The Rotating Lepton Model
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
Doing a bit more of a look on the RLM, I found this[1] where they (mis)write the relation between inertial and rest mass. Specifically the gamma^3 factor ...
I've been out of physics for more than 20 years, so it's possible that there has been some new development since my Ph.D. Though 2 additional factors of gamma in special relativity aren't likely.
Color me ... skeptical.
I did follow their Einstein paper reference[2] to see if I had missed something. I didn't. I don't understand the origin of their 2 extra gammas in eqn 1 of the first reference. The paper abstract appears to be a continuation of that work.
From what I could determine, they need the gamma^3 term for their arguments, but it doesn't come from Einstein's paper as they claimed.
Again, I could be missing something, but I don't think I am.
[1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/0...
It appears the current article is claiming the the inertial / gravitational mass of certain particles is gamma^3 times the rest mass of relativistic neutrinos that comprise them. Or something.
They should. The source of gravity in relativity is not relativistic mass, as this paper appears to be claiming. It is the stress-energy tensor.
Also, the reference to "Newton's relativistic gravitational law" in the abstract looks bogus to me. There is no such thing. You can't just plug relativistic mass into Newton's gravitational law. Any GR textbook will discuss this.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09760
Very novel :-/
edit: They have published a book. One can read the preview on Amazon to get a feel for it:
https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Special-Relativity-Strong-Boh...
They aren't attracting any citations.
Not sure what you mean, but just in case: the "2001" part in "2001.09760" is two-digit year followed by two-digit month, i.e. January 2020.
Professor Vayenas is a distinguished chemist, and his work looks rather like a blend of Old Quantum Theory and particle physics, so I suppose it's an uphill fight for him. However, Bohr did get a lot, e.g. the hydrogen spectrum, from a simple assumption, and Vayenas is trying to follow the same path.
The papers he's published are relatively accessible and full of startling calculations that result in close agreement with experimental results. They make interesting reading, and I haven't found anything so far that would cause me to reject them out of hand.
From the conclusion of the current paper: "Another emerging conclusion is that neutrinos, electrons, positrons and photons are present in all composite particles and are apparently the only undividable [sic] elementary particles."
https://cheme.stanford.edu/events/colloquium-constantinos-g-...
Another question is how a neutrino triplet could condense in the first place, given the extreme velocities involved. But there was a lot of energy and density during the Big Bang.
Nonetheless, it’s interesting to see a different approach to combine gravity with particle physics, so I wish him luck. I’m going to read some more.
This is a huge. Spin rules have a very strong experimental and theoretical support. In this case they should write that in at the top of the article with all-caps, red color and blink.
It is almost as big as breaking the conservation of charge. (Almost.)
---
The condensation at the big bang makes no sense, because the particles are created and destroyed constantly. But this requires some handwaving and estimations.
The use of gravity here is very dubious, but this requires some handwaving and estimations. Try to read more about the "standard model" and about this, and compare the results. A good question is why there are two missing particles in the figure "B.1"?
For comparison, in the Standard Model, the proton is made of two up quarks an one down quark [1]. Each of the has spin 1/2, and the composite particle must have a non integer spin: 1/2 or 3/2 in this case. The proton is the one with spin 1/2. The version with spin 3/2 is the Delta+ particle, that is a 30% "heavier".
[There are other technical details, like if the three rotating neutrinos break the Pauli exclusion principle for neutrinos. I suspect that this is a problem, but I'm not sure. The inclusion of the Higgs boson is very strange. Anyway, the total spin is the easier to explain and check.]
[1] And a bunch of gluons of spin 0 and virtual particles that get compensated and don't affect the total spin. Let's use the naïve version with only three quarks.
Spin is more complicated! That the reason that force the sum of the four 1/2 spin particles to have spin 0, 1 or 2. It has a nice mathematical reason that is the SU(2) group representations.
All the experiments so far agree with this rules. The rule for four 1/2 particles can be tested with electron in small molecules or light atoms. The extension to other amount of electron and particles with spin 1/2 have also been tested. (The technical name is "fermions", IIRC this includes also particles with spin 3/2.)
The theory includes also rules for particles with spin 1 (like the photon), and the extended rules also agree with the experiments. I'd be more surprised that the rules for spin have to be changed than the other claims in this paper (that are also quite surprising).
Neutrinos are fermions with spin 1/2 [10] and thus one may anticipate spin of 1/2 or 3/2 for composite states formed by three neutrinos. Indeed most baryons have spin 1/2 and some, as shown in Table 4.4, have spin 3/2 [10]. Several baryons are charged, e.g. the proton or the Ξ+. The differences in mass, m, from their neutral brethren (i.e. the n or the Ξo) is small and of the order of αm, where α(= e2/εch¯ = 1/137.0359) is the fine structure constant. Thus the rotating neutrino model discussed here can describe with reasonable accuracy (e.g. Fig. 4.8 and Table 6.2) the masses of both neutral and charged baryons. However, since neutrinos are electrically neutral, the question arises about how charged baryons can be formed within the rotating neutrino model. One possibility is that in the distant past charged neutrinos existed. Their stronger interaction among themselves and with other particles led to their extinction via formation of hadrons, mesons, and neutral neutrinos. A more likely explanation is that neutral hadrons were first formed (e.g. neutrons) and then protons and electrons were formed via the β-decay [10], i.e. n → p+ + e− + ν¯e, which has a half-life of 885.7 s.
I guess he assumes here that with three neutrinos you can have the right spin and make neutrons, but for the charge aspect, in order to keep the half integer spin, you either need charged neutrinos or charged particles from neutron decay.. while tossing all strong and weak force away... if that's possible !! I believe the real problem with this theory is the relativistic newton gravitation law which he derived with handwaving arguments, while all the theorists have expressed explicitly that these two cannot be combined..he tossed the gamma factors in there, picked the neutrino mass of his choise and everything coincided with some accuracy, which isnt even helpful or hints at anything if it doesnt predict anything falsifiable, or better accuracy than the current model
I think it's an old theory from the same people, where they used three neutrinos instead of four. The old version does not break the spin rules. It's even more weird that now they added a fourth particle.
The combination of the Newtonian Gravity, with special and general relativity is weird. Those gammas are in the wrong places. I'm 99% sure it is wrong, but I should read the details carefully.
I think there is a problem with the uncertain principle because the neutrinos must be too close, and other with the Pauli exclusion principle (perhaps they solve it with the "resonance"). I'm 99% sure it is wrong, but I should read the details carefully.
There are more problems with exchange symmetry, and partiles that these theory predict nut don't appear experimentally.
The way they break the rules of spin is straightforward. As I said in a comment in other thread, it's almost ass bad as if they break the charge conservation rules. (Almost, because breaking the charge conservation rules is even worst.)
The rule of spin is broken with the four particles, so that model is garbage from the start.
In another paper, to justify the relativistic newtonian formula they used an analogy with general relativity, using a schwartchild effective potential with static masses (low velocities). But in general relativity you get different contributions in the stress energy tensor from relativistic particles, than static with the same enhanced relativistic mass. It's all so wrong... They don't even try to solve the problem of gravitational attrachion of particles with general relativity, i guess it's too difficult and in such scales maybe requires quantum gravity? (i don't know if i'm correct on this one)
[1] "Flavors" may not be the right word. I don't remember what the right one is at the moment.
https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.1236...
All standard particles are composed of AnimAlMuppet's Magic Particles (AMMPs). AMMPs each have 1 eV of mass. An electron, for example, is made up of 511,000 AMMPs. We calculate a mass of 511 keV, in good agreement with experiment.
Note well: I have no idea if these people are doing something like that. All I've seen is the abstract.
The table 1 they have a lot of baryons, each of them has two numbers nB and lB. These are small numbers like 1, 2 , 3 so they are not very fudgable. The problem is that the numbers are somewhat arbitrary. For example it's not clear how these numbers are related to the spin of the particle. Also it's not clear how they are related to the "strangeness". Both are clear an easy to measure properties. It looks like they calculate the mass for possible particles with small nB and lB and then they cherrypicked the real one with the closest mass. (There is a missing particle with nB=2 and lB=1. Why?)
The Zitterbewegung Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
The zitterbewegung is a local circulatory motion of the electron presumed to be the basis of the electron spin and magnetic moment. A reformulation of the Dirac theory shows that the zitterbewegung need not be attributed to interference between positive and negative energy states as originally proposed by Schroedinger. Rather, it provides a physical interpretation for the complex phase factor in the Dirac wave function generally. Moreover, it extends to a coherent physical interpretation of the entire Dirac theory, and it implies a zitterbewegung interpretation for the Schroedinger theory as well.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/0...
Gravity and Inertia...
So maybe they're onto something there...