Neutrinos

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
Post Reply
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Neutrinos

Post by bperet »

In the RS, Larson identified two neutrinos with the subatomic displacements of:

υe ½-½-(1) electron neutrino
υμ ½-½-0 muon neutrino (originally called a "massless neutron")

And their cosmic counterparts. There is also a third that shows up in conventional physics, the tau neutrino, which appears to have a structure of:

υτ ½-½-1 tau neutrino

Neutrinos are supposed to have no charge to them and with this displacement notation, only the electron neutrino has zero charge (net motion is zero). I have been looking at decay data, and noticed a couple of things: the decay energy (W) cannot be accounted for, unless you place a charge on the muon and tau neutrinos.

In RS2, a charge can take on different structures, because it is basically a birotation. The complex form is "electric" because of its one-dimensional nature, and the quaternion form (i.j.(-k)) is "magnetic" (2D).

The electron neutrino, having displacements in both space and time, can take either an electric or magnetic charge; Larson indicates that the magnetic charge seems to be more probable and is responsible for trapping the neutrino motion inside the time region of an atom, adding isotopic mass.

The muon neutrino only has a magnetic displacement, so it can only take on a magnetic charge in the inverse aspect; the material muon neutrino would have its charge in space. Charges are normally half (actually square root) of a unit, because they are only effective in the inward direction, but in the case of a 2-dimensional charge, the effect is that of a full unit of space. A charged muon neutrino would therefore have the equivalent of a 0-0-(1) displacement added to it, cancelling the temporal rotation and bringing the net, electrical effect to zero--making it electrically neutral.

The tau neutrino is similar, but is taking both an electric and magnetic charge in space, effectively cancelling its temporal rotation and making it electrically neutral, also.

But in analyzing the history of neutrinos and examining the decay sequences, it appears that they may have the neutrino and antineutrino backwards, by RS conventions.

In RS2, the positron is the "material" particle (temporal rotation) and is referred to as an anti-electron by conventional science (the electron being a spatial rotation). The electron should be an anti-positron. The same situation seems to have arisen with the neutrinos, where a material neutrino is called an anti-neutrino, because it is interacting with the 1D, electric displacement--and the temporal displacement is unobserved, written off as a tiny "mass" (since temporal displacement IS mass). It makes the neutrino LOOK like an electron, and since conventional science considers the electron to be "material", the neutrino followed the same path.

I am still working with the logic, but it appears to make more sense in beta decay sequences.
Every dogma has its day...
SoverT
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:27 pm

Re: Neutrinos

Post by SoverT »

Is this a potential resolution to the decay calculation problems you mentioned you and Nehru ran into many moons ago?
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Neutrinos

Post by bperet »

SoverT wrote:Is this a potential resolution to the decay calculation problems you mentioned you and Nehru ran into many moons ago?
Yes. Couple other things has shown up...

First, only the neutron will spontaneously decay, which is simply due to probability--it is composed of a proton and charged antineutrino (must be charged, or else the neutron would decay in one natural unit of time). They are both rotating systems, so eventually they will align themselves so the progression pushes them apart and it "decays." See Nehru's paper on the "Lifetime of the Neutron."

Second, is that decay is not random or time-based, but based on an internal or external event. The most common event is an external particle impacting the atom (electron capture), or the atom impacting another atom (collider).

The other "common" event is not directly observable, because it is cosmic--the external event is in 3D time, such as FTL emission from a solar flare, which from our perspective, will move from the sun, across coordinate time, and into the core of the atom, "inside-out." We don't see the impact, only the resulting "spray" from the impact as radioactive emission.

I am now analyzing decay sequences to see if I can find out what has to be introduced into the time region, for the various alpha, beta and gamma decays to result.
Every dogma has its day...
SoverT
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:27 pm

Decay energy sources

Post by SoverT »

Putting together a couple pieces you mention brings up some questions.
Decay is not random.
Decay is caused by interactions with other motions.
There is not enough energy present in the example atom to explain decay energy without a charge on the muon/tau neutrinos.

So rather than the neutrinos already having a charge, does the energy come from the decay-inducing interaction? (Or is this what you were already trying to describe)

If the energy does come from the interaction, doesn't this introduce considerable unpredictable energies coming out of the decay, say if there was an unusually strong solar flare.
Post Reply