Exnihiloest wrote:All particles have energy, even "massless particles", yes. But a "massless particle" is not really a particle, or is, but only if we stick to the old particle concept. A photon, for example, is above all a bundle of electromagnetic energy, whose topology of fields in space and time is not trivial and depends on the photon. It is not a "grain". No boson is.
Of course, but that in no way prevents it from collecting its energy or transforming it into electric current, all PV panels prove it
.
As long as we didn't know that the neutrino had mass, how could we have recovered its energy?
well like photons by making them interact with detectors, moreover the detection of neutrinos was done long before their mass was determined! their mass allows them a particular phenomenon, the oscillation between several "flavors", which was therefore discovered by Kamiokande and gave them the Nobel Prize (amusingly Kamiokande was not built to study neutrinos but the decay of the proton, but the neutrinos were a background noise that had to be subtracted, and it was by studying it that they discovered the oscillation, already suspected before because of the deficit of solar neutrinos - and finally they did not never detected proton decay and won the Nobel Prize thanks to neutrinos).
Unlike the photon, no electric or magnetic field with which the charges interact easily, accompanies it. I therefore understand that the discovery that it has a mass, even almost zero, changed the situation concerning the idea of recovering its energy, because then we had access, as for any mass moving in relation to the observer, to its kinetic energy.
no it has nothing to do with the mass, the detection is done by the weak interaction, indeed, but it was known before we knew if they had a mass or not. If they hadn't had mass, they would have moved at the speed of light, that's all.
... so: in your opinion: what order of magnitude is the thermal power released by neutrinos interacting with a sheet of metal, or even with the whole Earth?
This is not the point.
well if that's the question!
We know that neutrinos interact little with ordinary matter because of their almost zero mass,
not at all, that has nothing to do, the hypothetical particles of dark matter also interact very little with the matter because we have not yet detected any, on the other hand their mass is much greater than the known particles (of around 100 times that of the proton), and photons have zero mass but interact much more than neutrinos!
the strength of the interaction has nothing to do with the mass. Another example, protons are 1000 times heavier than e- and have the same electric charge.
therefore even the thermal energy of all neutrinos passing through the earth and recovered by it must be tiny.
and well you can not recover more energy than this thermal energy.
Let us draw a parallel with electromagnetism: the radio electromagnetic waves passing through the air hardly interact with it, so the thermal energy dissipated in the air will also be tiny. Now if you put an antenna in their path, you get a signal well, and even the effective "cross-section" of the antenna on the electromagnetic flux is much greater than the "geometric" cross-section of the antenna (I does not go into details but I can if necessary).
Of course, but neutrinos interact with matter and they already interact very little with the whole Earth, so I'm not telling you with a sheet of copper.
And the radio is the same, you will not recover a higher electric power in your antenna with the heat released by the interaction if you did not put a circuit behind. It is tiny, and on the contrary you have to SUPPLY electrical energy to amplify it.
On the other hand if you want to transport energy you can use an intense beam of microwaves, but similarly, you will not recover more power than the heat that you would produce by absorbing it - besides you can roast a bird. in a radar beam.
There with our neutrinos, I am playing the devil's advocate, we can imagine that their graphene presents the same type of "obstacle" to neutrinos (a plasmon? Exploiting their oscillations? ...).
For me the theoretical impossibility can only be demonstrated if the energy of the neutrino fluxes passing through their equipment is considerably less than what they claim to recover.
nah, neutrinos are not sensitive to electromagnetic radiation so to "plasmons", that the weak interaction - maybe possibly a special nuclear structure could amplify their detection a little but it has absolutely nothing to do with graphene.
FYI, when we want to detect very high energy neutrinos, we use km ^ 3 of ice in Antarctica, and yet we detect very little.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCubeso their thing is just stew in sauce, that's all.
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)
Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)