Basic Properties of Matter, p. 262 wrote:
Some things to note:When the neutrino and the atom subsequently separrate, there is a finite probability that the charge will stay with the atom.
1) The electron neutrino MUST be charged in order for it to be captured; uncharged neutrinos will pass thru matter, as they have no net displacement in either space nor time.
2) Larson claims the charge on a neutrino is "magnetic", in other words, the charge applies to the 1/2-1/2 temporal displacement, not the (1) spatial displacement (which would be an electric charge). He just sites "probability" as the reason. But, by the same logic, the muon neutrino, M 1/2-1/2-0 could also take a magnetic charge.
3) Hydrogen, which is composed of a proton and a charged, electron neutrino, does not follow this pattern. If it did, the charge of the neutrino would be transferred to the proton, and the neutrino would leave the combination, leaving a proton with one "gravitational charge." (If a sub-atomic neutrino can carry a magnetic charge, then so can the sub-atomic proton)
This brings into question whether Larson's analysis is correct:
1) Muon neutrinos have not been observed to carry a magnetic charge, so something is preventing this combination of motions from happening.
2) Electron neutrinos, as evidenced by the structure and large quantity of Hydrogen in the Universe, appear to want to stay within the atomic structure, and do not pass their "charge" on to the host atom.
3) There is no clear mechanism of "magnetic charge", and hence "gravitational charge." Like Larson's electric charge, it is a vibratory motion, but how it is achieved remains ambiguous.
In RS2, we discovered that the electric charge was due to the capture of a photon by the electron, with the photon's harmonic motion providing the vibrational component of the electric charge. If we carry this one step further, then the "magnetic charge" proposed by Larson must be the capture of some type of vibratory motion also. So how does the electron neutrino get its magnetic charge, while keeping the muon neutrino immune to it?
The electron neutrino is of the material type, having its magnetic displacement in time, and its electric displacement in space. The muon neutrino has no electric displacement. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the captured particle must have a net spatial displacement, or be a cosmic particle. Since we cannot capture a particle with more motion than the existing neutrino motion, that limits the possibilities back to the photon group -- photon/photino and electron/positron.
It is observed that the electron neutrino breaks down into the muon neutrino plus electron (which is why it is called the "electron" neutrino). The carrier of electric charge is the photon, which can be carried only by the electron or positron. In RS2, the electron is actually a cosmic positron, not a material particle. That reduces the choices to one: the electron.
The sequence works like this:
1) The muon neutrino M 1/2-1/2-0 captures an electron C 0-0-(1) (space displacement of electron captured in time displacement of neutrino), producing an electron neutrino M 1/2-1/2-(1). Note that these two particles cannot combine rotations, because one is material and the other cosmic.
2) A PHOTON is captured by the captured electron in the electron neutrino, and imparts its vibratory motion as a rotational vibration (as described elsewhere in the forum), adding the vibration to the entire motion -- BOTH the electron and muon neutrino in the composite motion vibrate, the electron "electrically" and the neutrino "magnetically".
3) The charged, electron neutrino now has the vibrational mass to add "gravitational mass" to any atom that captures it.
Some other logical consequences of this structure are:
4) Muon neutrinos are exempt from magnetic charge, because the charge actually goes on the captured electron in the electron neutrino, and the muon neutrino does not have a captured electron.
5) Magnetic charge from an electron neutrino CANNOT "stay" the atom if the neutrino is not present. Only the electric charge of the captured photon within can. Therefore, should the neutrino leave the atomic structure, the atom will emit a photon (which could be captured by another atomic component).
6) The gravitational charge within the atom is due to the PRESENCE of a captured, electron neutrino, not an independent vibratory motion.
7) Hydrogen stays together as a proton/electron neutrino pair without problems.
With this understanding of how isotopes work thru the "gravitational charge" created by the presence of captured, electron neutrinos, we can also compute a viable isotopic range:
Minimum isotope: atomic number x 2 (no neutrinos captured)
Maximum isotope: atomic number x 3 (max neutrinos captured)
The upper limit occurs because the presence of more than 3 times the atomic number of captured neutrinos would disrupt the atomic core thru their own neutrino motion, and destroy the atom.
Some conclusions from the isotopic range:
1) Hydrogen is technically an isotope of the proton, but because both elements are sub-atomic, the gravitational vibration influence is not measured but to a very minor degree.
2) Atomic number 1 must have a mass of 2, and is therefore Deuterium, with one isotope, Tritium.
(When dealing with radioactive decay, as in Tritium, one must include the effects of magnetic ionization, as Larson described. But that is another topic.)
In summary:
* The gravitational charge is produced by the presence of charged, electron neutrinos with atoms (not an independent, rotational vibration).
* Electron neutrinos are a composite of a material muon neutrino and a cosmic positron (electron).
* The charge on an electron neutrino is due to the charge of the captured cosmic positron (electron).
* The muon neutrino cannot be charged, as it has no component that can capture a photon.