- #1
theLHC
- 11
- 0
Hey guys. Just before you read this, let it be known that I am merely a 16 year old, and so these are basically ideas from one who is not as educated in the field of astrophysics as others, so forgive me if this concept may sound utterly rubbish to you.
Ok. So here it is. Neutrinos. There is a debate going on (or was going on) that the neutrinos may amount for the "missing" mass of the universe that is unobservable. Once again, I am not in step with the astrophysical community, so please update me on this if there have been any developments, but nevertheless, here are my thoughts.
Supposedly, there are so many of these neutrinos that if they had even a tiny, insignificant mass, in total they would equal to a significant portion of that so called "missing" mass. The flaw that I see with this argument is that if the neutrinos can have mass, then why are they still referred to as ghost particles? This reference to them being ghost particles means that they pass through this unnoticed due to their almost unexisting mass. On top of that, the neutrinos travel at the speed of light, further complicating my confusion. I then came to the conclusion that the neutrinos have no mass what so ever, since if they had any sort of mass they would be detected in size because they would increase in mass since they are traveling at the speed of light.
Isn't it true that in order for an object to travel at the speed of light, it must be massless?
But then again, I may be mistaken, seeing that this was out of a book that I read 2 years ago and am trying to recall all that I read, so there may be some discrepancies to what I just stated.
Please give your thoughts on this.
Ok. So here it is. Neutrinos. There is a debate going on (or was going on) that the neutrinos may amount for the "missing" mass of the universe that is unobservable. Once again, I am not in step with the astrophysical community, so please update me on this if there have been any developments, but nevertheless, here are my thoughts.
Supposedly, there are so many of these neutrinos that if they had even a tiny, insignificant mass, in total they would equal to a significant portion of that so called "missing" mass. The flaw that I see with this argument is that if the neutrinos can have mass, then why are they still referred to as ghost particles? This reference to them being ghost particles means that they pass through this unnoticed due to their almost unexisting mass. On top of that, the neutrinos travel at the speed of light, further complicating my confusion. I then came to the conclusion that the neutrinos have no mass what so ever, since if they had any sort of mass they would be detected in size because they would increase in mass since they are traveling at the speed of light.
Isn't it true that in order for an object to travel at the speed of light, it must be massless?
But then again, I may be mistaken, seeing that this was out of a book that I read 2 years ago and am trying to recall all that I read, so there may be some discrepancies to what I just stated.
Please give your thoughts on this.