Explain the varying energetic field of quauntumn neutrino fields and their effects on organic matter?
404589
Neutrinos can pass through many light-years of lead without collision; therefore they would have little or no effect on organic matter. Also, since they have no charge, they would not create a field.
46009
Some of these overlap.\n\nSorting by Weight:\n-------------------\n\n1. Baryons: heavy particles. They are always fermions, so have half integral spin. (protons and neutrons are baryons)\n\n2. Muons: medium weight particles (intermediate weight between lepton and baryons, such as muons, kaons, pions, etc)\n\n3. Leptons, light particles (neutrinos and electrons are leptons)\n\n\nSorting by Spin\n----------------\n\n1. Bosons: having integral spin and satisfying Bose-Einstein  statistics (helium-4 atoms and photons for example)\n\n2. fermions: having half integral spin and satisfying Fermi-Dirac statistics (electrons, protons, etc)\n\n\nCharacterization by Force Influence\n------------------------------------\n\nHadrons: subject to the strong force (protons and  neutrons for example). These are of two types: the baryons and the mesons (intermediate weight between lepton and baryons, such as muons, kaons, pions, etc)\n\n\n\nOf course, there is  HUGE amount of other information about these.
1153702
Dark energy comprises 70% of the universe and dark matter comprises 26% of the universe. Ordinary baryonic matter, in the form of gas and stars, only makes up 4%.\n\nDark matter refers to matter particles, of unknown composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly, but whose presence may be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter such as stars and galaxies. Dark matter is explained as being cold, non-baryonic, collision-less dust.\n\nDark energy is a hypothetical form of energy which permeates all of space and has strong negative pressure. According to the theory of relativity, the effect of such a negative pressure is qualitatively similar to a force acting in opposition to gravity at large scales. In other words, dark energy acts as a repulsive force or anti-gravitation and is responsible for the acceleration of the universe.
620541
1) The photon is a force carrier of the electromagnetic force, the neutrino is not a carrier but feels the weak force.\n\n2) The neutrino has an antiparticle, the photon does not.\n\n3) The neutrino's interaction rate with matter is proportional to its energy, the photon's rate is dominated by resonances.\n\n4) The neutrino is the main energy carrier at supernova explosions, when matter is opaque to photons.\n\n5) The photon is massless, while the neutrino has a small but finite mass (follows from the discovery of neutrino oscillations)\n\n6) The neutrino comes in three flavours (electron, muon, tau neutrino), the photon in only one.\n\n7) The neutrino has spin 1/2, the photon spin 1.\n\n8) Human beings can detect photons, but not neutrinos (at least not without a huge apparatus)
346451
There is a very basic problem here. If you do a computation of the energy associated with the virtual particles, you get way, way, WAY more than enough to produce a closed universe. By one estimate, the answer is *at least* 63 orders of magnitude off. This is one of the worst predictions ever made! Clearly something is going on and nobody seems to have a good idea about how to get plausible results from this type of calculation. A *lot* of cancellation has to occur.
803811
You have progressed to a higher energy level.\nYour quanta is exponentially growing.\nBe aware a large mass may effect space time.\nIf your Dark Sucker. (Incandecent bulb) goes out you may have reached event horizon.\nI don't think there is a grey iffy area here. Chaos will not prevail in the face of large amounts of energy.\n\nLay off the donuts while your reading! 8^)
9631
I suppose you are referring to galaxies composed entirely or at least mostly of antimatter. None have been observed. If there were any, it would certainly be coming into contact with large amounts of matter at some sort of boundary. At that point, the collisions of the two would set off gigantic amounts of gamma rays, which we would be able to see. These have not, however, been observed. This is likely due to the fact that, for some reason as yet unknown, the amount of matter has increased hugely in the universe relative to antimatter since the big bang.
742823
Astonomers look at: (1) how fast galaxies are rotating, (2) how galaxies are moving relative to each other in clusters, and (3) how galaxies focus light from object beyond them ("gravitational lensing"). They then calculate how much mass there must be in those galaxies to explain those phenomena. Then they measure how much light is coming out of those galaxies and use that to estimate how much mass is in the galaxies. \n\nThe two techniques give very different numbers for the mass in the galaxies. The light measurement method yields a much smaller answer for the masses. Therefore, there is matter in the galaxies that is emitting little or no light.\n\nWhat dark matter is made of is a matter for speculation. Some of it may be neutrinos, which are abundant subatomic particles that were previous thought to have no mass but were recently determined to have a little mass. They are very, very numerous. Some may be "exotic" matter that we yet know nothing about.\n\nIt may be more mundane, however. We know that in our neighbor of the Milky Way, most of the starlight comes from just a handful of very bright stars, while most of the mass is in a large number of small, very dim stars.
444312
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrinos
62048
A team of US and Japanese physicists has obtained convincing evidence that neutrinos have mass, finally settling one of the most fundamental questions in particle physics. Results from the SuperKamiokande experiment in Japan suggest that neutrinos have a mass of 0.1 eV or greater, compared with about 0.5 MeV for the electron. The findings, reported at the Neutrino 98 meeting in Takayama, Japan and submitted to Physical Review Letters, have important implications for both cosmology and particle physics.
717863
If we consider that neutrinos are present in the emptiness of the atoms, the wave theory is negated. What you call free space does have countless of neutrinos zipping past but electrons have a dual character thus it is incorrect to think of them as strictly particles whirling around nuclei. Think of them as a cloud or even better as a distribution of charge.\n\nAlso, the question as to whether neutrinos have mass is still open. Answering it will solve some of the last unanswered questions. There is a massive experiment going on I think in the US where a lot of Heavy Water has been stored in an abandoned mine and scientists are patiently waiting for neutrinos to make impact.
803363
dark matter and dark energy and debris
832973
Hi:\n\nMiller's experiment did just that... produced organic matter from inorganic matter, simulating the primitive conditions. What is believed to have happened after that is difficult to simulate as it was a random process of associations of the various organic compounds to form primitive complex structures, like say even catalytic RNA. This would have taken millions of years in itself and is difficult to reproduce in vitro.\n\nIf it is of some consolation to you, scientists have created a virus from scratch, about a year ago and the results were published in Nature.\n\nCheers!!
311876
I'm sorry so few people know what neutrinos are. We are being bombarded by them every second. They are all around us, and I'm serious. In one second, several trillion hit the tip of your pinky alone.\n\nAnyway, I think LENS has to do with detecting neutrinos from the sun. The sun's core undergoes nuclear fusion, making helium from hydrogen. A side product of this reaction is the neutrino, at first thought to be a form of a photon. At first, the neutrino was thought to be massless and to travel at the speed of light. But later when we started detecting half as many neutrinos as thought probable, we realized that the neutrinos does have some mass, and must not travel at quite the speed of light (no particle with mass can travel at c). So now projects like LENS are trying to measure the mass of the neutrino and its other characteristics. They must take into account that this is a relativisitic particle and apply the theories of relativity to trace back to when it was emitted by the sun's core.
510041
To realize the existance of massless particles, one needs to come out of the orthodox classical visualization. Quantum mechanically, mass is not the necessary property for the existance of a particle, it could be just one of the properties! So, the statement that 'neutrino is matter and must have mass' is not correct (although, now it is known that they do have some mass).\n\nNeutrino is a chargeless particle that has half (plus or minus) spin (hence, a fermion). Postulated by Pauli (1931)in order to remove the descripancies associated with the explanation of beta-decay observations, the neutrino-theory successfully explained the beta decay.\n\nHowever, experimental discovery of neutrino wasn't that easy. For a particle whose interactions with matter are extremely limited (neutrinos are subjected only to weak and gravitational interactions), it required a lot of planning, very huge detectors and very accurate counters to detect neutrino. Nevertheless, a few neutrinos have been successfully detected. For example, the first experimental detection of neutrinos took place in 1956 by Clyde Cowan, Frederick Reines, F. B. Harrison, H. W. Kruse, and A. D. McGuire, a result that was rewarded with the 1995 Nobel Prize. Also, although they had been considered massless for many years, recent experiments (e.g.: Super-Kamiokande, Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, KamLAND and MINOS) have shown their mass to be non-zero (around 0.05 eV, can not be more than 0.3 eV). \n\nNote:\n1. Writing the unit of mass as eV (unit of energy) is a common practice in nuclear physics, and it actually corresponds to the energy associated with the mass (E = mc^2).\n2. The example of 'burning' as a proof of mass-energy equivalence, as given by one of the user is foolish. Burning is just a chemical reaction. In burning, a given mass is converted into other masses (gases, solid ash, etc.), and heat is generated (exothermic process).
277720
I am very sorry to tell you this, but this question cannot be answered. The reason for this has to do with the fact that very, very small things (like protons) act in a very different way than larger-scale objects. For a full explanation, you'd need to delve in quantum theory, but for now, here is the best answer I can give you:\n\nA proton consists of three quarks, who are held together with the strong nuclear force. Looking at the distance dependency of this force, a non-accelerated proton would have a diameter of about 10^-15 m in reference to its inertial frame. The weird thing is, the more accurately its velocity is determined (for example, by applying a certain electromagnetic field to it) the more "diffuse" and wave-like the proton becomes, thus in a sense enlarging it! For more on this, look into the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.\n\nFor similar reasons, it makes no sense to talk about the "shape" of a photon.
1057662
I-LIKE-A-DA YO-YO!!\n\nshort version:\n\nneutrons & protons have arcs of electricity between them. or, "strings"\n\nstrings sometime break off and just disapear.\non occasion, a rouge string will become a worm hole (about a 20-25% chance)\nvery rarely, a wormhole will become a "membrane" or a small pocket of energy. (4-8% chance from worm hole stage)\n\nthe thoery is that these membranes, or "branes" for short(mem"brane"), colected together to eventualy form a bubble of energy the size of a universe. and that two of theses monsters slamed into each other to create the "big bang" theory we know today.\n\nyep, still a nerd.\n\nStargazer.