Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

Forgive my newbie question, but why do you identify neutrinos as charged particles, when one of their main properties should be that of zero electric charge?

The idea of "neutrino fog" is indeed an interesting revelation in the context of dark matter research. However, from our perspective, the issue with this detection problem only reinforces the need for a shift away from the dark matter paradigm entirely. Rather than attributing discrepancies or null results to exotic particles like dark matter, we find it more plausible that plasma physics, electromagnetic fields, and the dynamics of charged particles like neutrinos play a much larger role in cosmic structure formation than previously thought.

Our research dives into how the misinterpretation of phenomena like these can be better explained with electromagnetic forces rather than undetectable particles. For instance, one of the foundational equations from our work integrates the effects of large-scale plasma flows and electromagnetic fields, which can account for gravitational anomalies:

**J × B = ∇p + F_grav + v (d/dt) (E × B)**

Where:

- **J** represents the current density (due to plasma flows),
- **B** is the magnetic field,
- **p** is the plasma pressure,
- **v** is velocity,
- **F_grav** is gravitational force, and
- **E** is the electric field.

This equation shows how plasma (and related electromagnetic forces) interact with gravitational fields, providing a robust alternative explanation to the mass deficit issue currently attributed to dark matter. Moreover, it highlights how charged particles, like neutrinos, can produce effects that look like "fog" or interference within detectors, but are in fact part of the natural plasma state.

Additionally, our extension of MHD models into cosmic scales accounts for galaxy rotation curves and cosmic structure formation without needing to invoke the existence of undetectable particles like dark matter. Through this, we are constructing a paradigm that focuses on quantifiable, observable phenomena—neutrino interactions, plasma dynamics, and electromagnetic fields—without the ambiguity of hypothetical particles.

Thus, rather than searching for elusive particles with ever-larger detectors, our approach advocates refining our understanding of the electromagnetic universe, where plasma and neutrinos, under the influence of electric and magnetic fields, shape cosmic structures. This provides a direct path toward observable, testable predictions, without needing to rely on models of particles that consistently elude detection.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matter-hunters-meet-feared-neutrino-fog/

[quote]A ‘Neutrino Fog’ Is Starting to Cloud the Search for Dark Matter

The decades-long search for dark matter could ultimately end in an impasse.[/quote]

Why isn’t that convenient. Then they won’t have to admit they were wrong.

[quote]In the hopes of detecting rare collisions between supposed dark matter particles and atomic nuclei, physicists have built increasingly large detectors that pick up on faint signals and have buried them deep underground, far away from cosmic rays and most forms of interference. Now the detectors have picked up on something else altogether: solar neutrinos, tiny, ghostly particles which sail through normal matter and may mask dark matter signals[/quote]
.
So we paid for the better detectors that astronomers promised would prove DM exists, and now they say the detectors are picking up neutrinos making that impossible?

[quote]The neutrino fog arises from a fateful cosmic coincidence. The thermonuclear fusion reactions that allow our sun to shine also churn out fast-moving and featherweight neutrinos that can strike xenon nuclei with the exact same momentum that has been predicted for much slower and heavier hypothetical particles of dark matter.[/quote]

“Exact same”? What a coincidence.

[quote]“The events are indistinguishable one at a time, but [in aggregate], the expected neutrino flux has a different spectral shape than [what’s predicted by] many dark matter models,” Morå says, explaining how both teams flagged the fog in the first place. Additionally, the number of candidate collisions observed by both projects was consistent with forecasts based on well-established solar physics, bolstering the case that the events were linked to solar neutrinos rather than some unexpected variety of dark matter.[/quote]

Well, darn. So … no DM detected. Check.

[quote]Over the past four decades, generations of dark matter detectors have worked to “see nothing but better,” says Ciaran O’Hare, a dark matter researcher at the University of Sydney. “Now we’re moving into a new era where these detectors can actually do some valuable discovery science, although it’s the kind of science that [might] prevent them from doing what they were initially built to do.”[/quote]

Desperately looking for a silver lining in a null result?

[quote]The neutrino fog is not currently stifling the search for dark matter, nor is it expected to in the next generation of detectors. … snip … Progress will likely not be stymied by neutrinos until after 10 to 15 years.[/quote]

Thank God! For a minute there, I got worried the money that's paying for so many mortgages, educations, and vacations was going to stop tomorrow.

[quote]In theory, current detectors could begin identifying subtle distinctions between neutrino signals and dark matter signals if they collected thousands of additional data points. Yet doing so would require resources both teams lack.[/quote]

Wait! They didn’t mention that when the current detectors were funded.

[quote]Over two years, the XENONnT detector sensed around 40 neutrinos, and PandaX-4T sensed around 75. To “power through the fog,” O’Hare says, the researchers would need to build a detector that was 100 times larger or run an experiment that was 100 times longer.[/quote]

Can you hear it? K’Ching? K’Ching?

[quote]Such a device would likely require several years of development, however. Building a sufficiently sensitive and accurate detector is already challenging as is, Carew points out, without adding on extra capabilities.[/quote]

I knew it. They're begging for money.

[quote]If dark matter detectors do succumb to the fog, scientists could repurpose the instruments to study neutrinos. ... snip ... “The physics opportunities for the next generation PandaX are much richer than just dark matter search,” members of the team told Scientific American.

Aided by xenon-based tools or not, the search for dark matter particles will likely endure.[/quote]

Of course it will, there’s too much money to be made.

[quote]“It’s possible that nature gave us this particle which doesn’t do anything other than [help] form galaxies,” he says. [/quote]

Well, how convenient is that?

[quote]“But we would never know unless we tried everything.”[/quote]

K’Ching K’Ching K’Ching K’Ching K’Ching!