Standard Model In Trouble
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Biggest Lie Yet Of the Spill: BP "Couldn't Determine theFlow??Rate"
Next: Biggest Lie Yet Of the Spill: BP "Couldn't Determine the?Flow??Rate"
From: Raymond Yohros on 14 Jun 2010 12:40 On Jun 13, 12:33 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > On 6/12/2010 2:47 AM, Raymond Yohros wrote: > > > On Jun 3, 8:43 am, YKhan<yjk...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> rabid_fan wrote: > >>> Neutrino oscillations were directly observed for the first time. > >>> This observation implies that neutrinos have mass and it thus > >>> contradicts the Standard Model. > > >>>http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2010/PR08.10E.html > > >> Well then, welcome to the new Standard Model? > > >> Yousuf Khan > > > how is the mass of the tau neutrino compared to the > > theoretical higg? > > No one really knows the masses of any neutrino yet. The way they > measure particle masses is to run them through a magnetic field and see > how quickly they divert away from their straight path. The slower they > divert, the more massive they are. Since neutrinos are neutrally > charged, that means that you can't run them through a magnetic field, as > that won't have any effect. > > Neutrino - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Mass > this ghostly particles may be silently doing what we are all looking for. the first estimated mass of the higg proved to be wrong. only a few more tests are need it to discard this idea all together. > > They are estimating the bounds of the mass of neutrinos through indirect > means right now. The only thing they are sure of is that there must be > neutrino mass, otherwise due to laws of quantum mechanics, one type of > neutrino couldn't change into another type of neutrino without mass. > neutrinos have become big science for more than 30 years now! there are extensive detailed observations with detectors and controlled experiments. i'm sure there most be more precise estimates for the mass of this neutrally charged leptons than the ones you find in any text book. regards r.y
From: Rock Brentwood on 14 Jun 2010 18:29 On Jun 11, 1:55 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > I have visited your site and try to think about it. Chemistry is > actually an underestimated subject in physics. No, no, no. You misunderstand the nature of the relation of chemistry (or engieering) to physics! Just because you put a dog on a leash when walking it outside doesn't necessarily mean that it is regarded as anything less than a companion and member of the family whose value is to be underestimated! Would we grieve any less if these things were to go away?
From: Y.y.Porat on 15 Jun 2010 09:38
On Jun 15, 12:29 am, Rock Brentwood <markw...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 11, 1:55 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > > I have visited your site and try to think about it. Chemistry is > > actually an underestimated subject in physics. > > No, no, no. You misunderstand the nature of the relation of chemistry > (or engieering) to physics! Just because you put a dog on a leash when > walking it outside doesn't necessarily mean that it is regarded as > anything less than a companion and member of the family whose value is > to be underestimated! Would we grieve any less if these things were to > go away? ----------------- indeed no need to put one branch of science on or under the other one all of them has to be complimentary ! andi told the readers that whilwe i was developing my model *chemistry books were always next to me iow wihtout chemistry i would bever do it !!! one of my claims against the 'standard physicist ' of to day is that they are (not all of them) !!)lacking a vaster base of knowledge than just mathematics or even qm or relativity etc there is a need in much more and i gave an example of a structural engineer: most of them have no 'green' basic training of 3 D geometry understanding it is just nonexistent in their minds or in the good case very crippled !!! not to mention parroting without thinking and re examining !!! ATB Y.Porat ------------ |