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 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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:[email protected]>
*Sent: *Saturday, August 3, 2019 6:32 AM
*To: *VORTEX <mailto:[email protected]>
*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 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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..
2. 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.
3. 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
