NOtrino's or Neutrino's

[upriver]

I thought I would reproduce the whole article below for completeness.
I got it from http://www.autodynamics.org/main/index. ... tion=60:60

And this also.
http://www.autodynamics.org/main/index. ... tion=60:60

I have been doing a lot of reading on Neutrinos including the
mainstream book The Elusive Neutrino.

Does the neutrino really exist?? I'm not sure I can say that...

??Brant


RELATED PUBLICATION: Calorimetric Experiment
Physical Review Volume 70, Numbers 3 and 4 August 1 and 15, 1946

Calorimetric Experiment on the Radiation Losses of 2-MeV Electrons [1]

W. W. Buechner and R. J. Van de Graaff

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

(Received May 21, 1946)
Abstract
Various investigators report from cloud-chamber experiments that the
energy lost in the scattering of 2-Mev beta rays is several times the
loss calculated from the Bethe-Heitler theory. However, other
experimenters have found that the production of x-rays in this range
agrees with theory. To account for the extra energy loss, Klarmann and
Bothe and Champion have suggested the emission of neutrinos as well as
x-rays. To test this hypothesis, a 2-Mev beam of electrons was
directed on a target immersed in mercury, the assembly acting as a
calorimeter. Experiments using beryllium, gold, and mercury targets
show that within the experimental error, which is somewhat less than
one percent, no energy is carried out of the calorimeter by neutrinos
or other penetrating radiation. It thus appears that the production of
such radiations cannot account for the large extra energy losses
reported from cloud-chamber experiments.
INTRODUCTION
A considerable number of researches with cloud chambers have reported
that the energy lost in the scattering of beta-rays by heavy nuclei is
several times the radiation loss calculated from the well-established
Bethe-Heitler theory. For example, Klarmann and Bothe[2] report that
in the energy range from 0.5 to 2.4 Mev the inelastic scattering in
krypton and xenon is 2 to 5 times that predicted by the theory.
Leprince-Ringuet[3] found indications of 10 times the expected mount
for argon in the range 1 to 3 Mev and Laslett and Hurst[4] observed
that, for lead, the scattering is high by a factor of 30 for energies
from 1.5 to 4.5 Mew. Barber and Champion[5] found 6 times too much
inelastic scattering for 1-Mev electrons scattered by mercury. It does
not appear that theses excess energy losses can be due to the
production of x-rays as Arcimovic and Chramov[6] and Petrauskas, Van
Atta, and Myers[7] have found experimentally that the production of
x-rays in this energy range is in agreement with the theory.

To account for the large extra energy losses, which have been
reported, Klarmann and Bothe, and Champion[8] have suggested the
emission of neutrinos as well as x-rays resulting from the interaction
of fast electrons with heavy nuclei. In the case of the continuous
beta-ray spectrum, calorimeter experiments performed by Ellis and
Wooster[9] and by Meitner and Orthmann[10] have been employed to
investigate the energy losses due to neutrino emission. The purpose of
the calorimeter experiment described here was to determine whether or
not the large energy losses referred to above could be accounted for
by the emission of neutrinos or other extremely penetrating radiation.[11]

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Figure 1 is a schematic drawing of a calorimetric apparatus
constructed to investigate the possibility of such loss by high speed
electrons. A 2-Mev electron beam from an electrostatic generator[12]
passes downward into a copper tube provided with two targets at the
bottom, one of beryllium and the other of gold. This tube was
thermally insulated from the rest of the apparatus by the Micarta
studs and Pyrex cylinder shown, and was arranged with a flexible metal
bellows so that it could be tipped about a horizontal axis through the
center of the diaphragm at the top of the copper tube. Thus the target
holder could be shifted slightly by pulling a cord from a
well-shielded remote control station, so that either target could be
bombarded at will. This insulated target assembly was immersed in 42
kilograms of mercury, held in a container which was thermally
insulated from the surroundings. The temperature of the mercury could
be measured either with the thermocouple or with a Beckman
differential thermometer viewed through a telescope. The thermometer
proved to be the most convenient since it was direct reading and
temperature differences could be readily estimated to 0.001 degrees C.
A stirring rod was used to assure temperature equilibrium throughout
the mass of mercury. The temperature rise due to the rotation of
stirring rod was small and reproducible.

Fig. 1. Schematic drawing of calorimeter
There are two alternative methods by which such an apparatus can be
used to investigate the possible production of extremely penetrating
radiation by the impact of high speed electrons on nuclei. In the
first place, the rate of heating in the calorimeter should decrease
when the target is shifted from beryllium to gold in the middle of a
single run, assuming, as has been suggested, an appreciable amount of
energy is carried away by penetrating neutrinos when heavy nuclei are
bombarded. It is to be expected, both from the experimental evidence
and from general considerations, that energy loss due to neutrinos
should be small or non-existent for a light element such a beryllium.

On the other hand, a calorimeter can be used in a more absolute way by
calibrating it so that the temperature rise per second is known for
any given power input at the target Then, if the voltage and the
current of the beam striking the target are known, it is possible, by
comparing the observed temperature rise with that to be expected from
the power input, to determine whether any appreciable fraction of this
incident energy is carried away by particles or radiations which are
able to escape through the mercury of the calorimeter.
RESULTS
Figure 2 is representative of a number of measurements taken in the
way discussed first in the previous section. For his curve the
electron energy was 2 Mev, which is in the general energy range for
which the cloud-chamber measurements indicate the greatest discrepancy
with theory. Since the electron energy was reduced from 2 Mev to zero
in the solid targets used, it is evident that the experiment also
affords a check on radiation losses at voltages less than the maximum.
The temperature rise in the mercury is plotted as a function of time
with a steady electron beam of about 10 micro-amperes. At the time
indicated by the arrow, the target holder was shifted so that the
element under bombardment was changed from beryllium to gold. There is
no perceptible change of slope as there would be if more energy
escaped from the calorimeter from one target than the other. This
shows that, if there is a difference in the amount of very penetrating
radiation produced for heavy elements such as gold as compared to a
very light element such as beryllium, it amounts to less than 1
percent of the incident energy. At 2 Mev, this is less than one-fifth
of the energy loss to be expected from bremsstrahlung.


Fig. 2 Calorimeter run at 2 Mev. At the time indicated by the arrow,
the target was shifted from beryllium to gold.(NOTE: For clarity of
display, the above graph was reproduced to reflect the original
diagram as faithful as possible).

Figure 3 shows two curves, representative of a number taken by use of
the second method described above, the voltage again being 2 Mev. The
power inputs indicated on the two curves are those computed from the
voltage and the target currents. When correction is made for the small
heat losses from the calorimeter, the temperature rise per watt of
bombarding energy is the same for two targets within the experimental
error. This temperature rise per watt also agrees, within the
experiment error, with that obtained by a calibration run where the
power input was obtained from the I2R heating of a resistor suitable
located in the mercury in place of the target.


Fig. 3 Two calorimeter runs, both at 2 Mev. For beryllium the current
was 26 ua; for gold 21 ua.(NOTE: For clarity of display, the above
graph was reproduced to reflect the original diagram as faithful as
possible).
DISCUSSION
Experiments on the production of x-rays previously referred to[6,7]
show that, in the case of a heavy element like gold, of the order of 5
percent of the bombarding energy is transformed into x-radiation at 2
Mev, in agreement with the predictions of the Bethe-Heitler theory.
Cloud-chamber experiments have indicated that the energy losses for
the heavy elements are several times those predicted by this theory.
If, for completeness, we assume that the observed cloud-chamber losses
are 5 times the bremsstrahlung losses, then about 20 percent of the
incident bombarding energy should escape from the calorimeter if the
excess losses are to be accounted for by the production of neutrinos.
Measurements on the absorption coefficient of 2-Mev x-rays show that
only a negligible fraction of the x-rays produced can escape from the
calorimeter through the mercury. Because of the small solid angle at
the top of the target tube and the predominantly forward direction of
the radiation, and even smaller fraction of the x-rays produced will
escape upward. Thus, within the experimental accuracy, which is
somewhat better than 1 percent, the present calorimeter experiments
show that none of the energy of the bombarding electrons is
transformed into extremely penetrating radiation which escapes from
the calorimeter.

In the work described above, gold was used as a representative heavy
element because of its convenient properties. In order to make
observation with an element used in a cloud-chamber work, experiments
were done with mercury as a target material. Barber and Champion have
found about 6 times too much inelastic scattering for mercury. For
this purpose, the target holder shown in Fig. 1 was altered and the
gold replaced by a thin steel window 0.003 inch thick which allowed
the electron beam to bombard the mercury in the calorimeter, the
voltage in this case being raised to 2.3 Mev to compensate for the
energy lost in the window. As in the case of gold, it was observed
that within the experimental error there was no energy carried away by
penetrating radiation.

It thus appears that the large energy losses which have been
previously reported cannot be accounted for by the suggested emission
of the neutrinos or other extremely penetrating radiation. A has been
referred to in a previous footnote, this result is in accord with the
experiment of Ivanov, Walter, Sinelnikov, Taranov, and Abramovich[11]
who, employing lead and aluminum targets and a different calorimeter
arrangement, find no evidence of neutrino emission and that the
radiation losses of electrons in the general energy range are
adequately accounted for by the Bethe-Heitler theory.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are glad to acknowledge the able assistance of Mr. Anthony Sperduto
and Mr. E. A. Burrill in making the measurements, and of Mr. E. W.
Nickerson in the construction of the apparatus. This work was
supported in part by grants from the Research Corporation and the
Carnegie Corporation of New York, to whom grateful acknowledgment is made.
FOOTNOTES

1. A preliminary account of this work was presented at the February
1941 meeting of the American Physical Society, Phys. Rev. 59, 687 (1941)

2. H. Klarmann and W. Bothe, Zeits. F. Physik 101, 489 (1936)

3. L. Leprince-Ringuet, Ann. de physique 7, 5 (1937)

4. L. G. Laslett and D. G. Hurst, Phys. Rev. 52, 1035 (1937)

5. A. Barber and F. C. Champion, Proc. Row. Soc. A168, 159 (1938)

6. L. A. Arcimovic and V. A. Chramov, Comptes Rendus. Acad. Sci,
U.S.S.R. 7, 415 (1938)

7. Petrauskas, Van Atta, and Myers, Phys. Rev. 63, 389 (1943)

8. F. C. Champion, Rep. Progress Phys. 5, 348 (1938)

9. C. D. Ellis and B. A. Wooster, Proc. Roy. Soc. A117. 109 (1927)

10. L. Meitner and W. Orthmann, Zeits. f. Physik 60, 143 (1930)

11. Since the experimental work here reported was completed, we have
seen the paper of Ivanov, Walter, Sinelnikov, Taranov, and Abramovich,
J. Phys. U.S.S.R. 4, 319 (1941). These authors describe a somewhat
different calorimetric experiment on the radiation losses of fast
electrons incident on lead and aluminum. The results of the two
experiments are consistent.

12. Van Atta, Northrup, Van de Graaff, and Van Atta, Rev. Sci. INST.
12, 534 (1941)

[upriver]

This is a fundamental questions, one that I think disproves the existence of the neutrino.

The calorimetry experiment says the neutrino DOES NOT/is not required to exist.

Relativity says the neutrino is calculated to exist.

Take it from there.

If you believe in the neutrino, you accept relativity.

[junglelord]

I recently saw the show, Nova, on the invisible particle or something like that. Oh here it is, The Ghost Particle
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neutrino/about.html

They certainly presented the science in a way that would make you suppose that they had hard facts. Then I was reading Don Scotts Electric Sky and he actually refuted what they claimed. I just lent my Electric Sky, and with my brain injury, I forget what he actually refuted, but it was the "evidence" at the bubble chambers. I don't think he denied their existance.


I know that APM, Meyl, acknowledge neutrinos.


MMMMM, here is rebuttal from Don Scott
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm
(reading the link)
yes from what I remember he said they did not prove the missing neutrino problem. He never discounted their existance.

I read your link and I am not convinced that it disproves neutrinos, just maybe in that reaction. I will admit I have had a lack of proper understanding of neutrinos and I have a weird intuitive feeling like they are not real.

[junglelord]

I would say the standard model and its interpertation of mass that requires a Higgs Boson is a problem. I think their interptation of what a neutrino mass exactly is, even by their own admittance is not very clear, there seems to be a problem with a left handed spin and mass and no right handed spin neutrinos. So does it have mass, they say yes.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/1497
Then where is the Higgs Boson? Why are there no right handed neutrinos?
http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/neutrino/neutrino2.html
I think that based on their description of what a neutrino is, what it does, our own inability to find a Higgs boson, that probably APM and Meyl have a better handle on these things. That would make them quite real. But not explained the same way as the Standard Model. This may account for why they say they were not found in the experiment.