|
|
|
|
|
by gus_massa
2322 days ago
|
|
The part about the charged neutrinos is weird but not imposible (can we call it electron?). The part about the beta decay only make sense if they provide a good model for the internal structure of the proton. 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)