The missing particles are entrons. In my model both the proton and the neutron are comprised of gamma ray entrons. The neutron also includes an electron. I have not tried to explain conservation of energy and momentum in the course neutron decay. However, I believe my model will provide a simple explanation of these issues. I suggest you get a copy of my book and see if you can answer these question without having to rely on neutrinos. My offer to send you a copy still stands.
Gamma rays are released in the course of fusion process in which four hydrogen atoms are converted to helium -----Original Message----- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 7:10 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 06:03:49PM -0700, John Ross wrote: > My theory does not violate conservation of mass-energy. It does not deal > with Lepton number. How do you know neutrinos have a Lepton number of 1? > How do you know neutrinos exists? Have you ever seen one? I don’t believe > neutrinos exist. I have never seen proof that they exist. Do you have real > proof that they exist? > The first clue is beta decay, where a neutron decays into a proton plus an electron. If these were the only 3 particles, neither energy nor momentum is conserved, hinting strongly at the existence of another particle (called the neutrino). Then there is the existence of inverse beta decay, where a proton decays into a neutron and a positron. Since a neutron is heavier than a proton, the extra energy must come from somewhere. So there must be another particle involved. And then you get experiments where the inverse beta decay is triggered by an earlier beta decay, consistent with the existence of a particle travelling close to the speed of light. See the Kamiokande experiments in Japan. If your theory predicts that there is no such thing as a neutrino, I'd like to see how it can explain a phenomenon that walks and quacks like a nearly massless neutral particle. I can't see how you can do it without chucking out conservation of energy and momentum laws, at a very minimum. Cheers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
