immijimmi

I did put the research in beforehand and i know that neutrinos are meant to have corresponding antineutrinos. What I was asking is what the true physical difference is between the two, and that was something I didn't manage to find. The current view is that neutrinos have mass because they must have mass for oscillations to occur. Furthermore, mass is the only difference between the three types of neutrino AND if they didn't have it, they would constantly move at c which defies observations.

The strong force? Yes it does, the maximum range is 3 fm. But yeah, the energy required to isolate a quark is enough that it would create more quarks rather than working to isolate the original. Also I dunno how to add another quote but someone said something about light-speed gluon exchange. Doesn't happen because gluons have mass which also happens to be the reason the strong force has limited range.

So if those are 'lines of force' rather than the paths of photons, then what are lines of force? I really don't understand what you mean now :/

Nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light. You can travel very near it, and it would mean that you would barely be able to see anything in the path of the headlights, because the speed of light is constant and not relative to your movement.

This goes way too in-depth. Simply put, we see a limited spectrum of EM waves because the retina in our eyes can only detect specific frequencies. Higher frequencies contain too much energy and damage our eyes, and lower frequencies do not have enough energy to trigger vision. Think of it like a tripwire. If you lay a feather on the wire it will not activate. If you step on it, it activates. However, if you drop a boulder on it you snap the wire and probably yank the whole device out of the walls it is attached to. The different weights are different frequencies of light.

A magnetic field is created by the exchange of energy in the form of virtual photons, right? this is what causes attraction and repulsion in magnets, absorbing or releasing virtual photons. But what i'm asking is why they can curve from one pole of a magnet to reach the other pole in such a way.

I understand that, but what if a neutrino is emitted to right from a particle that is moving to the left at the same speed? To the observer the neutrino would not be moving and it would be impossible to tell its helicity. From what i've read in the article you linked helicity is affected by how the particle is moving relative to the observer, and although it would be hard to move faster than a neutrino moving close to c, it would not be impossible and some neutrinos can move slower than this aswell.

I'm seeing tons of scientific terms but surely the easiest way to explain it would be the shortest length of time in which any change can happen. However, if you're trying to separate time into frames you're gonna have to solve the problem of continuous changes, such as motion.

As I understand it, the lines in this image are potential paths of virtual photons. What would make them bend like that?

More specifically: What separates a neutrino from an antineutrino? Lepton number cannot be considered as it is not a physical property of the particle: it is a value used to balance equations, and is assigned to them because they are either particles or antiparticles. They are electrically neutral and have no colour charge. The one property that could be different for them and their counterparts is the direction of spin. However, can't a neutrino spin in any direction anyway? I'm pretty sure there isnt a set of specific directions neutrinos are allowed to spin in, and a corresponding set of opposite directions for the antineutrinos. Surely that would require some explanation for the limitation, and because i can't think of anything that would back this up i'm going to assume the that that isn't the case. Therefore there is either no difference between a neutrino and an antineutrino, OR the difference is relative, and i'm not going into detail on that unless i have to because it's hard to put into words and isnt necessarily needed. So, if there really isn't a difference. If any of the above is incorrect, please give an explanation or i'll end up really confused. If not, we can at least say the neutrinos are all their own antiparticles. What do you think?