Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists

Tom Roberts wrote:
> David Thomson wrote:
> > I have a full library of physics textbooks and engineering books. I
> > study the literature daily.
>
> Hmmm. You sure don't display much of any _understanding_ of modern physics.

My theory isn't intended to be a recap of modern physics. My theory is
what it is, a new foundation for physics. You don't seem to understand
what this entails. If all I did was repeat what you already knew, then
I wouldn't be presenting a new theory, would I?

> BTW textbooks are only a VERY TINY part of the literature. And they tend
> to lag far behind current research

In other words, you are saying that nearly all physics for the past 100
years is wrong, particularly Einstein's work? You are intentionally
creating a false impression of modern physics just to make your point.
Some call this "prevaricating."

> (but the stuff discussed below is >20
> years old).

Well, silly, if your physics can change so much over time due to
improvements of theories, then why aren't you looking into my work? I
have provided a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory, nuclear
binding force and binding energy equations, and much, much more that
quantifies something modern physics cannot, the *structure* of the
quantum realm. If science is advancing due to smart people looking at
the data differently, then how is that different from my work?

> > The literature tells us that neutrino-electron interactions are
> > not observed by themselves, but alongside other interactions.
>
> Yes, one must detect the recoil electron (and/or any other reaction
> products), and that requires it (them) to interact with the detector.
> But this is so VERY LOOSELY "alongside", that nobody would ever call it
> that -- these are completely independent electromagnetic and/or strong
> interactions, and in practice they are treated completely separately.
> Note they are separated by an enormous difference in space and time
> (~microns, ~femtoseconds[#]).

You are rationalizing too much. There is no direct evidence of a
neutrino-electron oscillation. It is purely theoretical, and a poor
theory at that.

Also, there is absolutely no electromagnetic or strong interactions
between the neutrino and electron to begin with. So the point is moot.
The only aspects of the neutrino that can interact with the electron
is its mass and angular momentum. This means the interaction must be
purely kinetic, if it takes place at all. Whether you believe the
neutrino is massless, nor nearly massless, its mass is far smaller than
that of the electron and thus has no measurable impact, if it has any
at all.

> [I'm thinking of scintillator detectors (which is where my
> experience is).]
>
> [#] For such things that is indeed enormous; compare to
> the time it takes for the neutrino to traverse an atom, and
> then remember the electron is vastly smaller than the atom.
>
>
> > Also, you cannot have a kinetic neutrino interaction with an
> > electron and not have a change of velocity. It is impossible and
> > violates the conservation of energy laws.
>
> Sure (ignoring the exactly-forward-going scatters which are
> experimentally unobservable). But the neutrino's _speed_ does not change
> in neutrino-electron elastic scattering (which is what you were talking
> about earlier -- here you appear to have changed the subject without
> realizing it).

I didn't change the subject. That is exactly the point I wanted to
make. We know there are no electromagnetic or electrostatic
interactions between the neutrino and electron because the neutrino is
completely devoid of charge. We also know the neutrino does correspond
to a definite increase in mass and angular momentum, which contributes
to the mass and angular momentum of the neutron. The fact that this
angular momentum, when released during beta decay, does not register
any measurable mass strongly suggests that I am correct in saying the
neutrino exists outside of our fabric of space-time. The neutrino
obviously does exist, as is evidenced by the change of mass and angular
momentum when the proton and electron bind with each other to produce a
neutron, but the neutrino also lacks charge and is not in the same
space-time as the electron, and so it has no way to interact with the
electron outside of the neutron.

> > And this is aside from a
> > neutrino not being able to interact with an electron at all.
>
> That is plain and simply not true. Both neutrino and electron couple to
> the Z, and it can mediate their elastic scattering.
>
> [I am, of course, describing things in the standard model.]

Exactly, you are describing things in the SM. The SM, as you are
painfully aware, is largely hypothetical. Nobody has ever observed a
stable or real W or Z particle. What is observed are collision and
decay effects. The only observable, stable, normal matter particles
are the electron and proton.

If we follow my model, there are far fewer particles, precise (and
unified) force laws, and the effects we observed can be explained
clearly and geometrically with regard to the Aether.

> > In the SM, neutrinos were first thought to have no mass at all and no
> > charge. There is nothing left for the neutrino to use for interacting
> > with electrons.
>
> Sure there is -- weak charge (which is what couples to the Z). <shrug>

There is no such thing as "weak charge." The weak interaction is a
dimensionless proportion. <shrug>

> I'll bet that in your "full library" you do not have a textbook on the
> standard model. Or if you happen to have one, then you clearly have not
> read and understood it.

You are wrong on both accounts. I have Feymann's lectures, and several
other books. I do understand what the SM claims, but I also have found
a better way to explain the quantum realm than the SM. That is why I
have presented a new foundation for physics, because I understood what
the SM was saying, disagreed, and found a better way to explain it.

> > Even if the neutrinos do have a very tiny mass as the
> > SM now proposes, it is orders of magnitude smaller than the electron
> > mass, and thus could have no effect.
>
> No measurable effect, anyway, for the very small masses consistent with
> the measurements (which do not directly measure its mass).

Exactly.

> > The evidence, however, shows the neutrino has angular momentum, even
> > more than the electron.
>
> No, they are equal (1/2 h-bar).

Use your own critical analysis. Take the angular momentum of the
neutron and subtract out the angular momentum of the proton and
electron. Since angular momentum is conserved, the remaining quantity
will be the angular momentum of the neutrino. Similarly, you can
subtract out the masses and find the mass associated with the neutrino.
The mass associated with the neutrino is also greater than the mass of
the electron, but as I said, it exists outside of the fabric of
space-time and therefore it cannot interact with visible matter.

> > Which means that if the neutrino and electron
> > could interact, the collision would be clearly obvious and easy to
> > detect.
>
> Hmmm. They _are_ detected.

No, the collisions are theorized. You just admitted that the neutrino
mass is not directly detectable. If the neutrino has no detectable
mass, then there is nothing that can cause a detectable collision based
upon the laws of kinetics.

> > But as I point out, the physics, when done properly, shows the
> > neutrino angular momentum exists outside of the quantum Aether unit.
> > Since the neutrino is effectively outside of our space-time, it cannot
> > interact with the electron.
>
> Apparently those are conclusions from your theory. So it is refuted by
> actual experiments in which neutrino-electron scattering is observed.
>
> This is quite clearly not "physics done properly".

You need to read the literature as though you were a reviewer and not a
cloned student. My theory agrees with the actual observations and is
fully quantified, *and* it is even simpler than the theories that have
been part of the 'old' science literature.

> > That is logic, based upon a mathematically
> > correct quantum theory,
>
> But this is _physics_, not mathematics. <shrug>
(use some Tiger Balm on that shoulder, it helps to relieve the spasms)

For someone who processes signal data, I find that very disingenuous.
There is no physics without mathematics. Further, the mathematics I am
presenting is extremely simple. It is not the kind of mathematics
where we drop the dimensions and read numbers like a numerologist. The
data provides us with the values and dimensions and the values and
dimensions remain in the math all the way through my theory.

Dave

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Speculations on the Neutrino Theory of Light
    ... In physics, we call that a question which needs to ... energy of the electron spectrum (you did know that the neutrino mass ... Measuring the neutrino mass ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists
    ... BTW textbooks are only a VERY TINY part of the literature. ... and that requires it to interact with the detector. ... the time it takes for the neutrino to traverse an atom, and then remember the electron is vastly smaller than the atom. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... >> You said a system of one electron with no interactions. ... same laws of physics as the phenomena one measures with the apparatus. ... or the hypothesized measurement is bullshit. ... Of course, electron must interact ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the solar neutrino problem solved yet?
    ... The Solar Neutrino Problem Has Been Closed ... The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News ... REACTOR ANTI-NEUTRINO DISAPPEARANCE, measured by a detector in Japan, ... But some of the electron antineutrinos, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Do Neutrinos Have Spin?
    ... The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News ... months were the total accounting of neutrinos from the sun by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, thus solving the solar neutrino problem (Update ... The neutrinos (or, to be more exact, electron anti-neutrinos) are a result of fission reactions inside the reactor core. ... It is a sort of telescope peering not at galaxies in the sky; instead it stares through a block of terrestrial crust looking for the neutrino warmth cast off by a constellation of 69 reactors in Japan and Korea. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast