A neutrino. Knock, knock. Who’s there?

@n1k0n_

Жыл бұрын

There or somewhere? Did you collapse a wave function?

@nowster

Жыл бұрын

They don't even knock.

@thingsiplay

Жыл бұрын

@@nowster THE Neutrino: You clearly don’t know who you’re talking to, so let me clue you in. I am not in danger, Paul. I am the danger. A guy opens his door and gets shot and you think that of me? No. I am the one who knocks!

@JuddBagley

Жыл бұрын

@@thingsiplay Heisenberg.

@militantpacifist4087

Жыл бұрын

People didn’t understand this joke.

Yay, it's Dr. Duffy! I learned something new and I hope to see more videos from you!

I love how her excitement for this subject matter is so strong the pupils of her eyes feel no need to interact with her eyelids. It's great! :)

After watching tons of these videos, I now can follow them much more easily. Hard work pays off.

😄 Fascinating and informative as always, thanks!

Thanks Doctor Duffy and Jessica, keep up the good work.

@alphagt62

Жыл бұрын

The Bonny Lass has a charming accent! Makes her easy to listen to.

Great video as always

My favorite channel on KZread

An excellent video on this very exciting topic. It was the first explanation of the neutrino oscillations I've heard that helped me to somehow grasp the idea of them switching flavour as we observe them.

@shawn0fitz

Жыл бұрын

I believe we observe them as one flavor. (They could be any flavor based on probability but when we observe them, they are a single flavor.)

@djgruby

Жыл бұрын

@@shawn0fitz Wrong! There are 3 flavours and we observe them all!

Excellent and informative!

The first bonus fact has greatly knocked me around. No acceleration in the massless photon I could appreciate, but how does a massive (even when tiny) particle have no need at all of acceleration?

@thedeemon

Жыл бұрын

When a neutrino is born, the way Standard Model describes it, is you have an event (a node in a Feynman diagram) with 3 operators working: annihilation of a W- boson and creation of 2 new particles: an electron (or tau or mu) and a neutrino. It's an instant event, and total momenta of outgoing particles must match momentum of original particle, so they are born with that momentum (and speed) they carry away. This is very similar to the case with photons that are also born with a certain momentum and speed.

@TheyCallMeNewb

Жыл бұрын

Oh, thank you. But - and forgive my casting aside the Feynman diagrams - the photon borrows exclusively from space at the total expense of time, whereas the neutrino answers to the clock. I guess what I'm asking now is: how can the quintessentially temporal find the exemption necessary to by-pass acceleration?

@thedeemon

Жыл бұрын

@@TheyCallMeNewb it doesn't have to "by-pass acceleration", it's not a little ball that's born stationary (relative to what?) and then accelerates. Remember how in QFT particles are really waves, parts of quantum fields. One field loses a wave, another field gains a wave, and this wave evolves in time so it looks like it's moving with certain speed. How fast it moves depends on its shape and the governing law of its evolution. If it's born with proper shape, it already has the necessary speed / momentum, no need to accelerate.

@TheyCallMeNewb

Жыл бұрын

I had availed myself of an idea the likes of which I perhaps shouldn't. We dabble in fields, and as such Heisenberg maybe channeled. The neutrino is characterized by a wave packet synonymous with among other things, the 'speed' that maybe measured. That really burgeons for me that whole 'wave/particle duality' component. The thinking is helped along by time tending to parse out the neutrinos by type in accord with respective speed. Updating schema; and thank you.

Hi, please can you do a comprehensive video about atomic orbitals, proton spin and quantum leap. I like the way you do such complicated topics in physics, so it'll be much of benefit if you discuss the aforementioned requests since they're mind spinning especially when read in articles 🤕

Very informative and nicely condensed

@PhysicsPolice

Жыл бұрын

You misspelled "condescended" ;)

@AK-vx4dy

Жыл бұрын

@@PhysicsPolice In some ways you are right ;)

I gave a genuine question for anyone who happens to know the answer. Background: The "speed of light" is short for "the speed of light in a vacuum". Light slows down in materials like glass and water, and it's possible to go faster than slowed-down light in a material, hence Chenerkov radiation. My question: While photons are slowed down in such a medium, do they experience the passage of time?

Mind blown again... Thank you!

Nice. I have one question, is it possible that a neutrino and an anti neutrino ahnihilate each other? I know there're a lot of anti neutrino from beta decay and the sun bombard us with neutrinos, yes, I know it would be a very rare interaction, but would yiled a very specific radiation, we should be detecting it, right? Or it's so rare that they would hit one another?

Really interesting video this time. They usually are of course. Thank you. So, if a photon experiences the entire timeline at the same time, using the speed estimate with 18 nines, how long have those big bang neutrinos been travelling (according to their perspective).

@risenphoenixkai

Жыл бұрын

My math is probably wrong, but I came up with about 16.5 years.

That was delightful.

Fascinating.

When a neutrino/photon is created, what causes it's direction path to travel this way or that?

Since neutrinos travel slower than the speed of light, you can define a reference frame that travels faster than them. From that reference frame a left-handed neutrino would appear to be a right-handed neutrino. I'd be interested in a video on this.

@PhysicsPolice

Жыл бұрын

Why would we need a video on this? When you see me run away from you sitting in your parked car, you see me carrying my phone in my left hand. Because I'm a lefty. But when you drive past me and look at me in the rear-view mirror, you see the image of right-handed person. You do the transformation in your head to know I'm left-handed. Because you know how mirrors work. Why would it be any different for sub-atomic particles?

@jonwesick2844

Жыл бұрын

Maybe I'm wrong but neutrinos are only supposed to be left handed. This would violate that rule.

@christosvoskresye

Жыл бұрын

@@jonwesick2844 That was believed when it was thought they moved at the speed of light. Your original comment is correct, though: neutrinos.fnal.gov/mysteries/handedness/. In the rest frame of the particle that decays to produce a neutrino, the new neutrino is left-handed. In other frames of reference it might not be.

@XEinstein

Жыл бұрын

@@PhysicsPolice because right handed neutrinos don't exist. A right handed neutrino might be the anti particle of left handed neutrinos though.

@PhysicsPolice

Жыл бұрын

@@XEinstein your @ me but I don’t know which part of my comment you’re replying to. It’s already implied in my comment that neutrinos are only left handed. Making them look right handed by looking at them in the rear view mirrors makes for a great hep-th paper but not a good KZread video. Feel free to disagree. It’s just my opinion. But I explained it clearly, and you haven’t given me any reason to reconsider it.

Great video

OK so the neutrino form Andromeda arrived here 40 µs after the photon. But it would also be interesting to know how much time passed for the neutrino? 🤔

@htannberg

Жыл бұрын

40 microseconds?

I really love these videos! Q: Can low-energy slow neutrinos be created ab initio, i.e. slow neutrinos that are slow without the need for decoherence or traveling a fantastic distance? Also, I presume that neutrinos created at the big bang slowed down a lot during the inflationary period. Can scientists estimate their number and account for the gravitational effects of that neutrino "residue"? Thanks again!

@bottlekruiser

Жыл бұрын

There's a conserved quantity called lepton number which more or less mandates that for every electron (muon and tau too but these are rare enough) there's an anti neutrino and vise versa for antiparticles. Unless this conservation law is massively broken at the dawn of time, there should only be as many (anti)neutrinos as there are electrons, which would hardly amount to any noticeable mass

@tedlis517

Жыл бұрын

@@bottlekruiser I hadn't thought of that. But antineutrino/electron and neutrino/positron creation would still result in "left over" neutrinos if the electrons and positrons annihilate and if a neutrino is its own antiparticle. What do you think?

@bottlekruiser

Жыл бұрын

​@@tedlis517 heck you're right I totally didn't think of that They *could* have annihilated with each other too, but i bet the cross section of that is so small it might as well not happen A way to test that could be looking for em radiation in places where it's not supposed to be

If mass is given by a particle's interaction with a field, does it just ATTEMPT to go at the speed of light and sort of zig-zag back and forth with the field waves/particles along the way? Is that oscilation back and forth at light speed the timer that causes time dilation for objects traveling at different sub-light speeds?

@OldGamerNoob

Жыл бұрын

@@thedeemon Thanks, I'll have to give that a good read. As for time dilation, (even if just for context for my odd comment) I had seen an example somewhere using a photon bouncing between two mirrors inside a spaceship would appear to an outside observer to have a zigzag path, the faster the craft, the longer each bounce in the zigzag and the longer/slower each would take at the speed of light. . . . . . here the image came to mind that other particles' "internal zigzags" being represented as a bunch of faynman diagrams chained together where the distances between each appear to stretch for an outside observer as the particle goes faster, slowing the rate of any particle decay or other interactions. (that's what was going on in my head, anyhow)

@thedeemon

Жыл бұрын

@@OldGamerNoob makes sense, yes

if they dont interact with other matter or else, are neutrinos then the only entity in the universe that travels on straight lines thru timepsace and therefore does the most accurate measuring of distances?

How many wavelengths long is a photon? Just one wavelength or multiple?

How about a series of videos on different long baseline experiments 😇

Great video, thanks ladies.

*facepalm* I hadn't thought of why they can't be traveling at the speed of light. Is decoherence just theoretical/hypothetical or can/has it been measured? I LOVE Jessica's accent 😍 (I could enjoy listening to her speak about neutrinos for hours ... or even physics in general ... or toothpaste, groceries, math, etc 😆)

@PhysicsPolice

Жыл бұрын

The answer to the question "is X *just* theoretical?" depends on your beliefs. Models in physics tell us what is real, according to some theory. To believe a theory is to believe all its model's parts are real. The scientific method doesn't prove theories true. It's a process that allows us to find models closer and closer to the truth. You can believe the most time-tested, accurately measured theories, like QM or GR. Or not. That's up to you. If you believe in QM then decoherence is real. Every observation of the macroscopic world is consistent with decoherence. So yes, it's been observed, if you believe QM. I think you're asking can it be quantified. Yes, if you search for "quantifying decoherence" in the arXiv, you get plenty of results. Most are specific to one small regime because decoherence is complex and good methods of quantification it depend heavily on the system of study.

I'VE ASKED THE FOLLOWING ON SEVERAL PHYSICS SITES, WITH NO LUCK: Photons always travel at c and express this regardless if you travel toward or away from the source. The energy difference is expressed in a frequency shift. DO NEUTRINOS TO THE SAME THING?

Neutrinos can travel at arbitrary speed afaik since they have mass?

It's like a signature that only gets read once both receive.

Excellent presentation, easy to follow/understand. Thank you both. Cheers

So, how sure are we that photons travel at c? If the only clue to neutrino's mass is oscillation, then photon's lack of oscillation is not exactly a proof that it doesn't have, for example, the same mass as neutrino.

Thank God someone finally answered the question of what we know about the mass of the neutrino. That 2011 experiment was supposed to have something of an answer on that, but then the FTL neutrinos stuff hit and drowned out anything to do with the actual mass of the neutrino because it wasn't attractive to most people. I'd argue for the possibility that their mass is actually infinitesimal or >0 and less than any measurable mass. It would make the people who insistented on massless neutrinos effectively correct and incorrect. Their speed would also be infinitesimally close to the speed of light, making decoherence impossible. Don't we measure the neutrinos from a supernova first because they travel unimpeded, and light has to make it through a bit of gas first?

@drdca8263

Жыл бұрын

I think we have a lower bound on the difference in the masses of two of the mass eigenstates. And therefore, a lower bound on the largest of the 3 masses?

*Measuring Neutrino mass / energy / velocity* A strong electric field can separate a Hydrogen atom into proton and electron pushed into opposite directions due to opposite charges. A reverse field can push them into each other causing electron capture ? It turns a proton and electron into a neutron and neutrino. It may be easier to leverage conservation laws (of momentum and energy) to compute the mass, energy and momentum of neutrino than to measure it experimentally when it's already 1 light-second away from the lab.

LOVE UR VIDS

I have a question, due to length contraction wouldnt the "experience" of a photon be that its source and destination are also same place?

@AssemblerGuy

Жыл бұрын

Yep - due to special relativity, the photon "sees" a cosmos that is "squeezed" to zero length in the direction from the source to a static observer. So if you ask the photon itself, it'd tell how it got created, traveled, and hit the observer all in the same instantaneous moment.

@PhysicsPolice

Жыл бұрын

Yep! And they experience the events of their creation and annihilation simultaneously, too. It's weird being a photon. Even weirder to be a CMBR photon sailing uninterrupted for thirteen billion years through empty space, then all of a sudden some jerk puts a radio antenna in your path.

@XEinstein

Жыл бұрын

@@PhysicsPolice I guess that from the perspective of a photon we are the weird things in the universe bothering with time all the time

Is there something that makes a huge neutrino start moving or does it move all by itself as a basic property of itself?

Say, this was surprisingly accurate.

How ironclad is the case for neutrino oscillation requiring rest mass? Like are there alternative theories where neutrinos travel at C but still produce the observed oscillations? If so, how seriously are they taken?

@shawn0fitz

Жыл бұрын

As solid as special relativity. The fact that they oscillate requires that they have a speed less than c. Think of each flavor as a state. Each state will have several durations. All of those durations are defined by times. In order for the neutrino to be affected by time requires a speed less than c. I'm not an expert so I would do some reading up on it if you are really interested.

Nice one

Neutrinos are interesting little particles.

Great video and well presented. You are a good narrator and your story line was interesting, engaging and informative. Well done!

Is the speed of neutrinos an inherent property? Is it possible to have slow neutrinos, or is it just impossible to detect them unless they have a lot of energy?

@christosvoskresye

Жыл бұрын

Anything not moving at the speed of light in a vacuum is stopped in some frame of reference (its own). Subluminal velocity is always relative. However, neutrinos are always produced moving very fast in the frame of reference of the particles that created them.

@PhysicsPolice

Жыл бұрын

@@christosvoskresye is right when it comes to velocity being relative. You guessed correctly that slow neutrinos are very difficult to detect. But they're also relatively uncommon. Neutrinos carry "missing" momentum from certain quantum interactions. Because the typical magnitude of this missing momentum is large compared to the neutrino's tiny mass, their typical velocity is near the speed of light. Yes, as far as we know, the constants that define these interactions are fundamental properties of nature. Like the mass of an electron, speed of light, Plank's constant, etc.

"a photon experiences all of the universe's timeline at once."

I wonder, what distance (by our reference) neutrino can travel for plank time by neutrino's clock? And how often does it oscillates by its own clock?

@PhysicsPolice

Жыл бұрын

(1) Something travelling at or very near the speed of light e.g. a neutrino travels about one Planck length per Planck time. By definition. (2) Good question! I tried to find the answer, but unfortunately I'm out of my depth. I hope someone else can chime in... I'm curious now, too.

Man I love Even Bananas.

Awesome

Question. If photons experience the whole Universe timeline at once, how can they exist, from their own POW (not ours but theirs)? Not contradicting the theory (I would not dare), I'm just not clear about relativistic phenomena when we are in the literal extreme of the interval, so to speak (intermediate points are more or less clear to me). Unless photons do not exist from their own POW (and therefore not at all), being their "existence" for us just a sort of "echo" of a bigger truth, like what happens in Cherenkov radiation (sort of).

Neutrinos appear to have mass. Mass affect light’s speed. And cause light to bend. Could neutrinos be responsible for light’ bend when passing next to a start instead of gravity? Could density of neutrinos be responsible for light bending toward center of a black hole? Could neutrinos be responsible for speed of light as we observe it?

I understand that it is necessary that a particle be massless to travel at lightspeed. i.e. If lightspeed, then massless. But, I have also heard the contrapositive: that is necessary that a particle travel at lightspeed if it is massless. i.e. If massless, then lightspeed. Why? Why is this contrapositive true? Is it true?

@thedeemon

Жыл бұрын

Yes, wavefunctions for massless particles are waves that travel at c. From relativistic wave equations we get that when m=0, k = w/c, and group velocity is equal to phase velocity v = w/k = c. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl_equation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity

Jessica has good taste in art!

We often hear about the result of something traveling near the speed of light. I.e. That 2.5 million lightyear journey going by in an instant from the perspective of the neutrino. What puzzles me is the experience of the neutrino during that time. For a more down to Earth example, let's say you're in a vehicle that is traveling a significant fraction of the speed of light in a large circle so that you can always keep a single landmark in sight. Ignoring things like the effects of g-forces liquifying your body, or boiling away from air friction, what would you see? Would that landmark appear normal until you stop, would you see it deteriorate rapidly as if watching a sped up video, just see a blur, or something else?

@Milan_Openfeint

Жыл бұрын

What do you mean by "you can always keep a single landmark in sight"? Is it in the center of the circle, or somewhere very far? If you ask "what would you see", it's best not to use Lorentz transformation, and just use the constant speed of light and Doppler effect. Imagine light spreading from the object at constant speed in waves, and you intercepting these waves. If you move towards the object, it will appear greatly blue-shifted. If you move left, it appears more to the left, and so on. Plus the object ages quickly, since you move through spacetime faster along the time direction than that object.

@Milan_Openfeint

Жыл бұрын

@@PhysicsPolice You may want to rename yourself, as your name suggests deep knowledge of physics, where there is very little. In this case, you can ignore acceleration and use piecewise linear path, with pieces having zero length in the limit.

@Milan_Openfeint

Жыл бұрын

@@PhysicsPolice This question does not require general relativity, as there is no gravity involved. Twin paradox does not require general relativity to explain. Again, you show little understanding of physics.

@Milan_Openfeint

Жыл бұрын

@@PhysicsPolice You're just repeating yourself. Special relativity deals with high speeds and acceleration just fine. In fact, a circular track is a famous example where special relativity is used. You can view the circular track as some funny gravitational field that points outward, and you sit still in your car, and the gravitational time dilation would be the same as from special relativity. But then you need to have the landmark rotate around you at superluminal speeds, which hardly gets you anywhere. Switching rapidly between inertial frames along the track gives immediatelly correct results. Momentarily comoving frame of reference does not have a wikipedia page, but it's still a thing. For twin paradox, it's quite obvious that gravity plays no role there. Obviously, the connection between gravity and general relativity escapes you, which leads us back to my first comment.

Next topic: neutrino mass hierarchy Neutrino mixing angle

If photon traveling through space, encounters clouds of gas or dust, it will be slowed down, by a tiny bit, so could the neutrino get to Earth first?

@fermilab

Жыл бұрын

Yes, this is very much possible. We discuss this idea when we examined supernovae in this episode: kzread.info/dash/bejne/mJue29Cagdu8fqg.html

There is something here I have never understood: light in a medium travels slower than the speed of light in a vacuum, and it can change frequency, depending on just what it resonates with in the medium. It seems that neutrinos moving slowing the speed of light and changing flavor is not sufficient proof they have mass as the same mechanism could be at play.

Can this hypothesis has possible evidence: Time can be explained relative to energy i.e., imagine at relativistic speed a region is created of the energy (potential) due to that less energy is transmitted for the observer outside the region. This indirectly explains that time can be rate at which observer observe the energy?????

If an observer where to travel at the same speed as a neutrino , would that neutrino be stationary relative to the observer ? In other words why are these particles associated with any particular speed ?

I'm digging Jessica, like on an existential level.

I don't understand this now! Most basic particle physics tells us that individual lepton numbers are conserved no matter what, but now if suppose in a negative beta decay we get an electron and an anti electron neutrino, if here we consider the superposition, so does that mean that neutrino produced can be anyone among electron muon and tau? How does one then impose the lepton number conservation?

Is it possible to make photons carry electric charge? I mean could photons replace electrons for electric power? Also if a neutrino and a photon travel though a medium such as water then the neutrino is faster than light?

@christosvoskresye

Жыл бұрын

No. It would be possible to transmit energy using photons, and it is possible to do "electronics" with photons (photonics), but photons do not carry electric charge -- they carry electromagnetic fields, or rather, they are the particles of which electromagnetic fields are made.

@elrondhubbard7059

Жыл бұрын

@@christosvoskresye Right, so that's because photons are one of the 'force-carrying' particles, for the electro-magnetic force. Also, would it be because the charge is conserved? Like, if an electron emits a photon and drops to a lower energy, and if that photon now has an electric charge, where would that even come from? It can't steal it from the electron or create it out of nothing.

@PhysicsPolice

Жыл бұрын

Yes, in a race through water, neutrinos can win because the photon are slowed by their passage through the medium. Depending on conditions, this could cause photons to lose the race.

@christosvoskresye

Жыл бұрын

@@PhysicsPolice You appear to be making the mistake discussed at kzread.info/dash/bejne/dYme1pVvg6eZmJs.html, which also has a very nice discussion of why light slows down in materials like glass or water. Light does scatter off dust in the atmosphere and colloids in milk, but that is not what is happening in clear glass or clear water.

@PhysicsPolice

Жыл бұрын

@@christosvoskresye yeah you're absolutely right. Ugh. It's difficult to un-learn those damn myths. Thanks for the correction! But my conclusion is still correct, right? That water slows down the photons enough to be travelling slower than your average solar neutrino? Hmm, on second though, now I want to model this up to see how much water you need to get neutrinos of a given energy to win the race...

Has it been ruled out that neutrino oscillation is not externally induced? Such that it would not require them to be slower than C?

What arrives to us first, pre cosmic microwave background neutrinos or the cosmic microwave background?

@christosvoskresye

Жыл бұрын

Yes.

@michaeldeierhoi4096

Жыл бұрын

That's a good question and I had not thought of the Cosmic Neutrino Background as a thing before. There is good sources online including one on Wikipedia which states the CNB or CvB came into existence ONE SECOND after the BB. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation The CMB did not occur until temperature reduced enough to allow protons to bind with electrons to form hydrogen. This did not occur until 380,000 years later!! When electrons joined with protons they entered in a high level energy state and thus in a higher orbital. When transitioned to a lower energy state and thus lower electron orbital they released a photon. This began the CMB which has shifted red because of the expanding universe. So now guess which arrived first the neutrino or microwaves?

@christosvoskresye

11 ай бұрын

That's much like asking which arrives first, sound from 5 seconds ago or sounds from 1 second ago? Parts of the world are, say, 342 m away from you, and parts are 5 times that distance. The time when you hear a sound depends both on how far away the sound originated, and also when the sound was made. It's the same with neutrinos.

How is Nutrino Formed? How Photon get Pragnent?

@InnocuousRemark

Жыл бұрын

Nutreemo is mostly fromed in space and other such places

@christosvoskresye

Жыл бұрын

Nutella is made in Italy.

@vitovittucci9801

Жыл бұрын

@@christosvoskresye with no palm oil

My question is: are they Neapolitan, and, which flavor order are they left-to-right in the half-gallon-sized carton?

With gravity wave travelling at the speed of light, couldn’t the speed of neutrinos be measured during neutron star mergers ?

Neutrinos always travel at just below the speed of light regardless of their origin; what exactly provides the force to accelerate them?

Could neutrinos be the elusive gravity facilitating particle?

they change wave length when they changes color. So can the wave length actually be speed then?

@michaeldeierhoi4096

Жыл бұрын

The wave length of light can change which does not affect the velocity. However because of the slight mass of the neutrino a change in the wave form must also imply a change in velocity, but completely undetectable by current technology.

@PhysicsPolice

Жыл бұрын

Correct me if I'm wrong. But I think you're asking if different flavors (not "color") of neutrino have different mass states. Yes, if this were the case, it would have implications for their momentum and therefore velocity ("speed"). Check out their other video "How do neutrino oscillations work? | Even Bananas 10" about 4 minutes in. For some reason neutrino mass state does not correspond to neutrino flavor. Weird, huh? So no, I don't think they change speed.

Can`t neutrinos travel at any speed as long as it is slower than light? For example, in Beta radiation, electrons and neutrinos (anti) can have any combination of energies, therefore different speeds for each combination.

I have a question: If you infer that neutrinos must have mass because they experience time (because they oscillate "change"), why shouldn't that same argument hold for light? A photon sent from a far away galaxy loses energy (redshift). So the photon "changes", too. Ergo: A photon experiences time and should have mass...

@stewiesaidthat

Жыл бұрын

That's not part of the narrative and discredits the foundations scientology was built upon.

@JSpencerLove

Жыл бұрын

A photon has mass. You can argue that's how gravity can change its path, if you think gravity is a force (special vs general relativity). What a photon doesn't have is "rest mass". The stretching of space does steal energy from a photon, over very great distances, so its mass is also reduced, but its rest mass remains zero. This is an example of how a universe that is expanding (or contracting) does not perfectly conserve energy. This is all pop-science oversimplification, of course. The way I read this is, because different neutrino flavors have slightly different masses, they have slightly different wavelengths (everything is a wave as well as a particle). The difference in wavelengths means the probability of interacting with any superimposed component of the waves should vary over time, at very slightly different rates for the superimposed neutrino types. This is not pop-science as much as it is speculation. It would be interesting to read a reaction from someone who understands the math better.

The most intuitive way to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle while also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from electrons to solar systems are in orbit with something else pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space, is that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel. And given that we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, we can imagine that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel where the speed of their orbit determines the wavelength and the diameter is the amplitude which would explain the double slit, uncertainty, etc. No?

Hi Kristy (and fellow bananas, sorry had to type that :) ), It seems quite fundemental that nothing can be faster than the speed of light (in vacuum), c. Even neutrinos cannot beat that. But that is not what i am curious about. An observed phenomenon is Charenkov radiation. As i understand it, it is radiation by particles seemingly faster than the speed of light through a medium. Can neutrinos do this as well? Can they cause this kind of radiation? Or don't they interact?

@fermilab

Жыл бұрын

Yes, you're right. We discuss briefly how T2K uses the SuperK Cherenkov detectors to study neutrinos in this episode: kzread.info/dash/bejne/g6Sitc-bY5raYJM.html

You will definitely win a staring contest against anyone, even the sun!

That’s mind blowing! If photons experience time as being none linear. Do they experience the past timeline of the universe, or the past and also the future? Could it somehow prove/disprove pre-determinism?

@thedeemon

Жыл бұрын

If a car is moving and it carries a broken clock that doesn't tick, does it prove anything about predeterminism? Time not ticking for photons is in a way similar to a broken clock, photon still moves through time in our reference frame.

pound for pound? Since you are talking mass would it not be dyne for dyne or newton for newton instead?

Is that a kandinsky painting?

What weighs more, a pound of neutrinos or a pound of feathers?

Does gravity bend the path of a Neutrino in a similar way that it bends light? This could account for an ability of a neutrino to travel faster than a photon because the photon travels further due to a gravitational path diversion yet the neutrino travels in a straight line. This could theoretically prove that faster than light speed travel for an object with mass is possible 🤔

The duality that I see with Neutrinos having mass and, thereby, the effect on the momentum vs. if Neutrinos oscillate between having mass and not having mass. So a neutrino leaving a supernova or jet of a blazar can arrive at roughly the same time as the photons do, so 99.9999% of the time, the neutrino travels at the speed of light; therefore, photons do not pass inside a vacuum. Instead, the neutrino oscillates for a tiny fraction of a second and can change its form or interact with matter. I am basing that on neutrinos associated with the photons coming from a supernova or blazar. If either of those is traveling away or even toward us, that creates a momentum problem that doesn't exist if it oscillates. ------------------------------------------------------------- Here is my fundamental problem. A neutrino is created in the infall of matter produced in a supernova. How fast is it traveling relative to the matter that made it, and how fast is it traveling relative to us? To the matter that created it, the neutrino is traveling at 99.99999995% the speed of light. Now, how fast is the matter traveling away from us? Let us say the matter is traveling at 3% of the speed of light. Then, the neutrino relative to us would be traveling 3% + 00.00000005% the speed of light, or 3.00000005% the speed of light. Now we calculate when a neutrino should arrive at the earth vs. when a photon would arrive at the planet. Over extremely long distances, the time would change dramatically. That is vs. a neutrino that is traveling 99.999999995% the speed of light for a picosecond, five maybe ten times over a billion + lightyears. We wouldn't even notice the difference between the photons and neutrinos arriving.

They have a 454 miles drag race in Geneva Switzerland the contestants were a beam of light and neutrinos the neutrinos won by 60 feet but it wasn't a fair race the neutrinos were going through mountains now tell me are neutrinos faster than the speed of light

Could a quantum domain wall slow down a neutrino, or stop one ?

Another thought provoking video. Thanks! OK, so a Neutrino has mass. That means it can be deflected by gravity. Does their coherence get affected by travelling towards or away from a large mass? How does gravity affect the speed?

@sunquake

Жыл бұрын

A photon is also deflected by gravity

@michaeldeierhoi4096

Жыл бұрын

Actually the photon is not affected by light directly. It is space time that is changed by gravity. Thus there is the appearance that gravity is affecting the path that light takes.

@christosvoskresye

Жыл бұрын

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 I assume you meant that a photon is not affected by gravity. Well, you can apply the whole "gravity is an illusion" argument to massive particles, too.

@PhysicsPolice

Жыл бұрын

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Straw man. John said, "deflected by gravity" which indeed happens indirectly. Don't say "Actually" like you're correcting him when you're not. And no, there's not just the "appearance" that gravity is affecting the path that light takes. Gravity is *actually* affecting the path that light takes.

@PhysicsPolice

Жыл бұрын

@@christosvoskresye Exactly. I suspect Michael is confusing Newtonian gravity with GR. Because photons have zero rest mass, they experience zero force from Newtonian gravity. But in GR the paths of all particles, regardless of their mass, are affected by "gravity" i.e. the metric tensor.

2Even Bananas: It is will be very intersting hear some thing about Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering

Are neutrinos a physical object?

Imagine a tornado of Neutrinos, then imagine what would happen if you stood in the middle of it. Right at the apex.

Well, I think my brain exploded

Quantum spin is even-dimensional. Mathematically it is described as four dimensional with two degrees of freedom. Even dimensional spin is orientable, which means it remains the same chirality no matter how it is observed.

Do neutrinos get absorbed (somewhere somehow) at the same rate as they are being created? If not, then that means that the number of neutrinos is growing constantly. => The sum of the mass of all neutrinos would also grow over time. Dark matter = gigantic clumps of ancient, cold, coalesced neutrinos? ;-)

Does neutrino have a favor of direction to travel?

Based on the Fun Fact at the end, where the speed of light (photons) through a non-vacuum is less than the absolute vacuum velocity C, neutrinos keep chugging along at so close to C that for practical purposes it is C because of their non-interaction with matter. That implies that photons leaving Andromeda could arrive at Earth *after* the neutrinos due to their (photons) occasional and subtle interactions with the mass present in space (gas atoms/molecules, microscopic ice grains, dust grains, etc.) in exceedingly small quantities but which also sum to something more than insignificance due to the vast distances travelled, and also the electromagnetic fields that they interact with. Would that be so?

@RME76048

Жыл бұрын

Follow-on: So, if neutrinos have a crazy-small amount of mass, then the focal point for an observer viewing a distant galaxy via an Einstein Ring would require a subtly different focal point using neutrinos compared to photons?

Very good explanation of neutrino oscillation.

But what if neutrinos chnage only at the impact, it can go at speed of light, or even faster, but only at impact it can expirience time and soo chnage. Or maby it woudl change difrenly if we reverse time. We can't be sure actually, i can't proof if mine theory woudl be corect, or if your woudl be, phisic is amazing in its weirdens and complications

Nothing is infinity and nothing is instantaneous so why don’t they accelerate ? Yes they travel thru the earth with ease but which detector has shown they are not effected by gravity or should I say spacetime. Does all mass whatever effect and be effected by spacetime and as we know the gravity of our planet slows space time or time? Surely the neutrino must be effected by gravity if it has any mass at all. So what happens when the neutrino meets a black hole and enters the event horizon ? I would like to know ?

❤️

I watched this at 1.5x speed to get a more immersive experience

Clearly, Duffy doesn't understand what time is. Around 4:17 min she says that "The fact that they can change tells us that, unlike photons, neutrinos experience time". No idea how she comes to that conclusion?? For the rest an interesting presentation about neutrinos though 🙂

A photon traveling from a distant star undergoes a red shift and a corresponding loss of energy. Does a neutrino undergo anything similar?

@thedeemon

Жыл бұрын

yes, the same process should apply

@Bdix1256

Жыл бұрын

@@thedeemon how so? I don’t think it’s (Compton) wavelength changes. What is the corresponding effect?

@thedeemon

Жыл бұрын

@@Bdix1256 it's the way metric tensor affects wavelengths - it doesn't care whose wavelengths it elongates as it expands spacetime.