Comments on: A Particle Physics First: Researchers Watch Neutrinos Change Flavors

By: sam rosenblatt

sam rosenblatt — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 06:20:41 +0000

i was just saying the other day how we could find an analogy between attributing dark matter to mass and how high school students account significant sources of error to reaction time and air friction

By: dadster

dadster — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:07:02 +0000

i would like to know whether any physicist has investigated the energies associated with a quantity of “mass” that lie beyond the greater- than- mc^2 region? It would appear to me that such energies are not of the electromagnetic denomination at all. The familiar “e”that is equal to mc^2 is the maximum extractable electromagnetic energy available in a quantity of mass”m”. It could be because of this reason that varieties of energies associated with a quantity of mass”m” are not all detectable by any electromagnetic based instruments of physics. The only other type of non-electromagnetic energy associated with mass”m” that is known to physics is “Gravitational energy” which is indirectly measurable with changes in shape, weight and velocity of moving mass. Gravity according to Einstein is just the geometry of the four dimensional space-time continuum and not a force or even energy. All this may mean that there are energies, that resides in a quantity of mass other than the all too familiar electromagnetic energy, which may generate velocities greater than the speed of light “c”and transparent to electromagnetic measuring instruments ; energies such as the Dark matter or the Dark energy or even “life-energy” which is not an emergent entity but could be a basic root entity originated along with and parallel to the big bang entities like “mass”and “radiation”and, may be even have existed much before a hydrogen nucleus. I feel its time that we seriously investigate the energies that lie beyond the mc^2 region .

By: Francois

Francois — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:03:26 +0000

Brian and Ben, you’re right when answering Matt’s question. Your approach, here, is this of Einstein’s first theory of Special Relativity.

Now, put even simpler by Einstein’s second theory called General Relativity: gravity interacts with light because gravity curves space-time. So any presence of matter with a mass in the universe bends rays of light.

Black holes generate such a strong gravitational field that the bending of rays of lights in their proximity is enough to trap them with no possible escape.

By: FRED

FRED — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 01:45:36 +0000

OLD GRINGO..I CAN JUST SEE YOU IN YOUR GREASY BASEBALL CAP AND A SIX PACK IN YOUR LAP..IN SHORT YOU’RE A MORON

By: Ben

Ben — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:20:47 +0000

Yeah, its not like past theoretical physics experiments have provided us with anything useful. I mean, who uses electricity or the internet? Sub atomic physics is used routinely in hospitals as part of diagnostics. A PET scan uses antimatter to look at the inside of your brain – prime example of physics which was on the fringe of theoretical research 60 years ago now being used daily. A bit like lasers, discovered to “keep some physicists out of the bars” and now I have 4 within reach from where I’m sitting.

Come back in 60-70 years and see if the research being done at CERN is still as useless as ever. You don’t get better for money long term investments that pure science research.

Back to the topic, the real relativistic equation concerning energy and mass is E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4.
So you can still have energy and no mass as long as you have momentum.

By: Old Gringo Stan

Old Gringo Stan — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 22:06:40 +0000

….and now we can manuacture a better toohpaste…..not…….subatomic physics, the most expensive hobby in the world…..but I guess it keeps some physicists out of the bars

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 14:14:23 +0000

@matt: It’s entirely possible for something to have energy and not mass. Einstein’s famous relation is a conversion of sorts — it says that a mass m can be converted to an amount of energy E/c^2. Light is an example — it has no mass, but has energy on account of its vibration. Light is trapped by black holes because gravity doesn’t just act on mass, it acts on anything with energy (even massless objects, like photons).

By: matt

matt — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 08:15:04 +0000

light itself is supposed to be the fastest moving thing and hence the lightest thing in the universe. However light is trapped by blackholes..hence it has a mass, and if light has a mass then everything has a mass.

By: matt

matt — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 08:12:19 +0000

Yes its weird they even thought neutrinos had no mass, since mass and energy are intertwined. Unless Einstein was flat wrong.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:36:50 +0000

Am I missing something? Neutrino oscillations were confirmed almost a decade ago at Sudbury Neutrino Observatory. Since then, there have been a host of other measurements from experiments at SuperK, KamLAND, MINOS, etc. Is there something unique about this result that suggests something different about the Standard Model than the picture painted by these other experimental results?