Talk:Neutrino
|
|
| Contents |
Dry cleaning fluid
The text described a detector containg "dry cleaning fluid" (DCF) which is invisibly linked to "carbon tetrachloride". Is that the right compound? (I thought that DCF was ethylene N-chloride for some N.)
Jorge Stolfi 17:45, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Old comments
This probably needs a refactoring. Also new chapters as "history", and also a theoretical description of the neutrino interactions in the Standard Model for the more advanced users that consult the wikipedia.
Its very nice that there is already an entry for neutrinos. Hopefully I'll be able to give a hand too. -- JBC
It says: 'In collapsing supernovae, the densities at the core become high enough (10^14 gram/cm3) that the produced neutrinos can be detected.' The last part doesn't make much sense. Perhaps it should say instead 'that matter-neutrino interactions become significant'? (IIRC, the neutrino flow from the core even has a mechanical effect, helping to push the matter outwards).Jorge Stolfi 02:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps neutrino detector should be a separate page. It should include a complete list of them (it is not that big!) Also, does the section cover all neutrino detectors, or just the ones designed for extraterrestrial neutrinos? Aren't there detectors for artificial neutrinos, e.g. from accelerators and/or nuclear reactors? (IIRC, there is an anecdote about such a detector being the first "neutrino communication device")Jorge Stolfi 06:51, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
first detector
I added some information about the first detector (1953). It was actually an anti-neutrino detector. Does that matter? JWSchmidt 05:56, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) Sure! Jorge Stolfi 18:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Nu pun intended? Wodan 21:56, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Mass
The discussion about the meaning of "neutrino mass" is probably incomprehensible to Wikipedia readers who are not versed in quantum mechanics. It is necessary for a discussion at this level? Should it be moved to the mass page? Could it be replaced by something more comprehensible to "mere mortals"? Jorge Stolfi 18:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that the information on neutrino mass is "incomprehensible" to folks like me (biologist). I simply copied what is on the Standard model page. I think there has to be something about neurino mass on this page, maybe how it relates to the experimental techniques that are used to detect neutrinos.
- There is also the question of what information should be in Wikipedia and what information should be in a physics textbook at Wikibooks. JWSchmidt 19:07, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's not only incomprehsible. It's also wrong....
The upper limits for the mass of the neutrinos are shown in the table. Mass is really a coupling between a left handed fermion and a right handed fermion. For example, the mass of an electron is really a coupling between a left handed electron and a right handed electron, which is the antiparticle of a left handed positron.
(In the case of neutrinos, there are large mixings in their mass coupling, so it's not accurate to talk about neutrino masses in the flavor basis or to suggest a left handed electron neutrino and a right handed electron neutrino have the same mass as this table seems to suggest.)
I've never heard anyone suggest this
The origins of the Universe
It has been suggested that neutrinos may have been the main type of matter created during the Big Bang, and that the visible matter now present in the universe may have been created through radioactive neutron decay.
Roadrunner 18:45, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That is completely untrue. Have you not heard of Normus Dmitri's newly composed theory?
Headline text
???? and soory for taking up your thing but im nw to this
Could someone explain to me how neutrinos oscillate from type to type. I am only 13 so nothing too technical.
And how does a neutrino react when it collides with the nucleus of an atom?
Have you not heard of the pinner reaction? [1] (http://www.organic-chemistry.org)
Fools
Number of neutrinos generated from a nuclear power plant
The article says that a nuclear power plant may generate as many as 50000 neutrinos per second. Surely, this is wrong by a longshot? When I read about the first neutrino detector, it said that they carried out the experiment close to a nuclear reactor, since they could get as many as <math>10^{12}<math> neutrinos per second and square centimeter. --Dolda2000 03:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Redirects
Why do electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino redirect to this article? Shouldn't they have their own articles? The problem is that we have a template (Template:Leptons) in this article which contains links to those articles (which redirect to neutrino), and links to the corresponding antiparticles, which, as you might expect, redirect to antineutrino. --Fibonacci 00:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On Petameters
Firstly, althought the petameter may be "SI", nobody uses such silly units. In the context of astronomy, the use of non-SI units such as the AU, the ly, and the parsec are completely standard. Even if one did want to denote this distance in meters, one would never use the SI prefix instead of just the scientific notation. Secondly, the particular use here of light year is not a scientific measurement; it's merely a colorful rough size estimate, as when one says a rhinoceros weighs as much as a car, or that an asteroid is the size of Manhattan. In this case petameters should go, light years should stay. IMHO, that is. -- Xerxes 17:39, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles aren't written just for astronomers. The interdisciplinary nature of SI is just as important as its international nature. Gene Nygaard 19:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- They aren't just written for scientists either. Many more people know what a light-year is than a petameter. Nickptar 02:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Xerxes314. The peta- prefix simply isn't commonly used or understood -- not among astronomers, and not among physicists, either. I'm going to get rid of the petameters again.--Bcrowell 01:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thickness of lead is not measured in light years, either, by anybody. Back to petameters. If only one unit, it needs to be the SI unit. Gene Nygaard 02:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Nobody ever uses such a thickness of lead anyway except in this particular example. Many more people understand LY than Pm. I don't mind the Pm being there (or the 1016 m), but the light-year measure should be first. Nickptar 13:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea, Nickptar, I like your solution! --Bcrowell 22:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)