On Neutrinos: Thoughts From an Alternate Conceptual Universe

Abstract

Continued attention to neutrinos yields interesting ideas in the mnp Model's conceptual universe. Experiment shows that one or two neutrinos are created in weak interactions rather than a shower of even smaller by-products. Those neutrinos have a preference for rejoining matter in a mirror reaction. Neutrinos might have an immeasurable charge, since anti-neutrinos exist. In the mnp Model, the stranded charge loops that provide structure for the basic fermions rearrange in weak interactions. There must be a way that neutrinos form as units when those "weak" rearrangements take place.

The mnp Model conceptual universe sees everything, including fields and gravity, as the result of three types of tiny entities interacting over a tiny influence distance while travelling at c. After creating a framework for explanation, the author has been trying to "discover" explanations for the results of modern and not-so-modern physics experiment.

A recent re-examination of neutrinos presents a plausible explanation for the small number of neutrinos from weak interactions and sheds light on possible explanations for strong interactions and the positive surface of neutrons as well as protons.

Table of Contents

• Abstract
• Neutrinos With Charge
• A New Twist On Chirality
• Meditation on Mass and Majorana
• Appendix
• On Words and Wording
• Universes
• Experiments Would Refute the mnp Model, Not Prove It

Neutrinos With Charge

How has the author come to see charge as relevant to neutrinos? By the "see it when I believe it" corollary: "when an explanation is ready, the facts can be accepted" On trying to think of how neutrinos can have charge, the author first saw having some charge material as useful for the detection and trapping of neutrinos in weak interactions. Charge material assists capture when the coils of the quark recruit not just mediator m's but the included basic entities that form charge which are essential to electric fields. Negative would attract n's, positive would attract p's, and quarks which are loops of each would attract both. When the attracted free mediators are released in a weak interaction that creates a neutrino, the charge material would be released as well and would be oriented to travel with the mediators. The author suggests there might need to be a low limit on the amount of charge material that can be attracted, either due to geometry and the basic effects or by a limit on the amount of free charge potential available in the random field potential. The lightest quark, up, has more additional mass than in the basic charge loop structure of the simple quarks, and experiment does not see a noticeable let alone a doubling of quark charge.

Background: The basic quarks, electrons, and positrons are seen in the mnp Model as all having 6 quantized loops of either positive or negative charge material, each loop representing .0851 MeV/C^2 mass. Weak interactions are seen as exchange of loops, and quark triplets are seen as constantly attempting to exchange loops but being prevented from completing the process. The loops coil, electrons and positrons coiling as tightly as the basic entities can receive influence, and the quarks not so tightly so that they recruit as much mass as their "straightness" allows. Mass in the mnp Model is a derivative concept, based on how much influence a collection can exert or how much influence is required to redirect that collection. Mass and entity count are seen as interchangeable.

Experiment shows that the charge of an electron is constant within narrow error bars, so the mnp Model must either respect those error bars or explain why additional charge recruited by the coils is not involved in creating magnetic fields or responding to magnetic and electric fields. The author suspects that the explanation may lie in "the recruited entities are not acting on their own and so do not influence on their own, but are influenced by the coiled charge loop structure which, because of the tight connection between entities in the loop and the geometry of coiling provides the only external influence available." The author is not prepared to "show the numbers" at this point.

At about 1122 hours: Another issue is the "length" of neutrinos which is not explained in the mnp Model. the author suggests the nature of a given neutrino is determined by the interaction that produces it. He hoped (earlier today) for a multiple perhaps 1 of the coil circumference of the particle that produced the neutrino. The author sees (in steady states at least if such could be said to exist for quarks in a high energy interaction :-) relatively uniform distributions of recruited material, so would expect that material to be 9m long.

At about 1125 hours: Why are neutrinos not the full length of the loop (3m, based on the time weak interactions take to complete) that produces it or why such a long neutrino could not be seen as captured until it had been entirely "coiled in" to the capturing particle/quark but then would be seen as a "point" is not yet explained. What would the ramifications of long neutrinos be? The mnp Model does not yet picture how coils recombine in weak interactions. 1) Do they unzip curvi-linearly, or 2) do the coils get involved in parallel so that entire sets of coils are changing at once or 3) is the need for matching spin and sets of coils overlapping the start of the interaction, which then completes by the recombination moving around the geometry of the coils at c. More zipping than unzipping. The author chooses number three for now; the interaction starts with coils overlapping, then finishes with linear recombination. So weak interactions will take something like 1e-8 seconds, but since the start is "overlapped" the timing varies.

In a weak interaction that creates a neutrino, if the massive stream of freed m's with interpolated n's and /or p's has some affinity to stay together and turn together, that could also account for the gluons in nucleons not escaping and could account for why protons and neutrons both seem to have positive exteriors. (Like charges attract by Travel and Axis when moving in the same direction and within the tiny influence distance. Only when electric fields are created and propagate does the net Axis effect get reversed to form classical "opposite charges attract" electric forces.)

At about 1129 hours: This picture has certain attractions; Once neutrinos are "caught" by a coil (a strand of 6 loops in basic fermions) travelling in the same direction, the entire neutrino may be then be "wound up" by the loop, while the loop absorbs the momentum of the neutrino. Neutrinos would be attracted to fermions with the same charge balance as their producing interaction, as long as charge material had not been lost in travel.

At about 1132 hours: This picture has other attractions: If the stream has affinity, then the initially released coils of "nascent neutrino" may continue coiling somewhat until the entire neutrino is free from the creating loop and can then "choose" a travel direction. So multiple neutrinos would not be created piecemeal from a loop change. Whether the "front" of the resulting neutrino has more material than the tail is an open question, but the total momentum would be a function of the weak interaction, and provide that momentum to a "detection" interaction.

A New Twist On Chirality

[2015-03-21] While a neutrino will be more easily "guided" if the charge material is in the front (dimensions are so small, remember coil diameter, that the neutrino may appear as a point particle anyway) the author expects to see the neutrino as fairly uniform just as the particles from which it arises are fairly uniform.

Why are toroidal magnetic fields helpful in focusing neutrinos? The charge material may make them susceptible to moderate influence. If experiments (rather than mathematical models) show that right handed fermions (in our counter-rotating centrifuge at the Pole) detect neutrinos just as well then handed-ness is not important.

Counter thought: In the weak interaction in the mnp Model, the strand of glue may initially come off the coils with axis that had been oriented toward the center of the coils now in a helical pattern either left or right depending on how the coils were "laid like a stiff rope." Whether that is subtle (half a full rotation per circumference) or extremely subtle (the width of 3 filaments per circumference) is not clear to the author. To be continued. The author is hoping for neutrinos to prove even-handed, though an explanation or three is ready for handed-ness.

Until experiment shows a difference in absorption based on left hand and right hand preference by neutrinos and not just production of left-hand results when measured close to the source, the author will suggest that neutrinos are not left or right handed. Plenty to potential for the consumption of crow here.

[2015-03-20] Unlikely thought about charge distribution in the transverse dimension of the neutrino: The transverse distribution of charge particles as in n's and p's in the same strand orientation of the creating quark may possibly be relevant. Guiding m's from the front may be "easy" as in diffraction, to be decided. Look at the evidence for chirality in neutrinos, since if everything on Earth prefers left where possible, ... we may not be measuring right handed anyway.

Meditation on Mass and Majorana

Concepts such as mass, Majorana, and particulate are seen as not useful when applied to neutrinos.

Mass? No. Neutrinos are not mere lumps of unpolarized mediators as recently pictured by the author but may be conglomerates containing small amounts of charge materials. This allows for anti-neutrinos to exist, and for pure neutrinos as well as neutral neutrinos. The presence or absence of a small amount of charge material is important to the neutrino's chances of being captured by a particle with mass, but the author believes that avoiding "mass" in the description of neutrinos is an improvement. The terms Pure and Hybrid will do nicely. Past speculations and notes on the nature of neutrinos are quite incomplete and unpersuasive. The author has pictured various models of neutrinos over the last four years, including rings of charge material which he now deprecates. Elusive idea, neutrinos.

Majorana? No. Distilled to their essence, the author believes that neutrinos are light like. The basic entities in the mnp Model cannot be destroyed. The hybrid form of neutrinos, formed of the 3 basic entities in the mnp Model, cannot disappear but only be transformed or revert to the random field potential. Neutrinos do not interact enough to destroy each other, though they might affect each others charge material. If travelling in the same direction at essentially the same location at the same time, neutrinos might recruit each other to form a single, though this is unlikely enough as to be considered uninteresting. Neutrinos produced by the hypothetical z particle might have balanced charge material and so theoretically be Majorana, but since the probabilities of that encounter are seen as very low, Majorana neutrinos seems like a hypothesis of which we have no need.

Particles? No. Neutrinos are not usefully considered particles in the mnp Model. They cannot exist at rest except as captured by the charge loop structure of matter. In the mnp Model everything other than empty space is seen as made of the basic entities which travel at c, and calling all those basic entities particles would confuse all of us if the word particles were to refer to the constituents of fields (and the random field potential) as well as fermions.

Appendix

On Words and Wording

The author often writes to a vanishingly small cognoscenti: apologies to those starting at any given blog post. The author's writings about the mnp Model are intended to be consistent, though developing, and do not always step back to provide a complete basis for the posts to be understood in isolation. The author acknowledges that understanding the writings is more difficult than the writing, much as puns are easier to create than understand and perl is easier to code than to read.

The author has introduced a number of technical terms lately. A collection of recent and not so recent additions:

• basic fermion: One of the seven basic 6 loop structures of matter: an electron, one of the four small quarks (including the two less common "anti" quarks), the small elusive neutral particle z, or a positron.
• collection: any group of entities that a physicist can draw a boundary around. Given that fields propagate at c, this might be difficult in some scenarios. Anything from a fhoton, a pure neutrino, to a complicated meson or nucleon. Anything we can draw a boundary around and say "this has mass and or this has energy."
• conglomerate: a lump with more than one type of basic entity. May not be useful now that neutrinos seem to be more nuanced.
• fhoton: A bundle of mediator m's travelling together with Axis pointed the same direction that are considered the particle form of light in conventional physics. The electro magnetic fields that result from fhoton travel can guide that fhoton or others. Electro magnetic fields, as created by radio antennae, can also recruit m's to be a fhoton. The bundle of energy that can be trapped by electron shells. Distinct from particle physics' amorphous mediator photon. Seen in the mnp Model as independent of electro-magnetic radiation in interstellar travel. Plenty of explanations remain! The concept of fhoton is important in the mnp Model.
• lump: a fhoton or neutrino, though recently the neutrino seems more nuanced than the polarized mediators that make up fhotons as long distance travellers.
• movement: slower than c location change by fermions
• particle: matter with mass. The author intends to avoid using particle for fhotons and neutrinos.
• thing: a collection with some semblance of unity useful for the discussion.
• travel: location change at c, shown by the 1) basic entities that make up fields, random potential, matter, and everything else encountered in the universe 2) fhotons and 3) neutrinos once they are freed and formed and leave an interaction. The author intends to be consistent. The word movement always means less than c, travel always means at c.

The author tries to suggest words for useful new concepts in hopes that the words will not bring unhelpful associations and meanings from conventional physics. Words are going to change meanings as understanding changes. Vocabulary in physics will be dynamic. Parkinson's Law #n suggests - "when an organization creates the perfect headquarters, it is dead." So when we have a perfect vocabulary, the field is fossilized.

Experiment shows. Experimentalists do. Experimentalists don't tell unless they are doing theory or interpreting too hard. Theory tries to explain. Theory also guides experimentalists in deciding what would be fruitful. So as the author re-factors the way he respects experiment and the people who do them, a global search on xperimentalist to make sure it is used properly. Experimental results that cause a Model difficulties are not the fault of an experimentalist but the result of experiment, the ultimate if flawed arbiter.

Math and formulae don't cause effects, though it is convenient to write as if they do. For examples, the third term leads to ... causes ... the first term is ... requires knowing what "is" means in this case. Of course the author needs to clean his own house. At some point rather thoroughly, to distinguish "probably causes" "might cause" "might lead to" and then the raft of reasons for various "conclusions" made in developing the foundation and then "discovering" the mnp Model.

Universes

The mnp Model and modern physics seem to exist in separate conceptual universes, with the author trying to see as many parallels as possible. Is the concept of "mass" in neutrinos equivalent to the author's seeing some charge material present? The attraction will be by Travel and Axis attraction, with like charge material attracting strongest when travelling in the same direction and unlike charge material attracting strongest when travelling in the opposite direction (Travel attracts by alignment both parallel and anti-parallel, but Axis attracts only toward parallel in the mnp Model) but of course this allows MUCH less time in proximity for the attraction to take effect. The author posits that very little charge material is needed to promote capture by matter, far less than the 1Ev/c^2 proposed as a maximum "mass" for neutrinos. Measuring such small amounts of charge material will be very difficult, though the toroidal magnetic fields used in detection may do precisely that.

Welcome to an alternate universe, with some parallels to our own.

Experiments Would Refute the mnp Model, Not Prove It

The author has recently proposed a few experiments (centrifuges to create right-hand preference and neutrinos in almost parallel travel to beams of particles. Now if the experimenters can haul a neutrino detector and/or generator to the North or South Pole and put it on the track or centrifuge, they could determine whether the neutrino counts match those of a neutrino detector or generator with left-handed preference, which would provide an(other) answer to the question "do neutrinos really have handed-ness?"

Of course, these experiments would prove nothing in favor of the mnp Model since a universe of other explanations is available if experiment does happen to show that left-hand preference is a local phenomenon or that neutrinos are affected by fellow travellers or that neutrinos do (or do not) have a handed-ness. Should explanation be needed, the author suggests that portion of the conceptual universe that sees moving labs as truly undergoing Lorentz transformation will better explain local left-hand preference.

The author has few illusions that the experiments would be performed to shorten the Standard Model's Lagrangian. He has even fewer illusions that the experiments would be performed for the purposes of refuting the mnp Model.

Top of Document