From: PD on
On Jun 17, 2:58 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 10:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 3:01 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Sure, show me where my model fails, I'll work on it....
>
> > > > You haven't done any calculations with your model.
> > > > Predict the characteristic lifetime of a rho meson.
>
> > > I cannot find any evidence that the characteristic lifetime of a rho
> > > meson can be calculated base on quark theory. Naturally, I could have
> > > missed it, but I find it as only a measured quantity - and a rather
> > > small one at that. Nor did I find anything to suggest that the
> > > lifetimes of any particles can be reasonably calcualted. So, did you
> > > just put up a challenge that not even quark theory can address?
>
> > I find it stunningly unbelievable but completely consistent with your
> > past posts that you are unable to find any documentation anywhere on
> > any of this. If you'd like some background on how the quark model
> > makes lifetime calculations, I might suggest you start with a few
> > introductory textbooks on elementary particles, both theory and
> > experiment:
> > Ferbel and Das, Introduction to Nuclear and Particle Physics
> > Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles
> > Martin and Shaw, Particle Physics
> > Halzen and Martin, Quarks and Leptons
> > Seiden, Particle Physics
> > Cahn and Goldhaber, The Experimental Foundations of Particle Physics
> > Aitchison and Hey, Gauge Theories in Particle Physics
> > Kane, Modern Elementary Particle Physics
> > Perkins, Introduction to High Energy Physics
>
> > Any 2 or 3 of these will show you the basics of this and have lots of
> > references to journal publications where the results are detailed.

And why will you not start studying from the above to learn how the
quark model lets you do calculations where you can only wave hands?

>
> > > But since you mentioned the rho meson, here is what I think it is:
>
> > > I have already mentioned my solution for the pion and muon at:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/1c018c87e4afc2ce
>
> > > Since a rho meson decays into 2 pions, I presume that it is made out
> > > of just two pions
>
> > No, that would be a bad premise.
>
> > Just because a particle decays into daughter particles does not mean
> > the parent is composed of the daughter particles.
>
> > For example, the lambda baryon decays into each of these channels
> > proton + pi-minus
> > neutron + pi-zero
> > neutron + gamma
> > proton + pi-minus + gamma
> > proton + electron + anti-electron-neutrino
> > proton + muon + anti-muon-neutrino
>
> > Now, given all of these daughter products combinations, what would be
> > your premise as to the composition of the lambda?
>
> I would say that a lambda consists of 4 poselectron (positron/
> electron) electrons arranged such that thier + and - components all
> match up. I believe it is this symmetric arrangement which gives the
> lambda its long life time, not the presense of a strange quark.
>
> Lambda
> (+-)(+-)
> (-+)(-+)
>
> Here are the decay products
>
> (+-+) Proton
> (-+) (-) (+-) pi-minus
>
> (+-) Neutron
> (+-)(+)(-)(+-) pi-zero
>
> (+-) Neutron
> 3 gammas from (+)(-) anhilliation
> I think we lose 3 poselectron pairs to gamma anhilliation - I don't
> know how many gammas are obseved, but I would guess 3.
>
> (+-+) Proton
> (-+) (-) (+-) pi-minus
> 1 gamma from neutrino anhilliation
> Here, we only lose one.
>
> (+-+) Proton
> (-) electron
> 2 (+-) neutrino
> Here we lose 2 poselectron pairs to the surrounidng aether. But they
> do not separate an annhillate into gammas. I wouldn't know why they
> wouldn't do that in this case, but it is a possiblity, perhaps related
> to being and even number lost.
>
> (+-+) Proton
> (-) (+-) muon
> (+-) neutrino
> Here we lose 1 poselectron to the aether.
>
>
>
> > > which I can graphically represent as:
>
> > > (for neutral rho meson):
> > > (-+) (-) (+-)
> > > (+-)(+)(-+)
>
> > > (for - charged rho meson):
> > > (-+) (-) (+-)
> > > (+-)(+)(-)(+-)
>
> > > The only thing holding the 2 pions together is just the electrostatic
> > > attraction between the central positron/electron. Qualitatively, this
> > > would lead me to think that the lifetime should be very short in
> > > comparison to a pion which is a neat row of positrons/electrons. I had
> > > already explained that the muon lasts much longer since it must wait
> > > for an incoming neutrino to complete the reaction which is much less
> > > likely than the particle spontaneously falling apart.
>
> > > A table of rho meson properties can be found at:http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/listings/m009.pdf-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>

A couple of comments, Franklin.

Protons and neutrons both have baryon number 1, isospin 1/2, and spin
1/2. I'm curious how you account for the fact that they share these
properties though one is a doublet and the other is a triplet.

According to you neutrinos and neutrons have common composition.
However, neutrons and neutrinos differ dramatically in terms of their
properties, other than mass. For example, neutrons have baryon number
1 and neutrinos 0; neutrons participate in the strong interaction and
the electromagnetic interaction and neutrinos do not; unbound neutrons
have a finite lifetime and neutrinos do not; neutrons come in one
variety and neutrinos come in three.

I'm trying to point out to you, Franklin, that you have many more
properties you need to consider other than the net charge.
From: Michael Moroney on
PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> writes:

>I'm trying to point out to you, Franklin, that you have many more
>properties you need to consider other than the net charge.

Plus he has to fudge the data to get his model to work
(it's not lambda -> n + gamma, it's lambda -> n + 3 gammas).
From: franklinhu on
On Jun 17, 1:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2:58 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 10:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 16, 3:01 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Sure, show me where my model fails, I'll work on it....
>
> > > > > You haven't done any calculations with your model.
> > > > > Predict the characteristic lifetime of a rho meson.
>
> > > > I cannot find any evidence that the characteristic lifetime of a rho
> > > > meson can be calculated base on quark theory. Naturally, I could have
> > > > missed it, but I find it as only a measured quantity - and a rather
> > > > small one at that. Nor did I find anything to suggest that the
> > > > lifetimes of any particles can be reasonably calcualted. So, did you
> > > > just put up a challenge that not even quark theory can address?
>
> > > I find it stunningly unbelievable but completely consistent with your
> > > past posts that you are unable to find any documentation anywhere on
> > > any of this. If you'd like some background on how the quark model
> > > makes lifetime calculations, I might suggest you start with a few
> > > introductory textbooks on elementary particles, both theory and
> > > experiment:
> > > Ferbel and Das, Introduction to Nuclear and Particle Physics
> > > Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles
> > > Martin and Shaw, Particle Physics
> > > Halzen and Martin, Quarks and Leptons
> > > Seiden, Particle Physics
> > > Cahn and Goldhaber, The Experimental Foundations of Particle Physics
> > > Aitchison and Hey, Gauge Theories in Particle Physics
> > > Kane, Modern Elementary Particle Physics
> > > Perkins, Introduction to High Energy Physics
>
> > > Any 2 or 3 of these will show you the basics of this and have lots of
> > > references to journal publications where the results are detailed.
>
> And why will you not start studying from the above to learn how the
> quark model lets you do calculations where you can only wave hands?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > But since you mentioned the rho meson, here is what I think it is:
>
> > > > I have already mentioned my solution for the pion and muon at:
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/1c018c87e4afc2ce
>
> > > > Since a rho meson decays into 2 pions, I presume that it is made out
> > > > of just two pions
>
> > > No, that would be a bad premise.
>
> > > Just because a particle decays into daughter particles does not mean
> > > the parent is composed of the daughter particles.
>
> > > For example, the lambda baryon decays into each of these channels
> > > proton + pi-minus
> > > neutron + pi-zero
> > > neutron + gamma
> > > proton + pi-minus + gamma
> > > proton + electron + anti-electron-neutrino
> > > proton + muon + anti-muon-neutrino
>
> > > Now, given all of these daughter products combinations, what would be
> > > your premise as to the composition of the lambda?
>
> > I would say that a lambda consists of 4 poselectron (positron/
> > electron) electrons arranged such that thier + and - components all
> > match up. I believe it is this symmetric arrangement which gives the
> > lambda its long life time, not the presense of a strange quark.
>
> > Lambda
> > (+-)(+-)
> > (-+)(-+)
>
> > Here are the decay products
>
> > (+-+) Proton
> > (-+) (-) (+-) pi-minus
>
> > (+-) Neutron
> > (+-)(+)(-)(+-) pi-zero
>
> > (+-) Neutron
> > 3 gammas from (+)(-) anhilliation
> > I think we lose 3 poselectron pairs to gamma anhilliation - I don't
> > know how many gammas are obseved, but I would guess 3.
>
> > (+-+) Proton
> > (-+) (-) (+-) pi-minus
> > 1 gamma from neutrino anhilliation
> > Here, we only lose one.
>
> > (+-+) Proton
> > (-) electron
> > 2 (+-) neutrino
> > Here we lose 2 poselectron pairs to the surrounidng aether. But they
> > do not separate an annhillate into gammas. I wouldn't know why they
> > wouldn't do that in this case, but it is a possiblity, perhaps related
> > to being and even number lost.
>
> > (+-+) Proton
> > (-) (+-) muon
> > (+-) neutrino
> > Here we lose 1 poselectron to the aether.
>
> > > > which I can graphically represent as:
>
> > > > (for neutral rho meson):
> > > > (-+) (-) (+-)
> > > > (+-)(+)(-+)
>
> > > > (for - charged rho meson):
> > > > (-+) (-) (+-)
> > > > (+-)(+)(-)(+-)
>
> > > > The only thing holding the 2 pions together is just the electrostatic
> > > > attraction between the central positron/electron. Qualitatively, this
> > > > would lead me to think that the lifetime should be very short in
> > > > comparison to a pion which is a neat row of positrons/electrons. I had
> > > > already explained that the muon lasts much longer since it must wait
> > > > for an incoming neutrino to complete the reaction which is much less
> > > > likely than the particle spontaneously falling apart.
>
> > > > A table of rho meson properties can be found at:http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/listings/m009.pdf-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> A couple of comments, Franklin.
>
> Protons and neutrons both have baryon number 1, isospin 1/2, and spin
> 1/2. I'm curious how you account for the fact that they share these
> properties though one is a doublet and the other is a triplet.

Well, first, isospin is a strong force concept. In my model the strong
force doesn't exist at all (since everything is just an electrostatic
positron/electron force) and neither does isospin.

Spin, I think is what you measure from Stern-Gerlach setup and I think
it would be more accurate to call the property "spot" rather than spin
since the 1/2 spin just refers to the fact that the experiment
produces 2 spots as opposed to 1 or 3 spots. I believe that this
separation is simply due to the proton/electron dipoles lining up with
the magnetic field and separating once they enter the field. As such,
both neutrons and protons contain a dipole pair and in fact any
particle which has unbalanced positive/negative charages will come out
to spin 1/2.

>
> According to you neutrinos and neutrons have common composition.
> However, neutrons and neutrinos differ dramatically in terms of their
> properties, other than mass. For example, neutrons have baryon number
> 1 and neutrinos 0; neutrons participate in the strong interaction and
> the electromagnetic interaction and neutrinos do not; unbound neutrons
> have a finite lifetime and neutrinos do not; neutrons come in one
> variety and neutrinos come in three.

The difference is very subtle. Imagine you have a billiard table which
is filled a string balls in the center of the table. Hit a ball onto
one end of the balls and this causes a single ball to pop out of the
backend of the mass of balls. The energy that gets transfered from one
ball to another along a line is a neutrino. In this way, a neutrino is
merely an energy wave propagating through a medium. This is why we
measure it to have no mass and the speed of light. It is effectively,
a specialized photon.

Now put a mass of balls into the center of the table. Then, take a
ball and drag it through the balls in the center of the table. This
greatly disturbs the balls and causes all sorts of collisions which
would break down the ball if it kept up long enough. This is a
neutron.

The final rub is that energy can be lost by generating these
"neutrino" waves but particles can also lose mass and energy by
ejecting a poselectron into the aether which is undetectable. I have
these noted as a "neutrino" above, but really it would be more
accurate to say that these are poselectrons lost to the aether, rather
than neutrinos. However, the net result is the same which is to carry
energy away from the reaction.

If you have been reading my other posts, I have been arguing that
there is actually only 1 type of neutrino which produces 3 types of
interactions. In solving the solar neutrino problem, we have pinned
the problem on the neutrino, but I would pin the problem on the
experiments failing to capture all the neutrinos. The only valid
neutrino detector is the SNO neutral current detector which detects
all the neutrinos (which are identical) from the sun just fine. Every
other type of neutrino detector has a blind spot which skews the
results. My model basically demands a single type of neutrino since a
wave is a wave which should be of a single type.


>
> I'm trying to point out to you, Franklin, that you have many more
> properties you need to consider other than the net charge.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: PD on
On Jun 17, 4:04 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 1:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 2:58 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 17, 10:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 16, 3:01 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Sure, show me where my model fails, I'll work on it....
>
> > > > > > You haven't done any calculations with your model.
> > > > > > Predict the characteristic lifetime of a rho meson.
>
> > > > > I cannot find any evidence that the characteristic lifetime of a rho
> > > > > meson can be calculated base on quark theory. Naturally, I could have
> > > > > missed it, but I find it as only a measured quantity - and a rather
> > > > > small one at that. Nor did I find anything to suggest that the
> > > > > lifetimes of any particles can be reasonably calcualted. So, did you
> > > > > just put up a challenge that not even quark theory can address?
>
> > > > I find it stunningly unbelievable but completely consistent with your
> > > > past posts that you are unable to find any documentation anywhere on
> > > > any of this. If you'd like some background on how the quark model
> > > > makes lifetime calculations, I might suggest you start with a few
> > > > introductory textbooks on elementary particles, both theory and
> > > > experiment:
> > > > Ferbel and Das, Introduction to Nuclear and Particle Physics
> > > > Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles
> > > > Martin and Shaw, Particle Physics
> > > > Halzen and Martin, Quarks and Leptons
> > > > Seiden, Particle Physics
> > > > Cahn and Goldhaber, The Experimental Foundations of Particle Physics
> > > > Aitchison and Hey, Gauge Theories in Particle Physics
> > > > Kane, Modern Elementary Particle Physics
> > > > Perkins, Introduction to High Energy Physics
>
> > > > Any 2 or 3 of these will show you the basics of this and have lots of
> > > > references to journal publications where the results are detailed.
>
> > And why will you not start studying from the above to learn how the
> > quark model lets you do calculations where you can only wave hands?
>
> > > > > But since you mentioned the rho meson, here is what I think it is:
>
> > > > > I have already mentioned my solution for the pion and muon at:
>
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/1c018c87e4afc2ce
>
> > > > > Since a rho meson decays into 2 pions, I presume that it is made out
> > > > > of just two pions
>
> > > > No, that would be a bad premise.
>
> > > > Just because a particle decays into daughter particles does not mean
> > > > the parent is composed of the daughter particles.
>
> > > > For example, the lambda baryon decays into each of these channels
> > > > proton + pi-minus
> > > > neutron + pi-zero
> > > > neutron + gamma
> > > > proton + pi-minus + gamma
> > > > proton + electron + anti-electron-neutrino
> > > > proton + muon + anti-muon-neutrino
>
> > > > Now, given all of these daughter products combinations, what would be
> > > > your premise as to the composition of the lambda?
>
> > > I would say that a lambda consists of 4 poselectron (positron/
> > > electron) electrons arranged such that thier + and - components all
> > > match up. I believe it is this symmetric arrangement which gives the
> > > lambda its long life time, not the presense of a strange quark.
>
> > > Lambda
> > > (+-)(+-)
> > > (-+)(-+)
>
> > > Here are the decay products
>
> > > (+-+) Proton
> > > (-+) (-) (+-) pi-minus
>
> > > (+-) Neutron
> > > (+-)(+)(-)(+-) pi-zero
>
> > > (+-) Neutron
> > > 3 gammas from (+)(-) anhilliation
> > > I think we lose 3 poselectron pairs to gamma anhilliation - I don't
> > > know how many gammas are obseved, but I would guess 3.
>
> > > (+-+) Proton
> > > (-+) (-) (+-) pi-minus
> > > 1 gamma from neutrino anhilliation
> > > Here, we only lose one.
>
> > > (+-+) Proton
> > > (-) electron
> > > 2 (+-) neutrino
> > > Here we lose 2 poselectron pairs to the surrounidng aether. But they
> > > do not separate an annhillate into gammas. I wouldn't know why they
> > > wouldn't do that in this case, but it is a possiblity, perhaps related
> > > to being and even number lost.
>
> > > (+-+) Proton
> > > (-) (+-) muon
> > > (+-) neutrino
> > > Here we lose 1 poselectron to the aether.
>
> > > > > which I can graphically represent as:
>
> > > > > (for neutral rho meson):
> > > > > (-+) (-) (+-)
> > > > > (+-)(+)(-+)
>
> > > > > (for - charged rho meson):
> > > > > (-+) (-) (+-)
> > > > > (+-)(+)(-)(+-)
>
> > > > > The only thing holding the 2 pions together is just the electrostatic
> > > > > attraction between the central positron/electron. Qualitatively, this
> > > > > would lead me to think that the lifetime should be very short in
> > > > > comparison to a pion which is a neat row of positrons/electrons. I had
> > > > > already explained that the muon lasts much longer since it must wait
> > > > > for an incoming neutrino to complete the reaction which is much less
> > > > > likely than the particle spontaneously falling apart.
>
> > > > > A table of rho meson properties can be found at:http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/listings/m009.pdf-Hidequotedtext -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > A couple of comments, Franklin.
>
> > Protons and neutrons both have baryon number 1, isospin 1/2, and spin
> > 1/2. I'm curious how you account for the fact that they share these
> > properties though one is a doublet and the other is a triplet.
>
> Well, first, isospin is a strong force concept. In my model the strong
> force doesn't exist at all (since everything is just an electrostatic
> positron/electron force) and neither does isospin.

Isospin exists because there are selection rules that restrict
processes that are not present in electromagnetic interactions, as
well as symmetries that are not at all obvious in your scheme. The
fact that these rules exist for neutrons and protons and the
electromagnetic interaction doesn't account for them AT ALL, is one
way we know that there is an interaction other than electromagnetic
that is responsible.

>
> Spin, I think is what you measure from Stern-Gerlach setup and I think
> it would be more accurate to call the property "spot" rather than spin
> since the 1/2 spin just refers to the fact that the experiment
> produces 2 spots as opposed to 1 or 3 spots.

Again, your horribly weak background encumbers you. Spin has a wide
variety of experimental implications other than the original Stern
Gerlach experiment, and it plays a huge role in many aspects of
particle interactions, including kinematics of decays, branching
ratios, and so forth. Until you decide that it's time to actually sit
down and read one of the sources that I recommended to you, you will
constantly be missing crucial experimental constraints that all models
must respect.

> I believe that this
> separation is simply due to the proton/electron dipoles lining up with
> the magnetic field and separating once they enter the field. As such,
> both neutrons and protons contain a dipole pair and in fact any
> particle which has unbalanced positive/negative charages will come out
> to spin 1/2.
>
>
>
> > According to you neutrinos and neutrons have common composition.
> > However, neutrons and neutrinos differ dramatically in terms of their
> > properties, other than mass. For example, neutrons have baryon number
> > 1 and neutrinos 0; neutrons participate in the strong interaction and
> > the electromagnetic interaction and neutrinos do not; unbound neutrons
> > have a finite lifetime and neutrinos do not; neutrons come in one
> > variety and neutrinos come in three.
>
> The difference is very subtle. Imagine you have a billiard table which
> is filled a string balls in the center of the table. Hit a ball onto
> one end of the balls and this causes a single ball to pop out of the
> backend of the mass of balls. The energy that gets transfered from one
> ball to another along a line is a neutrino. In this way, a neutrino is
> merely an energy wave propagating through a medium. This is why we
> measure it to have no mass and the speed of light. It is effectively,
> a specialized photon.

No, it is not. The photon is spin 1, the neutrino is spin 1/2. Photons
obey Bose-Einstein statistics, neutrinos obey Fermi-Dirac statistics.
The photon participates in the electromagnetic interaction, the
neutrino does not. The photon can decay into an electron-positron
pair, the neutrino never does. The photon is its own antiparticle, the
neutrino and antineutrino are distinct and produce different
interactions. That's for starters.

Again, your astounding lack of familiarity with background information
should motivate you to correct that deficiency, and I don't understand
why you would hesitate to do that.

>
> Now put a mass of balls into the center of the table. Then, take a
> ball and drag it through the balls in the center of the table. This
> greatly disturbs the balls and causes all sorts of collisions which
> would break down the ball if it kept up long enough. This is a
> neutron.
>
> The final rub is that energy can be lost by generating these
> "neutrino" waves but particles can also lose mass and energy by
> ejecting a poselectron into the aether which is undetectable. I have
> these noted as a "neutrino" above, but really it would be more
> accurate to say that these are poselectrons lost to the aether, rather
> than neutrinos. However, the net result is the same which is to carry
> energy away from the reaction.
>
> If you have been reading my other posts, I have been arguing that
> there is actually only 1 type of neutrino which produces 3 types of
> interactions. In solving the solar neutrino problem, we have pinned
> the problem on the neutrino, but I would pin the problem on the
> experiments failing to capture all the neutrinos.

No, I don't think you understand the experiments.
It is clear that are neutrinos that produce products Y and not
products X, and then by changing a beam configuration you can generate
neutrinos that produce products X and not products Y.
This is about as clear an indication that there are different kinds of
neutrinos you can get.

> The only valid
> neutrino detector is the SNO neutral current detector which detects
> all the neutrinos (which are identical) from the sun just fine.

You really believe that the ONLY valid neutrino experiment is SNO????

> Every
> other type of neutrino detector has a blind spot which skews the
> results. My model basically demands a single type of neutrino since a
> wave is a wave which should be of a single type.
>
>
>
> > I'm trying to point out to you, Franklin, that you have many more
> > properties you need to consider other than the net charge.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>

From: franklinhu on
>
> > Well, first, isospin is a strong force concept. In my model the strong
> > force doesn't exist at all (since everything is just an electrostatic
> > positron/electron force) and neither does isospin.
>
> Isospin exists because there are selection rules that restrict
> processes that are not present in electromagnetic interactions, as
> well as symmetries that are not at all obvious in your scheme. The
> fact that these rules exist for neutrons and protons and the
> electromagnetic interaction doesn't account for them AT ALL, is one
> way we know that there is an interaction other than electromagnetic
> that is responsible.
>

As I had shown with the lambda, I think it is actually the physical
structure of these particles which controls branching, not just the
electromagnetic force. So give me an example of a selection rule that
I should be able to explain, and I'll see if I can explain it.

>
>
> > Spin, I think is what you measure from Stern-Gerlach setup and I think
> > it would be more accurate to call the property "spot" rather than spin
> > since the 1/2 spin just refers to the fact that the experiment
> > produces 2 spots as opposed to 1 or 3 spots.
>
> Again, your horribly weak background encumbers you. Spin has a wide
> variety of experimental implications other than the original Stern
> Gerlach experiment, and it plays a huge role in many aspects of
> particle interactions, including kinematics of decays, branching
> ratios, and so forth. Until you decide that it's time to actually sit
> down and read one of the sources that I recommended to you, you will
> constantly be missing crucial experimental constraints that all models
> must respect.
>
> > I believe that this
> > separation is simply due to the proton/electron dipoles lining up with
> > the magnetic field and separating once they enter the field. As such,
> > both neutrons and protons contain a dipole pair and in fact any
> > particle which has unbalanced positive/negative charages will come out
> > to spin 1/2.
>
> > > According to you neutrinos and neutrons have common composition.
> > > However, neutrons and neutrinos differ dramatically in terms of their
> > > properties, other than mass. For example, neutrons have baryon number
> > > 1 and neutrinos 0; neutrons participate in the strong interaction and
> > > the electromagnetic interaction and neutrinos do not; unbound neutrons
> > > have a finite lifetime and neutrinos do not; neutrons come in one
> > > variety and neutrinos come in three.
>
> > The difference is very subtle. Imagine you have a billiard table which
> > is filled a string balls in the center of the table. Hit a ball onto
> > one end of the balls and this causes a single ball to pop out of the
> > backend of the mass of balls. The energy that gets transfered from one
> > ball to another along a line is a neutrino. In this way, a neutrino is
> > merely an energy wave propagating through a medium. This is why we
> > measure it to have no mass and the speed of light. It is effectively,
> > a specialized photon.
>
> No, it is not. The photon is spin 1, the neutrino is spin 1/2.

Gee, I always wondered how they measure the spin of a particle when
you can hardly detect it at all.

Photons
> obey Bose-Einstein statistics, neutrinos obey Fermi-Dirac statistics.
> The photon participates in the electromagnetic interaction, the
> neutrino does not. The photon can decay into an electron-positron
> pair, the neutrino never does.

In my model, the photon can kick out a poselectron as an electron/
positron pair as a massive wave. Since a neutrino is but a single
point wave, it wouldn't have the mechanical energy to do this. At the
very least, it has a much different mechanical interaction.


The photon is its own antiparticle, the
> neutrino and antineutrino are distinct and produce different
> interactions. That's for starters.

Seems to me that there is much research over whether the neutrino is
its own antiparticle - that they are distinct doesn't seem at all
clear.

>
> Again, your astounding lack of familiarity with background information
> should motivate you to correct that deficiency, and I don't understand
> why you would hesitate to do that.
>

Oh, I'd love to spend my days at the university looking this stuff up,
but I got to make a living doing something else and I've got 4 little
kids - it's a wonder I have any time to write to you today! But thanks
for the quick replies.

>
>
> > Now put a mass of balls into the center of the table. Then, take a
> > ball and drag it through the balls in the center of the table. This
> > greatly disturbs the balls and causes all sorts of collisions which
> > would break down the ball if it kept up long enough. This is a
> > neutron.
>
> > The final rub is that energy can be lost by generating these
> > "neutrino" waves but particles can also lose mass and energy by
> > ejecting a poselectron into the aether which is undetectable. I have
> > these noted as a "neutrino" above, but really it would be more
> > accurate to say that these are poselectrons lost to the aether, rather
> > than neutrinos. However, the net result is the same which is to carry
> > energy away from the reaction.
>
> > If you have been reading my other posts, I have been arguing that
> > there is actually only 1 type of neutrino which produces 3 types of
> > interactions. In solving the solar neutrino problem, we have pinned
> > the problem on the neutrino, but I would pin the problem on the
> > experiments failing to capture all the neutrinos.
>
> No, I don't think you understand the experiments.
> It is clear that are neutrinos that produce products Y and not
> products X, and then by changing a beam configuration you can generate
> neutrinos that produce products X and not products Y.
> This is about as clear an indication that there are different kinds of
> neutrinos you can get.

We had a discussion about this very point where this is the experiment
I proposed, but this experiment has NEVER been done. If you did so, I
bet you would see that Y neutrinos produce X & Y neutrinos and X
neutrinos produce Y & X neutrinos. All of the newest experiments are
showing this and attributing it to neutrino oscillation.

>
> > The only valid
> > neutrino detector is the SNO neutral current detector which detects
> > all the neutrinos (which are identical) from the sun just fine.
>
> You really believe that the ONLY valid neutrino experiment is SNO????

Valid in the sense that it detects all of the neutrinos as it should.
No solar neutrino deficit problem with SNO. That calculations of
neutrino numbers match up shows this experiment is working as
designed. Other experiments which do not match up (showing deficit)
show that the experimental setup is deficient.

> Every
> > other type of neutrino detector has a blind spot which skews the
> > results. My model basically demands a single type of neutrino since a
> > wave is a wave which should be of a single type.
>
> > > I'm trying to point out to you, Franklin, that you have many more
> > > properties you need to consider other than the net charge.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -