Authors: D.J. Pons
The neutrino is involved in many of the unsolved areas of fundamental physics and cosmology, and therefore a better understanding of the causes of its behaviour is useful. This paper develops a conceptual theory for the internal structure of the neutrino, particularly the arrangement of its discrete field structures. The model is created using the concept of the cordus hyff emission directions (HEDs). Using the known quark composition of the neutron and proton, and the existing cordus models for their discrete field structures, and using the beta decay processes, we determine the discrete field structure of the neutrino by a reverse-engineering process. The structure of the neutrino in HED notation is found to be v(r11 .a .t11) or variants thereof, and the antineutrino to be v(r11 .a .t11) etc. The results are consistent whether using beta - decay, beta +, or electron capture. The results suggest that the neutrino is not its own antiparticle. Consequently neutrinoless double beta decay is predicted to be infeasible. The model predicts the neutrino has zero nominal mass, though a dynamic noise-mass is expected. The reasons why the neutrino moves at the speed of light are explained, and involve the engagement of its field structures, which are incomplete, with the fabric (spacetime). The gravitational bending of its trajectory is explained, even for a massless neutrino. This explanation requires the abandonment of both locality and the invariance of the vacuum-speed of light. The model also explains why neutrinos are always found with left-spin-hand, and antineutrinos with right, and suggests that the opposite structures are fundamentally unavailable. By moving away from the 0D point assumption of orthodox physics, cordus is able to generate a novel and radical model of the neutrino, and ground its behaviour in physically realistic interpretations.
Comments: 27 Pages.
[v1] 4 Nov 2011
Unique-IP document downloads: 336 times
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.