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 < 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 > <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 <mules...@gmail.com> > *Sent: *Saturday, August 3, 2019 6:32 AM > *To: *VORTEX <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 < > 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 > > > > > > >
