Posted on 11/06/2007 8:58:29 AM PST by SunkenCiv
European physicists have sent a neutrino on a 730-kilometre trip under the Earth's crust and taken a snapshot of the instant it slammed into lab detectors... In 2006, CERN started beaming neutrinos from its accelerator complex near Geneva, and have so far detected several hundred impacts in San Grasso. But the scientists have now taken the venture a step forward by starting to fill the San Grasso detector with small film plates which measure with high accuracy the cascade of particles that are produced when a neutrino impacts. These plates, called bricks, are each made of a sandwich of lead tiles and photographic films. In the October 2 event, a neutrino hit one of the 60,000 bricks that had been installed in San Grasso, leaving a tell-tale track of a muon on the film. The experiment is important, say the investigators, as it could help explain one of the biggest mysteries about the Universe - its missing mass. When scientists add up the mass of all the visible matter in the Universe, they arrive at a total of just 10 percent of what they know should exist. For years, neutrinos were not thought to have any mass, although that theory has been challenged by experiments at Japan's SuperKamioKande lab, which suggested that they may have a mass, albeit a very tiny one. The new experiment seeks to amplify and confirm this finding.
(Excerpt) Read more at cosmosmagazine.com ...
First of a kind: The microscope display of the 'neutrino event' inside one of the bricks. The neutrino, coming from the left of the figure following an interaction, produces several particles identified by their tracks in the brick. Image: INFN (Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics)
As Bob Segar stipulated: “What happens if neutrinos have mass?”
I have always wondered that- if e=mc^2 then how can it NOT have mass....
Thanks for the ping.
What if light particles have mass, very very very slight mass? That would explain why black holes can pull them in by gravity, wouldn’t it?
There are various models to account for that. But when I was a kid, I recall reading that light weighs about a pound per square mile. ;’)
E = mc^2, true, but that is an equation where the “equals” symbol must be read as “if possibly converted, then equals”.
Light is energy. Let’s say you have 1000 joules of energy in the form of light. If you could convert this 1000 joules of energy into mass, totally, then you could make as much mass as given by the altered equation,
m = E/[c^2]
Note that the constant ‘c’ doesn’t represent light in the equation, but is a numerical constant that is the same in pure magnitude, as the value of the speed of light. It seems like the same thing, but has a subtle difference.
All of the above, only IIRC.
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks MHGinTN.
Larry King Show UFO Live-Thread—
Quite a number of former BLACK OPS Gov Guests
CNN | 8 NOV 2007 | Quix
Posted on 11/08/2007 7:30:03 PM EST by Quix
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1923093/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
