How can we detect something smaller than a neutrino?

[aman]

Since neutrinos are so small but do actually collide with our smallest particles at times, to be able to observe them in the future we are going to need some fascinating engineering. Our limits today are we can only observe in collisions the effects of the smaller particles we need as tools. We observed the efects of electrons in the past and then isolated them and now we photograph using controlled beams of them them.

We see a neutrino because it collides with something we know which will explode in an observable way. The best way to actually abserve them in my opinion is to generate one of the smallest parts created out of the explosion and try to aim them in a concentrated beam. We might see the neutrino. We might see also effects from things even smaller. Science is full of more and more mystery and no end answer so far.

Just aman

[fafalone]

To detect something smaller than a neutrino would could create a dense field of neutrinos (containment is an interesting problem, though I suspect a gravitational field could hold them) and watch for collisions. And then use a field of those particles to detect smaller ones, and so on and so forth

[Radical Edward]

the size of the object isn't really the important issue here, the thing that we look for when observing Really Small Stuff is the interactions. There are a limited number of ways in which particles may interact with one another, as a result of all the conservation rules and so on - for example lepton number, spin et al. and it is by looking at these interactions that we can figure out what it is we're actually looking at. Some things interact very very rarely, for example neutrinos, but in this case there are so damn many of them (billions pass through your body every second) that the chance of seeing a neutrino interaction becomes quite high.

[NSX]

Well, we have to bring in our good friend Heisenburg; even if we think we've detected this elemtary particle & made a theory on it; it might turn out fraud; since we may be forcing this observation.

[mastersamwise]

A device to measure quantum level movements is, by heisenburgs uncertainty principle impossible.

So far we can only imagine what it is we are seeing but something tells me that we will evetually have a machine that will do it.....is there any way to measure or observe things without measuring their reactions with something else?

[JaKiri]

No there isn't.

[Miseria_]

Lets take a history lesson, Before I do, If I say anything contradictory to anyones beleifes, please feel free to completely thrash me for it. I am not quiet sure if a nuetrino is smaller than a photon, but the existence of photons has already been proven due to the attempts to test Quatum mechanics, (which I might add, Proved Einstein's theory of relativity wrong), and although I'm not sure how they managed to acctually detect and measure the split photons to prove the very existence of quatum mechanics (in other words they detected half of a photon), I beleive that if a photon is smaller than a nuetrino (I know I should probably find out before I post this) then the question has obviously been answered by someone, somewhere.

 

And on a side note, Einstein may be a genuis, but Neils Bhor was the victor, even though he died before he won the battle.

[Giles]

einstein developed some quite important bits of quantum theory himself, even if he eventually rejected its random component.

 

i don't think qm actually proves relativity wrong - in fact relativity describes what it sets out to describe perfectly afaik. Its just that you can't combine the two theories - they can't both be correct and complete.

[Miseria_]

I OBJECT!!!!

 

well not really. I just think that Neils Bhor was more correct in many areas than Einstein was.

[Miseria_]

And I still think that answers the "How Can We Detect something as small as a nuetrino?" question

[JaKiri]

The standard model of Quantum Physics does not and CANNOT describe accurately gravitational interactions on a macroscale.

 

There is a reason that General Relativity is still being taught as scientific fact, despite the fact that it disagrees with the Standard model, which is scientific fact.

 

That reason is that it IS scientific fact, as we have no better theories.

 

There is a reason that the standard model is being taught as scientific fact, despite disagreeing with GR, which is scientific fact.

 

GUESS THE NEXT LINE PEOPLE!

[fafalone]

The inability of the Standard Model to completely unify the fundamental forces suggests that it is not the final word in laws of physics.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Miseria_

I OBJECT!!!!

 

well not really. I just think that Neils Bhor was more correct in many areas than Einstein was.

 

you could try telling us where he was right and einstein was wrong. The bit that Einstein objected to, namely the undeterministic bit of QM (since QM is actually completely deterministic apart from this one bit) looks like it is strapped on, doesn't fit really with the rest of it, and I can fully see why he objected to it, especially given the nature of the area at the time.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by fafalone

The inability of the Standard Model to completely unify the fundamental forces suggests that it is not the final word in laws of physics.

 

'Hey, I don't get this whole empiricism thing'

 

Scientific fact is not and never can be accurate at a more than empirical level.

 

The Standard Model is the best we've got, so it's scientific fact.

[fafalone]

It's inadequate. Not only can't it fully explain gravity, but it can't account for relativistic effects, which are facts. And not just gravitational relativity.

[fafalone]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

 

'Hey, I don't get this whole empiricism thing'

.

 

Empiricism is a cop-out.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by fafalone

It's inadequate. Not only can't it fully explain gravity, but it can't account for relativistic effects, which are facts. And not just gravitational relativity.

 

Once again, scientific facts.

 

We know they're wrong, but they're also the best we've got.

 

Oh, and the only thing you need to account for relitavistic effects is the constant speed of light relative to observers.

[fafalone]

Why would a constant speed of light relative to observers cause time to pass more slowly?

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by fafalone

Why would a constant speed of light relative to observers cause time to pass more slowly?

 

because if it didn't, it wouldn't be constant.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by fafalone

Why would a constant speed of light relative to observers cause time to pass more slowly?

 

Ask Einstein, that's how he got a metaphysical framework for the Lorenz Transforms.

[fafalone]

But the passage of time is not governed by observation. If you fly a clock around the world, it will give a different reading than a clock synchronized before the flight... and it stays off after the flight.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by fafalone

 

Empiricism is a cop-out.

 

It's what all of science is based on.

 

Don't like it? Go and argue about mathematics.

 

ps.

 

What happend to the 'edit' button?

 

<Rad Ed> top left of the post, dude: Posted On: Today at 10:23 AM [Edit]

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by fafalone

But the passage of time is not governed by observation. If you fly a clock around the world, it will give a different reading than a clock synchronized before the flight... and it stays off after the flight.

 

The clocks are both observers.

 

Here GR comes into play, and tells you which one is time dialated relative to the other.

[fafalone]

The edit button is in the post header (next to the time of post)

[JaKiri]

Thank you gentlemen, you may consider yourselves dismissed.