A Universe from Nothing: Not that hard to understand.

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Feb 3, 2017.

  1. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Virtual particles cannot become real particles in quantum physics as it is conceived in the current Standard Model of particle physics. There is some fancy math associated with this idea. But that same fancy math dictates that fundamental particles are to be treated as ideal points, which is to say that if there is any internal structure lower than quarks, no one knows or cares about them. Instrumentation capable of energies sufficiently high to break them apart almost certainly exists.

    The Law of Conservation of Energy demands that even something with an inertial mass as low as that of a neutrino can be converted into pure energy. One of the means for doing this is an appropriate arrangement of a neutrino with its anti-particle. This would yield a pair of infrared photons.

    So, if a neutrino - antineutrino pair can be annhilated into photons, how does one build a neutrino or an anti-neutrino out of photons? A good friend who happens to be a neutrino physicist tells me this would break a dozen conservation laws ingrained in the Standard Model. Something about his statement still bothers me. Until someone can take neutrinos apart, as far as I am concerned, we don't really know all there is to know about particle physics. The smallest mass / energy particle has to be the smallest fundamental particle, doesn't it?
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
    river likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    I thought there were only three types of neutrino, but:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_neutrino

    Apparently, then number of different neutrino types are unknown at this time, or, as the wikipedia article puts it, "our knowledge of neutrinos is incomplete". No kidding. No wonder so much intensive physics research is directed at understanding the behavior of neutrinos.

    If science in general and particle physics in particular has taught us nothing else, it is that an understanding of physics on larger scales can only be purchased at expense of probing the behavior of diminishingly smaller domains and scales.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    H-m-m-m-m . . . . . . Any chance that a neutrino-antineutrino anihilation might be a source for CMBR? Your expertise/sources to answer this is better than mine.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    The CMBR is very isotropic (the same in all directions), and three of the flavors of neutrinos we know about originate from processes at the center of stars, so there would be gaps in the CMBR whereever there was a void. So it doesn't appear like neutrinos would be responsible for that.

    Here are pictures of Planck CMBR and ICE CUBE neutrino sky (red is low energy, blue is high energy):

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So the higher energy neutrinos don't seem to be correllated with any CMBR temperature differences.
     
  8. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    On the other hand:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If I flip both the horizontal and vertical axes on the ICE CUBE neutrino sky, even the Southern hemisphere CMBR "cold spot" is now in about the right place. But for that to happen, the ICE CUBE array would need to be detecting stellar neutrinos that HAD BURROWED THROUGH THE CORE OF THE EARTH. Is this possible? I've no idea.

    It can't be that simple, can it?

    This is because of your question, karenmansker. I'm just facilitating the analysis.

    Interesting
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
  9. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    But isn't that the classical 'pop' physics story on neutrinos? . . . that they (neutrinos) 'pass thru the earth as if earth wasn't even there'. If so, then emanations (of neutrinos) in proximity to stellar processes would certainly (IMO, be smoothed-out over 13.8, or so, billion years inferring a very isotropic presentation (albeit, with perhaps a bit of polarization, too).

    BTW: What is the CMBR wavelength (or thermal?) signature compared to neutrino-antineutrino (A-AN) anihilation wavelegth (or thermal?) signature. As I recall, N-AN is in the IR zone and CMBR is in the microwave zone of the EM spectrum - 'perhaps a bit too close for' (physicists') comfort? (HAHA!) . . . . we SURE don't need (or want) THAT . . . a continuous, ongoing source for CMBR . . . . contrary to the Standard Model!!
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
    danshawen likes this.
  10. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Neutrinos only interact with the electroweak (W and Z bosons) portions of atoms, and for the most part the interiors of atoms are empty space. It is entirely possible, not "pop" science at all. Early neutrino detectors were buried deep in mines so that they were shielded from the effects of primary and secondary cosmic rays in the atmosphere. Apparently, this is also a factor in the design of ICE CUBE:

    https://icecube.wisc.edu/about/overview

    Nice analysis, karenmansker
     
  11. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Thanks for the ICECUBE link, Danshawen.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  12. Counter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    437
    If there is nothing there will be nothing forever. Something cannot come from it. I believe this occurs to every human at conception.
     
  13. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    True

    And that is the problem , people think that nothing to something is possible , it isn't , and never will be .
     
  14. Counter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    437
    Nothing will exist forever and ever?
    Does this mean forever has existed always? I do not think so. Otherwise we would be transported into the future. Thank you for the information.
     
  15. Tralay Registered Member

    Messages:
    86

    Let's be sensible about this, any point that you can pick out and perform mathematics on is only an arbitrary point. It's not even a real point, therefore you cannot compute infinity in a finite perspective.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,596
    In a timeless infinity, the appearance of a point would be instantaneous. Then there is nothing, then there is something. t = 0 > t = 1
    A quantum event?
     
  17. Tralay Registered Member

    Messages:
    86
    we can surely come up with a representation of infinity, but not even quantum can do it actual justice.
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,596
    But infinity would be timeless, no? Can we imagine an infinite continuum where time exists without reference to existence.
     
  19. Tralay Registered Member

    Messages:
    86
    I certainly couldn't imagine it
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,596
    In that case, would any event not be considered instantaneous?
    The only event I can think of is a quantum event, where a non-physical implicate becomes physically manifest.
     
  21. Tralay Registered Member

    Messages:
    86
    Well, i would assume that there are infinitely smaller events occurring that would cause those quantum events to appear as wide as the universe and beyond and would render them too general and not specific enough to satisfactorily be representing something as instantaneous as time is percieved to be.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,596
    I agree with that. It sounds like the Bohmian concept of a hierarchical ordering.

    But how does a timeless infinity acquire an ordering function, without an a priori instantiation? The first "change"?
     
  23. Tralay Registered Member

    Messages:
    86
    That is a very good question because even though we seem to be progressing on to further frames in existence, mathematically is appears to be impossible to finish out even one singular frame due to infinity, much less traverse onto the next frame and the next etc.... it seems we have reached an anomaly or more than likely, our views on the progression of our existence needs to change drastically to fit the data.
     
    Write4U likes this.

Share This Page