Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 117 of 117

Thread: The Unified Field Theory

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,766
    I need a copy of both of Naumov's papers here. I will post one and call it Naumov 1....then the other and call it Naumov 2, to save people scrolling all over the place.

    SEE Naumov 1.........SEE:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.03119.pdf APRIL 8,2019


    SEE Naumov 2.........SEE:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.08768.pdf JUNE 25,2018




    For the novice reader, neutrons and protons in a nucleus are bound there by strong forces, that typically run a few million electron volts to around 15 million electron volts. Extremely energetic photons (gammas) and neutrinos can eject nucleons of both types, so the cOHERENT experiment was tailored to neutrino energies from stopped pions in the sweet spot..around 30 Mev.
    When you examine the graphs with red coherent and blue incoherent lines the coherent cross section dominates, but has a very sharp cutoff value, depending upon the type of nucleus involved in the detector design, Cs, I, Ge, etc. Aluminum should have numbers typical of sodium as it has a few more neutrons, but the incoming flux from any supernovae is modified depending on the presupernova isotopic abundances in the precursor star, the collapse model (pair instability or not? ), and intervening matter path lengths.
    Naumov and Bednyakov have found that the incoherent cross section is largewr than expected and may be contributing a 15-20 % error to some results. This can be bettered by looking for coincident gamma rays from timed pulse sources, nanoseconds after impacts. Graphs in the 80s typically were in barns.
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jun-18 at 05:31 PM. Reason: urls

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,766
    BARN SEE:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barn_(unit)#Conversions

    Notice in the graphs, the cross sections are in log scale and vary by 5-6 orders of magnitude.APRIL 8, figures 2 and 3., as the energy changes in Mev.
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jun-18 at 05:35 PM.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Reality Check I answered IF01 allready, here's a slightly longer clip...
    What you imagine is not physics. IF01 needs physics to be answered. I would: Treat a sea of neutrinos as a fluid like the sea but with the properties of neutrinos such as no interaction between them. Perturb that fluid (a "supernova"). Doe waves appear? Are they the specific kinds of waves that are gravitational waves.

    N.B. What physics tells us is that a non-interacting fluid (your sea of neutrinos) cannot have waves on it. Traverse waves need attractive forces between the fluid components like waves on an ocean. Compression waves need repulsive forces between the fluid components like sound waves.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Reality Check I answered IF02 yesterday in post # 85. Cornell's arxiv site hardly allows nitwit posting.
    Read the abstract of that paper. Read the contents of that paper. You cited a paper the stated that the Geograv Detector detected signals that could be explained by "an abrupt change in the metric during the passage of a strong neutrino flux through the detector" by modified GR. A neutrino flux is not a gravitational wave. You do not have a modified GR.

    Or answer this question:
    IF02a: Quote the detection of gravitational waves in Possible Explanation of the Geograv Detector Signal during the Explosion of SN 1987A in Modified Gravity Models.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Shaula. ...
    Another irrelevant paper. The future is not 1987! Your idea is not about detecting neutrinos in the stages before a supernova.
    Presupernova neutrino signals as potential probes of neutrino mass hierarchy
    We assess the potential of using presupernova neutrino signals at the Jiangmen Underground Neutrino Observatory (JUNO) to probe the yet-unknown neutrino mass hierarchy. Using models for stars of 12, 15, 20, and 25 solar masses, we find that if the electron antineutrino signals from such a star can be predicted precisely and the star is within ~440-880 pc, the number of events of electron antineutrino captures on protons detected within one day of its explosion allows to determine the hierarchy at the > ~95% confidence level. For determination at this level using such signals from Betelgeuse, which is at a distance of ~222 pc, the uncertainty in the predicted number of signals needs to be < ~14-30%. In view of more realistic uncertainties, we discuss and advocate a model-independent determination using both electron neutrino and antineutrino signals from Betelgeuse. This method is feasible if the cosmogenic background for neutrino-electron scattering events can be reduced by a factor of ~2.5-10 from the current estimate. Such reduction might be achieved by using coincidence of the background events, the exploration of which for JUNO is highly desirable.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    I need a copy of both of Naumov's papers here. ....
    Two more irrelevant papers. Both of Naumov's papers are mainstream physics of neutrinos.
    On coherent neutrino and antineutrino scattering off nuclei
    Coherency and incoherency in neutrino-nucleus elastic and inelastic scattering

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Notice in the graphs,...
    A post about 2 irrelevant papers. You do not have an ATM idea about the coherent or incoherent scattering of neutrinos from nuclei.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    A post about 2 irrelevant papers. You do not have an ATM idea about the coherent or incoherent scattering of neutrinos from nuclei.
    Reality Check. The papers are mainstream about how the coherent scattering over the energy regimes seen in supernova spectral energy distributions.. (SEDs)..which is approximately 8 to 36 Mev, noted in the mainstream paper on Neutrinos from Supernovae, by Janka,, can be up to 6 orders of magnitude larger than quasi elastic scattering which is what was used by Hirata et AL in 1987. So, snice you recognize it's not ATM, but mainstream, kindly put the thread back in Science and Technology.
    pete

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,766
    Reality Check. Remember there were about 1700 physicists at Williams College in 94 who agreed that I had changed the principle of equivalence and gave a standing ovation for my talk in 94 at the AAPT jointly held with the American Physical Society. About 10 were still sitting. That would probably have been you. It's America, people have different opinions in a horse race ( I lost in the Derby this year). But your denial of my mainstream truths, article by article is a reminder that some ideas will not succeed until all the deniers are gone.
    pete

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,766
    Today, at the Library, I requested a copy of Einstein's collected papers from the Swiss Years, from 1912 to 1914. He was writing with his good froend, tutor, and mathematician extraordinaire, Marcel Grossman, and commented in it a very relevant comment. When it comes in I'll quote him. Should be several days in transit, in interlibrary loan. I'm not footing 70 bucks for an online copy, and the Digital Einstein Archive isn't completed yet....kind of like the Holliston Library. Volume 4, you'll love the quote.
    pete

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Reality Check. ...
    trinitree88, this is not a "list mainstream papers" thread. This is a thread for your ATM idea. You need to first show that your ATM idea predicts the results of mainstream papers and then cite those mainstream papers to support your ATM idea.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Reality Check. ...
    An irrelevant post about an rumored 1700 physicists at Williams College. Unfortunately it looks like just an irrelevant story. If those "1700 physicists" thought there was valid physics in that 94 talk, this would be in the physics textbooks by now.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Today, at the Library, I...
    Another irrelevant post. Einstein's papers from 1912 to 1914 are not GR which was published in 1915. This was Einstein and Grossman learning how to apply mathematics to generalizing special relativity and publishing papers as they went. They are online: The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein.

    Whatever you are going to quote from Einstein's papers from 1912 to 1914 is very probably irrelevant to this thread on your ATM idea about gravitational waves and neutrinos. No one including Einstein knew neutrinos or gravitational waves existed then. Einstein tried to see if gravitational waves existed in 1915 but his approximation used made even Einstein doubtful. The theoretical basis of gravitational waves was not fully established until 1956.

    There is the big problem that you are arguing against gravitational waves as in GR. That must be the modern understanding of GR, not 100 years old understanding.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jun-18 at 11:14 PM.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Another irrelevant post. Einstein's papers from 1912 to 1914 are not GR which was published in 1915. This was Einstein and Grossman learning how to apply mathematics to generalizing special relativity and publishing papers as they went. They are online: The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein.

    Whatever you are going to quote from Einstein's papers from 1912 to 1914 is very probably irrelevant to this thread on your ATM idea about gravitational waves and neutrinos. No one including Einstein knew neutrinos or gravitational waves existed then. Einstein tried to see if gravitational waves existed in 1915 but his approximation used made even Einstein doubtful. The theoretical basis of gravitational waves was not fully established until 1956.

    There is the big problem that you are arguing against gravitational waves as in GR. That must be the modern understanding of GR, not 100 years old understanding.
    I was using the Einstein archive...it wouldn't load Vol. 4. So, are you acknowledging the Doppler shifting of an isotropic sea of neutrinos by the same equation used for photons, since they both obey the same character of physical law?.....and that that occurs simultaneously with the sled's acceleration in the Bootes void?
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jun-19 at 12:56 PM. Reason: AI typo

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,265
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Reality Check. Remember there were about 1700 physicists at Williams College in 94 who agreed that I had changed the principle of equivalence and gave a standing ovation for my talk in 94 at the AAPT jointly held with the American Physical Society. About 10 were still sitting. That would probably have been you. It's America, people have different opinions in a horse race ( I lost in the Derby this year). But your denial of my mainstream truths, article by article is a reminder that some ideas will not succeed until all the deniers are gone.
    pete
    Drop the irrelevant comments, the self-promotion, and the name calling, or you'll get an infraction and this thread will be done.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    What you imagine is not physics. IF01 needs physics to be answered. I would: Treat a sea of neutrinos as a fluid like the sea but with the properties of neutrinos such as no interaction between them. Perturb that fluid (a "supernova"). Doe waves appear? Are they the specific kinds of waves that are gravitational waves.

    N.B. What physics tells us is that a non-interacting fluid (your sea of neutrinos) cannot have waves on it. Traverse waves need attractive forces between the fluid components like waves on an ocean. Compression waves need repulsive forces between the fluid components like sound waves.
    Hmm. The Janka paper page 5, Table 1 shows "Reactions between neutrinos" and has two types Pair annihilations, which should occur between neutrinos and antineutrino pairs of all three flavors.....and neutrino/neutrino scattering. That means the neutrino sea background is not "non-interacting" and can have waves on it. They consitute a change in the previous relative isotropy, or anisotropy of the ambient neutrino flux through a volume of Minkowski spacetime. A change in the vector field of their energy, and momentum, i. e. ..... Einstein's Field Equations.
    SEE JANKA SEE:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.08713.pdf

    and... water waves are not the ideal example of transverse waves as they are actually a combination of transverse and longitudinal.....SEE ANIMATION SEE:https://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Dem...avemotion.html
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jun-24 at 04:20 PM. Reason: URL

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Hmm. The Janka paper ...
    An error about particle-antiparticle annihilation for neutrinos. This is not an answer to any of my questions.
    IF01: Start with a sea of neutrinos and show that it can produce gravitational waves.
    This needs attractive and/or repulsive forces between neutrinos to produce ordinary waves. Gravitational waves however are not ordinary waves! Once you have any waves at all, the next step will be to show that these "neutrino waves" will produce the same effects as the detected gravitational waves.
    IF02: Cite the papers that show that gravitational waves were detected in 1987 and have not been debunked by later papers.
    Or IF02a: Quote the detection of gravitational waves in Possible Explanation of the Geograv Detector Signal during the Explosion of SN 1987A in Modified Gravity Models.
    IF03: Give the numbers from your ATM idea for the COHERENT results, include your working.

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,766
    To Shaula... Neutrinos from Supernova 1987A.
    Shaula….. commented to the effect that the calculations from detecting neutrinos from Supernova 1987A, surely included from physicists of that era….coherent scattering contributions, surmised in 1974, as recently determined in the COHERENT collaboration at Oak Ridge, and the Spallation Neutron Source.
    1.So I checked the literature. One of the first peer reviewed papers is by Hirata et. Al, submitted in March,87…and published in Phys. Rev. Letters , vol. 58, 1490 . No mention of coherent scattering. Scattering of neutrinos off electrons, creating photoelectrons which produce Cherenkov light cones detected by photomultiplier tubes. Coherent elastic scattering occurs off the nuclei as a whole, with a subsequent nuclear recoil. No mention of it here. SEE: https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10....evLett.58.1490
    2.Another early peer reviewed paper was by David N. Schramm . He spoke also at MIT’s Physics Colloquiem about SN1987A (I was there for that). Again, descriptions of the thresholds being a little different. A. Derujula arguing that the Mont Blanc earlier detections being a puzzle, but that Kamiokande did see 2 events, (near background ) within about ~8 seconds of the Mont Blanc early detections (now confirmed in theory by Timmes et al in the peer-reviewed “Signals” paper I quoted).
    3.No mention of coherent elastic scattering, which has been shown by Scholberg, Akimov et. Al. to be 6 orders of magnitude greater than any of the other neutrino interactions. 6.7 sigma.
    The data on the Mont Blanc detections show detections of 3 or 5 events, around 10 to 11 sigma (it’s in the paper by Schramm. SEE: http://inspirehep.net/record/247242/...17-n5-p239.pdf
    4. Another from M. Koshiba, European Southern Obs.. Descriptions of Kamiokande, triggering, scattering off electrons, not nuclei,….no coherent cross sections implied….no increased expectations of a factor of a million …(that comes later in 2018, with the COHERENT collaboration at Oak Ridge, Scholberg, Akimov et al ). For Koshiba ,…SEE: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1987ESOC...26..219K
    5. And from Supernova theorists Adam Burrows and M.J. Latimer. Another [peer reviewed article, this time in the Astrophysical Journal, July 15, 1987. Similar scattering of neutrinos off electrons, PMT tubes recording Cherenkov light discharges, estimating energies of incoming neutrinos. No coherent scattering off nuclei. No coherent cross-sections, that must wait for confirmation from the Akimov paper in Nature, the COHERENT collaboration, Oak Ridge…31 years later.
    SEE: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1987ApJ...318L..63B

    Shaula. Simply not true. Peer-reviewed articles, it’s never mentioned.
    pete

    It was also never mentioned when MIT held a talk by John N. Bahcall, shortly after February 23...which drew so many people they had to move to a bigger hall ( my sister-in-law coordinated the event)..with ~ 500 students and professors from all over New England (not just Cambridge). John chaired the White Paper Committee on Nuclear and Particle Physics two years later. He mentioned Mikheyev-Smirnoff- Wolfenstein matter oscillations...but no coherent neutrino-nucleus elastic scattering.
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jul-01 at 09:51 PM. Reason: typo, clarify

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    To Shaula...
    What Shaula actually wrote and this post does not understand.
    Shaula did not write that coherent neutrino scattering was detected from SN1987A. Shaula wrote that coherent neutrino scattering was predicted from the standard model and the Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering (COHERENT) results are irrelevant to SN1987A and your ATM idea.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jul-01 at 10:05 PM.

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    What Shaula actually wrote and this post does not understand.

    Shaula did not write that coherent neutrino scattering was detected from SN1987A. Shaula wrote that coherent neutrino scattering was predicted from the standard model and the Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering (COHERENT) results are irrelevant to SN1987A and your ATM idea.
    Reality Check. Hardly. Nobody can say that the COHERENT experiment published their results in Nature, a peer reviewed journal, with cross sections six orders of magnitude larger than any of the other neutrino/ target interactions, and then say with confidence....of course, none of the neutrinos in the prompt neutrino burst from SN1987A ever did that on the detectors that were operating during that epoch, without getting laughed out of a lecture hall in a major school, anywhere in the world.
    Lorentz Invariance, the Queen of all Conservation Laws....the laws of physics must look the same in all reference frames....and if neutrinos in the lower Mev energy range, such as happened in the stopped pion source at Oak Ridge participated in CEvNS....Coherent Elastic Neutrino/ Nucleus Scattering, then that happened also during supernova 1987A. Not irrelevant. Fundamental. I challenge you to give me a reason why the laws of physics should have been different during SN1987A, than they were at Oak Ridge last year.
    The knowledge may have been lacking then, of the exact magnitude of the unknown cross sections, but the fundamental assumptions about neutrinos are vastly different now.
    Matter paths cause neutrino oscillations in flavors, but the Scholberg power point slides and the Akimov paper point out that CEVNS is independent of flavor, and the Timmes paper on "Signals"
    ...hours before the final core collapse, give clear and unabridged evidence of a mechanism for the infalling core to give fluxes of neutrinos detectable by instrumentation. pete
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jul-01 at 11:43 PM. Reason: typo

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,766

    reply

    IF01
    Signals From Rome and Maryland (Weber) Aluminum Bar Gravitational wave Detectors?
    A reply to Reality Checks’ question…..pete

    1. Much discussion followed Weber’s early claims of detecting g-waves with his early apparatus, and subsequent laboratory replicas FAILED to produce similar , repeatable results…the “litmus test” for experimentalists. I too , at the time realized there were discrepancies, and lost interest. Times change.Techniques change. Ideas change. Supernova 1987A happened, and last year the COHERENT experiment announced their results from the Spallation Neutron Source @ Oak ridge Tennessee, and the stellar evolution MESA code was released to ArXiv SEE:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.01877.pdf
    2. The Akimov paper in Nature, and the Kate Scholberg lecture at MIT’s Thursday Physics Colloquiem, put a new perspective on the data claimed by Guido Pizzella during supernova 1987a.
    3. One of the key objections to Pizzella’s claim was the curious signals that Mont Blanc saw some hours before the final collapse of the core of Supernova 1987A on February 23 @ 7:35:35 UT. That final collapse was definitely seen by multiple observatories, with coincidental timing, confirming the basic models of core neutronization that had begun with Zwicky decades earlier. (John N. Bahcall lecture at MIT). No argument by me.
    4. This is where the argument happens. The paper by Kelly M. Patton, Cecelia Lunardini, Robert J. Farmer, and F. X. Timmes, with the URL @ the end of section 1. (above). …(hereafter called PLFT 2017) The authors present a new calculation of the neutrino flux received here from Sanduleak -69 202, during SN1987A. The calculate the neutrinos emitted in each flavor…electron-type,muon-type,tau- type, at many radial zones, and time steps…for two different mass models. The lower mass is 15 solar masses for the progenitor, the higher mass is 30 solar masses. It is generally considered that Sanduleak was approximately 20 solar masses in most papers to date. To that end, the numbers for the lower mass model (15), are more nearly approximate to calculations for SN1987A.
    5. In section 2 of (PLFT 2017),the paper follows the temperature T, matter density (rho), isotopic composition, and electron fraction( Y) in a time and space profile. They use previous works, carefully cited, from Fuller, Fowler, and Newman (FFN), Oda et al (OEA), Langanke and Martinez- Pinedo (LMP) for beta processes, giving this sequence for preference in their code.
    6. Page 4 FIGURE 1,…gives the luminosity profile in emitted neutrinos from 10,000 hours, down to 100 hours, to one hour, to ~1/100 hour, to ~1/10,000 hour, before the core collapses. The region of interest is about 5 hours, where Pizzella though he saw something.,AND…Mont Blanc had a coincidental signal too. It is when the silicon shell starts burning….the last stage before core collapse. Collapse is denoted on the graph as…tau sub CC. Note the neutrino luminosity changes from 10 exp 50 /sec …..to 10 52/sec during the last 10 hours before collapse.
    7. The neutrinos from beta processes begins to dominate the thermal contribution, and equals it from about 6 minutes to go till the end, where it is 30 times greater than the thermal….(runaway collapse).
    8. About 5 isotopes contribute most of the neutrinos, Table 1. Page 8, iron, manganese, cobalt, chromium and vanadium….promising more precise spectra in future work.
    9. Figure 3 page 7…the highest luminosity from the key hours of 5,4,3,2,1 before collapse indicate flux of about 10 exp 50 at energies of 0.5 Mev, 1.0 Mev and 2.0 Mev, but much less, by three orders of magnitude, at 5 Mev, the lowest trigger for the neutrino detectors.
    MONT BLANC………trigger.threshold…< 5 Mev.
    KAMIOKANDE…..…trigger.threshold..~ 8 Mev
    BAKSAN…………..….trigger.threshold… ~ 10 Mev
    IMB……………………...trigger threshold.. .~ 25 Mev
    If you were going to see some it would have been at Mont Blanc, where Pizzella claims there was a coincident event, that many dismissed. At that time,(without the PLFT paper or the million fold increase in scattering due to the COHERENT paper), an argument difficult to sway. But that was based on neutrino/electron scattering cross-sections, which in Scholberg’s slide presentation was 4.0 times 10 exp -44 cm sq.…whereas the COHERENT cross-section for aluminum is greater than her listed value, already determined for sodium…~ 1.0 times .10 exp – 41 cm sq.. That’s a thousand times bigger, and her slideshow indicates detecting a supernova all the way out to the Large Magellanic Cloud with the CEvNS 22 lb cesium iodide detector, which is a million times bigger.
    The aluminum cylinder at Maryland is ~ 70 times as massive, as the COHERENT CsI detector, compensating for it’s cross-section being nearer to sodium, about 100 times less than cesium iodide (Scholberg slide…# 18 & 24 ).
    10 Weber and Pizzella were correct…they saw a kick from SN1987a, and I am debunking the 30 years of debunkers, who used state-of-the-art theory for then….with state-of-the-art physics, for now. It showed up as a change in the ambient neutrino flux coincident with a change in the local gravitational gradient…i.e. a gravitational” wave” of the expanding shell of presupernova and core collapse prompt neutrinos. The presupernova intensification of two orders of magnitude from 5 hours to collapse (is/was) detectable, as (is/ was) the prompt burst. It was Alvaro DeRujula who suggested that Mont Blanc’s inexplicable signal was not noise, but a presupernova signal of low energy neutrinos only to be seen at Mont Blanc.

    pete
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jul-03 at 07:14 PM. Reason: typo,typo

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,340
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    IF01 ...
    Not a reply to IF01: Start with a sea of neutrinos and show that it can produce gravitational waves. You do not start with a sea of neutrinos.
    Or a reply to any other question
    IF02: Cite the papers that show that gravitational waves were detected in 1987 and have not been debunked by later papers.
    Or IF02a: Quote the detection of gravitational waves in Possible Explanation of the Geograv Detector Signal during the Explosion of SN 1987A in Modified Gravity Models.
    IF03: Give the numbers from your ATM idea for the COHERENT results, include your working.

    We know that there were discredited claims of detecting gravitational waves in 1987 using Weber bars.
    The second announcement in particular created a stir. Tony Tyson, now at the University of California, Davis, joined with colleagues to build a “Weber bar,” as did a number of other groups around the world, but no one besides Weber ever saw anything but random noise. Weber was an electrical engineer turned physicist, who knew little of data analysis, Tyson says, “and that turned out to be his downfall.” Weber’s criteria for evaluating signal coincidences, it slowly emerged, were ill-defined and partly subjective. By the late 1970s, everyone but Weber agreed that his claimed detections were spurious.
    Focus: A Fleeting Detection of Gravitational Waves
    Reports of the discovery of spacetime ripples known as gravitational waves in 1969 and 1970 proved erroneous but inspired efforts that continue today.
    ...
    The second announcement in particular created a stir. Tony Tyson, now at the University of California, Davis, joined with colleagues to build a “Weber bar,” as did a number of other groups around the world, but no one besides Weber ever saw anything but random noise. Weber was an electrical engineer turned physicist, who knew little of data analysis, Tyson says, “and that turned out to be his downfall.” Weber’s criteria for evaluating signal coincidences, it slowly emerged, were ill-defined and partly subjective. By the late 1970s, everyone but Weber agreed that his claimed detections were spurious.
    Stories completely ignoring the results from 1987 and the debunking of those results do make those results gravitational waves and do not debunk any science. I will emphasize this with a formal question. You claim to be "debunking the 30 years of debunkers" so:
    IF04a: Using "Weber and Pizzella" show that they detected gravitational waves in 1987 with the equipment used and data taken in 1987.
    IF04b: List the papers that debunked the Weber bar results and show how those papers were wrong

    Repeating errors does not give us confidence in your ATM idea.
    "The Akimov paper in Nature, and the Kate Scholberg lecture at MIT’s Thursday Physics Colloquiem, put a new perspective on the data claimed by Guido Pizzella during supernova 1987a." is wrong.
    New analysis for the correlation between gravitational wave and neutrino detectors during SN1987A by Galeotti, P.; Pizzella, G. (2016).
    COHERENT Collaboration data release from the first observation of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering by Akimov et. al. (2018).
    Citing Akimov and COHERENT is wrong because there is no Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering in Pizzella's paper which is about a correlation between supposed 1987 gravitational waves and actual bursts of neutrinos !
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jul-03 at 09:56 PM.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Not a reply to IF01: Start with a sea of neutrinos and show that it can produce gravitational waves. You do not start with a sea of neutrinos.
    Or a reply to any other question
    IF02: Cite the papers that show that gravitational waves were detected in 1987 and have not been debunked by later papers.
    Or IF02a: Quote the detection of gravitational waves in Possible Explanation of the Geograv Detector Signal during the Explosion of SN 1987A in Modified Gravity Models.
    IF03: Give the numbers from your ATM idea for the COHERENT results, include your working.

    We know that there were discredited claims of detecting gravitational waves in 1987 using Weber bars.

    Focus: A Fleeting Detection of Gravitational Waves


    Stories completely ignoring the results from 1987 and the debunking of those results do make those results gravitational waves and do not debunk any science. I will emphasize this with a formal question. You claim to be "debunking the 30 years of debunkers" so:
    IF04a: Using "Weber and Pizzella" show that they detected gravitational waves in 1987 with the equipment used and data taken in 1987.
    IF04b: List the papers that debunked the Weber bar results and show how those papers were wrong

    Repeating errors does not give us confidence in your ATM idea.
    "The Akimov paper in Nature, and the Kate Scholberg lecture at MITís Thursday Physics Colloquiem, put a new perspective on the data claimed by Guido Pizzella during supernova 1987a." is wrong.
    New analysis for the correlation between gravitational wave and neutrino detectors during SN1987A by Galeotti, P.; Pizzella, G. (2016).
    COHERENT Collaboration data release from the first observation of coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering by Akimov et. al. (2018).
    Citing Akimov and COHERENT is wrong because there is no Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering in Pizzella's paper which is about a correlation between supposed 1987 gravitational waves and actual bursts of neutrinos !
    Reality Check.
    Pizella's paper couldn't have included any reference to coherent scattering at any point up until it's confirmation at Oak Ridge by the COHERENT group. He had no knowledge of it. Nobody knew the cross-sections until AKIMOV and Scholberg published them and began visiting speaker sessions. That's why scientists read in their field, attend conferences, participate in multiple investigations, and stay in touch with colleagues at the cutting edge wherever they can.
    However, it most certainly does not rule out that coherent scattering could occur or was occurring during the hours presupernova 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,4,3,2,1...core collapse, as per the Patton, Lunardini, Farmer, and Timmes paper. Since Scholberg showed in her graphs that the coherent cross-section was roughly a million times the electron scattering cross-section...it was the dominant effect in any matter on or in the Earth as those preliminary signals @ ~ 2 times 10 50 neutrinos per second burst from the beta processes of the collapsing overburden intermittently showered the Earth's detectors. The fact that they showed at Mont Blanc , but not the others is clear indication that it was a low energy series as suggested by DeRujula, and was earmarked in the chart in the Patton et al paper in the Figure on the Mev range of those early emissions...most of them below 2 Mev. That's unseeable by the other neutrino detectors with high thresholds (although Kamiokande saw 2 events during the Mont Blanc detection..not much above background..but it set DeRujula to commenting).
    And although the COHERENT talk by Scholberg indicates on her slide on cross-sections that CsI is particularly high, they also charcterized germanium, sodium, and argon from other "Dark Matter" experiments, and plotted them. Plot of Z vs cross -section. Aluminum bars @ Rome and Maryland have not been charcterized yet, but aluminum should be above sodium, and less than argon. That makes it's expected cross section about 100 time less than cesium iodide.
    However expected events are a triumvirate of three things.....(.neutrino flux, including it's SPECTRAL ENERGY DISTRIBUTION) (Cross section) (Mass of the DETECTOR)
    The CsI detector for COHERENT was 14.5 kilograms. The mass of Weber's bar, ~ 1570 kg. So although the bar had a cross-section less than optimum compared to the COHERENT COLLABORATION by a factor of ~ 100....its' increased mass by more than a factor of 100..(108) compensates equally and means it can detect supernova out as far as the Large Magellanic Cloud as has been stated in the peer reviewed literature. Pizzella lucked out to some extent in that WEBER had designed a large mass lookin for a particular resonant frequency.....and that large mass of aluminum picked up the dominant effect from a prompt neutrino burst...coherent scattering, inducing a readable signal.
    The coincidences at Mont Blanc further secure the statistics of the argument. They all saw the final core collapse and prompt neutrino burst, and Pizzella and company saw in addition the early signals from the increasing temerature of the core during the last five hours. Peer reviewed. 5.5 sigma by Pizzella, 6.7 by Scholberg, Akimov et al, happy people in Kelly M. Patton, Cecelia Lunardini, Robert J. Farmer, and F.X. Timmes, whose work confirms the theoretical basis for the observations.
    pete
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Jul-05 at 04:26 PM. Reason: spacing

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,766
    Reality Check
    There is an additional axiom. If our sun , a G-2, is placed in an isotropic neutrino sea (as if by magic, and hand waving)..the isotropy is disturbed immediately. it begins interacting with impinging sea neutrinos. Although producing its own flux, it is a net absorber/interactor. That creates an anisotropic flux from its surface, which will occupy part of the celestial sphere, appearing in size inversely proportional to the square of its distance.
    But the sun rotates, about 2 km/sec at the solar equator. If a planet is in a Keplerian elliptical orbit, (say Mercury) it will approach the sun at perihelion, and recede to a maximum distance at aphelion. But, the rotation of the sun Doppler shifts the ambient neutrino sea. If ,as viewed from Mercury, the right limb is receding, it increases the SED of the neutrinos, while reducing them for the other side. That means that the asymmetry in the vector sum over all the interactions is larger on the right.
    THAT means the planet will accelerate just a tiny bit towards perihelion, pushing it out and to the left a tiny bit....predicting the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury in the direction of the Sun';s rotation. Other planets will do so too, but less so as their velocities are smaller. pete

  27. #117
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,387
    30 days
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

Posting Permissions

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