Neutrino

[granpa]

The neutron is a subatomic particle with no net electric charge and a mass slightly larger than that of a proton.

Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a half-life of 611.0±1.0 s (about 10 minutes, 11 seconds).

A neutron spontaneously breaks down into a proton, an electron, and an electron-antineutrino.

 

The radius of an electron in the ground state of a hydrogen atom is known as the Bohr radius and is equal to 0.529 angstroms.

This is tens of thousands of times larger than the nucleus.

It is often said, therefore, that the electron is too big to fit inside a neutron.

 

But that is only true if the only force binding the electron inside the neutron is electromagnetism.

If a much stronger force were attracting it then it would indeed fit inside the neutron.

The only force strong enough to do that is the strong nuclear force.

 

Unlike all the other forces the strong_force actually increases with (and is proportional to) distance from the center.

(All other forces decrease rapidly with distance)

Gamma rays emitted from nuclei typically have energies up to around 10 million electron volts.

(2.4 × 10^21 Hz)

 

Neutrinos have only one millionth of the mass of an electron yet they have the same amount of angular momentum. This suggests that they might be rotating fast enough to produce a very powerful and energetic gravito-magnetic field.

 

Strangely, particles with gravito-magnetic fields would spontaneously align opposite to one another thereby canceling out each other's fields.

(Exactly the opposite of what particles with magnetic fields do)

 

Might this not explain some of the counterintuitive quantum mechanical behaviors that are seen in atoms? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_pair

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_pair

 

Just as a neutron can be thought of as a spinning proton plus a spinning electron (albeit a surprisingly small one) with no net electric field yet still having a net magnetic field so a neutrino would consist of a spinning negative gravitational charge and a spinning positive gravitational charge with no net gravitational charge yet still having a net gravito-magnetic field. If so then there should be quite a strong gravitational field within the neutrino.

Perhaps this is the source of the van der Waals force

 

Gravito-electromagnetism is fascinating but the analogy with electromagnetism does break down in one crucial aspect.

The gravitational field is not so much a field of "force" as it is a field of "acceleration".

Everything within that field accelerates at the same rate regardless of its inertial or active gravitational mass.



neutron = proton+electron+neutrino

Neutino = positive active gravitational mass + negative active gravitational mass + ?

if we could split the neutrino into its constituent parts then maybe we could use those to create an anti-gravitational effect. 

(And possibly a propulsion system too)

(It might not be necessary to completely separate the two parts. A simple dipole field might be sufficient)

Perhaps tau neutrino = electron neutrino + muon neutrino

[swansont]

The radius of an electron in the ground state of a hydrogen atom is known as the Bohr radius and is equal to 0.529 angstroms.

This is tens of thousands of times larger than the nucleus.

It is often said, therefore, that the electron is too big to fit inside a neutron.

That's not the size of the electron, it's the size of a hydrogen atom; the average orbital radius.

 

 

But that is only true if the only force binding the electron inside the neutron is electromagnetism.

There is no electron inside the neutron.

 

Neutrinos have only one millionth of the mass of an electron yet they have the same amount of angular momentum. This suggests that they might be rotating fast enough to produce a very powerful and energetic gravito-magnetic field.

QM spin is not physical rotation.

 

Just as a neutron can be thought of as a spinning proton plus a spinning electron (albeit a surprisingly small one) with no net electric field yet still having a net magnetic field

No, really, it can't. You can't add a spin-1/2 electron to a spin-1/2 proton and get a spin-1/2 neutron. That violates conservation of angular momentum, among other problems.

 

so a neutrino would consist of a spinning negative gravitational charge and a spinning positive gravitational charge with no net gravitational charge yet still having a net gravito-magnetic field. If so then there should be quite a strong gravitational field within the neutrino.

Perhaps this is the source of the van der Waals force

van der Waal's forces are well understood in terms of induced dipole moments

 

You need more than hand-waving for this. The standard model works quite well. You need to explain quite a lot (and do so quantitatively) if you wish to replace it.

[granpa]

 

No, really, it can't. You can't add a spin-1/2 electron to a spin-1/2 proton and get a spin-1/2 neutron. That violates conservation of angular momentum, among other problems.

 

I guess you missed this part

 

neutron = proton+electron+neutrino

[elfmotat]

Except we know what you're telling us is false. The neutron is comprised of gluons and three quarks, not electrons protons and neutrinos. There are no electrons or neutrinos or protons inside a neutron.

[swansont]

I guess you missed this part

You're right, I stopped reading.

 

Confining an electron and an antineutrino inside a proton has issues with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as well. You also need independent evidence that the confining forces actually exist. How would a neutrino get ejected from the sun if it had a strong gravitational attraction?

[Sensei]

neutron = proton+electron+neutrino

Neutino = positive active gravitational mass + negative active gravitational mass + ?

if we could split the neutrino into its constituent parts then maybe we could use those to create an anti-gravitational effect. 

(And possibly a propulsion system too)

(It might not be necessary to completely separate the two parts. A simple dipole field might be sufficient)

Perhaps tau neutrino = electron neutrino + muon neutrino

Learn how to calculate decay energy (article from my signature), then apply to any unstable isotope (there is 3142 isotopes of 118 elements, majority unstable, so pick up randomly few and calculate D.E.)

You will see that (anti)neutrino that's emitted while Beta Decay Plus/Minus, has positive mass, and positive energy.

 

BTW, there is no single energy that has neutrino. It's varying. f.e. Anti-neutrino from Tritium decay has between ~0 to 18.6 keV energy.

[granpa]

You're right, I stopped reading.Confining an electron and an antineutrino inside a proton has issues with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as well. You also need independent evidence that the confining forces actually exist. How would a neutrino get ejected from the sun if it had a strong gravitational attraction?

once again you aren't reading what I wrote.

I said that the neutrino consists of a positive and a negative gravitational charge and therefore has zero net gravitational charge.

It only has a gravitational field within itself.

(I doubt it would matter anyway since neutrinos are emitted with so much energy)

 

the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is fully accounted for in the Bohr model.

You should know that.

Learn how to calculate decay energy (article from my signature), then apply to any unstable isotope (there is 3142 isotopes of 118 elements, majority unstable, so pick up randomly few and calculate D.E.)You will see that (anti)neutrino that's emitted while Beta Decay Plus/Minus, has positive mass, and positive energy.BTW, there is no single energy that has neutrino. It's varying. f.e. Anti-neutrino from Tritium decay has between ~0 to 18.6 keV energy.

I never said anything about negative energy or negative inertial mass.

I only talked about negative active gravitational mass (which I prefer to call gravitational charge)

Edited January 2, 2015 by granpa

[xyzt]

once again you aren't reading what I wrote.

I said that the neutrino consists of a positive and a negative gravitational charge and therefore has zero net gravitational charge.

 

There is no such thing as "gravitational charge".

[granpa]

There is no such thing as "gravitational charge".

Did science suddenly develop the ability to prove a negative while I was away?

[Strange]

Did science suddenly develop the ability to prove a negative while I was away?

 

OK. What evidence do you have for "gravitational charge"? What evidence do you have that neutrinos have internal structure? What evidence do you have that shows the quark model to be wrong?

 

 

It is often said, therefore, that the electron is too big to fit inside a neutron.

 

What evidence do you have that anyone has ever said this?

 

 

But that is only true if the only force binding the electron inside the neutron is electromagnetism.

If a much stronger force were attracting it then it would indeed fit inside the neutron.

The only force strong enough to do that is the strong nuclear force.

 

What evidence do you have that electrons take part in the strong interaction?

How do you explain the existence of free electrons, if this were true?

 

 

This suggests that they might be rotating fast enough to produce a very powerful and energetic gravito-magnetic field.

 

What evidence do you have that neutrinos are "rotating"?

 

 

Just as a neutron can be thought of as a spinning proton plus a spinning electron

 

What evidence do you have that neutrons can be thought of this way?

[granpa]

I've given you the pointers that you need.

Now you must do your own homework.

Edited January 2, 2015 by granpa

[Strange]

I've given you the pointers that you need.

Now you must do your own homework.

 

Why? Your "pointers" are just nonsense with no supporting evidence. Why would anyone waste time doing "homework" on this drivel? If you can't be bothered to support it, I'm certainly not going to waste time on it.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Strange

[granpa]

And this concerns me how?

Edited January 2, 2015 by granpa

[Mordred]

I've given you the pointers that you need.

Now you must do your own homework.

I suggest you study the gauge symmetry rules. Your model breaks conservation of color, flavor, Lepton number and isospin. Study the SO(5) and SO(10) symmetry rules

[granpa]

you left out conservation of momentum and energy

Edited January 2, 2015 by granpa

[Strange]

And this concerns me how?

 

Well, I don't know. You tell me what the point is of spouting a load of nonsense that you don't want to provide any evidence for? Was it an exercise in creative writing?

you left out conservation of momentum and energy

 

It isn't obvious that your "theory" violates those. Looks like you need to try harder.

[Mordred]

you left out conservation of momentum and energy

Swansort already mentioned that

Besides those rules I mentioned include energy and momentum

[swansont]

once again you aren't reading what I wrote.

The hand-waving is quite distracting

 

I said that the neutrino consists of a positive and a negative gravitational charge and therefore has zero net gravitational charge.

It only has a gravitational field within itself.

How is it allegedly confined within the neutron?

 

(I doubt it would matter anyway since neutrinos are emitted with so much energy)

That would be something a quantitative model would be able to predict, if one had a quantitative model.

 

the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is fully accounted for in the Bohr model.

You should know that.

Um, no, it's not. The Bohr model predates the HUP by about 15 years, does not have the electron confined in the nucleus and, of course, is wrong. You should know that.

 

I never said anything about negative energy or negative inertial mass.

I only talked about negative active gravitational mass (which I prefer to call gravitational charge)

What's the difference?

[granpa]

Um, no, it's not. The Bohr model predates the HUP by about 15 years

 

whether it predates it or not, it still incorporates it.

I would have been happy to answer some of your questions but if you're just going to be flat out dishonest like this then I see no point in even trying to discuss it with you.

Edited January 2, 2015 by granpa

[Strange]

whether it predates it or not, it still incorporates it.

 

Maybe you could explain why you think that? (If you can be bothered.)

[granpa]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus

The neutron has a positively charged core of radius ≈ 0.3 fm surrounded by a compensating negative charge of radius between 0.3 fm and 2 fm.

[Strange]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus

The neutron has a positively charged core of radius ≈ 0.3 fm surrounded by a compensating negative charge of radius between 0.3 fm and 2 fm.

 

What is the relevance of that?

[Mordred]

The problem isn't the particle list you stated the neutron decays into. The problem is your misguided methodology of the decay process. I gave you a hint when I mentioned the conservation list I provided. The key one is conservation of color. Which is how the quarks decay from the neutron to form the proton. In order for this chain to work you are missing one key virtual particle which carried a specific charge. Hence the conservation of charge infraction. The conservation of flavor is also maintained by that missing particle.

 

[latex]W^-[/latex]

 

A particle does not contain other particles. Decay does not mean a particle is made up of the particles they decay into.

 

The others have already pointed out your other mistakes in your descriptive such as the anti mass. There is no such entity. Anti particles have positive mass not anti mass. The only difference between a particle and it's antimatter component is its charge

Ps the decay chain needed uses that particle in an intermediate decay to reach your resultant particles.

 

Google neutron decay for examples

Here this basic site has the feyman diagram

 

https://www.quora.com/What-causes-a-free-neutron-to-decay-and-what-becomes-of-it

conservation laws

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavour_(particle_physics)

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_number

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_isospin

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangeness

this one also applies in decays

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_conservation

 

 

The other conservation laws are commonly known.

conservation of energy, momentum and spin

Google eightfold way on the Baryon conservation. Including the Baryon decuplet Baryon octet

 

There is also the meson octet to be familiar with

As they apply to the above conservation laws

Forgot to add the different quarks have different mass.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Mordred

[granpa]

conservation laws are not written in stone by the finger of God.

 

Thou shalt conserve momentum.

Thou shalt conserve energy.

Thou shalt conserve lepton number.

Thou shalt conserve baryon number.

Edited January 3, 2015 by granpa

[Mordred]

Your right but they are by more experimentation and scientific methodologies than you have shown. They are tested on a regular basis, if you wish anyone to seriously look at your model. You will need to account for them.