Neutrino Speed

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Sylwester Kornowski, Sep 12, 2011.

  1. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    Measurements using the MINOS detectors lead to conclusion that the central value of neutrino speed is a little higher than the speed of photons c:
    Speed-of-neutrino = 1.000051(29)c > c. See:

    arxiv.org/abs/0706.0437

    This is very easy to calculate the speed of neutrino in relation to the speed of photons and gluons. Below I show that the neutrino speed calculated within the Everlasting Theory is consistent with the result obtained in the MINOS experiment. We obtain the correct result when we assume that the Einstein spacetime consists of the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos and that they are the carriers of photons and gluons. The neutrinos in a binary system of neutrinos are entangled due to the exchanges of the neutrinos components i.e. groups of the binary systems of closed strings. Due to the very small inertial mass of the closed strings, the interactions between neutrinos are very weak so the neutrinos in a binary system of neutrinos are moving almost independently. But such interactions cause that speed of free neutrino should be a little higher than speed of the carriers of the photons and gluons i.e. than the c.
    The muons and protons arise from the loops composed of the Einstein spacetime components. Energy of such loops is directly proportional to their radii
    E ~ r i.e. E/r = const. For resting energy is E = mv^2. Spins of muon and the proton are half-integral so we can divide the relation by mvr. Then, we obtain
    v/r^2 = const. Lifetimes of the loops are in proportion to their radii i.e.
    lifetime T = r/v. Finally we obtain that lifetimes are inversely proportional to square of change of speed of the carriers of interactions during decays of particles.
    Neutrons and muons decay due to the weak interactions. In the beta decay, the speed changes from the c (gluons) to the speed of the free electron antineutrino v(neutrino) i.e. the change of speed is v(neutrino) – c. In muon, the two entangled neutrinos, which appear in the decay, are in the rest (v=0) in relation to the spinning muon. During the decay, the two neutrinos are moving with the neutrino speed v(neutrino). We can see that the change of speed for the decaying muon is v(neutrino) – 0. The above remarks lead to following formula

    T(neutron)/T(muon) = 882/(2.2•10^-6) = [(v(neutrino) – 0)/(v(neutrino) – c)]^2 = 4•10^8

    where T(neutron) = 882 s whereas T(muon) = 2.2•10^-6 s.
    From this formula we obtain speed-of-neutrino = 1.00005c.
    More precise result we obtain within the Everlasting Theory: 1.0000508c.
    We must change our vision of nature: The neutrino speed, which is a little higher than the speed of photons and gluons, lead to the ground state of the Einstein spacetime composed of the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos. This is very difficult to detect such binary systems.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    You are right but the central value of neutrino speed is a little higher than the speed of photons c. The theoretical result obtained within the Everlasting Theory is the same as the central value of neutrino speed obtained in the MINOS experiment. Can it be a chance only? We have to wait for more precise experimental data. The obtained central value is inconsistent with the Standard Model (the SM). We can see that the SM has problem with the Higgs mechanism. The Everlasting Theory shows that inertial mass is the more fundamental physical quantity than pure energy (i.e. mass is equal to zero). Energy is carried by inertial masses, for example, the massless photons and gluons are carried by the Einstein spacetime which mass density is not equal to zero. Then, speed of the binary systems of neutrinos should be lower than the free neutrinos. If the speed of free neutrinos is indeed higher than the photons then pure energy cannot be in existence. Then, we must verify the interpretation of the Einstein formula E=mc^2. Of course this formula is correct. The energy-mass transitions are due to the flows in the Einstein spacetime. The Everlasting Theory shows that such flows cannot change the speed of free neutrinos, photons and gluons.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Still peddling the same nonsense 5+ years on I see Sylwester.

    For those of you who haven't looked at his 'work' here's a quote

    And his CV is hardly inspiring. I pity the primary school kids he taught (and I use that in its vaguest sense).
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2011
  8. kurros Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    793
    That is of no importance. Look up "experimental uncertainty".

    Almost certainly. But I somehow doubt it actually predicts much of anything.
     
  9. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    How we can distinguish a better theory from a worse one? This is very simple. Better theory describes more and starts from less parameters. The Everlasting Theory starts from seven parameters only associated with the properties of the two spacetimes. The more fundamental spacetime leads to gravity whereas the Einstein spacetime composed of the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos leads to electromagnetism and the strong and weak interactions. There are hundreds of theoretical results consistent with experimental data. If, for example, AlphaNumeric claims that there are more parameters than the seven or the theoretical results are not consistent with experimental data, he should point out such discordance. The SM starts from at least 20 parameters – you know, the physical constants are the parameters also unless, as it is in the Everlasting Theory, they are derived from the initial parameters. The Everlasting Theory shows that the binary systems of neutrinos are the carriers of the photons and gluons so why they have different properties? Why there are 8 gluons and only 2 not entangled photons (i.e. the right- and left-handed)? And the answer is as follows. The strong field has internal helicity so in the strong field we cannot neglect the internal helicities of the neutrinos the binary systems consist of. We can see that when a gluon goes out of the strong field it transforms into photon. Due to the properties of the Einstein spacetime composed of the binary systems of neutrinos, there is not in existence a confinement of gluons and quarks. The Everlasting Theory leads to the masses of the quarks also – see chapter “New Quantum Chromodynamics” in my electronic book but the other properties of such ‘quarks’ differ very much from the postulated within the SM. Moreover, they do not play an important part. More important are the six sham quarks which lead to the masses of the quarks.
    The Everlasting Theory shows that many phenomena lead to the Einstein spacetime composed of the binary systems of neutrinos. Due to the properties of this spacetime, we can eliminate the Higgs mechanism.
    AlphaNumeric, it could be better to present the contents of my electronic book:
    Abstract 2
    1 Experimental Data and Program of Ultimate Theory 3
    2 Phase Transitions of Newtonian Spacetime, Neutrinos,
    Nucleons, Electrons, Pions and Muons 10
    3 Interactions 26
    4 Structure of Particles (continuation) 43
    5 Liquid-like Plasma 53
    6 New Cosmology 55
    7 Four-shell Model of Atomic Nucleus 72
    8 Mathematical Constants 78
    9 Fractal Field 82
    10 New Big Bang Theory 86
    11 New Quantum Chromodynamics 89
    12 Proton and Loops as Foundations of Theory of Chaos 95
    13 Theoretical Curve for the Kaon-to-Pion Ratio 100
    14 The Cross Section for Production of the W Boson 102
    15 Neutrino Speed and Lifetimes of Neutron and Muon 104
    Recapitulation 105
    Definitions 107

    The extended chapters 11-12 and chapters 13-15 will appear soon on my website.
     
  10. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    Never heard of him before. How'd you encounter him? That bit about DNA is nonsense.
     
  11. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    Why? Where are your scientific arguments? The origin of DNA follows from the coherent theory which starts from the seven parameters only.
     
  12. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    PhysOrg. He was a regular poster up until about a year or two ago.

    I've had to walk him through asymptotic freedom in QCD many times. He didn't understand asymptotic freedom or quark-gluon plasmas. He repeatedly claims to have only 7 parameters and explained everything yet I had to explain to him that coupling 'constants' aren't constant and they vary with energy. Magically his work then suddenly explained that. What a surprise.

    Where are yours? You still peddle the same BS as years ago. Not got any of it published in a journal yet? No one taken you seriously? Still obsessed with the Titius-Bode law, even though its been falsified?
     
  13. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    AlphaNumeric, I should not discuss with you because you read only the front page of my book (now there is 118 pages A4; over time, there will be more). You do not understand that the not solved problems within the Standard Model never will be solved within this theory even after a radical reformulation. Why?
    1.
    There is very high probability that neutrinos are moving with speed higher than the c (1.00005c) AND HAVE MASS. This follows from my Everlasting Theory. In the SM assumes that neutrinos are massless and are moving with speed equal to c.
    2.
    Today, there is very, very high probability that we do not find a Higgs boson. This means that we will have to change our opinion on mass and energy. My theory shows that the inertial mass is the more fundamental physical quantity than pure energy so we can eliminate the Higgs mechanism.
    3.
    The Standard Model does not include gravity so we cannot prove the correctness of the very important Einstein postulate that gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass. This postulate is obvious within the Everlasting Theory. Moreover, my theory shows that gravitational constant G disappears below the Planck critical length i.e. below this length we can say about inertial mass only. This means that below this length, there is new physics and my theory describes it.
    4.
    Within the SM, origin of the masses of neutrinos and quarks is unknown. Within the Everlasting Theory, we can calculate these masses. The calculations show that masses of the quarks play a secondary role and that these masses follow from the atom-like structure of baryons i.e. from the fact there is the massive core and outside it is obligatory the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions.
    5.
    Within the SM we cannot show why massless photons and gluons have different properties. You know, for example, assume that both are the rotational energies then we claim (of course only within the SM) that there are two types of rotational energy!
    6.
    The Feigenbaum universality (see the Theory of Chaos) suggests that internal structure of proton leaks outside it. There appear the Feigenbaum constant 4.669…I showed within the Everlasting Theory that this constant is associated with the atom-like structure of baryons (i.e. with the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions also) and that the structure leaks because the gluons outside the strong field transform into PHOTONS. How you want to show that the quark model leads to the Feigenbaum constant? I claim that it never will be possible.
    7.
    What is the dark energy, where is the lacking dark energy? Can you answer these questions within the SM?
    8.
    The last LHC experiments show that many predictions within the SM are incorrect. For example all CENTRAL values of the cross section for production of the W boson as a function of collision energy lie below the theoretical curves. On base of my theory, I claim that for higher energies will be worse. For example, the curves for the proton-antiproton and the proton-proton collisions will not overlap. They will be divergent!

    And so on…..
    Once more: Even radical changes in the Standard Model will not solve the MOST IMPORTANT unsolved problems. We must change our vision of nature.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2011
  14. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    They have mass and they do NOT move at a speed higher than c.


    This issue has been solved long ago. There is no need for your crackpot "Everlasting" whatever garbage.
     
  15. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    he is possessed. Everlasting theory ?

    Did you come up with that ?
    Is that a real thing ?

    Super TRoll on the look out !!! Up Up and away .

    Looks bogus but I like the numbering and the implication of the Great Me in it!
    You get kudo points for that . Dream on Dreamer . We need them too . It probably don't pay much they way your doing it
     
  16. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    Any questions? Any new ideas? There are many unsolved problems. Some scientific arguments are needed. Then, discussion will be more constructive.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2011
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    And yet I quoted something which isn't on the first page.

    Didn't you notice me quoting your work? Do keep up.

    The Standard Model is but an approximation to something deeper and more fundamental. You'll struggle to find a physicist who disagrees with that. That isn't to say its inaccurate, it's very accurate, it's just not the final word.

    Besides, the 'everlasting theory' you peddle is unable to match it.

    Please quantify, with explicit calculations, this 'very high probability'. It's easy to wave your arms, let's see you crunch some numbers. Go on, I'm actually getting deeper and deeper into information criteria, Bayesian inference and hypothesis testing at the moment, let's see you do the same.

    Quantify that probability.

    Whining the SM doesn't address gravity is like whining evolution doesn't address cosmology. And your 'theory' fails to like up to your claims.

    The TB law doesn't work for strong interactions. You've had years to look that up, I guess you're too dishonest to do so.

    Looks like you never learnt what a gauge group is. It's theoretical physics 101. It's something taught to every theoretical physics student, basic group theory is obligatory.

    No gluon -> photon processes are observed.

    Whining the SM doesn't address those things is like whining evolution doesn't address cosmology.

    Provide the explicit calculations which show the SM wrong. I know plenty of people who work on precisely that sort of thing, they haven't said anything.

    Yes, in 100 years there'll be something beyond the Standard Model, it will be them as Maxwell's work is to us. Doesn't mean the next step is your work.
     
  18. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    Do you claim that some your ideas or calculations are in my book? You know, unblushing lies are a penal act.
    Could be such insinuation intentional? Are in your papers some my ideas or calculations? I must check up your papers.
    Within the atom-like structure of baryons, I proved that for the strong-weak interactions there is asymptote for the running coupling 0.1139. Posters can see it in the chapter “Interactions” in my book.

    You do not understand that difference between a gluon and a photon (they both are the rotational energies) is associated with their carriers i.e. with properties of the binary systems of neutrinos i.e. with properties of the Einstein spacetime components. The gluon -> photon processes never will be observed because they both are the rotational energies. The strong field has internal helicity which follows from the internal helicity of the core of baryons. The neutrinos in the binary systems of neutrinos have internal helicity also what causes that they behave in different way inside and outside the strong field. This is the reason why there are the 8 gluons and only 2 not entangled photons (the left- and right-handed).

    In my book, there are many such calculations:
    1: There is not in existence asymptotic freedom which leads to gas-like plasma. There arises the liquid-like plasma and the asymptote alpha-strong = 0.1139.
    2: The up and down sham quarks have different mass than the postulated INTERVALS in the SM.
    3: Future experiments will show that neutrinos are moving with speed higher than the c.
    4: The Everlasting Theory leads to conclusion that the ratio of the coupling constants for the weak interactions of proton and muon is in approximation 20,000. When we multiply this number by the distance of mass between the charged and neutral pions (about 4.6 MeV) we obtain the mass of the Z boson (about 92 GeV). The distance of mass between the neutral and charged kaons (about 4 MeV) leads to the mass of the W bosons (about 80 GeV). The Everlasting Theory shows also that baryons have the atom-like structure - there is the core and outside it is obligatory the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions. In the d=1 state, there are the relativistic pions - they are under the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions so the proton is the stable particle. The distance of mass in the d=1 state between the relativistic charged and neutral pions is 7.1 MeV. This distance of mass leads to particle which mass is about 140 GeV. This particle is associated with the pions (not with the kaons) so it is the Z-boson-type particle. This means that there should be the hadron jets and it is consistent with experimental data. We can see that the NEW particle leads to the atom-like structure of baryons. I showed why the signal of the new particle is very weak. Origin of mass is different and is associated with the properties of the Einstein spacetime.
    And so on…….

    AlphaNumeric, my theory solves all MAIN problems unsolved within the mainstream theories. I remind you the contents of my book:
    Abstract 2
    1 Experimental Data and Program of Ultimate Theory 3
    2 Phase Transitions of Newtonian Spacetime, Neutrinos,
    Nucleons, Electrons, Pions and Muons 10
    3 Interactions 26
    4 Structure of Particles (continuation) 43
    5 Liquid-like Plasma 53
    6 New Cosmology 55
    7 Four-shell Model of Atomic Nucleus 72
    8 Mathematical Constants 78
    9 Fractal Field 82
    10 New Big Bang Theory 86
    11 New Quantum Chromodynamics 89
    12 Proton and Loops as Foundations of Theory of Chaos 95
    13 Theoretical Curve for the Kaon-to-Pion Ratio 100
    14 The Cross Section for Production of the W Boson 102
    15 Neutrino Speed and Lifetimes of Neutron and Muon 104
    Recapitulation 105
    Definitions 107
     
  19. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Did you read what I said? I quoted you earlier in the thread, I quoted from your pdf.

    Obviously nothing of your work exists in my work, my work is my own and it got published. My work actually got into journals and was cited.

    Flawed reasoning. You claim I don't understand photons and gluons because I don't subscribe to your claims, which you don't have evidence for.

    The Standard Model has a precise reason why they won't ever do that process, at least directly, so it's not like your claimed explanation is the only one. The difference is the SM correctly predicts scattering cross sections for gluon and photon processes.

    You've just made a demonstrably false claim.

    Particles with no mass in 4 dimensions have two kinds of helicity. You can get left and right handed helicities for each particle. If you count those as 2 types of photon then you must count all 8 types of gluons twice, so there are 16.

    What you have just said is contradictory with experiments. Check ****in mate.

    Still don't grasp the difference between confinement and asymptotic freedom. How sad.

    Evidence.

    You were saying that about QCD 5 years ago. It's always just over the hill, isn't it?

    Baseless claims.

    I notice you skipped over my challenge to provide the derivation of the 'high probabilities' you claimed. Can't you back up your claims?

    AlphaNumeric, my theory solves all MAIN problems unsolved within the mainstream theories. I remind you the contents of my book:[/QUOTE]Because listing your BS titles is really going to convince me.

    How many more years you going to piss on this?
     
  20. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    AlphaNumeric, discussion with you is indeed very difficult. The above sentences prove that you did not read my theory. There are four different binary systems of neutrinos. Each gluon has three different helicities: two are associated with the neutrinos whereas the third is associated with the helicity of the binary systems of neutrinos as a whole (the right or left). This means that gluons are 3-coloured (the three internal helicities) and there are the 8 different gluons - see my book, page 49. There are also the six basic sham quarks which arise from the loops overlapping with the orbits. Their radii are 1A/3, 2A/3, A (they follow from the structure of the core of baryons), A+B, A+2B and A+4B (they follow from the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions). For example, the last sham quark leads to the mass of the bottom 'quark' i.e. 4190 MeV. See the chapter titled "New Quantum Chromodynamics" The sham quarks consist of many gluons so they are the 1-coloured particles. They are not the point particles and there is only one colour and one anticolour - not the three colours as is in the SM. Such model leads to the curve R(s)=sqrt(s) consistent with the all experimental data.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2011
  21. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    It's because you can't just spout shit and get away with it, you're forced to face up to your mistakes. Clearly you aren't used to that, else you'd not continue pushing your nonsense.

    You talked about helicity and photons and gluons. I'm telling you what experimental reality says.

    If you count different helicities as different particles there are 2 photons. But then there are 16 gluons. This is experimentally demonstrates. Ignoring helicity there's 1 photon as the dimension of the u(1) Lie algebra is 1 and there's 8 gluons as the dimension of the su(3) Lie algebra is 8. Aside from that they have pretty much the same properties, they are both force carrying bosons which move at the speed of light. Certainly their helicity properties are the same so if you double count one type you must double count the other type.

    You have, once again, contradicted reality. If you can't accept that you're just plain dishonest. But we know that, you haven't been able to back up any of your claims about 'high probabilities', despite being asked more than once.

    For which you have no evidence.

    Evidence says otherwise. Gluons come in 2 helicities and 8 types.

    Colour and helicity is not the same. They are different properties. Colourless particles which move at the speed of light have helicity and coloured objects which don't move at the speed of light don't have helicity. Thus the properties are not synonymous.

    Still obsessed with a non-justified rule which isn't seen in reality.

    Is that the limit of your mathematical skills, something of the form \(A+2^{n}B\)?

    Again, experimental results say otherwise. Quarks have colour charge, and can be one of three colours, named red, green or blue. They cannot be built of gluons because gluons have colour charges of the form red-antiblue, green-antired etc. Again, experimental facts.

    The whole original reason for hypothesising a new charge called colour was because certain hadrons had 3 quarks of the same type in them all in the same quantum state. That would contradict the Pauli exclusion principle unless another state label existed. The fact there's 3 is confirmed, including for bottom quarks, by decay cross sections. The number of colours is a term in the QCD scattering cross sections for quark processes. If the b quark had only 1 possible colour then the amount of particles involved in certain decay modes would be different. The 3 colour model is consistent with the observed results. If you don't have at least 3 colours then certain hadrons contradict the Pauli exclusion principle.

    Your claims are once again killed by experiment. If only you bothered to find out what it was you were making claims about.

    You're doing something typical of cranks. You've got one curve in your considerations and you try to fit your claims to that. What you don't realise is there are hundreds, even thousands, of independent processes, curves, decay rates, cross sections etc, all of which must be accurately explained. The SM hits them all. Can you calculate momentum dependent cross sections? Funny how your 'work' is always just trivial formula which produce a number. Can't you hand working with functions? Do you even know calculus?

    What's the differential cross section for electron-antimuon scattering for incoming momenta \(p^{\mu},p'^{\mu}\) and out going momenta \(q^{\mu},q'^{\mu}\). Show your workings. All you ever do is put some numbers in and know what you're supposed to get out. Constructing actual functional models is what is required, its something I told you about years ago. I see you've taken no time to even look at proper quantum field theory.

    Now, how about you also justify your claims about the SM already being falsified. Do you think people don't notice you make a bunch of wild claims about how the SM is supposedly dead but when asked you can't provide. You don't even know what's in standard textbooks or what you have to explain about experiments, do you think people will believe you keep up to date with the latest research? I question whether you could even do basic calculus.
     
  22. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    When I read your posts, AlphaNumeric, I see that physicists who are engaged in particle physics and cosmology still do not understand that they are going the wrong way. Decades go by, big accelerators are built up, tremendous number of new results show that we must radically change our vision of nature (especially of the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime) whereas above mentioned physicists do not see that the old big problems still a not solved.
    For you and others it is still not obvious that there are not in existence following particles:
    Higgs boson(s) (inertial mass is the more fundamental physical quantity than a pure energy so the Higgs mechanism is not in existence)
    Gravitons (gravity acts in different way but accordingly with the Einstein gravity; the gravitational constant G depends on the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime components i.e. on the binary systems of neutrinos)
    S-particles (fermion-boson symmetry postulated within supersymmetry is not in existence; just, fermion-boson symmetry follows from the fact that there are fermions and fermion-antifermion pairs; for example, there are neutrinos (fermions) and binary systems of neutrinos (bosons)
    Other –inos
    Today for me is obvious that neutrinos should move with speeds higher than the c because the Einstein spacetime components, i.e. the binary systems of neutrinos which carry the photons and gluons, are the more massive particles which are moving with the speed c. This also shows that we must change the outlook upon the Einstein spacetime.
    Now one knows what the dark energy is. I claim that it is the thickened Einstein spacetime and that the dark energy appeared due to the decay of the object before the soft big bang after the era of inflation. The Everlasting Theory shows that the all particles greater than the neutrinos are composed of the Einstein spacetime components (i.e. of the binary systems of neutrinos which move with the speed c).
    And so on.

    You compare my Everlasting Theory with the QCD but you do not take into account that the QCD have big problems to calculate the exact masses of the up and down quarks, experimentalists cannot find the Higgs boson(s), and so on. For me it is obvious that free neutrinos must move with speed higher than the c because this follows from my theory and the central value of such speed obtained in the experiments is consistent with my theory.

    You compare my math with the applied in the QCD. You do not understand that most important are initial conditions. You do not understand that math associated with my initial conditions shows that the eight gluons lead to conclusion that the Einstein spacetime consists of the exact 4 different binary systems of neutrinos. The 8 gluons prove also that the Einstein spacetime consists of only two families of neutrinos so in the ‘oscillations’ we should not observe the tau neutrinos. My theory leads to conclusion that the colours are associated with the internal helicities. The binary systems of the neutrinos have 3 helicities which we can write as 3=2+1. The 2 different helicities of the 2 neutrinos and the 2 different weak charges of neutrinos lead to the 4 different non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos. This is because each binary system must contain one positive weak charge and one negative weak charge (see page 49 in my book). Whereas the 1 is associated with the helicity of the binary system as a whole i.e. it leads to the 2 states (left and right). Can you now see that 4*2=8 gluons whereas 1*2=2 photons?
    Once more: The 8 gluons and 2 photons lead to the two families of neutrinos in the Einstein spacetime!!!!! Existence of the tau neutrino follows from the wrong interpretation of the sham oscillations. There are not the oscillations of the neutrinos - there are the exchanges of the free neutrinos for the neutrinos in the binary systems of the neutrinos the Einstein spacetime consists of. The exchanges change the energies of neutrinos what suggests that there is in existence more families of neutrinos. The Everlasting Theory shows that there is only one colour and one anticolour of my sham quarks and such model leads to the correct spins of all particles.

    Once more: You cannot compare my math with the applied in the QCD. The ‘both’ maths lead to the same theoretical results. My results are more precise because, for example, I calculated the exact speed of neutrinos or masses and magnetic moments of nucleons or physical constants. BTW: Can you calculate the physical constants (G, c, h, e, mass of electron) within the mainstream theories? Can you see the artlessness in many mainstream theories? In the extended version of my book (it will be soon on my website), I derived, for example, following function: the cross section for production of the W boson as function of collision energy.

    The math applied in my theory is very simple because I start from the correct initial conditions (seven parameters only!!!!). The Everlasting Theory shows that we can eliminate the renormalization also.
    You still write the nonsense about my theory because you did not read it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2011
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Hmm,
    Terry Pratchett, Maskerade.
     

Share This Page