NEUTRINO: Fact or Fiction
by David de Hilster
One of the most amazing things in physics is the unquestioning faith that the neutrino exists. The mess has become so great, and the dollars so plentiful for researchers, that it seems virtually impossible to derail this runaway train. Even though Autodynamics offers a real alternative with real physical explanations, physicists can’t even begin to imagine the possibility that the neutrino doesn’t exist.Yet if you present the “facts” about the neutrino to the layman even without a real alternative like Autodynamics, it looks very suspect indeed. Here are some of the supposed facts:
- 10 billion neutrinos per second stream through each square centimeter of the earth.
- Neutrinos pass through everything without stopping. (It is said that they can pass through light years of lead untouched)
- Neutrinos oscillate from one type to another without physical explanation.
- Neutrinos’ mass, type, flavor, and behavior has exploded into a confusing collection of particles (see Neutrino Delirium Tremens”.
Now let’s take a look at the realities:
- Dozens of neutrino detectors and accelerators have been built during the last 30 years without any “real” or “substantial” successes (see Neutrino Detectors).
- Neutrino detector results are not repeatable.
- Experiments carried out in the 1940s by reputable scientists from reputable institutions published in reputable publications found that the neutrino could not account for the extra energy, yet this is ignored by physicists today.
- Experimental evidence against the neutrino was publihed in 1946 by Buechner and Van da Graaff at MIT published in Physics Review.
Supposed Neutrino “Evidence”
When you look closely at what is considered the best “evidence” for neutrinos, they become even more suspect.
- The best???: Super Nova 1987A.
- Detector Results
So Why Keep Searching?
A good question. I believe there are some pretty simple explanations.
- There has been no good alternative up to now.
- There are many brilliant scientists who enjoy the challenge.
- No one questions special relativity as the culprit. Einstein is god.
- Physicists can earn a decent living.
- How can so many brilliant physicists be wrong?
- The origin of the neutrino is inextricably linked to decay, yet many physicists have dropped that connection.
- The neutrino’s origin requires it to have no mass, yet today’s neutrinos have a wide variety of masses.
Autodynamics is the first alternative to describing decay without the need for the neutrino. In fact, it presents a reason for why the neutrino was postulated in the first place. Not only that, Autodynamics can explain the experimental data without the neutrino. This is how those who are advancing Autodynamics sees the neutrino story:
- Autodynamics describes all decay cases without the neutrino.
- Special Relativity has a “hidden” mathematical assumption that caused its inability to describe decay cases.
- With its inability to describe decay cases, the neutrino was postulated. (magical)
- Autodynamics can describe data that Special Relativity cannot.
The goal of Autodynamics is not to eliminate the neutrino. This is simply a consequence of a more descriptive, more fundamental theory of relativity called Autodynamics. Special Relativity and the neutrino are not wrong: they are simply not as correct as Autodynamics.Autodynamics is not out to prove today’s physicists and Special Relativity wrong. Special relativity and many physicists today are perfectly correct to describe certain types of physical phenomena without Autodynamics. Special Relativity is a subset of Autodynamics and it is perfectly logical to assume much of today’s physics as solid. Yet there are glaring problems that neither Special Relativity nor the neutrino can explain where Autodynamics offers an elegant solution.Perhaps the neutrino will become the 20th centuries “ether”. There is no harm to that. The neutrino is a step in the evolution of science.