Future Science – Muons and Neutrinos – Excitement and Excitation by Ulrike Granögger

12 Comments

1. Really nicely done. Be very careful referring to hydrogen or helium nuclei as “primary.” They are not. Nor is the primary solar ejection particulate in nature.
   The pertinent original studies: the first measurements obtained by specifically searching for such asymmetry were reported in 1934 by B. Rossi in Ric. Sci. 5:569 and in 1935 by T. H. Johnson (“Progress of the Directional Survey of Cosmic-ray Intensities and its Application to the Analysis of the Primary cosmic Radiation”) in Phys Rev 48:287.
   Johnson measured a greater cosmic ray intensity from the west, suggesting an excess (later confirmed) of positive charge resulting from secondary showers. Johnson inferred that the primary cosmic radiation incident upon the upper atmosphere was likely composed of mostly positively charged particles – and eventually this was confirmed, in that primary radiation is mostly composed of protons.
   Then, also in 1935, in Phys Rev 47:647, Vallarta suggested that the longitude effect of the CR flux was a geomagnetic effect. Essentially, muons from the East, when compared to those from the West, are suppressed by the Earth’s geomagnetic field (8.1E25 gauss-cm) because of its dipole structure (displaced 340 km from center, toward the Indian Ocean) which bends the mostly positively charged rays toward the east. Aside from the constant effect of geomagnetism, magnetic fields of the sun and of the planets, as well as the solar wind, influence the angular distributions of muons close to the earth. More recently, Kamiokande in Phys Rev D 56:56 (1997) found the muon E-W anisotropy to have an amplitude of 6*10-4 (in the range of 1011 to 1014 eV).
   Finally, Project GRAND (1998-2000) has made possible the measurement of muon angular asymmetries with low systematics, by separately subtracting West form East and South from North angles for each half-hour of the day for a two-year period, thus eliminating most of the systematic errors which had crept into these studies in the past (see “Secondary muon asymmetries at sea level with low systematics”, by Poirer, J et al, in Proc. ICRC, Copernicus Gesellschaft, 2001, p. 3930). The residual East-West asymmetry (after correction for the Compton-Getting effect) as a function of the solar time of day is extensively studied in the literature pertaining to this project.
   1. First, 90% of cosmic radiation is thought to be composed of protons and 10% of helium nuclei, NOT GAMMA RAYS AND ELECTRONS! Electrons and X-rays have been detected in primary cosmic radiation, and the question is still open with regard to the presence of definite fluxes of gamma rays in this radiation; nevertheless, up to 100 MeV, the gamma ray flux is less than one-thousandth of the nuclear component.
   But if I could hazard a guess, I would suspect that Ulrike’s source is none other than Millikan’s theory of cosmic radiation consisting of ‘ultra-gamma rays’ updated by Carroll (1991) comprehensible toroidal model of matter and antimatter (and assembly therefrom of neutron, neutrinos & pions). The Russians tend to be bias toward this model. But this was superseded in the 1930’s, when introduction of counter-telescopic measurements aboard balloons, and later in rockets and sondes, permitted the identification of much higher cosmic-ray energies. Subsequently, it became understood how the gamma radiation detected at lower altitude was the result of pair-annihilation – which, in turn, became identified as the marker of the neutral pion-muon decay characteristic of uncharged secondaries.
   2. Secondly, neither gamma rays nor electrons break down into secondary cascades. On the contrary, it is the primary nucleonic flux that breaks down inelastically into what the Standard Model calls the pion-meson secondary cascades. The typical shower of particles starts with pions, which decay via the weak interaction to muons and muon neutrinos. The muons subsequently decay to electrons, an electron neutrino, and another muon neutrino.
   3. Thirdly, when, essentially, these cascades are NEUTRAL, they ultimately result in the production of gamma rays via pair creation and annihilation. So, therefore, electrons and gamma-rays result from secondary showers of cosmic radiation. They do not give rise to them!! This is a very important distinction.
   4. Fourthly, it is the decay of the CHARGED pion-meson secondaries that gives rise to muons, and the subsequent cascades of decay electrons – and not the decay of supposed electrons and gamma rays that does so! (Other forms of decay, such as kaon-decay, play a minor role.)
   5. Fifthly, the secondaries are not composed primarily of protons, rather, as already stated – the primaries are! But the wave function always precedes conceptual solidity.
   Very important to understand that the fundamental fluxes are NOT particulate Matter. The question posed to this group for additional understanding is what is the topological interior of the electron? All my bewailing the Aether shall not go to waste!

   1. Thank you Michael, love your comment. Much more detailed than I had planned to go in this presentation which is only an overview to stimulate ideas and show a little what is happening.

      Interesting question about the interior topology of the electron. What do YOU think?

      1. Since you are kind enough to ask I shall address it directly in another post on this thread.

      2. The Electron
         To begin, I would like to address the poverty of empiricism. Modern science prides itself on empiricism, the idea that it takes experiment and observation as the foundation of its operations. This is the myth of the method, since science does not deal with observation but precisely those things that are not observable: concepts, forces, manifolds, and assorted abstractions.
         Abstract nonentities such as points (very important in discussing electron topology), lines, planes, spheres, space, universal metrics, etc. (not existing in nature) are to be dismissed as limited in value. The premise of any method must contain the premise that the process of discussion, analysis and discovery can only be based upon physical experience – not limited to what can be “observed” and catalogued – and that complete description of any phenomena is de-facto outside the scope of human ability.
         Why? First, the reality of the outside world cannot be proven – it must be taken on faith and only on faith. Our awareness is of sense impression which are themselves reducible only to states of own mind. All we can know are the contextual states of mind adduced during the sense impression. Referring to sense impression as a state of mind in an external world do not prove the existence of said external world.
         Therefore, the empirical method limited to states of mind and does not extend to observation proper – hence ‘Science’ is a myth; a scientific establishment, powerful and divisive, as we are currently experiencing, is quite real.
         Onward ho! Second, any observation take place in a context, and is conditioned by it. The sets of data deemed to be important, having causal association ascribed, or anything we take to be important is dictated by the mind-state previously mentioned, by who is paying us, social pressure and societal (unconscious) norms. Cold objectivity be damned – does not exist.
         Third, that an object itself is not present in any defensible metaphysical manner. What is present, phenomenologically, are forces and energy, though even those imply a further and non-material substratum. The observables are immediately reduced to dispersions of force, forces whose affects can be sensed, but not the force itself “Ding an sich.”
         This is taken for granted. If I am an empiricist and I see a tree, what I see exists solely in my mind: it is my senses that have made brown and green out of the elementary forces of the tree, the energies that are interpreted by my mind as colors or textures. When I see an object and call it a “thing,” I am behaving arbitrarily – calling an object “single thing” when in fact any object immediately observable in nature is a collection of millions of pulses of force and energy; in reality a plethora of things, which must appeal to an infinite series, rather than a single thing. See St. Anselm or Leibniz for the Ontological Argument for God’s Existence. Very helpful.
         Empiricism knows only internal, psychic states and nothing else. It is not a form of knowledge at all and leads to an extremely superficial approach to the world, justified only by the most base utilitarianism. Therefore, even energy itself must be further reduced since we cannot see or touch force and energy.
         Therefore, one must hold to the doctrine of essences, or elementary forces that cannot be seen, heard, or sensed in any way. All observables must be reduced to that which cannot be observed to make sense of them. Hence “science” is a mythical methodology, indistinct from any religion, much to the dismay of low IQ atheists everywhere; science cannot and will never produce a grand narrative; no society or civilization has ever flourished without a non-arbitrary unifying narrative; the technocratic/transhumanist satanism currently being imposed can only fail, as it has failed in numerous pre-modern cycles of history.
         Some electron history
         Thomson (1897) Discovery of the electron.
         Abraham & Lorentz (1909) Spherical and flattened ellipsoid models.
         Bohr (1912) Describing electrons in the atom as point particles on ‘quantized’ paths around the nucleus in which the ratios of kinetic energy to the orbital frequency is proportional to some integer ‘n’. This is the origin point of the version taught at every level of university, and incidentally, completely corrupt. Electrons arrange themselves in rings with the lowest possible energy configuration, but the electron as such, and the ring are calculated as distinct entities – which is overt logical absurdity – in my opinion deliberate obfuscation due to the Aryan vs. Jewish physics squabble.
         Parson (1915) produced the first ring model of the electron using a spherical charge models for the entire atom. Model was furthered by C. Davisson, L.O. Grondahl, D.L Webster, A.H Compton and others.
         Rutherford (1920) coins the name ‘proton’ for the positively charged nuclear center of the atom and produces a ‘pudding’ model. God-awfully ugly but I digress.
         Dirac (1928) composes (or concocts) relativistic electrodynamics and a point-model of the electron, along with historical prediction of positron.
         Dirac (1938) publishes his point model of the electron. The original work in 1928 pigeon-holed Dirac into maintaining the point model. As the discovery of the neutron in 1932 materialized Dirac used the neutron (net charge equal zero) to assert that matter is NOT fundamentally electromagnetic in nature. This seeded an entire mental illness premised upon the false dichotomy of electrical and nuclear forces, which is preposterous, and as with Bohr, likely a deliberate obfuscation due to the context of WW2 and the oncoming construction of la bomba atomica. Dirac completely avoids any qualitative description of electron topology while taking his relativistic theory to logical absurdity by claiming a superluminal velocity of light inside the ‘finite interior’ of his point (remember the rules, no useless abstractions) model. Nonsense.
         Bostick (19??-1991) Refines Parson/Compton model in vain attempt to unify his laboratory works on electrons in plasmas with astrophysical discoveries, superstring nonsense, and ‘unified field’ theories – essentially Bostick was pressured into making his work, which contradicted the mental states of the overlords of academia, play nice with QED and Einstein. At any rate, this is the first instance of any topological refinement in the qualitative explanation of charge.
         Carroll (1991) Toroidal matter/anti-matter model which is basically geometric lacking any microstructure or qualitative detail of basic electric, magnetic and gravitic elements.
         20th century models of the electron were based on the thoughtless assumption of a distributed current or surface of electrical charge or electricity. Now I say thoughtless, and I am admittedly jaded, after having been hurled from a graduate program in biophysics, for simply trying to inform my cohort of the qualitative lacking of this particular area – and the sh**** metaphysical assumptions at the very center of this issue. Incidentally, did you know the standard response from a physics professor to a graduate student regarding metaphysics consists of explaining away of all transcendental categories? In fact, the use of philosophical language in the hallowed halls of the physics, chemistry and biology departments is akin to acquiring leprosy, in particular the dim-wits in the biology department, most of whom are female and desperately wanting to achieve acceptance at an allopathic medical school, so they can waste their child bearing years as pharmacological bureaucrats.
         The popular model which is universally accepted and instructed is of course an unholy amalgamation of the Bohr/Dirac point model. They assert that the quantum of electricity (the electron) must be made up of lots (or an infinity) of smaller electrons with smaller charges. They all refuse to make A SINGLE qualitative statement of what an electron IS; of what charge IS. They fail to assert the distinction between electrostatic and electrodynamic, in other words, they fail in their basic assumptions because they describe nothing about the phenomena assumed to exist as a point, or point-like particle.
         A thought experiment. Take a sheet of graph paper – a regular Cartesian plane, nothing fancy and draw a point at any coordinate you wish. Now with your index finger point to some arbitrary location ‘in space’ within your environment. Do you assign equivalency to a point on a graph with clearly defined dimensions and the hypothetical infinitesimal of space indicated by the arbitrary direction in which you point the finger? If so, we cannot be friends. But that is precisely what the point-mathematical models have done, and exactly what every genius in the physics department of the local Frankfurter school for Marxist twits teach.
         But mathematics is CORRUPT. Neither the point particle nor the wave function as posited by QED itself are ‘real’ (i.e., from Nature), and each is equally ‘imaginary’ (an abstraction). Because of the difficulties of dealing with non-linear equations and topology, which are central to the understanding the qualities associated with any phenomena – not merely the secondary and tertiary actions these fundamental phenomena have on the senses.
         So, that is my introduction. The rest can only be done using visuals and I haven’t any idea how to deal with visuals in the comment section. You’d think being part of the millennial generation would have bestowed some sort of passive competency with technology, no such luck. Maybe I’ll make a youtube video or something, idk.

2. Here is another reply that is posted belatedly due to website issues. The comment by a gentleman doesn’t seem to have survived the transfer of web content. So let me re-post his comments/critique and then my reply.

   —Original comment by a subscriber:
   “I was not persuaded by the presentation. It seemed like a cover story for another of the seemingly frivolous experiments of fantastic cost that mainstream science continuously foists on the public, indeed expressly invoking of The Standard Model of Particle Physics. If neutrinos reach speeds short of the speed of light, apart from their ability to pursue us to every blessed nook and cranny of creation, they have no advantage in interstellar communications, as purported, whereas electromagnetic waves travel right at the speed of light. Certainly something more is afoot and it isn’t being revealed. I think Ulrike told us precious little of Antarctica and seemed suspiciously dismissive of the abomination that is CERN, which is assuredly not a relative child’s plaything in the panoply of sinister undertakings that modern ‘scientists’ extend their deepest efforts and ambitions towards, always at the behest of hidden hands who answer to no one and imperil all.
   Now, as we get to the denouement of the presentation, we have the prospect that the ability of these particles to penetrate everything and the omnipresent ubiquity of a universe filled with detectors thereof might have us knowing everything about everything, immediately. Stop and think whether this would be ultimate consciousness or madness. We are given the senses we are and the minds we are for the purposes of experiencing reality with limitations and doubts, the very essence of humanity. If we feel urged to shuffle off these mortal coils, we have nought to do but wait for our time to pass. The stern, impassioned stress on growing out of our supposed immaturity is fully denying of humanity–the very thing that would make us less human. The very thing that is so often inveighed against in these pages. And again, if neutrinos are subluminal in speed, then we are still looking into the past at any information they might bring. That’s fine. It’s what our human minds are suited to.
   The only thing we can do to be fully in the present is to empty ourselves and experience nothingness, the stillness of Eternity, which we can access sometimes through meditation and sometimes through grace, but never through mechanical intermediaries. As I have elsewhere written, machines are expressly, undeniably temporal in nature (having a beginning) and therefore are themselves incapable of Eternity, no matter their grandeur. Our souls are sparks of The Divine Flame, and are thus eternal. We need to embrace what we are, not what others might tell us we ought to be. The serpent beckons–do not give him heed.”
   — End of subscriber’s comment.

   1. Replying to above comment:

      These are fabulous comments, thank you for them. And even though I am not sure you understood my INTENTIONS in putting this presentation together your comment on meditation and the experience of “nothingness” delights me as you clearly got what I was alluding to by it. For if neutrinos are candidates for explaining (at least in part) that which is called dark matter and dark energy… which are just terms for something so elusive that it cannot be seen, measured, nor fully conceived of… it seems to me that neutrino physics MAY be an avenue to opening more of this world of “consciousness” or the “unknown” or “emptiness” that is not really empty but ultimately a plenum full of awareness and experience.
      It is my believe that this type of “observation” without eyes or by non-optical means will open also new abilities of humanity to explore this nothingness and stillness — not by the use of “machines” or telescopes (I fully agree with you on their limitation to transfer eternity) but ultimately by an inductive knowledge we glean from their data.

      Your criticism that if neutrinos are not massless they will also only portray the past is correct. I did not go into the possibility of the super-luminosity of neutrinos as the discussion in this field is closed for the time being. The results of 3 years (2009 – 2011) of the OPERA experiments between Gran Sasso, Italy and CERN which gave clear indication of superluminal behaviour of neutrinos were withdrawn after much pressure from the so-called ‘scientific community’ and were put down to a cable glitch. Superluminal speeds are the “unforgivable sin” of today’s particle religion. The chief scientists of the OPERA group had to resign.
      After that, the 2015 Nobel prize for proof of neutrino oscillations* and thus the existence of an ever so tiny mass of neutrinos has even further removed the possibility of luminal and superluminal speeds of neutrinos… Sometimes the awarding of a Nobel prize is very “convenient” when you need to create a scientific ‘fact’ even though behind the scenes the debate is not over. The same is true for the gravitational waves and their Nobel prize awarded the very next year of their discovery while there are still profound discussions going on about the validity of the results.

      Both gravitational waves and neutrinos are still considered candidates for ultimately coming closer to understanding dark matter and ARE understood as ‘messengers’ from cosmic spaces.

      Neutrinos being the lightest (as yet known) particles are situated at an interesting threshold: Where does mass come from? (I know, I know: the Higgs….) Why are photons of super-high frequencies such as gamma rays and cosmic rays massless, but then the electron with an even higher frequency does have mass? When does light become a massive particle?

      What I was hoping to point out in the presentation is the possibility that the powerful efforts undertaken to detect them could be indication of new theories that are being tested behind the scenes. To spell it out in plain words: I suspect 1) the testing of a new energy source and 2) the testing of new reaches of communication that would ultimately be able to influence matter by language alone. That’s a far-fetched speculation and I have no proof.
      By looking at the size and dimension of the telescopes, detectors and their space connection I was hoping to provide a basis for readers to draw their own conclusions.

      Your opinion that we are not supposed to go beyond our 5 senses and should wait until we have left this world is very valid. I do not share it, though. I am drawing the opposite conclusion that indeed we ARE supposed to expand and continue to learn and grow in co-creativity. It is true, and to stay in the Biblical language that you evoked, the “snake” lurks on all levels, both in knowledge as well as in ignorance but it seems to me that it is the very influence of the snake that limited us (as Edenic creation) to a body of skin (Genesis 3) and we are left with the outer senses alone after we were expelled from Paradise. Before that we had a higher type of body and were even able to communicate with Elohim.

      When we meditate and tap into the nothingness – are we really shutting off all of our senses and mental capacities or are we perhaps switching on those other senses that allow us to become aware of the 95% unseen and unaccounted for? The ‘nothingness’ may not be absolute stillness but the dynamics of a higher mind.

      *) Footnote: One doesn’t know the precise rest mass of the neutrino but it oscillates in and out of different values. Hmm… In measurements (other than the discarded OPERA results) its speed is very close to or coincides with the speed of light in a vacuum.

   2. Yikes. Nature abhors a vacuum, the eastern notion of the emptying of oneself leaves the opportunity for that void to be filled by entities, well beyond human perception and control. Although I despise the Standard Model this is a call for the employment of an outrageous form of mysticism, godless occultism, which leads to nihilism and black arts. We’ve had quite enough black magic imposed upon humanity, in my opinion.

      Note: this is in reply to the content of the anon subscriber above – although I suspect we have already interacted.

3. Catherine:
   Can you please ask Ulrike to share her insights on the connection between SKA and crop circles, to which she fleetingly alluded?

   1. Thank you for spotting this, William. You know, it was really just meant as an allusion without deep intentions behind it – a pictographic association that I had and couldn’t resist to put in… both the telescope and the crop circles having a “space” connection and both using a mathematical layout.
      The fractal spiral layout of the SKA does strike me as interesting … for a general approach would be to try to cover as much surface as possible to get lots of data from space observation. Whereas the fractal spiral layout at first sight seems to leave out large blots of sky it actually allows for MORE coverage by its ‘dynamic’ positioning and suggested motion. It MAY even suggest an intention to observe a hyper-dimension – if I may speculate – because the next spatial dimension up of our 3-D would needs be fractal.

      But if that really has to do with crop circles, I don’t know. Maybe you or others have ideas on any possible connections between the two.

      (Due to website being down this reply is only posted now.)

4. 🙂

5. “Why should billionaires and the “breakaway civilization” have all the fun? Let’s all be part of inventing our future – this is part of coming into our personal power.”

   YES!

   YES!

   YES!

   I am ALL IN for this!!

   🙂

   1. Count me in!

Comments are closed.