Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 117

Thread: The Unified Field Theory

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746

    The Unified Field Theory

    One of the things to do when giving physics talks at the American Association of Physics Teachers Meetings is not to violate the precepts of Special Relativity, nor of General Relativity, nor of the Hierarchy of Conservation Laws that govern the interaction of matter and energy. In each of the talks I've given, I would preface my remarks with that comment, and have tried to stick to that general principle in my posts here over ~14 years.
    So, after waiting 38 years to prove a particular point, it is finally true, at > 7 sigma....(7.2 according to Kate Scholberg). SEE:

    Emergent Quantum Theory of Gravitation Predicts at 7 Sigma

    by George Peterson June 6, 2019



    1. In the early eighties, the Standard Model of Particle Physics still had no firm attachment to gravitation. In Howard Georgi ‘s article in April of 1981 in Scientific American, the SU(5) symmetry, held sway with a unification of the electroweak forces, culminating shortly thereafter with the discovery of the necessary W+, W-, and Z bosons at CERN, and Fermilab. Gravitation was still holding out. SEE: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2496437...n_tab_contents

    2. There was a clue, though. In the Georgi article, the three right-handed quarks, and the positron, and the electron-type anti-neutrino all coupled to the Z. That interaction was universal, as are gravitational effects. The Z as a neutrino/antineutrino pair had been identified by George Gamow in the 1962 reader “Gravity” for the Project Physics Course, SEE: https://archive.org/details/Gravity_857 as a candidate with the characteristics for a graviton, and the “Key to the Universe” text by Nigel Callder identified the Z as any particle/antiparticle pair. SEE: https://www.google.com/search?q=book...o6VNwC9U9DF1M:

    3. So, a simplistic unified field theory, incorporating the Z as a graviton, was constructed during the subsequent year (1981-1982. AER LLC.) Realizing that accelerating a mass in Minkowski space-time should cause a gravitational wave in GR, but, that that same acceleration should change the isotropy of an ambient isotropic neutrino sea by blue shifting the spectral energy distribution (SED) of the fore hemisphere vs redshifting the SED of the trailing hemisphere, a prediction that a change in the relative isotropy of the ambient neutrino sea would be felt simultaneously as a gravitational wave by a sensitive gravimeter. At the time the choice was a Mossbauer detector, used in the Harvard Towers experiment @ Lyman Lab by Rebka and Pound for the first gravitational redshift experiment, circa 1962. SEE: http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/29...ound_Rebka.pdf A visit to the Department of Energy Office, Boston, then under Duane Day, and the Small Business Innovative Research Program showed that peer review was summarily unimpressed, and uninterested in Phase 1 funding for a feasibility study. Such is the life of many a new idea.


    4. Fast forward to 1988, Tufts University, The Neutrino 88 Conference. Supernova 1987A had occurred in February of 1987 as Sanduleak 69 202, a blue supergiant , had gone off in the Large Magellanic Cloud. The MIT lecture by John N. Bahcall shortly after the event showed coincidences between the neutrino detectors at the IMB, and Kamiokande neutrino detectors . At Tufts, a talk by Guido Pizzella, pointed out additional coincidences between the Rome and Maryland , (Joseph Weber),aluminum bar gravitational wave detectors, and the neutrino detectors. Much controversy arose as to whether the bars provided sufficient sensitivity to claim the coincidental detections at 3.2 sigma, then the gold standard for a peer-reviewed publishable result. Although the Boston Globe carried it in its Sci-Tech section, professional acceptance for Pizzella would be a tougher road. Eventually he published in Il Nuovo Cimento C, and, over the years, in other physics journals, including the Astrophysical Journal. Part of the issue at the time was journals switching over to 5 sigma requirements for their gold standard, and a minimal of 10 seen events for particle physics for publication.



    5. The other part was that Pizzella et al also found “ anomalous events” in the near- term hours leading up to the explosion of SN1987a, and that those events confounded theorists who had at the time no expectation of a preliminary interaction before a prompt neutrino burst, and commensurately, a gravitational wave with explosion. Pizzella stuck to his guns…he had seen something. He republished statistical coincidences at 5 sigma, took some more flak from skeptics, as is their just do to do so in science circles for being a skeptic makes for good science . SEE: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.05076.pdf

    6. Now a peer reviewed article on “Signals” … events during the final stages of nucleosynthesis leading up to a core collapse supernova, predicts the detection of presupernova events that were seen by Pizzella in the few hours before SN1987a, and were recently republished in cohorts with Palleotta at 5 sigma.. SEE: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.01877.pdf




    7. Enter COHERENT, the experiment at the Spallation Neutron Source Center, Oak Ridge, TN. After using an accelerator to generate a spray of neutrons, that then decay to yield a predictable, repetitive, utilitarian flux of electron-type antineutrinos in a region known as “Neutrino Alley”, analysis of the bumps indicated successful detection of coherent, elastic, neutrino/nucleus scattering. During her talk at MIT’s Thursday Physics Colloquiem, APRIL 26, 2018. SEE: https://news.uchicago.edu/story/worl...ions-particles
    Previous detector size…SEE: SuperK…SEE: https://phys.org/news/2016-11-super-...supernova.html Principal Investigator Kate Scholberg found coherent scattering of neutrinos occurs at cross-sections 6 orders of magnitude above standard forward scattering, confirming the predictions of :
    A. coherent scattering of Daniel Freedman (1974)…
    B. gravity waves coincident with neutrino bursts of..Guido Pizzella and Palleotta …
    C..that a burst of neutrinos is coincident with a gravitational wave and a change in the ambient neutrino sea, respectively @ 7.2 sigma…proving the first Unified Field Theory to predict a physical effect detected at six major independent experiments around the world in February of 1987, during SN1987a. Those labs were the Rome and Maryland (Joseph Weber) aluminum bar gravitational wave detectors, and the Mont Blanc, IMB, Kamiokande, and Baksan Neutrino Detectors. 7.2 Sigma, from the talk of Kate Scholberg, April 26,2018, and published by Akimov et al. SEE: https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.09459
    SEE: Seven Sigma : https://calendar.mit.edu/event/physi...g#.XPllTf57ncs

    8.Gravitation is then seen as an emergent phenomenon from the ambient neutrino sea and searches for the neutrino floor indicating the higher coherent and incoherent, elastic and inelastic contributions can unify the forces in nature, by showing that gravity is actually an emergent form of the weak interaction. This result bears out the recent work of Vadim A. Bednyakov and Dmitry V. Naumov on the Coherent and Incoherent, Elastic and Inelastic Scattering of Neutrinos off Nuclei.
    The coherent cross-sections are six orders of magnitude larger than the forward scattering cross-sections (a million times ) and the incoherent cross-sections are about 10-15% of that, so about 100,000 to 150,000 times the forward scattering rate.
    SEE: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.08768
    SEE ALSO : https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.03119


    pete

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,450
    I look forward to a slightly more layperson's explanation, but as I almost understood a good chunk of the above, I'll take it! But is this typically less breakthrough sounding (again, to laypeople) that it sounds, or is this a Really Big Deal?

    CJSF
    "Flipping this one final switch I'm effectively ensuring that I will be
    Overcoming all resistance long after my remains have been
    Vaporized with extreme prejudice and shot into outer space.

    I'll be haunting you."

    -They Might Be Giants, "I'll Be Haunting You"


    lonelybirder.org

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Quote Originally Posted by CJSF View Post
    I look forward to a slightly more layperson's explanation, but as I almost understood a good chunk of the above, I'll take it! But is this typically less breakthrough sounding (again, to laypeople) that it sounds, or is this a Really Big Deal?

    CJSF
    For the layperson.....This is the only attempt at a unified field theory that successfully predicts a physical effect that was seen at a publishable-result-level. (the professional journals require 5 standard deviations, or 5 sigma). It is what Einstein spent the last decades of his life trying to accomplish, and many pooh-poohed his having left the mainstream of physics at the time...forties/early fifties. Later, as the Standard Model evolved with the discovery of families of particles explained by quarks, people realized Einstein, even in his waning years, was still way ahead of the crowd in picking appropriate topics to investigate.
    So, Yep....it's a big deal. It's kind of like winning the Boston Marathon....unless you are Rosie Ruiz.....there's only one first.

    pete

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Quote Originally Posted by CJSF View Post
    I look forward to a slightly more layperson's explanation, but as I almost understood a good chunk of the above, I'll take it! But is this typically less breakthrough sounding (again, to laypeople) that it sounds, or is this a Really Big Deal?

    CJSF
    For the layperson.....This is the only attempt at a unified field theory that successfully predicts a physical effect that was seen at a publishable-result-level. (the professional journals require 5 standard deviations, or 5 sigma). It is what Einstein spent the last decades of his life trying to accomplish, and many pooh-poohed his having left the mainstream of physics at the time...forties/early fifties. Later, as the Standard Model evolved with the discovery of families of particles explained by quarks, people realized Einstein, even in his waning years, was still way ahead of the crowd in picking appropriate topics to investigate.
    So, Yep....it's a big deal. It's kind of like winning the Boston Marathon....unless you are Rosie Ruiz.....there's only one first. SEE:http://time.com/3822577/rosie-ruiz-history/

    pete

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    We're getting the double-posting I complained about earlier, from the site slowing down.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,147
    Coherent neutrino scattering was a prediction of the standard model. It's not a new thing.
    The 7 sigma prediction is in a vixra journal, it is not backed up by any of the other links I can see. Certainly none of the links to the far more reputable physics team at COHERENT back this vixra article over the standard model.
    The Z as a graviton and Z as a neutrino-antineutrino theories violate multiple observations, including the tensor nature of gravity

    Otherwise just looks like a rehash of the claims you've made on here before and that haven't stood up to scrutiny. No big deal here, nothing that new to see other than a nice confirmation of the standard model predictions (and that confirmation was made at a lower confidence a good few years ago - I remember writing a review paper about it).

    So I'd say the layman's version is "Failed theory ignores existing problems and makes new claims of relevance in journal for bad science"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Shaula. The 7.2 sigma was straight from the PowerPoint presentation at MIT, during Kate Scholberg's physic presentation of the COHERENT experiment at Oak Ridge's Spallation Neutron Source. She is a Principal Investigator and spokesperson for the experiment. MIT is pretty high up in the world of physics, and their speakers, students, staff, and support staff, amongst the top echelon in the world. It's 7.2 sigma, around 1 in 100,000,000....that it is not true.

    cheers, pete
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jun-08 at 03:30 PM. Reason: clarity

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Shaula. The 7.2 sigma was straight from the PowerPoint presentation at MIT, during Kate Scholberg's physic presentation of the COHERENT experiment at Oak Ridge's Spallation Neutron Source. She is a Principal Investigator and spokesperson for the experiment. MIT is pretty high up in the world of physics, and their speakers, students, staff, and support staff, amongst the top echelon in the world. It's 7.2 sigma, around 1 in 100,000,000....that it is not true.

    cheers, pete
    pete, I tried to find "the PowerPoint presentation at MIT, during Kate Scholberg's physic presentation of the COHERENT experiment at Oak Ridge's Spallation Neutron Source" from links in your earlier posts, but couldn't.

    Would you mind posting a direct link please? And also which slide in the PPT presentation contains the "7.2 sigma"?

    Thanks in advance.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,147
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Shaula. The 7.2 sigma was straight from the PowerPoint presentation at MIT, during Kate Scholberg's physic presentation of the COHERENT experiment at Oak Ridge's Spallation Neutron Source. She is a Principal Investigator and spokesperson for the experiment. MIT is pretty high up in the world of physics, and their speakers, students, staff, and support staff, amongst the top echelon in the world. It's 7.2 sigma, around 1 in 100,000,000....that it is not true.
    The claim that the 7 sigma result supports this unified field theory is from the vixra paper. It is not from the COHERENT paper.

    The 7.2 sigma result applies to detections of coherent neutrino scattering, from the paper and the talk you linked to. There is no mention of SN1987a results in the paper or the calendar event. The last time you presented anything on SN1987a it was a correlation that relied on a tiny number of data points and went away if you used anything other than a bizarre and definitely not widely accepted series of data conditioning steps.

    I stand by my previous comments. What you have presented is a disproven idea rehashed in a vixra journal and you are using unrelated experiments to try to make it appear credible. Claiming that the observation of coherent neutrino scattering at COHERENT with high confidence somehow is validation of the wider theory from this vixra work is simply false.

    I'll add - so far most of the links I have looked at from your initial post have not supported the claims you are using them to trumpet as proven. I haven't read the vixra paper and I am not going to. Vixra papers are not worth the time 99% of the time. Your post is highly misleading and filled with speculation and disproven concepts.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Jean Tate & Shaula. I have searched for and found Kate Scholberg's paper , which lists the cross section @ 6.7 sigma....just underneath Figure 4. ...better than my recall. SEE:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.05546.pdf

    pete

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,147
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Jean Tate & Shaula. I have searched for and found Kate Scholberg's paper , which lists the cross section @ 6.7 sigma....just underneath Figure 4. ...better than my recall. SEE:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.05546.pdf
    So, as I said, this is a validation of the Standard Model predictions, has nothing to do with SN1987a and does not support the previously disproven unified field theory.

    Your follow on post seems to have nothing to do with the topic bar another restatement of the implausible concept of a composite Z. I've previously given some of the arguments against this idea an you failed to provide any reasonable counter to them.

    The bottom line is still that you have presented a misleading narrative about a pet theory of yours for which you ignore all evidence against. You have peppered your post with citations that you have misrepresented and presented a whole bunch of highly speculative or previously falsified ideas.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Here is the URL for Kate Scholberg's slide show on the COHERENT experiment.
    SEE: https://physics.fsu.edu/sites/g/file...holbergFSU.pdf
    I will make points and refer to the slides to let you check them. They run to ~ 104, but most beyond 74, are for detector design specs, new experiments, world collaborators, etc. I will use ~ 15.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,267
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Here is the URL for Kate Scholberg's slide show on the COHERENT experiment. ....
    There are plenty of descriptions of the COHERENT experiment, e.g. The COHERENT Experiment at the Spallation Neutron Source and even a wiki. Posts describing many of the slides in a slide show are not as useful.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    There are plenty of descriptions of the COHERENT experiment, e.g. The COHERENT Experiment at the Spallation Neutron Source and even a wiki. Posts describing many of the slides in a slide show are not as useful.
    Reality Check. Yep. I am not trying to be annoying, but I have 27 days to refute objections due to this threads format, and expecting bit by bit sniping thought it would be easier to have a ladder of paragraphs. For years I believed they would eventually find much larger cross-sections than what was carried in the PDG and now they are here and peer reviewed and published.
    My take is that "Yes we have them" and Yes at 6 orders of magnitude larger, and less....and that just as one can see them by screening backgrounds at SNS, similar scattering could have occurred at Maryland, Rome in the aluminum bars.

    Shaula has stated that it is irrelevant to any supernova neutrino bursts, even though I provided the energy resolution of the neutrinos in graphical form from the IMB, Kamiokande, and Baksan detectors showing the event counts and energy resolution in Mev. What happens in Rome happens in Maryland with the neutrino Flux largely passing through the Earth, and also happened in Kamiokande, Japan, Baksan, Russia, and the IMB, Lake Erie.
    otherwise Nuclei in these 5 different places are not composed of protons and neutrons like the cesium iodide, germanium, sodium, atoms at Oak Ridge.
    pete

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    There's an additional corollary. If one were to create a particle / antiparticle pair out of energy, say a gamma ray striking a target, in the microscopic world that tiny masses of each of the two particles, should manifest themselves by creating in a GR sense, little tiny gravitational waves spreading outwards at c.
    But, in a quantum gravitational sense there's the flux of neutrinos that need to emit a Z as a neutrino /antineutrino pair...Gamow's graviton. What then? If the interaction is brief, but transient, it could interact with one of them before the other. If they are a radioactive pair, with an expectation of a half-life, it could show up in the quantum world.
    Absorption and emission of a photon by an atom changes it's parity state, (from Grey...a long time ago in this forum), so if I pick as my pair the Tau and Theta meson (part of my first physics talk at Vassar College 1992 AAPT Meeting...), then although they had nearly the same mass, charge and spin.....one state decays into two pi mesons, and the other into three, indicating the dressed state of the kaon, and retaining the Law of Conservation of Parity as the Z sneaks in to interact.

    T.D.K. Lee's talk at the MIT Physics Colloquiem on the History of the Weak Interaction...probably the best talk I ever heard. pete
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jun-08 at 06:34 PM. Reason: typo, my humbles

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,158
    Closed pending moderator discussion.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,158
    Sorry, this action got interrupted by the shutdown yesterday.

    This thread is moved to ATM. That is not a commentary on the validity (or not) of the idea, just the fact that this is not a widely accepted theory. As we have often said, if Einstein posted on CQ about relativity before it was widely accepted, it would have been moved to ATM.

    trinitree88, if you are not willing to defend this idea and follow the other mandates of ATM, please say so in your very next post and the thread will be closed with no further consequences. Otherwise, you will be expected to defend it and answer all relevant questions put to you.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746

    Defend Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Sorry, this action got interrupted by the shutdown yesterday.

    This thread is moved to ATM. That is not a commentary on the validity (or not) of the idea, just the fact that this is not a widely accepted theory. As we have often said, if Einstein posted on CQ about relativity before it was widely accepted, it would have been moved to ATM.

    trinitree88, if you are not willing to defend this idea and follow the other mandates of ATM, please say so in your very next post and the thread will be closed with no further consequences. Otherwise, you will be expected to defend it and answer all relevant questions put to you.
    Swift. Thank you for reopening the thread so I can put my defense forward. I have reread the ATM rules to check my protocols and will do my best to comply.

    pete

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Shaula , I agree that coherent scattering is a validation of the Standard Model, was originally proposed by Daniel Freedman in 1974, and at the time he thought the backgrounds would make the signals near undetectable. That turns out not to be true.

    Point #1 Neutral currents, (carried by the Z boson) are flavor blind. In the schematic, slide # 7, a neutrino enters a scattering diagram from the lower left, emits a Z boson towards a d quark, and momentum and energy are transferred between them. Flavor blind means it doesn't matter if the neutrino is an electron-type, a muon-type, or a tau-type. Those are the three types of neutrinos. They all carry energy and momentum...E=hv and E/c = hv/c respectively. The struck d quark recoils, and as part of a proton or neutron, transfers its energy and momentum......little tiny kicks. SLIDE 7

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Slide 8
    There are four energy regimes depicted for neutrino/ nuclei interaction....kev, Mev, Gev, Tev
    In the Tev range the whole nuclei are disrupted in Deep Inelastic Scattering
    In the Gev range nucleons are ejected
    In the Mev range nuclei and electrons are minimally disrupted
    kev range is too low for most detectors Slide 8 So the Mev range is suited for Coherent scattering off the entire nucleus

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Slide 9 Shows an incoming neutrino transferring energy and momentum to a nucleus SLIDE 9

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    slide 16 Shows that the nuclear form factor for scattering indicates that the momentum transfer should be proportional to N, the number of Neutrons Slide 16

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Slide 20 The maximum recoil for a germanium detector (also used for Dark Matter detection) should be around 25 kev. Dark Matter WIMP detectors over the last decade are sensitive to a minimum of ~ 1 Kev to some 10's of kevs SLIDE 20

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Slide 24 This rebutts Shaula's comment on supernovae. Depicted is the Neutrino Floor...as yet undetectable neutrinos because of their low energy. Included in the detection range is a bin for supernova neutrinos as part of the expected background, should one go off within the Local Group. The Neutrino Floor is in YELLOW. slide 24

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,147
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Slide 24 This rebutts Shaula's comment on supernovae. Depicted is the Neutrino Floor...as yet undetectable neutrinos because of their low energy. Included in the detection range is a bin for supernova neutrinos as part of the expected background, should one go off within the Local Group. The Neutrino Floor is in YELLOW. slide 24
    No it does not. My comment supernovae is that the COHERENT results have nothing to do with your claims of correlation between gravity waves and neutrino events as you seem to be claiming.

    The rest of your points are largely irrelevant to your initial claims and misrepresentations of the papers.

    On to your follow ups:
    Now I will make my point. If instead of a horizontal Neutrino Alley at the Spallation Neutron Source. I were to construct a vertical accelerator of protons, impinging on a mercury target, creating pions which promptly decay releasing PROMPT neutrinos of ~ 30 Mev, and then the muon-delayed neutrinos 2.2 microseconds later, they supply little kicks still at 6.7 sigma.
    .................and that change in the ambient neutrino flux over that short time period would cause a large mass of CsI...(or aluminum bar)..on a balance to have an apparent change of mass.....or on a spring scale, to have an apparent change of weight...during that time interval. As I said in the Gravity research paper, a change in the ambient neutrino flux would be felt as a change in the local gravitational field.

    6.7 sigma for the mass and 6.7 sigma for the weight.
    Please present the paper where this experiment was done and the observations that lead to this high sigma value claim for the result. Seems like another baseless claim from you otherwise.

    And then you try to back up Pizella's paper again. I've already covered this - he was the person using the bizarre data correlation method.

    So you have put together a lot of words. Mostly irrelevant. And just repeated your claims.

    Direct questions then.
    Explain the discrepancy between the required spin of 2 for a tensor field such as gravity and the spin 1 of a Z boson.
    Explain the huge mass discrepancy between the neutrino mass bounds and Z.
    Explain why the decay modes of the Z boson are not compatible with the calculated annihilation modes for neutrino/antineutrinos

    You have not presented a coherent line of evidence for your ideas anywhere here. And I have had to wade through a LOT of irrelevant links and papers to check up on your claims. I'm hoping that you will shortly present some answers to these questions and, ideally, restate your claims in clear, precise language and with relevant, published and reviewed papers that back up your claims. So far the papers that support your claims are unpublished and the published papers do not say anything like what you are claiming they do.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    No it does not. My comment supernovae is that the COHERENT results have nothing to do with your claims of correlation between gravity waves and neutrino events as you seem to be claiming.

    The rest of your points are largely irrelevant to your initial claims and misrepresentations of the papers.

    On to your follow ups:

    Please present the paper where this experiment was done and the observations that lead to this high sigma value claim for the result. Seems like another baseless claim from you otherwise.

    And then you try to back up Pizella's paper again. I've already covered this - he was the person using the bizarre data correlation method.

    So you have put together a lot of words. Mostly irrelevant. And just repeated your claims.

    Direct questions then.
    Explain the discrepancy between the required spin of 2 for a tensor field such as gravity and the spin 1 of a Z boson.
    Explain the huge mass discrepancy between the neutrino mass bounds and Z.
    Explain why the decay modes of the Z boson are not compatible with the calculated annihilation modes for neutrino/antineutrinos

    You have not presented a coherent line of evidence for your ideas anywhere here. And I have had to wade through a LOT of irrelevant links and papers to check up on your claims. I'm hoping that you will shortly present some answers to these questions and, ideally, restate your claims in clear, precise language and with relevant, published and reviewed papers that back up your claims. So far the papers that support your claims are unpublished and the published papers do not say anything like what you are claiming they do.
    Shaula. Post #34.....slide 53, the lack of coherence is rejected at 6.7 sigma, 80 scientists, 19 institutions, 4 countries.
    ..............6.7 sigma...that's real.
    The paper is the Akimov paper.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    No it does not. My comment supernovae is that the COHERENT results have nothing to do with your claims of correlation between gravity waves and neutrino events as you seem to be claiming.

    The rest of your points are largely irrelevant to your initial claims and misrepresentations of the papers.

    On to your follow ups:

    Please present the paper where this experiment was done and the observations that lead to this high sigma value claim for the result. Seems like another baseless claim from you otherwise.

    And then you try to back up Pizella's paper again. I've already covered this - he was the person using the bizarre data correlation method.

    So you have put together a lot of words. Mostly irrelevant. And just repeated your claims.

    Direct questions then.
    Explain the discrepancy between the required spin of 2 for a tensor field such as gravity and the spin 1 of a Z boson.
    Explain the huge mass discrepancy between the neutrino mass bounds and Z.
    Explain why the decay modes of the Z boson are not compatible with the calculated annihilation modes for neutrino/antineutrinos

    You have not presented a coherent line of evidence for your ideas anywhere here. And I have had to wade through a LOT of irrelevant links and papers to check up on your claims. I'm hoping that you will shortly present some answers to these questions and, ideally, restate your claims in clear, precise language and with relevant, published and reviewed papers that back up your claims. So far the papers that support your claims are unpublished and the published papers do not say anything like what you are claiming they do.
    Reality check. A new paper on Paleo-Detectors for Galactic Supernova Neutrinos. The authors, from Stockholm, Sweden, Ann Arbor Michigan, Amsterdam , Netherlands, and Swierk, Poland suggest that examination of minerals...particularly espomite, halite, olivine, and nchwaningite, will show tracks from exposure to galactic supernova over the last 0.0 to 1.0 Gyr, and that they can infer the distance to the burst region in a graph on page 10, figure 5 measuring distances in a log scale of kiloparsecs out to just beyond the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud...LMC... due to coherent scattering of neutrinos causing nuclear recoils, and the tracks. A new technique, and an expectation that neutrinos from that distance are detectable here on a variety of materials. SN1987A was located in the Large Magellanic Cloud, and here's a fortuitous paper confirming that neutrinos from there do not have to be interacting at Oak Ridge to be seen.

    URL SEE:: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05800.pdf
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jun-14 at 03:40 PM. Reason: URL

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Slide 25 The cross-sections for the materials used in various DM detectors, also used as neutrino detectors. Cesium Iodide is very high (lots of neutrons) , sodium much lower. Aluminum (Weber's, Rome's bar g-wave detector) is slightly more massive and neutron rich than sodium, as a nuclide, so a bit above it based on neutrons.

    Slide 25

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Slide 30. So what does an ideal sorce of neutrinos for detection look like?

    must have a high flux
    well understood spectrum
    multiple flavors (physics sensitivity in different energies)
    would be nice to have a pulsed source to use time constraints to improve background rejection
    need physical ability to set up equipment close by
    practical lab amenities, access and control of variables....................slide 30

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    reactor neutrinos are ruled out because their energies are too low....that's their Spectral Energy Distribution....SED...a term I will use again

    Slide31

Posting Permissions

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