lol!
Master Theory (edition 2)
- Thread starter Masterov
- Start date
- Status
Except that we have instances where charged particles move faster than light in a medium and not only do the charged particles interact with things but they give off a very distinct signature. It's known as Cherenkov radiation.
Your argument is like saying things which move faster than the speed of sound should be silent. Trust me, you'd know it it an F22 went past you.
That is an assertion, not evidence. Calling it a fact doesn't make it so.
This noise creates a jet of gas of engine backwards. This jet velocity (relative to the still air) is less than the speed of sound.
An argument is not always proof. Argument justifies the assumption of certainty, but evidence proves a hypothesis.
Yes, but it still interacts and produces noise. Despite moving faster than sound it still has an effect to produce sound in some obvious way.
You're claiming the neutrino is a faster than light charged particle. The neutrino doesn't interact with electromagnetism at all, while charged particles which move faster than light (in the local medium) still produce large electromagnetic effects. The electromagnetic version of a sonic boom is Cherenkov radiation. If the neutrino were a faster than light charged particle it would produce such an effect. It doesn't. Your claim does not square with reality.
And the evidence is against you.
Any accelerator can not disperse a particles to speeds greater than the speed of light, but not because the mass or energy of a particles increases without limit, so that charged particles with velocities approaching the speed of light, cease to interact with the field, whose source is stationary.
Once the particle velocity was greater than the speed of light, it ceases to interact with static fields and static matter. Such a particle is converted into neutrinos.
Show me it.
Cherenkov radiation, look it up. I never said charged particles move faster than light in a vacuum, but they can be faster than light in a medium like water.
Once any particle overcomes the speed of light, this particle is no longer interact with the environment. So do not expect Cherenkov radiation.
Absolutely not true.
As AlphaNumeric pointed out there are electrons (beta radiation) that eminate from reactors that is moving faster than the speed of light in water and these electrons emit Cherenkov radiation.
As someone who worked in radcon around a nuclear reactor believe me when I say that beta radiation composed of electrons traveling close to the speed of light will readily interact with matter causing a large number of ionizing event before they stop. A 2.3 MeV beta particle will only make it 10 mm or less through most materials, heck it will only make it about 8 meters through the air.
Why?
I know that the penetration of relativistic particles if their speed approaching the speed of light.
Am I right, or this information of fast neutrons only.
But in any case, our dispute may only allow direct measurement of the energy of relativistic particles in the calorimeter. If it is proved experimentally that the energy of relativistic particles actually grows indefinitely (if the velocity of the particles approaches the speed of light) - any reason for the dispute will remain.
If you have any experimental results of these experiments, please give a link to where you can see it.
Doppler effect prevents.
$$t'=t-\frac{x(t')}{c}$$
$$V(t')=\frac{dx(t')}{dt'}$$
$$\frac{dt'}{dt}=1-\frac{V}{c}\frac{dt'}{dt}$$
$$\frac{dt'}{dt}=\frac{1}{1+V/c}$$
if $$V=-c$$ then $$\frac{dt'}{dt}=\infty$$
if $$V<-c$$ then $$\frac{dt'}{dt}<0$$ - observer will see the reverse sequence of events, and this is impossible.
Last edited:
How does the Doppler effect prevent this?
I am not sure what you are trying to say - sorry. Maybe this will help. The shielding of nuclear reactors is based on 1/10 thickness of material. Essentially, one tenth thickness will attenuate 90 of the ionizing radiation from the reactor (or radiactive source). The next tenth thickness will attenuate 90% of the remaining radiation and so on. Neutrons are not ionizing since they have no charge but by using a material such as water or a large chain organic like polypropylene the neutrons will 'hit' a proton transfering some portion of their KE to the proton causeing secondary ionizations.
At any rate the energy of a radioactive decay is relatively easy to determine so that we know what the energy and hence the speed of the ejected particles. The makers of shielding test the ability of there materials to attenuate different types of radiaton by simple and effective experiments. Simply measure the radiation at the source and on the otherside of the shielding material, while taking into account the 1/r^2 distance. I have proved the effectiveness of shielding during my radcon training.
Not sure what you are getting at here. Look at this (yeah I know it is wiki)
Don't know what you are looking for.
Neutrino has an unlimited ability to penetrate into matter.
Relativistic neutrons seek to do so if their rate tends to the speed of light.
Cherenkov's effect does not interfere for a neutrons.
The charged particles would behave the same way as the neutron, if Cherenkov effect were not interfere.
However, all particles (electrons and positrons - too) get unlimited ability to penetrate into matter, if their speed more than the speed of light.
Cherenkov's effect does not operate at speeds exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum.
Any (hyper-light-speed) matter has unlimited ability to penetrate into any statical matter.
All converted into neutrinos, if moving faster than light.
Last edited:
If that was true we would NEVER detect them.
Untrue
Correct, Cherenkov Radiation is limited to charged particles.
No they would not. A charged particle slows by causing ionizations of the surrounding material even with out Cherenkov radiation. Neutrons do not cause ionization, they slow by collisions with other particles.
Completely unevidenced crap that you just made up. You can't do that - it is cheating.
Why? How do you know?
Completely unevidenced crap that you just made up. You can't do that - it is cheating.
[/QUOTE]
Completely unevidenced crap that you just made up. You can't do that - it is cheating.
It's true.
We can register the slowest neutrinos only, whose velocity exceeds the speed of light on the rate of Brownian motion in the environment of the registrar. We can not register faster neutrinos today.
In order to build a more sensitive detector of neutrinos, must be used such matter, molecules of which is lightweight . For that can used hydrogen or helium under tremendous pressure (in a deep ocean).
Propose to use a balloon, such as:
As the evaporation of the hydrogen / helium will increase the pressure inside the balloon. The higher internal pressure, the deeper into the ocean, omit the balloon.
At a depth of 10 kilometers pressure exceeds 1,000 kilograms per square centimeter. The density of hydrogen will be exceed 90 kilograms per cubic meter.
True, true.
It is well known: the higher the energy of the neutrons, the smaller scattering cross-section of it, the deeper they penetrate into matter.
This fact has long been known and has long been used in nuclear power plants. In nuclear power plants are used graphitic shanks (in order to slow the neutrons and increase the likelihood of their interactions with uranium).
It's true, as long as the speed electron not exceeds the speed of light. When the electron velocity exceeds the speed of light, the electrons turn into a neutrino.
Cherenkov effect are actual for speed < c.
Experiments argue that the SRT is Completely unevidenced crap and cheating.
Because the electron neutrinos and electron antineutrinos === positron and electron (respectively).
Calculate the mass of the neutrino and antineutrino, to be sure. (Mass of it does not depend on the speed.)
On 4th December 1930, Pauli wrote his famous letter
Pauli wrote: neutrinos has Spin 1/2 and comparable electron mass.
But mass neutrinos = 0.28Ev
and mass neutrinos = 500 000Ev
Is it comparable? Yes?
Last edited:
The neutrino was first theorized becasue energy and momentum were not conserved in certain radioactive decays.
An example of a radiactive decay that produces a neutrino is:
If a neutrino has the charge of a electron or a positron how do you explain the above radioactive decay? Why is the charge not conserved?
This question is complicated. I can only assume.The neutrino was first theorized becasue energy and momentum were not conserved in certain radioactive decays.
An example of a radiactive decay that produces a neutrino is:
If a neutrino has the charge of a electron or a positron how do you explain the above radioactive decay? Why is the charge not conserved?
Positron annihilation is possible, which turn a neutron into a proton.
Electron leaves the nucleus of an atom.
Neutrino rest-mass transform into tiny in consequence of an assumption that the mass depends on speed. This assumption is erroneous. Mass is an absolutely. (Time, $$\pi$$, speed of light - too.)
Last edited:
- Status