My hunch is that normally the interaction of neutrinos with dense mass is indeed next to zero but that the exception is where there are a large number of particles that interact with exch other such that they exchibit a macroscopc coherence.  This experiment appears to show one such example:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0954-3899/40/5/055201/meta

I beleive that there are others, where different forms of interactions result in different, but still effective as far as neutrino interactions are concerned, forms of coherence. Most of the matter in e.g. the earth is not in this state, so neutrinos pass almost straight through.

Nigel

On 07/08/2019 14:01, Jürg Wyttenbach 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 [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

Reply via email to