6 ms·

The Rotating Lepton Model

40 points by polytronic 7y ago

lopsidedBrain 7y ago
Press release: http://www.academyofathens.gr/en/announcements/press-releases/20190328 http://www.academyofathens.gr/en/announcements/press-release...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ur-whale 7y ago
An Elsevier link? Really? ugh. https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.123679 https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.1236...
peter_d_sherman 7y ago
I see two of my favorite words in all of physics in this theory: Gravity and Inertia... So maybe they're onto something there...
mechhacker 7y ago
It looks like there is a related article by the same author in 2016. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/012080/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/0...
wrycoder 7y ago
Couldn't find it on arxiv, but it is referenced in another of their current articles here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09760 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-Bohr-Einstein-ebook-dp-B00BLQYBW0/dp/B00BLQYBW0/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid= https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Special-Relativity-Strong-Boh... They aren't attracting any citations.
- T-A 7y ago
  > Very novel :-/ 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.
  - wrycoder 7y ago
    Heh. No, I was referring to the content. However, Vayenas has been publishing on this since at least 2008. This paper is the latest refinement of the theory. I haven't found any response to his work from the physics community - I would think that if it was easily refutable, that would have happened by now. But virtually all the citations appear to come from the small group of people working with Vayenas. 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-vayenas-university-patras-greece https://cheme.stanford.edu/events/colloquium-constantinos-g-...
    - gus_massa 7y ago
      They are using 4 particles with spin 1/2 to model a particle with spin 1/2. That is impossible. More details in my other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22223610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22223610
      - wrycoder 7y ago
        That’s an excellent objection. And yet, Vayenas is well aware of it and lists it as one of the requirements of a successful RLM. 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.
jml7c5 7y ago
This should have a (2019), shouldn't it?
- Rexxar 7y ago
  Personally, I don't want to see any "(2019)" until half of 2020 is gone. Another rule could be to add it for articles that are more than one year old but this article is only two months old.
  - taneq 7y ago
    Agreed, asking for a year tag for an event that happened late last year is like all those "see you next year" jokes on New Years' Eve.
  - jml7c5 7y ago
    Ah, my mistake! I misread the date and thought it had been available online in April. I agree with you completely.
hpcjoe 7y ago
I saw "relativistic gravitational force between neutrinos" and red flags went up. I've not read the article, just the abstract. 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/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/012080/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/0... [2] http://fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ http://fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
- wrycoder 7y ago
  Refer to section 10 of the Einstein 1905 paper - Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron. The longitudinal mass is theorized to increase as gamma^3. This was first introduced by Lorentz. Relativistic mass is rather controversial, as can be seen by referring to Wikipedia. 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.
  - hpcjoe 7y ago
    Ok, I see that now. Thanks for the pointer.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > I saw "relativistic gravitational force between neutrinos" and red flags went up. 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.
wbhart 7y ago
How common is it for a physics theory to be able to compute so many quantities without fudge factors to make it all work out? I'm not a physicist, so I'm currently imagining this could be quite significant. Is that how physicists are reading it? Also, can any physicists comment on whether this is a top journal.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  How common? I don't know. But it could work something like this: 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.
- gus_massa 7y ago
  They have the mass of the neutrinos as a fudge factors. (I think they are using only 2 of them, but they list a third number ...) (And perhaps the mass of the electron.) 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?)
lostmsu 7y ago
Any ELI15?
mikhailfranco 7y ago
RLM reminds me of Hestenes (1990): 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. http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/ZBW_I_QM.pdf http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/ZBW_I_QM.pdf
gus_massa 7y ago
They model the proton as three neutrinos rotating around a positron. These are spin 1/2, particles, so the composite particle that includes all of them must have a spin that is an integer number: 0, 1 or 2 in this case. But the proton is a 1/2 spin particle. This is a huge red flag. 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.
- svd4anything 7y ago
  Couldn’t this just mean spin is more complicated? Are there other obvious issues like this that the small group of proponents are also ignoring?
  - gus_massa 7y ago
    [Standard disclaimer that Physic is an experimental science and everything can change in the future.] 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).
    - 7y ago
svd4anything 7y ago
This model seems like an incredible breakthrough. Can any physicists comment on why this model isn’t taken more seriously?
sofos123 7y ago
Hackers you are idiots most of the proton spin does come not by adding the individual spins of neutrinos but from the orbital rotation of the neutrinos. Have you heard of the proton spin crisis...
sofos123 7y ago
and red flags went up ...lol PhD = peripheral head death
sofos123 7y ago
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/proton-spin-mystery-gains-a-new-clue1/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/proton-spin-myste... https://phys.org/news/2017-03-proton.html https://phys.org/news/2017-03-proton.html https://phys.org/news/2017-10-proton-puzzle.html https://phys.org/news/2017-10-proton-puzzle.html RLM model by Vagenas solves the spin problem easily, some are still trying...that theory of everything based on the standard model is just for hackers... lol
- franki13 7y ago
  Ok sofos, tell us how rlm model solves the spin problem of the proton easily and how the spin is conserved with 4 spin1/2 particles
  - sofos2 7y ago
    The orbital angular momentum of the spinning fermions neutrinos has to be taken into account. You can not simply add up fermion spins. Read about the proton spin crisis.
    - sofos2 7y ago
      I think there is a funtamental test here how the neutron gets its magnetic moment. Based on RLM the spinning neutrinos have electric dipoles and magnetic moments how to neutrino magnetic moments scale up with relativistic mass? I could accept electric dipoles arising but how can you get the magnetic moment of a neutron which is 1.93μN almost twice the nuclear magneton.
      - franki13 7y ago
        Ok, there are many serious questions here, but really now, even with the proton crisis and all that stuff, how is the vagenas model useful ? There is no known mechanism for gravity in such scales, and he abuses relativity, assymetrical rotating gravitational objects emit gravitational radiation so they are not stable, the neutrino mass he uses is his own choice since we don't know it yet and there is so much experimental stuff from the detection of quarks and the standard model that i dont really think it can really match up to them. In the end with the way he uses relativity and neutrino masses you can deduct any number you want with slight changes of one or the other, how is that helpful ? We already know all the stuff he tries to deduce. Also there is the experimental verification of Higgs and all that..

40 points by polytronic 7y ago

Press release: http://www.academyofathens.gr/en/announcements/press-releases/20190328 http://www.academyofathens.gr/en/announcements/press-release...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ur-whale 7y ago

An Elsevier link? Really? ugh. https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.123679 https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.1236...

peter_d_sherman 7y ago

I see two of my favorite words in all of physics in this theory: Gravity and Inertia... So maybe they're onto something there...

mechhacker 7y ago

It looks like there is a related article by the same author in 2016. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/012080/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/0...

wrycoder 7y ago

Couldn't find it on arxiv, but it is referenced in another of their current articles here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09760 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-Bohr-Einstein-ebook-dp-B00BLQYBW0/dp/B00BLQYBW0/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid= https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Special-Relativity-Strong-Boh... They aren't attracting any citations.

T-A 7y ago
> Very novel :-/ 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.
- wrycoder 7y ago
  Heh. No, I was referring to the content. However, Vayenas has been publishing on this since at least 2008. This paper is the latest refinement of the theory. I haven't found any response to his work from the physics community - I would think that if it was easily refutable, that would have happened by now. But virtually all the citations appear to come from the small group of people working with Vayenas. 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-vayenas-university-patras-greece https://cheme.stanford.edu/events/colloquium-constantinos-g-...
  - gus_massa 7y ago
    They are using 4 particles with spin 1/2 to model a particle with spin 1/2. That is impossible. More details in my other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22223610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22223610
    - wrycoder 7y ago
      That’s an excellent objection. And yet, Vayenas is well aware of it and lists it as one of the requirements of a successful RLM. 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.

jml7c5 7y ago

This should have a (2019), shouldn't it?

Rexxar 7y ago
Personally, I don't want to see any "(2019)" until half of 2020 is gone. Another rule could be to add it for articles that are more than one year old but this article is only two months old.
- taneq 7y ago
  Agreed, asking for a year tag for an event that happened late last year is like all those "see you next year" jokes on New Years' Eve.
- jml7c5 7y ago
  Ah, my mistake! I misread the date and thought it had been available online in April. I agree with you completely.

hpcjoe 7y ago

I saw "relativistic gravitational force between neutrinos" and red flags went up. I've not read the article, just the abstract. 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/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/012080/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/0... [2] http://fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ http://fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

wrycoder 7y ago
Refer to section 10 of the Einstein 1905 paper - Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron. The longitudinal mass is theorized to increase as gamma^3. This was first introduced by Lorentz. Relativistic mass is rather controversial, as can be seen by referring to Wikipedia. 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.
- hpcjoe 7y ago
  Ok, I see that now. Thanks for the pointer.
pdonis 7y ago
> I saw "relativistic gravitational force between neutrinos" and red flags went up. 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.

wbhart 7y ago

How common is it for a physics theory to be able to compute so many quantities without fudge factors to make it all work out? I'm not a physicist, so I'm currently imagining this could be quite significant. Is that how physicists are reading it? Also, can any physicists comment on whether this is a top journal.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
How common? I don't know. But it could work something like this: 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.
gus_massa 7y ago
They have the mass of the neutrinos as a fudge factors. (I think they are using only 2 of them, but they list a third number ...) (And perhaps the mass of the electron.) 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?)

lostmsu 7y ago

Any ELI15?

mikhailfranco 7y ago

RLM reminds me of Hestenes (1990): 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. http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/ZBW_I_QM.pdf http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/ZBW_I_QM.pdf

gus_massa 7y ago

They model the proton as three neutrinos rotating around a positron. These are spin 1/2, particles, so the composite particle that includes all of them must have a spin that is an integer number: 0, 1 or 2 in this case. But the proton is a 1/2 spin particle. This is a huge red flag. 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.

svd4anything 7y ago
Couldn’t this just mean spin is more complicated? Are there other obvious issues like this that the small group of proponents are also ignoring?
- gus_massa 7y ago
  [Standard disclaimer that Physic is an experimental science and everything can change in the future.] 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).
  - 7y ago

svd4anything 7y ago

This model seems like an incredible breakthrough. Can any physicists comment on why this model isn’t taken more seriously?

sofos123 7y ago

Hackers you are idiots most of the proton spin does come not by adding the individual spins of neutrinos but from the orbital rotation of the neutrinos. Have you heard of the proton spin crisis...

sofos123 7y ago

and red flags went up ...lol PhD = peripheral head death

sofos123 7y ago

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/proton-spin-mystery-gains-a-new-clue1/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/proton-spin-myste... https://phys.org/news/2017-03-proton.html https://phys.org/news/2017-03-proton.html https://phys.org/news/2017-10-proton-puzzle.html https://phys.org/news/2017-10-proton-puzzle.html RLM model by Vagenas solves the spin problem easily, some are still trying...that theory of everything based on the standard model is just for hackers... lol

franki13 7y ago
Ok sofos, tell us how rlm model solves the spin problem of the proton easily and how the spin is conserved with 4 spin1/2 particles
- sofos2 7y ago
  The orbital angular momentum of the spinning fermions neutrinos has to be taken into account. You can not simply add up fermion spins. Read about the proton spin crisis.
  - sofos2 7y ago
    I think there is a funtamental test here how the neutron gets its magnetic moment. Based on RLM the spinning neutrinos have electric dipoles and magnetic moments how to neutrino magnetic moments scale up with relativistic mass? I could accept electric dipoles arising but how can you get the magnetic moment of a neutron which is 1.93μN almost twice the nuclear magneton.
    - franki13 7y ago
      Ok, there are many serious questions here, but really now, even with the proton crisis and all that stuff, how is the vagenas model useful ? There is no known mechanism for gravity in such scales, and he abuses relativity, assymetrical rotating gravitational objects emit gravitational radiation so they are not stable, the neutrino mass he uses is his own choice since we don't know it yet and there is so much experimental stuff from the detection of quarks and the standard model that i dont really think it can really match up to them. In the end with the way he uses relativity and neutrino masses you can deduct any number you want with slight changes of one or the other, how is that helpful ? We already know all the stuff he tries to deduce. Also there is the experimental verification of Higgs and all that..