A new Model is proposed to unify everything in physics: the four forces including gravity and the hundreds of elementary particles. Time, relativity, and gravity result from the interaction of the basic entities at a tiny scale.
The previous post On Neutrinos: Thoughts From An Alternate Conceptual Universe includes the claim that "charged" hybrid neutrinos in the mnp Model behave like neutrinos in our universe. Since experiments show neutrinos are not affected by magnetic fields, why would magnetic fields not affect neutrinos in the mnp Model of "charged" neutrinos? The author will attempt the short answer to this serious question, despite the absence of the planned post on magnetic fields in the mnp Model.
The mnp Model sees mediators as tiny entities traveling at c with Axis perpendicular to the direction of travel. The Axis can be thought of as the polarization of the basic entity. In gravitational fields, the Axis is random. In a fhoton, the Axis of all the basic entities are aligned. Magnetic fields are seen in the mnp Model as mediator m's propagating at c perpendicular to the line of zero force, with each mediator's Axis also in the plane perpendicular to the line of zero force.
Magnetic fields affect charged fermions moving at less than the speed of light. A moving charged fermion with charge material forming its coiled loop structure will have its constituent basic entities net direction in the direction of fermion movement proportional to the velocity of the fermion. The Axis of the basic entities in the magnetic field affect the travel direction of the charge structure of the fermion only to the degree that the charge structure of the fermion causes the field mediators to deflect their travel direction which also causes the charge structure to change travel direction. The field mediators will just realign their Axis to match that of the moving fermion if the influence is perpendicular to the Axis which is along the line of zero force. The influence on the Travel direction of the mediators making up the magnetic field can only be away from the plane of field propagation.
Fermions' driving effects are from the charge loop structure. Except for electrons and positrons, all basic fermions have associated m's (mediators/glue) but those mediators are seen in the mnp Model as depending on the coiled n's and p's to influence fields and receive effects from fields.
Neutrinos are seen as different in the mnp Model. The m's making up most of the neutrino have Axis perpendicular to travel, randomly oriented for essentially no resultant net Axis to influence or be influenced. So there will be no net effect by a magnetic field on the direction of the m's. The time of interaction with a neutrino is limited;
in a fermion, the field can interact with many parts of many coils. In a neutrino, once a part of the neutrino passes it is gone.
The basic entities n's and p's that also make up charged fermions are seen as part of a hybrid neutrino. These n's or p's have Axis anti-parallel and parallel to the direction of Travel respectively and are the only part of the neutrino that will be attracted to align Axis with the magnetic field. They will be deflected slightly by magnetic field, but are not connected into the entirety of the neutrino the way the loops in a fermion are.
The deflected n or p will initially not affect the neutrino except by Travel attraction. Travel is seen in the mnp Model as the strongest single interaction, but other factors interfere in a neutrino.
The basic charge entities in neutrinos are seen as significantly outnumbered by the m's so the deflected charge entities will have very little effect on the neutrino's travel direction. The deflected single n's or p's, or small groups of n's or p's are seen as likely, after a small deflection, to be attracted to the Axis of the neutrino's m's in the direction of the deflection.
The n's or p's are likely to leave the neutrino,
and in doing so will redirect some of the neutrino's m's back the other way.
The author does not suggest that a conspiracy of neutrinos will EXACTLY balance out the resultant neutrino direction, but suggests change will be small and hard to detect.
The author suggests that neutrinos in the mnp Model can have charge entities but that magnetic fields tend to purify the neutrino rather than deflect it measurably. Though he suspects small influences may eventually be measured.
In contrast to neutrinos ability to lose charge material, in a basic fermion, a charge entity that is part of a structural coiled loop is part of a coil that the mnp Models sees bound by the strongest force in the universe: a co-linear combination of Travel and Axis attraction. So an influence to one or more coil members will average the influence with all the other influences on the stranded coils rather than cause the entity to leave.
The mnp Model sees spin as not a conserved property and not a property of fhotons or neutrinos but only as a property of fermions that have a charged loop structure. The imbalance in the coils of the loop given the fixed length of each of the six loops that make up the strand that forms the basic structure of a fermion by coiling and twisting leads to spin, and the capture of fhotons and neutrinos will change that coiling and so change the spin of the fermion. Geometry rather than a conserved property leads in the mnp Model to Spin.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A new understanding of neutrinos is proposed. "Pure" neutrinos consisting of only mediator basic entities m's are currently called "massless." "Hybrid" neutrinos consist of mediator basic entities m's with some of the charge basic entities that are also present in electric fields n's and p's.
Hybrid neutrinos also have no mass since by themselves they do not have enough charge material to form coils that are capable of remaining stationary. The author proposes that "Hybrid" is a better term than "massive."
Neutrinos are capable of shedding or recruiting any of the basic entities as they travel. Hybrid neutrinos will preferentially shed charge material travelling in near vacuum, so cosmic neutrinos might be expected to be almost pure. Whether a pure neutrino traversing an electric field can pick up enough charge materials to be detected as a muon or electron neutrino is not clear to the author.
[2015-03-20] initial post
[2015-03-22] edits, some speculations commented out
The author has been preparing to model the "gravity" waves created by the travel of massless neutrinos as a way to determine the magnitude of the Travel Alignment Effect, using mnp Model's understanding of the deBroglie wavelength. In a parallel effort reading the article on the Higgs in Review of Particle Physics (Olive 2014), the author found Neutrinos immediately following, so continued reading.
Experiments show neutrinos have definite traits in addition to just energy that allow some to enter into interactions that others cannot. The traits can change even in a vacuum.
The author has recently written that the only difference between fhotons and neutrinos is the polarized nature of the fhoton. Attention to the experimentalists insistence that there ARE different kinds of neutrinos leads to useful suggestions. The mnp Model will need to produce a more nuanced picture of neutrinos than heretofore. Leading to a subtitle in mnp form:
Neutrinos in the basic mnp Model might be called unpolarized lumps of mediator m's.
Lump is a technical term, for non-structured entities in the mnp Model. Fhotons and neutrinos do not have the coiled loop structure that allow them to remain in one place or move slowly, so the author does not want to confuse them with "particles" or the traditional concept of having mass.
The author sees "mass" as the collection of basic entities that can remain stationary and can move slowly but not achieve c. Light-like are those things (lumps) that move at the speed of light and cannot move any other speed. He sees no intermediate organizations of the basic entities.
Neutrinos and fhotons move at the speed of light, so cannot have a coiled or loop structure.
[2015-03-22]
They can be "turned into" mass only by being captured by a coiled loop structure.
So what does "massive" mean when applied to neutrinos? "Chirality?" "Left-handed?"
"Majorana?"
Two concepts important to the mnp Model are "Charge (loop) structure" and "(random) field potential." The mnp Model has no need for either ether or aether as a supporting concept. The random field potential is (mostly) free mediators called m's.
Except that the random field potential does require free basic entities that also form the charge loop structure: n's and p's which are only needed for the propagation of electric fields. Magnetic fields can propagate without them, fhotons and neutrinos can move through the vacuum with no mediators or free "charge" entities.
Neutrinos have been seen as just lumps of m's with perhaps left and right being a matter of "slightly" polarized balance of Axis that can change as the neutrino travels. This concept of a little polarization but not so much that the entire lump gradually averages out the Axis direction and becomes polarized has always bothered the author.
[2015-03-18] Regarding Neutrinos: massless and having mass are a little different. Massless means all the energy is in m's or non-structured n's and p's. In the electric fields within the shell, there will be/can be free n's and p's. They could get entrained in a fhoton or neutrino, though the polarization of the fhoton will tend to pull the charge one way so it will not continue to travel with the fhoton. A neutrino will have no such polarization preference, so can keep the n's and or p's longer. Still, some attrition will occur as the neutrino goes through mass or fields. This is beginning to sound a little like massless vs neutrinos with "mass" which to the author is the charge structure (potential) represented by individual n's and p's.
This model does behave properly. It provides for some spontaneous change in vacuum, does allow a differentiation of flavours while allowing neutrino energies to vary independently. Neutrinos "salted" with some charge may be more catchable. Especially because n's and p's have Axis pointing differently. Neutrinos are still not quantized, but are produced and captured by particles that are, as are fhotons.
A magnetic or charge field, with Axis pointing one way, will tend to attract n's and p's to turn opposite directions, not the same. Travel would attract the same direction. Could be one charge or the other with Axis forward or backward, leading to better absorption in LH nucleons?? If n's are in front of p's that would enhance starting one way, later going the other if the neutrino as at least one coil diameter in length. If the neutrino has length and n's and p's are positioned along that length in the pattern as they existed in the creation of that particular neutrino, that may lead to a tendency for that kind of neutrino to recombine in a like/mirrored manner.
Questions remain:
What does chirality actually mean?
Why would interactions create consistent or somewhat consistent portions of n's and or p's (from a fairly consistent field inside the shell or in the quark triplet?).
How could one measure tiny charge differences?
[2015-03-22] What would Majorana actually mean?
As the author re-reads these paragraphs after initially writing them as a stream, the implications seem more profound than they seemed on first writing. The explanation does feel tailored but most of the tailoring is in how neutrinos are created by specific interactions of leptons/quarks. None of the basic mnp Model need be adjusted or tuned. The image of neutrinos as having some basic charge entities does free the neutrino model from the need to be "slightly" polarized, which is good!
Free n's and p's now show up as an explanation for "massive" neutrinos, without themselves giving the neutrino rest mass.
So the author comes to understand "massive" as "having some of the properties of particles that can be at rest" which "properties allow them to interact preferentially with particles" rather than "large" "heavy" or "capable of hanging around to be put on a scale." The author would like to avoid the term "mass" as applied to neutrinos. He prefers "pure" neutrinos for that rarefied or well travelled case of the neutrino with no charge material n's or p's at all. The term "hybrid" neutrinos would apply for those with "charge structure material." The author understands the "pure" and "hybrid" may meet with even less acceptance than the mnp Model itself.
Neutrinos may well have length related to coil diameter or coil circumference. Since electrons are seen as 2 or more coil diameters in extent in the mnp Model but as points in particle physics, this is probably manageable. Early modelling of the neutrino "gravity wave" can use whichever image is convenient to start.
The author admits that his explanation of neutrinos is designed to model neutrino behaviour and traits observed in experiment and the wild, but the explanation does seem consistent with basic mnp principles. Nothing new needs to be adjusted. Exactly what the neutrino pattern IS from a given reaction is not known, but the author is comfortable with suggesting that neutrinos are never exactly alike, that they are created by interactions among particles whose basic charge structure is quantized but whose specific energies and directions will vary. So a type of interaction will give a neutrino a certain pattern such as length or energy or pattern of charge material; since the interactions vary, neutrinos vary.
Neutrinos produced by a reaction, might in most cases participate in the reverse reaction though this is not assured since geometry is also involved and at times leads to asymmetries.
So another heading emerges in the author's favored mnp pattern:
What is chirality?
The posting Left Handed Preference Is Local provides one tool for understanding chirality - preference is a local phenomenon resulting from the lepton's rotation in a frame.
Chirality is surely related to the leptons creating the neutrino. Neutrinos will be more effectively captured by a coil moving in the same direction, perhaps with some n or p Axes matching as well to enhance the "contact" attraction. Remember that by contact as in weak interactions and strong interactions, like Axis attracts. Once a field is created by charge, the effective Axis direction is the opposite of the charge so unlike charges attract from a distance.
Ref: Olive 2014 Page 225. For neutrinos, both chirality and measurement comes from the producing quarks and the "measuring" or "detecting" quarks, so chirality is not universal but influenced by the local rotating frame. So the author would suggest "from a counter-rotating frame at the Earth's poles, the neutrinos produced would be right handed."
[2015-03-22] The author suggests that neutrinos do not have chirality once they have travelled some distance, though they may retain some influence from the orientation of the coils that produced them in the initial fractions of a second.
The author sees no point in trying to create rigid classes for neutrinos and especially in trying to fit all neutrinos into a fixed number of classes. He would prefer just understand that neutrinos change traits and to work toward understanding those traits. Catalogueing the interactions that produce neutrinos and that detect them is useful, but may be an open ended task.
When first released from an electron shell or a weak nuclear interaction, the fhotons might have n's and p's travelling with the m's. But since the conglomerate er lump is polarized, with the Axis for all m's in one direction, the n's and p's will be attracted by Axis effect toward the Axis perpendicular to travel as well as in the direction of travel by Travel attraction, so will be unstable. The "resultant" influence at an angle to travel is probably a simplistic concept, but suggests that the n's and p's cannot remain a part of the fhoton.
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 17:12:44 -0800
Subject: mnp: Maybe Neutrinos Parallel to beam would be interesting
... been thinking about neutrinos. Swimmers might envy neutrinos
their ability to not see water as a drag. But then they miss most all of
the turns, never talk to each other, and never show up on the podium.
The dreaded questions of the week:
If a neutrino detector is aligned with a source but the path crosses a
high speed particle beam at a small angle, the detector should see less
when the beam is on than when it is off.
If the source is non-focused but almost in line with a beam, detectors
almost aligned with the beam would see fewer neutrinos when the beam is
on than when it is off.
Suggestion is that neutrinos will be more attracted to the direction (0
or 180 degrees) of a high speed mass almost aligned with their direction
of travel than with a stationary mass or mass moving at a less acute
angle to the neutrinos' travel. Of course "time in proximity" needs to
be controlled for.
The author has no illusions that a neutrino detector fits on the back of a pickup truck, can be unloaded by two people, or that it can be lined up with a laser pointer.
The author's collected but unedited thoughts show a bit of evolution and a lot of loose ends.
[2015-03-22] Much commented out:
[2015-03-19] Do neutrinos from weak interactions accumulate at where the final separation of the last coil occurs, then fly off from there? Given that everything in the coil is moving at c, accumulation seems unlikely.
[2015-03-18] If muon neutrinos always produce muons when they interact, that may be useful/interesting as insight into what is a muon. Extra strands? Just twisted differently? A quantized amount of n's and p's mixed in? The author hopes not the latter.
[2014-10-17 11:07 and 2015-03-22] light from distant supernova arriving at the same time as the neutrinos suggest light and neutrinos take the exact same path, that the electromagnetic fields associated with light does not affect the path.
[2014-10-17 11:06] Is it possible to do Shapiro like ranging experiments with neutrinos. Unlikely given that shielding will likely be heavy.
[2014-04-19] Not likely be be able to send coded neutrinos through the sun from a spot on the other side of the orbit or even to sense them in a light enough package to sent IT out to the LaGrange point on the other side. The author feels neutrinos would travel at c, not slower, if they can get through the sun unscathed
Consideration of the mass of up and down, with consideration of the involvement of mediator m's in moving particles, with quantification of the Travel Alignment Effect from neutrino/wavelength investigations, may allow some headway in understanding particle masses.
The SM Higgs particle is predicted, 57% of the time, to decay into a bb meson. Experiments find that such a decay is "messy" and hard to measure, so it is not seen that often. The mnp Model's suggestion that the Higgs is the meson of o (over the top) and oo as the partner of tt meson is now seen as unlikely, since the Higgs is only 2/3 as massive as t Top rather than being 2 to 4 times as massive. Instead, the author suggests the Higgs may be a meson b'b', with the same underlying relation and structure that strange has to down. The same basic charge ratio of 4 negative loops to 2 positive loops, but the strand of 6 that has the positive loops on opposite sides of the hexagonal cross-section of 6 loops rather than adjacent.
Musing: if the author truly absorbed the PDG's "book," he'd be afraid to suggest
[2015-03-22] ideas so foreign to the incredible amount of good work that has gone into experiment.
Ignorance makes action possible, sometimes.
Musings on Terminology: Structure: If the 6 strands of a basic quark/electron/positron/z are structure, is the cross sectional detail of strange sub structure? Is the salting of n's and/or p's in neutrinos called micro structure?
The author would like a good term for the basic units that can be stationary and have mass: electrons, positrons, quarks, and the neutral quark called a z in the mnp Model. Basic massive structures? Basic massive particles?
[2015-03-22] Basic fermions.
Thought: When a voyager reaches a cliff, the only way to go on up may be to go down, perhaps even to the bottom to start over.
The previous post on movement introduced a testable hypothesis, that the left hand preference in nucleons is due to the rotation of the earth rather than a preference of the universe.
Testing Left-Handed Preference
Since the blog on movement, further reflection suggests testing in a counter-rotating centrifuge is not likely to be adequate, since the portion of time spent moving counter to the Earth's movement is probably too short for nucleons to adopt any measurable preference for right- handedness. Even "long" linear accelerators sending particles west would probably not see much right-handedness. A geo-circular track is hardly worth the effort to shorten the Lagrangian. Sending a plane westward faster than the earth is spinning may not be cost effective.
Experiments could be run in counter-rotating centrifuges at the North or South Pole as well as outer space. Cold comfort in having multiple (two) locations to confirm experimental results. Even without a centrifuge, the author might expect the preference for left-handedness to diminish over time at the poles. Though shivering in the cold waiting for [Edit 2015-03-22] cobalt-60 atoms to make up their minds does not sound like fun, knowing how long a preference takes to establish by watching the rate of change of the preference would be interesting.
Explanation
The handedness effect is seen in the mnp Model not as secondary to coils rotating in the rotating frame of reference of earth bound labs, but probably as a tertiary result of the extra/odd coil (which also leads to quantum spin) preferring to be on the outside of the rotation, and preferring to rotate clockwise looking in the direction of movement, rather than a secondary result of all coils preferring to rotate clockwise when they transition for moving forward with coil axis outside the tangent to movement to having coil axis inside the tangent.
Explanation Attempt #2: In the mnp Model, the basic structure of quarks, electrons, and positrons is seen as quantized loops that coil and twist. When rotating around a mass or charge, coils transition between orientation left and orientation right of the line of movement. The transition happens both ways (the same number of times) and involves a coil/ring needing to go through perpendicular to movement and hence “stop” forward movement at the instant of crossing. Both transitions from left to right and right to left lead to the coil itself slowing compared to the particle as a whole. See drawing 4 in Movement So the preference is seen as a real result of geometry dependent on rotation direction. Preference is still poorly understood and hence poorly explained.
Neutrino preference for left-handedness is also seen as a result of the preference shown by the leptons from which the neutrinos arise. Even in the sun, neutrino preference is seen as a local phenomenon resulting from rotation and not as a universal preference. To be continued.
Humor
The author is reminded of a phrase from childhood "Well, that was as clear as mud." The author commends the LHC attitude "if we find something unexpected, then we'll need to come up with an explanation."
Since then, most of the unpublished notes fall into four categories: magnetism, Constituent Theory, movement, and musings on approaches and philosophy.
This post will address movement, since that contains a testable hypothesis, with musings on "mnp in Concept Space" in the Appendix.
Consider the first of the Hauser Criteria "can you show F=ma at least in some limit" and the underlying issue "What is movement." The mnp Model's intent is to answer why the experimental results, including conservation of momentum, beyond the very useful mathematically based "velocity in an inertial frame has a zero derivative with respect to time, therefore it must be conserved."
What is needed for a model of movement, if movement is to emerge rather than being posited mathematically? At any given velocity, inertia is maintained. A steady state for a free lepton / an electron or positron should, probably, represent a steady state for the basic entities in a Model like mnp that posits "substructure." The first image of movement, from 2011, in the mnp Model showed a ring with the effective orientation of travel for each of the basic entities in the ring angled at asin(v/c)
This suggested that a complete cycle of the ring would take 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) as much time for a complete cycle as for a stationary ring. The "linked rings" model was soon abandoned, replaced later by the coiled loop model, which moves and hangs together better. Going back and modeling coils as a set of rings may be a useful abstraction as a first order approximation to model movement, coil orientation, and distribution.
In this post, the author will try a model based on having all the basic entities in an electron or positron at the same angle to the coil, so that variation of the coil is absent or minimized. Based on "all tests of the electron and muon indicate that they are homogeneous." Choose an attack angle asin(v/c).
[2015-03-16] Diagrams and explanatory text added:
The careful reader may note that the author has finally allowed the Axis to parallel Travel for p's,
the reverse of all previous blogs and writings that considered the n entities that make up electrons to have Axis parallel to Travel.
The new diagram, with n's Axis anti-parallel to Travel, is seen as more convenient for physicists to learn and for the mathematics to more easily follow current conventions of charge sign.
1) Basic Entity Travel Around a Ring/Coil at "Low" Particle Velocity for n's and p's
2) Basic Entity Travel Around a Ring/Coil at "Moderate" Particle Velocity for n's and p's
3) Basic Entity "Travel" Around a Ring/Coil at High Particle Velocity for n's
Notice that the net Travel influence along the tangent of the coil/ring is constant at all velocities if the net effect is proportional to the cosine of the angle between "fellow travelers."
The author was excited to see that the net effect of Axis would also be constant at all velocities, with the Axis of the m mediators balancing the reduction in Axis effect from the n's or p's traveling more in the direction of particle movement as velocity increases.
On further review and introspection, this Axis effect is probably not likely in the current Model.
In quarks, with a mix of n and p strands, the author finds it unlikely that equivalent portions of the m's would have diametrically opposed Axes.
More likely is that all the Axis attraction effect for the m's would lead to the m's Axes pointing inward.
Comment: the saving grace of this adjuctment/correction is that the Axis attraction, while less than the Travel attraction, will tend to keep the coil and mediators locked together at high velocities.
End drawings added [2015-03-16]
The drawings show adding mediators m's in proportion to 1/cos(v/c) with the "angle of attack" for each ring. Side comment: If mediator m's join the basic coil in proportion to 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), the resultant around the coil may be the same. It is not true momentum, so further development and understanding will be needed. The advantage of this sort of model is that the energy seem in high energy particle physics is carried with the particle as relativistic energy, without a need to recruit energy/mass in a collision.
The drawings show the Axis of recruited/entrained m's as perpendicular to the tilted plane of the ring. Actually, the Axis is more likely to be in toward the center of the ring since that is perpendicular to the movement but in the plane of the bend in the coil
Ideally, one would like a distribution of rings that allows smooth consistent behavior of the constituent figments (no sharp turns …) Note that the stationary case will have "torque" in that there will be an odd number of coils, so quantum mechanic's spin is safe for now.
[2015-03-16] The variation in coil/ring orientation may be simply modeled as a sin distribution, with essentially no rings at the extremes of "possible" orientation since no coils will be actually perpendicular to movement. A few coils may transiently have orientation outside the "possible" orientations, with a portion of the coil moving backwards in the underlying Minkowski space,
but that transient situation would theoretically not exist for electrons or positrons in pure steady state inertial movement.
[2015-03-16] Note: The coordinate system has theta ranging 0 to pi/2 with a LR (or +-) "dimension" for rotation direction, which will be more convenient than seeing the coil orientations as two separate ranges angles because the numbers wind up in separate regions 0 to pi/2 and 3pi/2 to 2pi that are contiguos physically but not numerically.
This seems almost too neat - approaches the c limit properly, carries the mass along for interactions that the high energy experiments see, inertia possible as long as energy (m's) isn't taken. We need to see what shape the coils will take, but the travel direction changing smoothly to the c limit case of ring moving along its axis looks good.
At a given velocity of movement, answering the question "what is the distribution of ring orientations?" will be investigated in reverse. For a given angle to the ring, what is the distribution of ring orientations and the resultant average movement velocity for the particle/collection of rings.
[2015-03-16]
4) Geometry of Ring/Coil Oriented at Angle Theta to Direction or Particle Movement
If the ring axis aligns with the direction of particle movement, the effective movement will be at v. If the ring axis is perpendicular to the direction of movement, the net progress will be 0. Conveniently, the net effect on movement of a ring tilted at theta is v cos theta. So to move, the coil wants few or no rings perpendicular to movement. In a steady state, theta sub max should be no more than pi/2 -asin(v/c).
If the distribution of ring orientations between theta = 0 and theta = pi/2 - asin(v/c) is a sin distribution sin(theta pi / (pi/2-asin(v/c))) So the net movement, before renormalization, is integral v cos theta sin(theta pi/(pi/2-asin(v/c))) from 0 to pi/2-asin(v/c).
From Gradshteyn(1965) 2.533 #1 where b is 1 and a is pi/(pi/2-asin(v/c)) is -cos(a+b)theta/(2(a+b)) - cos(a - 1 theta / 2(a - 1) where b is always greater than 1.
The normalizing denominator for the probability distribution function is the integral from 0 to pi/2-asin(v/c) of sin(theta pi/(pi/2-asin(v/c))).
Table of Effective Average Velocity for Given "Velocity" Angle in Coils
v/c
net v factor
net v
0.0000
0.6667
0.0000
0.0872
0.6996
0.0610
0.1736
0.7313
0.1270
0.2588
0.7616
0.1971
0.3420
0.7906
0.2704
0.4226
0.8180
0.3457
0.5000
0.8438
0.4219
0.5736
0.8678
0.4978
0.6428
0.8901
0.5721
0.7071
0.9105
0.6438
0.7660
0.9289
0.7116
0.8192
0.9453
0.7744
0.8660
0.9597
0.8311
0.9063
0.9719
0.8808
0.9397
0.9820
0.9227
0.9659
0.9898
0.9561
0.9848
0.9955
0.9804
0.9962
0.9989
0.9951
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
Note that at lower velocities, the effective average velocity of movement is less by as much as 33 percent. At lower velocities, should we just increase the angle between stationary ring plane and the figment travel direction by up to 50% to compensate? The author is unwilling to make that leap, given his interest in finding something conforming to Lorentz transformations. The error bars appear to be, much too large to make a simple ring collection/set of coils a plausible slam-dunk of a concept.
Is there a distribution function that would allow the coil angle to match the net average velocity? Not with the simple geometry and distributions shown so far, unless every coil had axis at theta = 0.
So for now, the author prefers to leave this investigation "incomplete" rather than resorting to "tuning."
A constituent theory would be compatible with this understanding (and maybe the math) since instead of needing to show a mechanism it could rely on "it just works" and "here' is the 'math' to prove it."
The author had early on thought of making left rotating coils have theta angle 3pi/2 to pi, but finds it easier to separate left from right coils by a "logical" dimension LR so that the theta angle range is compact. But that side trip lead to an appreciation for the need to have an equal or almost equal distribution of right and left rotating coils. Off by one is suggested by past mnp articles. And to an appreciation, at high velocities, for the difficulty coils have in "crossing over" to rotate the opposite direction, as would happen in large body rotation.
This qualitative picture of movement has implications for rotation as well. A lone unified particle will not rotate - thank you Boltzmann. But a particle rotating around another mass or charge will rotate itself, since at any velocity greater than 0 the individual coils will delay crossing over the theta=pi/2 orientation but then will "hurry back" leading, the author guesses, to precession inn the direction or rotation.
Nuclei are freer to rotate inside the electron shell than is the shell itself, which is constrained by surrounding shells. The author suggests the odd coil (particles have an odd number of coils) will prefer to rotate in one direction in a rotating frame, though that preference may not establish itself immediately.
The author humbly suggests that a left-hand preference is not a universal phenomenon but an Earthbound (and counterclockwise rotating frame) phenomenon. Given the current universal non-acceptance of the mnp Model, there is of course no need to reprint the Lagrangian t-shirts nor change typeface size on said resources.
Sending a cobalt decay experiment into space may be difficult. Running a centrifuge at 1000 to 1500 kph perpendicular to the Earth's axis but counter to the rotation of the earth may be possible. Trapping the emitted nucleons and measuring their spin might be rather difficult.
The mnp Model's conceit is that if a simple explanation for many phenomena is available, explanations for quantum and gravitational effects might be combined.
The author's effort feels strikingly similar to Watson,Crick, and Franklin's search for the structure of DNA, given the fuzzy pictures and incomplete but suggestive information available at the time. Hints in that endeavor included measurements of relative quantities of ACGT and the doubling behavior of the gene/chromosome.
Both of which suggest a binary rather than ternary model. The attempt to decide how many pairs coded amino acids was an interesting effort. Since 20 amino acids were known to be present in life, each DNA pair could have 4 values, the conclusion that triples offered 64 possibilities, which was enough to produce 20 amino acids, some more than others, with punctuation thrown in. Enough, but not too much.
In like manner, the mnp Model seems to be fairly compact and fairly parsimonious - there isn't a lot of conceptual space for more stuff, but it seems like it could encompass that which is measured and therefore known in physics. Of course, that remains to be shown. Telling is not sufficient.
The mnp Model is attempting to predict 4 forces, 3+ fields, quark behavior, and the existence of particles by finding underlying first principle(s).
The reader is welcome to pick one/pick all that apply to the effort: impossible, foolish, unlikely, dangerous, stupid, audacious, arrogant, insane, brave.
The author feels that the mnp Model is "compact" in the sense that concepts, forces, and particles are closely related, that for any given binary attribute, a different concept/particle/force occupies both positions along that attribute "dimension," and that all influences are highly local with long range effects produced by propagated fields interacting.
For example, neutrinos and the particles of light called fhotons here differ only in that fhotons have a polarity and neutrinos' basic constituent entities have a random polarity. Positive and negative charges differ only in the direction of their "polarity" called Axis in mnp. Matter gets its concept of measured time and measured distance only from its constituent coiled loops and their distortion under movement and gravitational (and other) fields.
The difference between "light like" and "particulate" is clear, and does lead to differences in response to fields including gravity. Not all conceptual division yield symmetry on both sides. Quantization arises from one attribute of the combination of the basic attributes.
Due to geometry, the division between "light like" and "Particulate" is not symmetrical, in that "classes" of neutrinos have no automatic correspondence in particles other than a propensity of certain particles to react with certain size neutrinos and perhaps neutrinos of one of the two "inclinations"
Particulate.
Within light like are "basic entities" "unaffiliated loops" "unaffiliated non-quantized loops" and 2 light like particles: fhotons and neutrinos.
Wavelengths for moving particles, fhotons, and neutrinos are field disturbances in the random field potential of basic entities that are usually denser near matter. Electro-magnetic radiation results when fhotons, which are polarized, add polarization to the gravity wave.
Field types are limited in number:
gravitation (movement in and out of mediators),
charge (movement of mediators tangent to logical spheres around the charge, polarized to match the charge) charge figments - coming in with polarity matching outgoing direction of charge polarity, going out - opposite charge goes out at angle, same charge charges straight out. So recruiting works.
If like charges attracted, would segregate charge pretty quickly. Not a very interesting universe.
magnetism (mediators moving perpendicular to the line of zero force with polarity perpendicular to travel and lined up with originating charge movement)
Limited by what can be created by matter.
Perhaps limited by the author's imagination of what other combinations might be possible
Basic quarks, electrons, and positrons differ only in the proportion of 6 quantized charge loops of either charge.
Weak interactions are reorganization of the charge structure loops of leptons and quarks and electrically neutral "basic" particles the mnp Model calls z's
QCD is replaced by compatible quarks attempting to achieve a simpler reorganization but prevented by their "compatibility" - all other combinations resulted in electrons and positrons or neutral "z's" in the early universe, and when particles were dense, the z's were close enough to encounter each other by chance and form positron/electron pairs.
Strong interactions are a "surface" contact phenomenon.
Attributes aka "Dimensions" fundamental to the conceptual mnp Model do not form an orthogonal space, due mostly to differences in geometry and therefore the variations possible at each level in the hierarchy of conceptual dimensions. So the diagram looks more like an outline.
Basic entities
free entities (3)
potential field patterns that superimpose (to a limit)
organized m's (2 differing by polarized or not)
fhotons - Axis aligned
neutrinos - Axis random (or almost random and slightly left or right)
Quantized loops
Free as part of the field potential or as candidates for weak interactions - considered RARE
Matter as organized, six per quark, electron, positron, or z) 0:6 to 6:0 (7 different charge variations with different cross sections for up, anti-up, and z)
Unquantized loop - not required by the Model but suggested as possible depending on the recruitment processes in the early universe. Unquantized or mis-sized loops are very probably free, and could act like field potential, could interfere with particles for limited times. For example, a long unquantized positive loop could turn a "free" up quark into a free negative charge loop plus a pseudo positron with a loop tail that would not be stable but be likely to break up in the presence of other free loops
The universe as truly flat may not be an accident. Maybe flatness doesn't emerge from a balance of gravitational forces, but from a different concept/mode of action of gravitational influence. The author, of course, nominates mnp as a Model for gravity emerging from interaction between mediators and matter, with (unfortunately for acceptance) a different interaction between mediators and fhotons and neutrinos.
At above .707c, we may get width dilation due to more stuff present?"
So close to c, the m's are traveling mostly in direction of path, with axis lined up with where/how the coils were/are, though the n or p will have its charge axis lined up with travel, so the structure is held at speed by the axis of the m's rather than the axis of the n's or p's as it is in electrons at rest.
Quarks have charge axis pointing both ways. m's are attracted to the coil by Travel direction, not by Axis. The Axis of the m's attracts each other, and probably the [2015-03-16] resultant acts toward the center of the ring/coil.
Except in quark triplets, which get strung out more (pun accidental . Really.) and even separated. [ Even here, could work with constituent theory, if the constituents come in sixths. ] So quark triplets WILL movement with more backward movement for short periods of time.
Might m's be capable of crowding? Might the limit only be on axis overlap?
Might m's be able to crowd more (those used to gluons and mesons and integral spin items being able to overlap might accept this, even though the mechanism is different.)
Possible that the coil does not have to be completely homogenous as long as it is close?
Still need to picture how the coils work and why the constant strand composition allows movement to proceed as we measure it aka as it must for the model to work/reflect reality/survive as a mental construct.
Can the mnp Model continue to the Axis getting skewed for n's or p's in moving coils/loops. The author hopes so, otherwise n's and p's would not be constant.
Are protons moving at almost the speed of light plasma already? If slowed would they retain their identity?
Quantum Mechanics - Why the math works and what it means
Magnetism, B, and Lines of Zero Force
Philosophy - covering and evolving a minimal conceptual space: the mnp Model in Concept Space
On Neutrinos - Do hot sensors with more variation in energy detect more? Do sensors moving in parallel with the neutrinos detect more?
Revisiting the Separation Effect
Most scientists have physics envy; they would like to know as much about their specialty as physics knows about the physical world with as much certainty. And they would like their specialty to be as complicated and mathematical.
As a barbarian laying siege to physics, not at the gates or low points in the wall but at some of the highest bastions, the author can cop to physics envy. He also suggests that most physicists share his mathematics envy. Mathematicians often work in a pure realm without benefit of reality checks or physical limitations or physical intuition.
The writings on mnp are recognized as non-persuasive by the author. When the drafts become descriptive and understandable, the author will declare victory and ... Well, maybe, the profession won't be so lucky as to have him go home.
