Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 117

Thread: The Unified Field Theory

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    Slide 45

    the people 80 members
    19 institutions
    4 countries arXiv : 1509.08702

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    Slide 47 Neutrino Alley
    physical layout of the experimental Hall

    Liquid Argon....NaI......Germanium.....Cesium Iodide Neutron Interference detectors.....

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    Slide 51 COHERENT DATA taking graph from Nov 2013
    first data summer of 2015

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    SLIDE 53 The Standard Model predicts about 173 events @ 68% confidence level

    THEY SEE: 134 + or - 22 NO CEvNS rejected at 6.7 sigma...consistent with the SM at 1 sigma

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    Shaula.
    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.

    pete
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jun-11 at 07:43 PM. Reason: typo

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    Shaula.
    Last but not least, the energy of the the Supernova neutrinos from Supernova 1987A were identically in the sweet spot range of COHERENT
    Kamiokande 11 events 8-36 Mev
    IMB 8 events 18-38 Mev
    Baksan 5 events 12-24 Mev

    since the scattering can be as much as six orders of magnitude above forward scattering, it is contributing to the bar g-wave sensitivity. I believe G. Pizzella was correct at Neutrino 88.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,163
    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.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    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.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6356/1123

    6.7 sigma.....neutrinos deliver impulses

    AKIMOV PAPER
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jun-11 at 10:17 PM. Reason: Url

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    771
    I'm struggling here trinitree88, and am hoping you help me.

    Both the Akimov and the Scholberg paper (both "et al.s") seem to report results consistent with the Standard Model ... or am I missing something?

    If "consistent with the Standard Model", how can they (also?) be consistent with your ATM idea?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,163
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    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.
    This has nothing at all to do with your experiment. Nothing to do with SN1987a. Nothing to do with your purported unified field theory. It supports the Standard Model so far, although at low confidence in terms of the event rate.

    You have not answered my questions. You have not presented your theory here. You have not addressed any of the deeply misleading and systemic flaws with the way you have presented your claims. Instead you have, yet again, misrepresented a scientific paper and given a detail free response claiming your ideas are right.

    The 6.7 sigma has nothing at all to do with your claims. It does not cover your 'experiment'. It is simply the likelihood that they observed coherent elastic neutrino scattering.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    I'm struggling here trinitree88, and am hoping you help me.

    Both the Akimov and the Scholberg paper (both "et al.s") seem to report results consistent with the Standard Model ... or am I missing something?

    If "consistent with the Standard Model", how can they (also?) be consistent with your ATM idea?
    Jean Tate, Shaula. The original reason Prof. Sulak, Principle Investigator of the IMB, did not put his name of Guido Pizella's paper, or publish one himself was that the sensitivity of the IMB to supernova neutrinos, and the aluminum bar g-wave detector to neutrinos were at their theoretical limit. It was also at a time in the physics world when the journal editors were switching to 5.0 sigma. That was based on the known cross-sections for neutrino scattering in that era. Typically they were listed in the Particle Data Group's statistics.
    At that time, although they were aware of the predictions of larger cross-sections for coherent scattering from the nucleus as a whole, nobody had measured them. Now, they have. From K. Scholberg's talk, the coherent scattering is ~ 6 orders of magnitude larger than the other neutrino cross-sections. In addition, the recent work of Vadim a. Bednyakov, and Dmitry V. Naumov, Joint Institute for Nuclear Physics, Dubna, Russia, indicate that there are really 4 considerations here. Coherent and incoherent, elastic and inelastic scattering occur. The contribution from the incoherent scattering is about 15-20 % of the coherent scattering over the same energy range in Mev, and the relative % of each can be determined by measuring coincidental gamma photons emitted during the same Beam On- Beam Off time frames. Summing the four contributions should give most of the scattering seen, and it is ~ 6 orders of magnitude greater than forward scattering known in 1987, during SN1987A.
    SEE:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.03119.pdf
    SEE:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.08768.pdf
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jun-12 at 05:31 PM. Reason: URL, 2nd URL

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    Jean Tate. That means that those wiggles on the two aluminum bar gravitational wave detectors were not imagined but real, because the cross sections, although much lower than a factor of a million like the Cesium Iodide doped with Sodium in AKIMOV et al...COHERENT, were 30-40 times bigger than they expected at the time. Pizzella was right.
    Pizella also now has theoretical basis for the early signals seen some hours before SN1987a went off.

    SEE: SIGNALS BEFORE STAR BLOWS UP..... SEE:https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...nals+neutrinos


    Timmes, F. X. is a load in the world of Astrophysics and helped write the White Paper on Nuclear Astrophysics in 2015...SEE:https://arxiv.org/search/?query=Timm...&source=header
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jun-12 at 05:48 PM. Reason: URL

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    Shaula. And last but not least, the spin of the Z. Yep it's 1 and many gravitational theories call for 2. And Yes we have gone over this before. I acknowledged before that yep... some theories call for 2, and have yet to see any of them make a testable prediction. I too, have read a great deal on a variety of opinions on the import of this. If it works for 1 @ 6.7 sigma, I'm sticking to my guns. Predicted those g-waves, along with neutrino bursts...a change in the ambient neutrino flux, just like what happens to the neutrino sea's relative isotropy, when you pitch a baseball. As you accelerate a baseball with your pitching arm, you blueshift the neutrinos coming from near the plate, and redshift those behind you, and no experiment you have done, or I have done, or anybody has ever been done,..... without neutrinos flowing through it.


    pete

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    TIMME paper is # 18 in the arxiv search bin.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    TIMMES paper is # 18 in the arxiv search bin.
    And Shaula, I am acutely aware that a force carrier needs to be a boson, the photon for electromagnetism, guns for quantum chromodynamics, the three intermediate vector bosons, for electro weak unification. The z is at least a verifiable boson, unlike putative theories which have come up empty....like supersymmetry....34 missing particles and antiparticles.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,329
    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.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    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

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,329
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    8.Gravitation is then seen as an emergent phenomenon from the ambient neutrino sea ...
    That has no relationship to what came before. The list before 8 is mostly standard physics.
    1. Gravitation is different from the other forces.
    2. Standard particle physics.
    3. A "simplistic unified field theory, incorporating the Z as a graviton" fantasy? A graviton is not a Z boson. With more standard physics.
    4. Supernova 1987A producing neutrinos as expected for supernova.
    5. A dubious Pizzella et al pre-print about detecting gravitational waves with 1987 detectors and a correlation with neutrino detections.
    ETA:
    Their "Maryland" detection is Weber bar "in particular his claim to have detected gravitational waves from SN1987A in 1987, were widely discredited".
    Their "Rome" detection is not clearly identified. It looks like the "Rome Room Temperature Gravitational Wave Antenna", maybe another bar type detector.
    6. A sound part of the Pizzella et al pre-print (pre-nova neutrino events) gets a theoretical basis.
    7. COHERENT experiment and the trivia that it may detect supernova neutrinos.
    7A. Irrelevant confirmation of incoherent scattering of neutrinos.
    7B. An error of confirming Pizzella et al because COHERNT does not detect gravitational waves.
    7C. A "that a burst of neutrinos is coincident with a gravitational wave and a change in the ambient neutrino sea" story. No evidence of "a burst of neutrinos is coincident with a gravitational wave" has been presented.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jun-13 at 01:44 AM.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,329
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Shaula has stated that it is irrelevant to any supernova neutrino bursts, ...
    Shaula is correct that the well known fact that neutrino bursts are detected from supernova is irrelevant to your idea. That is mainstream science. You need to show that gravitational waves are produced from an ambient neutrino sea.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    Reality Check. Fair enough. In the morning. I am about to join friends for the Bruins run @ the Stanley cup. I will show it with a jet powered lounge chair in the Bootes void.
    The prompt burst from the supernova is not irrelevant to my idea.
    pete

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,329
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    ..The prompt burst from the supernova is not irrelevant to my idea.
    It is irrelevant to your ATM idea because it is mainstream unless you can show that your idea predicts a "prompt burst from the supernova".
    But there is no credible evidence of gravitational waves from any supernova so the expected neutrino burst cannot be "prompt". The assertions of Pizzella et al are not evidence that there were gravitational waves from SN1987A. The consensus is that it is impossible for apparatus in 1987 to detect gravitational waves because they were not sensitive enough. I have seen arguments that special conditions for SN1987A might make the waves more intense and maybe detectable but no support that those condition exist.

    Reassessment of the reported correlations between gravitational waves and neutrinos associated with SN 1987A
    ...After inspecting the evidence, we also conclude that there are no physically significant correlations of the Mt. Blanc-type between the gravitational wave detectors and the Kamiokande and/or IMB particles. This makes it very likely that the Mt. Blanc correlations are due, not to any physical effect, but simply to chance.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,329
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    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.
    There is an error. A Unified Theory of Elementary Particles and Forces by Howard Georgi
    Georgi proposed an SU(5) GUT model with softly broken supersymmetry with Savas Dimopoulos in 1981. This paper is one of the foundational works for the supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM).
    The Z boson mediates the weak force between quarks. So no positron or "electron-type anti-neutrino" coupling.

    A small typo - The electron anti-neutrino is very different from an electron (no charge, vary small mass) so is not an electron-type.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,163
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Jean Tate, Shaula. The original reason Prof. Sulak, Principle Investigator of the IMB, did not put his name of Guido Pizella's paper, or publish one himself was that the sensitivity of the IMB to supernova neutrinos, and the aluminum bar g-wave detector to neutrinos were at their theoretical limit. It was also at a time in the physics world when the journal editors were switching to 5.0 sigma. That was based on the known cross-sections for neutrino scattering in that era. Typically they were listed in the Particle Data Group's statistics.
    At that time, although they were aware of the predictions of larger cross-sections for coherent scattering from the nucleus as a whole, nobody had measured them. Now, they have. From K. Scholberg's talk, the coherent scattering is ~ 6 orders of magnitude larger than the other neutrino cross-sections. In addition, the recent work of Vadim a. Bednyakov, and Dmitry V. Naumov, Joint Institute for Nuclear Physics, Dubna, Russia, indicate that there are really 4 considerations here. Coherent and incoherent, elastic and inelastic scattering occur. The contribution from the incoherent scattering is about 15-20 % of the coherent scattering over the same energy range in Mev, and the relative % of each can be determined by measuring coincidental gamma photons emitted during the same Beam On- Beam Off time frames. Summing the four contributions should give most of the scattering seen, and it is ~ 6 orders of magnitude greater than forward scattering known in 1987, during SN1987A.
    SEE:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.03119.pdf
    SEE:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.08768.pdf
    Coherent neutrino scattering is energy dependent. The overall cross section is not O(6)x, it is O(6)x at specific energies, which are detector dependent. Coherent neutrino scattering was predicted in the 50s and pretty much characterised theoretically by the 70s (by Friedmann among others). I have no idea how you can claim a factor of a million was ignored in the background calculations in the 80s.

    And again. Correlations are only present if you massage the data in a very specific way that is not a standard approach.

    "Some theories call for spin 2"? All quantum field theories where gravity is a tensor field do. It is fundamental.

    Then you repeat the 6.8 sigma number like it has anything to do with your idea. 6.8 sigma is the observation of coherent scattering in line with the Standard Model. It has nothing to do with your claims.

    Finally you say that at least the Z is a boson. Yes. It is a boson that has completely the wrong properties and no plausible physical mechanism that would lead to a force like gravity emerging from it.
    Z: Massive, spin 1 boson leading to very short ranged vector field.
    Graviton: Massless, spin 2 boson leading to infinite range tensor field.
    There is literally nothing they have in common.

    I don't see much point continuing. You are not presenting much in the way of theoretical detail. You are misrepresenting sources. You are misrepresenting experimental results. You are dashing off short replies to posts questioning you that don't really address the issues and using strawman arguments to support your case rhetorically rather than scientifically.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,163
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    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
    Shaula has stated that the paper does not support your claim that there are correlations. Shaula has also stated that the COHERENT paper does not mention the SN1987a results.

    Re-read your point 7 in the original post for context. You said:
    "Enter COHERENT, the experiment at the Spallation Neutron Source Center, Oak Ridge, TN.
    ...
    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 :
    ...
    C..that a burst of neutrinos is coincident with a gravitational wave and a change in the ambient neutrino sea, respectively @ 7.2 sigma…"

    What I have pointed out all along is that this prediction is NOT part of the COHERENT results and your claim that the 7.2 sigma figure from the Scholberg paper is related to that is completely false and a misrepresentation of the paper and the experimental result.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    <snip>

    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

    <snip>
    You have packed a great deal into this thread, pete, likely far more than I can grock, even in 30 days.

    So I thought I'd start with the astronomy, which I am more familiar with than the rest.

    Galeotti&Pizzella (2016), "New analysis for the correlation between gravitational wave and neutrino detectors during SN1987A", is cited just five times, per ADS, and one of those cites is Galeotti&Pizzella (2017), "Galileo versus Aristotle: the case of supernova 1987A". Two others are by Virginia Trimble, Trimble (2017) "Wired by Weber. The story of the first searcher and searches for gravitational waves" and Trimble (2018) "What are the wild waves saying? Yet another meditation on the predictions, searches for, and detections of gravitational waves". I haven't checked the remaining cite yet.

    Trimble notes that almost no one seems to accept Galeotti&Pizzella's findings, in part because the gravitational wave detectors signals seem to coincide with the five neutrino Mt. Blanc detection, not the Kamoika, IMB, and Baksan ones. And more generally, that there seem to have been no widely accepted gravitational wave detections by any Weber-type or inspired devices until LIGO. (Side note: I did not know - or had long since forgotten - that Weber and Trimble were husband and wife).

    So, first direct question: what makes you confident that the Galeotti&Pizzella findings are robust? I'm as interested in what you think of their analysis as why you think gravitational wave detectors of the "Weber-type" have apparently failed to make any robust GWR detections.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Shaula is correct that the well known fact that neutrino bursts are detected from supernova is irrelevant to your idea. That is mainstream science. You need to show that gravitational waves are produced from an ambient neutrino sea.

    Relity Check. Shaula is not correct. A burst of neutrinos from a supernova changes the Spectral Energy Distribution of the neutrinos coming from that particular direction. Typically, for a type 2 , such as supernova 1987A, the core collapses, rebounds and the shock moves out through the star, in a time scale of about 10-20 seconds. When SN1987a went off, most of the detectors were on Universal time, so the arrivals enabled sort of triangulation to determine the directionality of the source. Cherenkov light cones from neutrino electron scattering also indicated origination from the Large Magellanic Cloud. Ian Shelton gave the first report visually, although Oscar Duhalde had seen it earlier.
    There is no question that the energy resolution of the Baksan, Kamiokande, and IMB neutrino detectors indicated neutrinos arriving with energies between 8 and 40 Mev. ..not so big as to disrupt nuclei causing nuclear photodisintegration (Deep Inelastic Scattering), and not so small as not to be detectable through coherent and incoherent elastic and inelastic scattering. (DUBNA papers by Vadim Bednyakov , and Dmitry Naumov) and the Akimov paper with Scholberg.
    There is also no question that Kate Scholberg claimed six orders of magnitude increase in cross-sections @ 6.7 sigma at her Colloquiem talk at MIT ask anybody who was there. I'll speak with a few physicists this week there.

    Now for Reality check's show "that a g-wave is coincident with the change in the neutrino sea"....consider the following:



    So, Can the Neutrino Sea indicate Gravitational Waves, by fluctuating as those waves arrive?
    1. Taylor and Hulse received the 1993 Nobel Prize for their work on the binary pulsar PSR1913 +16……SEE: http://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/aca...01/psr1913.htm
    Where they realized from timing oddities that the data indicated the pulsar was in a binary with highly elliptical orbits, and from Einstein’s General Relativity, realized that the close radius, several solar radii,that the orbital period would decay predictably. Over time it did exactly that resulting in their trip to meet the King and Queen of Sweden for dinner.
    2. Similar detectors, LIGO at Hanford, Washington state, and LIGO Livingston , LA, simultaneously detected gravitational waves on Sept 14, 2015 @ 5.51 AM Eastern Standard Time, with the press release being handled from Cal Tech in February 11, 2015, confirming again Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity
    SEE: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211
    So, it stands without question , that gravitational waves exist, and it was tricky and expensive to measure and confirm them. (it’s only money).

    3. Now for the question at hand, where does the neutrino sea fit in on this? We borrow an Einsteinian trick, the thought experiment. I transport you via Captain Picard’s Starship Enterprise out to the Bootes void for an experiment. We fit you out with a spacesuit dressed as Santa Claus, a rocket sleigh with 500 Christmas boxes, hydrazine/LOX tanks, and 8 Svalbard reindeer, also with suits, a rigid titanium harness, and synchronized boosters to the sled (be nice to animals). Picard leaves for a bit.
    4. Captain Picard sets up a g-wave LIGO detector about a mile away, and in parallel to a 14 kg Cesium Iodide doped with Na SNS COHERENT detector. COHERENT detector only, ….no SNS source of known neutrino energy range and intensity from stopped pions, like Oak Ridge.
    5. There’s a kicker, the 500 boxes in the sled all contain 14 kg masses of Cesium Iodide doped with Na. They have higher cross-sections /kg for COHERENT scattering than Santa or the reindeer, as shown by the graph (slide). That means, where the g-wave LIGO sits, and the other CsI detector sits, theres a slight anisotropy in the neutrino sea coming from that direction….the sled
    6. I pick the Bootes void because there are very few interfering masses contributing background effects, and I like Svalbard reindeer for their diminutive stature, and interesting horn structure. SEE: https://dissolve.com/stock-photo/Sva...2-D1267-10-017



    7. Now ,we posit in the experimental area, a perfectly isotropic flux of neutrinos impinging from the~ million galaxies per square degree of sky found in the Hubble Deep Ultra Field, each with ~ 200 billion stars, all of them emitting neutrinos, none of which our eyes can see, over ~ 14,000 square degrees of sky. Some of them are seen, and interacted with by the Christmas boxes with the CsI blocks in them.
    8. We give Santa a 10 count to blast off…9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1, …FIRE IN THE HOLE!

    9. At the moment he hits the rocket button, the contraption accelerates a large mass generating in GR, a small gravitational wave….hey it’s not a binary pulsar but the idea is there….mass accelerates…g-wave appears…that much is mainstream.
    A. The LIGO detector picks it up after it travels a mile. 1/186,000 seconds later.
    B. The acceleration redshifts the neutrinos coming from behind the sled, dropping them to energies incapable of causing COHERENT scattering on the sled. They mostly shoot through the boxes, reindeer and Santa , forward to the single CsI detector ahead, and increase the probability of scattering there. They also travel at c (Particle Data Group considers neutrinos traveling at c ).,causing.a change in the probability of scattering there because of a change in the Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) of the neutrino sea coming from the direction of the sled.
    10. We have a gravitational wave detected simultaneously with a change of the SED of the ambient neutrino flux.i.e. a change in the neutrino sea. Said so in 1982, published it at the Gravity Research Foundation after SN1987A.
    11. The COHERENT scattering is as much as a million times larger than the forward scattering, and both coherent and incoherent elastic and inelastic contribute to the entire cross-section. (Naumov and Bednyakov papers, Dubna, Russia.).
    12. No experiment you have done or I have done or anyone has ever done was done without the neutrino sea flowing through it. 6.7 sigma. pete

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    Reality Check. Here is your evidence of a burst of neuutrinos from mainstream physics, a peer reviwed article on Neutrinos From Supernovae by Janka (2017). He gives the current view and shows a six step analysis of core collapse, neutrino burst (his words), neutron star accretion , and protoneutron star cooling, over a timescale of about 9.0 seconds. For the novices, a type 2 core collapse, typically gives of in the vicinity of 1053 erg of energy. The graph has the energy in multiples of such in FIGURE 7.

    In Figure 1 page 3 he shows that the energies of those neutrinos detected from SN1987A are 8-40 Mev .....perfect.

    6.7 sigma pete

    SEE:https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08713

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,759
    Reality Check. Janka page 19 During the first 0.02 seconds the "electron-type neutrino burst" reaches ~ 38 times 1052 ergs /second. Typical supernovae of this type give their nascent neutron stars ~ a transverse velocity of 200/km/sec. Remember they have close to a solar mass, which is roughly a million Earth masses, and they pick up that kinetic energy in ~ 10 seconds. Thats more than the litlle bumps at COHERENT. The scattering is different during the explosion as the nuclei are heated to excited states not seen in bar aluminum g-wave detectors, which are actually more favorable near room temperature (Naumov, DUBNA)

    pete

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,329
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Relity Check. Shaula is not correct. A burst of neutrinos....
    A waste of space and time that shows that you need to read what Shaula wrote and even your sources. A formal question:
    IF01: Start with a sea of neutrinos and show that it can produce gravitational waves.

    Otherwise all you have is what you imagine. N.B. Gravitational waves are not waves in any sea which you should know. They are specific waves in spacetime.

    Shaula: Coherent neutrino scattering was a prediction of the standard model.
    Shaula: The claim that the 7 sigma result supports this unified field theory is from the vixra paper (not the COHERENT paper as you wrote) - a paper on vixra is almost by definition wrong!
    You give a paper that validates the Standard Model. You cite an irrevant slideshow and describe irrelevant slides.
    Shaula: 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.
    Shaula: This has nothing at all to do with your experiment. Nothing to do with SN1987a. Nothing to do with your purported unified field theory

    Your posts confirm that Shaula is correct.
    You are still depending on a dubious paper about a correlation between SN1987A neutrinos and gravitational waves that were close to impossible to detect in 1987. The scientific consensus is that they were not detected. So a formal question:
    IF02: Cite the papers that show that gravitational waves were detected in 1987 and have not been debunked by later papers.

    As in this post, mainstream physics and stories based on them do not support your ATM idea. We know gravitational waves exist. We know neutrinos exist. Your Santa Claus story on gravitational waves and neutrinos is not a thought experiment (they need physics to be applied). Repeating fantasies about the COHERENT results does not support you ATM idea - the "6.7 sigma" scattering is predicted by the mainstream. I will emphasize this with a formal question:
    IF03: Give the numbers from your ATM idea for the COHERENT results, include your working.
    An answer can be that you have no numbers and thus the COHERENT results are irrelevant.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jun-14 at 02:22 AM.

Posting Permissions

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