[Vo]:More details about the Higgs field.

[Axil Axil]

The discovery of the Higgs field has added even more layers of complexity
to our understanding of the nature in the way fundamental particles behave.



The mechanism that gives particles mass is a continuing transformation of a
particle with its anti-polar opposite particle.


For example, the electron oscillates between itself and its anti-positron


[image: image.png]

The more rapidly that these opposite particle pairs oscillate, the more
mass that the particle archives. Hypercharge converts energy into mass in a
fermion.



The Higgs field is a condensate of hypercharge. The more sensitive that the
particle is when it is exposed to hypercharge, the more mass it will
achieve. Hypercharge causes the fermion to transform into its antiparticle
more frequently.



This nature is true for all fermions including quarks.



If you wanted to examine an electron, you might just so happen to grab
ahold of an anti-positron instead.

Re: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states

[Andrew Meulenberg]

If my model of the neutrino is correct, then neutrinos have low probability
of interacting with non-relativistic charges. If my model of quarks is
correct, then they are composed of relativistic charges. Nevertheless.
there is still the problem of frequency differences between neutrinos and
the quark components, as well as the possibility that there are no
accessible excited states of the quark components.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:01 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> We very well know from experiments that the interaction of neutrinos with
> dense mass is close to zero. If you now postulate the opposite you have
> also to show why the experiments are wrong.
>
> On the other side it is obvious why the standard model fails to describe
> the neutrino, because it still assumes that gravitational mass is different
> from EM mass, what is blatantly wrong.
>
>
> Jürg
>
>
>
> Am 07.08.19 um 05:09 schrieb Andrew Meulenberg:
>
> Dear Bob C.
>
> I can picture the neutrino as being involved in the interaction between
> electron and nucleus. However, my picture is definitely non-standard. At
> the short distance of deep-orbits from the nucleus, the neutrino
> (considered to be similar to photons) would be in the "longitudinal photon"
> mode. I view the neutrino mass as oscillating (probably averaging to zero)
> and therefore not subject to accurate measure. This oscillation (if time
> dilated) could explain the GSI time anomaly (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#GSI_anomaly).
>
> With all of the contradictions and problems with present neutrino models,
> I would consider alternative models to be nearly as valid as "accepted"
> models. I would consider the present concepts of spin, ang mom, mass, and
> even charge to be suspect. While what you have added in your most recent
> email contributes to my thoughts, I was hoping that you might have
> something that was absolutely convincing. I'll make a couple comments there.
>
> Andrew
> _ _ _
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 6:22 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
> bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Andrew—
>>
>>
>>
>> Neutrinos interact with matter, are considered to have mass and carry
>> spin angular momentum.   In addition they are considered to consist as
>> leptons of anti and regular matter which can annihilate into pure EM energy
>> like many particle anti-particle pairs.
>>
>>
>>
>> I consider, as suggested by the Wikipedia link below, neutrinos have a
>> magnetic moment, or al least harbor magnetons.   It seems they are much
>> like massless photons and travel when not caught up in a nucleon at c. n
>> free space (4-D space and time.)  In this regard they are real particles vs
>> virtual quarks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Their annihilation energy release may be very small considering their
>> small rest mass. But nevertheless give this up to atomic electrons as they
>> pass thru their electro-magnetic field (or their unique combination of
>> space, time, angular momentum and magnetic field dimensions.)
>>
>>
>>
>> A, C. Jessup”s theory , documented in a book, *AN IMPERFECT PICTURE,   
>> *addresses
>> the concepts associated with some of these dimensions.  Nigel Dyer’s family
>> blog includes  pertinent excerpts from this book, which is out of print as
>> far as I know.
>>
>>
>>
>> *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>> W. Stubbs’ book on nuclear structure, P. Hatt’s  papers and Jurg
>> Wyttenbach’s papers address the nucleon structure which seems to involve
>> neutrinos.  IMHO the coupling is at the Planck scale and involves magnetic
>> fields—no electric fields  associated with intrinsic charge.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>>
>>
>> *fm: *Andrew Meulenberg 
>> *Sent: *Saturday, August 3, 2019 6:32 AM
>> *To: *VORTEX 
>> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>>
>>
>> You have raised some important points in your answers to Robin. Can you
>> provide some references to support them?
>>
>>
>>
>> In particular, I am interested in the non-photonic transfer of angular
>> momentum from the nucleus to a bound electron. I think that it is well
>> accepted that the nucleus can transfer energy to bound electrons via the
>> Coulomb field. Nevertheless, I think that Schwinger, along with his papers
>> on cold fusion, was mocked for suggesting that internal nuclear energy
>> could be shared with the potential energy of electrons and thus the
>> lattice. However, as a central force, this energy transfer cannot convey
>> ang mom.
>>
>>
>>
>> My interest is in the interaction of deep-orbit electrons with the
>> internal structure of the nucleus such as charged quarks and possible
>> sub-components. At close range, these bodies are no longer providing just
>> central forces. While the interaction is not photonic in the normal sense
>> (i.e., via transverse EM waves), it *can* be considered via longitudinal
>> photons. Again, internal conversion, would suggest that no ang mom need be
>> 

RE: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states

[JonesBeene]

Andrew, Bob

A good paper on this subject (longitudinal waves)  is
“Unravelling the potentials puzzle and corresponding case for the scalar 
longitudinal electrodynamic wave”
Donald Reed 2019 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1251 012043

Reed does not make the scalar to  neutrino connection, which  seems to serve 
the same purposes, which is to explore the line between what is real and what 
seems real because it balances equations.

The best thing one can say about QM is that it lends physical credulity to an 
imaginary world… but then again, what is real?

From: Andrew Meulenberg

…. At the short distance of deep-orbits from the nucleus, the neutrino 
(considered to be similar to photons) would be in the "longitudinal photon" mode

Re: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

We very well know from experiments that the interaction of neutrinos 
with dense mass is close to zero. If you now postulate the opposite you 
have also to show why the experiments are wrong.


On the other side it is obvious why the standard model fails to describe 
the neutrino, because it still assumes that gravitational mass is 
different from EM mass, what is blatantly wrong.



Jürg



Am 07.08.19 um 05:09 schrieb Andrew Meulenberg:

Dear Bob C.

I can picture the neutrino as being involved in the interaction 
between electron and nucleus. However, my picture is definitely 
non-standard. At the short distance of deep-orbits from the nucleus, 
the neutrino (considered to be similar to photons) would be in the 
"longitudinal photon" mode. I view the neutrino mass as oscillating 
(probably averaging to zero) and therefore not subject to accurate 
measure. This oscillation (if time dilated) could explain the GSI time 
anomaly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#GSI_anomaly).


With all of the contradictions and problems with present neutrino 
models, I would consider alternative models to be nearly as valid as 
"accepted" models. I would consider the present concepts of spin, ang 
mom, mass, and even charge to be suspect. While what you have added in 
your most recent email contributes to my thoughts, I was hoping that 
you might have something that was absolutely convincing. I'll make a 
couple comments there.


Andrew
_ _ _

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 6:22 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
 > wrote:


Andrew—

Neutrinos interact with matter, are considered to have mass and
carry spin angular momentum.   In addition they are considered to
consist as leptons of anti and regular matter which can annihilate
into pure EM energy like many particle anti-particle pairs.

I consider, as suggested by the Wikipedia link below, neutrinos
have a magnetic moment, or al least harbor magnetons.   It seems
they are much like massless photons and travel when not caught up
in a nucleon at c. n free space (4-D space and time.)  In this
regard they are real particles vs virtual quarks.

Their annihilation energy release may be very small considering
their small rest mass. But nevertheless give this up to atomic
electrons as they pass thru their electro-magnetic field (or their
unique combination of space, time, angular momentum and magnetic
field dimensions.)

A, C. Jessup”s theory , documented in a book, _AN IMPERFECT
PICTURE, _addresses the concepts associated with some of these
dimensions.  Nigel Dyer’s family blog includes pertinent excerpts
from this book, which is out of print as far as I know.

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_

__

W. Stubbs’ book on nuclear structure, P. Hatt’s  papers and Jurg
Wyttenbach’s papers address the nucleon structure which seems to
involve neutrinos.  IMHO the coupling is at the Planck scale and
involves magnetic fields—no electric fields  associated with
intrinsic charge.

Bob Cook

*fm: *Andrew Meulenberg 
*Sent: *Saturday, August 3, 2019 6:32 AM
*To: *VORTEX 
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states

Bob,

You have raised some important points in your answers to Robin.
Can you provide some references to support them?

In particular, I am interested in the non-photonic transfer of
angular momentum from the nucleus to a bound electron. I think
that it is well accepted that the nucleus can transfer energy to
bound electrons via the Coulomb field. Nevertheless, I think that
Schwinger, along with his papers on cold fusion, was mocked for
suggesting that internal nuclear energy could be shared with the
potential energy of electrons and thus the lattice. However, as a
central force, this energy transfer cannot convey ang mom.

My interest is in the interaction of deep-orbit electrons with the
internal structure of the nucleus such as charged quarks and
possible sub-components. At close range, these bodies are no
longer providing just central forces. While the interaction is not
photonic in the normal sense (i.e., via transverse EM waves), it
_can_ be considered via longitudinal photons. Again, internal
conversion, would suggest that no ang mom need be transferred in
such interactions. This does not suggest that such transfer cannot
occur, only that it is not observed on the normal scale of hbar.
(If I am wrong about this, I would appreciate correction.)

Compound nuclei have ang mom on this level that can be transferred
to the EM field to form photons. However, is there any information
on ang mom of quarks? If so, this could lead to speculation about
non-scalar coupling between a proton and a deep-orbit electron.

Andrew

On Tue,