FrediFizzx wrote:Hi Jay,
It's torsion, baby! You can do away with your blackhole wormhole trapping by realizing it is gravitational torsion due to the intrinsic spin of the neutrino that gives it anti-gravity properties. However in the case of the neutrino, it is a tricky business. In a electrically charged fermion such as an electron, the torsion effect is all contained within the "size" of the electron near the Planck length. But perhaps not so in the neutrino's case. The neutrino is indeed a strange beast.
http://einstein-cartan.org/wp/
.
FrediFizzx wrote:..And then the neutrino will have anti-gravity properties since we show that torsion self-energy is negative. Which is entirely within the realm of possibility...
Q-reeus wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:..And then the neutrino will have anti-gravity properties since we show that torsion self-energy is negative. Which is entirely within the realm of possibility...
Is it Fred? Would your anti-grav neutrinos for consistency have -ve inertial mass also, or is equivalence principle fundamentally violated? That neutrinos have +ve inertial mass was an ab initio assumption of Wolfgang Pauli, who first postulated them to explain the 'missing' momentum and energy in Beta decay. Since born out in many experiments.
lkcl wrote:guys remember, you are talking about the rest mass of a ground zero state neutrino, bare mass. where you need to check that the absolutely enormous angular momentum caused by the tiny radius. the torsional energy would need to be unbelievably spectacularly large to result in anti-gravitational effects.
but also when (if) a neutrino jumps to an orbital shell around a neutron, the radius is no longer tiny, it is pretty much exactly the same or really is exactly the same as that of an orbital electron. under such circumstances the torsional energy would *not* be greater so it would *not* have anti-gravitational effects.
jay, that paper was one of the first times i encountered your work, 5 years ago i think. i was doing mass analysis at the time. i don't know if you remember, the comments are still there. you had such accurate calculations that i was able to subtract proton from neutron from electron orbital energy, and the remainder came out precisely and exactly to the neutrino mass. so there is an indirect correlation to the hypothesis that a neutron does in fact have one orbital neutrino around it.
now, given the incredibly low mass of a neutrino i suspect that the "virtual particle get created and destroyed all the time" rules are such that it's quite likely very easy for a bare neutron without an orbital neutrino to end up *making* its own neutrino-anti-neutrino pair, capture the one and eject the other.
question for the hypothesis you propose. with all the stars that exist, surely there have been... insane numbers of neutrinos created. you need to estimate how many, for the hypothesis to hold water. but, also, you need an explanation as to why all those neutrinos do not show up in the background radiation.
FrediFizzx wrote:The torsional self-energy of a neutrino is equal to the rest mass energy, however with a sign difference. This has to be the case since after more research, it has been shown that neutrinos don't self-interact through any weak force "charge".
I doubt very much that neutrinos would have any kind of orbital shells in an atom. They are just too light.
lkcl wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:The torsional self-energy of a neutrino is equal to the rest mass energy, however with a sign difference. This has to be the case since after more research, it has been shown that neutrinos don't self-interact through any weak force "charge".
dr mill's logic, which makes a lot of sense, hypothesises that the reason why the neutrino does not interact is not at all because of its tiny radius, but because as a *side-effect* of that tiny radius its orbital angular momentum is off the frickin charts: a *thousands* times larger than any other known particle.I doubt very much that neutrinos would have any kind of orbital shells in an atom. They are just too light.
they are too light... *when not in an orbital shell*. you are confusing the rest mass of a neutrino when *not* in an orbital shell with the hypothetical instance where the neutrino *was* in an orbital shell... and consequently its mass would also include the orbital shell energy. the orbital shell energy would result in the neutrino "jumping" to a radius near-identical-and-equal to that of an electron when an *electron* is in an orbital shell, would it not? and if it was equal to that radius, standard compton wavelength mass calculations kick in, don't they?
FrediFizzx wrote:Hi Jay,
I'm surprised that I somehow missed your SU(8) paper. It is quite fantastic! I must have been busy with Joy doing simulations and fighting Bell battles.
After studying your paper some more, I highly suspect that it is gravitational torsion that does the symmetry breaking at the GUT scale. More on that later when I figure it out better.
.
Yablon wrote:...
In a cosmological setting, neutrinos would seek out regions to cluster amongst themselves, and all other particles would cluster amongst themselves, with segregation between the neutrinos and everything else. We know that the other particles are heavily concentrated in stars and planets and galaxies, so we have to presume that the neutrinos congregate in interstellar and intergalactic space. And given that a neutrino can pass through the entire earth, they certainly don’t seem to want to have anything to do with us.
So what if the neutrinos in intergalactic space, because they are repelling the main matter of the galaxies, are forcing the galaxies to appear to be more tightly gravitating than they actually are. In other words, suppose what is holding the galaxies together better than we expect and therefore making us think that we require dark matter is not an attractive force within the galaxies, but a repulsive force coming from the neutrinos congregated outside the galaxies as far as they can get away from regular matter. A push rather than a pull. Then perhaps we don’t need the dark matter anymore, because the real problem is that we have missed the boat on the actual way in which neutrinos gravitate. ...
FrediFizzx wrote:Yablon wrote:...
In a cosmological setting, neutrinos would seek out regions to cluster amongst themselves, and all other particles would cluster amongst themselves, with segregation between the neutrinos and everything else. We know that the other particles are heavily concentrated in stars and planets and galaxies, so we have to presume that the neutrinos congregate in interstellar and intergalactic space. And given that a neutrino can pass through the entire earth, they certainly don’t seem to want to have anything to do with us.
So what if the neutrinos in intergalactic space, because they are repelling the main matter of the galaxies, are forcing the galaxies to appear to be more tightly gravitating than they actually are. In other words, suppose what is holding the galaxies together better than we expect and therefore making us think that we require dark matter is not an attractive force within the galaxies, but a repulsive force coming from the neutrinos congregated outside the galaxies as far as they can get away from regular matter. A push rather than a pull. Then perhaps we don’t need the dark matter anymore, because the real problem is that we have missed the boat on the actual way in which neutrinos gravitate. ...
Jay, this sounds to me like a description of dark energy not dark matter. If the Universe is full of anti-grav neutrinos, it could be what is causing the accelerated expansion. After all, the stars are making more neutrinos all the time. How many of those neutrinos are being destroyed? Probably not many. Of course if this is the case, then it is not really "dark" at all.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 223 guests