Without mass You don't have neutrino oscillations. Of cours You can go back and try find different solution for Solar neutrino problem.  The rest and moving with constant speed is just chooses of coordinate system (Galileo). Masive neutrinos are something we need in SM for very precision experiments.  QM computations for neutrinos we use just for simplicity and there are many assumptions for this. It was show that QFT treatment give the same results as QM ;) . The PMNS matrix is something like CKM matrix. Neutrino don't interact by foton (QED) but just in week way - this is reason why it's very hard get good values for this matrix. 

General relativity is a theory which has a discontinuity between electromagnetic spectrum and the massive particle spectrum. I have proposed a theory called Periodic relativity in which this discontinuity is eliminated. Neutrino is a particle at the border line of these two spectrum. This is the reason for Neutrino mass oscillation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225712819_Periodic_relativity_basic_framework_of_the_theory?ev=pr

f_pub

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262492889_

Article Periodic relativity: Basic framework of the theory

Article Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology

Without mass You don't have neutrino oscillations. Of cours You can go back and try find different solution for Solar neutrino problem.  The rest and moving with constant speed is just chooses of coordinate system (Galileo). Masive neutrinos are something we need in SM for very precision experiments.  QM computations for neutrinos we use just for simplicity and there are many assumptions for this. It was show that QFT treatment give the same results as QM ;) . The PMNS matrix is something like CKM matrix. Neutrino don't interact by foton (QED) but just in week way - this is reason why it's very hard get good values for this matrix. 

Dear Sofia, in principle it is possible that an extended theory of GR can give rise to an effective neutrino mass, generated by the extra degree of freedom introduced in these formulations. There are several papers on these topics...Personally, I consider more simple an explanation from particle physics beyond the standard model. The most popular scenario is see-saw mechanism, generating a Pontecorvo mass matrix by the introduction of three massive RH neutrini. This scenario is quite elegant because it is also connected to a Baryogenesis scenario: RH neutrini decays + Standard Model' sphalerons. On the other hand, a neutrino mass could be generated also by radiative loops' diagram. For example in R-violating supersymmetry, or in 3-3-1 scenari. These two will be immediately tested at LHC, contrary to RH neutrino scenario. These scenari provided different Pontecorvo matrices. Because of mild limits on this, as you have mentioned, actually we don't know the precise form of PMNS, and what is the neutrino hierarchy: normal 1-2-3 or inverted....However, I would also like to mention that a neutrino mass could be generated by quantum gravity effects called "exotic instantons". Curiously also a small Majorana mass term for the NEUTRON could be generated by these effects, as calculated by myself. The next generation of experiments on NNbar transitions will directly test this hypothesis, testing 1000TeV effective scale. Proton is not destabilized in my model. 

Dear Sebastian and Andrea,

first of all thank you so much for your explanations. Can you tell me whether the three presumed neutrino rest-masses were determined? I read many articles, but what I saw is as follows:

1. I never saw that individual values for the masses were obtained, only differences between the squares. Thus, I don't know whether we have an order of magnitude of the neutrino masses. The differences between the squares tell us nothing about the individual values.

2. The calculus of the 3 masses requires also the knowledge of the PMNS matrix elements. What I saw is that experimenters that take data from one another. For instance, in order to calculates the PMNS constants they take the values of the square mass differences from other experiments, or other variants. So, new experiments don't check and improve older results, but are dependent on those.

3. I never saw a measurement of the neutrino velocity. If it has a rest-mass, the velocity should depend on energy. For low energy neutrinos the velocity should be significantly lower than c.

Can somebody give me some information on the above issues? 

Dear Sofia You should read something about history - for example C. Giunti book. 

The neutrino particle don't interact by electrodynamics - electric charged is 0 as I mentioned. 

How You can catch this like particle ?

In all detectors we don't catch any neutrino. We see electric charged particle with made by reactions (of neutrino with something). From theory we know witch neutrino is in interaction with electron, mion and tau - from this You have flavour states of neutrino. So we see just electron, mion and tau particles - from this we conclude what kinde of neutrino was in interaction. It's wery hard do something with neutrino. They are go by You in each second (hundred milion of neutrinos) but they interact just weekly - wery wery wery weekly. 

Look for neutrino unbound page ;) 

The differences between the squares tell us nothing about the individual values. - something they say ;) 

New experiments take data from all experiments becouse statistics.

If you see just one to ten neutrinos for wery long time it's not enough for statistical analysis. So different exp. take different part of PMNS matrix so it's also  for different mass squered difference. We can see mass squer diff by neutrino oscillation process - You acts on states no on particle. 

http://www.nu.to.infn.it

One must distinguish, once more, experimental issues from theoretical issues. Experimentally it's been established that neutrino flavors change. This is a well-established result. This result can only be described, theoretically,  in a way consistent with what else is known about neutrinos by the statement that they aren't all degenerate in mass, which means that all neutrino mass eigenstates do not have the *same*  eigenvalue. It happens that this eigenvalue was thought to be equal to zero. Therefore, at least one neutrino flavor is massive. This is, in fact, a  standard exercise in quantum mechanics  and a good reference is this one: http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4183 The experimental issues are a completely different subject, cf. http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1778

So, no the statement that neutrinos are massive is not an artifact, but is a physically meaningful statement-which, of course, is consistent with global Poincaré invariance, since mass is one of the Casimirs of the Poincaré group and particles are defined by the Casimirs of the Poincaré group. What is more subtle is the fact that neutrino states of definite mass do not have definite flavor and neutrino states of definite flavor do not have definite mass: they are superpositions-that's how neutrino oscillations are described, as is usual in quantum mechanics. 

This means that the rest frame of a neutrino is physically meaningful-but in that frame, where the neutrino is in a state of definite mass, it is in a superposition of flavor states-it doesn't have definite ``electron/muon/tau'' flavor. 

Therefore the first statement is incorrect-the velocity of neutrinos is not equal to that of light in vacuum, but is equal to the group velocity of the superposition, that's less than that of light.

That the rest masses are extremely small, by any scale of the Standard Model is an experimental fact-so what? The mass hierarchy of all the particles of the Standard Model is not known, from first principles,  either. 

The statement about the rest frame is incorrect, since no particle has  ever been produced at rest, either. The issue is that massive particles have a rest frame, where they are in a state of definite mass, while massless particles do not possess such a frame. The non-trivial fact is that flavor oscillations mean, as mentioned, that the neutrino, that has definite mass, does not have definite flavor. 

That the experimentally available values of the neutrino flavor mixing matrix are known to within a finite precision is true-but, so what? Measurements are ongoing and what matters is what's the precision necessary to make certain deductions. 

The mass hierarchy of all the particles of the Standard Model is not known, from first principles, either. - of cours but this knowlegh can show You where is god place to search new physics beyond standard model. All experiments are needed high precisions - from this You can say what  neutrinos realy are (DIrac or Majorana). The main reason why we can't find new physics interactions in Neutrino sector is that the deviations are still to high. 

For Information Scientists we can define no precise solution. That's the main problem  of actual physics.... 

Dear Sofia,

your question on neutrino rest-mass touches a very important aspect of the actual research in Particle Physics. The recent experimental results confirm neutrino oscillations, namely that neutrino when interacts with matter acquires a mass (even if very little). With respect to these results some scientists have concluded that the Standard Model must be modified, since it considers neutrino mass-free. This conclusion is not well founded ! In fact, I have given a more geometrodynamic mechanism that allows to justify mass acquisition for particles. According to this mechanism neutrino, as the other mass-free particles of the Standard Models, acquire mass when interact with matter (or with massive particles). Therefore, what has been recently observed, justifies my theory, but it supports also the original Standard Model. Really the situation of neutrino is similar to one considered in the Weinberg-Salam model, for electroweak interactions, where massless bosons acquire masses in the interaction with electron. (This has been usually justified with a symmetry-breaking mechanism.)

On the other hand I have proved that also photons acquire mass during their interactions with matter.(For more informations about please look to the following papers http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4856 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4856.)

I hope You have better understand Your theory then SM. 

W bosons don't get mass from interaction with electron - They have mass from Higgs mechanism. 

I don't understand why You put here Your theory  - it's nothing explain for this Lady. 

You have very much publications with wery nice topic but it is really place to write something like this ? 

Best regards

Dear Sebastian,

whether you have the patient to read my paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4856, you will be able to understand what is the relation between Higgs mechanism, SM and my theory.

Dear Sofia

I am a follower of the "Le discours de la méthode" de Descartes; therefore, when the results of some experience are not in accordance with previous theory, I don't presume that it is due to unknown entities; instead, I revue the theory.

Energy conservation is a property well tested in mechanics - and thermodynamics, which are also mechanics. Fundamentally, it is a property of elastic shock. It is observed also in the interaction between atomic particles and between radiation and particles. However, it is not observed in the decay of the neutron. Why? 

I think that it will take a genius to find it. By now, what can be done is to add a parameter to equations to make them fit the results. And, of course, a parameter needs a name. The name for this case is "neutrino".

Then, experiences where made to confirm the new equations with the "neutrino". First, from a nuclear reactor. After some problems, it was "declared" that the experience confirmed the equations. Then, from the Sun. This much more controlled experience failed. And raised a complex problem: to adjust now the equations to this result it was necessary to make the "neutrino" disappear in the path between Sun and Earth without violating the principle of conservation of Energy. A difficult problem, isn't it? The magic solution is the "fluctuation", the "flavor oscillations".

All this is just "mathematics". I think that this is why the persons that invent these mathematics artefacts give them names like "flavor" or "color" - phantasy names. They are saying "please, do not think that this may correspond to any objective reality". But many physicist think that they are real physical entities - neutrinos, dark matter, dark energy, great attractors, and many others.

I simplified the story and probably nothing of this will help you. A portuguese philosopher said once that we must shake our head to check if we have something inside... that is what I am doing here.

Alfredo Oliveira 

You should turn off Your computer - it's no real it's just "mathematics" 

of cours you use numbers because it is reality and physics. You can eat one apple, two apple but take one apple and devide it (exacly for everyone) for three person.

If something is not physical because You can't imagine this it's not mathematics fault. 

It is imposible that People understand that math is language of physics like english, polish, french etc… math is just one language with precision of meaning. 

Even in Your deduction is mestake. 

Then, experiences where made to confirm the new equations with the "neutrino". First, from a nuclear reactor. After some problems, it was "declared" that the experience confirmed the equations. Then, from the Sun. This much more controlled experience failed.

- yes but if they want verify this experiments they first must know what searching and that is something for searching. It's pure classical logic - of cours not real (it's math). 

QM show as that logic of this theory (witch agree with every experiments) can not be classical logic - this is reason why we have many paradoxs. 

In Your meaning we should be like Aristotel

Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Planck et…. all -- made mathematical models for reality.  

If we want speak about physics we must speak about math

phylosophy is wery interesting by me also. 

Question on neutrino is considered often because effectively it presents very interesting problems. It seems to me that about neutrino there are still many different viewpoints in regard to its physical nature. In the order of many solutions that have been proposed I would want to propose now a completely different solution in the order of the Non-Standard Model. In this model main physical properties of neutrino are:

1. Neutrino mass is exactly zero

2. Neutrino and antineutrino are the same particle, in concordance with Majorana

3.The physical speed of neutrino is exactly the speed of light as it has been confirmed by CERN-LNGS experiment (2011)

4. Neutrino is a boson and not a fermion

5. Neutrino spin is zero and not 1/2

6. Neutrino respects the Planck relation.

This model of neutrino gives a good answer to four doubts into question and besides it proves neutrino mass is really an illusion.

If somebody is interested in Non-Standard Model I will suggest  some link.

Sebastian

As any engineer, I am very much used to mathematical models - I made many and very successful; but as any engineer also knows, one thing is a mathematical model able to fit a set of data and other is the physical phenomena behind. For instance, to project radiators one uses mathematical models, which are extremely important to achieve new designs and better performance; however, in no way those mathematical models trace the behavior of the electrons. I can make mathematical models knowing nothing about the physical phenomena. Of course that these models are very good within the range of data but tend to fail outside it.

A well known example: Ptolemy model. It was a remarkably good mathematical model; but in no way it represents the physical reality.

In what concerns current models used in Physics, both the atomic model and the cosmological model systematically fail in new experiments; this is the evidence that they are not correct representations of "reality" but only mathematical models of known data, which need new parameters to fit new results.That is why dark matter and dark energy had to be introduced, and that is why there is a zoological of particles. The question one may consider is the following: are they simply mathematical models? Like the Ptolemy model? Dark energy, dragging stars away, is the modern equivalent of celestial spheres dragging them around?

The curious point is that mathematicians understand very well this subject, it is crystal clear for them, (as for engineers), while physicians insist in ignoring it. Why?  

I see nobody asked some explanation about the Non-Standard Model but I see at least one voted down. I would want to say to this person that innovative research always attracts downvote of conformist people who in research have little meaning. Let us return now to serious things.

I would want to remind the colleague Alfredo Oliveira in engineering also physical models exist besides mathematical models and now we have to consider more and more physico-mathematical models. In the Theory of Reference Frames for instance it is possible to define a clear model physico-mathematical of electron. And besides tracks of all charged elementary particles are photographed in particle accelerators. I don't want to extend to much the discussion field in order to avoid easy confusions and dispersions but I would want to mark dark matter and dark energy are only the outcome of a theoretical model and not the effective understanding of a real physical fact.

Anyway I would like always to discuss about neutrino with interested people.

Well neutrino oscillations imply that neutrinos are massive; while it's expected that neutrinos are Majorana particles, this isn't yet settled-the exclusion of sterile neutrinos by Planck data is just a hint and double neutrino-less beta decay data aren't yet available; the speed of neutrinos is less than the speed of light-that issue has now been settled; that the spin of the neutrinos is 1/2 has been measured for decades in beta decay, muon decay, and all other decays where neutrinos play a role and, thus they are fermions; all matter ``respects'' wave/particle duality and, thus, the Planck relation, E = hbar ω. Therefore the statements made about the ``Non-Standard Model'' are in contradiction with previous experiments and the theoretical description of neutrinos. While there are many aspects of neutrinos that are subject to investigation, these issues are not among them. They serve as background to calibrate experiments. Review articles on theory and experiment about neutrinos have been provided in previous messages.

The preceding comment (Stam N.) is a classical example of conformist opinion. In other words the spin of neutrino is 1/2 because the conservation law of spin in beta decay has to be respected. Just that law must be respected, but it doesn't mean in the Non-Standard Model  the spin of neutrino is 1/2. Before to talk and write without consciousness it would need that people could get information about new results of research as I did with Standard Model before to formulating the Non-Standard Model.

Christian, you are 100% right.!

When I talk with physicists, I find open minds, enlightening thoughts, a deep need for understanding. However, when I wright something which is in accordance with what i learn with them, I am immediately attacked. Apparently, there is a "system" that does all the possible to equate science and religion. Maybe its a need of people, I do not know. But I don't like when that happens in physics fora. 

This is so strong that I have received emails from cosmologists because of my self-similar model of the universe; warning e-mails. Saying that the "system" will never accept my work because it is not of its convenience. And more serious things. And I have also other experiences of the kind. Even a Letter to Solar Physics that was correct but was rejected with the sole argument that "the readers of Solar Physics will not believe".

The fact that there are lots of crazy theories supports a kind of persecution to all those that correctly question things; I understand that physicists can do nothing about it, unpleasant things can happen to them. I don't like this situation and sometimes I can be unfair, because I developed a certain susceptibility on this.

I will do my best to be more constructive. Thanks for the remark. 

Non-conservation of angular momentum has measurable consequences-that can and are sought for, since they serve to calibrate detectors. This is what many people have difficulty understanding: that physics isn't a subject of metaphysical debate, but of working out the consequences. Were angular momentum not conserved in beta decay, then this would have had measurable consequences on the polarization of the electron, that's emitted during that process, for example-that can be constrained-that's how it's established what the spin of the neutrino is-and can't be.  Also, there's nothing that would have forbidden *other* contributions, to processes that don't conserve angular momentum to be measurable. And it is possible to write similar ``Lorentz-violating'' terms and check for their effects-there's a substantial literature on the subject. These are part of the calibration of detectors, so were there any such effects, they would have been detected since the experimental results don't make sense otherwise. Similarly, if someone wishes to propose a theory, where angular momentum isn't conserved, then (s)he must work out the consequences for why these effects couldn't have been detected elsewhere to date.

Particles are described by the Casimirs of the Poincaré group, so a neutrino of spin 0 is a meaningless term; in supersymmetric theories the partner of a neutrino is a spin 0 particle, distinct from a neutrino, with the same charge (the weak charge), but different mass, if supersymmetry is broken. 

Sofia> alternative explanations of the neutrino flavor oscillations, without assuming rest-masses for neutrino?

If the only goal is to explain oscillations between three flavors of left-handed neutrinos it should be possible to write down models. However, it would be difficult make such models Lorentz invariant. And even more difficult, if not impossible, to fit such models into the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

The more you try, the more you will appreciate the simplicity and elegance of the standard solution with neutrino masses!

Many commenters are ablest to explain us what is described in Wikipedia or in other books. I am striving to explain contents of research on the Non-Standard Model. Stam Nicolis's last comment would say I am against the Conservation Law of spins but if he examines the situation he will see there are problems for that law just inside the Standard Model. Anyway I don't want to give further doses of active research above all when it isn't well accepted.

Daniele

Full in accordance. My commentary is a call of attention to the need to do not take a mathematical parameter for a physical entity - models have both.

A physical entity is a consistent set of properties; a mathematical parameter is typically one single property. For instance, dark matter is only a source of gravitational field, it is not "matter", it has no other property; but if one believes that dark matter represents a physical entity, then one starts working on the properties of dark matter particles - and will loose time and, eventually, mental sanity (unless one does that as a way to show that dark matter cannot be a physical entity).

Furthermore, the confusion between parameters and physical entities has led to the idea that anything is possible in the physical universe. I mention often the case of Ptolemy model to illustrate the danger of taking mathematical entities as physical ones. I imagine the long discussions that took place in the past about the nature of the celestial spheres and other things.  

Many persons, in all fields, are only concerned with obtaining equations that provide control over phenomena; they state that trying to understand things is stupid, a lost of time and has no utility. I think that if Copernicus and others though like that, we will be still discussing the properties of celestial spheres. Both things are important. 

Equations don't ``provide control over phenomena''-they describe phenomena in a way that does not depend on any one and can be checked by any one. Claims that are not supported by any equations are metaphysical-they depend on the person making them and must be accepted on faith, since there doesn't exist an impersonal way of resolving them. For example, the claim that there's any problem with the conservation of angular momentum in the Standard Model can be checked to be wrong by a calculation that's straightforward. There isn't any issue of how to write down the different terms in the Lagrangian of the Standard Model: they are all those that are invariant under global Poincaré transformations and local SU(3)_color x SU(2)_L x U(1)_(weak hypercharge) transformations at the classical and quantum levels, that contain spin-1/2 and spin-0 matter fields in specific representations of the gauge groups.  Using other, larger, representations, that describe additional particles,  leads to predictions for physics beyond the Standard Model, part of which are constrained by the Standard Model itself, since the new particles would contribute to known processes. There's a large literature on this  subject. The discovery that neutrinos are massive raises the question of how to describe the mass term-whether the neutrinos are Dirac particles, or Majorana particles. The former implies the existence of right-handed neutrinos, that are singlets under the gauge group, the latter leads to other predictions. 

Dear Kåre,

Neutrino physics is not my domain, it's not in my skills.

Now, please see: the equation

(1)  E2 = p2c2 + m02c4

shows that IF we could measure simultaneously on a neutrino both the energy E and linear momentum p, we could find clearly if it there is a rest mass or not. But I never saw a measurement of the linear momentum, what I saw was that we use p = mc instead of p = mv, (where m is the relativistic mass).

All the rest are hypotheses that seem to work well. We assume that there is a rest mass, this assumption explains satisfactorily the flavor oscillations, but assumptions, assumptions. We measure some differences between square rest-masses, in experiments in which we also need the elements of the PMNS matrix. Everything seems based on a so unsure ground.

I also looked at those tentatives to measure the NEUTRINO VELOCITY. First, it was said that it is superluminal, next, that they found the mistake, and finally they reported  |v - c|/c = 2.7 x 10-6.  It is an unbearable absurdity. With this value and with the usually reported neutrino energies, I calculated the neutrino rest mass. I obtained a value bigger than the electron rest-mass by two or more orders of magnitude.

Bottom line, I am glad that the model of the neutrino with rest-mass is elegant, but it is assumptions, assumptions, and experiments with unsure parameters.

In short, does somebody know a measurement of both the linear momentum and energy of the neutrino?

Measurements have been done on neutrinos for decades and one must learn the subject, if one is interested in the details. If one is interested in the outline, it's useful to keep in mind that not all thought experiments can be realized to comparable accuracy. Also that all experiments have error bars-the issue is that they can be controlled. This is elementary lab physics, that's taught in physics courses, nothing advanced-though it seems, unfortunately, that many people don't realize this. So the measurement of the velocity of neutrinos, |v-c|/c=2.7 x 10^(-6) isn't ``absurd''-as stated it's just a statement about the resolution of the measurement. It is also meaningless, as given, absent its error bar. While it can lead to an estimate of the rest mass, it is expected that this estimate is very coarse. Much tighter bounds are known. 

Once more: that neutrinos are massive is the result of the oscillation measurements-that, of course, can, only, provide an estimate for the mass difference between any  two neutrino flavors. This is a deduction from everything that's known about neutrinos to date and is consistent with them.  To understand that requires learning some prerequisite material-it can't be deduced absent them. 

In practice one deduces the energy and momentum of neutrinos from the measurements of the energy and momentum of the charged particles, that are produced along with them in any process. It's part of standard physics courses that charged particles can be identified by using electric and magnetic fields and using energy and momentum conservation leads to the reconstruction of the process. And using many, different, processes provides the checks that the measurements are consistent. 

One presentation of how neutrino detectors work is here: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/current/teach/module_home/px435/lec_neutrinodetectors.pdf

Another is here: http://www.mi.infn.it/~brogiato/campiglio/Ranucci.pdf

Physics is so well understood that neutrino ``factories'' can be discussed, cf. here: http://www.nu.to.infn.it/Neutrino_Factory/#3 for a fairly comprehensive list of resources. Neutrino event reconstruction is a technical topic in high energy physics-the principle is as stated, using energy and momentum conservation and the detection of charged particles to deduce the properties of the neutrinos-the details are in the links provided. 

Alfredo Oliveira and Christian Baumgarten

what You get new to the Sofia question ?

one thing is a mathematical model able to fit a set of data and other is the physical phenomena behind - No. one thing is a statistical method for data set and something different is compute results from physical (mayby not satistical - like QM) theory. For both You use math - number, functions, integrals, diferentials etc. 

If I want find the sorthest path for falling ball I take Newton eq and compute what it should be. I don’t need check infinity many possible path. From mathematical models You can made new phenomena - like GPS from SR, LHC in CERN, Radio - Maxwell theory, positron, and hundrets new particles, Computers etc etc. 

 Of course that these models are very good within the range of data but tend to fail outside it. - Nobady (without some people on researchgate) tell that we have theory of everything ;) Each theory is made to describe some effects. We made new effects without theory and we have new effects from some theory. We always want modify our theory - everything is effective in some sens. Nobady in physics tell You that we create reality - we create models to describe reality. This can be done just with math - so natural is that people search new math and then new effects. 

A well known example: Ptolemy model. It was a remarkably good mathematical model; but in no way it represents the physical reality.

Ptolemy model was good but no so good to compute everything. Now we know that this is just one of possibilites - one of coordinate system - the same as Copernicus system. If You choose the second you can compute more things in easiest way but it's still some choice. The question what around what is nonsens - but You don’t know this from eigeners works. 

If physical theory fail in new experiments - public this in paper and show why this models are bad. But first try understand this theories then criticize them and take new theories. Not just by talking just everything is wrong and every physicists are stupid and wrong. Write new theory - but remember that it should be agree with facts from 400 Years befor. 

Physicists know what they do. We describe what could be describe. In many places we know how thinks do but don’t know why exactly.

We don’t want nonsens discusions about nothing so we always talk about mathematical models of physics. 

Next - simplicity not comes from that You can derive one thing by multiply other thing by some number (linear models). Simplicity means that to describe more You can use simplest assumptions - it’s doesnt mean that computations will be simplest. 

Interpretations of physical models is wery interesting and very emocional for people. If You just show something unnormal there is „wow” like in magic. Difference is that in physics there ins’t nothing magical - its just math. You can’t resolve problems just by thinking about problem!!! but You can compute some effects. 

Dark matter and dark energy are name for populist :/ we call something that because we can’t see this by knownig interactions - electromagnetic  (at Quantum level) And we don't have anything in our model for something like that. We know that something should be from gravitional experiments  - GR. More of physicist try find solutions without this „something” or try put something for with You will get good results - we do what we can. and if You want solve this problem try find concreet solution not just talk - „its wrong you are stiupd” .

Galileo also fought with people to make his theory - but he didnt stop just by talking - newton take his experiments and write math for it.  Yes He derive equation becouse it's one of the simplest form to show something. We know that we can solve exactly three body problem but it's doesnt mean that we should move everything to trash. 

We know that You are graet but it's normall that everyone can't understand everything. You are good enginer - well than. Maybe you are not good specialist from SR and GR - its very hard topic And i think that 95% people aren't specialist in this theories. 

The same in QM - there are a lot good people in SR but without understanding in QM - it's normall. 

A brief clarification:

In the theory of measurements the quantity  |v-c|/c=2.7x10-6  points out only the relative error that has been committed in measurement of the speed v of a physical entity. In that case the accepted value for measurement  coincides exactly with c, just the accepted value for the speed of neutrino in the Non-Standard Model. This brief clarification belongs to fundamentals of the theory of errors.

Therefore the ``Non-Standard Model'' predicts massless neutrinos, (just like the Standard Model before the discovery of neutrino oscillations, only that, in the Standard Model, it's not required that neutrinos be massless, it's allowed, but it can accommodate neutrino masses in various ways) since only massless particles travel at the speed of light in vacuum-and this is in contradiction with neutrino oscillations, that imply that neutrinos are massive. No ``theory of measurements'' can provide the error on the |v-c|/c; only the experiment can-the systematic error due to the procedure and the statistical error, due to the finite number of events. So the question is, whether 2.7 x 10^(-6) is consistent with 0 or not. Now it is very likely the case that the experimental procedure cannot resolve this-that a particle of very low mass can be measured, with finite resolution, to travel at a speed that cannot be distinguished from the speed of light, by the apparatus. And, indeed, if one actually reads the paper,  one finds that the value is  (2.7 ± 3.1) x 10^(-6), i.e. compatible with 0. The 3.1 is the statistical error and the systematic error is +3.4-3.3 (i.e. the systematic error isn't symmetric about zero). This, simply, means that the procedure used cannot distinguish the velocity of the neutrinos from that of light traveling the same distance-which isn't surprising, since the detector was not designed for performing such a measurement in the first place-it was designed for performing other measurements, for which the resolution of the velocity can be coarser (and it's hard to imagine a real detector that would have the requisite resolution, which means that the velocity isn't as useful an observable as are the energy and the momentum, that can be measured by other procedures).

 That's different from a theoretical description that relies on the assumption that a particle does travel at the speed of light, which can only mean, if Poincaré invariance is a symmetry, that it is massless. If it's not massless, then Poincaré invariance is broken and the effects that are sensitive to this breaking should be detectable. There has been a lot of work on Lorentz-violating processes and bounds have been calculated and measured: cf. http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html , for instance.

Sebastian

You are not understanding the problem.

Of course that all models use maths - as text as well. The use of maths is not at question at all. Can you understand the intrinsic diference between Newton's model and Ptolemy's model? Or simply you do not want to see it?

Of course that there are lots of persons (many scientists) that make crazy theories, and that say that everything is wrong without presenting any reasonable alternative; but that is not my case and of many other persons. I can talk of these things exactly because I have built an alternative - you can see it here:  http://vixra.org/abs/1107.0016

But of course you will not see it because you know for sure that it has to be wrong, isn't it? 

But even if I had not built an alternative, that would not take me the right to discuss the problems in physics; and there are many problems.

The only result that could defeat the Big Bang cosmologies is a non-positive deceleration parameter, the falsifiable test before SNa observations; and this is what is observed. 

I can easily make a model of whatever; give me the data and I present the equations that fit them. Any dum can do it. That is a pure mathematical model. And I can also make any wrong physical model to fit data - it is only a matter of adding parameters- such as Dark Energy. But I know one thing: very likely, that model will not fit any new data. That is what is happening with the atomic model and the cosmological model. So, any reasonable scientist should begin thinking that something is deeply wrong with both models. And begin wondering and questioning in the search of what is wrong. Only religion can not be questioned. Those persons are not attacking science, quite on the contrary. The ones that treat science as if it was a religion are the ones that put science in danger (im my opinion). The ones that state that any questioning is the result of ignorance or stupidity.

Nothing is ``wrong'' with current models of particles or of cosmology-they're incomplete, that's all. But they provide constraints for further models: any model, that describes neutrino masses, should be consistent with what's, already, known about neutrinos, for instance.

Stam

Nothing was wrong with Ptolemy model with the data then available - it fitted data with remarkable accuracy. Much better than Copernicus heliocentric model. 

A mistaken model is always incomplete - when a new kind of observation is made, a new parameter is needed to adjust it to data. Of course that the new parameter can be presented to the public as a discovery, and imaginative names can be given to it.

The arguments you and me can present are just a matter of opinion, at this point both equally reasonable because we are reasonable persons. On your side, you have standard models that fit available data. But I have also something on my side: I have presented a new model that fits cosmic data and seems to be far superior to standard model. The only thing that worth discussion is that model, because if it is wrong, you may be right; if it is correct, I may be right.

The problem with Ptolemy's model was that it was constructed for a particular problem and didn't provide any insight about anything else.  It provided a calculational framework that did work, but it couldn't provide any insight why it worked. The advantage of Newton's theory is that it provides a way of calculating everything that Ptolemy's model can and much more and provides a a framework for understanding how it works-it isn't, just, a calculational framework for one specific problem, but shows that the problem, celestial motion, is part of a much larger class of problems.

A mistaken model isn't, just, incomplete-it's in contradiction with certain experiments. The Standard Model is incomplete, but it isn't mistaken, because it isn't in contradiction with any data and can accommodate  neutrino masses in ways that make specific predictions that can be tested. 

Cosmological models are distinct from the Standard Model of particle physics. There have been many cosmological models, that explore scaling properties of cosmological evolution (``self-tuning'' models are one example). All these models, describe classical gravity and, therefore, can only be sensitive to the ratio of the cosmological constant to Newton's constant, appropriately rescaled. It's not possible, however, to control, separately, the two parameters, since only the equations of motion, Einstein's equations are used. Cosmological models, however, don't have anything to do with the topic under discussion, which is the mass of neutrinos, because they use only the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor of matter, that is defined by the Standard Model. 

Dear Sofia,

I don't understand what you are thinking about, while asking that question.  The rest mass is defined as the magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector and can be zero when the energy is equal to the magnitude of the momentum, as it is the case for photons, for example.  When the rest mas is not zero, there exists a Lorentz boost that brings you to the particle's rest system, in which the particle is still (zero momentum).  Otherwise, no such boost exists.  BTW, this dates back to the young Einstein's question "what would I see if I could sit on a photon?".  As no such boost exists, it is impossible to "sit on a photon".

Coming to neutrinos, their rest mass is practically negligible in most applications.  The only manifestation of it that I know about is the phenomenon of flavour (i.e. type) oscillation.  The way it is described (flavour and mass operators do not commute) requires a non-zero mass for all types that can transform one in another.  As oscillations have been detected among electron and muon neutrinos (from the Sun) and from muon to tau neutrinos (CERN -> Gran Sasso beam), it appears that all known 3 flavours must possess a non-zero mass.

On the other hand, from oscillation experiments one only gets a constraint on the (square) mass difference.  As the latter comes out to be very small, the best we can do is to state that it provides a lower limit to the rest mass (which is presently unmeasurable).

In summary, positive detection of oscillations (i.e. type changes) between different pairs of neutrino flavours implies that the neutrinos must have a non-zero rest mass.

This means that a boost exists which would bring an observer "sitting" on a neutrino, obtaining the closest known approximation to Einstein's dream.

Cheers,

Diego

Diego,

What you said which wasn't said until now?

The neutrino rest mass is just an explanation of the neutrino flavor oscillations. Is there another phenomenon which finds an explanation is that neutrinos have rest-mass? If there is, tell us, it would be very, very interesting.

Just compare the hypothesis of the neutrinos rest-mass, with the hypothesis that quantum objects have a wave-like behavior. There is a huge number of phenomena explained by the quantum theory. Vis-à-vis this, how many phenomena are explained by the neutrino rest-mass?

Thus, the neutrino rest-mass hypothesis is, for the moment, just an work-assumption that works well in the single case for which we need it - the flavor oscillations. Much more tests have to be done for checking the truth of this assumption.

For instance, if there exists a frame of coordinates in which the neutrino is at rest (or moves with a very low velocity) we should be able to get a neutrino at rest, or at least reduce very much its velocity. Can we do that? For the moment, NO! There are of course reasons, the neutrino interacts very poorly with matter, but, bottom line, the neutrino rest-frame is for the moment just a hypothesis.

It's not a hypothesis that neutrinos have rest-mass, if their flavors show oscillations-it's a consequence and it's inevitable: If neutrino flavors show oscillations, then there isn't any other way for this to occur than for neutrinos to have different masses, therefore, at least two flavors to have unequal, non-zero, masses and, by measuring all phases to conclude that they are all massive. The masses, of course, are very small, in absolute terms. One doesn't need to measure the phases themselves too precisely-just enough to conclude that they're non-zero. 

This then leads to new predictions: If it's assumed that neutrinos are Dirac particles, their mass terms require the existence right handed neutrinos, that combine with the known left handed neutrinos to interact with the Higgs field.  Such right handed neutrinos, called ``sterile neutrinos'', since they don't interact with anything else, are, however, apparently, excluded by Planck data. Therefore it's more likely that neutrinos are Majorana particles. This leads to another set of predictions.

The existence of a rest frame for neutrinos isn't a hypothesis, it's a consequence of the fact that they're massive and of global Poincaré invariance, whose violation would lead to measurable effects elsewhere, that haven't been observed. The fact that it's very hard to trap neutrinos, in practice, is irrelevant to this argument. 

Physics has consistency checks between theory and experiment and statements about one effect have consequences elsewhere, that may be easier to check than direct searches. That's what many people don't seem to realize.

Sofia~ Is there another phenomenon which finds an explanation is that neutrinos have rest-mass?

There are in principle, but they are in practice very difficult to measure. One phenomenon is the (electron) endpoint spectrum in tritium decay, which will change shape with a finite neutrino mass. But that might require an extremely stable and long running experiment (hundreds of years?) to detect.

Other phenomena are the electromagnetic properties which massive neutrinos can have (which massless neutrinos cannot have). But again, within the standard model the predicted magnitudes of these properties are so tiny that it may take a few hundred years of technology development before detection becomes possible.

The fact that the neutrino oscillation length is modified when propagating through matter is another prediction of the current model, which I believe has been verified to some accuracy (when observed by neutrinos the sun shines brighter at night).

Sofia,

I don't understand your criticism.  The very fact that at lest one type of experiment shows that the neutrinos have mass is already a great result!

As detecting neutrinos is a challenge by itself, you cannot even dream of stopping one. However, this does not mean that "the neutrino rest-frame is just a hypothesis".  If it has non-zero mass, the math says that a boost exists, which brings you to the neutrino rest-frame.  Whether this is practically achievable or not does not matter.  Nobody has stopped a Higgs boson (nor you can dream about it).  Still, you go to its rest-frame to study its spin-CP properties from the 4-momenta of the final-state particles (the best chain is H -> ZZ -> e+e- µ+µ-).

If you ask what other phenomenon is related to the non-zero mass of neutrinos, then I would mention cosmology, with the caveat that the total energy density carried on by all neutrinos (including sterile ones) cannot be very large, as current models prefer "cold dark matter" (i.e. slow and massive particles, not light and fast neutrinos).

Diego

Resting mass of neutrino is a theoretical monster like resting mass of photon. For understanding it needs to know concepts of resting mass, dynamic mass, electrodynamic mass, relativistic mass. equivalent mass. It needs to know above all the difference between real physics and virtual physics. All question seems to be focused now on oscillation of neutrinos that it would be the final and conclusive testing that neutrinos have mass and it disconcerts the Standard Model in which neutrino mass is zero. On this account Majorana neutrino comes back but Majorana considered also neutrino and antineutrino were the same particle. A model is disconcerted and now somebody says that model was incomplete. Adding new concepts to old models generates only theoretical monsters, but on the other hand that characteristic is typical of postmodern physics that is disconcerted on different fronts. The solution can come only from new paths of research and not from adjustments ad hoc.

Neutrino is a fermion and so has some non-zero rest mass, thus they move with speeds that are always lesser the speed of light, etc.

Only particles that have integer spin can move in the 3D space only and so having the speed of light (since they don’t move along the [c]t-axis,  they have zero rest mass) – see http://viXra.org/abs/1503.0077   or https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

(though after the RG “upgraded” the soft, by unknown reason the texts in links (as above) become be having rather strange format, for example h-bar seems as not h-bar, etc.; on other hand downloaded text is correct).

Cheers

Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics

Daniele> ...adjustments ad hoc.

Toillprat!

 Dear friends

In this subject there are, obviously, different, opposite, opinions. There is a reason to that: there are different kinds of minds, that have different ways of reasoning, and it is the cooperation between both that leads to the solution of problems.

An example

Consider a team that made a project; as typical, the project do not quite fit the specifications. Then, the "Why" minds begin questioning:" what is wrong with the project? what is wrong with the assumptions made? ". The "How" minds have a different approach, they ask "What is missing in the project? What must be added to make it fit the specifications? "

You see, a "Why" mind questions itself; it is the kind of mind typical of a good detective, or doctor, or maintenance engineer. The "How" mind considers that theories are not wrong, only incomplete. Both are indispensable to a successful project.

When both minds cooperate, a solution is found. But cooperation is only possible if each one understands these things. 

In KATRIN experiment, one measures kinetic energy of the electron emitted in Tritium beta decay with very high precision. Kinetic energy of the emitted electron is a function of neutrino mass. Web page for this experiment is http://www.katrin.kit.edu/.

Ref:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0109033

from kinematics, dN/dE is proportional to sqrt[ (E-E0)^2 -mnu^2]

Interesting information. But from my understanding it is rather unlikely that they will be able to detect any neutrino mass. According to PDG, the current limit on the sum of neutrino masses is 0.23 eV. So KATRIN will have to lower their detection threshold by at least one order of magnitude, which (in addition to the required improvement in the accuracy of energy measurements) requires at least two orders of magnitude increase in the number of tritium decays.

But it is an important experiment, providing independent information, even if they only end up with upper bounds. 

Tritium decay into helium is an interesting example of  beta decay. The continuous spectrum of the kinetic energy of emitted electron isn't function of neutrino mass but it depends on the relativistic mass (according to TR) of electron. The Theory of Reference Frames (TR) and the Non-Standard  Model (NSM) give satisfactory explanations of these processes of decay.

Daniele> The continuous spectrum of the kinetic energy of emitted electron isn't function of neutrino mass

It is, very close to the maximum electron energy. According to standard theory of beta decay (actually it is mostly a question of relativistic phasespace kinematics of three-body decays). 

Dear Kare, there are different theories and models that I would like to compare. In scientific discussions dogmatic positions are wrong and only a free mind is able to understand errors and which theory or model is more satisfactory. Because orthodox physicists refuse that comparison, sure in their certainties, cognitive gap becomes always larger.

Daniele> there are different theories

I understand that, which is why I wrote the second sentence.

I wouldn't advice any student of physics, though, to invest in alternative ways to understand beta decay, alternative to the Standard Model and the concepts and theories on which it is based. Dogmatic or not, anything else would be irresponsible and foolish.

Kare, I understand your worries as professor. But I think a good teaching is based on a critical and non dogmatic view. If one has only certainties in regard to contents of his own teaching there aren't problems but I think today it isn't in physics. And therefore a professor has to teach a free critical view. If it isn't possible I think it is better that he leaves teaching and continues to do only research.

Daniele, I think you have a quite limited, and very perverted view of how scientists work (also as teachers of science, including methods, attitudes and ethics). Which is why I tried to describe one of your posts above in the most precise way I could manage: Toillprat!

It is common characteristic of dogmatic and ignorant  postmodern physicists to fall into insult when they don't have valid argumentations.

It is also common characteristic of dogmatic and ignorant  postmodern physicists to downvote when they don't have valid argumentations.

Daniele, I can't help down-voting you when you speak pure nonsense.Carefully planned, executed and analyzed experiments are not defending dogmatic positions. The physicists doing such experiments are not ignorant, they are not trying to prove a priori ideas but rather to falsify them. By the way, in what sense are they postmodern?

Concerning the above discussion, I have something to say. 

When I was at the high school, everybody though I will follow Physics. Teachers of several matters put me questions of physics to check if it was true that I knew as much of physics as some were saying. But then I realize that Physics was almost like a religion, full of certainties, and so I choose engineering - by two reasons. One is that engineers never put theories above reality and the other is that I understood that if I want to find the answers I was looking for, I had to be an independent research, I could not depend on science for living.

That is my story. But it is also the story of many people that gave important contributions to Physics. I know that most students are looking for certainties, that they would be in panic without them. I don't know how things could be organized. But I feel that is missing a space for those that are able of questioning things - the philosophers of physics. A teacher is not a necessarily researcher, it is not in his DNA. A researcher is someone full of doubts, a teacher can't have doubts. Although I do value very much the work of those that teach and that organize data, they are the ground and the wall of all science; but they are not whole building.  

The neutrinos have mass but very very small. and actually neutrinos are charge less thats why it  feels no EM force, no Strong force it feels only weak force and gravity but at this level even gravity donot participate by the why we can't feel it but only detect.   

Arif, just a small correction. The neutrinos are not charged less, they are neutral. For instance, in the decay of a charged pion into a muon and a neutrino, the charge of the pion goes to the muon, not to the neutrino. There are no fractional charges.

Matts, I have a critical view in regard to modern and postmodern physics but for you it is pure nonsense. Your speech has a false start. Modern physics historically begins from the Michelson-Morley experiment untill to the theorization of the Standard Model. Postmodern physicists are in continuity with modern physics and they think critical research is pure nonsense. Critical research just is a characteristic of contemporary research that strives to exit from crisis in wich postmodern physics is. You have the right to don't understand or don't accept it but I not will use insults towards you.

Mathematical crisis - You must learn math - this is past, post, modern, ancial - crisis of physics ;) 

Alfredo> I choose engineering

That is certainly a very honorable occupation, making practical use of the knowledge acquired by physics and its derived sciences over centuries. But I have to respond to a couple of your remarks:

First: physicists, like engineers, never put theories above reality. Established physics, which on RG is often labelled narrow-minded and dogmatic and ignorant and what not, is established not because of the theories of some theorists (however great), but  because they have been checked and cross-checked and critically challenged over decades. First and foremost  experimentally -- but also theoretically for consistency and alternative explanations. Established physics is established because it constitutes an unbreakable web of carefully verified facts, which also agrees with a framework of theories, methods of analysis, and modes of understanding.

Second: At the university level at least, it is not always necessary to teach physics as a set of certainties. There are still enough of new physics and phenomena to understand and explore, and "facts" to challenge. However, this is not challenges against the established core of science, but against some parts of its expanding surface.

Physics, like other parts of science and engineering, develops by building on existing knowledge. Not by tearing everything down, and starting from scratch again according to the current fashion. I am sure engineering is even more conservative and dogmatic in that respect. Otherwise there would be even more court cases in the field. You wouldn't start building bridges according to some Non-Standard Theory of Mechanics, would you?

Daniele> Critical research just is a characteristic of contemporary research that strives to exit from crisis in which postmodern physics is.

Yes, the governments should confiscate all computers and mobile phones and lasers and fiber optics, and other stuff and infrastructure which must have been created by pure luck, by engineers who thought they were using the knowledge of "postmodern physics".

I think critical research could benefit from some amount of self-criticism (which is an extremely import ingredient of ordinary research).

Kåre Olaussen

Your argumentation seems very solid. Yet, I have lots of stories that show that you are not as right as you think. Let me tell you just 5 short stories, in two comments

1 - Scientists made a solar model that is not stable. According to the solar model, solar activity has to be a constant, otherwise the Sun explodes - the solar constant.

Engineers know almost since Marconi that solar activity is not constant. They measure it because that is critical for long distance short wave communications. And they know almost since Marcony that solar activity increases with the sunspot number (by the way, the correlation with the sunspot number as defined by Wolf is almost magic). Yet, scientists stated that solar activity was a constant and if it vary it had to be in an inverse relationship with sunspot number. I had several discussions with scientists. They only accepted they were wrong after satellites measurements

2 - Since VLBI measurements of Earth rotation are available, some 4 decades now, that Earth rotation is speeding up. The second was defined previously and was too short, so the atomic clock was in advance. Therefore, leap seconds had to be introduced to adjust the atomic clock to the Earth rotation - very frequently at the beginning and progressively less as Earth rotation was catching up atomic clock rate. yet, scientists, even in the oficial site of Earth rotation, were saying that the leap seconds were due to the "slowing down of Earth rotation", something that results for the theory of tidal effect. So, for almost 4 decades scientists fail to see that Earth rotation was speeding up because they had a theory saying the opposite.

Alfredo~

I am not an expert in these fields, but I don't believe there that the currently best solar models disagree with observations. The historical development is another matter, and this is a field which lies quite close to what I referred to as the surface of established physics. I am impressed though, that one was able to model radioactive processes in the sun to sufficient accuracy that the solar neutrino problem was discovered quite early. Also, the theory of how the main sequence stars develop seems to agree with observations, according to my (limited) knowledge.

As for the murky details of the rotation of the earth I know nothing; your information is knew to me. I have only heard complaints that there is no falsifiable theory, because existing measurements can be fitted by adjusting an arbitrary parameter attributed to tidal friction. But I don't understand how that can be possible if that parameter must be negative. Which makes me suspect that the story is a little more complex.

Kåre Olaussen (continued)

3 - Many years ago, by suggestion of a solar physicist, I send a Letter to solar Physics presenting something I have found in the sunspot record and that I was using to successfully predict solar activity, which is critical for shortwave communications. The Letter was reject not because it was wrong but by the sole reason that "the readers of Solar Physics will not believe". They would not believe because the readers "know" that solar cycles are chaotic, therefore not predictable. (truly, I am grateful to the refere because after that I discovered what makes the sun stable and what the sunspots are and other things of the utmost importance for the future of mankind).

4 - The fact that the apparent space expansion is not slowing down is the strongest possible evidence that space expansion model is wrong. There is no other observational result more adverse. Yet, the confidence of scientists on the model remains unchanged and no one is allowed to question it.

5 - Many years ago I attended a presentation of the new equipment that was to be launched to measure CMB fluctuations and determine the amount of dark energy and matter in the universe. The presentation was made by an engineer that worked on it. After the presentation, he said to me: with this equipment, the scientists will conclude that matter is only 6% of the universe. How do you know that? - I asked. His answer was: because 6% is the error margin of the device and as the standard model is incompatible with matter, that is the maximum value they can present. He was right.

Concerning the work of engineers, you are not well aware of it. But its in another comment...

Kåre Olaussen (concluding)

I must now clarify that one thing is the individual scientist, other is the scientific system. In some way, the scientific system has become a replacement of Religion and, as a Religion, there is a need to be never in mistake. It is common people that require it and this is a burden to the system that, in my opinion, is killing it.

Concerning engineering work. Today, many scientists work closely with engineers, they are almost undistinguishable. However, they do not work applying the theories made by physicists. Those are just fundamental theories, far away of the way systems behave. The work is very much based in models and measurements. I designed antennas systems; there are very good antennas' theories (made by engineers the most...) but most of my work was based on my own theories, my models, my measurements. I never had to use Maxwell equations - although I know them, of course. You can see that technology is always evolving and at a rate that seems rather independent of physics. 

So, what engineers and scientists have to do is to cooperate! That is the key concept.  A cooperation that is developing in many fields - but fundamental physics. Apparently, some physicists seem to think that they know all about the universe, so what is the need to cooperate?

Alfredo, to your 5 points:

1. I agree with Kåre that the currently best solar models agree with observations, but that does not mean that they are right in every detail.The future will show. The historical development is another matter, of no importance today

2. I don't think your hypotheses and criticism will help knowledge to advance.

3. The correlation between sunspot activity and solar spots is observational. I can imagine that you were rejected because you tried to use the statistics to prove some idea of your own. That is not necessarily science.

4. The cosmic expansion is measured most precisely by Planck,WMAP, ACT and lots of other detectors. In principle it could also be negative (contraction) or constant, Einstein's equation allows all three solutions, Your statement "The fact that the apparent space expansion is not slowing down is the strongest possible evidence that space expansion model is wrong" is pure nonsense. The space expansion is what it is measured to be, and it not an evidence that something is wrong.

5. You refer to history, when the matter content was 6% +- 6%. Today it is measured to be 5.2% +-  0.058%. Actually the quantity measured most precisely is the product of the matter content and the square of the Hubble constant, so the error 0.058 contains some small error correlation terms which are model dependent.

Kåre Olaussen

The solar model is not a "mistake", it solves many important questions, it simply fails to consider a phenomenon that happens in the Sun and that maintains its stability; an oscillatory stability that emerge at the surface through the variation of sunspots numbers. On understanding this phenomenon, a huge number of things get revealed. And one of them is of the utmost importance for mankind.

Let me give you a radical example: the snowball Earth!

Current physics imply that Earth was frozen in the past; deeply frozen, from pole to pole, with an average temperature under - 60ºC. This is the opposite of all evidences, which systematically trace a hot past for Earth. After some unsuccessful attempts to explain this by greenhouse gases, physicists made the Snowball Earth from physics, not form evidences; this model is currently being presented as the standard model for Earth's past.

The Snowball Earth is the most absurd model for Earth past that can be imagined, supported only in some debris said to trace the presence of ice in some moments and contradicted by all kind of evidences. 

What a good scientist concludes from the snowball Earth is that something must be deeply wrong with current understanding of the universe; but what?

The problem is that this cannot be openly discussed because most persons are "believers", and a belief is not to be discussed. Others make crazy theories grounded in their ignorance. Furthermore, there are interests - some cosmologists are saying me that my self-similar model cannot be accepted because it can be used against the scientific system; other scientists, on the contrary, urge me to publish in some citable place. So, to manage all this is really complex. 

Scientists are "the father and mother" of our understanding of the universe... and take that responsibility seriously, no doubts about that. Differently of other kinds of knowledge, this knowledge belongs to all mankind and so it has to be, to a certain extent, democratically managed. This is the intrinsic diference between a scientific system and a religious organization. But this management is rather complex and i think that scientists are doing this quite well. You have to be very patient with us, the "sons"... we are a little pesky but we can also give valuable contributions... sometimes.

Martin

Forgive me for all this "philosophy" but I think that the possibility of neutrino rest mass be an illusion raises the possibility that the neutrino is an illusion (in fact, it has never been unquestionably detected).. and this the possibility that the atomic model needs to be rebuild.... and this the problem of knowing whether physics can be questioned or not. The neutrino can only be discussed if we accept that physics can be questioned. As you may have noticed, many persons do not accept it. Others, on the contrary, want to question physics and use all cases that can serve this purpose. So, behind some arguments is mainly the wish to defend or to attack "the system". This introduces too much noise in the discussion. My "noise" is my attempt to remove this kind of noise from this kind of discussions... perhaps a bad attempt... I will shut up now!!!

Alfredo> Therefore, leap seconds had to be introduced to adjust the atomic clock to the Earth rotation - very frequently at the beginning and progressively less as Earth rotation was catching up atomic clock rate.

I looked at what is said about this on the web:  According to the model by Stephenson and Morrison there is a steady increase of the mean solar day by 1.70 ms per century, superposed a periodic variation of amplitude 4 ms and period 1500 year. It is this periodic component which has lead to a reduced rate of lengthening during the last few centuries. I think this is just a fit to various observations, void of any theoretical bias. Apparently, whatever variations are observed over a timescale of 40 years is attributed to "unpredictable noise". 

We have in this thread a participant without scientific merits who can declare what is absurd in contemporary physics, what theories are crazy, and what is an illusion.I wish he would stop interfering in our scientific discussions.

First: I apologize to Sofia for having posted far outside the realms of her question in this thread, and for continuing to do so in this post. My excuse is that the main discussion seems to have come to a halt (perhaps due to too many out-of-topic posts...).

Second: It is not explicit whom Matts refers to in the previous post. But I would like to express my explicit support for Alfredo: I may disagree with him on many (perhaps most) questions of science, but in my opinion he presents his points in a civilized manner, and on a level which may actually lead to a constructive discussion.

ResearchGate obviously have many more members than merited scientists, and that seems to be their policy. In many cases discussions with members having different background and knowledge can be very helpful for recalling the reasons we believe in the things we believe in, for understanding which misconceptions float around, and for generally keeping a critical light on our established knowledge (taking due account of the difference between 'open mind' and 'hole-in-the-head' viewpoints).

Third: It is a very serious problem that discussions on these Q&A-threads quite often diverts to out-of-topic ones. This makes it extremely difficult to find back to an enlightening post you (vaguely) remember having read somewhere, or the brilliant post you wrote yourself some late night. It would be much better if new discussions were opened in new threads under relevant headings.

In this case I encourage Alfredo to open a new thread with his examples, or some of them at least. In particular the question of the rotation period of the earth seems worthy of more discussions. But it would be highly inappropriate to proceed with such discussions in this thread.

I owe a reply to Martin Spinrath who asked me: "Which crisis?"

Crisis in general indicates the transition from an declining obsolete state to a new open state. In physics it happened in different  historical moments with regard to fundamental concepts: Ptolemaic-Aristotelian geocentric system, Copernican heliocentric system, absolute space, absolute time, absolute reference frame, Lorentz's Transformations, Newtonian-Lorentzian model of space-time, postulate of the constancy of the speed of light, imaginary metrics of spacetime, deflection of light into gravitational field, dualism wave-corpuscle, Indeterminacy Principle, isotopic symmetry, physical nature of mesons, physical nature of neutrino, independence of charge and spin, classification of elementary particles.

Concepts above listed represent or represented critical states of physics. Indeed physics lived three important moments of crisis:

1.  First crisis: transition from the Aristotelian physics to classical physics

2.  Second crisis: transition from classical physics to modern physics

3.  Third crisis: transition from modern physics to contemporary physics.

My viewpoint is that we are living now the third crisis.

Daniele ~

You would be more convincing if you described precisely which discrepancies between observations and theory/worldview, or unexplained phenomena, were present at the first and second transitions. And precisely what the discrepancies or unexplained phenomena are today.

What you list (1 and 2) are transitions, not crises.  It is hard to see how all topics of your long list are connected to a scientific crisis. One gets the impression that many of the topics are mentioned because you dislike them, or perhaps don't understand them; that is at worst your crisis.

Your last comment isn't necessary. It is the comment of one who doesn't know what to tell.

Daniele~I told you why you cannot expect your posts to be taken seriously by scientists. And I know that.

Very well, Martin. Let me invite you to discuss those questions in open threads in my profile.

Dear Sofia,

surely our knowledge involves a lot of assumptions, but existence of oscillations has been thoroughly tested in labs, and the precision of the measurement of the mixing parameters is quite high. The remaining doubts of some colleagues do not concern these aspects but rather the existence of more neutrinos besides the 3 known ones (I just mention this issue for completeness, but I am not convinced the issues are real).

I would like to comment on neutrino velocity. First, note that the same question has been already asked by Pauli in his famous letter to "Lieben Radioaktiven Damen und Herren" (1930), when he declared that the hypothetical particles do not travel with the velocity of the light quanta. However, the mass scales, that are needed to explain oscillations, are small and the effect is also small. One needs that sufficiently slow neutrinos have very long travels before having a significant effect.

The best achievement to date uses SN1987A observations (50 kpc, energy in 10 MeV scale). Two teams (Loredo&Lamb; Pagliaroli et al) used this to derive a upper limit of about 6 eV/c2. This is several times larger than the sensitivity needed to probe the mass scales indicated by oscillations; it is not for sure that it will improve much in future.

The best chance to measure the mass of neutrinos (independently from oscillations or from velocity) is, in my view, through cosmology. This goal is not yet achieved, but recall that we are in an interesting situation: 2 species of neutrinos at least should be at rest (according to big-bang) and the minimum expected mass is 0.05 eV/c2, not far from present sensitivity. Some related discussion is in the first link below. I expect/hope to see a lot of action here in the coming years.

Finally note that the forces felt by neutrinos have the particularity that interactions decrease with energy. In other words neutrinos at rest become "more invisible"; quite unfortunate. There is some attempt to circumvent this, using radioactive nuclei to observe the big-bang neutrinos (see the second link below, based on a old idea of Weinberg). Will this lead us to a successful measurement of the masses? To date it seems tough but maybe in the long run it will offer us some chance.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_cosmology_diminished_neutrino_masses?_tpcectx=profile_questions

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.4738

The question doesn't  regard the existence of oscillations of neutrino but its interpretation. Otherwise than the Standard Model I think, like others, more than three types of neutrino exist in nature with frequencies of oscillation that can exceed  also 1023Hz and those neutrinos are energy quanta that belong to frequency bands of gamma, delta and delta-Y rays. When one talks about neutrino mass, it needs to specify which mass he is considering. If we think about a virtual mass then we can agree. If we think about a real mass then it needs to specify which mass one is thinking. If the thought mass of neutrino equals, for instance, electron mass I disagree. When one talks about mass he would have to specify always which mass he is considering. In postmodern physics and in particle physics there is the custom to talk about a generic mass. That is mass of an iron ball is the same for instance as proton mass. It contributes to increase confusion.

In Pauli's letter of 1930, the great scientist declared the hypothetical neutrino could not  travel with the light speed but it needs to say in 1930 there were not precise ideas about neutrino that was still a hypothesis and we have to ask which scientific explanations Pauli gave for excluding that speed. I think instead the most probable hypothesis is that neutrino is an energy quantum and it has just the light speed like light quanta: it is one of fundamental characteristics of neutrino in the NSM. Besides it needs to specify that if neutrino has a mass it necessarily has to have also a charge because massive elementary particles without charge don't exist. It complicates further the question. I have great respect for the experimental project  PTOLEMY and when they will give certain evidence about neutrino mass I will take cognizance of it. Meantime I continue to think neutrino has physicsl properties defined in the Non-Standard Model.