Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[psyreporter]

Neutrinos (a.k.a. Ghost Particles) travel at the speed of light and in exact straight lines. Neutrinos pass straight through stars such as the Sun, and straight through the earth's iron core.

It is estimated that about 100 trillion neutrinos pass through your body every second.

Once you create a neutrino, a tiny subatomic particle, it moves at the speed of light, and it doesn't stop. It keeps going in a straight line to the edge of the universe. Straight through any stars, planets, or mountains; straight through any atoms, nuclei, or other particles that happen to lie in its path.

...

A long-distance neutrino experiment is taking place under several Midwestern states. A high-energy accelerator, which generates subatomic particles, shoots beams of neutrinos and related particles as much as six miles deep, beneath northern Illinois, across Wisconsin and into Minnesota. The particles start at Fermilab, as part of an experiment called the Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search (MINOS). In less than three-thousandths of a second, they hit a detector in another part of the earth, in a Soudan iron mine, a distance of 450 miles.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... e-neutrino
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... -64200742/

What exactly are Neutrinos from a philosophical perspective?

Are there philosophers that have predicted the existence, or addressed the essence of Neutrinos?

[Terrapin Station]

I wouldn't say they're anything "from a philosophical perspective," really.

They're something from a scientific perspective. There's not really any special philosophical issue about them. It would be like asking "What are eukaryotic cells" from a philosophical perspective. There's not really any special philosophical perspective on eukaryotic cells.

At any rate, I'd say that neutrinos are a consequence of the mathematics that we use for particle physics in combination with what instruments read when we're doing particle physics and a desire to not completely retool the foundational paradigm of particle physics. Do they exist? Maybe. But at this point, epistemologically, they're pretty much just an upshot of mathematics, where there's a tendency to reify the mathematics we use for physics.

[chewybrian]

I wouldn't say they're anything "from a philosophical perspective," really.

They're something from a scientific perspective. There's not really any special philosophical issue about them.

I would argue that science is philosophy. A scientific perspective is just a particular philosophical perspective, isn't it? It's philosophy, but with all other philosophy removed. If it was a color, it would be white, maybe; still a color but also the absence of color?

Do they exist? Maybe. But at this point, epistemologically, they're pretty much just an upshot of mathematics, where there's a tendency to reify the mathematics we use for physics.

I know I am not qualified to form a useful opinion on this issue, but... if they are being detected, then something must be there to be detected, no?

[Steve3007]

What exactly are Neutrinos from a philosophical perspective?

They're particles. They're emitted and absorbed in various reactions. From a philosophical perspective I don't think they're really any different from particles like protons, neutrons and electrons, although all such particles have various different properties.


They're no more an upshot of mathematics than those other particles are, or than the things that they come together to make are, such as atoms, molecules and tables.

I would argue that science is philosophy.

Yes, it's a branch of philosophy. It's Natural Philosophy - the philosophy of Nature.

if they are being detected, then something must be there to be detected, no?

Yes. Something must be there being detected in exactly the same sense that something must be there being detected by my eyes right now. The photons from the screen that I'm looking at right now interact with my retina much more frequently than neutrinos do. Quite a lot more frequently than X-rays do. But the principle is the same.

Are there philosophers that have predicted the existence, or addressed the essence of Neutrinos?

You mean before they were predicted by the conservation laws and symmetries of physics and detected by experiments with such things as underground tanks of cleaning fluid? If that's what you mean, you'd presumably be thinking of them as somehow representing some kind of philosophical paradigm, and not just thinking of those specifics of theoretical and experimental physics. For example, Democritus and others supposedly predicted the concept of atoms - the concept of an indivisible building block of Nature as opposed to Nature as a continuum. The fact that the thing we came to label "atom" turned out to be divisible after all doesn't affect that paradigm. I don't see neutrinos as representing a paradigm in that sense.

[Pattern-chaser]

I would argue that science is philosophy. A scientific perspective is just a particular philosophical perspective, isn't it? It's philosophy, but with all other philosophy removed. If it was a color, it would be white, maybe; still a color but also the absence of color?

I would argue that science is philosophy.

Yes, it's a branch of philosophy. It's Natural Philosophy - the philosophy of Nature.

Careful, gentlemen! People have been burned for witchcraft for less. The sciencists are donning their robes even as I write.

I agree with you both 100%, by the way!

[Sy Borg]

Neutrinos (a.k.a. Ghost Particles) travel at the speed of light and in exact straight lines. Neutrinos pass straight through stars such as the Sun, and straight through the earth's iron core.

It is estimated that about 100 trillion neutrinos pass through your body every second.

Once you create a neutrino, a tiny subatomic particle, it moves at the speed of light, and it doesn't stop. It keeps going in a straight line to the edge of the universe. Straight through any stars, planets, or mountains; straight through any atoms, nuclei, or other particles that happen to lie in its path.

...

A long-distance neutrino experiment is taking place under several Midwestern states. A high-energy accelerator, which generates subatomic particles, shoots beams of neutrinos and related particles as much as six miles deep, beneath northern Illinois, across Wisconsin and into Minnesota. The particles start at Fermilab, as part of an experiment called the Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search (MINOS). In less than three-thousandths of a second, they hit a detector in another part of the earth, in a Soudan iron mine, a distance of 450 miles.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... e-neutrino
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... -64200742/

What exactly are Neutrinos from a philosophical perspective?

Are there philosophers that have predicted the existence, or addressed the essence of Neutrinos?

Neutrinos live up to their name. They largely operate as neutral entities in the universe, and only impact atoms if they are close enough to interact with the weak force.

Anything that's not neutral, that has an effect on you, is generally eroding you to some extent. As a life form, sustenance and persistence is achieved when you are exposed to a certain balance of reactivity and inertness. Ditto stars and planets, in a way, which benefit from the relative "neutrality" of the space between them. When mass in space is close together, travelling at the insane speeds that things in space do, you end up with a a smash-up derby.

[psyreporter]

Are there philosophers that have predicted the existence, or addressed the essence of Neutrinos?

You mean before they were predicted by the conservation laws and symmetries of physics and detected by experiments with such things as underground tanks of cleaning fluid? If that's what you mean, you'd presumably be thinking of them as somehow representing some kind of philosophical paradigm, and not just thinking of those specifics of theoretical and experimental physics. For example, Democritus and others supposedly predicted the concept of atoms - the concept of an indivisible building block of Nature as opposed to Nature as a continuum. The fact that the thing we came to label "atom" turned out to be divisible after all doesn't affect that paradigm. I don't see neutrinos as representing a paradigm in that sense.

As it appears, considering its abundance, the particles may be an important part of reality. I wonder if the particles may have been predicted by a theory which could provide a clue for its role in Nature / reality, and thereby potentially for an explanation of consciousness and life.

Neutrinos can instantly switch between 3 known types which is named Flavor-Switching: electron, muon and tau.

The mass of the muon flavor is 200x greater while the tau flavor has 3000x more mass than the electron flavor. It means that the particle can interact with the visible world on its own terms.

“It’s like throwing vanilla ice cream a long distance and seeing some of it turn into chocolate,” says physicist Chang Kee Jung of New York’s Stony Brook University.

In the cited experiment in the OP the researchers discovered that despite traveling over 450 miles, the neutrinos did not assume any identity. The particles instead would remain in a superposition to be more than one thing at a time (i.e. energized / non-energized), or could momentarily and instantly assume whatever identity was expedient in interacting with the matter they were passing through, while flying at the speed of light.

It may be a clue that the particle may be involved in consciousness and life.

True nature of consciousness: Solving the biggest mystery of our mind

Philosophers have described consciousness as the “ghost in the machine”. Even scientific ideas about consciousness often have an aura of the metaphysical. Many scientists describe it as an illusion, while others see it as so fundamental that it doesn’t have an explanation. Always at the centre of the riddle lies its non-physicality.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... your-mind/

Consciousness is a property of the universe that is filtered by the brain

According to the decades-long research of Dr. Peter Fenwick (Cambridge, UK), a highly regarded neuropsychologist who has been studying the human brain, consciousness, and the phenomenon of near death experience (NDE) for 50 years consciousness cannot be an emergent property of the brain and its metabolism. Despite initially being highly incredulous of NDEs and related phenomena, Fenwick now believes his extensive research suggests that consciousness persists after death. In fact, Fenwick believes that consciousness actually exists independently and outside of the brain as an inherent property of the universe itself like dark matter and dark energy or gravity.

In Fenwick’s view, the brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it. As odd as this idea might seem at first, there are some analogies that bring the concept into sharper focus. For example, the eye filters and interprets only a very small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum and the ear registers only a narrow range of sonic frequencies. Similarly, according to Fenwick, the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos’ intrinsic “consciousness.”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... -the-brain

[Steve3007]

Neutrinos live up to their name. They largely operate as neutral entities in the universe, and only impact atoms if they are close enough to interact with the weak force.

And, as we've noted before, they interact very, very infrequently. Hence the vast underground tanks of cleaning fluid which are used in experiments to detect them. If they literally didn't interact with anything at all, such that they could literally never be detected by any means, either directly or indirectly, then they would only be said to exist in order to preserve various symmetries and other patterns in various mathematical equations which also describe things that can be detected. If that were the case I think one could argue as to whether neutrinos "really" exist or whether they only exist as a bit of mathematics.

But I think, once again, this raises the question of precisely what it means for something to exist as something other than a shared abstract concept in a bunch of minds.

[Terrapin Station]

They're no more an upshot of mathematics

They're an upshot of the mathematics we use because that's how we came to the conclusion that there must be neutrinos. It's not as if we observed them first and said, "Hey! Look at that thing! Let's call it a 'neutrino.'"

[Scott Mayers]

Neutrinos (a.k.a. Ghost Particles) travel at the speed of light and in exact straight lines. Neutrinos pass straight through stars such as the Sun, and straight through the earth's iron core.

What exactly are Neutrinos from a philosophical perspective?

Are there philosophers that have predicted the existence, or addressed the essence of Neutrinos?

Although I think Greta may have answered this. [that 'neutral' is an expression of how it doesn't affect things as charged or imbalanced particles do]

But if you are asking about whether something like this can be argued apriori through a metaphysical argument before the science? Possibly. I'm working on a type of foundational approach to TRY to do this. I don't want to define what might be a 'neutrino' but do have a developing model that uses an extention of set theory to physical spaces. Theorists do this after they discover something by proposing FROM what we already know to guess how nature behaves by proposing hypothesis to be tested.

My own theory presumes that each point in space moves at only one speed but only differs by direction/dimension. I think all points in space initiate in straight lines that have no breadth. These go through each other (as per my theory) and through "matter" of which I define as lines that 'curve' (spiral). When normal straight lined points hit a curve, I believe it causes gravity. In this sense, these straight lines would go through curves but alter their direction. However, this couldn't be neutrinos if it has 'mass'. If it fits in with my theory, it would be something transiting in both in some curve and in a straight line, as light would. But at my simplified stage of development, I cannot yet know if this can be 'constructed' in my model. If this model is true, it could be plane-spirals moving.

But as for others who might have attempted such a bottom up approach, it would mostly not be understood (or accepted) as 'physics' but as mathematical models. Many still cannot fathom the idea that an abstraction could manifest into physics. I argue that this HAS to be the case or it presumes some metaphysical 'god' or being to grant our physics as 'special'. [See Max Tegmark as a scientist whom I share the idea that our Universe is 'mathematical' constructs that manifest as a physical world.]

[psyreporter]

Although I think Greta may have answered this. [that 'neutral' is an expression of how it doesn't affect things as charged or imbalanced particles do]

But if you are asking about whether something like this can be argued apriori through a metaphysical argument before the science? Possibly. I'm working on a type of foundational approach to TRY to do this. I don't want to define what might be a 'neutrino' but do have a developing model that uses an extention of set theory to physical spaces. Theorists do this after they discover something by proposing FROM what we already know to guess how nature behaves by proposing hypothesis to be tested.

If Neutrinos prove to play a vital role in reality, it would be interesting to discover whether philosophy by itself has or could have predicted it.

There is another potentially related particle named axion of which it is estimated that millions fly through the human body every second.

https://phys.org/news/2020-03-paper-inf ... verse.html

[gater]

Neutrinos (a.k.a. Ghost Particles) travel at the speed of light and in exact straight lines. Neutrinos pass straight through stars such as the Sun, and straight through the earth's iron core.


Any matter that gets too close to a star, will become part of that star.

[psyreporter]

I would argue that science is philosophy. A scientific perspective is just a particular philosophical perspective, isn't it? It's philosophy, but with all other philosophy removed. If it was a color, it would be white, maybe; still a color but also the absence of color?

Science is a product of philosophy. The scientific method was created by philosopher Francis Bacon.

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 - We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.

The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime - which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, "Freedom from all masters!" and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose "hand-maid" it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the "master" - what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.

According to Friedrich Nietzsche, when practicing science independently, scientists are essentially fulfilling the role of a philosopher. Logically, that would be based on a belief or a dogma (uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science (i.e. without further thinking about whether it is actually 'good' what is being done).

My question was intended to discover if there may be a logical explanation for the existence of Neutrinos.

[Consul]

Recommended reading:

Frank Close: Neutrino

[creation]

Neutrinos (a.k.a. Ghost Particles) travel at the speed of light and in exact straight lines. Neutrinos pass straight through stars such as the Sun, and straight through the earth's iron core.

Do neutrinos also pass straight through black holes?

Once you create a neutrino, a tiny subatomic particle, it moves at the speed of light, and it doesn't stop. It keeps going in a straight line to the edge of the universe. Straight through any stars, planets, or mountains; straight through any atoms, nuclei, or other particles that happen to lie in its path.

...

A long-distance neutrino experiment is taking place under several Midwestern states. A high-energy accelerator, which generates subatomic particles, shoots beams of neutrinos and related particles as much as six miles deep, beneath northern Illinois, across Wisconsin and into Minnesota. The particles start at Fermilab, as part of an experiment called the Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search (MINOS). In less than three-thousandths of a second, they hit a detector in another part of the earth, in a Soudan iron mine, a distance of 450 miles.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... e-neutrino
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... -64200742/

Are there really still some so called "scientists" who are that far in the dark ages that they still say there is an "edge of the Universe"?