Crashing the Particle Physics Party Line on Neutrinos, Weak Bosons, and Everything Else

(This post is just the introduction and summary description of the article of this same name that has been placed on this site under the ‘NeoClassical Field Theory Papers’ in the Scientific menu.)

In our previous post on this blog we addressed the party line on how an antineutrino accounts for effects observed in the electron decay process.  Neutrinos and their antimatter counterpart have come into the panoply of particles by virtue of carrying spin without having a charge or necessarily even having any mass.  We must ask why such an elusive entity can take a place among observable and irrefutably inferred submicroscopic particles of nature.  But again just as we found with dark matter issues, it is the interpretation of a questionable cause of a real effect that resulted in brilliant scientists embracing deus ex machina hypotheses.

So, let us re-evaluate the free neutron decay process without assuming the existence of the antineutrino.  We suspect the total energy and momentum of the pre-reaction neutron was greater than the totals of post-reaction proton and electron dynamics.  However, we do not have sufficient evidence to define the mass of the antineutrino, nor therefore it’s momentum and energy, other than to say that its mass is very, very small.  We do know that a neutron made up of one up and two down quarks would have net spin of ± ½, but the resulting post reaction subatomic particles would have a total spin of 0 or 1.  So that is why a nebulous particle with spin ± ½ and very tiny mass and cross section was conjectured.

the alternative new scheme

But let’s just say we don’t buy it.  How might one explain these effects without invoking the antineutrino and the W weak boson that converts a negative 1/3 e charged down quark into a positive 2/3 e charged up particle and at the same (virtually zero) time creates an electron and a particle who’s only known property is a spin of ± ½?  This is the same category of problem we faced with accounting for effects without resorting to the unexplainable dark matter.   The effects in both cases are real; the current explanations are Rube Goldberg mechanisms.  In this case by inventing a ‘weak boson’ whose role is to invert and expand charge, create a charged electron and an elusive spin ½ particle, and then disappear immediately like the emcee of a roadshow.

Acknowledging the difficulty of this challenge, I am willing and anxious to accept it, bringing forward figure 1 as the alternative to figure 1 from what was previously posted.  The previous diagram had the deus ex machina constructs of W and antineutrino included in addition to the subatomic particles and their constituent quarks.  We include only the real entities with no transmutations or creation ex nihilo.  The number of each type of quark and even number of spin ½ particles does not change throughout the decay process.  There are two up quarks and four down quarks throughout this process.  Once the two neutron-looking particles collide into what I have denominated an ‘octahedral neutron’ scrambling the six quarks, a significant reduction of energy results.

From disassociation of the quarks into a different two, now-charged particles, of the normal charged proton and a unit-charged, three-down-quark electron, the latter to be justified below. What was not included in the party line diagram of the previous post was the hidden fact of the insignificance of masses of quarks to the mass determination of the subatomic particles and therefore to the conservation laws generally.  That was because 98% of the mass of the neutron and proton in that diagram was not in the quarks but in gluons considered to embody the ‘strong force’ that has been presumed to be required to confine charged quarks without convergence into a singularity or expulsion.  Masses of the quarks have been assigned masses to account for the differences in total mass of the neutron and proton rather than accounting for the total mass of each which has been left to the unmentioned gluon. We agree only on the unmentionability of the gluon.

The complete details that justify what is merely previewed here are in the article cited above.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *