Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in
message
...
greywolf42 wrote:


[snip]


Since Lerner did not identify what value he used for
'interesting mass,'
the claim that his math was wrong is spurious.

Well, it's rather clear (if one knows a bit about cosmology)
what an
"interesting mass" would be (several eV will do it). Hence the
fact that
Lerner doesn't give a specific value is rather irrelevant.

It wasn't "clear" at all, in 1991. See report below.

I read the report below and explained that it doesn't support
your point
- it only talks about *electron* neutrinos.

Electron neutrinos are the masses we are discussing.

We are discussing if 1991 it was known if neutrinos have an
"cosmologically interesting" mass. Not only electron neutrinos. *All*
neutrinos.

Kamiokande only detects electron neutrinos.

Right - and therefore, as Wright and me correctly point out, Kamiokande
couldn't have rule out "cosmologically interesting" masses for the other
two neutrinos.

And -- as you have admitted before -- there was no reason in 1991 (either
theoretical or experimental) to expect that mu and tau neutrinos were
fundamentally more massive (or more 'interesting') than electron neutrinos.


There is still no basis for claiming that Lerner's "math is
wrong." As Lerner gave no math.

As I explained, if one takes reasonable values (and I explained
(*why* the numbers are reasonable)

No, you did not. You merely repeated the claim.

That's a lie. I gave you the formula with which one determines if a
neutrino mass is cosmologically interesting or not (neutrino mass/92
eV/c^2). Using the formula, it turns out that 5eV/c^2 (the number Wright
used) *is* a reasonable value.

It is not a lie. You did not state why this equation that you pulled out of
thin air gave you an 'interesting' mass. Nor did you indicate that this
equation was derived or accepted prior to 1991.

and puts them in, one sees that Lerner was
wrong. Hence there are only two choices, IMO:
1) Lerner didn't do any math and made the whole thing up.
2) Lerner did some math and screwed it up.
Ned Wright and me are only generous and assume that it was (2),
not (1).

Ah, the refuge of the true believer. The fallacy of the excluded
middle, combined with a straw man.

Care to come up with other possibilities, instead of simply asserting
that there are others?

Already given. And since you snipped them, I'll let you go hunting through
prior threads.

[snip]


They appear to travel at the speed of
light, so must have no mass.

This argument doesn't make much sense. They *appear* to travel
at the
speed of light, so *must* have no mass? What a great logic!

Well, yeah... if the 'appearance' is the result of an
experimental measurement. Can you say 'arbitrarily close
to?'

No experiment can ever measure "arbitrarily close to", so this
makes no sense at all.

Bingo! Claiming evidence of mass when all we have is upper
bounds is indeed senseless.

What on earth are you talking about??? No one claimed that in 1991, we
had evidence of mass; the only thing which was said is that with the
numbers available in 1991 (for which I gave references!), a
cosmoligically interesting mass could not be ruled out - contrary to
Lerner's assertion.

You contradict the reference I gave (1993, Lindley). And you continue to
refuse to provide references of your own.

Hint: we know today that neutrinos *have* mass,

No, we see a discrepancy in theory.

Pardon??? What on earth are you talking about???

Neutrino oscillations are clear evidence for neutrino masses. So where
is "a discrepancy in theory"???

Neutrino 'oscillations'. They are postulated to explain a discrepancy
between theory and observation.

And we interpret this as 'evidence of mass.'

Do you have another explanation for neutrino oscillations which fits all
of the data?

Neutrino oscillations ARE a theoretical explanation. Not data.

However, this is still irrelevant to knowledge in 1991.

I never claimed that it were relevant.

Then don't waste everyone's time with irrelevant things.

hence that they *don't* travel at the speed of light.

Too bad that's what experiments show.

The experiments show that they travel *approximately* at the speed of
light. No experiment can ever show that they travel *exactly* at the
speed of light. Hence the experiments which measure the velocities of
neutrinos couldn't rule out a neutrino mass ever.

They are the speed of light to at least 13 decimal places. As good as many
of the best precisions in physics (and higher than that if you consider the
inherent size of the supernova neutrino production burst).

Therefore, obviously, the experiments
which showed that they travel *approximately* at the speed of
light
weren't sensitive enough - and every experimental physicist
should have known that even back then!

ROTFLMAO! Rewrite the histories and the experiments, boys!

Where on earth is your problem???

The supernova observations only showed that the mass of the electron
neutrino must be smaller than 23eV/c^2. This obviously doesn't rule out
a neutrino mass!

What neutrino pulse width did you use to come up with that number? (I note
you continue to evade giving actual references for your numbers.)

We've found a
discrepancy in our theory, so experiment must be in error.

What discrepancy are you talking about???

And where did I say that an experiment is in error? I only pointed out
that it wasn't *sensitive* enough!

Neutrino oscillations point to neutrino masses around 10^(-3) eV/c^2;
that the supernova measurements weren't sensitive enough to detect such
a mass is a simple fact -

So the accepted neutrino masses are a factor of 10,000 too small to be
'cosmologically interesting.' Why are you spending all that time arguing
about 'smaller than 23 eV' if you know the answer is 10,000 times smaller?

try reading the original papers! (see my references)

*WHAT* references? *WHAT* original papers? I've been asking you to provide
these for several rounds.


Additionally, there are theories which predict not only the
"light"
neutrinos we know, but additional neutrinos which are much
more heavy. Try reading up on "see-saw" mechanism.

No. Please stick to the issue.

Err, the issue is if the experiments back then were able to
rule out
heavy neutrinos or not. The "see-saw" mechanisms is another
point that
the experiments could *not* have rule this out. Hence this *is*
the issue.

Which leads us right back to that original issue, 'how heavy is heavy?'

This wasn't the original issue. The original issue was "Were the
supernova measurements sensitive enough to rule out a cosmologically
interesting neutrino mass?", and the answer to this is no - see my
references.

No, the question was -- were neutrino masses too small to be 'cosmologically
interesting.' If you and Ned agree about this, then the whole thing is a
tempest in a teapot.


[snip a bit]


Today. Not in 1991.

Absolutely wrong. It was clear even in 1991 that a mass of
several eV
would
1) give a substantial contribution to Omega and
2) could not be detected by the supernova measurements.
Additionally, it was clear even in 1991 that the supernova
measurements
could give limits only on the electron neutrino mass, not on
the masses of the other neutrinos.

Ned Wright is right, and you are wrong. Live with it.

LOL! Not according David Lindley (editor of Nature), as late as
1993.
Merely repeating a claim never makes it true.

I provided references and calculations.

You ignored both so far.
Hence it's you who is simply repeating a false claim, hoping that it
will become true.

Horsefeathers. You haven't provided a single reference. You have provided
ZERO calculations. You provided one equation that you pulled out of thin
air.


[snip]

They arrived in a 'bunch', (a period of 6 sec) after
travelling 160,000 light years.
And arrived minutes before the SN light pulse. So, they were
travelling at around 0.999999999999875*c (according to Ned).

Right. 0.999999999999875*c. Not c.

That is c to 13 decimal places. How many decimal places do you
want before you admit that it's 'c'?

If neutrinos have a mass of around 10^(-3) eV/c^2, as the neutrino
oscillation measurements imply, and an energy of 10 MeV, the travel at a
speed of v/c = sqrt(1 - 10(-10)^2), which is approx.
1 - 0.5 * 10^(-20). So, in order to "see" the neutrino mass in
experiments which measure their speed, you have to measure their speed
with a sensitivity of 20 decimal places. Good luck.

In other words, it's not 'c' until we exceed even the claimed precision of
the most precise measurements made in physics.

But, since you admit that neutrino masses are not 'cosmologically
interesting', and since it was commonly accepted that neutrion mass was not
'cosmologically interesting' in 1991, there is no point to your continued
argument.....

So, again, where does Lerner get
"they all travel at the speed of light" from? The only thing
you can
deduce from the supernova measurements is (taking Wright's
numbers) that
"they all travel at 0.999999999999875*c". And this doesn't help
Lerner's
case, because this still would give a significant contribution
of the neutrino mass to Omega.

You just keep asserting this, over and over.

No, I gave you the formula which demonstrates this. I gave you
references for the data and the formula. You ignored both so far. It's
*YOU* who is asserting something over and over.

A bold-faced lie. An equation out of thin air is not a reference.

Please provide a pre-1991
reference for significant contribution to omega at this level.

Already done. I gave two references (in another post on last friday)
which, taken together, demonstrate the data from SN1987A give only an
upper limit for the contribution of the electron neutrinos to Omega of
0.39. Obviously such a number *is* cosmologically interesting.

A bold-faced lie.

So, I'm going to snip the rest of this rant -- unless I spot an actual
reference, someplace....

{snip}

The measurements the article in Nature talk about are about beta decays.
Surely you know that in beta decays, only electron neutrinos appear?

This is the closest to a reference that you can come? An 'article in
Nature'?

LOL!

{more snip}

Where did you get the value, above? Try providing a reference
from 1991.

Already done in another post to this thread on Friday and (big
surprise!) completely ignored by you.

That post doesn't show on my newsreader. However, I did find it on Google.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...z.uni-heidelbe
rg.de

The reference is to the well-known
book by Kolb and Turner "The early universe", which was published in
1990 and includes lots of material which was known already long before.

Why the need to try to 'extend' your arguments by implying it was known
"long before?" If it was known "long before," please provide a reference
from 'long before.'

Both references were published at the end of 1990. The first paper
(G.G.Raffelt) on 12/20/90. The second, "a well-known book on cosmology by
two famous cosmologists" may not have been 'well known' in 1990.

According to the preface, the first edition of TBBNH was published in "late
1990," a year and a half before the completion of the preface (written for a
different publisher) in "May, 1992." So the first paper was undoubtedly
published AFTER TBBNH was printed.

Apologies for the confusion on publication date (the copyright is given as
1991). The month of the year did not matter, prior to your proffering of a
December 1990 paper and a book published in 1990.

{snip}

The formula for the contribution of massive neutrinos
to Omega does in no way at all depend on the assumption of the existence
of dark matter. Only GR is used, plus some thermodynamics and a little
Special Relativity (which must be used because the velocity of the
neutrinos is so high). Try opening the book and looking at the
calculation if you don't believe me. It's in chapter 5, the relevant
formula I'm talking about is (5.33).

Well, I'll give the book a try -- right after my next trip to the library.

Until then, could you clarify the month of publication, in 1990? Thanks.

{snip}

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas