Andrew-- You noted “…. I would consider the present concepts of spin, ang mom, mass, and even charge to be suspect. While what you have added in your most recent email contributes to my thoughts, I was hoping that you might have something that was absolutely convincing. I'll make a couple comments there.”
I consider that the use of normal calculus math for nature’s discrete dimensions , particularly relativistic effects that are a good approximation of nature at a space made up of real space quanta and real angular momentum quanta and real time quanta (10^50 different combinations of the 5 natural dimensions I have suggested exist or mace dimensions exceeding 10^10 or a nominal sphere of 10 ^-24 cm diameter. Jurg may have an idea about an effective diameter for the nucleon and/or its component sub entities. Bob Cook From: Andrew Meulenberg<mailto:mules...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 11:30 AM To: VORTEX<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states If my model of the neutrino is correct, then neutrinos have low probability of interacting with non-relativistic charges. If my model of quarks is correct, then they are composed of relativistic charges. Nevertheless. there is still the problem of frequency differences between neutrinos and the quark components, as well as the possibility that there are no accessible excited states of the quark components. Andrew _ _ _ On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:01 AM Jürg Wyttenbach <ju...@datamart.ch<mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>> wrote: We very well know from experiments that the interaction of neutrinos with dense mass is close to zero. If you now postulate the opposite you have also to show why the experiments are wrong. On the other side it is obvious why the standard model fails to describe the neutrino, because it still assumes that gravitational mass is different from EM mass, what is blatantly wrong. Jürg Am 07.08.19 um 05:09 schrieb Andrew Meulenberg: Dear Bob C. I can picture the neutrino as being involved in the interaction between electron and nucleus. However, my picture is definitely non-standard. At the short distance of deep-orbits from the nucleus, the neutrino (considered to be similar to photons) would be in the "longitudinal photon" mode. I view the neutrino mass as oscillating (probably averaging to zero) and therefore not subject to accurate measure. This oscillation (if time dilated) could explain the GSI time anomaly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#GSI_anomaly). With all of the contradictions and problems with present neutrino models, I would consider alternative models to be nearly as valid as "accepted" models. I would consider the present concepts of spin, ang mom, mass, and even charge to be suspect. While what you have added in your most recent email contributes to my thoughts, I was hoping that you might have something that was absolutely convincing. I'll make a couple comments there. Andrew _ _ _ On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 6:22 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> <bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote: Andrew— Neutrinos interact with matter, are considered to have mass and carry spin angular momentum. In addition they are considered to consist as leptons of anti and regular matter which can annihilate into pure EM energy like many particle anti-particle pairs. I consider, as suggested by the Wikipedia link below, neutrinos have a magnetic moment, or al least harbor magnetons. It seems they are much like massless photons and travel when not caught up in a nucleon at c. n free space (4-D space and time.) In this regard they are real particles vs virtual quarks. Their annihilation energy release may be very small considering their small rest mass. But nevertheless give this up to atomic electrons as they pass thru their electro-magnetic field (or their unique combination of space, time, angular momentum and magnetic field dimensions.) A, C. Jessup”s theory , documented in a book, AN IMPERFECT PICTURE, addresses the concepts associated with some of these dimensions. Nigel Dyer’s family blog includes pertinent excerpts from this book, which is out of print as far as I know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino W. Stubbs’ book on nuclear structure, P. Hatt’s papers and Jurg Wyttenbach’s papers address the nucleon structure which seems to involve neutrinos. IMHO the coupling is at the Planck scale and involves magnetic fields—no electric fields associated with intrinsic charge. Bob Cook fm: Andrew Meulenberg<mailto:mules...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, August 3, 2019 6:32 AM To: VORTEX<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states Bob, You have raised some important points in your answers to Robin. Can you provide some references to support them? In particular, I am interested in the non-photonic transfer of angular momentum from the nucleus to a bound electron. I think that it is well accepted that the nucleus can transfer energy to bound electrons via the Coulomb field. Nevertheless, I think that Schwinger, along with his papers on cold fusion, was mocked for suggesting that internal nuclear energy could be shared with the potential energy of electrons and thus the lattice. However, as a central force, this energy transfer cannot convey ang mom. My interest is in the interaction of deep-orbit electrons with the internal structure of the nucleus such as charged quarks and possible sub-components. At close range, these bodies are no longer providing just central forces. While the interaction is not photonic in the normal sense (i.e., via transverse EM waves), it can be considered via longitudinal photons. Again, internal conversion, would suggest that no ang mom need be transferred in such interactions. This does not suggest that such transfer cannot occur, only that it is not observed on the normal scale of hbar. (If I am wrong about this, I would appreciate correction.) Compound nuclei have ang mom on this level that can be transferred to the EM field to form photons. However, is there any information on ang mom of quarks? If so, this could lead to speculation about non-scalar coupling between a proton and a deep-orbit electron. Andrew On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:02 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> <bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote: Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 Robin— You raised the following questions and comments: 1) What is this "coherent system", and specifically, in what respect is it coherent, i.e. which property of the system? 2) How do you propose that the nuclear energy is actually coupled to the phonic energy? 3) Changes in angular momentum of nuclei are usually paired with emission of a gamma ray or particle to conserve angular momentum. If you want to avoid this, then you need to provide an actual physical mechanism by which the angular momentum is transferred to the lattice, and specifically what it is in the lattice that it couples to. Furthermore, what is it that makes this method preferable above the usual methods (e.g. gamma emission)? ANSWERS: 1. A coherent system is adiabatic system of energy, including local packets of energy—electrons positrons and neutrinos---that are coupled by a EM field that responds very quickly (less than 10e-30mseconds) to energy additions or losses by changing the space relation of the energy packets. A good example is a semi conductor crystal that absorbs an electron packet of energy and very quickly changes the allowable energy state of conduction electrons. There is no apparent delay associated with the allowed energy state across the macroscopic rang of the semi conductor. Systems which harbor phonic energy are coherent systems, since the lattice acts as a whole without any time dely. The energy of the coherent system is constrained by small quanta of energy and angular momentum in accordance with Planck’s theory of quantized energy and quantized angular momentum. In addition the coherent system will adjust the relative positions of energy packets to increase their relative motions (kinetic energies) and reduce their total potential energy increasing entropy per the second law of thermodynamics.. 1. As noted above the coherent system is coupled by EM fields—primarily magnetic fields that connect electron orbital angular momentum with nuclear angular momentum, including energy packet intrinsic spin angular momentum which reflects the magnetic moment associated with those packets of energy. 1. There is no gamma emission within the coherent system—only instanteous changes of angular momentum and/or energy between between locations within the coherent system. (Later in time adjacent coherent systems may conduct heat between them selves via radiant EM coupling or other coupling involving phonic energy changes of the original coherent system. Too much phonic energy will destroy the lattice of the system in question. Bob Cook -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr.22 8910 Affoltern a.A. 044 760 14 18 079 246 36 06
