and stochastic lunacy of Modern Physics has its inherent ignorance and erroneous mathematical idealistic basis exposed for all to see.

The deranged impotence of the Standard model of Particle Physics is being re-written as we speak......AGAIN.

:D

[xelasnave]

Well science seems to work using models that enable predictions to be made and models may change if they improve things.
So I imagine as the years roll by models will evolve or be replaced.
I wonder what models 100 years from now will say.
And will they be much different to those of today.

I spent years developing an idea on how gravity may work.
I concluded a Le Sage push gravity view unfortunately it took me 5 years to find it was first proposed by Le Sage in 1745.

neutrinos*would seem the perfect particle for a push gravity universe.
Describing it with math would seem impossible.
How could you manage it.
Certainly GR and Newton provide better models but I till would like a model that could show all neutrinos*paths and how various objects would behalve in such models.

neutrinos*

[xelasnave]

I can't edit my last post so I won't.
But neutrinos*would pass for the nonexistent aether.

[AlexN]

Peter,
I'm sure there is a Nobel prize in it for you if you care to outline where the derangement of the currently evolving standard model lies.

I will happily admit I don't feel our current standard model is the final answer but I feel it's much better than it was in the 1940's. Even think that it was not long prior to that, mankind believed the atom was as it is named. That which can not be divided. Now the standard model contains 6 leptons, 6 quarks, 4 carriers and the higgs boson.. And to think that the higgs was postulated in the 60s based off calculations derived from the then standard model only to be discovered in 2012 tells me that whilst incomplete the SM is on the right track. I have hope for the graviton, and hope that between the ILC and the LHC we will learn more about dark matter...

But for now I am happy with the standard model, but would be happy to abandon it in a heartbeat if you could put forth a different theory that fits the observed data so well and can unify gravity into the world of the small.

[Eratosthenes]

....and yet the insanity of Quantum Electrodynamics developed by Schwinger, Feynman and Tomonaga in the 1940s predicts that photons can possess mass - and in some cases a large mass. (they escape this lunacy by suggesting that as long as the mass vanishes relatively quickly, then its permitted. Quantum foam is another animal all together ladies and gentlemen - foam seems to be floating around between the ears of physicists in departments and asylums around the world)

There seems to be no limit to the depths of Psychiatric lunacy that modern Physics can plunge to....

:D................................. ................................... ............................:D

[bojan]

That depends on your definition of the term "lunacy".

[xelasnave]

I agree with Alex.
Peter I sence your frustration but which thread of the standard model would you change.
Even as a non scientist I find stuff strange but what can you do.
There are a lot of bricks in the wall which ones need replacing and is there a better model.

[sjastro]

So you are now engaging in blatant dishonesty or a total lack of comprehension of the subject.

Schwinger and Feymann considered photons to have a fictional mass to explain the Lamb shift (spectral shift of hydrogen emission lines) in 1947.
QED is the application of Special Relativity (SR) to Quantum Mechanics but in 1947 it was a work in progress and scientists were still struggling with some very unusual consequences of QED such as negative probabilities and negative energies. Electromagnetic fields explained as mathematical operators for simple harmonic oscillators was in its infancy and renormalization theory which addressed problems such as Lamb shift was still decades away to being accepted as mainstream.

Schwinger and Feynmann attempted to explain Lamb shift using non relativistic calculations and the concept of fictional mass which they eventually conceded WAS WRONG.
Strange how you conveniently omit this point or are you naive enough to think QED is still stuck in the world of 1947.

If you seriously think that Quantum physicists of TODAY hold this 1947 view, it is like the snake beginning by swallowing its own tail and eventually consuming itself in the process.
QED is the application of special relativity to Quantum Mechanics where photons have a zero REST mass. If not QED collapses like a deck of cards as it is not consistent with special relativity, the theory that it is built on.

Photons travelling at c however do exhibit properties associated with mass.
Do you understand what a zero rest mass is? Probably not.

Here is some simple arithmetic for you.
The total energy of a particle according to special relativity is given by the formula.

E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4. p is momentum, m is rest mass and c the speed of light.

For a photon the rest mass is zero hence
E=pc.

While a photon has a zero REST mass, it is a particle with RELATIVISTIC "mass", given that relativistic mass is the total energy of the particle.
Photons possess a momentum p=E/c which is a very "mass like" characteristic given in classical physics p=mv where v is the particle velocity.
The photoelectric effect illustrates this as electrons are knocked out of atoms by photons.

So while photons have zero rest mass, it exhibits "mass properties" as a particle travelling at c.

[xelasnave]

Schwinger and Feynmann attempted to explain Lamb shift using non relativistic calculations and the concept of fictional mass which they eventually conceded WAS WRONG.

But they were wrong throw everything out before and after.

Sorry Steven but going on the past my reply may be all you get

[Eratosthenes]

the last time I sensed genuine frustration was in early Spring 1986

I enjoy studying the fundamentalist religious sects that base their scripture on the Scientific method....

The various temples of worship commonly known as laboratories and research centers are of particular interest to me.

:D

[bojan]

If the "lunacy" really means "creativity" or "inventivity" then yes..

Please confess - you are just pulling our legs here and actually provoking the discussion ;)

[xelasnave]

Well all is good then.
The wonderful thing about reality is we each enjoy our own version.
Are you hinting at something as I fear I may have missed your point.
Can you be specific are you talking about scientology.
Well I must tell you I don't like Tom Cruise he parts his hair on the wrong side.

[Eratosthenes]

How creative is Science when compared to Art or music?

[bojan]

Very... and that creativity can be independently confirmed... contrary to (most.. ) artistic creations.

[sjastro]

Alex,

Quantum mechanics was developed in the 1920s and provided an excellent model AND EXPLANATION for the energy levels of the hydrogen atom.
Prior to QM the energy levels were described by ad hoc empirical formulae.
Experiments had shown however there was a slight deviation in the observed hydrogen spectrum to what QM predicted.
This difference is known as the Lamb shift.

The motivation behind QED is the effect of electric fields that cause perturbations or deviations from QM.
QM wasn't thrown out because it is a first order approximation to QED. QED doesn't work without QM as much as GR can't work without Newtonian gravity.
Similarly anything after the first appearance of QED is a refinement and improvement.

The mistakes made by Schwinger and Feynmann in 1947 in explaining the Lamb shift were ironed out by 1950 by which time Tomonaga had come to the party as well.

QED is rightly known as the Jewel of Physics and is the most accurate physics theory known.

What I find quite funny in this thread is how the ill informed and ignorant comments are being made with the aid of a computer which is the very technological outcome of QED.:D

https://www.bell-labs.com/our-people/recognition/1956-transistor/

[AlexN]

I love when these conversations start because I love learning from you Steven. I like to dabble in particle physics and find, as you say, QED seems to fit the experimental data, not only that but it has allowed some of most amazing predictions that have also since been verified with utterly astonishing accuracy.

The quote goes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I like to think this is true and I tend to believe that QED is frequently providing extraordinary evidence of its accuracy..

Another of my favourite quotes...
Physics is a lot like sex.. Sure it has some practical applications but that's not why we do it.

5points to whoever know the source of that one.

[xelasnave]

Steven is and has been extremely helpful for me .
And thank you again Steven.
I think the simple thing people miss is a model does not have to reflect reality it has to perform.
If you think it works differently present a better model that makes better predictions.
Simple really....if you really have something
I love my push gravity idea but I can't use it to build a better model...well that is it I can't build a better gravity model...you can't rubbish the old unless you actually have better.
And take the time to find and read the papers to date just maybe they hold a little something.

[Eratosthenes]

validated confirmed creativity - interesting notion

why would someone require an artistic expression to conform to some process of validation???

Does logic, the fundamental basis of mathematics, subject itself to creative expression?

How creative is String Theory, which can be best described as a Mathematical philosophy rather than a scientific theory? A theory which lacks experimental and observational evidence to support it.

Scientists often claim creative inspiration in their work, but in many cases they avoid it and in some cases are afraid of it.

Many disciplines in Modern Science have become contaminated with the deranged lunacy and inward looking insanity of the short term corporate model and thus its scientific priests far bigger cowards than those who came before them. Their vision for great ideas has been suppressed $$$$

I am about to set up my little Newtonian - not many clouds out at the moment

:D

[Chochawker]

So you consider that there is no chance to be creative in the design, construction, execution or analysis of an experiment?

In my limited experience the broad range of obstacles and problems encountered in such work gave rise to many opportunities for the application of creativity.

[xelasnave]

I would say string theory is very creative....in a nice way.

[Eratosthenes]

I am of the opposite view....I find it difficult to find anything that is less creative. ST is a logic based mathematical philosophy. Its consequences may appear to be astonishing but the fundamental basis of the ST idea is boring mathematical axioms and rationalistic conservatism.

If there was an International Museum dedicated for boredom that results in Psychiatric deformities and mental derangement, then String Theory would be the first exhibit - right at the front foyer. Star of the show along with the putrid Quantum Mechanical frauds

:D

[Eratosthenes]

creativity is critical and found in every human endevour and pursuit.

In modern science however it is corporately avoided like the plague.

The typical modern scientist is not like those that came before him/her.

There are exceptions of course - like my friend Robert, but they are far and few in between.

(its also creeping into traditional art forms such as music, which inherently thrive on creative inputs and outputs. Corporatised jingles and crap all over the place - where are the musical innovators? The concept albums? Music with something to profound to say that could transform the way people, and in particular the youth of the world view this deranged world? Where is it Chochawker?)

[xelasnave]

Peter what's wrong in your view of mathematical philosophy.
I m trying to understand your view.

[Eratosthenes]

nothing wrong - I have looked into Mathematically based philosophies for some time now, and its a very interesting area.

(it's just not Science. ST may turn out to be a Science if and when experimental evidence emerges to support it one way or another)

[Chochawker]

Except science?

Or does that not count as a human endeavour or pursuit?

Can you point at anything that might back up this assertion?

And if you can spare the time, perhaps you can educate me as to how something is corporately avoided and how this differs from avoiding in general?

Agreed. The modern scientist operates in a very different environment, both as a result of knowledge inherited from past generations and also from a very different operating environment. For example due to constraints associated with the need to obtain and maintain funding.

However I don't see how that is at all relevant to any of the earlier discussion.

I have a friend who has three children.

I have another friend who is currently overseas on a holiday.

Perhaps we can discuss whether puppies are more cute than kittens?

How is any of the above relevant to any of the prior discussion on this thread?

Where is what?

[Dave2042]

Here, I think, might be the source of the problem.

With 400 years of previous scientific advances (assuming 'modern' science starts around the time of Newton/Galileo), understanding science today is very, very difficult. And if you are trying to understand physics, you need to understand not only 400 years of physics, but a whole pile of pretty difficult maths.

I know from first-hand experience that the result of the past generations is that 4 years of full time university-level study gets you a basic understanding of the whole structure, and a tiny bit of specialisation to more deeply understand a small part of it. And, understandably, most of the effort goes into how to calculate stuff rather than worrying about what it all means. (Though all good lecturers do try to stop and think about meaning from time to time).

As an example, you can't really start thinking about what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle means, until you've first thoroughly understood the mathematical formalism of QM, plus the theoretical basis of Fourier analysis. Trying to talk about it without that understanding is utterly pointless, and typically results in people saying stuff that is just flat out wrong.

Unfortunately it is much easier to not bother with all this, but to pick something that sounds intuitively implausible, and rubbish it for being intuitively implausible, and when challenged, breezily assert that going to all the trouble of understanding the details is 'not creative'. Or something.

[Dave2042]

And while we're at it, as an Honours Physics grad with 20 years as a financial mathematician, regarded by most people who know me as an excellent amateur pianist, married to a woman who is a gifted visual artist, but has a solid understanding of science having attended this country's top science-focused school, I find the suggestion that science and creativity are somehow incompatible is not just wrong, but insulting.

Harrumph.

[xelasnave]

Peter may I ask do you regard special relativity and general relativity as science.
Do you regard the big bang theory of cosmology to be science.

[AlexN]

Dave2042,
Couldn't agree more.

You will note that through all his ramblings, Peter never once backs up his claims with theories, evidence or mathematics. The question I feel I must ask is, is the reason for this that his ramblings are nonsense and he is just stirring the pot because he enjoys the discussion that ensues? Or is it that he whole heartedly believes that the standard model is insanity but has neither the knowledge or the creativity to devise and express a better option? Is it possible that he is simply in way over his head, has little to no understanding of the subject matter (pun not intended but I am happy to live with it) and takes shots at the current best model of the world around us that we have yet is completely incapable of producing math, experimental observation or even a reference to someone elses work that may back his claims...

[xelasnave]

One more little question Peter as I suspect if you hold strong critisismm for some of mainstream perhaps all of it, do you have a theory of everything or an alternative cosmology perhaps.
I am genuinely interested in your views.
Have you something to offer other than general attack on mainstream.

[bojan]

As suggested earlier..

[sjastro]

Thanks Alex,

One of the unique aspects of QED is that in an early prediction, the electron magnetic moment would differ from the experimental values of the time.
Generally if a theoretical value differs from the experimental value obtained from laboratories where the experimental results are found to both statistically repeatable and reproducible, then one would assume the theory to be wrong.
What QED had shown was the experiments of the time were not sensitive enough to show the anomaly.
With technological improvements this anomalous electron magnetic moment was eventually detected in experiments.

With regards to the source Feynmann was not only a brilliant physicist but also a party animal.:)

Regards

Steven

[Eratosthenes]

Why does there appear to be doubt over whether any legs are being pulled here?

:D

[bojan]

No doubts here

[sjastro]

Status of QED by 1965, not 1947.

Found this very interesting speech given at the 1965 Nobel Prize Physics award ceremony. It touches on some of the topics discussed here.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/press.html

The next big advances in the following ten years were Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) which deals with the strong nuclear force and Electroweak Theory which is an extension of QED and is the unification of electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces.

[Eratosthenes]

same here...

Although I did generate a bit of doubt with respect to the Nobel Prize, when someone managed to score one for Physics after inventing the blue LED.

I also heard a rumour that they hand out Nobel prizes for economics - I didnt realise that there was a category for Voodoo and Circus acts.

I have a patent for a novel propeller in the pipeline - may send a Fax to Oslo next week. Worth a shot

:D