I ran into an anti-photon another day. It made me unsee things, horrible things. Which is why I'm doing fine now. Can recommend 10/10.

@AnthonyStraight

3 ай бұрын

Where can I get one of those. Does Walmart carry them? How about Amazon?

@Samu2010lolcats

3 ай бұрын

@@AnthonyStraight You can make one at home by taking a photon and moving it half a wavelength forward or backward.

@AnthonyStraight

3 ай бұрын

@@Samu2010lolcats That worked like a charm! I now feel much better about many things.

I’m working on this for my PhD! Xe136 for the win!

@hyperduality2838

3 ай бұрын

Particles are dual to anti-particles -- The Dirac equation. Spin up is dual to spin down. Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise, chirality is dual to helicity. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

ahh the weak interaction thesis. we used to call that "the ten year plan"

@adamredwine774

3 ай бұрын

@@DrDeuteron five years in… 🤣😂

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

@@adamredwine774 I started in parity violation in ep -> ep, 3 years of BEAM time, but thankfully got an opportunity to do d(gamma, p)n ...took all the data in a marathon binge. 700 Mb, filled my trunk with tapes.

Best one yet! Keep it up!

Thank you Dr Kirsty Duffy and Dr Steven Biller for an interesting video. You two are amazing ⭐⭐✨✨🌹🌹

Thanks for the video! I never hear about this or Majorana!!

Great explanation!!❤🙏

Excellent guest speaker! Dr. Biller should come back for more videos!

Dr. Kirsty thank you!

Love this episode ❤

A tidbit about neutrinos, they were given that name by Enrico Fermi of the Fermilab fame, to mean little neutral ones.

Thanks for making the neutrino anti-neutrino conversation clear, organized, thoughtful and fun! Since spin direction is variable over time, how can spin up and spin down be an annihilating combination?

@hyperduality2838

3 ай бұрын

Particles are dual to anti-particles -- The Dirac equation. Spin up is dual to spin down. Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise, chirality is dual to helicity. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

@machawley

3 ай бұрын

I love the Yoda comment! Charge is absolute. Spin is relative to a frame of reference. Annihilation happens from opposite charges meeting. I don't see evidence of that for spin. @@hyperduality2838

@petegaslondon

3 ай бұрын

Yeah I think youre thinking of.. Particles can posess various positions and velocities yet still have discrete integer or half-integer spin! @@hyperduality2838

@drdca8263

3 ай бұрын

@@hyperduality2838 Uncommonly for _you_, *some* of what you said here has something to it. I do think it makes *some* sense to describe the relationship between particles and the anti-particles of those particles, as a duality, and the Dirac equation relates to that. However! While spin up and spin down are opposites in a sense, I think it not useful to use “dual” or “duality” to describe the relationship between spin up and spin down. Like, yeah, there are exactly two of something. Whoopty-doo! That doesn’t imply that this is an example of “duality” in any useful sense of the word “duality”. Edit: also, calling chirality and helicity dual... no, that’s... No.

@hyperduality2838

3 ай бұрын

@@drdca8263 Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- the spin statistics theorem or quantum duality, wave/particle duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality. Particles are Higgs Fermions (mass). Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Addition is dual to subtraction (additive inverses) -- abstract algebra. Multiplication is dual to division (multiplicative inverses) -- abstract algebra. Integration (summations, syntropy) is dual to differentiation (differences, entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics. Chirality is dual to Helicity -- the Higgs boson is dual as it is a force carrier. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton, the duality of force. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual. All forces are dual -- the Higgs Boson is a force carrier like the photon. Duality is the correct word to use here and it means that there is a 4th law of thermodynamics as syntropy is dual to entropy! Space is dual to time -- Einstein.

well explained for beginners❤

Since neutrinos have mass, they only travel at less than the speed of light. This means you can find an inertial reference frame that overtakes a neutrino. From that reference frame, a left-handed neutrino would look like a right-handed antineutrino traveling in the opposite direction. In one reference frame you have a neutrino. In another an antineutrino. This paradox would be a good topic for a video.

@rogerkearns8094

3 ай бұрын

Agreed.

@eleklink8406

3 ай бұрын

that's chirality helicity is lorenz invariant

@aneikei

3 ай бұрын

"Look like a right-handed neutrino" sure. But it wouldn't be since a left-handed neutrino is traveling relative to the CMB and in the reference frame the neutrino will always be left-handed.

@jonwesick2844

3 ай бұрын

As I understand it, relativity does not prefer the CMB reference frame over others.

@aneikei

3 ай бұрын

@@jonwesick2844 it doesn't matter, as long as there is at least one reference frame in the universe that experiences it as a left-handed neutrino, then no amount of running ahead to view it as a right-handed neutrino will make it an actual right-handed neutrino.

One question people might have is, where does the energy from the neutrino + anti-neutrino annihilation go, and wouldn't that show up as extra output particles of the double beta decay? And the answer is, the neutrino and anti-neutrino in this process would be virtual particles and so don't need to produce anything else (see Feynman diagram on the wiki page for this process).

@aurelienyonrac

3 ай бұрын

Hello. Could vitual particles and anti virtual particles recombine in a sliding motion thus generating gravity? (Like an edge dislocation in a metal bar that is being bent, at atomic level, exept it is space time bending.) Thank you

@christopherlocke

3 ай бұрын

@@aurelienyonrac Quantum field theory is not a theory of gravity (yet), so I don't see how gravity could be explained from virtual particles. Keep in mind that virtual particles are not real, they are just tools used in perturbation theory to perform calculations.

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

she explained it in the video: it goes to the betas. The whole reason neutrinos were invented was bc beta decay was missing energy. No neutrinos, no missing energy.

@christopherlocke

3 ай бұрын

@@DrDeuteron My point was that this is fundamentally different from two simultaneous beta decays that happen to have their two neutrinos annihilate (which does produce other by-products), because in this case the "annihilation" is of virtual particles (off-shell neutrinos).

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

@@christopherlocke I see. you were actually answering the conundrum seen in the comments correctly. I think telling laymen about virtual particles has confused more than elucidated. Regarding real vv --> X, I don't think you wouldn't get a single event if you used two core collapse supernovae right next to each other as sources.

Fascinating.

Wonderful -- you are so clear and precise!! In a beta decay, is the energy of the antineutrino quantized, or is it on a continuum? If the latter, would it be incredibly hard to distinguish a neutrino-less double beta decay from one where the two antineutrinos just have tiny energies?

@Lucius_Chiaraviglio

3 ай бұрын

Even if not quantized, it would have a gap, because the energy of the two antineutrinos must be at least as much as the sum of their masses.

@stephenaustin3026

3 ай бұрын

The emitted beta particle has a continuous range of energies, which is how the existence of the (anti)neutrino came to be postulated in the first place. So by conservation of energy, the emitted antineutrino must also have a continuous range of energies.

@Lucius_Chiaraviglio

3 ай бұрын

@@stephenaustin3026 The energies are continuous when both a pair of electrons and a pair of antineutrinos are emitted. But what I mean above is that if no antineutrinos are emitted, then the electrons get all of the energy, including the rest mass of the antineutrinos (assuming that they have rest mass). If double beta decay occurred with emission of antineutrinos at 0 kinetic energy, the energy of the electrons would be lower by the total of the antineutrino rest masses than if true neutrinoless double beta decay occurred.

Thanks Doctor Duffy.

I always assumed that in order to be its own anti particle it had to be chargeless, spin 0, and colorless. Neutrinos are chargeless and colorless (since they only interact via the weak force and gravity) but not spin 0.

@ozzymandius666

3 ай бұрын

Photons are their own anti-particle, and they have spin 1. As far as I know, the same goes for the spin 0 Higgs particle.

@portobellomushroom5764

3 ай бұрын

​@@ozzymandius666ah yes, I meant integer spin, not spin 0. My mistake!

@GaryYates-pi9gy

3 ай бұрын

With all this spinning, doesn't the particles ever get dizzy? ;)

@aniket789

3 ай бұрын

@@GaryYates-pi9gy 😂

Thank you.

Wow you are both really good science communicators! Thanks Fermilab, you have a great team (also Dr. Don, too, of course) Neutrinos are Cool!

@GaryYates-pi9gy

3 ай бұрын

Aww! And people say we shouldn't fret the small stuff! Unfortunately it would put Fermilab out of business!😊 Just kidding! Love to share puns! Like asking about fundamental particles! How could it be 'fundamental' physics when such a study is so complicated and deep? Hee! Hee! ;)

@PwntifexMaximus

3 ай бұрын

Neutrinos don't exist.

Is it possible that there was equal amounts of matter/antimatter and still are? Just that perhaps the universe is so huge (like 100 orders of magnitude bigger than what we see) that random distribution of particles resulted in whole section of matter and antimatter remaining separated spatially?

@valentinmalinov8424

3 ай бұрын

Your question is logical and excellent! - Our Universe is steady and it's age and size is unknown. (the light red shift is a tired light at a distance) Our Universe is "Lefthanded" because Time Dimension is one-directional and influencing the "Chirality" Antimatter have not only opposite El. Polarity, but it's Time is running in a opposite direction. (Paul Dirac formulate this, but nobody pay attention.) From this facts will be easy to understand that there must be another parallel Universe, where all Antimatter and Anti-Time are running the show. Probably my book will be interesting to you - Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" (They still pretending that TOE do not exist)

@FrostedCreations

3 ай бұрын

The claim that there must have originally been equal amounts of matter and antimatter is itself dubious. We don't know what caused the big bang, we don't know what should have resulted from it. It is assumed that the universe was created with equal charge but that is an assumption, it has no empirical evidence. The ratio of matter and antimatter could have been an arbitrary parameter of the big bang.

Please tell me if we can detect statistical anomalies in neutrino oscillation when relativistic effects are considered.

In the comments to another video, I posted that if neutrinos could be flipped into antineutrinos and vice versa, it should be possible to do this by gravity, such as that of a black hole with fusion occurring in its accretion disk. Unfortunately, as another poster pointed out to me, I was being multiple orders of magnitude overly optimistic about the angular resolution of our current neutrino telescopes, so it looks like resolution of black hole accretion disk neutrinos and antineutrinos is not in the near future.

Every time I hear about cutting edge physics experiments like neutrinos and dark matter, I have to reflect on how the ability to make new discoveries in fundamental physics now is beginning to be bottlenecked by pretty critical variables like the size of the planet Earth. To simply catch a neutrino, you need a sustained beam of energy that spans a continent and luck. It will be incredible if this species ever sees the day that neutrino physics play a crucial (intentional) role in engineering.

@EinsteinsHair

3 ай бұрын

Just a week ago Fermilab posted a Don Lincoln video where he talked about the Short Baseline neutrino experiment where the beam source and two detectors are all on the Fermilab property. It begins this year and they hope to learn more about neutrino oscillation between the first and second detectors, and maybe even if there is a fourth neutrino.

Is there any potential relation to the flipping of chirality of neutrinos/antineutrinos and the Dzhanibekov effect? I know it couldn't literally be the same phenomenon, but perhaps an analogous effect takes place in moving neutrinos...but because they travel very close to the speed of light, the occurrence of such flipping would, to outside observers, be much rarer than might be predicted from the point of view of the neutrino itself. I don't know whether that is potentially sensible or way off base.

Hello. Could virtual particles have there anti virtual particles? Could they recombine in a sliding motion thus generating gravity? (Like an edge dislocation in a metal bar that is being bent, at atomic level, exept it is space time bending.) Thank you

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

yes. no.

3:53 finally someone who pronounces his name correctly 👍 well done 👍

Was watching a lecture by neil turok, higgs chair of theoretical physics edinburgh uni who claimed that we have measured the relationship between the masses of the three variants and not their mass, with the 1st gen actually being zero mass. Anyone seen this proposal elsewhere?

Does the Weak force interact differently with neutrinos vs. antineutrinos, aside from the times it's forced by conservation laws (like beta decay)? If it does, could that contribute to the asymmetry between matter and antimatter that led to a universe with matter in it?

A lot of quantities, including spin, in quantum mechanics are in a super position. For example, a particle might be in a super position of spin up and down. Are neutrinos in a super position when it comes to their spin, and therefor whether or not they're an anti neutrino? Also, are they in a super position over what type they are and what their mass is (i.e. neutrino oscillation)?

@hyperduality2838

3 ай бұрын

Particles are dual to anti-particles -- The Dirac equation. Spin up is dual to spin down. Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise, chirality is dual to helicity. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

your comment about spin up and down is sort of meaningless. Any superposition (but not mixed) of spin up and down is a pure state of spin up', where spin up' is just a different choice of a quantization axis.

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

2nd question: no. Baller said helicity, when it's really chirality--that topic is too technical for yt.

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

3rd Q: it depends. The weak interaction interacts with flavor eigenstates, but the mass eigenstates are nu-1, nu-2, and nu-3. They are the real particles, but we only detect the mixtures that are flavor eigenstate. In the quark sector its sort of the converse, the weak interaction only interacts with d' and s' quarks, while we think about d and s quarks. ofc, being quantum, we could just as well mix them via u and c, so it's really just convention.

If neutrino can change to its antimatter counterpart just like that..... can the conversion happen while neutrinos (lets say from the sun) are still in mid-flight? Are they need to be surrounded by matter for the conversion to occur?

@ZetaFuzzMachine

Ай бұрын

The little particle physics I learned in college taught me that annihilation and generation procesess can only happen in presence of other matter. So maybe that also applies to particle - antiparticle transformations

Whatever force converted the anti-matter into matter itself would still be a negative/counteracting force to preserve equilibrium, for if we started with nothing and nothing is what should always be, then all of the matter would be balanced with equal amounts of anti-matter, just not interacting with us (matter) - being prevented from interacting with matter by some other force that preserves this balance.

what do I think ?, well I'm glad you asked !, I think we need an understanding of how neutrinos, if they are Majoranna, can explain the matter / anti-matter imballance, I mean things would still be symmetrical, a neutrino flipping to an anti-neutrino, verses an anti-neutrino flipping to a neutrino, are still equally likely events right ?, curious minds want to know !!!

@hyperduality2838

3 ай бұрын

Particles are dual to anti-particles -- The Dirac equation. Spin up is dual to spin down. Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise, chirality is dual to helicity. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

Very short question: Doesn't that violate conservation of lepton number?

@sydhenderson6753

3 ай бұрын

Yes

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

weak interaction has no respect, no respect I tell a.

So if we could flip a neutrino into an antineutrino, how much energy would it take? I'm assuming it must be more than the energy released by a neutrino-antineutrino annihilation or we have free energy. Still might work as an energy storage mechanism though (ignoring all the problems with trapping neutrinos).

During a neutrino and anti-neutrino annihilation would there be photon emissions that allow one to calculate the mass of the two neutrinos?

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

no, they are neutral. And the neutrinos are virtual, so we know their mass: it's the mass that makes the process work, which maybe a complex number, 0, positive, negative, --> infinity...whatever works.

Dirac and Majorana are two roots of same equation. One has solved it for energy another for mass. As very nicely you tell the story of photon and neutrino are roots of same physics having matter and antimatter in same coin for neutrino where mass matters. Good luck Majorana Fermilab put his technology to make a sense of mass beyond Higgs hat. They need some precise value after 2012 Good wishes 2024 . Please get it 🙏.

Neutrinos are already very important to make supernovae work, so why not also solve the antimatter issue.

Particles are dual to anti-particles -- The Dirac equation. Spin up is dual to spin down. Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise, chirality is dual to helicity. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

Would neutrinos just flip into antineutrinos, based on the same superposition mechanism that makes neutrinos flip between electron/muon/tau types?

By the way, I got a book that explains a bit about the story behind Majorana disappearance "Il caso Majorana", by Erasmo Recami. The book is in Italian and I am still learning the language, but it seems fun so far...

have we ever detected any neutrinos _not_ travelling at (or immeasurably close to) the speed of light though? bc i'm not yet quite sold on the idea that they even have mass. what if neutrino oscillation is just a kind of interaction? in that case they wouldn't need to experience time.

What's that poster behind the professor, on the right?

Is time a field, like the Higgs or electromagnetic fields?

Being a Majorana, I assume he was his own antiparticle and must've annihilated.

I don't think there's any unanswered question about neutrinos more interesting than the overtaking problem. Helicity is measured relative to the direction of travel. Since neutrinos have rest mass, they travel at less than the speed of light. Suppose you see a neutrino go by at 0.9c. You observe that it has right helicity, meaning it's an antineutrino. You then jump in your spaceship and accelerate, chasing the particle. At some point your speed relative to your starting point exceeds 0.9c, which means in your frame the particle is now traveling in the opposite direction from what it was before. But its spin hasn't changed, which means its helicity has flipped to left. But that makes it a regular neutrino, not an antineutrino. Did you just convert antimatter into matter simply by changing your frame of reference? If so, what does this imply for relativity? And how do you reconcile what you're seeing with observations by your colleague back home, who still sees an antineutrino?

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

0.9? That's a slow neutrino.

@isomeme

3 ай бұрын

@@DrDeuteron , I didn't see any reason to stack 9s to make my point -- if the speed is less than c, you can overtake the neutrino and thus reverse its helicity.

the strangest neutrino property is the oscillations, but that's only bc I don't think they are Majorana. If it turns out massive right handed counterparts are dark matter--then that will win.

@truckerkamion-zv4qo

3 ай бұрын

neutrinos cannot be the dark matter since it's cold, neutrino dark matter would have been hot

Shoutout to Sudbury Canada's SnowLab!

I want to know how neutrinos break the flavor preservation law, like when electron neutrino flips into tau neutrino.

I had a question pop into my head while listening to this. were neutrinos, anti or otherwise, the first particles (if that is the right term) to emerge from the soup of the (very) early universe... which lead me to wonder, if not, what was?

@denysvlasenko1865

3 ай бұрын

What "soup"? It was always particles.

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

do "emerge" mean propagate freely? If so, yes. of the known particles.

@kidmohair8151

3 ай бұрын

@@denysvlasenko1865 all the way down? (that's a turtle reference)

@kidmohair8151

3 ай бұрын

@@DrDeuteron yes...I think. thank you.

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

@@kidmohair8151 btw, see "The Cosmic Neutrino Background"...so those were thermal neutrinos in the same vein as the CMB, they just decoupled much earlier. They are cold, 1.7K iirc, numerous, but very, very hard to detect, since they are incapable of inelastic scattering (1.7K x k/e ~ 1.4 meV), and if they scatter off an electron...well that won't even ionize an atom...plus the cross section is tiny-tiny even by Weak standards at low energy).

Another insightful video on particle physics from Flabbylab 👍

If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea.

The real difference between trivial and real zero-infinity is the recognition of QM-TIME holography, unity of freeze-framing trivial potential bonding at everywhere-when all-ways all-at-once here-now-forever or axial balance point at the Origin = center of time-timing. It's "Not even wrong" conceptually, absolutely No-thing cannot define everything that is self-defining pure-math relative-timing motion. A terminal dilemma of this Recursion to the Mean, a +/- Convergent "Dead End", the tendency to grave-ity observed as Perspective Principle.

@drdca8263

3 ай бұрын

You’re clanging.

What if neutrinos are opposing like north and south poles rather than positive or negative? Your input wouldn't cancel out, they simply combine. When they combine that wouldn't need to be double strong. Rather they could be weaker or stronger as the distance between poles changed. Every neutrino may have mostly north charge. Throw enough energy into and the result may flip the pole. To visually see my idea you can use two common ceramic magnets and a 100mm long piece of steel bar. Take one magnet and stick the north pole onto one side of the bar. Flip the bar over and stick the second magnet on the opposite end of the bar with its north pole. At first the magnet will oppose doing so but trust me, it will hold once in contact. You now have a s-shaped array that exhibits mostly a single north plle and two small and weak south poles. I know its strange but it has everything to do with combined magnetic flux. Take a third magnet and you will see its true, as its still has one big north pole and two small south poles. A neutrino may be something akin to this, only the forces are more uniform. And since the poles are not symmetrical you mostly repel but when the weak pole is at the correct position they attract. Destabilize this uniformity and poof, they now interact with a neighbor. Now take a second bar and attach the south poles. Same pieces, reverse characteristics.

Maybe, when considering the expanse of spacetime between the big bang and the end of the universe, it still adds up to nothing. Then, it's just a matter of perspective that there appears to be something. In our case it's in the far tail of the distribution (14 billion years or so), where there's barely anything but self sustaining processes remaining. The implication being there's an equally unlikely negative something on the other side of the mean. Unfortunately in this view we're all just waiting around to eventually be cancelled out by our own anti particles. On the other hand, the nice part is there's any number of solutions, and the accounting is especially useful. It's conserved. Thinking in a top down manner in physics is a new phenomenon, as before not too long ago there weren't any CMB or Uncertainty Principles to constrain us. I wonder if we're getting close to making some different kinds of universal assumptions and implications given these imposed restrictions. I've seen some talks from Neil Turok that seem to be asking some of the same questions, and he's saying right handed neutrinos are a potential solution to a lot of problems in physics. I'm not a great particle physicist, so I'm not sure what to make of it! I guess we'll have to see where the experiments lead us.

I was excited to watch but I always really hate videos where the person is constantly switching back and forth with some other person with awful mic quality.

Le plus simple est de supposer l'existence 3 neutrinos dextrogyres, cela ferme complètement le modèle standard et résoud le problème de la matière noire. Mais sont ils detectable ?

I thought particles don't actually spin. And if they do, to go from clockwise to anti-clockwise and back, simply observe from the other pole.

I think there is a whole dark universe out there we just can‘t see/messure because it‘s not based on electromagnetism. Electromagnetism is our domain - our particles … light. But our particles might have dark properties we can‘t messure or interact with. Maybe neutrinos will lead us to this properties.

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

why just one? why not 5?

Why does the reversal of spin make the neutrino an antineutrino? Would two neutrinos of opposing spin annihilate if they hit each other? Having no charge and negligible mass, I have a hard time imagining if we could ever make two meet 😊

@aurelienyonrac

3 ай бұрын

Bring your happiness to a negative person. As you feel crushed they feel better. But you know you are not your feelings. So you watch the emotions inform you of where they are. And you watch them change in you and in the world. ❤

@hyperduality2838

3 ай бұрын

Particles are dual to anti-particles -- The Dirac equation. Spin up is dual to spin down. Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise, chirality is dual to helicity. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

did she show a digram? If so, they're virtual particles so their total mass is zero...their total everything is zero--that's why they annihilate.

@BulentBasaran

3 ай бұрын

@@DrDeuteron mass is converted to energy so total energy need not be zero.

Wouldn’t the neutrino antineutrino pair release energy as they cancel out?

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

no. their total energy is zero Virtual particles have any energy/momentum (positive or negative) to make the real particles work.

Back up a bit; how do we _know_ that there must have been equal parts matter and antimatter at the beginning of the universe? Or is this just the prevailing assumption?

@DerekGreen15

3 ай бұрын

It's an assumption based on the conservation of various quantum numbers and the fantastical idea that the universe as we know it came from nothing for no knowable reason.

@FrostedCreations

3 ай бұрын

It is an assumption. There is no evidence to the contrary, but there is also no evidence or reason to assume there were exactly equal parts matter and antimatter other than it makes our equations look nice.

@Michael75579

Ай бұрын

It's an assumption, but based on the fact that every reaction we've ever seen that converts energy into mass produces matter/antimatter pairs. Of course, we could just be missing the reactions where this doesn't happen as you only need an incredibly tiny asymmetry to explain the fact that the universe is apparently almost entirely matter; 1,000,000,001 matter particles produced for every 1,000,000,000 antimatter particles produced would do it.

Dirac equation is NOT quadratic in energy, it's linear.

Most important question is.. What’s the antimatter of the antimatter ❓🤔

@hyperduality2838

3 ай бұрын

Particles are dual to anti-particles -- The Dirac equation. Spin up is dual to spin down. Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise, chirality is dual to helicity. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

what is -1 squared?

In neutrinoless beta decay is conservation of momentum obeyed?

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

yes

Could dark energy be the gravitational pull of our parent univers, but since we are in a black hole, it apears as repulsive? Please note that contraction of spacetime and dilatation is the same. The slope of a hill goes up or down depending on where you look. Please take the time to understand. Nothing new. Just flexibility of the mind.

0:04 What’s “sci-fo”? 😉 (Sorry, couldn’t resist. Love this channel!)

Maybe neutrinos are kind’a bubbly at their mass limit, and hard to measure their mass… ? They obviously extend spatially, and have an unusual geometry ( they oscillate), and are hot enough to nip detectors !?

1:08 Steve Biller ... there just one problem it gavetwo solutions for energy. So this happenswith a quadratic equation. Dirac's equation was quadratic in energy so you could have a positive energy solution and a negative energy solution. Son in this sort of thing happens in physics, we tend to just throw away the nonphysical solution and keep going. But Dirac wondered whether the negative energy solution could have a physical interpretation, and that led him to postulate the existence of antiparticles. So nowadays we don't think antiparticles as having negative energy, but think those particles that have their fundamental properties reversed. And amazingly, a few years later, in 1932, the entiparticle to the electron was discovered, the positron which looks identically like an electron, but with a positive charge. 2:00 ... 4:09 There's a problem with the universe. When it was created, you must have had equal amounts of matter. 【Nature has no problem at all but physicists have big problems for their interpretions of cosmic microwave background origin and their ideology. There're three types of inflationary big bangs, first the type-I generates flat universe, the type-II made an ultimate chaos, then the type-III produces 90 C-QUANTA and 36 C-QUANTA evolves Dirac sea the neutral with 40% informational energy, the other 54 C-QUANTA (60%) is so-called Dark Energy. CMB is actually resulting from 1 C-QUANTA of the 54 C-QUANTA input to Dirac sea has caused manifestion of the first photons 】

@drdca8263

3 ай бұрын

I don’t think “informational energy” is a recognized term. Is it? If not, I would advise explaining what exactly you mean by it, in each context in which you use the term.

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

idk what he was talking about here. Dirac eq is linear in energy-- the Klein Gordon eq. is quadratic. Dirac postulated a poor man's antimatter: negative energy sea. It wasn't until Andersen (I have his signed EM text book, btw) saw. a positron on Mt Wilson, CA that antimatter was a thing.

Huge quantities? How many grams is that per year?

If antimatter has the arrow of time flipped, it moved back in time from the Big Bang. So, the question is not WHERE is all the antimatter, but WHEN is all the antimatter.

Most interesting? Neutrinos spot switching neutrino type between the Sun and our detectors. That one is hard to wrap my ADD brain around.

Maybe a stupid bunch of questions: If a neutrino and anti-neutrino annihilate, wouldn't that produce a photon to carry away their energies and momenta? But what does theory then say about whether two particles that don't interact with the electric field could still shed their energy into that field upon annihilation? Could this mean that annihilating neutrinos are forced to dump their energy into another field? The video seemed to imply that the energy is then dumped into the electron field instead, by giving electrons greater speed while exiting a nucleus that has just undergone doubl beta decay. Was that intentional?

@drdca8263

3 ай бұрын

Why would it emit a photon? I don’t think neutrinos interact with photons. If it emitted a photon, then I think that would imply that neutrinos could also absorb or emit photons. Actually, I think maybe only charged particles can interact with photons, for symmetry reasons? Now, what happens when an anti-neutrino and a neutrino meet, if they don’t annihilate and produce something else? I think maybe (this is speculation on my part. I don’t know.) the idea it isn’t exactly that they meet and annihilate, so much as that the creation of the one, is the annihilation of the other? Like, if the decay of neutron involves the annihilation operator of the neutron, the creation operators of the proton and electron, and the creation operator of the neutrino, And like, the decay of two neutrons have two of each of the above, with all these operators multiplied together, that the two copies of the creation operator for the neutrino, cancel out, because of the creation operator and annihilation operator of the neutrino, being the same operator? Like, photons are also their own anti-particle, but you don’t have a situation where two photons annihilate with each-other and emit a photon.

@drdca8263

3 ай бұрын

@@cloudpoint0 Ah, I was thinking that the U(1) group acted on photons, because of, uh, something half-remembered about the photon field (in QED, I guess more complicated in the full picture) “coming from” promoting the U(1) global symmetry to a local one, but I didn’t really understand the details of that. I guess if an electron and positron correspond to representations of exp(i theta) being sent to exp(i theta) and exp(-i theta), and these together making the trivial representation, then these annihilating to form a photon, should imply that the photon’s associated representations of U(1) should also be the trivial representation, So my reason for thinking that U(1) symmetry requires that photons only interact with charged things, didn’t make sense, I suppose. Oops. So, does the standard model Lagrangian have a term for an interaction between photons and neutrinos? I would have thought it didn’t, but you seem to maybe be suggesting it does? (Or at least that such an interaction might exist in nature)

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

@@cloudpoint0 noting needs to be generated to deal with a virtual particle, and certainly not photons

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

@@cloudpoint0 See: "R (cross section ratio)" in wikipedia. Not a photon in sight.

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

@@cloudpoint0 You're not making any sense. 2beta decay is studied by high energy physicists (look up the PIs and check their affiliations). Feynman diagrams work at low energy, too.

What if all matter and energy are infinitely small gravitons-only spin and energy being different

It's easy to flip a neutrino into an opposite chirality neutrino by moving it in a fourth dimension, flipping it over, and putting it back.

@hyperduality2838

3 ай бұрын

Particles are dual to anti-particles -- The Dirac equation. Spin up is dual to spin down. Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise, chirality is dual to helicity. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

Spin is real and is caused by an imbalance in the vectored momentum of incoming and outgoing superluminal fundamental particles. Spin itself is superluminal and is only dependent on the direction of travel by an instantaneous flip of a particle to align its poles with the other particles in the stream. This means that there is some small immeasurable charge on neutral particles like neutrons and neutrinos with charge representing a quantised net difference in the number of incoming and outgoing superluminal fundamental particles.

@drdca8263

3 ай бұрын

I don’t think those words mean what you seem to think they mean

@baraskparas9559

3 ай бұрын

@@drdca8263 I have my own theory of everything based on collision theory of Trautz and the push gravity theories of de Duilliers and Le Sage together with particle physics. It has served me well so far in that I cannot falsify it. On the other hand I am weak in math.

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

spin is an axial vector, while momentum is a vector. tsk tsk.

@drdca8263

3 ай бұрын

@@DrDeuteron huh? Do you just mean because the spin is quantized, so the length is constant for elementary particles? Oh, or, do you mean something about how it transforms under rotations and boosts, what with angular momentum being like, a bivector I guess?

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

@@drdca8263 no, anything that says spin depends on momentum violates parity. Try to find a classical formula where angular momentum is proportional to momentum vi a vector scaling: L = (something) times p....you won't, because in the mirror you get: L = (something) * (-p) so something = 0 if parity is conserved.

I have a dumb question. Why do we assume the universe started with nothing? We know the approximate time of the big bang, but aren't all known physics break down around the very beginning? So why assume there is a point zero when we don't have the theories to back it up?

📝 *Summary::* *What is Antimatter?* ▶️ 00:00:00 Antimatter is a real substance created and sent in huge quantities through accelerators to test the known laws of physics. 🍌 00:00:28 Antimatter was discovered in 1932, with the positron being the first antiparticle to the electron. ❓ 00:01:22 Antimatter particles have their fundamental properties reversed, leading to their existence. ▶️ 00:03:20 Neutrinos are as weird as possible and may not fit into the particle-antiparticle pattern. ▶️ 00:03:35 Neutrinos are incredibly small in mass, but their mass is not zero, contrary to expectations. *Antimatter and Antineutrinos* ▶️ 00:00:00 Antimatter is a real substance created and sent in huge quantities through accelerators to test the known laws of physics. 🔀 00:02:13 Neutrinos and antineutrinos may differ only in their spin, with neutrinos spinning anticlockwise and antineutrinos spinning clockwise. ⚖ 00:04:19 Neutrinos may hold the key to understanding the matter-antimatter imbalance in the universe, as a small amount of antimatter must have flipped over into matter during the universe's creation. *Neutrinos and Antineutrinos* 🔀 00:02:13 Neutrinos and antineutrinos may differ only in their spin, with neutrinos spinning anticlockwise and antineutrinos spinning clockwise. ▶️ 00:03:22 The ability to flip an antineutrino into a neutrino or vice versa depends on the particle mass, and this flipping could classify neutrinos as myana particles. ⚖ 00:04:19 Neutrinos may hold the key to understanding the matter-antimatter imbalance in the universe, as a small amount of antimatter must have flipped over into matter during the universe's creation. 🔬 00:05:30 The extremely rare process of neutrinoless double beta decay could confirm the existence of myana particles, providing valuable information about neutrino mass and flipping probability. *Testing for Neutrino Flipping* ☢ 00:04:44 Neutrinoless double beta decay is an extremely rare process where two neutrons decay simultaneously, resulting in two electrons and no neutrinos. ▶️ 00:05:18 Experiments use radioactive isotopes known to undergo double beta decay, such as thorium 130, xenon 136, and germanium 76, to detect neutrino flipping. 🔭 00:06:14 Different experiments like SnowPlus, Legend, Nexo, and Cupid use various detector volumes and energy resolution to maximize the number of decays observed and distinguish them from normal decays. *Neutrino Flipping Process* ☢ 00:04:44 Neutrinoless double beta decay is an extremely rare process where two neutrons decay simultaneously, resulting in two electrons and no neutrinos. 🔬 00:05:30 The extremely rare process of neutrinoless double beta decay could confirm the existence of myana particles, providing valuable information about neutrino mass and flipping probability. *The Significance of Neutrinos* 🌎 00:06:59 Neutrinos could explain the matter-antimatter imbalance in the universe, and measuring neutrinoless double beta decay could provide crucial information about neutrino mass and particle flipping probability. 🧪 00:07:31 The discovery of myana particles would be significant for particle physicists, as it represents a new kind of particle and could revolutionize our understanding of physics. *The Discovery of Myana Particles* 🌎 00:06:59 Neutrinos could explain the matter-antimatter imbalance in the universe, and measuring neutrinoless double beta decay could provide crucial information about neutrino mass and particle flipping probability. ------------------ 🔑 *Key takeaways::* *Importance of Neutrinos* 🌎 00:06:59 Neutrinos could explain the matter-antimatter imbalance in the universe, and measuring neutrinoless double beta decay could provide crucial information about neutrino mass and particle flipping probability. 🧪 00:07:31 The discovery of myana particles would be significant for particle physicists, as it represents a new kind of particle and could revolutionize our understanding of physics. ------------------ *Summarized by TubeSum Chrome Extension*

Neutrinos are notoriously difficult to detect. We're told they can pass through light-years of lead. And that some ridiculous number of them pass through us every millisecond. So I presume that in most normal beta decay, including double-beta decay, the neutrino(s) would escape undetected. So how do you distinguish between a neutrinoless double-beta decay, and a normal double-beta decay in which the neutrinos escaped the detector undetected?

@drdca8263

3 ай бұрын

By measuring the energy and momentum of the other particles, and seeing whether there is a deficit attributable to the neutrinos. (Just like how they were originally discovered)

@danielschechter8130

3 ай бұрын

@@drdca8263 Thanks. But then if there's a double-beta decay and one neutrino flips, becomes an anti-neutrino, and annihilates with its partner neutrino, wouldn't the other particles still show the same deficit? Or is the idea that the annihilation would happen before the decay particles are emitted? Sorry if it's a dumb question.

@drdca8263

3 ай бұрын

@@danielschechter8130 my *impression* (I don’t understand well enough to say with confidence) is that the annihilation would be, yeah, before the things are emitted. But, I could be wrong about that. Someone else in the comments suggested that the two neutrinos annihilating would emit two photons, but the diagram in the video didn’t show that, so I imagine that either that’s not quite how it happens, or photons would be absorbed by the other parts that are detected, before leaving the site of the decay. (My guess before they said that was that the neutrino and anti-neutrino basically cancel out as part of the same event as they are created in? Like, in the same moment. Idk.)

@danielschechter8130

3 ай бұрын

@@drdca8263 Thanks.

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

@@drdca8263 1) no photons. Other wise, we would see neutrinos 2)- the neutrino line is internal, and virtual (t-channel), so it has the energy and momentum required to make the kinematics of never existing work out. Since it's t-channel, it probably has mass-squared less than zero.

neutrinos are directly responsible for all supernovae 2 even bananas: lets ignore this

Geez we STILL dont know a Neutrino's Mass? Thats wild - when i was a kid there was a book that was kinda old back then that said as much, only i'd REALLY thought we'd figured it out by now?? "Each neutrino flavor state is a linear combination of the three discrete mass eigenstates... From cosmological measurements, it has been calculated that the sum of the three neutrino masses must be less than one-millionth that of the electron"(-wikipedia) Whoa, sounds tricky - maybe a subject for a future Vid?

@fermilab

3 ай бұрын

Very keen observation! It's actually the topic for our next episode! Stay tuned and thanks for watching.

@petegaslondon

3 ай бұрын

Oh wow! Bring it on, @@fermilab :) One reason i got a basic handle on this stuff was a neat little book when i was about 10, of the (known) Zoo of particles with explanatory pictures and quotes from the Scientists Folks, DO try and have books for your kids (and others) to read.. Or Library time .. And of course, subscribe to your favourite Physics Channel!

How about spacetime actually being a properties of QCD mixed with fluid dynamics and in that, as a ultra chilled permiable field .. gravity as displacement of a field set, relative in nature and in large part, not actually a vacuum. This only an effect of a resonant phase wave neutrino ocean. That's right. Spacetime, not a vacuum... but, actually, field entangled and nuclear electron needle casting convergence pairs invading a resont pressure excited neutrino ocean. The forces converged to evolve inverse to the neutrino pressure and refraction properties. Likely responsible for resonant pressure holding (possible in part condensing to ignition) fusion reactions together like the Mariana Trench might under thesam3 conditions for a fusion star the size of a grain of sand. The resonant transfer is everywhere we look. It's why the math even exists along with paradoxical choice and the QCD energies in part.. nuclear electrons in tunneling resonation whips as pairs converging to evolving inverse to the neutrino pressure and with strang3 attractions and von Karman Vortex streets, properties of flow and eddy, cymatic nature, entangled fields, and electromagnetic wave particle dual electrons helixing, Vortexing in convergence as pairs emerging, another pair meeting as inverse in description and orbiting and exchanging energies inverse to there relative properties of movement and energy exchange, needling casting to evolve whip lighting as tesla coil like field excitement, careening off in amazing resonation wiggle to a needling point like particle, likely engulfing and flipping through and/or around atomic nuclei and black holes or other Heaney bodies with enough energy concentrations like possibly around fusion reactions. Perhaps stars are their transformers.. us and nature a product of their awesome evolution to spin inverse energy sets with infinite potential into reality as we know it. Our current likely surging to their tunneling or resonation paths. This like,y or not, the uncertainty principle and wave functions speak loud in a direction that we too are in superposition, but only experience a flow. BET anything. That's a Neutrino ocean out there. M87 quasar is singing a special tu e wh8le snuffing out stars. Black holes spinning. James Webb hinting with each new observation that we made a mistake in a large parameter somewhere in the classical set. Einstein and Hawking both took these burning questions to there very last days. Maybe we do them a solid and understand what they, Feynman, and Tesla were trying to help us envision the task. The internet a way to an organic quantum computing solution in human resonation social knowledge sharing. They would know to now, had they seen the technology today. Especially Einstein after seeing quantum computers and the neutrino hints. We likely need the neutrino technologies in outer space to read the conditions away from earth's magnetosphere. Outside the heliopause might help to... somewhere close to a nebula giving new stars life might be ideal. For now, tell the astronauts to get their flippers out and we tie some subwoffers to their behinds

-X squared conveniently bypassing zero still? Why? 'Flips' is one way of putting it. A magnet will show you this works along with fusion and the big-bang. All are ongoing.

Summary Here are the key components of all my physics posts. Photons are eternal and outside of time and distance. The singularity of photons began the Big Bang. Photons created mass through pair conversion of electron positron pairs in the Big Bang. These electrons and positrons made the elementary particles which in turn made the atoms. Neutrons and hydrogen atoms may be the same thing in different form. The proton neutron bond in the nucleus, kept neutrons from decay and was key to building all elements. Neutrons may be unstable protons. Protons, for the most part could only be created in the immediate era after the Big Bang. The key to atoms stability may be the deuterium nucleus or deuteron that help binds one proton to one neutron. Virtual particles may power beta plus decay. The missing anti matter is in protons and neutrons. Photons, electrons, and positrons, are all different versions of the same thing. Virtual particles may be a key part of quantum leaps. The mass of the universe comes from photons converting to electron positron pairs in pair conversion. The energy of the universe comes from electrons and positrons annihilating and converting to photons. The universe is 5% charged matter and 95% neutral force. Dark matter is not gravity from invisible baryons pulling, but antigravity pushing from empty space. Dark matter and Dark Energy are both anti gravity pushing from empty space. The cosmological redshift supports this. The force from the Big Bang singularity was photons / dark energy / dark matter /anti gravity . They are the same. The force caused by acceleration is anti gravity, not gravity. Time has speed limits up to the speed of light. 95% of the universe seems to be without charge, detectable matter, or gravity: dark energy plus dark matter. The universe is open ended and will continue to expand.

@TomHendricksMusea

27 күн бұрын

This post suggests the antimatter is positrons in protons and neutrons.

How is possible to know of not detect neutrino if neutrino almost never is detected?

@caseytailfly

3 ай бұрын

I believe it is implied by the mass of the other detected particles. Neutrinos were originally discovered this way, not by being detected directly, but because missing energy was observed which implied their existence. Much later they were detected directly.

@piotrjuszczyk1

3 ай бұрын

@@caseytailfly Yes, but this time they seek "not detect"

@caseytailfly

3 ай бұрын

If the energy is not carried away in neutrinos it must be present in the other decay particles, thus it can be inferred that the neutrinos were annihilated?

If the neutrino oscillation depends on the magnetic field strength, then a neutrino energy absorber could be created in the laboratory, which would be a better producer of green energy than thermonuclear reactors. Maybe it is the energy of oscillating neutrinos that heats the solar corona to millions of degrees in the magnetic field. If people manage to achieve a magnetic field of 1000 Tesla in the laboratory, I think it will be enough for neutrinos to oscillate every few meters from an electron neutrino to a tau neutrino and release energy, returning to the electron neutrino state again. Under the conditions of the Sun's magnetic field, neutrinos oscillate approximately every 300,000 km.

Majurrana famously disappeared in 1938. Was he his own antiparticle?

I hardly recognize Dr Don Lincoln anymore since he shaved the mustache

yeah that was an odd learn see i thought Anti matter was either the opposite side of the polarity [if x-ray=89-Anti x-ray or tractor beam=11 or my all the pressure ranges on both sides of our 10^05 too 10^25 energy too wavelength polarity i mean universe stacks from energy, pressure, mass or mass, pressure, energy ~~~ but this idea that their are mirror images of the minerals = odd so where the base line? is that why H1 vs Helium needs the 10,000 x Earths Gravity for its Fusion? thats my fear about Cermn-they are trying to Quantify Reality-yet-are dealing w/unnatural states /as to say their not using the Hotter then Sun Temps Too Try to Build Minerals (up to carbon Gas) but literally Carsing two cars into each other; claiming their finding the equipment i mean w/String Theorys any 5 Gravity Fibers = any of the 32 Quarks (using Graviton Knit dots to hold them solid & negate the Strong Nuke Forces) only leads to a Hydrogen atom if you put 14 pentagrams & 2 five point stars together ___they cant learn that in a car accident are they tring to find a new power plant? acting like the fuel=so small/ yet not cold fusion or perpetual ___like a slow burn plasma? un_idea gas law conversion???? it hurts my brain __building the elements=key to a better future __power plants = more of the same excuses but thats just the math & im trying to find all the maths: from baking to rocket to chem to consumer product dev, ... the God mantels only 14 inventions away but w/out these keys =we're headed in the opposite direction ___7 caveman win not ok self healing equipment, ... nvr mind____im tired of being an @$$ ___ok BYE Anti? so out of your grade _____we have about 12 steps b4 those become reletive ___& only after we have a Full Graph & fail chart ready the "Slope of the universe? is like the Ones in a Division table or how similar minerals: texture or melting points are off by a few points___ not a 3d universe curve

@scottrollinsjr324

3 ай бұрын

but hay\ why does nx+1 always lead to one? ___in the [Collatz conjecture] bc-smaller number are more likely to happen then larger numbers & +1 more likely make it an even vs the divide by 2 anyway = only work in its favor____just probability math evens=divide by 2 & odds=x3 & add one simple A+B=C? why? bc law of [order of operation] aka alphabet not like they asked A+G=x & A dont = higher then B / both the lowers denominations i mean [1+2=3] period but i know 5 minus 10 = five w/a remainder of five (bc nothing less then zero) & [1+1] = 2, 1/1/+, 11, 2 integers & a calculator, a math prob, a vector, irrelevant data, a tab, 2 numer_icons & a plus symbol, aka ~32 answers total b4 adding 2&2 together like 1 weatherman + 1 doplar radar B4 chasing the preverbal catch 22__ nothings simple

In this case why neutrinos around us are not annihilating?

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

well they say neutrinos go through light years of lead, and that's absorption with one weak vertex...and now you want two?

I always thought the Higgs particle was its own anti-particle, and it has mass, although its a boson.

@sydhenderson6753

3 ай бұрын

The same is true of the Z boson and the neutral pion. The neutrino would be the first Fermion to be its own antiparticle.

@ozzymandius666

3 ай бұрын

@@sydhenderson6753 To be pedantic, the neutral pion is a composite particle, but yeah, switching quark for antiquark in one doesn't do anything. I guess the same goes for the J meson, some neutral kaons, etc, provided the quark/antiquark are of opposite flavors.

where neutrions mass come from if is not coming in higgs boson ?

'Thats what we talk about today'... deja-vu

The most interesting work on neutrinos is turoks work. He is tring to demonstrate that right handed neutrinos are very massive and left handed neutrinos have a very small mass. Presumably each of these has its own antiparticle. This video seems suspicious since it is claiming that antineutrinos are right handed neutrinos.

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

you're comparing Dirac neutrinos with Majorana neutrinos. def apples and oranges.

The quantities of antimatter are very tiny not huge.

@drdca8263

3 ай бұрын

Well, are we talking total number, or total mass? Like, yeah, a very tiny amount of stuff, but that doesn’t mean that the number isn’t a big number, right? The particles are very small.

I don't know, but I'd like to know,

Where's Don?😐

Here's my conundrum: It is claimed neutrinos have mass because of oscillations, and massless particles don't experience time. Photons experience oscillations in electric and magnetic field strength, and yet they are massless. What gives?

@timseguine2

3 ай бұрын

I think you are getting hung up on a slightly ambiguous use of language. Two distinct meanings of the word oscillation here. The type of oscillation one means when talking about neutrinos is "changing from one type of particle to another". And photons don't have this type of oscillation.

@ozzymandius666

3 ай бұрын

@@timseguine2 Both oscillations are oscillations of fields. I don't think the existence of neutrino oscillations truly constitutes "proof" they have mass, not until someone convincingly and in detail shows me the math proving it, which I believe cannot yet be done, because we don't know the mechanism by which the neutrino gets mass, we only know that the Higgs mechanism doesn't give them mass.

@drdca8263

3 ай бұрын

@@ozzymandius666Do you understand QED? I don’t, so I’m not saying like “I understand QED and here’s the sense in which bla bla”. I have some impressions of the math in QED, but, I don’t really know it. In the Klein Gordon equation, the solutions include momentum eigenfunctions I think, which are functions of space and time, oscillating both in time, and in space. But, like, moving along any line in spacetime, this oscillation is just a phase factor? And, phases factors themselves aren’t observable, only relative phase factors, yeah? I think the Klein-Gordon equation is only for massive particles, but I’m going to imagine that something similar to what goes on with the momentum eigenfunctions is also applicable for photons. I imagine that when photons “oscillate”, (or, perhaps I should say that the electromagnetic field oscillates(?)), it is a thing like this, with like, interference changing as the phases change across spacetime. With neutrinos... Ah, yeah, I think that if the 3 flavors each had zero mass, then, if it had the same kind of “linear combination of eigenfunctions of momentum”, I would think that, if the linear combination was purely one flavor at the start, then if they were moving at c, then the dot product of the momentum and energy with the difference in spacetime positions would be the same for each flavor, and, like, you wouldn’t get different changes in phase for the different flavors? And like, there wouldn’t be a mass basis for the 3. The different flavors would just stay separate? So you would always end up with the same flavor at the destination as at the start? Of course, like, I’m waving my hands a lot because there’s a lot I don’t understand/know here. But, If the state of a neutrino can be expressed as a linear combination of momentum eigenstates, and if the momentum and flavor operators commute, then, if they aren’t interacting with anything, just being free massless particles , with the energy being determined entirely by the momentum, Then, there should be no mixing of flavors; flavor would be conserved. ;Oh, also, if there was a contribution to the energy other than from the momentum, outside interacting with other things, I would think that would produce a rest-mass.) I think that is fairly compelling reason to think it makes sense that that their being massless would conflict with the oscillating between flavors. But, of course, I don’t really know QFT, so this isn’t a complete mathematical proof like you requested. But, it is some ideas which I think gesture towards the real mathematical reasons, as best as I can tell without really knowing QFT.

@DrDeuteron

3 ай бұрын

photon don't experience field oscillations. If you shoot out a CW 200 MHz radar beam to ping Venus, and then hop in a spaceship an ride in the beam, as you approach c (relative to the Earth), the local field, in your ship's neighborhood, Hz --> 0.

@timseguine2

3 ай бұрын

Okay, I will attempt to explain it again. The word oscillation the way you are using it for photons means something different than what is mean by oscillation when talking about neutrinos. The EM field oscillates, not the photons. The oscillation of the EM field is the photon. "neutrino oscillation" doesn't refer to the quantum field associated with a specific neutrino field oscillating. For the next part, I will try to stay technically accurate, without bogging you down with too many details, but ultimately any explanation fails apart from the mathematical model itself. "neutrino oscillation" refers to a very specific phenomenon related a certain set of field interactions that in turn correspond to specific terms in the equation that describes the standard model. Due to reasons of unit consistency (the physical units have to match up with each other in the equation) these specific interaction terms require that the rest mass of the neutrino be multiplied with them otherwise the units would turn out wrong. The argumentation isn't as simple as that. But it is more or less true( and it is absolutely true that every term in the equation has to have the same units for it to be a valid equation). Since photons (and all massless particles) don't have a rest mass, they can't have these terms and thus can't experience a phenomenon similar to neutrino oscillation. That massless particles "don't experience time" also has to do with what kinds of particle interactions are in principle allowed by the unit consistency I mentioned. And massless particles end up being very restricted by this as to the types of things they can do.

it's not even bananas, it's odd bananas

Neutrinos or aether?

@drdca8263

3 ай бұрын

You don’t mean anything sufficiently specific by “aether”. You might think you do, but whatever you mean by it is so vague as to be almost meaningless. (Prove me wrong.) (But note the “almost”)

@Aquariotp

3 ай бұрын

@@drdca8263 I have scientifically proven that you are completely wrong. You just need to realize that gravity is responsible for the horizontal leveling of the water. Just check hydrostatic pressure and isobaric lines in a liquid system at rest. You can also check the topography and contour lines, which are infinite horizontal planes parallel to the natural water level. And so many other points such as plains that do not fit into a sphere with a radius of 6371 km or the proper geotropy that nullifies the theory of attraction between the center of mass. and much more.Have fun!

@drdca8263

3 ай бұрын

@@Aquariotp If you have, you have not communicated the proof in a comprehensible way. Why are you talking about water? I was talking about your use of the word “aether”, and challenging you to demonstrate that your concept of “aether” is well-defined and sufficiently precise to be relevant. As far as I can tell, your mention of water levels and, stuff about the curvature of the earth(?) has not demonstrated anything about what you mean by “aether”.

@Aquariotp

3 ай бұрын

@@drdca8263 Anyone who studies neutrinos is supposed to know the theories about the Aether. And neutrinos, aren't they based on an attractive gravitational cosmological model, or even Einstein's relativity? Logically you must know the Michelson-Morley experiment, where between the Aether and the supposed movements of the earth, the Aether was discarded, purely and simply because the scientific community has a model tied to the supposed gravitational attraction. But, today we know that in fact, the earth does not move and that the Michelson-Morley experiment worked perfectly, showing that in fact the Aether exists and not the supposed movement of the earth. And furthermore, the attractive gravitational theory itself proposed by Newton, does not conform to data verified in the natural world, we have scientific data that guarantees that the surface of the earth is flat and horizontal and is not a flying sphere of 6371 km in radius. Are your studies on Neutrinos independent of a cosmological model, such as the one currently adopted? If it isn't, I can disregard my comments. but if your study on Neutrinos is linked to the cosmological model adopted, my comments are relevant to your video and I think you understood very well what I argued.