Are there really 3 types of neutrinos?
franklinhu
me.
What evidence do we really have that there are are three uniquely
different electron, tau, and muon neutrino? These are based upon the
particles that generate them. But what if they are really all the
same? Photons can be generated from hydrogen and helium atoms, but I
don't call them a hydrogen photon and a helium photon - they are all
the same.
The reason I ask is because what if what we really had were just 3
different ways for neutrinos (all the same) to get absorbed and
detected?
This might help explain the solar neutrino problem whereby only about
1/3 of the neutrinos are detected for so called "electron-neutrino"
experiments. But detectors like the SNO which are sensitive to all
supposed neutrino types, do see the other missing 2/3.
I supposed you could do a experiment where you generate only muon-type
neutrinos and see if you get all muon neutrinos in your detector. If
you don't and you see the electron and tau type, you might claim that
they are oscillating from one version to another, or perhaps it is
easier to believe that it is simply our understanding of how neutrinos
interact with matter is misunderstood and that there is only 1
neutrino type, but 3 ways these neutrinos interact with matter to be
detectable.
Such a theory would predict that any neutrino source of any kind would
show all 3 types detected. I would imagine that the current detectors
are capable of resolving neutrinos from nuclear reactors which should
only be electron-neutrino. But of course, if we do detect tau and muon
neutrinos from reactors, we could equally claim they are oscillating?
How would one tell the difference?
And just how do they manage to calibrate these neutrino detectors such
that they can accurately predict what 2/3 missing neutrinos would be?
Could it not be that the detector is simply not sensitive enough to
see the other 2/3 neutrinos? I'm sure they've done it adequately, but
it seems like a nearly impossible task.
-thanks
fhuneutrino
eric gisse
> I have some questions about neutrinos and I hope someone can enlighten
> me.
>
> What evidence do we really have that there are are three uniquely
> different electron, tau, and muon neutrino?
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/reviews/rpp2009-rev-light-neutrino-types.pdf
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr3/pub_papers/fiveyear/cosmology/wmap_5yr_cosmo.pdf
[...solar neutrino problem...]
The solar neutrino problem has been solved. You should do some light reading
on the subject.
> And just how do they manage to calibrate these neutrino detectors such
> that they can accurately predict what 2/3 missing neutrinos would be?
You should read the scientific publications that discuss this.
> Could it not be that the detector is simply not sensitive enough to
> see the other 2/3 neutrinos? I'm sure they've done it adequately, but
> it seems like a nearly impossible task.
You should read the scientific publications that discuss detector physics.
>
> -thanks
> fhuneutrino
PD
> I have some questions about neutrinos and I hope someone can enlighten
> me.
>
> What evidence do we really have that there are are three uniquely
> different electron, tau, and muon neutrino? These are based upon the
> particles that generate them. But what if they are really all the
> same? Photons can be generated from hydrogen and helium atoms, but I
> don't call them a hydrogen photon and a helium photon - they are all
> the same.
And that's because of the difference between how the three neutrinos
interact vs how photons interact. We know the photons are one kind of
photon, regardless of how they are produced, because those photons
then interact the same way that all photons interact, in the same
ratios and at the same rates. But this is not true for neutrinos,
where the neutrinos are not only produced in different channels, but
the neutrinos then produced do not interact the same way. For example,
electron neutrinos interacting with protons almost always generate
electrons from that interaction, while muon neutrinos interacting with
the very same proton target almost always generate muons from that
interaction.
This is called "selection rules" in HEP, and is crucial for figuring
out the laws of physics and the conservation laws that they obey.
Uncle Al
>
> I have some questions about neutrinos and I hope someone can enlighten
> me.
Google. If it is worth knowing it is worth the effort to find out.
Look up "autodidact."
> What evidence do we really have that there are are three uniquely
> different electron, tau, and muon neutrino?
Google. String of foreign names separated by hyphens, then "matrix."
Experimental evidence in support. Look it up.
> These are based upon the
> particles that generate them. But what if they are really all the
> same? Photons can be generated from hydrogen and helium atoms, but I
> don't call them a hydrogen photon and a helium photon - they are all
> the same.
Look it up. Your grade school Newtonian analogies are pathetic.
> The reason I ask is because what if what we really had were just 3
> different ways for neutrinos (all the same) to get absorbed and
> detected?
And now you are spewing gibberish.
> This might help explain the solar neutrino problem whereby only about
> 1/3 of the neutrinos are detected for so called "electron-neutrino"
> experiments. But detectors like the SNO which are sensitive to all
> supposed neutrino types, do see the other missing 2/3.
Google "neutrino detectors"
> I supposed
[snip rest of crap]
Ignorance is not a form of knowing things. The universe does not care
about your opinions.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Yousuf Khan
> On Dec 8, 12:08 am, franklinhu <frankli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I have some questions about neutrinos and I hope someone can enlighten
>> me.
>>
>> What evidence do we really have that there are are three uniquely
>> different electron, tau, and muon neutrino? These are based upon the
>> particles that generate them. But what if they are really all the
>> same? Photons can be generated from hydrogen and helium atoms, but I
>> don't call them a hydrogen photon and a helium photon - they are all
>> the same.
>
> And that's because of the difference between how the three neutrinos
> interact vs how photons interact. We know the photons are one kind of
> photon, regardless of how they are produced, because those photons
> then interact the same way that all photons interact, in the same
> ratios and at the same rates. But this is not true for neutrinos,
> where the neutrinos are not only produced in different channels, but
> the neutrinos then produced do not interact the same way. For example,
> electron neutrinos interacting with protons almost always generate
> electrons from that interaction, while muon neutrinos interacting with
> the very same proton target almost always generate muons from that
> interaction.
>
> This is called "selection rules" in HEP, and is crucial for figuring
> out the laws of physics and the conservation laws that they obey.
So they're trying to detect WIMPs (Dark Matter candidates) in much the
same way as they try to detect neutrinos. What would a WIMP colliding
with a proton produce?
Yousuf Khan
PD
Most direct-detection experiments look for recoiling atoms (nuclei) in
highly purified samples that are extremely well-shielded from
background. They are distinguished from neutrino interactions by
virtue of not producing a recoiling lepton (electron or muon). The
background for these events is mostly recoil from radioactive decay in
the purified sample itself.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0611230
http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/UKDMC/dark_matter/other_searches.html
Yousuf Khan
> Most direct-detection experiments look for recoiling atoms (nuclei) in
> highly purified samples that are extremely well-shielded from
> background. They are distinguished from neutrino interactions by
> virtue of not producing a recoiling lepton (electron or muon). The
> background for these events is mostly recoil from radioactive decay in
> the purified sample itself.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0611230
> http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/UKDMC/dark_matter/other_searches.html
What do you mean by "recoil from radioactive decay"?
Yousuf Khan
Raymond Yohros
> On Dec 8, 12:08 am, franklinhu <frankli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I have some questions about neutrinos and I hope someone can enlighten
> > me.
>
> > What evidence do we really have that there are are three uniquely
> > different electron, tau, and muon neutrino? These are based upon the
> > particles that generate them. But what if they are really all the
> > same? Photons can be generated from hydrogen and helium atoms, but I
> > don't call them a hydrogen photon and a helium photon - they are all
> > the same.
>
> And that's because of the difference between how the three neutrinos
> interact vs how photons interact. We know the photons are one kind of
> photon, regardless of how they are produced, because those photons
> then interact the same way that all photons interact, in the same
> ratios and at the same rates. But this is not true for neutrinos,
> where the neutrinos are not only produced in different channels, but
> the neutrinos then produced do not interact the same way. For example,
> electron neutrinos interacting with protons almost always generate
> electrons from that interaction, while muon neutrinos interacting with
> the very same proton target almost always generate muons from that
> interaction.
>
> This is called "selection rules" in HEP, and is crucial for figuring
> out the laws of physics and the conservation laws that they obey.
>
also, neutrinos interact much less that photons and move
slightly slower across spacetime. the flavors right order is: electron
wish its the litest and fastest. the muon, a litl slower midrange
and the heviest, the thau that repeats itself alot less than
the others, kind of like marking the beat.
because they are moving or communication particles like photons and
because they have a litl bit of mass, they can carry information
from all across spacetime having a significant effect on its shape.
r.y
PD
When a neutron beta-decays in an atom in the purified sample, then the
daughter atom will recoil. This mimics the signal.
PD
As far as I know, the only timing information involved has to do
screening by the sun, but I don't think they're discriminating WIMPs
by time-of-flight.
Raymond Yohros
screening from the sun its a very short distance.
can there be any confusion between WIMPs and
tau neutrinos?
PD
Tau neutrinos generate taus when they interact with baryons in
targets. WIMPS do not.
Raymond Yohros
yes, i know
what evidence of this WIMPs there is?, any clear description on
properties,mass,type of interacions?
i know their also dark matr candidates but i dont know much
about them.
PD
Start with the links I provided elsewhere in this (short) thread.
eric gisse
[...]
> what evidence of this WIMPs there is?, any clear description on
> properties,mass,type of interacions?
> i know their also dark matr candidates but i dont know much
> about them.
When you have to ask 'how does a WIMP interact?', saying you don't know much
is rather redundant.
Raymond Yohros
the way most particles are discovered is because
of the way they interact. there is no evidence this
WIMPs exist but there has to be something outhere
to account for all the dark matr. neutrinos alone
may not be enough.
PD
That's right, there's no evidence yet (other than dark matter
attraction) that WIMPs exist. However, it's useful to have some
constraints on how they COULD interact, by ruling out some of the
possibilities, as that will help tell you how to search for signals
that would distinctly separate WIMPs from other sources. That
constraint and the subsequently designed searches are what the links
provided help you see.
Yousuf Khan
So why would a Dark Matter particle make a neutron decay?
Yousuf Khan
PD
It wouldn't. The decay is a background to the WIMP signal. It mimics
the presence of a WIMP when there is no WIMP present. That's what
background means.
YKhan
> On Dec 17, 8:21 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> > So why would a Dark Matter particle make a neutron decay?
>
> the presence of a WIMP when there is no WIMP present. That's what
> background means.
Okay, so what you're saying is that these scientists could be fooled
into thinking they've discovered a WIMP, but in actual fact it could
be just a neutron decaying for random reasons?
Yousuf Khan
PD
Well, it's not a random reason. It's a well-understood reason -- beta
decay, usually.
And because it's well understood, then the contribution from that
background can be accurately estimated.
So if you have more of these events than what can be accounted for
from background (or even from a statistical fluctuation of
background), then you can say that there is something else going on,
also -- namely, WIMPs.
>
> Yousuf Khan
franklinhu
>
> - Show quoted text -
I did further research on experiments that determined that muon and
electron neutrinos are distinct, but could only come up with one
experiment done in 1962 which showed that only muon neutrinos were
detected from a muon beam. It was something like 29 muons detected
versus 0 electrons. However, I didn't see any mention of them doing
the control experiment where they use the same setup with electron
neutrinos and show that this same setup would only detect electron
neutrinos. If they didn't do this experiment, then it is possible that
electron neutrinos would also produce muons in this setup and the muon
and electron neutrino are the same. It was mentioned that the expected
ratio of muon to electron was supposed to be 50%, but why would that
be? I would imagine that the type created depends on the incoming
energy of the neutrino. Obviously, if the neutrino doesn't have enough
energy to produce a muon, it won't make a muon.
Do you know of any specific experiment references which clearly show
muon neutrinos only produce muons and electron neutrinos only produce
electrons?
Raymond Yohros
> I did further research on experiments that determined that muon and
> electron neutrinos are distinct, but could only come up with one
> experiment done in 1962 which showed that only muon neutrinos were
> detected from a muon beam.
>
are you talking of neutrino detection or a controlled experiment?
a muon beam is not same as electron beam
diferent leptons.
>
> It was something like 29 muons detected
> versus 0 electrons.
>
on the muon beam?
>
> However, I didn't see any mention of them doing
> the control experiment where they use the same setup with electron
> neutrinos and show that this same setup would only detect electron
> neutrinos. If they didn't do this experiment, then it is possible that
> electron neutrinos would also produce muons in this setup and the muon
> and electron neutrino are the same. It was mentioned that the expected
> ratio of muon to electron was supposed to be 50%, but why would that
> be? I would imagine that the type created depends on the incoming
> energy of the neutrino. Obviously, if the neutrino doesn't have enough
> energy to produce a muon, it won't make a muon.
>
> Do you know of any specific experiment references which clearly show
> muon neutrinos only produce muons and electron neutrinos only produce
> electrons?- Hide quoted text -
>
in acurate real time detectors
electrons should be the most abundant leptons?
muons 2nd and Taus 3th!
is this correct?
PD
It's a shame that you can't find any more than one experiment. You
might find it useful to look again. There are several classes of
experiments:
- fixed target experiments at Fermilab and CERN, like DONUT, MINOS,
NOvA, and E-613
- solar neutrino experiments, such as the one done by Ray Davis
- deep mine experiments like SNO, Kamiokande, Super-Kamiodande, SAGE,
and GALLEX.
There have also been several Nobel prizes regarding neutrinos, almost
all of which are experimental. Have you tried googling "Nobel
neutrino"?
Franklin, it seems you need some training on how to do literature
research, and this may be inhibiting your further progress.
> If they didn't do this experiment, then it is possible that
> electron neutrinos would also produce muons in this setup and the muon
> and electron neutrino are the same. It was mentioned that the expected
> ratio of muon to electron was supposed to be 50%, but why would that
> be? I would imagine that the type created depends on the incoming
> energy of the neutrino. Obviously, if the neutrino doesn't have enough
> energy to produce a muon, it won't make a muon.
The energies are ample. That's not the issue.
>
> Do you know of any specific experiment references which clearly show
> muon neutrinos only produce muons and electron neutrinos only produce
> electrons?
I've given you some pointers above. Hopefully it will help facilitate
more effective research on your part.
Raymond Yohros
> - fixed target experiments at Fermilab and CERN, like DONUT, MINOS,
> NOvA, and E-613
> - solar neutrino experiments, such as the one done by Ray Davis
> - deep mine experiments like SNO, Kamiokande, Super-Kamiodande, SAGE,
> and GALLEX.
> There have also been several Nobel prizes regarding neutrinos, almost
> all of which are experimental. Have you tried googling "Nobel
> neutrino"?
>
i have seen some of this experimental facilities and
also the detectors themselfs in tutorial dvds. they make kind of like
a random
sound while detecting neutrinos, like a fast flowing morse code.
is the interpretation of data consistent in all the experiments?
what conclutions on flow and behavior of neutrinos can be deducted
beside their interactions?
is it like i said above? is there anything else?
regards
r.y
PD
> On Dec 22, 6:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > - fixed target experiments at Fermilab and CERN, like DONUT, MINOS,
> > NOvA, and E-613
> > - solar neutrino experiments, such as the one done by Ray Davis
> > - deep mine experiments like SNO, Kamiokande, Super-Kamiodande, SAGE,
> > and GALLEX.
> > There have also been several Nobel prizes regarding neutrinos, almost
> > all of which are experimental. Have you tried googling "Nobel
> > neutrino"?
>
> i have seen some of this experimental facilities and
> also the detectors themselfs in tutorial dvds. they make kind of like
> a random
> sound while detecting neutrinos, like a fast flowing morse code.
> is the interpretation of data consistent in all the experiments?
For this you can use scholar.google.com.
Raymond Yohros
> > detecting neutrinos sound like a fast flowing morse code.
> > is the interpretation of data consistent in all the experiments?
>
> For this you can use scholar.google.com.
>
thanks
r.y
PD
If you want to get a lecture vid on the state of WIMP searches, check
out Joseph Silk's colloquium here:
http://www-ppd.fnal.gov/EPPOffice-w/colloq/colloq.html
franklinhu
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/bahcall/index.html
This is a fairly complete summary of neutrino experiments as you have
mentioned. None of them investigated the question of whether all
neutrinos are actually the same. Most of the detectors except for the
SNO are only sensitive to electron neutrinos. The result at SNO showed
that if you account for all 3 detection types (electron,muon,tau), you
end up with the expected solar neutrinos.
Now either electron neutrinos magically turned into other neutrino
types, or an equally valid explanation is that all the neutrinos from
the sun are the same and if you have to look at the 3 reception
channels to see all of them.
The only experiment that could rule this out is to generate an
electron neutrino beam and show it only generates electron neutrinos
and vice versa for muon electrinos. My research ability is limited,
but I see no hint of such a test in the literature. I can see from the
muon experiment that setting up such experiments are extremely
difficult.
I have noted that there are new experiments going online in 2010 that
is going to space detectors at various distances to see how fast
neutrinos oscillate into other types. They are expecting to see that
as the beam goes further, more and more electron neutrinos will
convert to other types and they will be able to measure a reduction
and thereby calculate the rate of neutrino oscillation.
However, if all neutrinos are actually the same, I would predict that
they will get the strange result that no matter how far away they are
from the neutrino source, they will observe exactly the same fraction
missing regardless of the distance. They will observe no oscillation,
yet still have missing neutrinos.
This is because neutrinos from the sun aren't electron neutrinos, they
are just "neutrinos" which can intercept and interact and be detected
in matter in 3 different ways. If you measure them all, you see them
all. You measure only one way, you get missing neutrinos. No neutrinos
are missing, you're just measuring them wrong. This is the "new"
solution to the neutrino problem that I am investigating. Have you
ever heard of anyone entertaining this idea before?
There is also the atmospheric neutrino problem where the ratio of muon
and electron neutrinos don't add up. Once again, I think it is
possible that this can be explained if all neutrinos are the same.
We will see what happens with the experiment this year ... remember,
you heard it here first.
PD
"Reception channels"? Whatever could you mean?
Please look up the experimental papers that identify the different
kinds of neutrinos.
>
> The only experiment that could rule this out is to generate an
> electron neutrino beam and show it only generates electron neutrinos
> and vice versa for muon electrinos.
This has been done!
> My research ability is limited,
> but I see no hint of such a test in the literature. I can see from the
> muon experiment that setting up such experiments are extremely
> difficult.
Not at all. Muon beamlines are common.
I can see that your research ability is limited. This will seriously
impede your progress until you can get this addressed.
>
> I have noted that there are new experiments going online in 2010 that
> is going to space detectors at various distances to see how fast
> neutrinos oscillate into other types. They are expecting to see that
> as the beam goes further, more and more electron neutrinos will
> convert to other types and they will be able to measure a reduction
> and thereby calculate the rate of neutrino oscillation.
>
> However, if all neutrinos are actually the same, I would predict that
> they will get the strange result that no matter how far away they are
> from the neutrino source, they will observe exactly the same fraction
> missing regardless of the distance. They will observe no oscillation,
> yet still have missing neutrinos.
This has already been tested in terrestrial experiments. Again, I
suggest you look in the literature. Look up the MINOS program and the
papers that they've produced.
>
> This is because neutrinos from the sun aren't electron neutrinos, they
> are just "neutrinos" which can intercept and interact and be detected
> in matter in 3 different ways. If you measure them all, you see them
> all. You measure only one way, you get missing neutrinos. No neutrinos
> are missing, you're just measuring them wrong. This is the "new"
> solution to the neutrino problem that I am investigating. Have you
> ever heard of anyone entertaining this idea before?
Yes, and there is substantial evidence already to the contrary. You
need to sharpen your research skills.
franklinhu
Well, then, please cite the experiment where this was done - that is
all that I am asking.
So far, all you've given me is a list of experiments which confirm the
solar neutrino deficit problem. That is not the question I am asking.
>
> > My research ability is limited,
> > but I see no hint of such a test in the literature. I can see from the
> > muon experiment that setting up such experiments are extremely
> > difficult.
>
> Not at all. Muon beamlines are common.
Of course they are, but compariable electron neutrino beamlines are
not. We get anti-neutrinos from power plant generators. In order to
show that muon and electron neutrinos are different is by taking two
beams which are identical except for the neutrino type and fire them
through exactly the same set of detectors and then show that they
behave differently. Apparently to do this experiment, you would need a
nuclear power plant and a muon neutrino beam in the same geographic
area.
>
> I can see that your research ability is limited. This will seriously
> impede your progress until you can get this addressed.
>
That is why I ask geniuses like yourself whose research abilities are
not limited. I'm just asking you to give me a reference, so far, you
haven't given me anything that resolves the question I am asking. I
only have the one 1962 reference which I have cited and don't find
particularly convincing. It was only half an experiment. The results
must be reproducable with electron neutrinos to be convincing.
>
>
> > I have noted that there are new experiments going online in 2010 that
> > is going to space detectors at various distances to see how fast
> > neutrinos oscillate into other types. They are expecting to see that
> > as the beam goes further, more and more electron neutrinos will
> > convert to other types and they will be able to measure a reduction
> > and thereby calculate the rate of neutrino oscillation.
>
> > However, if all neutrinos are actually the same, I would predict that
> > they will get the strange result that no matter how far away they are
> > from the neutrino source, they will observe exactly the same fraction
> > missing regardless of the distance. They will observe no oscillation,
> > yet still have missing neutrinos.
>
> This has already been tested in terrestrial experiments. Again, I
> suggest you look in the literature. Look up the MINOS program and the
> papers that they've produced.
>
Here's an article on MINOS
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/12824
Yes, all that MINOS shows is that there is a deficit of muon neutrinos
in their far detector based on what they've seen at their near
detector. This shows neutrino dissappearance, but does not at all
address the issue of whether electron and muon neutrinos are one in
the same. Also MINOS only has 2 detectors. The result I am predicting
requires at least 3 detectors. You need a near detector to
characterize the beam. Based on this, you can make predictions of
neutrino flux based on 1/r^2 for distant detectors. MINOS showed a
deficit in their 2nd detector. What I predict is that if there is a
futher 3rd detector, that they will see no further changes in the beam
intensity. The new Daya bay experiment in china appears to have at
least 3 detectors, so we will see if they get the results I predict.
Here is a link to the experiment.
http://www.phys.vt.edu/research/experiments/dayabay.html
>
>
> > This is because neutrinos from the sun aren't electron neutrinos, they
> > are just "neutrinos" which can intercept and interact and be detected
> > in matter in 3 different ways. If you measure them all, you see them
> > all. You measure only one way, you get missing neutrinos. No neutrinos
> > are missing, you're just measuring them wrong. This is the "new"
> > solution to the neutrino problem that I am investigating. Have you
> > ever heard of anyone entertaining this idea before?
>
> Yes, and there is substantial evidence already to the contrary. You
> need to sharpen your research skills.
So far, all I see is that muon can produce muon neutrinos in muon
neutrino beam experiments. That is all good and well, but it leaves
the door wide open for the possiblity that muons can also produce
electron neutrinos, or that electron neutrinos can produce muon
neutrinos. The experiment could have been easily setup such that it
would have only produced muons based on the incoming neutrino energy.
How would you rule out the possiblity that the reason why the muon
experiment only produces muons was that the energy was such (too high)
that it was more that would be required to produce an electron and so
it only produced muons?
>
>
>
>
>
> > There is also the atmospheric neutrino problem where the ratio of muon
> > and electron neutrinos don't add up. Once again, I think it is
> > possible that this can be explained if all neutrinos are the same.
>
> > We will see what happens with the experiment this year ... remember,
> > you heard it here first.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
PD
Actually, I gave you more than that, despite the limited subset you
chose to look up.
But if you want good reference on the experimental determination of
the number of light neutrino species, there are both experimental
determinations (the number is 2.9840 +/- 0.0082) from the LEP collider
and from cosmological data. You can find a decent set of references at
http://pdg.lbl.gov -> Particle Listings -> Neutrinos.
>
>
>
> > > My research ability is limited,
> > > but I see no hint of such a test in the literature. I can see from the
> > > muon experiment that setting up such experiments are extremely
> > > difficult.
>
> > Not at all. Muon beamlines are common.
>
> Of course they are, but compariable electron neutrino beamlines are
> not. We get anti-neutrinos from power plant generators. In order to
> show that muon and electron neutrinos are different is by taking two
> beams which are identical except for the neutrino type and fire them
> through exactly the same set of detectors and then show that they
> behave differently. Apparently to do this experiment, you would need a
> nuclear power plant and a muon neutrino beam in the same geographic
> area.
I don't know why it is important to have exactly the same detector in
two different beamlines. What is important in experimental physics is
that you demonstrate that you understand your detector well and can
compensate for effects it has on the data. This is why there are TWO
collider detectors of completely different construction at FNAL -- if
they get comparable physics results, then you know that both teams
have effectively accounted for instrumental effects in their analysis.
>
>
>
> > I can see that your research ability is limited. This will seriously
> > impede your progress until you can get this addressed.
>
> That is why I ask geniuses like yourself whose research abilities are
> not limited.
Yours is not limited either, except by practice and by willingness to
exercise due care.
Since both of those are correctable, you are being encouraged to
correct them and thereby find your research abilities less limited, so
that you will not be dependent on others.
> I'm just asking you to give me a reference, so far, you
> haven't given me anything that resolves the question I am asking. I
> only have the one 1962 reference which I have cited and don't find
> particularly convincing.
As I said, if you only have one reference when I gave you pointers to
a fair number, then you aren't trying very hard.
> It was only half an experiment. The results
> must be reproducable with electron neutrinos to be convincing.
>
>
>
> > > I have noted that there are new experiments going online in 2010 that
> > > is going to space detectors at various distances to see how fast
> > > neutrinos oscillate into other types. They are expecting to see that
> > > as the beam goes further, more and more electron neutrinos will
> > > convert to other types and they will be able to measure a reduction
> > > and thereby calculate the rate of neutrino oscillation.
>
> > > However, if all neutrinos are actually the same, I would predict that
> > > they will get the strange result that no matter how far away they are
> > > from the neutrino source, they will observe exactly the same fraction
> > > missing regardless of the distance. They will observe no oscillation,
> > > yet still have missing neutrinos.
>
> > This has already been tested in terrestrial experiments. Again, I
> > suggest you look in the literature. Look up the MINOS program and the
> > papers that they've produced.
>
> Here's an article on MINOShttp://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/12824
Can you find better information than *press releases*?
How about publications by the MINOS collaboration?
>
> Yes, all that MINOS shows is that there is a deficit of muon neutrinos
> in their far detector based on what they've seen at their near
> detector. This shows neutrino dissappearance, but does not at all
> address the issue of whether electron and muon neutrinos are one in
> the same. Also MINOS only has 2 detectors. The result I am predicting
> requires at least 3 detectors. You need a near detector to
> characterize the beam. Based on this, you can make predictions of
> neutrino flux based on 1/r^2 for distant detectors. MINOS showed a
> deficit in their 2nd detector. What I predict is that if there is a
> futher 3rd detector, that they will see no further changes in the beam
> intensity. The new Daya bay experiment in china appears to have at
> least 3 detectors, so we will see if they get the results I predict.
>
> Here is a link to the experiment.http://www.phys.vt.edu/research/experiments/dayabay.html
>
>
>
> > > This is because neutrinos from the sun aren't electron neutrinos, they
> > > are just "neutrinos" which can intercept and interact and be detected
> > > in matter in 3 different ways. If you measure them all, you see them
> > > all. You measure only one way, you get missing neutrinos. No neutrinos
> > > are missing, you're just measuring them wrong. This is the "new"
> > > solution to the neutrino problem that I am investigating. Have you
> > > ever heard of anyone entertaining this idea before?
>
> > Yes, and there is substantial evidence already to the contrary. You
> > need to sharpen your research skills.
>
> So far, all I see is that muon can produce muon neutrinos in muon
> neutrino beam experiments. That is all good and well, but it leaves
> the door wide open for the possiblity that muons can also produce
> electron neutrinos, or that electron neutrinos can produce muon
> neutrinos.
That is what is determined in neutrino oscillation experiments.
> The experiment could have been easily setup such that it
> would have only produced muons based on the incoming neutrino energy.
> How would you rule out the possiblity that the reason why the muon
> experiment only produces muons was that the energy was such (too high)
> that it was more that would be required to produce an electron and so
> it only produced muons?
Well, for one thing, electrons are lighter than muons, and so if muons
are easily produced, then kinematics tells you that electrons would be
produced MORE easily.
A little background on particle interaction dynamics would be a
helpful addition to your research.
(There's a reason why education is structured. You find yourself
bogged down by "what-if" questions on advanced matters that would be
already resolved for students who have had more elementary
background.)