Regarding a certain anomalous observation that's been in the news lately...

[Jordan~]

So, physics nerds! FTL neutrinos - yea or nay? Neutrinal antitelephones? Wild speculations on the implications? Go!

 

[Cogwulf]

My guess is that some form of quantum effect going on whereby the neutrinos are triggering the sensors before they actually arrive. That is of course assuming that their methodology is correct.

 

[Reluctantly]

I've got this spin theory that makes it so that electrons don't really have a negative charge, but also a positive charge. It's probably bullshit, so read this at your own discretion or for fun if you want.

It's like, if you imagine the nucleus of an atom fixed at the origin on a two-dimensional axis and then an electron initially fixed at some distance away from the nucleus, give both the nucleus a positive and negative charge and the electron a positive and negative charge, like the polarities of a battery - opposite to each other. If they aren't rotating, the electron will attract or repel the nucleus at the origin, depending on how strong the polarity of the two combined and their orientation to each other, and how far apart or close together they are.

Now imagine that the nucleus at the origin is spinning at a certain rate either clockwise or counterclockwise. Assume the rotation to be clockwise, then as it rotates it will have a tendency to pull the electron toward or away from it and upward or downward because the force of pull becomes a two-dimensional vector. But if we rotate the electron (either clockwise or counterclockwise) at a certain rate that depends on both the speed of the electron orbiting around the nucleus and its distance away from that nucleus, we will find that if the polarities attract, then the electron will have both a centripetal force and a tangential force and will orbit around that nucleus as if a moon rotating around a planet. The centripetal force becomes like a quantum force of gravity if you were someone living on the surface of the nucleus.

Now imagine that the electron's rotation speeds up or slows down, then the electron will either move toward or away from the nucleus, due to the created angular forces that now act against or for the rotation of the electron, until the force exerted by the nucleus' rotation causes the electron to match its rotation rate at whatever electron shell is then gets placed in. This is a little hard to explain without math and pictures, but if you imagine that the topmost and bottommost parts of the battery polarity to have the strongest force, then if the electron isn't rotating at the same rate, this force will be directed not toward the center of the electron, but on the side, affecting its rotation as well as attraction or repulsion.

So basically, since particles are three-dimensional, you also have another dimension of polarity rotation. This would have the same effect (and I'm assuming it would be a direct relationship to the rotation in the other plane). But the important distinction is that it would pull the electron in two planes at the same time. It's probably hard to visualize, if you've never thought about it before, but it's equivalent to understanding that there are many ways for an electron to arc around the equator of a nucleus.

Anyway, back to the point. Since I use this understand and explain the right hand rule and electromagnetic fields in circuitry, I'm assuming a neutrino would have such a large speed of rotation in both its planes that it is able to negate the effects of a nucleus to negligible amount, as long as it doesn't enter that nucleus. If you imagine back to the explanation I gave in the second paragraph, if you rotate the electron infinitely it would have absolute no charge in relation to anything and would move in a particular direction (or not move at all) without effecting anything; this would make the neutrino almost unaffected by a nucleus compared to an electron. If the neutrino enters the nucleus, then it reasons to follow that higher rates of rotations could exist farther in the nucleus that will lock down the neutrino and effect the makeup of the nucleus, which as far as I know is what happens.

Yeah, I don't know, this could all be conjecture and bullshit, but as far as I know it doesn't contradict anything I've learned about physics.

 

[Jah]

^sounds like mixed in classical physics.


Maybe this helps: http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/08/23/the-spin-of-gauge-bosons-vector-particles/


Then there's a whole range of stuff regarding the orbitals... Electrons don't go around in classical fashion, they are usually considered in the terms of probabilities, making the orbitals a sort of cloud rather than a certain orbit.


http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physica...tomic_Theory/Electrons_in_Atoms/Electron_Spin


Neutrinos have the same spin as electrons, but don't carry electric charge, which is why they have no magnetic field, which is why they're hard to detect.





(not sure if I understood what you were trying to explain... so maybe this reply is void.)

 

[Vrecknidj]

My money is still on an as-of-yet-unseen error.

 

[Melllvar]

My money is still on an as-of-yet-unseen error.

I think everyone is expecting that, but hoping for the opposite.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/science/space/neutrino-finding-is-confirmed-in-second-experiment-opera-scientists-say.html

 

[Reluctantly]

^sounds like mixed in classical physics.


Maybe this helps: http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/08/23/the-spin-of-gauge-bosons-vector-particles/


Then there's a whole range of stuff regarding the orbitals... Electrons don't go around in classical fashion, they are usually considered in the terms of probabilities, making the orbitals a sort of cloud rather than a certain orbit.


http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physica...tomic_Theory/Electrons_in_Atoms/Electron_Spin


Neutrinos have the same spin as electrons, but don't carry electric charge, which is why they have no magnetic field, which is why they're hard to detect.





(not sure if I understood what you were trying to explain... so maybe this reply is void.)

Oh, thanks. I don't know if it voids the idea I had in mind. I was trying to convey that the nucleus would also have a magnetic field, as well as the electrons, that increased as they spun.

But I was looking at it a little differently by considering that there is also a force of attraction and repulsion perpendicular to the magnetic field, radiating outward in all directions. So you would have to imagine the nucleus and electron rotating with one half of their spherical arc as a positive charge and the other half arc as a negative charge (like they were rotating magnets or batteries); then for them to form an orbit, they would spin relative to each other so that they are always attracting. I suppose if it's not a true orbit, then you would have little fluctuations in the speed of orbit and its speed of rotation.

Because if the rotation wasn't perfectly aligned so that they were attracting, then you would get repulsion, which is what the electron would be doing when it moves to the higher N-state from its increasing temporarily misaligned rotation relative to the nucleus.

So, theoretically in a true vacuum, if the electron speeds up its rotation, then it would have to move to a higher N-state, longer-faster-orbit, to stay always-attracting. It's like imagining that the tangential force becomes greater than the centripetal and results in it moving to a higher N-state, while the time it takes to get there is a deceleration time - the difference between N states. But at the same time, we're now dealing with weaker forces between the atom and electron, due to distance from the atom.

So let's say we apply an electric field and shoot electrons into the air and across a magnetic field. Then we know that the electrons are moving across the atoms in a valence shell and spinning at the same time. If it comes across a magnetic field perpendicular to it, the spiral of the electrons will follow the relationship we know. So we could look at Thomson's experiment:

So when the electron goes across the magnetic field, the atom and electron will rotate faster, so the electron should stay in its orbit in the top-half spherical arc of its travel. But when it hits the bottom arc that it's traveling along, our magnetic field is causing it to rotate slower, decreasing its orbital speed, and putting it into a lower N-state. Then as it goes back into the upper spherical arc, the electron spins faster, going to a higher N-state, pushing the matter above it away. It will create a downward force, which the right-hand rule explains.

But I'm also looking at the concept of magnetic field a little differently as well. According to this, a strong magnetic field indicates a fast rotation, but says that there will be less of a force of attraction and repulsion in the plane of the magnetic field, which seems like a contradiction to what we know. But I think what happens is equivalent to imagining a pressurized system. Since rotation decreases wavelike amplitude fluctuations betweens atoms, then when we spin something and develop a magnetic field we are allowing a pressurized system to create involution on that system, pushing the particles closer together. What seems to be a force of attraction (magnetic field) becomes a pressurized collapse due to weaker forces of attraction. I would imagine by this that if we decreased the rotational speed of earth, we would move farther away from the other planets in all directions (when there's an outside force pushing in on us that we are resisting due to our orbit). And if we increased the rotational speed of earth, we would move (or involute) closer to other planets (when there's an outside force pushing in on us that we are resisting due to our orbit).

But by this, conceptually, if you rotate something faster, we're decreasing its force of attraction and repulsion to all other matter, which would then also decrease its mass, allowing you to accelerate very quickly with very little force away from other particles (UFOs?). The neutrino seems like it's doing something like this. I guess I have to trust their findings though, since low mass and low charge would still make sense if it has a relatively same spin as an electron.

I wonder how this might explain the physics of a gyroscope, if it makes sense.

But I don't know. I guess maybe I'm trying too hard to make this fit.

 

[Vrecknidj]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111223114121.htm

 

[mke2686]

Not sure, but i'm curious as to how they could possibly control the flow of neutrinos considering they pass through matter...