Why it is so called?

India
January 21, 2012 7:33am CST
Nutrinos are designated as ghostly particles but it has been proved beyond any doubt that their existence is a reality. So is it justified to describe them as ghostly particles as there is no real existence of ghosts which are nothing but imaginary objects?
1 person likes this
9 responses
@celticeagle (121073)
• Boise, Idaho
24 Jan 12
It is only your opinion that their are no ghosts. The person who named them this obviously believes.
• India
29 Jan 12
Yes, I do not believe in the existence of ghosts as there is no scientific proof behind it but its nomenclature was done in this way as like ghosts whose behaviour does not follow any rule and is mysterious, they are also mysterious in nature.
1 person likes this
@celticeagle (121073)
• Boise, Idaho
30 Jan 12
I guess some people have to experience a ghost to actually believe. I have and I do.
@inertia4 (27792)
• United States
24 Jan 12
Well I am sure at one time they did not know what they were so they called them ghostly particles. Now they have a name because they know they exist.
• India
29 Jan 12
I have no deep knowledge in nuclear physics but I agree with you as the explanation seems to be logical to me.
1 person likes this
@inertia4 (27792)
• United States
1 Feb 12
Well, it just seems logical to me. I also do not have knowledge in that field. But I figure logic has to delegate at some point.
@vandana7 (69050)
• India
21 Jan 12
Then how should they be described for somebody who is struggling to accept electrons, positrons, neutrons, and other subatomic particles. :) We can only see them under very powerful equipment, right? These nutrinos are still smaller..
• India
21 Jan 12
Are the subatomic particles like the electrons, positrons, or neutrons really visible under very powerful equipment? As far as I know they are not visible.
@vandana7 (69050)
• India
22 Jan 12
http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1164 Actually, I remained under impression that it is possible to see the sub atomic particles of larger atoms. But when you asked this, I felt like confirming whether my belief was true. I do remember some physics experiments during school days in which our physics teacher would try to use some equipment (I dont remember) and try to show us some lines or light and we were to believe that was electron or something. Thanks for making me go through something on net. :)
@savypat (20246)
• United States
21 Jan 12
Words ae used to describe things. And no matter what you believe the word ghostly does bring a picture to everyone's mind, even if it's just imaginary.
• India
21 Jan 12
I think but I may be wrong that nutrinos were supposed to be imaginary particles and so they were termed as ghostly. But now they have been proved to be really existent but the nomenclature has not been changed. I again repeat that it is my personal assumption.
@dorannmwin (36698)
• United States
27 Jan 12
Well, I think that ghosts do exist in many ways and for that reason, there is something that does come to mind for me when someone talks about a ghostly figure. The thing that I really don't understand is how it is that even today, the existence of ghosts can't really be documented. There have been a lot of people that have had ghostly encounters, myself being one of them, and for that reason I don't think that people are lying about their encounters.
• India
22 Jan 12
they are imaginary for us but they are not anymore imaginary for the scientist the have seen them through some experimentation. if possible they will going to further division of the neutrinos.
• Philippines
22 Jan 12
Indeed, nutrinos are wrongly said to be ghostly but in truth the word ghostly is, in my opinion, used to clear the myth that nutrinos are easy to detect as scandalously as by the naked eye. Therefore, once people know nutrinos are ghostly, time would be saved since nobody is going to come inviting a person hunt for nutrinos using brushes and magnifying glass or a microscope. If they are just said, tiny particles, a microscope will be used, thus putting up the wrong assumption that microscopes can detect nutrinos whereas in reality powerful equipment has to be utilized for nutrinos to be found.
@veejay19 (3592)
• India
22 Jan 12
We all have seen neutrinos once in a while.They are seen as a flash of brilliant pinpoint of light in the eyes less than a nano second.I have seen them quite a few times.As for ghosts they are not imaginary at all as i see a spirit in my bedroom virtually every night near my bed.I have been seeing it since the last 15 years and i saw it just yesterday floating in the air above me ,its face turned toward the TV which i was watching at that time.The time was around 10.30 pm.It does not scare me nor has it ever harmed me n any way.It makes no difference to me whether you believe it or not.It is always dressed in modern clothes which are white in colour and the figure is of a male.In the beginning i used to see it 3 to 4 times a year but now its virtually every day.
• United States
21 Jan 12
I haven't kept up on chemistry since I finished school. But I think it's a fair description. They are still an elusive particle that we don't understand how they work or in. We just know that they are there. We can pretty well explain protons, neutrons and electrons in a diagram of an atom. You could throw in neutrinos, but where do they go. What properties do they change? If you think of ghostly as the physical eminence of a once living being it's a poor description. But it's a fair description if you remove the popular association from the word.