I believe the real problem with this theory is the relativistic newton gravitation law which he derived with handwaving arguments, while all the theorists have expressed explicitly that these two cannot be combined.he tossed the gamma factors in there, picked the neutrino mass of his choise and everything coincided with some accuracy, which isnt even helpful or hints at anything if it doesnt predict anything falsifiable, or better accuracy than the current model while tossing all strong and weak force away. I guess he assumes here that with three neutrinos you can have the right spin and make neutrons, but for the charge aspect, in order to keep the half integer spin, you either need charged neutrinos or charged particles from neutron decay. That neutral hadrons were first formed (e.g. Interaction among themselves and with other particles led to their extinction viaįormation of hadrons, mesons, and neutral neutrinos. One possibility is that in the distant past charged neutrinos existed. Neutrinos are electrically neutral, the question arises about how charged baryonsĬan be formed within the rotating neutrino model. 4.8Īnd Table 6.2) the masses of both neutral and charged baryons. Neutrino model discussed here can describe with reasonable accuracy (e.g. the n or the Ξo) is small and of the order of αm, Indeed most baryons have spinġ/2 and some, as shown in Table 4.4, have spin 3/2. Neutrinos are fermions with spin 1/2 and thus one may anticipate spin of 1/2 orģ/2 for composite states formed by three neutrinos. Let's use the naïve version with only three quarks. And a bunch of gluons of spin 0 and virtual particles that get compensated and don't affect the total spin. The version with spin 3/2 is the Delta+ particle, that is a 30% "heavier". Each of the has spin 1/2, and the composite particle must have a non integer spin: 1/2 or 3/2 in this case. This is a huge red flag.įor comparison, in the Standard Model, the proton is made of two up quarks an one down quark. These are spin 1/2, particles, so the composite particle that includes all of them must have a spin that is an integer number: 0, 1 or 2 in this case. They model the proton as three neutrinos rotating around a positron. They make interesting reading, and I haven't found anything so far that would cause me to reject them out of hand.įrom the conclusion of the current paper: "Another emerging conclusion is that neutrinos, electrons, positrons and photons are present in all composite particles and are apparently the only undividable elementary particles." The papers he's published are relatively accessible and full of startling calculations that result in close agreement with experimental results. the hydrogen spectrum, from a simple assumption, and Vayenas is trying to follow the same path. Professor Vayenas is a distinguished chemist, and his work looks rather like a blend of Old Quantum Theory and particle physics, so I suppose it's an uphill fight for him. But virtually all the citations appear to come from the small group of people working with Vayenas. I haven't found any response to his work from the physics community - I would think that if it was easily refutable, that would have happened by now. This paper is the latest refinement of the theory. However, Vayenas has been publishing on this since at least 2008. The paper abstract appears to be a continuation of that work.įrom what I could determine, they need the gamma^3 term for their arguments, but it doesn't come from Einstein's paper as they claimed.Īgain, I could be missing something, but I don't think I am. I don't understand the origin of their 2 extra gammas in eqn 1 of the first reference. I did follow their Einstein paper reference to see if I had missed something. Though 2 additional factors of gamma in special relativity aren't likely. ![]() I've been out of physics for more than 20 years, so it's possible that there has been some new development since my Ph.D. ![]() I've not read the article, just the abstract.ĭoing a bit more of a look on the RLM, I found this where they (mis)write the relation between inertial and rest mass. I saw "relativistic gravitational force between neutrinos" and red flags went up.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |