Electric neutrino generator

[izentrop]

Then I went to their site ( https://neutrino-energy.com/scientific-advisory-board/ ). I found the list of scientists involved. I only spotted a funny guy (Konstantin Meyl), the others I don't know them. All teachers or engineers apparently, and there are many of them.

I had quoted this link and the joke is none other than the vice president
And have you seen the neuneux publications linked on this page too?

[ABC2019]

The neutrino is not a boson but a fermion. You cut off just before my indication that we cannot, unlike photons, make them interact similarly.
If you read before answering, we would save time.

ok but what I'm telling you is that they were detected for a long time before knowing if they had a mass or not, the mass has nothing to do with being able to interact.

Your info is trivial. I started the 1st post with "We are already having trouble detecting them ...".
The whole question is precisely whether their process allows them to interact more efficiently with neutrinos.. An argument that since an old method to detect them is bulky, then km ^ 3 will always be needed to do so, is not an argument, except to deny scientific progress.

if, there are things of which one is sure, the order of magnitude of the cross section is billions of billions of times less than that of photons. In fact the problem is the same as the violation of the second principle: if it was measured or well theorized, you would have thousands of scientific articles talking about it (just look at the number of papers that have flourished in a few months when you have believed to measure a speed of the neutrinos higher than that of light), whereas there there is ZERO.

ZERO scientific article, it is an absolute proof that it is complete blank, there is nothing, neither experimental, nor theoretical, to support this phenomenon; It is completely impossible that there is a "demonstrator" which completely disrupts known physics without hearing about it in the scientific community! (note that this assertion does NOT mean that it is completely impossible that there is something that completely disrupts known physics!).

[Exnihiloest]

...
if, there are things of which one is sure, the order of magnitude of the cross section is billions of billions of times lower than that of photons.

It doesn't prove anything. A radio photon with a wavelength of several km is able to interact with the electron of an antenna.
Even a photon in the visible band will be captured by a photoelectric effect by an atom thousands of times smaller than it. The "cross section" depends on the capture process. If the order of magnitude is what is estimated, or observed for neutrinos in current detectors, that does not presume other processes, in particular resonants which widen the cross section as we have for radio antennas. The De Broglie wavelength associated with certain neutrinos can exceed 1 meter. That's why I suggested a plasmon on the surface of graphene, just a passing idea.

In fact the problem is the same as the violation of the second principle: if it was measured or well theorized, you would have thousands of scientific articles talking about it (just look at the number of papers that have flourished in a few months when we have believed to measure a speed of the neutrinos higher than that of light), whereas there there is ZERO.

except at the beginning. There is no article before the 1st on the subject!
But we are only 5 months I believe from the initial announcement.

I'm not saying their thing works, but I'm saying that we don't know enough to say whether it works or not. If we want to bet, obviously we will say that it does not work because for an extraordinary announcement, one needs unmistakable proof and one does not have it. But I'm not interested in betting so for the moment I'm just hanging around.

[Exnihiloest]

Then I went to their site ( https://neutrino-energy.com/scientific-advisory-board/ ). I found the list of scientists involved. I only spotted a funny guy (Konstantin Meyl), the others I don't know them. All teachers or engineers apparently, and there are many of them.

I had quoted this link and the joke is none other than the vice president
And have you seen the neuneux publications linked on this page too?

Indeed, it is very suspect. And I read "Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University" :-). Ouch. My deconometer is almost going to stop. But is it really related to the site? Sites sometimes redistribute news feeds from third parties, over which they are not masters. In the lower links, however, nothing suspicious.

[ABC2019]

...
if, there are things of which one is sure, the order of magnitude of the cross section is billions of billions of times lower than that of photons.

It doesn't prove anything. A radio photon with a wavelength of several km is able to interact with the electron of an antenna.
Even a photon in the visible band will be captured by a photoelectric effect by an atom thousands of times smaller than it. The "cross section" depends on the capture process. If the order of magnitude is what is estimated, or observed for neutrinos in current detectors, that does not presume other processes, in particular resonants which widen the cross section as we have for radio antennas. The De Broglie wavelength associated with certain neutrinos can exceed 1 meter. That's why I suggested a plasmon on the surface of graphene, just a passing idea.

uh ... the cross section has nothing to do with the de Broglie wavelength! the cross section measures the probability of absorption precisely (roughly the probability is the product of the cross section, times the density of absorbent particles, times the length crossed).

Indeed the cross section can be increased by resonance phenomena, but the probability of absorption of neutrinos is tiny, you can do what you want there is no known process which makes it gain billions of billions, and it there is no possible "resonance" with an electronic structure, I repeat that the interaction is NOT electromagnetic!

In fact the problem is the same as the violation of the second principle: if it was measured or well theorized, you would have thousands of scientific articles talking about it (just look at the number of papers that have flourished in a few months when we have believed to measure a speed of the neutrinos higher than that of light), whereas there there is ZERO.

except at the beginning. There is no article before the 1st on the subject!
But we are only 5 months I believe from the initial announcement.

but not at all they are talking about 2015!

and even 5 months would be huge for something of this importance, it would make a hell of a buzz and all the physics journals would talk about it!

I'm not saying their thing works, but I'm saying that we don't know enough to say whether it works or not. If we want to bet, obviously we will say that it does not work because for an extraordinary announcement, one needs unmistakable proof and one does not have it. But I'm not interested in betting so for the moment I'm just hanging around.

you, you may not know enough but I do, and as usual I am willing to take the bet that you want that it is the complete blank, on any sum .

[Exnihiloest]

...
uh ... the cross section has nothing to do with the de Broglie wavelength! the cross section measures the probability of absorption precisely (roughly the probability is the product of the cross section, times the density of absorbent particles, times the length crossed).

It's wrong :
"De Broglie wavelength is an estimate of the wavelength associated with particles as a function of the energy of the system. If the characteristic dimensions of the system (crystal lattice, average volume, average travel distance, etc.) are greater than the De Broglie wavelength, the wave interference effects can be neglected and the behavior of the particles can reasonably be studied at using the laws of classical mechanics. Otherwise, the interference effects between the particle waves make it necessary to use quantum mechanics to study the physics of the system.."

This means that a particular mesh (which perhaps graphene could provide), depending on the type and energy level of the neutrino to be intercepted, can promote coupling with it, in particular via a plasmon whose electronic oscillations would resonate with the neutrino's "matter wave".

Your assertions are far too simplified and categorical for them to be claimed to demonstrate impossibilities.

...
you, you may not know enough but I do, and as usual I am willing to take the bet that you want that it is the complete blank, on any sum .

If I took a bet, it would also be full flan. Why ? Because always betting against the improbable, we obviously have every chance of winning statistically.
What interests me are the signs of something new in physics. It seems that there, after analysis, this is not the case. But if you don't tackle anything that seems to be at the limit of our knowledge, the discoveries, you will only know them when they go to the 20pm newscast.

[ABC2019]

...
uh ... the cross section has nothing to do with the de Broglie wavelength! the cross section measures the probability of absorption precisely (roughly the probability is the product of the cross section, times the density of absorbent particles, times the length crossed).

It's wrong :
"De Broglie wavelength is an estimate of the wavelength associated with particles as a function of the energy of the system. If the characteristic dimensions of the system (crystal lattice, average volume, average travel distance, etc.) are greater than the De Broglie wavelength, the wave interference effects can be neglected and the behavior of the particles can reasonably be studied at using the laws of classical mechanics. Otherwise, the interference effects between the particle waves make it necessary to use quantum mechanics to study the physics of the system.."

that's what I'm saying, the cross section has little to do with the de Broglie wavelength ... your extract does not say the opposite (for example in the extreme case "hard sphere" and if lambda << R the cross section is constant (Pi R ^ 2) and INDEPENDENT of lambda).

This means that a particular mesh (which perhaps graphene could provide), depending on the type and energy level of the neutrino to be intercepted, can promote coupling with it, in particular via a plasmon whose electronic oscillations would resonate with the neutrino's "matter wave".

but no, a structure like graphene is a structure based on electromagnetism, like all chemistry. And the neutrino not being charged does not "see" this structure.
Moreover, resonance phenomena are by nature narrow in frequency, so if an amplification existed, it could only concern particular energies, and the higher the resonance, the narrower it is, and the fewer particles involved. As much as they are important for transmitting information on selected frequencies (which is the case for radio where precisely one transmits at precise frequencies and one tunes the receiver on these frequencies), they have no impact on a continuum where most of the energies are out of resonance.

This is also the principle of interference filters which are used for example to "visualize" the Halpha frequency in the sun, precisely because the continuum is off (pretty images there for example; http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/image ... -ha-fr.htm )

But natural neutrinos have no energy peak ... so a possible resonance would have no effect.

Your assertions are far too simplified and categorical for them to be claimed to demonstrate impossibilities.

I repeat that
a) if an electrical power could be extracted, it would first manifest itself by a perfectly measurable heating - and that would be known
b) if a phenomenon like that existed, there would be plenty of scientific publications that would already talk about it. And there is not one.

Me, that's enough for me to bet how much you want this thing to be whole custard, at any rate. For example, I'm ready to bet you € 10 that no publication will come out on it within a year, that I will pay you if there is one that comes out, against € 000 that you pay me if they don't come out.

100 €, that's always what you win .

[izentrop]

Be careful though, predatory magazines are not what is lacking, Raoult knows something about it.

[Exnihiloest]

that's what I'm saying, the cross section has little to do with the de Broglie wavelength ... your extract does not say the opposite (for example in the extreme case "hard sphere" and if lambda << R the cross section is constant (Pi R ^ 2) and INDEPENDENT of lambda).

He says the opposite. Interference is a result of coupling and interference depends on wavelengths. When the De Broglie wavelength becomes less than the mesh size or the mean travel time, then we have to call on the QM to know how the interaction will be done. This indicates that a surface like that of the monoatomic layers of graphene can promote this coupling. It becomes a matter of engineering to make it efficient and therefore to improve the apparent cross section.

but no, a structure like graphene is a structure based on electromagnetism, like all chemistry. And the neutrino not being charged does not "see" this structure.

I did not speak of an electric effect. The electron has a mass. It can therefore be impacted by the kinetic energy of another mass. He can "see" neutrinos. If the mass of the neutrino is considerably lower than that of the electron, on the other hand this does not prevent a large number of neutrinos, as long as the system favors their coupling, could significantly boost an electron.
This is of course speculative, but no more speculative than asserting the impossibility of phenomena a priori theoretically possible.

But natural neutrinos have no energy peak ... so a possible resonance would have no effect.

Neutrinos exist in a considerable range of energies, thus also of De Broglie wavelength. It depends on each one. To see their energy distribution and wavelengths associated with those received on earth.

I repeat that
a) if an electrical power could be extracted, it would first manifest itself by a perfectly measurable heating
...

You repeat, and so do I. Your assertions are far too simplified and generalist for them to be claimed to demonstrate impossibilities.
Demonstration:
An electric current can circulate indefinitely in a superconductor and it represents an energy which can be extracted, without "first" a measurable heating.

If there is such a craze for graphene, it is because it has astonishing prospects for electrical energy, there it is not from neutrinos but from thermal effects:
https://physicsworld.com/a/rippling-gra ... al-energy/

[Exnihiloest]

Be careful though, predatory magazines are not what is lacking, Raoult knows something about it.

"predatory journals"?
Uh, what are you talking about?