|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 07/24/2006 : 17:10:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There is now convincing evidence that atmospheric, solar, and reactor neutrinos change
from one flavor to another.
We've looked at the atmospheric evidence already. All that evidence actually demonstrates is that "scattering happens". Since neutrino electron scattering is one of the "methods" that is currently being used to detect all flavors of neutrinos, this observed phenomenon of scattering is hardly surprising. I certainly wouldn't call this "convincing" evidence since this kind of evidence cannot be used to rule out scattering or absorption. More importantly, scattering effects are already confirmed and documented by the very methods we use to detect neutrinos. Why invent a new phenomenon when we have two perfectly valid explanations for missing neutrinos without introducing unproven assertions of oscillations that violate lepton conservation principles.
As you might imagine the solar evidence is anything *other than* convincing evidence from my perspective. In fact the neutrino evidence is absolutely and positively damning evidence *against* the gas solar model theory as far as I'm concerned. Strike two.
Let's see what's left on this list of "convincing" evidence from tests with nuclear reactors:
quote:
The LMA-MSW interpretation of solar neutrino behavior implies that a substantial
fraction of reactor e that travel more than a hundred kilometers should disappear into
anti-neutrinos of other flavors. The KamLAND experiment, which studies reactor e
that typically travel 180 km to reach the detector, nds that, indeed, the e flux
at the detector is only 0:658 0:044 (stat) 0:047 (syst) of what it would be if no e
were vanishing [25].
So again "scattering" cannot be ruled out in this experiment either since all we know is some neutrinos somehow "vanished". No neutrinos were directly detected as changing into a different flavor of neutrino. "Missing" neutrinos were simply "assumed" to be equated to "oscillated" neutrinos, when no other nuetrino type was actually detected. Scattering and absorption would explain this as well. Strike three.
So what we have here amounts to pure faith in gas model solar theory. That is afterall, a huge part of the case for intrepreteing "vanishing" neutrinos as "oscillated" neutrinos rather than scattered neutrinos. Scattering and absorption can also explain these "missing" neutrinos more easily than introducing unproven theories about oscillating particles that defy lepton conservation principles of particle physics. When do we get to apply an Occum's razor arguement to this issue anyway?
I don't know Dave. If this is the best "evidence" you can come up with, you should at least acknoweldge the *if* aspect of the author's statements, otherwise you do the paper a huge injustice. |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2006 : 17:55:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So? It's very unusual according to the standard model of particle physics. The experiments failed to match the predictions, Michael.
Which prediction? You mean predictions about scattering before we knew neutrinos has mass?
Let's talk about some predictions here Dave.
Who predicted that no scattering should occur during the whole journey through the mass of an entire planet? Who thought that was a rational prediction in the first place, especially knowing that neutrinos have mass? That wasn't even a logical premise in the first place since there is already evidence of "scattering". That's not even a logical "prediction" based on what we know of QM and particle physics in general. Now that we know they have mass, potentially different masses in fact, scattering is certainly a "significant" issue. To then begin with the premise that the neutrino counts away from the sun should match the nuetrino counts on the other was simply unrealistic in the first place, and ignored the likelihood of scattering to begin with.
quote:
Later in the same paragraph:All of the voluminous, detailed SK atmospheric neutrino data are very well described by the hypothesis that the oscillation is purely [muon neutrino -> tau neutrino], and that it is a quasi-two-neutrino oscillation with... and he goes onto describe the physical constraints.
So? First you need *evidence* to rule out the other more mundain options like absorption and scattering. These things are *far* better understood and recognized as possible factors in particle interactions. There is no need here to introduce a completely new and utterly unnecessary concept or flavor changing particle in order to explain this data.
quote:
Only if you can explain just where the standard model of particle physics went wrong, since it predicts much lower scattering rates than are "observed,"
That's quite easy. We now know that neutrinos actually have mass. Those orignal predictions were based on massless particles. Particle physics allowed for the possibility that neutrinos actually have mass, but the original scattering guestimates were based on presumably massless particles. There's no great mystery as to why the scattering estimates of massless neutrinos were wrong.
quote:
and scattering still fails to explain why the three counts of solar neutrinos adds up to the total flux predicted by the solar models. Sheer coincidence?
Yes.
This is really the whole argument for nuetrinos in a nutshell. Specifically these people put their faith in gas model solar theory. If we assume these "vanishing" particles are absorbed or scattered, then gas model theory bites the dust, and we can't have that. It disrupts too many funding channels for one thing.
quote:
Again, the truly relevant part of my prior post was in asking you about what process you went through to "rule in" the possibility of scattering at all.
Maybe because we observe that very process in neutrino electron scattering types of detectors? We already know that scattering happens based on the kinds of equipment we build to detect neutrinos.
quote:
But I hope that later in the week you don't forget about my requests for your retractions of various claims, and I'm still waiting for your explanation of why blackbody principles should apply to a non-blackbody like the Sun's corona.
First you're going to have to demonstrate your claims Dave. If your claims are as easily criticized as the claims of neutrino oscillation, don't expect any retractions anytime soon.
Blackbody principles have no business being applied to light plasma in the first place IMO, so I'm certainly not going to try to treat *any* of the light solar plasmas as though they are a "blackbody". For goodness sake, I can hardly think of anything *less* likely to act like a black body than aerogel thin plasma that is supposedly predominatly hydrogen in composition. It's not even rational to apply that idea to the photosphere IMO, but you're doing it anyway and treating it as 'gospel' when all it is a *rough* approximation at best case.
You keep skirting the issue here by creating strawmen Dave. You've not demonstrated that the plasma of the photosphere are anywhere near dense enough to be act like a blackbody, nor have you demontrated that this plasma is "opaque". You've not demonstrated anything that you've "assumed" to make the math "simple" enough to quantify using blackbody physics. I'm starting to realize just how dangerous and constraining it is to have math majors trying to "interpret" everything they observe with their calculator in hand. If the system in question isn't simple enough to quantify mathematically, they'll latch onto a mathematical oversimplification that "seems to work" instead. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2006 : 19:53:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Maybe because we observe that very process in neutrino electron scattering types of detectors? We already know that scattering happens based on the kinds of equipment we build to detect neutrinos.
Oh, good grief. This is going to be another "differential solar rotation" discussion, because you've got an understanding of "neutrino electron scattering" which doesn't match what the physicists actually mean by that term. The detectors are simple, Michael: a neutrino that bashes into an electron can impart momentum to the electron, and it is the electron scattering which is measured (the direction the electron moves tells us the general direction in which the neutrino was moving). Do neutrinos scatter? Yes. Does a neutrino electron scattering detector measure how much neutrinos scatter? No. Despite billions of neutrinos passing through even the largest detectors every second, Michael, those detectors typically detect fewer than 100 interactions per day. The design of the detectors doesn't invalidate the standard model's prediction that only a single neutrino out of 100 billion interacts with matter in the entire planet Earth. Even when it was thought that neutrinos were massless, these detectors functioned just fine, on the exact same principles. They detect neutrinos, Michael, they don't measure how much or how often neutrinos scatter.
In other words, you've got another claim for which evidence must be provided: show that neutrino electron scattering detectors measure what you think they measure.quote:
quote:
But I hope that later in the week you don't forget about my requests for your retractions of various claims, and I'm still waiting for your explanation of why blackbody principles should apply to a non-blackbody like the Sun's corona.
First you're going to have to demonstrate your claims Dave. If your claims are as easily criticized as the claims of neutrino oscillation, don't expect any retractions anytime soon.
ARGH!! I already demonstrated that Kosovichev didn't even hint that his density measurements were "relative" to the photosphere, Michael. That's your claim to prove or retract, and you've utterly failed to do either.
Second, I already provided the evidence that shows, without a doubt, that you did not "shame" me for several posts before I "grudgingly" admitted I was wrong about the inflaton field. Again: it's your claim to either prove or retract, and you've failed to do either one.quote:
Blackbody principles have no business being applied to light plasma in the first place IMO, so I'm certainly not going to try to treat *any* of the light solar plasmas as though they are a "blackbody". For goodness sake, I can hardly think of anything *less* likely to act like a black body than aerogel thin plasma that is supposedly predominatly hydrogen in composition.
Now you're trying to rewrite your own history again, Michael, since both here and on the BAUT forums, you had a discussion which went sorta like this:Michael: Lockheed is wrong about the corona being hotter than the loops, because when you apply blackbody calculations you'll find that...
Others: Wait a minute! You can't apply blackbody calculations to something that's not a blackbody, like the Sun's corona.
Michael: Yes I can, since everything obeys the laws of physics, and the blackbody principles are laws of physics.
Others: No, blackbody physics only apply to certain kinds of matter, not everything.
Michael: Yes, they apply to everything, because...
Etcetera But now you're claiming you'd never ever think of doing what you've already done? How the heck is one supposed to discuss anything with you, Michael, if you're just going to deny what you've previously said and done?quote:
It's not even rational to apply that idea to the photosphere IMO, but you're doing it anyway and treating it as 'gospel' when all it is a *rough* approximation at best case.
What utter nonsense. I just got done explaining that doing a blackbody calculation on the bulk Sun gives a rough approximation of its "surface" temperature, and that example is used when teaching blackbody physics, not solar physics. It's nothing like "gospel," Michael, and it's downright insulting to be told that I am claiming the polar opposite of what I'm actually claiming.quote:
You keep skirting the issue here by creating strawmen Dave. You've not demonstrated that the plasma of the photosphere are anywhere near dense enough to be act like a blackbody, nor have you demontrated that this plasma is "opaque". You've not demonstrated anything that you've "assumed" to make the math "simple" enough to quantify using blackbody physics.
You are the one who brought blackbody physics into this discussion, Michael, and you did it by doing a blackbody calculation on the Sun's corona. Nice try at switching the burden over to me for your mistakes, but it's not going to work, and I've got the threads here and over at BAUT to prove my innocence.quote:
I'm starting to realize just how dangerous and constraining it is to have math majors trying to "interpret" everything they observe with their calculator in hand. If the system in question isn't simple enough to quantify mathematically, they'll latch onto a mathematical oversimplification that "seems to work" instead.
What "math majors" would you be talking about, Michael? The physicists who put all these equations together to create a model of the Sun's gross characteristics?
Oh, and it's still the case, Michael, that if you can show that any solar model actually uses blackbody calculations as a part of its temperature modelling, then you'll be correct about your earlier claim that blackbody principles are used to determine the Sun's temperature. Until you can provide such evidence, your claim is worthless, and thus your criticisms of the solar models you make which are based upon that premise are wholly invalid. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2006 : 23:05:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, good grief. This is going to be another "differential solar rotation" discussion, because you've got an understanding of "neutrino electron scattering" which doesn't match what the physicists actually mean by that term.
Do you have to begin *every* post with an insult?
quote:
The detectors are simple, Michael: a neutrino that bashes into an electron can impart momentum to the electron, and it is the electron scattering which is measured (the direction the electron moves tells us the general direction in which the neutrino was moving). Do neutrinos scatter? Yes. Does a neutrino electron scattering detector measure how much neutrinos scatter? No. Despite billions of neutrinos passing through even the largest detectors every second, Michael, those detectors typically detect fewer than 100 interactions per day. The design of the detectors doesn't invalidate the standard model's prediction that only a single neutrino out of 100 billion interacts with matter in the entire planet Earth. Even when it was thought that neutrinos were massless, these detectors functioned just fine, on the exact same principles. They detect neutrinos, Michael, they don't measure how much or how often neutrinos scatter.
Well Dave, consider what you just said. These detector demonstrate that "scattering happens". You said it yourself that they don't tell us *how much* scattering is happening, they simply tell us it occurs, and it is known to occur. In other words we should *expect* to see it, we should not be surprised by the fact that scattering occurs as the nueutrinos pass through earth, expecially now that we know they have mass and can interact with other particles of mass.
quote:
In other words, you've got another claim for which evidence must be provided: show that neutrino electron scattering detectors measure what you think they measure.
What a blatent and irrational double standard! Why do I have to demonstrate that scattering happens when we all know it must happen in order for these detectors to even function? Scattering is a given Dave, and as you said we can't tell how much occurs. How much interaction will occur remains unknown since we don't even know what the masses of the various neutrinos might be. Tau nutrinos could be *significantly higher energy states than the limits set on electron neutrinos. I'm not introducing any unevidenced meta-particles that violate lepton conservation laws here Dave. You're trying to do that. The burden of proof then is on you to explain why no allowances for scattering were even considered in these so called "convincing" arguements.
You however wish to turn logic and science on it's head by making me demonstrate that scattering occurs when we already know for a fact that it occurs and we don't know for sure how much scattering should occur in particles who's mass remains unknown! Rather than allow for these ambiguities in scattering explanations, you *insist* that a lepton violating particle is somehow "right", and I must prove it wrong. Talk about turning logic on it's head Dave. Honestly, that was a new low IMO.
quote:
ARGH!! I already demonstrated that Kosovichev didn't even hint that his density measurements were "relative" to the photosphere, Michael. That's your claim to prove or retract, and you've utterly failed to do either.
I never said that Kosovichev *thought* his density measurements were necessarily relative to the photosphere Dave. You slipped that requirement in on your own. Let me ask you this much, without going too far off on a tangent. What "pressure" on the surface of the photosphere can we expect to see from the corona and chromosphere above it?
quote:
Second, I already provided the evidence that shows, without a doubt, that you did not "shame" me for several posts before I "grudgingly" admitted I was wrong about the inflaton field. Again: it's your claim to either prove or retract, and you've failed to do either one.
Fine, I'll retract that one. I had to beat you over the head over the issue that particles were invovled, but once the Wiki reference was posted, you did in fact come clean.
quote:
quote:
Blackbody principles have no business being applied to light plasma in the first place IMO, so I'm certainly not going to try to treat *any* of the light solar plasmas as though they are a "blackbody". For goodness sake, I can hardly think of anything *less* likely to act like a black body than aerogel thin plasma that is supposedly predominatly hydrogen in composition.
Now you're trying to rewrite your own history again, Michael, since both here and on the BAUT forums, you had a discussion which went sorta like this:
Ya Dave, which is exactly why I meantioned *here* that my "math" was not definitive, and that my approach was too limited. Evidently you'd like to rewrite that part of history too. I see now that blackbody principles are nothing more than a blatent attempt to oversimplify two different aspects of solar theory, including total energy output calculations and sunspot activity. From now on, I'll treat the whole concept of "blackbody" as it relates to the photosphere about the same as I treat "opaque". It's all one big myth, just like inflaton fields. The concepts of "opaque" and "blackbody" don't apply to light plasma. I make a habit out of never making the same mistake twice Dave.
quote:
....Etcetera[/bq]But now you're claiming you'd never ever think of doing what you've already done? How the heck is one supposed to discuss anything with you, Michael, if you're just going to deny what you've previously said and done?
When did I deny any of my discussions at the bautforum Dave? I admitted here to you directly that my approach in that thread was *far* too limited. I should have asked if Lockheed Martin understood the laws of physics, and particularly the concepts of scattering. Frankly now I'd have to say their main problem with satellite image analysis is the fact they ignore the potential of Thomson scattering in plasma. Hindsight in 20/20 however and I can't change history Dave. I've never tried to den |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/24/2006 23:07:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 08:49:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Do you have to begin *every* post with an insult?
I apologize, Michael, I forgot that you find it insulting when I talk about how your understanding of things doesn't match the physicists' understanding of things.quote:
Well Dave, consider what you just said. These detector demonstrate that "scattering happens". You said it yourself that they don't tell us *how much* scattering is happening, they simply tell us it occurs, and it is known to occur. In other words we should *expect* to see it, we should not be surprised by the fact that scattering occurs as the nueutrinos pass through earth, expecially now that we know they have mass and can interact with other particles of mass.
Consider what you're asking me to believe, Michael. These detectors were designed on the premise that neutrinos have zero mass, and that neutrinos would interact with the detectors (scatter) less than 0.00000001% of the time. The predicted interaction rate has not changed at all due to our knowledge that neutrinos have mass. But you're asking me to believe that such a low rate of interaction can explain a 17% day/night difference in solar neutrino counts, or a 30% difference between upward- and downward-moving atmospheric neutrino counts.quote:
quote:
In other words, you've got another claim for which evidence must be provided: show that neutrino electron scattering detectors measure what you think they measure.
What a blatent and irrational double standard! Why do I have to demonstrate that scattering happens when we all know it must happen in order for these detectors to even function?
I'm not asking you to demonstrate that, I'm asking you to demonstrate that the standard model of neutrinos is utterly wrong when it says that only one neutrino out of every 100 billion will be "scattered" by the entire planet Earth, and that figure should be about 10 billion times larger.quote:
Scattering is a given Dave, and as you said we can't tell how much occurs.
I never said any such thing, I said that neutrino electron scattering detectors do not measure the amount of scattering. If neutrinos scattered at vastly higher rates than their model predicts, the detectors would be swamped with events - but they're not.quote:
How much interaction will occur remains unknown since we don't even know what the masses of the various neutrinos might be.
Scientists already have 90% convidence levels on all neutrino masses.quote:
Tau nutrinos could be *significantly higher energy states than the limits set on electron neutrinos.
So what does that mean for your argument about scattering?quote:
I'm not introducing any unevidenced meta-particles that violate lepton conservation laws here Dave. You're trying to do that.
What meta-particles? No new particles have been introduced to the standard model in order to explain neutrino flavor changing. A new particle has been predicted based upon the changes that have already been made, the so-called "sterile" neutrino.quote:
The burden of proof then is on you to explain why no allowances for scattering were even considered in these so called "convincing" arguements.
Why should I have to explain a complete fiction that you've just made up?quote:
You however wish to turn logic and science on it's head by making me demonstrate that scattering occurs when we already know for a fact that it occurs and we don't know for sure how much scattering should occur in particles who's mass remains unknown!
No, you're just making up more stuff.quote:
Rather than allow for these ambiguities in scattering explanations, you *insist* that a lepton violating particle is somehow "right", and I must prove it wrong. Talk about turning logic on it's head Dave. Honestly, that was a new low IMO.
And yet, it's not a new low for you, since inventing such wacky strawmen in order to avoid providing evidence for your claims is your standard behaviour. You still need to show that neutrino scattering can account for a double-digit percentage difference in neutrino counts when the Earth is in their path. According to the current particle models, that is nowhere close to having even a hint of plausibility.quote:
quote:
ARGH!! I already demonstrated that Kosovichev didn't even hint that his density measurements were "relative" to the photosphere, Michael. That's your claim to prove or retract, and you've utterly failed to do either.
I never said that Kosovichev *thought* his density measurements were necessarily relative to the photosphere Dave. You slipped that requirement in on your own.
So when you said this...Kosovichev's work is completely "relative" to whatever "density" we assign to the surface of the photosphere.
- Matter and the Big Bang, page 6 ...it was somehow me who "slipped that requirement in?" Good grief, Michael, you say these things, and then you deny saying them, and then you blame me for what you said in the first place. How is that at all rational behaviour?quote:
Let me ask you this much, without going too |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 11:03:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Consider what you're asking me to believe, Michael. These detectors were designed on the premise that neutrinos have zero mass, and that neutrinos would interact with the detectors (scatter) less than 0.00000001% of the time.
But we already know that one of the primary premises regarding neutrinos was wrong. The neutrinos *do* have mass. The fact these scattering numbers were never adjusted after this discovery says volumes about the nature of the problem.
quote:
The predicted interaction rate has not changed at all due to our knowledge that neutrinos have mass.
Ya. You don't find that somewhat "suspect"? We change one of the variables in a major way, but nothing related to scattering is adjusted?
quote:
But you're asking me to believe that such a low rate of interaction can explain a 17% day/night difference in solar neutrino counts, or a 30% difference between upward- and downward-moving atmospheric neutrino counts.
No, I'm asking you to believe that the scattering rate, particularly in the earths dense core, is considerably higher than first theorized.
quote:
I'm not asking you to demonstrate that, I'm asking you to demonstrate that the standard model of neutrinos is utterly wrong when it says that only one neutrino out of every 100 billion will be "scattered" by the entire planet Earth, and that figure should be about 10 billion times larger.
Dave, I could use two of the same three pieces of evidence you're trying to use to demonstrate "oscillation" to support the notion of higher scattering rates. The "vanishing" nuetrinos must be explained in some way. Now that we know these babies have mass, unlike what we thought when we made these early predictions of scattering rates, then clearly it's time to recalculate the scattering rates based on these new observations. Of course that would probably screw up the notion that you can add all three types of neutrinos to come up with a number that seems to fit gas model theory, but "oh well".
quote:
I never said any such thing, I said that neutrino electron scattering detectors do not measure the amount of scattering. If neutrinos scattered at vastly higher rates than their model predicts, the detectors would be swamped with events - but they're not.
They would only be "swamped" with events if you're somehow trying to imply that the scattering rates of all neutrinos is somehow "constant" through the earth, is the same for every type of neutrino, and you make no allowances for more dense material in the core to create a greater scattering rates than lighter materials.
quote:
Scientists already have 90% convidence levels on all neutrino masses.
They probably have a 95% plus confidence in gas model theories too Dave. So what? These confidence levels are all based on the "belief" that neutrinos oscillate and therefore the masses of the verious eigenstates have to be relatively "close".
quote:
So what does that mean for your argument about scattering?
It means that muon, tau and electron neutrinos could all have different scattering rates.
quote:
What meta-particles? No new particles have been introduced to the standard model in order to explain neutrino flavor changing.
No, what you did is create a franken-particle out of what was once thought to be, and still could be, three unique particles. Instead of envisioning them as three different lepton particles as was first suggested, you're attempting to combine them all into a "single", three mass eigenstate, oscillating, lepton violating, super particle. You've given us no valid scientific reason to believe that's a valid choice to begin with, or that there are not three unique paricles involved as was first believed.
quote:
A new particle has been predicted based upon the changes that have already been made, the so-called "sterile" neutrino.
According to the article you cited, they don't even seem to be sure that there is such a thing as a "sterile" flavor of neutrino.
quote:
quote:
The burden of proof then is on you to explain why no allowances for scattering were even considered in these so called "convincing" arguements.
Why should I have to explain a complete fiction that you've just made up?
Let me refrase that for you then. The burden of proof is on you to explain why you choose to believe that our previous scattering estimates should not be adjusted based on the new knowledge that neutrinos have mass, and there are "missing neutrinos". You'll need you to explain why you choose "oscillation" over "scattering" to explain these "vanishing" neutrinos that have never been "measured" to actually "change" at all.
quote:
You still need to show that neutrino scattering can account for a double-digit percentage difference in neutrino counts when the Earth is in their path.
The very same evidence you used to support oscillation could just as easily be applied to the scattering numbers Dave. We *observe* that neutrinos are "missing" after passing through the earth. How we choose to "interpret" these missing neutrinos is the whole issue. You choose to "interpret" these "missing" neutrinos as oscillations rather than scattering incidents, but my explanation doesn't violate any particle physics rules, whereas your explaination does violate lepton conservation principles of particle physics.
quote:
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/25/2006 11:43:36 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
