The Theory of Invariance

Hi Jim,

Neutrino are very interested. It can fill in the gaps.
In addition, if scientists can accept that non-zero-mass particles can move faster than c, then they have more choices to talk about the neutrino and the universe.

Yes, neutrinos were accepted as useful and required 80 years ago and that invention lead to more inventions. All those inventions still have not resolved the basic problem of data not matching theory and so more and more invention is needed to (as you say) fill the gaps. Data tends to get lost and distorted in this foolish process.

Hi Jim, I don't think you can call the neutrino an invention, you can however call the theoretical structure an invention. I was thinking of an analogy, so thought I'd take a look at what Aristotle thought of lightning. He thought it was down to "warm wind." Then I got a bit side tracked by reading a lot of his "Meteorology". Hell, he wasn't that far off! The behavior of his "warm wind" is a stunning example of deductive reasoning. A couple of thousand years ago, people were discussing lightning, and it was noted that a man chopping down a tree on a far off hill, would strike the tree but the sound of the axe would come later. How cool is that!

Anyway, the point is, as Cindy says, the phenomena is subject to interpretation. Red shift exists and so do neutrinos, it's on whether these things are down to the caprice of Zeus or the laws of physics that scope for invention lies.

Now I reckon that as the speed of gravity and the speed of light are vastly different, then the ratio of their squares is going to be a very small number. I reckon that the favourite is going to be
1.054E-34 this has to mean that there's vastly more energy in the universe than we suppose. Now there's a number of ways that we can think about this, and my favourite at the moment is to consider this energy as a particle's credit rating. It can borrow energy from its future.

I say this because I think we should be looking for particle "pairs" which would be the particle's e.m. mass and its gravitational mass, and I think the neutrino is paired with the Planck mass. About 2E-8 * 1.054E-34 = 2E-42 kg

Now let's have a bit think about the contracted speed of light in the space of the Earth.
c_0^2 = c^2 + v^2 (that's c subscript zero squared, for the uncontracted speed of light)
v^2 = 2Gm / r

c_0^2 = c^2 + 2Gm /r

c_0 = c*sqrt(1 + 2Gm /r*c^)

c_0 = c* sqrt(1 + {2 *6.672E-11 * 5.98E 24 /5.73E 23) = 2.9980118E 8 metres per second.

Where I used 2.9979E 8 for the speed of light. Note also that I use the older value of G, being a little suspicious of the newer value.

This would mean that neutrinos can travel at the contracted speed of light and only have a mass increase of about 118 times. That's because they don't actually "see" all of the mass and its space.

Something I need to have a bit play around with is
f = f_0*sqrt(1 - v^2 /c^2) * c / (c + 0r - vcos theta)
Where that last part drops out when theta equals 90 degrees.

I just had a check of the figures using the value of G to be 6.6748E-11 and it doesn't do that much damage to the "increase" in neutrino mass. It can travel at the contracted speed of light with a mass increase of about 160 times. Of course that's in the space of the Earth, and it would vary as it traveled through the space of the Sun, and through the Sun.

Sloat, I know you like to explain stuff and I wonder if you would explain why neutrinos really exist? Have you seen them or what proof do you have? I will say neutrinos do not exist(because I'm a dummy and you can laugh about this) but, rather are an invention required by current theory in order to make data fit the dogma built into the theory.

Hi Jim, I think you play the devil's advocate while quietly formulating your own theories. It's hard to answer this one Jim, do you for instance question the neutron? We had a model of the atom which had a nucleus full of protons and electrons but it didn't work. Though this was before anyone had thought up the idea of positrons. So a neutral particle was needed but this presented a problem of how the nucleus stayed together. It did so by the proton and neutron swopping roles very fast.

Then to account for a peculiarity of beta decay a new theoretical massless particle was proposed, the neutrino. it looks like book balancing, until somebody rigged up an experiment to detect the particle. Much later this particle was found to have mass, so it was back to the drawing board. We also can now build a neutrino telescope deep in the ice of the Antarctic.

The telescope detects particles of about 1E-42 kg rest mass which can, I would argue, travel at the contracted speed of light, and above, in the Earth's space. They can also travel faster than the contracted speed of light of the Sun's space.

Now this wouldn't actually confirm the currently accepted model of the nucleus. It just means that low mass neutral particles can travel "faster" than the "local" speed of light without gigantic increases in mass energy.

So, if we say that the speed of gravity is much much faster than the speed of light, we have to account for a vast "sea" of missing energy. I argue that for mass particles it resides inside a tiny gravitational radius which has the e.m mass component wrapped around it. Then of course the particle has its own "space" like an atmosphere round that.

Let's look at the reduced mass electron as an example. About 1.449E-31 kg Let's say that the speed of gravity is 2.919E 25 metres per second and call it b, then E = mb^2
E = 1.23E 20J
hbar*f = 1.23E 20 So the gravitational energy is the same number as the e.m. frequency. peg the frequency and we have to change the value of hbar to one. The core of a particle then has an angular momentum of one.

As Larry pointed out to Evolvid, the idea of relativistic mass increase in frowned upon now. I think you can use either. An e.m. particle cannot increase its momentum beyond c , simply because it doesn't have enough mass energy to do so. It consumes all of its energy at c and ceases to exist. Not so if it can use its gravitational energy which is it's "credit rating."

We can have an "expanding" universe in which hbar increase with time, so the particle is allowed to "borrow" energy from its future to a limit of when hbar increases to the value one. it goes without saying that this would be an extremely rare event for any electron. Labs on Earth and jets from neutron stars spring to mind as examples.

Your post has got me thinking again about atomic spin. I did mention it once on the board but I got into a tail spin over it. Should we regard the e.m. mass of a particle and the gravitational mass of the same particle as a "pair"? With the phase change at c model, I think we have to. A negative refractive index gravitational electron appears to have a huge mass and it spins the opposite way to its "partner" in e.m. space. In gravitational space though it's simply an electron. Plus it only appears to have this huge mass at c. I don't know how this equates to hypothetical particles like the Higgs, which should have a spin of zero.