Nigel, About 3 decades ago, someone was proposing the use of diamonds as appropriate platforms for neutrino emitters and detectors for a "thru-the-earth" communications system. I believe that the model was based on "large" coherent structures as you suggest.
Andrew On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:26 AM Nigel Dyer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] < > [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 >> <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 <[email protected]> >> *Sent: *Saturday, August 3, 2019 6:32 AM >> *To: *VORTEX <[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] < >> [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.. >> >> >> >> 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 > >
