What is the lifespan of a neutrino? | Even Bananas
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2023
- Do we know how long neutrinos can "live" for? That can depend on your frame of reference, and relativity can be complex. Neutrino physicist Dr. Kirsty Duffy explores the lifespan of neutrinos with guest theoretical physicist Dr. André de Gouvêa.
Links:
Neutrino Oscillations episode:
• How do neutrino oscill...
Twin Paradox video with Don Lincoln:
• Does acceleration solv...
Even Bananas playlist:
• Even Bananas
All Things Neutrino:
neutrinos.fnal.gov
Fermilab physics 101:
www.fnal.gov/pub/science/part...
Fermilab home page:
fnal.gov
Production Credits:
Host: Kirsty Duffy
Director/Editor: Ryan Postel
Motion Graphics: Dan Svoboda
Audio: Lynn Johnson
Writers: Kirsty Duffy, Ryan Postel, André de Gouvêa, Caitlyn Buongiorno, Lauren Biron
Guest: André de Gouvêa
Science Consultants: Luke Pickering, Kurt Riesselmann
Theme Song: Scott Hershberger - Věda a technologie
Can't believe how underrated these are. Fantastic.
5:58 “Antimatter, made of particles with negative mass, travel backwards in time.”
Negative mass? NEGATIVE MASS? 😂
See upsidasium from Rocky and Bullwinkle.
@@wstuart You should start an “Even Bullwinkles” CZcams channel!
Not sure what she was trying to say there. Antimatter doesn't have negative mass, and we've never seen evidence of any particle with negative mass; the math makes it possible, bit nature doesn't seen to be as generous.
@@robertmudry4242 She likely meant negative, or more properly it should be opposite, charge. Like positrons.
They do such a good show and then end it that way. I would like to hear Don Lincoln or Sean Carroll repeat the last couple of sentences of the video.
I appreciate so much that you don’t put any kind of background music.
Time dilation is described very poorly here. "If you travel closer to the speed of light ..." relative to someone or something OTHER THAN YOU, of course, "... things get messy. It will seem to you like time slows down." Not for you, for that other someone or something.
Really, the reason the neutrino would only age a tiny amount is the combination of it seeing earth rushing at it at nearly the speed of light AND the length contraction of the earth-sun distance -- if we are looking at it from the neutrino's perspective. It is only from earth's perspective that it is due to time dilation.
Thank you Dr. Duffy and Dr. de Gouvea!! Neutrinos are fascinating particles. It will take multiple re-viewings of your and others’ videos to get a better grasp on who and what these particles are up to. Can’t wait.
Please give my regards to your colleague, Dr. Lincoln. Hope he is well and still making videos and his mother proud!!
A few weeks ago I watched a video about one flavor of neutrinos being massless, and that it would imply that its supersymmetric counterpart would be stable, and quite heavy, and could eventually be responsible for the dark matter. Neutrinos are fascinating particles, and we need to find out more about them.
you are so dumb
Great video as usual!!! I love how friendly you are! I also love Don Lincoln!
Very interesting video!
Out of curiosity, did the theoretical 10^40 years estimate take time dilation into account? Or is that age based on the neutrino's perspective?
On neutrinos perspective its life lasts milisseconds. It is the time dilation that makes us think it lasts that many billions of years. Both are right
I’m pretty sure the decay time is from the neutrino’s “perspective”; since atmospheric mu and tau neutrinos last longer before decaying from our perspective than their theoretical decay time, but with time dilation taken into account it lines up.
A NEW BANANAS! I forgot I love this, and then you post.
Enjoyed this informative presentation!
Thank you for sharing. Fun topic.
If early universe was so dense = this means time was extremely slow = which means the age of the universe is much bigger; technically infinite 🤏
Great video.. I am now more interested in how the machines that can detect muons and neutrinos work... just amazing stuff
que felicidade de reconhecer um sotaque familiar por aqui, viva a ciência brasileira
Thanks to you both, as informative as ever Doctor Duffy.
André de Gouvêa has some stuff on Institute for advanced study here on YT if you want a bit more depth here.
Observe a star just as it goes supernova. Most of the energy is released as neutrinos and if a tiny fraction of these release photons on decay then you'll see a flash around the star a few minutes before it blows up.
Nice one 👍
(I''ve always wondered, tho i guess it's a pun, the title of the show means even as "even I can do this?" or "those items are even in size"?)
The show is called "Even Bananas" because it is named after the fact that the radioactive isotopes in Bananas (an isotope of potassium) emit neutrinos. Very, VERY low # of them, but they are there. In fact, you emit some neutrinos as well, most likely.
Go back and watch the first episode! It's "Lots of things emit neutrinos... even bananas emit them!"
@@richard-mtl thanx
Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature)
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together.
------------------------
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. The model grew out of that simple idea.
I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.
always excellent
Always a joy to see your videos!
It’s crazy that speed changes local existence. That always blows my mind.
Aren’t Black Holes going back in time?
girrrl, why did you have to destroy my mind with the little backwards in time comment at the end
4:00 “If you travel close to the speed of light, things get messy. It will seem to you like time slows down”
No, it will seem to you like time is passing in exactly the same way it always does. Nobody ever sees their own clock speed up or slow down.
Have you actually waited for something to happen? Time always slows down then... 😂😂😂
You're right and Kirstie was wrong. The reason why the neutrino would "see" only about a millisecond elapsing on its way from sun to Earth is that it would "see" a very short distance between sun and Earth. Lorentz length contraction, not time dilation. In the neutrino's frame of reference, WE age slowly and it ages at an ordinary rate. It ages slowly in OUR frame of reference, not in its own.
@@brothermine2292 Agreed (:
My perception of time is relative to how things change around me. If things change around me change slower then it will seem like time is slowing down.
@@adampope5107 : So wear a watch.
What do you get by mixing barium with two atoms of sodium?
A BaNaNa 🍌😂💕☮🌎🌌
Very interesting! Sorry to be picky, but I think it is a bit of a shame that popular expositions still present Lorentz transformations as they might have been understood before Einstein - that matter does strange things like contract and experience time slowly when it travels very fast - what, through the ether? Einstein pointed out that all these effects are mutual, or 'relative' and the poor neutrino isn't moving 'close to the speed of light' any more than we are. Velocity is just a relationship, like one thing being at an angle to another.
A neutrino is a pair of photons sharing the same helical axis but 180 deg out of phase (JG Williamson i think).
Free photons have gravitational mass.
I think that free photons do not have inertial mass.
I think that free photons do not have momentum.
What I would like to know is this: Can you slow down a neutrino, or bring it to a halt, or do they always have a set speed?
Since they have mass, they can in principle have any speed, from zero to the speed of light, but in practice, what could you use to slow down a neutrino? 🤔
@@francoislacombe9071 I understand in the expanding universe neutrinos could slower down as photons get longer wavelength. The slow neutrinos must be even more invisible than the fast ones. And we have really no idea how much there are low energy neutrinos around. (Don't really know, just my thinking.)
High-speed neutrinos decay slower than low-speed neutrinos because they are two different states of neutrinos even if they experience the same amount of time. Have a great time.
“High speed” ones definitionally don’t experience the same amount of time, due to time dilation
@@kaitlyn__L, High-speed neutrinos are massive than low-speed neutrinos, or they have different states of matter. Therefore, they are different, and they decay differently even if they experience the same amount of time. It is the truth even if you don't like it.
Theoretically the faster you travel the less time it takes for you to get there. 🤯
Do all neutrinos travel near light speed and how do they get their initial velocity? Thanks.
It's a fantastic question! We actually looked into the speed of neutrinos in a recent video. Enjoy: czcams.com/video/8gol46P2wqA/video.html
05:59 Antimatter is not the same as negative mass. The overwhelming consensus among physicists is that *antimatter has positive mass* and should be affected by gravity just like normal matter. Anti-matter is simply matter which has the opposite electric charge from normal matter. Negative matter is not antimatter,,,, which as far as is known has normal *(positive,, indeed!!!)* mass. If an object made of _negative matter_ could be obtained,, and,, coupled by elastic, gravitational, or, electromagnetic Forces,,, to an object containing an equal amount of positive matter,, the interactions between the two objects would result in an unlimited amount of unidirectional acceleration of the combination without the requirement for an energy source or reaction mass.
Could you clarify 'Negative Mass'? Do you mean 'negative particle' like anti particle? Opposite charge. I've heard of anti particle a time reversed particle eg an electron and positron... But did not think Negative Mass was real.
Negative mass means the mass has a minus sign in front of it.
very funny@@michaelsommers2356
time does not dilate for anything. it only seems to dilate. it is about synchronization. the fact that you see the time for a moving object, relative to you, the fact that you see it dilating, so to speak, it does not mean that for that object the time passes as you see it passes.
Thank you for the video. I may be showing my ignorance but how do you know in the neutrino's pov it takes < millisecond? Is that determined based on calculation or is there an experiment that shows this? Let me see if I can explain where I'm coming from. The Earth is large. We can set up whatever instruments or whatever on it. A neutrino is too small to install an instrument on it. Maybe I need to see another video?
that figure is calculated, not measured. there are plenty of good videos on special relativity, but for a good explanation of this effect, try minutephysics' video "Impossible Muons"!
I believe that is just from the calculation of time dilation using the formula.
We do experimentally measure this and its effects on particle lifetimes though. Muons have a lifetime of ~2.2 μs, and are often generated when cosmic rays hit the upper atmosphere. Travelling at (essentially) the speed of light they would only travel less than a kilometer on average before decaying, so we wouldn't expect many to survive the trip of many tens of kilometers to the surface, but they do, and that's because of time dilation.
a neutrino travels 95 million parsecs a second just as we cant think about it
Wait, did he just say that the high mass neutrino could decay into a proton?! Aren't protons like MASSIVELY more massive than a neutrino is? Just how high mass can a neutrino get here?
🤦♂ Photon, dude. He said photon, not proton. Also, it's not the relatively low rest mass of the neutrino that prevents it from becoming a proton. It's entirely possible for a sufficiently fast-moving neutrino to have the equivalent mass-energy of a slower-moving (or at-rest) proton. However, any transformation has to satisfy several conservation laws. Not just mass-energy, momentum, and angular-momentum, but also things like lepton number, baryon number etc. Which a neutrino → proton transformation doesn't conserve, hence cannot happen.
@@nHans Thanks for the clarification! :)
I was having same question at 1:09 It is said it decays into a proton,🤔 That must be wrong
@@yishakibrahim No, that's not what Dr. Duffy said. Around the timestamp you mention, she clearly states that *muon neutrinos* interact with *neutrons,* producing a *proton* and a *muon.* So it's not the neutrino alone that's producing the proton; the neutron too is involved in the reaction. In fact, it's actually the neutron that's becoming the proton.
Later, at around 2:44, André says that the heavy neutrino will decay into either 3 copies of the lighter neutrino, or into one copy of the lighter neutrino and a photon. I assumed that the OP misheard this as "proton." If not, I apologize. But in any case, a neutrino alone cannot become a proton due to the lepton number and baryon number conservation laws that I mentioned earlier. Their relative masses are not the main issue here.
You're welcome! Oh, and electric charge has to be conserved as well-duh! I was thinking of all these other lesser-known conservation laws that I forgot that big one! Anyway, that's another reason why an uncharged neutrino all by itself cannot become a positively-charged proton.
Okay if some of you travel back in time, can you please remember me last friday to not forget my glasses at home. Thx.
Would a neutrino that decays by emitting a photon and a lighter neutrino, is that via the Weak Force?
What we mean by age is time in a stable frame of reference, which is shared between both of us ?
Yay! Ms. Duffy is back. 👍🏻
i love neutrinos and antineutrinos in all flavors.
where do they come from i ask myself.
everything in nature has a center.
might antineutrinos/neutrinos be the remaining centers of electron/positron decays?
could they originate from the result of dark matter decay?
only the shadow knows....
An electron or positron can't decay into neutrinos; that wouldn't conserve electric charge. (Likewise, a hypothetical particle with a magnetic charge - or magnetic monopole - could only decay into other particles with the same total amount of magnetic charge.)
@@MikeRosoftJH an electron AND a positron decay event yielding 2 gamma rays, a neutrino and an antineutrino adds up fine to me :)
@@MikeRosoftJH the 2 repulsive charges of the gamma rays in the original matter/ antimatter genesis orbit an antineutrino. the 2 attractive charge clouds do the same around a neutrino. decay is the opposite. just makes sense to me...but i'm just some dummy....
@@tybeedave That's not decay, that's annihilation. I guess that annihilation of an electron and a positron into neutrinos is possible, but it's very unlikely - the reaction would have proceed by weak force, while annihilation of electron and positron into photons takes place by electromagnetic force. (Compare the lifetime of a neutral pion - 8.43*10-17 s, which usually decays by electromagnetic force into photons, with the lifetime of a charged pion - 2.6*10^-8 s, which usually decays by weak force into a muon.)
@@MikeRosoftJH is not the charge cloud of an electron a double 1st cousin of the w and z charge clouds. both are made of the same very itty-bitty particles. get progressive. big things are made of little things. open up your perspective and stop relying on dogma if you really want to understand nature. opps, there goes the dummy in me again....
I don't know if I understand this so please correct me if I'm wrong., Is the movement of the earth around the sun AND the movement of our solar system AND the movement of the galaxy counted in this calculation? It feels like it would vary a bit.
It's only considering the movement from the Sun to the Earth, not the motion of the Solar System within the galaxy, or the galaxy's own motion. The latter two make no difference because the neutrinos are travelling along with the Solar System. The orbit of the Earth around the Sun is close to circular, so that motion doesn't make much difference to the journey from the Sun to Earth.
Those speeds are too slow to matter.
You’ll have to learn to detect every neutrino then you will be able to say the more massive neutrino would not only be discovered first but would also correspond to the peak of the wave function you will eventually find that they travel in waves Just like switching from potential energy to kinetic energy, potential energy to kinetic energy like most matter does when it oscillates. The real problem is trying to detect them. do we have a sun synchronous orbit for observation satellite yet? What we need is a long skinny neutrino detector in sun synchronous orbit.
It would have to be like the barrel of the gun catching the bullet. I don’t think it’s that far-fetched kind of like how a telescope magnifies the photons
"Antimatter does not have negative mass. In our universe, there is no such thing as negative mass. Mass only comes in positive form. In contrast, electric charge can be positive or negative.", West Texas A & M University. The idea of anti-matter having "negative mass" was suggested by Stephen Hawking's false explanation for Hawking Radiation in "A Brief History of Time". The idea being that particle-anti-particle pairs spontaneously come into existence at the event horizon, the antimatter particle falls into the black hole, decreasing the black hole's mass, and the matter particle radiates into outer space, which is nonsense. Antimatter has positive mass. It can be thought of as acting as a matter particle traveling backward in time. i.e a positron seems to act as an electron traveling backward in space, but that is just an interpretation of the math. It is a lot like the math suggests that if you had a particle with an imaginary mass, 'i', it would only be capable of traveling faster than the speed of light. The is what the mythical Tachyon is, or the math suggests. No one has detected anything with imaginary mass.
So, in my opinion your presentation was wonderful. I think you're awesome and would be wonderful at parties. I did not fully understand everything you said, LOL. So I will most probably have to revisit this video on another day. I'm pretty sure you're fun at parties! I will look at this again
Well, I'm pretty sure you're fun at parties with Nerds:-)
Isn't true that neutrinos from the nearest star would only take about 10 min to reach earth from the reference frame of the neutrino due to length contraction?
Why wouldn't it?
Can neutrinos travel really slow? What is the slowest speed a neutrino has been clocked at?
I think the lowest energy neutrinos that have been detected have >1 MeV energy, which would still be basically the speed of light. However neutrinos from the Big Bang are estimated to have energies in the 10^-4 to 10^-6 eV range. Using the upper limit on neutrino mass of ~1 eV, that would work out to speeds between ~400-4000 km/s (compared to 300,000 km/s for speed of light). As we're using an upper limit on mass, these would be lower limits on speed. We're a loooooong way off from being able to detect such low energy neutrinos though.
5:58 are you claiming that anti-matter has negative mass? 🤨
That’s what she said
@@clsanchez77 😱
Jep it surprised me to. Nothing to do but to throw all my knowledge away and start over. And ALPHA-G and GBAR might just prove her wright.
How can light have a frequency or wavelength, if it can't experience time?
How long does a neutrino last?
I never understood the difficulty of calculating the the length of a piece of string.
Yes, it's supposed to mean "a piece of string can be *any* length", but irregardless of that, the fact remains that a piece of string *of ANY unknown length* will *always* be double the length from its centre.
😉
🍄
Great
Why do we say a neutrino oscillates rather than accumulating energy it encounters and becoming a bigger (slightly different) neutrino like a snow ball that rolls down a snowy hill? And then perhaps breaking apart like a biggish snowballs tend to do?
this is a decent metaphor, but it breaks down at the "breaking apart" bit-if things worked like this, you'd expect the heaviest neutrino to split into multiple lighter ones, but it doesn't. there's just one neutrino, oscillating between different mass states
@@evilotis01 oscillation appears to be a model of behavior. What is the mechanism of acquiring and loading mass?
And how do we even know neutrinos, while speeding from originating source toward “neutrino counter” do not combine and then split along the way? Or maybe do not merge/split among themselves only but also “grab” some other forms of energy and/or mass and but cannot retain it for long and loose some. And all of that in a continuous cycle/wave.
I thought that Antimatter had positive mass… if it had negative mass it would be repelled by gravity
Experiments are still underway to determine if anti-matter has negative gravitational mass, see GBAR. However they have positive inertial mass, and most physicists expect them to have positive gravitational mass as well.
Aren't neutrinos the lightest particles? How could they even decay? That's like asking what the lifespan of an electron is. Well, it's infinity. Electrons are already at the lowest energy state. They can't go any lower. Same with neutrinos.
Very interesting topic! Thank you. If we suppose a Neutrino's speed (with an again supposed energy of 1MeV) to be at 99,999999999998% c, if my math is correct, a neutrino from 1987A - which has been detected - would have needed somewhere around 157-160 milliseconds in its frame of reference to reach the earth. This number is quite higher than 04:36 "more than a few milliseconds". But if a professor of theoretical physics doesn't come out with a more specific answer, I guess there is more to consider when determining a Neutrino's lifespan than just time dilitation.
The problem is those long-lasting neutrinos could be outliers. Even if they live for 10 ms on average, a small amount could hang around for much longer.
Right after your timestamp, starting around 4:45, he explains that neutrinos decay into other neutrinos, and we don't currently have a way to tell the parent and daughter apart. So the neutrinos from SN1987A that we detected could have been decay products of the original neutrinos.
I feel like the ending is almost deliberately leading the viewer to think antimatter is travelling faster than light… idk.
It’s true that charge-polarity-time reversed matter would look just like antimatter; but whether that means _all antimatter_ is “experiencing” time backwards is an open question, no?
So, if the life-time/half-life of a neutrino is in fact 10^40 years, what are the odds that any neutrino has decayed in the last 13.8 billion years?
Half life means a time it takes 50% of particles you observe to decay.
Or something like that.
@@victornovak845 I know what it means, I just can't be bothered to do the math.
Lower estimate for the number of neutrinos in the universe is 10^86, and assuming they've all been around that whole time, and ignoring time dilation, around 10^56 would have decayed. Or 0.0000000000000000000000000001%.
Yes I counted the zeros, that's 10^-28 percent.
Is that the same for when the universe big bang occurred. If the universe started from an infinite mass and energy and expanding at the speed of light wouldn’t it’s time frame be a lot less than our time frame?
Mass didn’t exist in the early universe (less than 10^-12 ish seconds, to be specific). All particles were massless until the Higgs mechanism “turned on” and acquired a non-zero vacuum energy at roughly that time. So, the truth is we probably don’t know exactly what “time” means in this period. I’m not a particle physicist though, so one probably knows more about this. I do know we certainly can’t make a claim, at least, for times shorter than the Planck time, which is something like 10^-43 seconds, because our theories break down at that level. So somewhere between 10^-43 seconds and 10^-12 seconds, time begins to make sense according to our current theories.
I was a molecular beam scientist back in the seventies and arguments were common regarding the Big Bang. Questions were how could an infinitely massive singularity suddenly disintegrate into an infinite energy. How could the expansion during inflation result in faster than light velocities. As to Planck’s constant. An object is at an exact velocity and position. It only seems to be unmeasurable to an accuracy according to Planck because any measurement disrupts the particle in question. In relativity the Michael - Morrison experiment observations show that the diffraction pattern is inversely proportional when rotated 90 degrees from the direction of speed. This is easily calculated by a grade 12 physics student using Einstein’s shrinking of lengths at increasing speeds. Try it. A space ship ship at a velocity of .9 c repeats Young’s experiment parallel to the direction and measures the diffraction pattern and traces it on a sheet of paper which is perpendicular. Then the experiment is repeated with the apparatus at 90 deg. The observations result in the diffraction bands being spaced farther apart now and overlapping the sheet of paper. Reason the paper shrinks in size due to relatively when parallel compared when perpendicular. Also distance between the two slits now also decreases due to relativity which obeys Einstein’s relativity. However quantum mechanics say that with decreasing slit distances the bands of the diffraction increase. So with the paper shrinking and slit shrinking the result is a diffraction pattern much larger and greater spacing. Does length really shrink at speeds approaching c? How about using several strips of paper instead of one. What results? Do the individual strips shrink and the spaces between them get larger or do they shrink like the whole sheet? Quantum physics can never be reconciled with gravity because they are inversely proportional. Gravity cause lengths to shrink but quantum causes lengths to increase. I had lunch with Roger Penrose at the perimeter institute for a quantum symposium when I proposed this conundrum. His response was “ we don’t ask questions like that”. Needless to say I left my position of molecular beam researcher and became a pilot in the airforce. Until quantum physicists and cosmologists acknowledge the failings of Einstein’s theories physics will never solve the unified field equations. Just like Copernicus solar centric model made more accurate predictions of the geocentric model of the solar system from Ptolemy Kepler elliptical orbits did the same from Copernicus circular orbits and finally Einstein’s theory of gravity explained the error mercury’s orbit. We need a new model of quantum and gravity to solve the questions of the universe and especially dark energy and dark matter which reminds me of Vapor’s from smelly rivers causing typhoid or spontaneous creation of eggs when placed on a cloth over a jar.
I left quantum physics because I questioned Einstein and Plank models and equations and told by every professor that those models are laws and I was doomed to failure as a scientist for even doubting them.
@@i_booba
The Higgs field generates the mass of about one percent of observable matter, and possibly of dark matter too. Many particles that are now massive likely were massless in the early universe but large amounts of mass likely still existed in other ways. The massless to massive transition only applies to the particles that interact with the Higgs field so, for example, neutrino masses were not affected by the Higgs field turning on.
Universes may come and go, but neutrinos accumulate...
Can the neutrinos generate power
So longer than i thought hmmmm...
Those neutrinos were so cute
So.. you need to be able to see into the future to even have a birthday cake ready for the party ?
So, if antimatter travels backwards in time, what happens to antimatter at the Big Bang, where t=0?
Where does it go?
*WHEN* does it go??
🧐
🍄
💥 I ate too much banana since ur first episode & yet to build radioactive power 😒
Antimatter particles travel backwards in time? So that's where they all went!
Neutrinos are cats, they probably even meow.
👍
A fun thing to say:
These little spectators don't know about time!
❤❤🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏❤❤
With respect, some statements made by the presenter seem to have been simplified to the point of being incorrect, or at the very least, highly misleading.
I suspect we only know half the picture when it comes to neutrinos, and I also suspect the missing part is related to dark matter.
Why so dark?
✌️
There is no dark matter... only zuul!
Least stable particle? Photon.
there is no place in the history of humans, where we have no idea about our place in the galaxy
Sounds like I'm a lot like a neutrino XD
In thinking Fermi lab has no real direction beyond experiments that have been proven, just a place where rich kids can claim they where there, there are no experiments at Fermlab
So beautiful
3:05 " many billion times..." - The age of the universe is 10^14 years; so 10^40 is: 10^26 times - i.e., 10^17 billion times - older than the universe. 10^17 is just merely "many" for this lady? 🤣 [ And she is counting with her fingers! ]
not will they live forever ,they are not alive in the first place or are they 🤔
Antimatter can't be traveling backwards in time -- heavy antimatter particles decay into lighter ones just like their matter counterparts (at least to an approximation, leaving out the weirdness going on with Kaons and their relatives).
neutrino cake! hungry you!
Have we ever detected a slow neutrino? Can we create slow or stopped neutrinos? I'm guessing the answer to both of these questions is no, but I'm not a expert, just a curious viewer.
Nuclear beta decays have a knowable total amount of energy. Sometimes the kinetic energy with which the electron flies out is almost all of this, and sometimes it is much less.
When it's almost all, this must mean the coemitted electron antineutrino gets almost none, which is to say, slow neutrinos should be passing through us, and the Earth, right now.
Because the Earth is, and for billions of years *has* been, full of radioisotopes that beta-decay ... "How many kilograms of neutrinos are orbiting Earth?"
Note that some of them must be orbiting *within* the Earth.
American English is the universal language.
Click bait titles for science... Sad
It is a legitimate question. Not clickbait.
"Neutrinos Vs Birthdays- what is the lifespan of a neutrino?"
In what possible universe could that title be even remotely considered "clickbait", because it sure as shit ain't *this* one!
🤡
🍄
too cute. very interesting physics, but the presentation is a turn-off