Particle Physics Needs not only an Overhaul…it Needs a REWRITE

Scientists see evidence that rules of particle physics may need a rewrite.

“Two separate collaborations involving Indiana University scientists have reported new results suggesting unexpected differences between neutrinos and their antiparticle brethren. These results could set the stage for what one IU physicist calls a “radical modification of our understanding of particle physics.”

“The Standard Model of particle physics holds that particle and antiparticle masses should be equal, with no discrepancy in masses inferred from the energy scale at which the conversion process from muon to tau occurs separately for neutrinos and antineutrinos. But MINOS scientists found that not to be the case: the new results indicate that neutrino and antineutrino masses differ by about 40 percent.”

“Interpreted as measurements of neutrino mass, the MINOS results give different values for neutrino and antineutrino masses,” Urheim said. “Equivalence of particle and antiparticle masses is a fundamental underpinning of the well-tested Standard Model of particle physics. So, if the neutrino-antineutrino difference persists, it will necessitate a radical modification of our understanding of particle physics.

At the same time the new differences in neutrino and antineutrino behavior were being announced last week by the MINOS team, the group of MiniBooNE (Mini Booster Neutrino Experiment) scientists that includes IU associate professor of physics Rex Tayloe found muon antineutrinos turning into electron antineutrinos at a higher rate than expected. With a second discrepancy in neutrino oscillation (flavor change) uncovered, IU scientists realized the momentum building toward a reworking of the long-held Standard Model of particle physics.

“Both of these experiments indicate that neutrinos are behaving differently compared to the antineutrinos, and if either of these results hold up under further scrutiny, the implications are profound,” said Tayloe, who works out of the IU Center for the Exploration of Energy and Matter (formerly the IU Cyclotron Facility). “It would likely help us to understand the imbalance of matter and anti-matter in the universe which, currently, defies explanation and is one of the ‘holy grails’ of current physics exploration.”

Question: Are they detecting an unexpected neutrino “quantum state” instead of the expected “antineutrino”? After all, particles and so called anti-particles are supposed to have the same masses, just opposite charge. So is it really an “anti-neutrino”, or something else and they don’t know what label to attach to it yet?

Wal Thorhill applies EU theory to the neutrino. It’s predicted that “antineutrinos” don’t exist. Thornhill states, a neutrino “can have no antiparticle” and “The differences between the neutrino “flavours” is merely one of different quantum states and therefore different masses.”

From Wal Thornhill’s 2001 essay Solar neutrino puzzle is solved?

“If neutrinos do have mass it will tend to confirm the Electric Universe model. In it, neutrinos are not fundamental particles but are comprised of the same charged sub-particles that make up all matter. They are the most collapsed form of matter known. When a positron and an electron “annihilate”, the orbital energy in both is radiated as a gamma ray and the sub-particles that comprised them both assume a new stable orbital configuration of very low energy, or mass. Matter cannot be created from a vacuum nor annihilated in this model. The differences between the neutrino “flavours” is merely one of different quantum states and therefore different masses.”
[..]
“In the Electric Universe model, there is no antimatter forming antiparticles. An electron and a positron are composed of the same charged sub-particles in different conformations. They come together to form a stable neutrino, emitting most of their orbital energies in the process. They do not annihilate each other. In that sense a neutrino embodies both the electron and the positron. It can have no antiparticle. The bookmakers would be wise not to bet on the Standard Model of particle physics.”

Another successful prediction from EU theory?

“Interpreted as measurements of neutrino mass, the MINOS results give different values for neutrino and antineutrino masses,” Urheim said. “Equivalence of particle and antiparticle masses is a fundamental underpinning of the well-tested Standard Model of particle physics. So, if the neutrino-antineutrino difference persists, it will necessitate a radical modification of our understanding of particle physics.”

Hmm why do i get the feeling some ridiculously complex mathematical epicycle, will be rewarded with a Nobel, to explain this away…. i hope by radical, they mean, radically simple.

Wal Thorhill applies EU theory to the neutrino. It’s predicted that “antineutrinos” don’t exist. Thornhill states, a neutrino “can have no antiparticle” and “The differences between the neutrino “flavours” is merely one of different quantum states and therefore different masses.”

Having just read Meyl’s Scalar Waves Text and his Self Consistent Electrodynamics (all be it for another area of investigation), i find consistencies here with Meyl’s field potential vortex theory and Thornhill’s comments. Meyl states particles and anti particles are just the particles with contrary potential vortex swirl directions. If we take an electron e-, the vortex exterior displays the negative pole, the positive pole is inside the vortex. The antiparticle (positron), displays the reverse, the positive pole is outside, the negative inside. Contrary swirl directions, meet with annihilation.

When it comes to the neutrino, it is describes as a ring vortex. It is not a particle of without charge, it is a particle of oscillating charge. The base form of a potential form vortex, visualized here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfVXKWqlJRc . As the charge of a neutrino is continuously oscillating we do not measure a charge… much like the average of an AC signal is zero. The charge oscillations do provide the mechanism for participation in weak interactions.

Meyl is an interesting read and in this scenario consistent qualitatively with what i have read from Thornhill, as they are both describing the base form of all matter.
Thornhill: In it, neutrinos are not fundamental particles but are comprised of the same charged sub-particles that make up all matter. They are the most collapsed form of matter known.

Thornhill’s (and Don Scotts) comments on the Solar Neutrino problem are spot on, any measurements taken at the end of the solar-neutrino signal, do not tell you anything about the journey. Mathematical conjecture that ‘fits’ when assumptions are made does not, and will never, form scientific result.

Evidence continues represent a Thorn in the standard models assumptions.
EU continues to be confirmed… as it’s empirically developed from a Hill of Thorns





This poses many answers…its funny, because just before reading it, I suggested in my mind that the neutrino/antineutrino theory was merely counter rotating pulses…why did I come to that conclusion? Obviously from our recent exchange. Why are they finding that the neutrino/antineutrino do not measure the same…? Because if it were perfectly balanced it would not exist in physical manifestation…
– SickScent



The vortex is the archetype structure. The galaxy is a spiral vortex. DNA is a spiral. The vortex shape of the hurricane is a representation of the holographic nature of the universe. The vortex is the geometry of the quantum world. This geometry creates the cube, the tetrahedron, all the platonic solids. Charge creates the vortex, not gravity. – aether

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: