 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / May 2005What is the principal difference between a photon and a neutrino?
The photon is known to have no mass The neutrino has mass yet the neurtino is a particle in motion- so behaves wave like . and can penetrate our globe as if it was nothing. the photon , on the other hand, cannot penertate a thin methal plate so what (the heck) makes the difference between those two?? TIA Y.Porat --------------- The neutrino is one of six known Leptons o spin = 1/2 o non zero rest mass photon is a Boson (force carrier) o spin = 1 o zero rest mass They behave different quantum mechanical rules and statistics. Here's a summary chart http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart_cutouts/particle_ chart.jpg thanks Sam yet still those 'dry data' does not make me ( or you??)) to unserstand for instance why the neutrino is penetrating so easy matter while a photon cannot do it?? TIA Y.Porat ------------------------ > thanks Sam > yet still those 'dry data' [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Y.Porat > ------------------------ [hanson] Yehiel, Dearly departed Franz Heymann said many times that a neutrino is an electron that lost its charge. He spent many years as group leader in CERN pondering questions like that....... ahahahaha... Can you see the answer to your question now? ahahaha...ahahanson | > thanks Sam | > yet still those 'dry data' [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | Can you see the answer to your question now? | ahahaha...ahahanson Ya got a reference for that? I don't ever recall Franz saying that. Even though, it is probably close to the truth. I would even extend it to quarks. Neutrinos are quarks that have lost their charges. Neutrinos are the clue for sure. IMHO, they are as close as we will ever get to the bare entity that makes all fermions. What the heck, let's extend it even more; leptons are quarks that have lost their color charge. And all elementary bosons are instantaneously virtual fermionic pairs. FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps > | Yehiel, > | Dearly departed Franz Heymann said many times [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > quarks that have lost their color charge. And all elementary > bosons are instantaneously virtual fermionic pairs. Franz never said that a neutrino -is- an electron that lost its charge. Rather, he said that he often -thought- of the neutrino in that fashion. "I may be misleading myself, but I often think of the neutrino as being simply a chargeless electron. It participates in all the interactions (W and Z exchange) in which an electron participates, except for photon exchange, which requires a charged particle." http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3fa23880bf62e899?hl=en Jerry you say 'a chargeles electron' could be reasonable yet is their masses fit t othink so?? btw if that is the answwer can we infere from it what is the mass loss that belongs to the charge?? 2 supose you are right (and it seems right that the neutrino is chargless) to explainits strong penetrative power now about the the photon --can you say that the photon is charged?? charged waht ? positively negatively ?? TIA Y.Porat ---------------------------- > | > thanks Sam > | > yet still those 'dry data' [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > | Can you see the answer to your question now? > | ahahaha...ahahanson [Fredi] > Ya got a reference for that? I don't ever recall Franz saying that. > Even though, it is probably close to the truth. I would even extend it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps >> FrediFizzx [hanson] Jerry just posted a reference for you where Franz was rather cautious about it. But in private conversations and on other google archived occasions Franz was more adamant about it. However, I could never prey out of him his thoughts of how the physical mechanism of that would work, nor how he pictures the property of charge to be. BTW, there is some ancillary possibility to this issue in my yesterdays post to you in news:E1Ole.1727$MI4.856@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net. containing issues over the mass amounts emerging from combining measured physical constants like: m_H = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a) m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3 Because of the square roots appearing above in the geometric/topo factors with the Planck lenght [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] and in [... pi*sqrt...] a case can be made that 4! = 24 different type of charges could possibly exist, giving matter properties that may reflect in what you are into..... and making your vacuum charge even more intriguing then you're so far imagining... So, by all means, keep on hacking away, dude... I enjoy wild and crazy ideas...... ahahaha... ahahahanson BTW: There's no such thing as instantaneous. There's a few posts on possible max velocities in the virtual realm. IIRC it's ~ 1E+71 cm/sec .... almost instantaneous... but not quite....... AHAHAHAHA.... | > | > thanks Sam | > | > yet still those 'dry data' [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] | prey out of him his thoughts of how the physical mechanism of that | would work, nor how he pictures the property of charge to be. Yes, he was usually cautious about such things. I wonder how I missed these posts of Franz? Anywise, our whole quantum "vacuum" charge "spin matrix" concept is based on the fundamental entity of fermions being all the same and it is the quantum "vacuum" configuration that determines which fermion is which. Charge is a purely mechanical function even if it is quantum *mechanical*. If there is no fundamental mass quantum, then all mass is the result of charges interacting. Of course weak and strong charge to be included along with electric. Then electric, weak, strong plus the geometry of their interactions ---> gravity. This requires a dual space-time scenario where we have real fermions, virtual fermions and "less than virtual" fermions. "Less than virtual" being a Dirac-like Sea modified (the quantum "vacuum"). Virtual is simply the state of going between "real" and "less than virtual". | BTW, | there is some ancillary possibility to this issue in my yesterdays post to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | then you're so far imagining... So, by all means, keep on hacking away, | dude... I enjoy wild and crazy ideas...... ahahaha... ahahahanson I will check out and study that other thread. BTW, I stumbled upon a curious thing involving Planck units. In cgs units, charge can be expressed as sqrt(hbar*c) and current as c^3/sqrt(G). Charge doesn't need Newton's G and current doesn't need Planck's hbar. ??? In units where c = 1, charge is sqrt(hbar) and current is 1/sqrt(G). Current is charge per time so t = sqrt(G*hbar). Which is Planck time in c = 1 units. | BTW: There's no such thing as instantaneous. There's a few posts on | possible max velocities in the virtual realm. IIRC it's ~ 1E+71 cm/sec | .... almost instantaneous... but not quite....... AHAHAHAHA.... OK, not instantaneous. ;-) In the future if I say instantaneous, I mean during an extremely short time interval. It's my bad habit of trying to "freeze stop" everything (cheating mother nature). ;-) FrediFizzx http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf or postscript http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps > a neutrino is an electron that lost its charge. So charge itself is what carries the mass in electron?  Signature"jomleye zarrAte Alam dar nahAn bA to guyAnand ruzAno shabAn kessami'imo basiro bAhoshim bA shomA nAmahramAn mA khAmoshim notghe Abo notghe khAko notghe gel hast mahsuse havAse ahle del" - Mowlana > > a neutrino is an electron that lost its charge. > > So charge itself is what carries the mass in electron? > > -- --------- you are right with your remark: th echarge is just a bypriduct of a particle it cannot be the main body of the particle! iow the charge is just a 'messenger' of the particle and not its main body!! so Frantz's description is void! (what do you say to that old farther Uncle Al??) all the best Y.Porat ----------------- > The neutrino is one of six known Leptons > o spin = 1/2 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Here's a summary chart > http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart_cutouts/particle_ chart.jpg To which I would add that the photon participates in the electromagnetic interaction, and the neutrino participates in the weak interaction. The weak interaction being much weaker than the electromagnetic, this explains why the neutrino has enormous range in matter compared to the photon. PD ok do you want to say that if a photon is passing in an electrc field or magmnetic field it will be attrated somewhere?? we are not dealing with 'how it was created' we are dealind with its behaviour after being created. is what you say a guess or is it substantiated. if yes - how is it substantiated?? 2 both of them are wave or wave like and the neotrino has mass so why should it not be hindered say by the gravitational foeld ?? TIA Y.Porat ---------------------- > > The neutrino is one of six known Leptons > > o spin = 1/2 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > electromagnetic, this explains why the neutrino has enormous range in > matter compared to the photon. ---------------- it sounds like some answer now lets wxamine it a bit: in your answer there is the hideen assumption that if a particle was created by say one force then it is only that force that can infuence it (act on it) say for example if a photon is created by Em force then it is only the EM that can affect it or say if an electronm was emmited by Em action then it is only the Em field that will act on it is it a right assumption?? if an electron was emmited by Em reaction will say the gravitation not act on it ?? will the strong force not act on it ?? so we came to another principal question: if a particle was created( or ejected out) by one kind of forces there will not be another kind that will act on it ??? 2 supose that the answer to th e above question is positive now we can asume that in our globe there is alot of *weak force activity* so why should not that activity show of on the neutrino passing through our globe?? 3 does the Em field act on the photon ? sorry my ignorance and laziness to find out the answer. TIA Y.Porat ------------------- > PD > The photon is known to have no mass > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the photon , on the other hand, cannot penertate a thin > methal plate f.cking imbecile. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.