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
F*rom: *Andrew Meulenberg <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent: *Wednesday, August 7, 2019 11:30 AM
*To: *VORTEX <mailto:[email protected]>
*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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
