|
From this link https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/978-1-4614-3936-3 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.)