|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2006 : 14:05:49
|
[This is a continuation of Surface of the Sun, Part 8]quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The fact these scattering numbers were never adjusted after this discovery says volumes about the nature of the problem.
Why should they be "adjusted" if measurements say that they shouldn't be adjusted?
Michael, neutrino detectors are calibrated by shooting neutrinos at them from close range, and counting the number of those close neutrinos are detected. The ratio is much smaller than one detection for every 100 billion neutrinos. Neutrino detectors don't "miss" the rest of them because they're "scattered" before they reach the detector, they're "missed" because the neutrinos zip right through the detector without interacting with any of the matter inside.
If the rate of interactions (the "scattering and/or absorbtion" rate) were higher, then there would be many more detections during calibration than would be expected. This doesn't happen. So, the researchers working on these detectors already know that for every however-many trillions of neutrinos which go through the detector, they will see so-many tens of events.
So, the "scattering rate" inside the detectors is known and measured. It hasn't changed by a significant amount in decades, but the researchers keep on measuring it because they need to know that the detectors are working properly.
Changing our minds about whether neutrinos have mass or not will not - and cannot - affect those observations. Since the observations haven't changed, then there is nothing to "adjust" regarding the scattering rates.quote:
No, I'm asking you to believe that the scattering rate, particularly in the earths dense core, is considerably higher than first theorized.
Why is it that you don't think that the density of the Earth has been taken into account?quote:
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.
No, Michael, if the rate of scattering inside the Earth is 10 billion times higher than previously measured, and that is fooling everyone into thinking that the "missing" neutrinos are changing flavor, then the scattering rate inside a detector ought to also be 10 billion times higher, unless you wish to claim that all of the neutrino scientists are morons who never thought of factoring Earth's varying density into their calculations. The observed scattering of neutrinos tells us that day/night differences in a single neutrino flavor should match to within one part in 100 billion. The measured differences are ten billion times higher than that.quote:
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...
You've only got half the picture there. Reactor, solar and atmospheric studies show the correct total flux if all three flavors are measured. Scattering cannot explain that, unless all of the experiments done coincidentally had the right number of differently-flavored neutrinos going through the detectors in the correct direction. You've already shown your willingness to base an argument upon one coincidence, but are you willing to base an argument of many coincidences?quote:
...but my explanation doesn't violate any particle physics rules, whereas your explaination does violate lepton conservation principles of particle physics.
Yes, your explanation violates the predictions and denies the observations of neutrino scattering, Michael, and it relies upon pure coincidence to explain other observations that you'd prefer to be swept under the rug.quote:
But Dave, I never claimed that Kosovichev would agree to my comment, or that Kosovichev stated this in his paper.
You just stated it as fact. Here it is again:Kosovichev's work is completely "relative" to whatever "density" we assign to the surface of the photosphere. I asked you to support that statement of fact, and you refused. I presented evidence that it wasn't a fact, and you questioned me about that evidence as if you were going to make some point or other, but after a while, you just stopped responding. Now, after asking for the dozenth time, you finally claim that you didn't intend it to be considered a fact. Do you really wonder why I get impatient, Michael?quote:
You're ignoring the whole history here of heliosiesmology and how the S models and various density layering schemes came to exist.
Why don't you explain it to me, since I don't see how it is relevant to the question of whether or not your claim was intended to be a fact.quote:
I really wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth Dave.
How else was I to interpret this:Kosovichev's work is completely "relative" to whatever "density" we assign to the surface of the photosphere. It's a statement of fact, Michael, made by you. If my interpretation was wrong, why didn't you say so a dozen posts ago? Why is it only now that you complain that I'm putting words in your mouth (while you're doing the same thing to me, constantly).quote:
Because the photosphere has some other layers sitting on top of it Dave. It's not the last layer in the solar atmosphere, and the other materials will press down on this layer creating a density in the first foot or so that isn't based *soley* on the density of the material in the photosphere but would be dependent upon the density and pressures exerted by the material in the upper layers.
And? Are you claiming that the standard solar model fails to take these processes into account?quote:
I asked you how we calculate the temperature of various other stars in the universe (besides our own) and you skipped my question entirely!
No I didn't, Michael, I asked you a question in return to try to figure out what your point was, since getting rough temperature measurements of other stars using blackbody principles (if that's what astronomers are doing these days, I sorta doubt it) has nothing to do with whether or not blackbody calculations are included in the solar model equations as you have claimed.quote:
Care to explain why a sunspot is relatively dark in comparison to the rest of the photosphere without mentioning a word about black body principles?
Sure! Sunspots are darker because they are cooler. That has nothing to do with blackbody principles, since blackbody principles do not say "brighter equals hotter."quote:
quote:
If you want to make more "rules" up without presenting evidence, that's fine. It doesn't do anything to improve this discussion, however.
I've just come to realize over the last year just how many oversimplifications are used to justify gas model solar theory, and how these oversimplification are driven by the strong need to mathematically model every astronomical phenomenon we witness. I'm also accutely aware now how lacking the whole industry is in terms of knowledge of electricity and plasma physics. If I read one more paper about "frozen magnetic fields" in light plasma, I'm going to scream. Dispite Alfven's warnings, astronomers still don't begin to understand the plasma physics principles that Alfven was trying to convey in his work. The indusutry oversimplified all of his work too. These gross oversimplification are typically driven by the need to model everything in mathematical terms.
Completely unresponsive to my point.quote:
I was not *wrong* about the fact that coronal loops are hotter than the darker areas of the corona Dave.
You've never demonstrated yourself to be correct, either.quote:
I was not wrong about the nature of coronal loops and their temperatures.
Ditto.quote:
I was not wrong about infaton being based on metaphyisics.
No, you weren't even wrong about that, since inflationary theory is based on observations, and you refuse to even acknowledge the point that at one time, there was no such thing as a neutrino (for example) in the models of elementary particles.quote:
I do not agree with you that I continually make mistakes about these theories. I didn't make a mistake about infaton particles, you did that Dave. Everyone makes mistakes. I simply try to learn from my mistakes and I try not to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. That's all I said. Your rebuttal was pointless and it had nothing to do with my original comment.
But Michael, you are still making mistakes about the standard solar model (claiming it contains blackbody calculations); you are still making mistakes about neutrino theory (claiming that scattering can explain "missing" neutrinos); you continued to make mistakes about "Big Slam" theory (claiming that constant acceleration can explain redshift), and you continued to make mistakes about Big Bang theory (claiming that it is "based on" inflationary theory). You've never even tried to correct most of the mistakes you've made in these threads, and you even defend your mistakes by (for example) refusing to propose any testable mechanism whereby "acceleration" can cause us to make errors in our measurements of density, while insisting that such a thing needs to be considered.quote:
quote:
The ironic thing is that Thompson scattering tells us that the photosphere is opaque.
That is because this theory of Thomson scattering takes no account of wavelengths or the actual materials present Dave.
"Actual materials?" What are you talking about? ThomPson scattering involves photons and free electrons, so what more needs to be known about the materials? And as the link I provided shows, whether the scattering happens or not depends upon the classical electron radius and the free electron density, so the wavelength of the light is irrelevant. Are you now claiming that yet another mainstay of physics is wrong, despite all the experimentation that shows it's correct?quote:
It has a useful purpose in demonstrating that darker plasmas can emit photons that have been scattered from light that originated in coronal loops.
Actually, it will also show that coronal loops will scatter light from other sources, too. You're being too selective in your application of it.quote:
It's not nearly as useful in demonstrating that one wavelength is completely blocked by an unknown material. It too is an "oversimplification" of what is occuring at the particle physics level Dave. Scattering happens, but it doesn't always obey nice tidy math formulas at every wavelength of photon traving through every type of material. How ironic however that you skipped the main point I was making about the need to include scattering effects in solar satellite image interpretation.
You went on and on about scattering, but refused to ever quantify how much scattering is occuring, so your argument was impossible to test, much less verify.quote:
Lockheed never once seemed to even consider the concept, and then they insist that the entire corona is millions of degree hot, and somehow "heat" the coronal loops. That is an utterly absurd theory based on the images from Yohkoh, SOHO and Trace. It's very clear in all those high energy satellite images that the coronal loops are always brighter than the surrounding material. Period!
Brighter still doesn't equal hotter, Michael, no matter how much you want that to be true.quote:
I tried a scattering arguement with you earlier and you never commited to any position on the matter Dave. First you agreed with me about the heat signatures, then with Lockheed. I have no idea where you stand now. You can be quite evasive when you wish to be, and on this subject it's clear you don't wish to commit publically to a specific position. As I demonstrated for you with that overlay image I created for you, the loops are more brightly lit in *both* the 171A *and* the 195A images than the rest of the background. Scattering effects through plasma will cause the light from these loops to disperse and scatter throughout the plasma. The photons however originate in the coronal loops, therefore observing some few photons from the plasma atmosphere does not indicate this plasma is in the millions of degrees. Howwever, the most brighly lit regions *do* indicate plasma that is measured in the millions of degrees because *these* are the areas where the light is actually being emitted.
And you were never able to teach me your method of determining which pixels are lit up by direct light from an "arc," and which are lit up by scattered light, and which by reflected light, and which by some combination of the three (and what that combination was). So, being unable to read your mind, I gave up ever hoping that I'd be able to get your special insights into the satellite images which has led you to the conclusions it has.quote:
quote:
And yet, you refuse to identify the "math formula" in which these alleged oversimplifications appear in any solar model.
How can I possibly identify the math formula that Lockheed used to compute heat signatures since you never even provided us with one, nor did Lockheed provide the math they used? It's tough to simply "guess" at what the hell they might have done. I'd need to see the math to know what's wrong with it and to see if it included any sense of scattering in the their method. Since you didn't provide any math, I can't begin to critique it.
Nice try at switching the subject, but you said that blackbody principles are used in the standard solar models, and so those models are therefore imprecise "oversimplified" approximations at best. You said nothing about Lockheed or the corona in response to my earlier questions to you about where in the standard solar model the blackbody calculations exist. Now you claim you can't answer my question because of Lockheed's failure to disclose some equations unrelated to the standard solar model?quote:
Ya, but Dave, that formula is also an *oversimplification* in the final analysis.
An oversimplification of what, precisely?quote:
In the real world the materials involved and the wavelengths that are propogating through the materials will make a difference.
Demonstrate that statement of fact, Michael. Show us that the materials in which one might find free electrons will make a difference in how much Thompson scattering occurs, and then show us how the wavelength of the incident light will make a difference as to whether or not a photon is scattered.quote:
Your calculations including nothing specific about the material involved or the wavelengths invovled. At best it's an "appoximation" that "usually" works for "most" wavelengths. It does happen to work with X-rays by the way, but not *always*. It depends on the volume of photons.
No, Michael, the average distance a photon will get before being absorbed depends upon the density of free electrons and the radius of those electrons.quote:
quote:
Please do so.
I've actually been throught that with you here Dave, remember?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/project/dave.jpg
If you recall, I simply added the two images together so we can see where *both* of the wavelengths are "brightest". You keep ingoring this image Dave. What can I say?
What can I say, Michael? Your adding two images together still doesn't appear to have anything to do with Thompson scattering or a "proof" that Lockheed is wrong. You never provided any evidence that adding images together is a valid method for determining peak temperatures.quote:
You've never demonstrated that the light plasma of the photosphere actually *does* act like a blackbody. You've only alledged this statement Dave.
No, I've never even made such a statement, Michael. On the other hand, you have done the calculations yourself which show that the bulk Sun is fairly close to being a blackbody.quote:
You've given me no *observational evidence* to actually support that statement.
Why would you expect me to give you evidence to support a fiction of your own creation, Michael? That's twice now in two posts.quote:
quote:
Why in the world did the solar physicists let the physics 101 professors mess around with their models?
Evidently there is a strong need to mathematically quantify everything into nice formulas. I assume that's why it's done.
I wonder what sort of low opinion you've got of Newton and Einstein, now, since they evidently also had "a strong need to mathematically quantify everything into nice formulas," along with every other physicist you might care to name.quote:
Then tell me we don't use black body ideas in solar physics.
Goalpost shifting, Michael: your claim was that the blackbody principles are used "as gospel" in the standard solar model, but you're now trying to prove a point which will take a much lower burden of proof. But, it's still your burden to prove it, and so my answering your questions is actually quite irrelevant to whether your claims are true.
|
- 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 : 17:30:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why should they be "adjusted" if measurements say that they shouldn't be adjusted?
Because the measurements of neutrino hits on the far side of the earth say that these numbers *should* be adjusted.
quote:
Michael, neutrino detectors are calibrated by shooting neutrinos at them from close range, and counting the number of those close neutrinos are detected. The ratio is much smaller than one detection for every 100 billion neutrinos.
That's great Dave, but how about calibrating this scattering through some other materials, from a greater distance and through some materials that are not homogenous like a planet? How was that "long distance" scattering effect calibrated through various materials?
quote:
Neutrino detectors don't "miss" the rest of them because they're "scattered" before they reach the detector, they're "missed" because the neutrinos zip right through the detector without interacting with any of the matter inside.
So now we know they "zip" right through the material in the detector. How about a lot of different materials, like a whole planet? How did you calibrate for that?
quote:
If the rate of interactions (the "scattering and/or absorbtion" rate) were higher, then there would be many more detections during calibration than would be expected. This doesn't happen. So, the researchers working on these detectors already know that for every however-many trillions of neutrinos which go through the detector, they will see so-many tens of events. So, the "scattering rate" inside the detectors is known and measured. It hasn't changed by a significant amount in decades, but the researchers keep on measuring it because they need to know that the detectors are working properly.
That's fine for establishing the scattering rate for *that* receiver and that material, and under *those* specific distances and through those specific materials. How about calibrating over longer distances and non homogenous materials now? How did they calibrate for that?
quote:
Changing our minds about whether neutrinos have mass or not will not - and cannot - affect those observations.
How do you know that? How do you know what the presense of mass is going to do to the way these paricles traverse something as dense as a planetary core?
quote:
Since the observations haven't changed, then there is nothing to "adjust" regarding the scattering rates.
But the observation on the other side of the sun *did* change Dave. They do change, and they change consistently. What direct observation allowed them to calibrate the scattering through something as complex as an entire planet?
quote:
Why is it that you don't think that the density of the Earth has been taken into account?
Whether they were taken into account in some over simpiified math formula or not, there is no experiement that I've seen that allowed them to cross check their mathematical representations against a *variety* of real life observations. In fact when their observations didn't match predictions, there was no effort made at all to calibrate their results based on these scattering results through non homogeneous materials. What makes you think that the scattering rate is going to be the same through every type of material and circumstance?
quote:
No, Michael, if the rate of scattering inside the Earth is 10 billion times higher than previously measured, and that is fooling everyone into thinking that the "missing" neutrinos are changing flavor, then the scattering rate inside a detector ought to also be 10 billion times higher, unless you wish to claim that all of the neutrino scientists are morons who never thought of factoring Earth's varying density into their calculations.
This is how you "cheat" in our conversations. You use loaded language like ""unless you wish to claim that all the neturino scientists are morons....". Then you wonder why I get frustrated with you.
Whether they compensated for density in some math calculation is not evidence that their mathematical calculations accurately represent reality unless you check their preditions through a variety of materials in some "real life" situations. I see no evidence that any of that was ever done Dave. Instead, they took the expected rate, check that rate at about sea level from a short distance through a limited set of materials and then attempted to apply it to *all* materials under *real life* situations without ever *checking* their work when going through something as complicated as a planet to see if their math actually worked out. Instead they seem to have *assumed* that these mathematical models would work, and when they didn't work right, they simply *leaped* to the conclusion that their math related to scattering was right, but oscillation was to blame. That's what I think happened Dave. It has nothing to do with intelligence, simply some questionable *assumptions* that were never checked out.
quote:
You've only got half the picture there. Reactor, solar and atmospheric studies show the correct total flux if all three flavors are measured.
Through what kind of materials? Under what specific conditions? How about a wider variety of conditions and materials?
quote:
Scattering cannot explain that, unless all of the experiments done coincidentally had the right number of differently-flavored neutrinos going through the detectors in the correct direction.
You are *drastically* oversimplifying again here Dave. The detectors are pretty much made of the same kinds of materials, and there has been only a very limited amount of "calibration" done at various distances though *a few* mediums. In fact the moment they changed the distance and/or the mediums and discovered different scattering rates, they att |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/25/2006 17:33:12 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 20:08:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why should they be "adjusted" if measurements say that they shouldn't be adjusted?
Because the measurements of neutrino hits on the far side of the earth say that these numbers *should* be adjusted.
Not if the differences are caused by something other than scattering.
You want researchers to test neutrino scattering through different materials and distances, now? Give them a reason to do so. Start with the standard model of particle physics (which you claim is correct), and show them why - just theoretically, mind you - they should assume that a particle which interacts with other particles only through the weak nuclear force and gravity will "scatter" differently in different "materials." Better yet, just show me why I should assume that they will scatter differently in different materials, and I'll work with you on the scattering issue. After all, even a heavy Uranium atom, with its 5.4×10-15m-diameter nucleus and 92 electrons all in 1.75×10-10m atomic radius is 99.85% "nonreactive" as far as the weak force is concerned. Show me why, using standard particle physics, the specific materials, and not just the overall lepton density, should make a difference to a neutrino's path.quote:
quote:
Changing our minds about whether neutrinos have mass or not will not - and cannot - affect those observations.
How do you know that? How do you know what the presense of mass is going to do to the way these paricles traverse something as dense as a planetary core?
Michael, if neutrinos have mass now, it means that they've always had mass, and it was our model that was wrong. Changes to our models have never caused nature itself (our observations) to behave differently.quote:
But the observation on the other side of the sun *did* change Dave. They do change, and they change consistently.
I'd like you to provide a source for a planet-wide neutrino observation which was ever in agreement with the near-zero scattering and/or massless neutrino hypotheses. I predict that no such observation has ever been made.quote:
Whether they were taken into account in some over simpiified math formula or not, there is no experiement that I've seen that allowed them to cross check their mathematical representations against a *variety* of real life observations. In fact when their observations didn't match predictions, there was no effort made at all to calibrate their results based on these scattering results through non homogeneous materials. What makes you think that the scattering rate is going to be the same through every type of material and circumstance?
The laws of quantum physics and the standard particle model both say that the material will make little difference, since the weak nuclear force is so weak. It's your burden of proof to show why those sciences are wrong.quote:
This is how you "cheat" in our conversations. You use loaded language like ""unless you wish to claim that all the neturino scientists are morons....". Then you wonder why I get frustrated with you.
What do you expect, Michael? You're acting as though nobody has ever thought of this stuff before you came along.quote:
Whether they compensated for density in some math calculation is not evidence that their mathematical calculations accurately represent reality unless you check their preditions through a variety of materials in some "real life" situations.
Do you think that some Earthly material will do something to make the weak nuclear force act at distances larger than 0.1% of the size of a proton?quote:
I see no evidence that any of that was ever done Dave.
With no evidence that any particular configuration of matter affects the strength of the weak nuclear force, I would hope that researchers would spend their time and resources on more pressing questions, so it's a good thing that you see no evidence of such scientific waste.quote:
Instead they seem to have *assumed* that these mathematical models would work, and when they didn't work right, they simply *leaped* to the conclusion that their math related to scattering was right, but oscillation was to blame.
Baloney, Michael. The evidence is all over the place that researchers questioned the models (both solar and particle) for 30-something years before finding the other evidence that allowed them to put together the hypothesis of flavor-changing neutrinos.quote:
That's what I think happened Dave. It has nothing to do with intelligence, simply some questionable *assumptions* that were never checked out.
Offer up a good reason why the tested and retested conclusions of decades of particle physics work on the weak nuclear force (those "assumptions" as you called them) should be rechecked.quote:
quote:
You've only got half the picture there. Reactor, solar and atmospheric studies show the correct total flux if all three flavors are measured.
Through what kind of materials? Under what specific conditions? How about a wider variety of conditions and materials?
The planet Earth, mostly. Either a couple hundred kilometers of it or the whole danged planet. Why is it that the total flux always works out to the correct number?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 08:15:17 [Permalink]
|
Really, really the last one:quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Evidently there is a strong need to mathematically quantify everything into nice formulas. I assume that's why it's done.
I wonder what sort of low opinion you've got of Newton and Einstein, now, since they evidently also had "a strong need to mathematically quantify everything into nice formulas," along with every other physicist you might care to name.
Talk about cheesy debate tactics.
What's cheesy about it, Michael? As you know, every physics theory is mathematically quantified into a bunch of "nice formulas." Quantum Mechanics is nothing but a bunch of formulae. There isn't a single particle interaction which isn't described in mathematical precision. General Relativity - that other favorite of yours - is also entirely math. Since you are now generally impugning every mathematical model as "oversimplified," surely you'll show us the weaknesses of E=mc2 next. Perhaps you'll do so by complaining that the type of "material" which makes up the mass term isn't taken into consideration. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 10:45:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
In an attempt to show Dave's last point:
Let me be *very* clear here Ricky. I'm not knocking math, or the use of math when it's *applicable* in the real world scenario in which it's being applied, particularly when it's corroborated by observational evidence.
However, a mathematical *oversimplification* can also lead to all sorts of misconceptions as well, as in the case of Alfven's work. This is particularly true of math formulas involving light propogation through unknown materials, and light emission from unknown materials. While most math related to these absorption patterns and emission patterns are "smooth curves", in the real world, atoms are arranged in particular ways, and tend to emit light, and absorb light on very specific wavelengths related to the sizes and shapes of the atom's internal valence shells. Blackbody concepts are based on the notion that the surface of the photosphere is a "perfect" absorber, and a "perfect" emittor of energy. No such material actually exists in the "real world", particularly not thin plasma of unknown composition.
It's the gross oversimplifications, like light propogation formulas, that take no account of the atomic configurations of the material involved, or the wavelengths of light involved, that are then applied to "thin plasma", that I find utterly frustrating. I'm also irked everytime I hear someone try to apply blackbody concepts to things like sunspots and other solar phenomenon, that have nothing whatsoever to do with blackbody concepts. These kinds of misuses of a simplified mathematical model are what I find most frustrating. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 10:50:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Not if the differences are caused by something other than scattering.
You want researchers to test neutrino scattering through different materials and distances, now? Give them a reason to do so.
How do you know that the phenomenon of "vanishing" neutrinos is being caused by something *other than* scattering if you never bother testing the scattering rates through different materials over different distances? How can you even ask me why they need a reason to do this? In science, it's a pretty well accepted principle that one first eliminate the more mundain options before creating frankenparticles that defy the rules of particle physics!
I'm busy today, but I'll try to chip away at your post today as I get time. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 11:20:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
However, a mathematical *oversimplification* can also lead to all sorts of misconceptions as well...
You're correct, Michael, on everything except the idea that scientists use these "gross oversimplifications" as "gospel." Even your own reference starts out by saying, "Stars approximate blackbody radiators..." (bolding mine). You have yet to present anyone using blackbody principles within one of the standard solar models, and it's really because you're unable to find any examples of what you said occurs.
And you're also the one who specified "Thomson [sic] scattering," and not any other kind of scattering. Thompson scattering doesn't depend on wavelength, other forms of scattering do. You obviously used the term inappropriately, but rather than just admit it, you argue that Thompson scattering is an oversimplification, despite your claim that you'd use it to prove that Lockheed was wrong.
To suggest, as you have, that your own overprecision is instead someone else's oversimplification is beyond disingenuous. If you'd bother to learn the sciences that you refer to, you wouldn't make these mistakes and thus frustrate yourself.
You also wrote:quote:
How do you know that the phenomenon of "vanishing" neutrinos is being caused by something *other than* scattering if you never bother testing the scattering rates through different materials over different distances? How can you even ask me why they need a reason to do this? In science, it's a pretty well accepted principle that one first eliminate the more mundain options before creating frankenparticles that defy the rules of particle physics!
I already explained it to you, Michael. Apparently you didn't have time to read the rest of the paragraph you quoted, and my few reponses after that. But to add to my previous explanation, the weak nuclear force is the only known force which can cause flavor to change (it's already known to cause flavor-changing in quarks), and in fact, the weak nuclear force is known to violate lots of conservation laws in quantum theory. |
- 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 - 07/26/2006 : 11:50:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Give them a reason to do so. Start with the standard model of particle physics (which you claim is correct), and show them why - just theoretically, mind you - they should assume that a particle which interacts with other particles only through the weak nuclear force and gravity will "scatter" differently in different "materials."
Well, let's start with the particle physics part first. In the "standard model" of particle physics, all leptons are conserved. Scattering is fully capable of explaining "vanishing" neutrinos over a distance while still preserving the lepton conservation rules of particle phyiscs. If there is a "theoretical" reason for checking the scattering rates through various materials over various distances, this is far and away the best "reason" I could come up with.
quote:
Better yet, just show me why I should assume that they will scatter differently in different materials, and I'll work with you on the scattering issue.
http://www.sprawls.org/ppmi2/INTERACT/#Photon%20Interactions
Great. I'm looking forward to working with you on this Dave. :)
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 12:13:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You're correct, Michael, on everything except the idea that scientists use these "gross oversimplifications" as "gospel." Even your own reference starts out by saying, "Stars approximate blackbody radiators..." (bolding mine). You have yet to present anyone using blackbody principles within one of the standard solar models, and it's really because you're unable to find any examples of what you said occurs.
If you intend to use the term "disingenuous" to describe my behaviors, you really shouldn't start off your posts with these kinds of statements Dave. Astronomers use blackbody principles to explain everything from the temperature of distance suns, to sunspots. To then claim that these principles are not used in any solar models is beyond disingenous. Pots and kettles Dave, pots and kettles.
quote:
And you're also the one who specified "Thomson [sic] scattering," and not any other kind of scattering. Thompson scattering doesn't depend on wavelength, other forms of scattering do. You obviously used the term inappropriately, but rather than just admit it, you argue that Thompson scattering is an oversimplification, despite your claim that you'd use it to prove that Lockheed was wrong.
Huh? My assumption would be that Thompson scattering would most affect our discussion about the heat signatures, since the *entire* solar atmosphere is made of charged particles! That's the primary reason Lockheed Martin missed the boat on the heat signature issues IMO.
Other kinds of scattering effects are as you said *depenendent* upon the wavelength and the conditions involved, regardless of whether this issue applies to Thompson scattering or not.
As it relates to neutrinos, we aren't really discussing Thompson scattering, since were talking about how neutrinos might interact with the earth's solids and the core of the earth. These are totally different issues and different circumstances. Lots of different QM scattering issues will come into play, but since there are not necessarily any "charged" particles involved in these nuetrino interactions, Thompson scattering is the least of my concerns as it relates to neutrinos and experiments with neutrinos on earth. You're confusing two entirely different issues.
quote:
To suggest, as you have, that your own overprecision is instead someone else's oversimplification is beyond disingenuous. If you'd bother to learn the sciences that you refer to, you wouldn't make these mistakes and thus frustrate yourself.
I don't frustrate myself Dave. You frustrate me by twisting around the meaning of my statements at will and ignoring the things that I believe are the most critical elements of our discussion.
quote:
I already explained it to you, Michael. Apparently you didn't have time to read the rest of the paragraph you quoted, and my few reponses after that. But to add to my previous explanation, the weak nuclear force is the only known force which can cause flavor to change (it's already known to cause flavor-changing in quarks), and in fact, the weak nuclear force is known to violate lots of conservation laws in quantum theory.
The only "explanation" that you offered was the following:
quote:
The laws of quantum physics and the standard particle model both say that the material will make little difference, since the weak nuclear force is so weak. It's your burden of proof to show why those sciences are wrong.
That is simply a false statement as the link I provided you will demonstrate. I'm sorry, but I can't accept a false statement as an "explanation" Dave. You'll have to try again when you can demonstrate that the materials themselves will *not* make any difference based on *real life* observation, not simply a "guestimate" based on a mathematical theory. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/26/2006 12:15:02 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 12:39:41 [Permalink]
|
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/12/10
Read this short article Dave, and then tell me how you know for sure that the materials *and* the wavelengths and the energy states of the neutrino won't have a direct effect on absorption and scattering. QM has been *highly* sucessful in explaining why light emits and is aborbed differently by different materials. Each neutrino could have it's own "wavelength", and it's own absorption/scattering rates. I have no idea what these rates might be or if they are different, but these are exactly the kinds of tests that have to be done to ensure that the math works. Since the math was produced *before* we knew they had mass, it's highly likely that the scattering and absorption numbers will need to be adjusted based on this new information. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 13:46:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Well, let's start with the particle physics part first. In the "standard model" of particle physics, all leptons are conserved. Scattering is fully capable of explaining "vanishing" neutrinos over a distance while still preserving the lepton conservation rules of particle phyiscs.
How does scattering explain the presence of the correct number of total neutrinos, Michael? Being able to explain a small subset of all observations doesn't mean that you can explain all observations.quote:
If there is a "theoretical" reason for checking the scattering rates through various materials over various distances, this is far and away the best "reason" I could come up with.
Except it's based upon the premise that all that needs to be explained is the "missing" neutrinos, when that isn't the case.quote:
quote:
Better yet, just show me why I should assume that they will scatter differently in different materials, and I'll work with you on the scattering issue.
http://www.sprawls.org/ppmi2/INTERACT/#Photon%20Interactions
Great. I'm looking forward to working with you on this Dave. :)
What, you present a big write-up on the scattering of photons, which are spin-1 guage bosons which transmit the electromagnetic force, and expect me to think that this has some bearing on neutrinos, which are spin-1/2 fermions which aren't carrier particles?
Even later:quote:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/12/10
Read this short article Dave, and then tell me how you know for sure that the materials *and* the wavelengths and the energy states of the neutrino won't have a direct effect on absorption and scattering.
Again: what do photons have to do with neutrinos? Nothing. Neutrinos don't even interact with photons, because they're not affect by the electromagnetic force at all.quote:
QM has been *highly* sucessful in explaining why light emits and is aborbed differently by different materials.
Indeed. It's also been highly successful in its description of the weak nuclear force.quote:
Each neutrino could have it's own "wavelength", and it's own absorption/scattering rates.
Neutrinos aren't photons, Michael. "Could" doesn't cut it when you're trying to change the particle model.quote:
I have no idea what these rates might be or if they are different, but these are exactly the kinds of tests that have to be done to ensure that the math works.
You don't know if the tests will provide any information at all, you can't explain why they should be different (you just point at photons as if they're somehow similar to neutrinos), but you're sure the tests need to be done. Right.quote:
Since the math was produced *before* we knew they had mass...
Photons have no mass. Maybe we should have done all these tests on neutrinos when they were thought to be massless, too.quote:
...it's highly likely that the scattering and absorption numbers will need to be adjusted based on this new information.
Nothing about the weak nuclear force has changed, Michael, in light of neutrinos having mass. Why is it that you think that all this stuff needs to be re-examined when the forces which can act upon neutrinos haven't changed even a little bit? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 14:20:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If you intend to use the term "disingenuous" to describe my behaviors, you really shouldn't start off your posts with these kinds of statements Dave. Astronomers use blackbody principles to explain everything from the temperature of distance suns, to sunspots. To then claim that these principles are not used in any solar models is beyond disingenous. Pots and kettles Dave, pots and kettles.
No, Michael. Astronomers use blackbody calculations to estimate the temperature of distant stars, not to explain it. The explanation of the temperatures comes from the standard solar models, which don't contain blackbody equations. And I've still yet to see anyone "explain" a sunspot with blackbody principles.quote:
Huh? My assumption would be that Thompson scattering would most affect our discussion about the heat signatures, since the *entire* solar atmosphere is made of charged particles!
Looks to me like Compton scattering would do a better job of that, and it includes wavelength as a factor.quote:
That's the primary reason Lockheed Martin missed the boat on the heat signature issues IMO.
Since you don't know the math Lockheed used, you can't know that they didn't include "scattering," so claiming that they "missed the boat" on this subject is unevidenced speculation.quote:
Other kinds of scattering effects are as you said *depenendent* upon the wavelength and the conditions involved, regardless of whether this issue applies to Thompson scattering or not.
You claimed that my calculations related to Thompson scattering were oversimplified because I didn't take wavelength into account. I explained that Thompson scattering doesn't depend upon wavelength. You complained that it should. I explained that you should probably include other sorts of scattering. Now you're agreeing with me, but still saying that Thompson scattering should include wavelength? Why? Different processes are dependent upon different factors. Thompson scattering doesn't depend upon wavelength.quote:
As it relates to neutrinos, we aren't really discussing Thompson scattering...
Indeed, and I never suggested otherwise.quote:
Lots of different QM scattering issues will come into play...
Name one.quote:
...but since there are not necessarily any "charged" particles involved in these nuetrino interactions, Thompson scattering is the least of my concerns as it relates to neutrinos and experiments with neutrinos on earth. You're confusing two entirely different issues.
I never confused the issues, Michael. You're simply unable to switch contexts. I never mentioned Thompson scattering in relation to neutrinos, since neutrinos aren't affected by electromagnetic fields.quote:
The only "explanation" that you offered was the following:quote:
The laws of quantum physics and the standard particle model both say that the material will make little difference, since the weak nuclear force is so weak. It's your burden of proof to show why those sciences are wrong.
That is simply a false statement...
The false statement is that the above was the "only" explanation I provided.quote:
...as the link I provided you will demonstrate.
The link you provided doesn't even include the word "neutrino," Michael, and so is completely irrelevant.quote:
I'm sorry, but I can't accept a false statement as an "explanation" Dave.
I made no false statements. You're trying to claim that neutrinos should behave like photons, which is utter nonsense.quote:
You'll have to try again when you can demonstrate that the materials themselves will *not* make any difference based on *real life* observation, not simply a "guestimate" based on a mathematical theory.
No, Michael, since the standard model of particle physics has, indeed, been so wildly successful, it is your burden of proof to explain why different materials will make any difference to neutrino "scattering" rates. It's not you against me, it's you against the model's description of the weak nuclear force, Michael.
And the funniest part about all of this is that you're missing the most-obvious point in your favor (which has nothing to do with photons), and I can't help but think it's because you don't know enough about neutrino science to make the connection. |
- 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 - 07/26/2006 : 14:36:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
How does scattering explain the presence of the correct number of total neutrinos, Michael?
It doesn't.
quote:
Being able to explain a small subset of all observations doesn't mean that you can explain all observations.
Oh the irony of that comment considering the fact that you are taking for granted that a couple of experiements from a close distance, in a few isolated conditions can explain *all* observations related to "scattering", even now that we know they have mass.
quote:
Except it's based upon the premise that all that needs to be explained is the "missing" neutrinos, when that isn't the case.
Sure it is Dave. Particle physics has nothing to do with solar models or concern about various solar models.
quote:
What, you present a big write-up on the scattering of photons, which are spin-1 guage bosons which transmit the electromagnetic force, and expect me to think that this has some bearing on neutrinos, which are spin-1/2 fermions which aren't carrier particles?
I'm expecting you to note that *wavelengths* have a direct relationship to absortion and scattering. Photons are also immune to gravitional forces. Now that you know they have mass, why wouldn't you *insist* we test these scattering predictions through many types of materials over many distances to see it these ideas have merit? Why wouldn't you *insist* that we calibrate our instruments in this way before leaping to any conclusions about what to expect, expecially now that we know they have *mass*.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/12/10
quote:
Again: what do photons have to do with neutrinos? Nothing.
That is a pure statement of faith on your part. They are particle waves, just like photons Dave. The difference is that neutrinos have mass and a different spin. The are not necessarily identical in behavior, but the scattering/absorption based on wavelength observations we make with photons *may* apply to neutrinos as well. We have no way to know unless we try. If you never test it, you'll never have any proof that oscillation is occuring, and no evidence to demonstrate that oscillation is a "better" explanation than scattering. The only way to know for sure it to transmit known quantities of neutrinos though known substances and known recievers in many configurations. That's never been done as far as I can tell.
quote:
Neutrinos don't even interact with photons, because they're not affect by the electromagnetic force at all.
But unlike the photon, they *do* have mass, and come in perhaps three different wavelengths as well. You can't just *assume* anything now that we know for sure that they have mass.
quote:
Indeed. It's also been highly successful in its description of the weak nuclear force.
Yes, and gravitational force as well!
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalForce.html
Notice that inverse square law?
quote:
Neutrinos aren't photons, Michael.
They are particles Dave, and as such, they can interact with other particles, and be scattered and absorbed by other particles.
quote:
"Could" doesn't cut it when you're trying to change the particle model.
I'm not the one trying to change the particle Dave, you are. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far I see no evidence to differentiate between scattering and "oscillation".
quote:
You don't know if the tests will provide any information at all,
That is utterly false. They will most *certainly* provide useful information, if only to confirm your *hypothesis".
quote:
you can't explain why they should be different
They have *mass* Dave!
quote:
(you just point at photons as if they're somehow similar to neutrinos),
I really don't have any idea how "different" they really are until it's been checked out Dave. I'm one of those "show me" kind of individuals. I see nothing here that suggests that these previous theories related to a particle with no mass are still applicable now that we know they *do* have mass.
quote:
but you're sure the tests need to be done.
Yep. I'm positive. That's what real science all about. You don't take anything for granted, particularly when some of the variable have changed, including the fact they are now known to have mass, potentially three different amounts of mass, and these original calculations did not include such variables.
quote:
Photons have no mass. Maybe we should have done all these tests on neutrinos when they were thought to be massless, too.
Talk about dodging the core issue. You just *drastically* altered one of the key components that was applied to previous predictions, and now you won't even lift a finger to create new predictions, or to test your predictions. Right.
quote:
Nothing about the weak nuclear force has changed, Michael, in light of neutrinos having mass. Why is it that you think that all this stuff needs to be re-examined when the forces |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/26/2006 14:39:34 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 14:44:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Astronomers use blackbody calculations to estimate the temperature of distant stars, not to explain it.
But it's not even a valid "estimate" in a mass separated model where the neon layer would release most of the visible light, and every layer would "skew" the coloring scheme.
quote:
The explanation of the temperatures comes from the standard solar models, which don't contain blackbody equations. And I've still yet to see anyone "explain" a sunspot with blackbody principles.
http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/bmendez/ay10/2000/notes/dis2.html
Sure Dave.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 15:57:37 [Permalink]
|
One really interesting thing I saw on that last link is a graph that shows the relationship between the surface temperature of the earth's oceans and the number of sunspots.
You'll notice that the temperature of the oceans rise as the number of sunspots increase, which would seem to stand in opposition of your belief that sunspots represent areas that are "cooler" on average than the surrounding materials of the photosphere. Some areas of the sunspote may be cooler, but areas of the sunspot may be much hotter as well. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
