The Neutrino: Doomed from Inception: Difference between revisions
Imported from text file |
Imported from text file |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| | ||
[[Category:Scientific Paper]] | [[Category:Scientific Paper|neutrino doomed inception]] | ||
[[Category:Relativity]] | [[Category:Relativity|neutrino doomed inception]] | ||
Latest revision as of 22:04, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | The Neutrino: Doomed from Inception |
| Read in full | Link to paper |
| Author(s) | David de Hilster |
| Keywords | neutrino, special relativity |
| Published | 2011 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the NPA |
| Volume | 8 |
| No. of pages | 4 |
| Pages | 148-151 |
Read the full paper here
Abstract
Neutrino existence has been embraced by numerous scientists with new theories despite grave problems. It appears to have desirable characteristics for many new theories. Yet, if scientists with new theories were to study the origin and evidence for neutrinos, they would discover that neutrino existence is a folly. This is all due to the neutrino's direct link to its progenitor: special relativity. If you believe special relativity to be wrong, then its bastard son the neutrino cannot exist. This is a report of some of the work by Argentinean physicist Dr. Ricardo L. Carezani.