The neutrinos have masses of .0383 ev, .0767, and .1150. These are EXACTLY one, two and three UNIT MASSES. Is that supporting enough ?
Quantum mechanics
Sort:
Dec 17, 2013
0
#23
RPaulB, the masses of neutrinos are not known yet: merely some relationships between them: so how did you fabricate your data?
To contrast, here is an excellent example of science worthy of respect: including a comparison between the predictions of lattice simulations of quantum chromodynamics and experimental results:
[COMMENT DELETED]
RPaulB, I'm following the conversation carefully, but I just have nothing to contribute at this point. Maybe we should make it a rule that if either of you are to give facts to the other, evidence should be provided. It would certainly help me :D. But don't feel you need to, I know how hard referencing is, I have to do it for every essay at university.
Dec 19, 2013
0
#26
RPaulB wrote:
I do not think there is anyone else but you and me here. The sum is .23ev and the increase is one unit mass. But I think you are right, I jumped in alittle too soon on thinking the neutrino started at one unit. Instead of 1,2 and 3 units, it is more likely 10, 11 and 12. You couldn't be a little positive for a week or two and help, could you ? By the way, your "Its from Bits" sites papers written in 1973,1899,1910,1998,1990. My .23ev comes from Planck Collaboration of more than 100 Ph.Ds as of March 2013.
You are misrepresenting the current state of knowledge. There is still considerable uncertainty about the sum of neutrino masses, and more about the individual masses. Neither is it known that the differences between the masses are the same. There are currently probabilistic constraints from astronomy, cosmology and particle physics experiments. Surely this knowledge will increase with time.
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
Dec 28, 2013
0
#29
I see a claim with no rationale. Provide a rationale if you want to be taken seriously. With all due respect, I would jump at the chance to bet that it will be proven wrong.
We're still waiting for your references concerning observations being explained by gravity being ten times as strong at a distance (my understanding is that this is directly counter to observations).
After 2 weeks it appears no one wants to comment on which theory of gravity is right, nor what the mass of the neutrino may be. And 5 of the last 5 statements start out as; 1) I see, 2) Provide me, 3) I jump, 4) We're waiting and 5) my understanding, are all off the subject of physics so if anyone wants to return to physics and not people, just state so.
RPaulB, I am saying that all particles that exist and all that are proposed to exist can be virtual. Look up the definition, and you may realise why. The concept of virtuality is based solely on interactions (represented as Feynman diagrams if you wish) and does not depend to a significant way on the properties of the particle (all particles are quanta of a field).
Virtual particles
There is no indication of a unit mass in physics. The natural unit of mass (Planck mass) happens to be quite large, so all known particles have masses less than it. I understand you are hypothesising some sort of discrete physics with ticks of time and mass in multiples of a fixed sum. It may even be a feasible hypothesis, but it has the status of a hypothesis with no supporting evidence.