Thursday, October 25, 2012

Neutrino Structure Must Change in the mnp Model

Neutrinos as opposing rings can not travel. (2012-10-21) Yikes. Panic. Relax. Sleep.

So what to do today (2012-10-22)?

Start with understanding the situation.

As opposing rings gain velocity transverse to the plane of the rings, the two rings' tendency to Axis alignment pulls away from each other, leading to a tendency to return to parallel. At velocity .707c, the Axis effect may be 0, but then increase again as velocity increases then reduces to 0 again at c. Moving pulls neutrinos apart in the old Model.

What can neutrinos teach us? What can we learn from neutrinos? The second question is different from the first, but hopefully we are open to learning so the second is a very large subset of the first.

Neutrinos exist. They travel at the speed of light and probably slower as well. They go through matter with very little effect. They have very little or no charge. They have very little magnetic moment. The last two are probably precisely why they go through matter.

How to create a picture of neutrinos that works in the mnp Model? Or is it time to abandon the Model? Well, the second step after understanding the situation is to figure out what could be. Ergo,

Brainstorm.

What are the possibilities, implausibilities, and impossibilities?

Idea:
Comment: (usually added later)
Opposing rings
cannot travel as any kind of unit
Ring of one charge
unbalanced charge, though may be small
Opposing coils
problems "getting back" when traveling
Coils not flat but vertical

Coils in a torus ("doughnut" to you Simpson fans)

Wound strands moving opposite
getting back, same travel difficulties as rings
Opposing charge moving same direction
may make bigger coils
If electrons are to be believed, coils are natural once started

Figments have a movement direction as a third attribute
Ugh
How could n and p filaments traveling the same direction be kept together. At
parallel, they have no influence on each other but if they wobble, they will
start to repel. That implies something keeps them together.

Multiple strands, for example 2n and 1p

Different diameters for n and p figments, so filaments of one travel inside the
other.
I don't like this, but it might lead to a left hand preference as in the decay of cobalt-60 and a prevalence of protons and electrons in this solar system or galaxy.
A coil like a solenoid, with a few coils stretched to return back where the
coil sticks out a little from the other charge coil, which also heads back
through free space in the center
travel issue
Simple rings interlocked at 90 degrees
travel much above .707c would lead to flattening and crossing at 2 points.

Twenty five minutes later, I start the second page of notes:

Two strands linear going and 2 strands returning from two collections of coils
(rather like the quark bulbs of 2011)
strands must be separated or they conflict
Coils as fundamental, looping back on opposite sides?
v=c looks ugly
Single filament of mixed n's and p's
Ouch - how does a filament maintain stability at the interface between n and p?
For travel, the filaments want to go the same direction.
Make that have to. Deal with it.
How about two filaments of each type, a cross in cross section.
A little complicated, but what would that take?

Side notes: Most of the value judgments here were added after the list was "complete." I do not like to stop the flow of ideas with loud NO's.

When is a list complete? Either when we run out of ideas completely, or the flow of ideas has slowed greatly and an idea looks promising.

Fortunately, the last idea did look promising. As ASCII art, the cross section:

  n
p+p
  n

where the + is just a logical "center" for the four filaments. Or

n p
  x
p n

And we can go on to step three.

Evaluate.

Neutrinos as Two Pairs of Charge Structure Filaments

With a matched pair of n-filaments across the diagonal of a square attracting each other by Axis alignment and Travel alignment, the other matched pair of p-filaments attracting each other by Axis and Travel. The adjacent mis-matched filaments attract by Travel but repel by Axis. Could that be balanced to be stable?

The first crude "effect" calculation in cross section suggests t (travel alignment effect) from 3 filaments plus the axis alignment of the single matching filament must be stronger than the axis alignment repulsion from the closer two, opposite filaments. The net repulsion is 2/sqrt(2) of the direct repulsion from one opposite filament. Use d as the distance between opposing filaments, so sqrt(2)d the distance to the far filament.

Oh, but remember that the filaments are REALLY close and overlap. If the effect strength is inversely proportional to distance between the figments, going to 0 at 2r, and the filaments are as close as their Separation will "normally allow" in a steady state, all effects will be at essentially maximum, so discussions of whether the effect is linear with distance due either to magic or the proportion of "spherical shell" that interacts are unnecessary at this point. So ignore any differences between 2r-d and 2r-sqrt(2)d. Since the filaments are so close, ignore that each figment might see very slightly more of the neighboring filaments than the opposite matching filament. How strong must the Travel effect be compared to the Axis effect? By 55 minutes after starting the second page, the formula is ready. If t is the Travel effect and a the Axis effect,

(t+a) + (2/sqrt(s))(t-a) must be safely > 0

(sqrt(2)+1) t must be safely > (sqrt(2)-1) a

t safely > .1716 a.

I have always assumed the "charge" effect of Axis Alignment is greater than the "gravity" effect of Travel Alignment. This ratio may work. Note I used "safely" since the two simplifying assumptions assume a little extra stability than would actually be present.

To maintain stability, each outer filament must stay outside the line between the two adjacent, opposite type filaments. But pushing a majority of the whole filament a distance opposed by the Separation effect of the other three filaments probably takes some doing.

One good aspect of travel in the same direction means that at velocity v, all figments in the filaments can have the same angle of travel to centerline, maintaining inertia as with coils and filaments in general.

Now what form does this cross section take to become a neutrino? A linear filament would always move at c and not be quantized and might be hard to recruit and start, so maybe a ring would be simplest.

The inner two rings may wobble in their travel and the outer rings not. The inner rings may be shorter and so rotate a little faster. Or the inner and outer rings may switch places so that each travels the same distance. I imagine that usually two filaments would be inside and two outside rather than having one longest ring and one shortest ring.

Strands Twist (2012-10-23)

If the filaments could twist enough that all have the same length, that would be an improvement. With a little thought and a few sketches, what if the assembly of 4 filaments twists 180 degrees per ring revolution. That would lead to two filaments, 1 n and 1 p, the same length, traveling 2 circles or rings. The only difficulty is that at c, the filaments overlap. They will not be rotating at c (rest mass will be 0) and all figment motion will be in the direction of travel, so the discontinuity in filaments may be minor.

Growing filaments is fairly easy at least in high density regions like the early universe. Growing the neutrino may not be quite as simple, since getting opposing filaments to travel or form in the suggested cross section going the same direction is hard to picture. At rest neutrino type rings could bend from filaments going opposite directions, but how that would translate to bent filaments of opposite types going the same direction is not clear.

I am not entirely happy with this whole development, but it is feasible. This neutrino game ain't over 'til its over.

And more of the basic document needs to be rewritten.

So we have another image of opposing tendencies leading to stability. Let me add an exclamation point to that!

With thanks to William Shakespeare, one of the giants of literature, 

"And thus by opposing them, conserve them."

No comments:

Post a Comment