Nobody says what goes through my body but me!
(I’m being funny, y’all! Happy holidays!)
The neutrinos in the article are high energy ones produced from proton collisions at the LHC. Although we have ways of producing neutrino beams from accelerators, the LHC is not set up for that, and these neutrinos are sparsely produced, incidentally to the high energy hadron collisions being produced there.
In any case, the LHC cost at least an order of magnitude less than a trillion dollars. And the FASER experiment in particular which runs parasitically on existing LHC infrastructure runs on a shoestring budget, largely privately funded.
So, it isn't only the "average man on the street" that thinks there are good reasons to put them in very different categories of understanding.
The mouseover-text is the important bit: "Of these four forces, there's one we don't really understand." "Is it the weak force or the strong--" "It's gravity."
That's even though it's the one with the simplest equations.
Aren't the equations for gravity non-linear, while the other 3 are linear?
Now, the problem is that its predictions fall apart at quantum scale and cosmological scale. Dark thingies are just a way to make the equations work at cosmological scale.
There's always modified gravity, which takes an alternative approach by changing the equations.
That's how they taught me 15 years ago, so give or take:-)
Gravity is the effect. It’s there. Whether you explain it with force carrying particles or the geometry of space time won’t change it.
Dark matter is one hypothetical explanation of an effect (or rather several). It’s possible to find another explanation for the same phenomena without changing the phenomena.
In other words, gravity and dark matter have very different ontological status.
I get what you're saying, but you can make them the same again by transposing Dark Matter to Dark Matitation, by analogy to Gravitons->Gravitation.
(And here we have so far left out that the only reason Dark matter makes sense is because we are trying to not have to modify our current understanding of gravity.)
It's pretty easy to detect 14 W of typical forms of radiation at those scales! If it were light, it would be equivalent to the light put out by something like a laptop screen, spread out just a bit. You can see something like that with your eyes from a kilometer away!
I remember reading that, at close enough range, the neutrino emissions from a supernova would be intense enough to be dangerous to structures made of ordinary matter, despite the weakness of their interactions, and that they would reach an observer earlier than other forms of radiation due to their ability to escape the collapsing star relatively unimpeded. Neutrinos would be the least of your problems if you were the observer of course.
As I was trying to find a source for this, I discovered there is a unit [1] for the amount of energy released by a supernova called the Foe, which seems apt (it's an acronym derived from 'ten to the power of Fifty-One-Ergs').
Dark matter/energy aren’t excuses, they’re labels for things that behave like matter and energy but whose nature is unknown.
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~crawford/PSG/PSG21/204_97_L21....
The pedant in me wants to point out that they are now known to have some mass and do interact a bit, but this was written in 1960.
That's selfish! Mandatory trip to Chernobyl!