Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 117

Thread: The Unified Field Theory

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,270
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Reality Check....
    I know that neutrino bursts from supernovae happen - see SN1987A!

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,270
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Reality Check. Janka page 19 ...
    An irrelevant story of "little bumps at COHERENT" being caused by the kick given to neutron stars produced by supernovae.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,270
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    ...Gravity Research Foundation
    This is the Gravity Research Foundation originally established "to find ways to implement gravitational shielding" but it has become more mainstream about its gravitational research awards. You may want to read what they say on the detection of gravitational waves by Weber
    One of Roger Babson’s dreams has come to reality. Gravitational radiation has been observed. Another dreamer of gravity waves was the American physicist, Joseph Weber. Weber had won the third award in the Gravity Research Foundation essay competition of 1958 and the first award in 1959 for suggesting the possibility of observing gravity waves and describing a method of detecting them. He proceeded to invent and to build a gravity wave detector. After the construction of the detector and operating it for a period of time he thought and announced that he had detected gravity waves coming to us from outer space. His announcement was greeted with widespread acclaim and great interest. Unfortunately, he had misinterpreted his observations and had, in fact, not detected them.
    Confirming no detection of gravitational waves from SN1987A.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,270
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    ...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.
    IF04: Who "Said so in 1982" (a gravitational wave would be detected simultaneously with a change of the SED of the ambient neutrino flux)? What was the "it" published at the Gravity Research Foundation and please cite it?

  5. #65
    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

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    There is an error. A Unified Theory of Elementary Particles and Forces by Howard Georgi

    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.
    Reality Check. This post is partially wrong about the coupling for neutrinos. Check out the Janka Paper on neutrinos and the couplings that occur on page 6/30, where he lists charged current (CC) processes, then neutral current (NC) processes. He shows in the neutral current section first neutrinos scattering by a Z boson off nuclei (A,Z)...where Z in brackets here is atomic number and A is mass number. Then he shows neutrinos interacting via a Z boson on an electron , or positron, then he shows a Z boson exchanged between neutrinos, The Z boson is universal and acts on all the particles in the Standard Model. Just like gravity which is universal.

    SEE JANKA URL SEE:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.08713.pdf
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jun-14 at 03:56 PM. Reason: url

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Reality Check. You seem to be missing the point of the Santa Claus sled in the Bootes void. The space is not empty. It contains three things.
    1.The cosmic microwave radiation background left over from the Big Bang.
    2.The zero point radiation, inescapable from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
    3. And, the neutrino sea.
    When Santa hits the rocket Start button he accelerates. Simultaneously, he blueshifts all incoming photons from the first two, and all incoming neutrinos from the third. All three obey E=hv for energy, and E/c for momenta = hv/c, and the Doppler shifts are identical for quanta of each of the same energy.
    As the forward hemisphere blue shifts, the following hemisphere redshifts, inducing anisotropy in the CMB, zero point radiation, neutrino sea, which is correlated with the velocity increase. Simultaneously he sends a gravitational wave forward.
    The LIGO dtector would pick up the gravitational wave a mile away, after an interval of 1/186,000 seconds, just as the CEvNS cesium iodide detector begins feeling the change in the neutrino sea. If it could be repeated such as the COHERENT experiment was, and measurements were made over the expected time intervals for arrival, just as the COHERENT was....it would show the coincidental detections.

    If one were to conduct the same Santa experiment inside a large Hall cooled to a microKelvin, inside a mile wide asteroid in the same general location, one could eliminate the CMB, but no hall could eliminate the zero point radiation, or the neutrino sea,......or gravitational effects.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Vera Rubin and the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope. It is good to see a potential naming of a survey telescope, if a Congressional Bill is approved. I am not invloved in the politics thereof. i heard her speak , many years ago at MIT, whilst visiting from Carnegie Institute. She had been denied a professorship locally (not MIT). Her talk was gratifying because of this. If my mechanism is correct, one has to explain the Principle of Equivalence....that you cannot tell the difference between standing on Earth, with an acceleration due to gravity of ~ 10 m/s2, and being in a spaceship that was accelerating at the same.
    So the presence of a large mass (Earth)...should have the same effect on the previously isotropic neutrino sea, as the acceleration of a mass would. They would both change the isotropic neutrino flux to an anisotropic neutrino flux as in the Santa experiment in the void.
    How then for the Earth? A large mass would scatter some of the impinging neutrinos....the interaction rate is a product of the SED, and the various cross sections for neutrino interaction, and now at the surface you are exposed to an anisotropic flux with fewer energetic neutrinos in it coming from below, but the same impinging from above. The derivative of the position and gravitational potential energy is what the Ricci tensor for the metric states, and the stress energy, momentum tensor describes the gradient in the ambient flux.
    If the neutrino sea is affected this way, what about the Milky Way galaxy? Are not neutrinos impacted over a huge distance interacting with stars, gas, and dust clouds? Yep. The periphery of the galaxy has the strongest flux in terms of spectral energy distribution and the weakest should be near the center. This would result in lower values for a Cavendish experiment using a torsion balance, when determining big "G" 6.67 X 10-11. It would depend on where in the galactic radius you measured it. It prevented me from getting too excited about my idea until I heard her speak. The apparent gravitational force would not fall off as an inverse square law on the periphery of the Milky Way, but require some Modification. MOND. The flattening of the galactic rotation curve is a prediction of my theory. I was delighted with her talk.
    And Reality Check, my first paper was copyrighted as my brother and I were working with a patent attorney in New Hampshire on several things. First public disclosure was the Gravity Research Foundation after SN1987a. You asked.
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jun-14 at 06:16 PM. Reason: typo

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    744
    Bump.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    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.
    I hope you havenít overlooked my post, and question, pete. I added emphasis.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Jean Tate. I had some reservations about their results because they detected signals several hours before the prompt neutrino burst. If one reads the paper on signals by Tim me et al, their calculation shows that the early signals a few hours before the supernova, we're at least an order of magnitude lower in energetics....one of the was about 2 orders of magnitude, but the timing of those signals matches well the Timmes predictions, and they were the only experiment that saw them.
    Italy is closer to the Large Magellanic Cloud on the sky. I am not sure if it is visible from there, I will check. After the prompt burst escapes the Large Cloud, it travels largely unimpeded until it reaches the Milky Way. If there is a matter path through the Earth for the burst to reach Maryland, that's where some scattering occurs....it's how the long distance neutrino experiments are conducted....Daya Bay..could have modified the SED, so Rome saw the early signals and Maryland didn't. Check your personal messages I'll give you something else.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Rome not 16 degrees North latitude, where LMC is visible, but I am unsure of the relative matter path lengths need more data. pete

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    So, while I was happy to see the flattening curves of velocity vs radius from Vera Rubin, I am equally pleased with the numerous failures to detect Dark Matter. It is unnecessary, when MOND has a quantum theoretical basis.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Shula asked about the mass hierarchy of neutrino vs Z. It is my understanding that nobody can explain the masses of the particles in the Standard Model, and that there are 17 parameters which must be put in by "hand"...to make the thing work. There is the as yet unexplained Kids formula, which. correctly predicted the mass range of the tau lepton....and to the best of my knowledge explaining that numerically and correctly is a Nobel prize awaiting.
    Very bright kids, who would on occasion stay after school to talk speculative stuff in cosmology, particle physics, astrophysics, nuclear physics, would ask for unsolved problems....and I'd give them Koides...here do this for homework, and you will get a free ride to almost any university of your choice.
    So Shaula, it's a bit of a reach for me to answer that one. If you know tell me.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Koides Formula, not Kids formula. I dislike the constant autocorrect which keeps misspelling my words, and the Signals paper is by Timmes, et al.
    pete

    and I typed Shaula, not Shula....
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jun-15 at 04:25 PM.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Koides Formula, not Kids formula. I dislike the constant autocorrect which keeps misspelling my words, and the Signals paper is by Timmes, et al.

    pete

    See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,270
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Reality check. A new paper ...
    Interesting paper but irrelevant again.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,270
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Reality Check. This post is partially ...
    The Standard Model has that Z boson mediates the weak force between quarks - so no imaginary positron or "electron-type anti-neutrino" coupling. The Z boson mediates some neutrino interactions. Read Janto page 6 and note that there is no coupling in Fig 3. Even if we take "coupling" to mean "mediate", this and the Janto paper are still irrelevant to your ATM idea.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jun-16 at 09:17 PM.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,270
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Reality Check. You seem to be missing the point of the Santa Claus ...
    My point remains that it is an irrelevant to your ATM idea story. What you imagine to happen is not a thought experiment.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jun-16 at 09:18 PM.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,270
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Vera Rubin ...
    More irrelevant science and another story with no physics.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,270
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    ...First public disclosure was the Gravity Research Foundation after SN1987a. You asked.
    Not a full answer. A idea from you and your brother in 1982 that was never published is essentially no idea at all! Sceince is published science.
    IF04: What was the "it" published at the Gravity Research Foundation and please cite it?

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,270
    You may have missed these questions, trinitree88.
    IF01: Start with a sea of neutrinos and show that it can produce gravitational waves.
    The point here is that gravitational waves are not waves in a sea of anything. For a start their effect on LIGO is to stretch one arm relative to the other.

    IF02: Cite the papers that show that gravitational waves were detected in 1987 and have not been debunked by later papers.
    If no papers exist, your ATM idea has no empirical support. You will have to do your own research with modern, much better data. You have the COHERENT data. We have detected many gravitational wave events and anyone can look them up. What is the correlation?

    IF03: Give the numbers from your ATM idea for the COHERENT results, include your working.
    You keep claiming the COHERENT results are support for your ATM idea so you need a match. Otherwise the COHERENT results are irrelevant to your ATM idea.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jun-16 at 09:17 PM.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    I will check on that. i hand delivered the envelope to Wellesley to George Rideout Sr. on April1. A preliminary check of the website shows no pdf file available, but I didn't email it, I live close and worked right to the deadline that year. His son runs the competition now, I will check with him. There are old copies in law offices. There was no money for a Honorable Mention. I received a letter in the mail, from G. Rideout Sr.which I am sure is long gone. But, I will check with the son. pete

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    You may have missed these questions, trinitree88.
    IF01: Start with a sea of neutrinos and show that it can produce gravitational waves.
    The point here is that gravitational waves are not waves in a sea of anything. For a start their effect on LIGO is to stretch one arm relative to the other.

    IF02: Cite the papers that show that gravitational waves were detected in 1987 and have not been debunked by later papers.
    If no papers exist, your ATM idea has no empirical support. You will have to do your own research with modern, much better data. You have the COHERENT data. We have detected many gravitational wave events and anyone can look them up. What is the correlation?

    IF03: Give the numbers from your ATM idea for the COHERENT results, include your working.
    You keep claiming the COHERENT results are support for your ATM idea so you need a match. Otherwise the COHERENT results are irrelevant to your ATM idea.
    Reality Check. It is interesting that after this thread has been up for a week, we have a paper matching up the coincidences of the Rome gravitational wave detector...called in it..."the GeoGrav Detector"....and the neutrino detector that both you and Shaula have waived off. These are two of the records that Guido Pizzella used in his papers, and in his talk at Neutrino 88, about two blocks from my apartment in Medford on Main Street across from historic Revolutionary war British Headquarters, the Royal House.
    The arxiv preprint is " Possible Explanation of the GeoGrav Detector Signal during the Explosion of Supernova 1987A in Modified Gravity Models".
    The authors, Yu N. Eroshenko, E.O.Babichev, V.I. Dokuchaev, and A.S. Malgin hail from the Russian Academy of Sciences, The University of Paris-Sud, and Paris Saclay, and
    the National Research Nuclear University, Moscow.
    They explain the time delay as due to different sensitivities of the detectors to the neutrino flux, and picking up slightly different parts of the core collapse/ bounce/ burst sequence.

    In their Conclusion, page 6 (chopped a bit here), so as to not violate copyright, I am not claiming their work...and I substituted words a bit....
    The signal probably recorded @ ROME (GeoGrav)...........could have been produced by a grav field perturbation during passage of a powerful neutrino flux...

    SEE Russia, France explain ROME bar , and LSD (Mont Blanc coincidences). SEE:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.06088.pdf


    Oddly, that sounds quite familiar, I'd say. And it seems I have two peer reviewed arXiv articles in two successive days claiming the detectability of gravitational waves in coincidence with changes in the ambient neutrino flux , and detection of neutrino bursts at a distance of the Large Magellanic Cloud...(the mineral traces last Friday). I like good coincidences
    pete
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jun-17 at 03:56 PM. Reason: URL

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Reality Check. I am aware that (flux)(cross section)(mass of detector)=(expectation of number of events), assuming 100% efficiency. I have a fairly complicated summation of the four components of the scattering over the spectrum energetics distribution SED) using both coherent and incoherent, elastic and inelastic scattering, which must be summed in domain to give a total neutrino scattering cross section. It will require some graphical interpretation from Bednyakov and Naumov, and will be ready in a few days.

    In the Interim, I used the typical energetics of a type 2 supernova ~ 2 * 10 53 ergs, in my Goodwill Hunting talk at Harvard's Olney Science Center, spring AAPT Meeting 1994, following the high school physics teacher of Richard Feynman, John King's excellent talk. Matt and Ben arrived about two minutes late, Matt wearing a white shirt with sleeves rolled up, brown corduroys, brown shoes vaulted over the back seat. Ben, with beard, torn jeans, flip flops, blue cotton shirt walked around the end of the row and sat with his feet up over the chair in front of him. Not really physics guys, from their demeanor, but they both played golf with my sister's boyfriend at Andover Country Club in the summer. (the GW Hunting story would appear that fall).
    On to the calculation. I had noted from a journal article by Notre Dames Dept Head, that approximately every neutrino scatters once leaving a type 2 transferring ~ 10% of its energy and momentum as it does, That gives about 2 times 1052 ergs to be distributed to the ejecta and pulsar. One of the assumptions necessary is that the explosion is inherently asymmetrical, and the center of mass should move. That generates a g-wave. Simultaneously, that generates a neutrino burst, as neutrino opacity drops off and they release in the prompt burst.
    There had been clear evidence in the work of R. N. Manchester, and M.J. Kesteven in the Australian Journal of physics, that supernova remnants were barrel-shaped, only looking spherical when you looked down the barrel. High transverse velocity pulsars were found with no remnants nearby, and remnants were found with no neutron stars. The asymmetrical explosion could eject them.
    I coupled the work of Leinson and Oraevskii, incorporating an extra component due to magnon scattering, and threw in the recent discovery at the time of ~ a 4% asymmetry in the scattering of a polarized target of He 3 at MIT's Bates Accelerator, and the 4% asymmetry in the overall explosion was sufficient to give the nascent star its "kick" velocity.
    At the highest seen velocity, the neutrinos leave at ~ c, the fastest ejecta is close to c/10, and the very fastest pulsar is ~a little less than c/100.... 3000km/sec.
    I named it the Weak Asymmetric Recoil Phenomenon after Gene Roddenberry....WARP drive. The pulsar is WARP 1, the ejecta WARP 10. Nothing is superluminal, and I suspected experimental error in the claim there....(loose wires).If the extra 30 % claimed by Leinson and Oraevskii in the Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics, 88, is about 40% asymmetrical...(7-5/7+5) North /South asymmetry...the overall symmetry matches the He-3 experiment where the protons anti-align, canceling out. (Winter Course on Nuclear and Particle Physics, MIT).
    I concluded that if you wait long enough, a pulsar about the size of Rhode Island, with a million times the mass of the Earth might come crashing through the roof in a blinding apocolyptic flash. Ta Da! Matt & Ben liked it.
    cheers pete

    you wanted some numbers
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jun-17 at 04:36 PM. Reason: numbers

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,270
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Reality Check....
    More irrelevancy.
    IF01: Start with a sea of neutrinos and show that it can produce gravitational waves.
    IF02: Cite the papers that show that gravitational waves were detected in 1987 and have not been debunked by later papers.
    IF03: Give the numbers from your ATM idea for the COHERENT results, include your working.

    Possible Explanation of the Geograv Detector Signal during the Explosion of SN 1987A in Modified Gravity Models is not about the detection of gravitational waves from SN1987A in 1987. It is how the neutrino pulses from SN1987A could have caused a signal in theoretical modified gravity theories.
    A change in gravity law in some regimes is predicted in the modified gravity models that are actively discussed at present. In this paper, we consider a possibility that the signal recorded by the Geograv resonant gravitational-wave detector in 1987 during the explosion of SN 1987A was produced by an abrupt change in the metric during the passage of a strong neutrino flux through the detector. Such an impact on the detector is possible, in particular, in extended scalar-tensor theories in which the local matter density gradient affects the gravitational force. The first short neutrino pulse emitted at the initial stage of stellar core collapse before the onset of neutrino opacity could exert a major influence on the detector by exiting the detector response at the main resonance frequency. In contrast, the influence of the subsequent broad pulse (with a duration of several seconds) in the resonant detector is exponentially suppressed, despite the fact that the second pulse carries an order-of-magnitude more neutrino energy, and it could generate a signal in the LSD neutrino detector. This explains the time delay of 1.4s between the Geograv and LSD signals. The consequences of this effect of modified gravity for LIGO/Virgo observations are discussed.
    This is a nice theoretical paper but we have to remember that modified GR theories tend to collapse when applied overall. For example, try to explain dark matter with modified GR and it partially works but stars literally collapse in seconds.

    This paper does not support your idea. There was a cluster of neutrino pulses 1.4 seconds after the Geograv signal. They are not at the same time as your idea implies.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jun-17 at 10:32 PM.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,270

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    A idea from you and your brother in 1982 that was never published is essentially no idea at all! Sceince is published science.
    Another aspect of your ATM idea starting in 1982 is that you have had 37 years to turn it into science. Being 37 years old with no science or evidence makes it not even an ATM idea!

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Reality Check I answered IF01 allready, here's a slightly longer clip
    SEE:

    For Santa’s sled in the neutrino sea. He sits motionless in an isotropic neutrino sea in the Bootes void. All incoming neutrinos have an average energy content. Like photons, neutrinos are assigned E=hv and E/c =hv /c, where E equals the energy in electron volts, or joules, typically a few electron volts to about ~ 6 electron volts for visible light photons, and E/c is photon momentum, which shows up in discussion of solar sails. But these equations apply equally to neutrinos.
    For every photon , there is a neutrino with identical energy and commensurate momentum. The difference comes in the statistics used to describe them and spin. All neutrinos are Fermions with half integer spin, and all photons are Bosons with integer spins. You can pack photons as densely as you like, according to Einstein Bose statistics, but Fermions obey Fermi-Dirac statistics and must have a limit in a confined space.
    Now, when we bring in motion of Santa’s sled accelerating, it will Doppler shift photons, according to the above equation, as soon as Santa accelerates, changing the isotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Radiation background, blueshifting those in front of Santa (where the detectors are, and redshifting those behind Santa. Indeed such a shift is taken as the Sun’s motion(with Earth and the labs) through the CMB in CMB maps. This CANNOT occur without simultaneously generating a gravitational wave from the accelerating mass of Santa and the sled, nor without simultaneously Doppler shifting the beforehand, isotropic, neutrino sea.
    If instead, we place a moon mass with a huge room inside it at the same location, and cool it to a milliKelvin with Santa inside, we eliminate the shifting of the CMB photons (it’s not 2.74 degrees in there), but you cannot build that room free of penetrating neutrinos. Then when Santa accelerates, only two things occur:
    1 still, a gravitational wave is generated by his sled’s accelerating mass (from GR), and
    2. Doppler shifting of the neutrino sea still occurs, as the physics there is Lorentz invariant, obeying the Doppler equation equally well. Now the onboard detectors change their cross section as they are Energy and Frequency dependent (see Bednyakov / Naumov graphs). That changes the interaction rate which is a product of a (new SED )(new cross section)(mass of the detector…ignoring relativistic mass increase), both forward and aft. Santa is not outrunning the neutrino flux. If you cannot see this is a simultananeity of the generation of a gravitational wave with a change in the ambient net neutrino flux, you need to work on your physical intuition or ask for help with it.
    pete

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Reality Check I answered IF02 yesterday in post # 85. Cornell's arxiv site hardly allows nitwit posting.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,746
    Shaula. There is an interesting preprint on the neutrino mass hierarchy determination using presupernova signals (the ones Pizzella couldn't see) as potential probes of neutrino mass hierarchy at a ~> 95 % confidence level by improving backgrounds on the JUNO experiment....people from Germany, USA, China and Australia

    SEE:arXiv:1906.06839v1 [astro-ph.HE] 17 Jun 2019

    SEE:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.06839.pdf

    Their comment "We probe the potential of using presupernova neutrino signals....to probe the yet-unknown neutrino mass hierarchy"...clearly indicates your question from the other day in the context in which it should be viewed.
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jun-18 at 04:44 PM. Reason: url

Posting Permissions

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