The rules of physics have a very clear purpose: to predict how and when some natural phenomenon occurs. So the question can be re-phrased as: why did we come up with the notion of a neutrino, what phenomenon did it explain?
We certainly didn't just happen to see one colliding with with something, we knew they have to exist far before the first one was ever detected.
Way to totally miss the point. I wasn't talking about the rules we create; I was talking about the actual rules in the physical world. These exist independent of us. They function, they don't predict.
The notion that those actual rules have some sort of purpose reeks of a medieval mindset, where the world is the creation of God and has His Purpose, which it is the function of natural philosophers to figure out.
> I was talking about the actual rules in the physical world. These exist independent of us. They function, they don't predict.
Nobody knows what those are though; mere humans have to get by with prediction.
In fact there's no airtight reason to think that you can even in principle make the leap from valid predictions to knowing what the actual physical rules really are. This is the whole "problem of induction" thing:
No amount of observing the universe can ever conclusively prove that our ideas about how it really functions are true, because we're stuck inside it and can't directly inspect the clockwork, if there is any.
I find this sort of nihilism completely tedious. Yes, we can know there are neutrinos there. This physical reality is not identical with our theories about them.
“Who ordered that?” is a pretty famous question in particle physics. I think the commenter is just asking “who ordered neutrinos”? It’s a good question, even if it’s not formally rigorous.
See the above paper, but my memory is that they are involved in weak force and beta decay? Having a particle that's not needed would be like having high dimensional strings that may or may not exist.
Elementary particles don't explain anything. Theories of elementary particles explain things. Don't confuse the map and the territory.
The person I was responding to clearly wasn't asking "what's the purpose of theories of the neutrino" but rather what was the purpose of the particles themselves.
"Elementary particles do have a purpose, they are for explaining a measurable physical phenomena."
Don't confuse what you think was said with what was said. I didn't say neutrinos were the explanation or that they were doing the explaining.
If you can explain the theory, without the neutrinos, then you have a new theory. The theory is itself used as an explanation of experimental results, and I'd argue that the actual theoretical explanation is carried out by humans for other humans to not confuse the theory map for explanation territory. Frankly, I also think the dogmatism and distinction are silly, but don't confuse what I said.
Please provide a theory about (explaining) a phenomena, which does not presuppose the existence of the things (not the theory and not the phenomena) used to explain it. I think it's going to be a boring tautology of an unfalsifiable theory.
The photo electric effect is a theory of energy emission of light interacting with a metal. Quantized photons and energy levels are things used in the theory to describe experimental results. If you accept the theory, you accept it's elements, it's things. If you want to build a new Photo Electric theory, it will probably also involve some things you propose existing.
Explain Beta decay using the standard model without presupposing neutrinos exist. Note that beta decay was observed and the theory about it (a different thing) were developed long before neutrinos were directly measured (but those things must exist for the theory to be true). In fact predicting the existence and properties of particles before their measurement based on theory is the basis of most particle physics.
You seem confused, because humans who propose theories give purpose to their elements, because by definition those theories (their explanation) cannot be true without the existence of those elements. You seem to want inanimate objects to have desire, which is dumb.
I don't understand why you are so aggressive to a layperson asking a question like this. They simply want to better understand what implications the existence of neutrinos has on our understanding of the world, what they actually do, etc. I doubt they were wanting some sort of philosophical understanding of a greater Purpose for neutrinos.
A more charitable reading of the question could be, “what purpose do neutrinos serve in the complex world of elementary particles?”
Everyone benefits when physics and physicists are more approachable
[flagged]
The rules of physics have a very clear purpose: to predict how and when some natural phenomenon occurs. So the question can be re-phrased as: why did we come up with the notion of a neutrino, what phenomenon did it explain?
We certainly didn't just happen to see one colliding with with something, we knew they have to exist far before the first one was ever detected.
Way to totally miss the point. I wasn't talking about the rules we create; I was talking about the actual rules in the physical world. These exist independent of us. They function, they don't predict.
The notion that those actual rules have some sort of purpose reeks of a medieval mindset, where the world is the creation of God and has His Purpose, which it is the function of natural philosophers to figure out.
> I was talking about the actual rules in the physical world. These exist independent of us. They function, they don't predict.
Nobody knows what those are though; mere humans have to get by with prediction.
In fact there's no airtight reason to think that you can even in principle make the leap from valid predictions to knowing what the actual physical rules really are. This is the whole "problem of induction" thing:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
No amount of observing the universe can ever conclusively prove that our ideas about how it really functions are true, because we're stuck inside it and can't directly inspect the clockwork, if there is any.
I find this sort of nihilism completely tedious. Yes, we can know there are neutrinos there. This physical reality is not identical with our theories about them.
Do you not recognize that "There is no purpose to neutrinos. Your question makes no sense." is itself tedious nihilism?
So you reinterpreted the OP's question in the most meaningless way you wanted to, and then declared "How does this question make any sense?".
Nice contribution to the discussion! /s
Yes, I interpreted "neutrinos" to mean "neutrinos", instead of something else.
How utterly terrible of me.
“Who ordered that?” is a pretty famous question in particle physics. I think the commenter is just asking “who ordered neutrinos”? It’s a good question, even if it’s not formally rigorous.
https://www.aps.org/archives/publications/apsnews/201711/his...
That (which was about muons) was about the muon not being predicted. The neutrino was predicted (to explain missing energy in beta decay).
Great. So we have the following:
Q. Who ordered neutrinos?
A. They're necessary because they carry energy away during beta decay.
Is the Q there a made up historical quote? Why, yes it is.
Elementary particles do have a purpose, they are for explaining a measurable physical phenomena.
https://cds.cern.ch/record/677618/files/p115.pdf
See the above paper, but my memory is that they are involved in weak force and beta decay? Having a particle that's not needed would be like having high dimensional strings that may or may not exist.
Elementary particles don't explain anything. Theories of elementary particles explain things. Don't confuse the map and the territory.
The person I was responding to clearly wasn't asking "what's the purpose of theories of the neutrino" but rather what was the purpose of the particles themselves.
"Elementary particles do have a purpose, they are for explaining a measurable physical phenomena."
Don't confuse what you think was said with what was said. I didn't say neutrinos were the explanation or that they were doing the explaining.
If you can explain the theory, without the neutrinos, then you have a new theory. The theory is itself used as an explanation of experimental results, and I'd argue that the actual theoretical explanation is carried out by humans for other humans to not confuse the theory map for explanation territory. Frankly, I also think the dogmatism and distinction are silly, but don't confuse what I said.
Once again, you are confusing a thing with a theory about the thing.
Please provide a theory about (explaining) a phenomena, which does not presuppose the existence of the things (not the theory and not the phenomena) used to explain it. I think it's going to be a boring tautology of an unfalsifiable theory.
The photo electric effect is a theory of energy emission of light interacting with a metal. Quantized photons and energy levels are things used in the theory to describe experimental results. If you accept the theory, you accept it's elements, it's things. If you want to build a new Photo Electric theory, it will probably also involve some things you propose existing.
Explain Beta decay using the standard model without presupposing neutrinos exist. Note that beta decay was observed and the theory about it (a different thing) were developed long before neutrinos were directly measured (but those things must exist for the theory to be true). In fact predicting the existence and properties of particles before their measurement based on theory is the basis of most particle physics.
You seem confused, because humans who propose theories give purpose to their elements, because by definition those theories (their explanation) cannot be true without the existence of those elements. You seem to want inanimate objects to have desire, which is dumb.
I don't understand why you are so aggressive to a layperson asking a question like this. They simply want to better understand what implications the existence of neutrinos has on our understanding of the world, what they actually do, etc. I doubt they were wanting some sort of philosophical understanding of a greater Purpose for neutrinos.
I'm very annoyed by teleology.