May 13, 2016
Previous sightings ruled out
According to the IceCube collaboration, these results do not rule out sterile neutrinos completely, but they do exclude much of the parameter space in which they could exist. In particular, the results exclude, with a confidence level of approximately 99%, the allowed parameter space for several experiments that had observed anomalies in neutrino oscillations, which had been interpreted as possible signs of sterile neutrinos.
The Short Baseline Neutrino (SBN) programme
The SBN programme has been approved after, in the past decades, the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector (LSND) and MiniBooNE experiments obtained, some unexpected results, showing tensions with the standard model of particle physics in which there are only three types ('flavours') of neutrinos. Indeed, LSND reported hints of the existence of a fourth type of neutrino; MiniBooNE, which used the same beam line at Fermilab that will be used for the SBN programme, found an excess of low-energy particles events. Some theories ascribe this apparently strange neutrino behaviour to the presence of a fourth, sterile, neutrino flavour. The suite of experiments of the SBN programme are meant to cast light on this mystery.
No don't get excited, no one has posted even the faintest hint of a scientific research program, based on (or testing) the "Electric Universe". At least, not that I've noticed, in the last few months.
However, lamare has posted "An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"", over in the Thunderdolts forum. It quickly got shunted to the "New Insights and Mad Ideas" section, despite the fact that it looks to outsider me like a genuine "Electric Universe" theory (it hits so many of the EU "sweet spots"). I guess that as lamare is not an official "electric theorist", the idea doesn't merit official endorsement.
You might have thought that something like this, so apparently near and dear to so many EU fanatics' hearts, would motivate some to consider testing it using astronomical data, to see if - for example - it could produce the Hubble redshift-distance relationship, or a ~3K CMB.
Doesn't seem to have happened (yet?)
"jaydeehess": Dogmatism is more of a religion and faith thing. In science it is more commonly a resistance to fully accept extraordinary changes to 'standard' models (using the term for cosmology, but it is applicable to all science) UNTIL extraordinary evidence has been compiled. In the case of this particular thread topic, such extraordinary evidence is exactly what is being called for as a result of a study suggesting that the standard model may not be as confirmed as previously thought. Note that this is not saying that the standard model is incorrect. It says that statistically, the standard model's backbone evidence is not quite as solid as previously calculated.
Science detractors would have great difficulty comprehending this.
JeanTate wrote:Quick update: no proposals for novel tests of "the EU", here or elsewhere.
I've been reading up on Birkeland and his experiments; fascinating stuff!
However, I cannot fathom why today's EU acolytes are so enamored with the terrella experiments he did. After all, based on what we know today - about the interplanetary medium/solar wind, corona, etc - the physical conditions (density, temperature, composition, etc) inside his terrellae bear no resemblance to the reality of the inner solar system, do they? This is not to fault Birkeland; nothing was known about the IPM (etc) at the time.
More: I haven't found anything - anything at all! - by EU enthusiasts or anyone else on attempts to show how plasma scaling relationships can get Birkeland's experiments to within even an order of magnitude (or three) of reality.
Ditto SAFIRE (more on this later).
Is it truly just about pretty pictures?
jonesdave116 wrote:Certainly not! It's also about ego. They get more recognition within the (admittedly small) EU community, than they would ever get in the real world of science.
Having a bunch of scientifically illiterate followers is better than having none at all.
He said that the signal might be due to a hypothetical particle known as the sterile neutrino, which would decay into an X-ray photon and a normal neutrino. But he stressed the need for more data to "confirm or reject the dark matter hypothesis".
In an effort to fill in the blanks of the Standard Model of particle physics, science has been conducting a diligent search for a hypothesized particle known as the "sterile neutrino."
Now, with the latest results from an icy particle detector at the South Pole, scientists are almost certain that there is no such particle.
Michael Mozina wrote:They're going bananas over Potassium and Chlorine emission lines again.
Michael Mozina wrote:.. They keep coming out with these various "positive" claims to the public without ever once bothering to mention any of the criticisms of their claims. This type of behavior borders on outright fraud IMO.
Zyxzevn wrote:Michael Mozina wrote:.. They keep coming out with these various "positive" claims to the public without ever once bothering to mention any of the criticisms of their claims. This type of behavior borders on outright fraud IMO.
Why do most scientists not see any fraud?
Do they have a religious-like devotion?
Do they not see that scientists are usually biased?
Do they want to avoid open questions?
Do they trust too much the observation-challenged scientists ("sceptics") that are negative towards alternative models?
So, because they found something unexpected, it "could" support their pet notion.They found more X-ray photons with a particular energy than would be expected if they were produced only by familiar processes.
Those photons could in fact have been generated by the decay of dark matter particles, say the researchers.
If you have little idea about something, then is it wise to jump to conclusions?However, we still have little idea about what dark matter actually is.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests