ahh jay, welcome to the daaark siiide of particle physics and speculative logical reasoning: luckily this isn't the 1600s, you don't live in italy, and chances are low we're descended from galileo
just reading the page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair i do note, "some of the philosophers who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope" which has not just a teensy bit of resonance....
so as you're speculating along these lines, i'd like to share some insights first not about the topic but about how people have responded *when* discussing such topics, then move on. i tend to find that people react by saying "nonsense, electrons are responsible for blah blah". in other words they quote chapter and verse standard theories. what they *don't* do is provide any *disproof* of the proposed theorem / idea. and these ideas - ones that speculate about the potential roles of neutrinos are INSANELY hard to prove or disprove. more on this later.
in the ERM the neutrino (and very interestingly the neutron) are not "neutral / zero" charge, they are "complex-phase-charged" because their standing-wave elliptical polarisation axis is exp ( +/- i pi/2 ) where the electron and proton's phase are pi and 0 respectively.
dr randall mill's work is a little unclear to me however i *believe* it also supports the same hypothesis. dr mills points out that the lack of "real" E.M presence results in the neutrino collapsing down to an absolutely tiny radius... but in doing so its angular momentum becomes F*****G ENORMOUS - over a thousand times larger than any other well-known particle.
in dr john williamson's work
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/ he notes in passing that if, in the 6D clifford algebra, the photon's phase was rotated through 90 degrees, you end up with an interesting pattern that again has huge angular momentum. he speculates that this would represent a W Boson but did not explore it further. if he had done so it is likely / possible that he would have independently corroborated dr randall mill's findings due to the radius collapsing.
so it's all kiiinda pointing in the same sort-of direction as that along which you are speculating so.. so... what's the word... irreverantly! yes, you're not towing the zealot liiine, by being a faithful follower of the standard model! (foam, froth, froth)
i did notice you read
http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0077 a few days ago, you may have seen the "low-probability" section, bullet-points 4 onwards specifically explore the logical-reasoning chain along similar lines to the one that you explore.
here, whilst i have no formal mathematical basis for *anything* that i am doing (which is really unbelievably frustrating) it seems pretty clear to me that there is strong empirical evidence to suggest that neutrinos are "complex-phased" or "aligned with magnetism in some way". the EM fields of neutrinos are *orthogonal* to those of the electron and proton... but the fascinating thing about the ERM theory is that *so is the neutron*.
i do not know exactly what that means, what the implications are of a standing-wave EM field pattern being primarily in the complex plane not the real plane. does it mean that it would repel, gravitationally, as you speculate? i don't know. it strikes me that it would more likely involve *magnetic* repulsion (and even attraction) than grativational.
the other thing to consider is this: if the neutrino does actually interact with other matter in some way, then like an electron it is highly likely that it would jump to orbital resonance patterns *just like the electron*. in doing so it would "gain energy" that was far more significant than its negligeable "rest mass".
now, given that both the neutron *and* the neutrino have complex-EM-field-presence, the speculation leads along the lines of "well if electrons orbit protons, why the hell can't neutrinos orbit neutrons??"
so this is what took the (further) speculation along the lines described in the ERM lexicon. what would the consequences of neutrons orbiting neutrinos be? that would mean that a bare neutron is actually really quite unlikely: it would actually be more like a neutron-ion: a neutron-ion-plus-neutrino-with-a-hole-in-its-shell (like an H+ ion).
that would *also* mean that neutron *hypothetically* could bond... with *another neutron*, couldn't it?
and what would *that* look like? as in: what would the properties of such a neutron-neutron "compound" have? well, it would be:
* chemically inert.
* highly stable
* electrically inert
* magnetically inert
in fact it wouldn't react with anything, respond to anything: no magnetic fields could probe it or "bottle it", no electrical fields could interact with it. no other chemicals or compounds would react with it. it would not "decay" like a bare neutron does...
... looking one hell of a lot like "dark matter", isn't it?
the main problem is, where the hell would we even *find* the damn stuff, in order to explore it? how can you find a chemically-inert, magnetically-inert, electrically-inert compound *in the first place* in order to do experiments that prove OR DISPROVE its existence??
i may have this question backwards. it may be the case that enough neutrons kicking around naturally form N-N bonds when in close proximity. it may be the case that the bonds are sufficiently weak that when neutrons are created and stored / explored, if they *do* forum N-N compounds those bonds break apart very very easily, the point being *i don't know*. it may be the case that complex-number-plane EM field "presence" is nothing like real-number-plane EM fields, such that such bonds cannot and do not exist *i don't know enough to be able to say either way*.
one thing that i do know is, it would be time-consuming but quite straightforward for anyone with chemistry knowledge to explore this hypothesis, by re-examining and re-ordering the periodic table based on the *assumption* that there are neutrino shells. reordering the periodic table by seeing if there are any correlations between hypothetical neutrino shells and the electro-magnetic (particularly para and dia magnetic properties) of the elements.
i invite you to do the same type of speculation, jay. what sorts of long-range speculation would result in an actual experiment that could be tested to prove or disprove the idea that neutrinos react to the rest of matter with *anti-gravitational* properties? can you calculate how *many* neutrinos must have been created since the beginning of time? (stars produce them so there should be a *lot*) can you make some estimates on how many of those are still in space? how many would be needed to begin to actually start to have the gravitational effect that you're speculating about?
anyway, welcome to the far-out club. you may encounter people telling you that standard accepted theories "prove" that what you're speculating about is nonsense... which is a non-sense approach. i leave it up to you to decide whether to remind such people that it would be helpful for them to provide a *disproof* of the hypothesis rather than "believe in an established position", just like the catholic church did to galileo... but, you can't *make* people put their eye to the telescope...
ahh jay, welcome to the daaark siiide of particle physics and speculative logical reasoning: luckily this isn't the 1600s, you don't live in italy, and chances are low we're descended from galileo :) just reading the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair i do note, "some of the philosophers who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope" which has not just a teensy bit of resonance....
so as you're speculating along these lines, i'd like to share some insights first not about the topic but about how people have responded *when* discussing such topics, then move on. i tend to find that people react by saying "nonsense, electrons are responsible for blah blah". in other words they quote chapter and verse standard theories. what they *don't* do is provide any *disproof* of the proposed theorem / idea. and these ideas - ones that speculate about the potential roles of neutrinos are INSANELY hard to prove or disprove. more on this later.
in the ERM the neutrino (and very interestingly the neutron) are not "neutral / zero" charge, they are "complex-phase-charged" because their standing-wave elliptical polarisation axis is exp ( +/- i pi/2 ) where the electron and proton's phase are pi and 0 respectively.
dr randall mill's work is a little unclear to me however i *believe* it also supports the same hypothesis. dr mills points out that the lack of "real" E.M presence results in the neutrino collapsing down to an absolutely tiny radius... but in doing so its angular momentum becomes F*****G ENORMOUS - over a thousand times larger than any other well-known particle.
in dr john williamson's work http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/ he notes in passing that if, in the 6D clifford algebra, the photon's phase was rotated through 90 degrees, you end up with an interesting pattern that again has huge angular momentum. he speculates that this would represent a W Boson but did not explore it further. if he had done so it is likely / possible that he would have independently corroborated dr randall mill's findings due to the radius collapsing.
so it's all kiiinda pointing in the same sort-of direction as that along which you are speculating so.. so... what's the word... irreverantly! yes, you're not towing the zealot liiine, by being a faithful follower of the standard model! (foam, froth, froth)
i did notice you read http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0077 a few days ago, you may have seen the "low-probability" section, bullet-points 4 onwards specifically explore the logical-reasoning chain along similar lines to the one that you explore.
here, whilst i have no formal mathematical basis for *anything* that i am doing (which is really unbelievably frustrating) it seems pretty clear to me that there is strong empirical evidence to suggest that neutrinos are "complex-phased" or "aligned with magnetism in some way". the EM fields of neutrinos are *orthogonal* to those of the electron and proton... but the fascinating thing about the ERM theory is that *so is the neutron*.
i do not know exactly what that means, what the implications are of a standing-wave EM field pattern being primarily in the complex plane not the real plane. does it mean that it would repel, gravitationally, as you speculate? i don't know. it strikes me that it would more likely involve *magnetic* repulsion (and even attraction) than grativational.
the other thing to consider is this: if the neutrino does actually interact with other matter in some way, then like an electron it is highly likely that it would jump to orbital resonance patterns *just like the electron*. in doing so it would "gain energy" that was far more significant than its negligeable "rest mass".
now, given that both the neutron *and* the neutrino have complex-EM-field-presence, the speculation leads along the lines of "well if electrons orbit protons, why the hell can't neutrinos orbit neutrons??"
so this is what took the (further) speculation along the lines described in the ERM lexicon. what would the consequences of neutrons orbiting neutrinos be? that would mean that a bare neutron is actually really quite unlikely: it would actually be more like a neutron-ion: a neutron-ion-plus-neutrino-with-a-hole-in-its-shell (like an H+ ion).
that would *also* mean that neutron *hypothetically* could bond... with *another neutron*, couldn't it?
and what would *that* look like? as in: what would the properties of such a neutron-neutron "compound" have? well, it would be:
* chemically inert.
* highly stable
* electrically inert
* magnetically inert
in fact it wouldn't react with anything, respond to anything: no magnetic fields could probe it or "bottle it", no electrical fields could interact with it. no other chemicals or compounds would react with it. it would not "decay" like a bare neutron does...
... looking one hell of a lot like "dark matter", isn't it? :)
the main problem is, where the hell would we even *find* the damn stuff, in order to explore it? how can you find a chemically-inert, magnetically-inert, electrically-inert compound *in the first place* in order to do experiments that prove OR DISPROVE its existence??
i may have this question backwards. it may be the case that enough neutrons kicking around naturally form N-N bonds when in close proximity. it may be the case that the bonds are sufficiently weak that when neutrons are created and stored / explored, if they *do* forum N-N compounds those bonds break apart very very easily, the point being *i don't know*. it may be the case that complex-number-plane EM field "presence" is nothing like real-number-plane EM fields, such that such bonds cannot and do not exist *i don't know enough to be able to say either way*.
one thing that i do know is, it would be time-consuming but quite straightforward for anyone with chemistry knowledge to explore this hypothesis, by re-examining and re-ordering the periodic table based on the *assumption* that there are neutrino shells. reordering the periodic table by seeing if there are any correlations between hypothetical neutrino shells and the electro-magnetic (particularly para and dia magnetic properties) of the elements.
i invite you to do the same type of speculation, jay. what sorts of long-range speculation would result in an actual experiment that could be tested to prove or disprove the idea that neutrinos react to the rest of matter with *anti-gravitational* properties? can you calculate how *many* neutrinos must have been created since the beginning of time? (stars produce them so there should be a *lot*) can you make some estimates on how many of those are still in space? how many would be needed to begin to actually start to have the gravitational effect that you're speculating about?
anyway, welcome to the far-out club. you may encounter people telling you that standard accepted theories "prove" that what you're speculating about is nonsense... which is a non-sense approach. i leave it up to you to decide whether to remind such people that it would be helpful for them to provide a *disproof* of the hypothesis rather than "believe in an established position", just like the catholic church did to galileo... but, you can't *make* people put their eye to the telescope... :)