Neutrino is not even real, smaller is just reaching and fantasizing.
Both interesting statements.
Perhaps we could start with your reasons for the first? Those people who did the Opera experiment were measuring something: whether you or I choose to call it "real" maybe matters less than those measurements?
Perhaps we could return to the original question?
Is the neutron actually less massive than the proton is?!
No it is not - the relative masses are (approximately):
Neutron = 1
Proton = 0.99862349
Electron = 0.00054386734
Nuff said.
(yes also an anti-neutrino allegedly, but does not carry any real energy or mass, so we ignore it here)
Oh dear - I should not have started looking.
I can understand if you think neutrinos are not real that you also think this.
Neutrinos do absolutely carry a (varying amount) of energy.
The IceCube experiment detected neutrinos from cosmic rays with an energy of > 1 PeV
That is: 1 quadrillion (1015) electron volts.
The equivalent energy of a proton is approx 900MeV. This is some 1,000,000 times higher!
Of course neutrinos do not usually have such high energy.
We do not know how small the mass of a neutrino can be (ie its rest mass). We have a limit now of < 1eV.
I mean - I'm not asking you to read a whole unpublished theory. Just a research paper describing the experiments that show a nucleon has internal structure and therefore is not fundamental.
The bible has chapters hence religion is not fundamental.
Or just Clown nonsense. We know that a proton has mass and charge hence structure....For this we need no 10 mio euro experiment...
Display MorePerhaps we could return to the original question?
Is the neutron actually less massive than the proton is?!
No it is not - the relative masses are (approximately):
Neutron = 1
Proton = 0.99862349
Electron = 0.00054386734
Nuff said.
Have you read the original post even?!
Display MoreOh dear - I should not have started looking.
I can understand if you think neutrinos are not real that you also think this.
Neutrinos do absolutely carry a (varying amount) of energy.
https://iopscience.iop.org/art…88/1742-6596/718/6/062027
The IceCube experiemnt detected neutrinos from cosmic rays with an energy of > 1 PeV
That is: 1 quadrillion (1015) electron volts.
The equivalent energy of a proton is approx 900MeV. This is some 1,000,000 times higher!
Of course neutrinos do not usually have such high energy.
We do not know how small the mass of a neutrino can be (ie its rest mass). We have a limit now of < 1eV.
All that is based on your precious papers from the past, not my numbers, not my assessments. How much energy is carried by the so called neutrino then in free neutron decay hmmmm? Answer zero or close to zero. You invoke other circumstances and use to to erroneously deny these facts described in the post. That is a strawman argument I believe and very wrong.
I mean - I'm not asking you to read a whole unpublished theory. Just a research paper describing the experiments that show a nucleon has internal structure and therefore is not fundamental.
The nucleus is made up from nucleons, In standard model thinking that means protons and neutrons. Then you state that they are made up of smaller things, but the neutron is still a fundamental particle in the nucleus? Neutrino's are not seen directly, just assumed to do the nuclear decay. That is not proof of anything, just an assumption.
Quarks are fiction. Just a mathematical container to describe scattering results. This has nothing to do with particle structure!
CERN admits that they never could separate the Hadron forming quarks.
All that is based on your precious papers from the past, not my numbers, not my assessments.
Edo - I normally let people like W here who have their own ideas just get on with it.
You seem unable to promote your ideas without trashing everyone else's. I would not mind if you had read the stuff you were trashing - I might disagree - but I would not get so annoyed.
"All that" is based on experimental evidence from millions of scientists over 100 years - all consistent.
"Your numbers, assessments" are your own fantasy. That is absolutely fine - but until you engage with the body of existing experimental evidence you are not describing the real world. And therefore you cannot on that basis trash all those physicists who have done that.
Ok - without looking at any experiments you might by chance have a better theory. Einstein sort-of did that although he was in a way looking at experiments - because his principles of relativity were rooted in observation of the real world. And anyway - he made predictions and stood or fell by them as evidence came in.
Perhaps you are very young: many people are arrogant when young. Let me suggest to you that when you are my age you will look back on your current feelings of superiority over so many others with at least a wry smile, if not some embarrassment.
This is an open forum - so when you trash things that other people care about and make blatant mistakes they may get pointed out.
People here, after all, say all the time that they do that to me? 
Quarks are fiction. Just a mathematical container to describe scattering results. This has nothing to do with particle structure!
CERN admits that they never could separate the Hadron forming quarks.
"All that" is based on experimental evidence from millions of scientists over 100 years - all consistent.
100 year repeated sermons about nonsensical thoughts.
OR simply: Fraudulent scientists cheat the public about non existent particles.
Display MoreQuarks are fiction. Just a mathematical container to describe scattering results. This has nothing to do with particle structure!
CERN admits that they never could separate the Hadron forming quarks.
100 year repeated sermons about nonsensical thoughts.
OR simply: Fraudulent scientists cheat the public about non existent particles.
Would you agree to the idea that the sacred “100 years of experiments” are more correctly described as “100 years of interpretation of experimental results under a wrong set of assumptions that built one over another”?
The nucleus is made up from nucleons, In standard model thinking that means protons and neutrons. Then you state that they are made up of smaller things, but the neutron is still a fundamental particle in the nucleus? Neutrino's are not seen directly, just assumed to do the nuclear decay. That is not proof of anything, just an assumption.
That is mostly true, for the standard model. However it was exactly true before the standard model some 50 years ago, and it remains taught at school because it is a useful simplification.
Nuclei are made up of quarks, as are neutrons and protons. It is true (and provable) that every nucleus is made up of quarks that can be divided up into an integral number of protons + an integral number of neutrons.
So you can think of a nucleus as being composed of nucleons, or of quarks. But which is true? Do the nucleons retain their shape inside the nucleus?
The answer is yes and no. The interactions between quarks in a nucleon are much stronger than those between nucleons - normally - but inside a nucleus there are also sometimes equally strong interactions between quarks in different nuclei.
So if you think of nucleons as being peas, whether we have mushy peas in a soup, or individual peas in a soup, is not precisely defined. What we have is enough to alter the characteristics of each pea quite a bit.
We do not have an answer to these questions because QCD is scientist's most annoying theory. It makes sense. It gives approximate answers pretty well. But it is very difficult to get exact answers and high order corrections are often significant, but too complex to work out. So for exactly how quarks interact inside a nucleus we probably need higher order corrections that we do not fully understand.
It is strange - in this case the problem is not that we need a new theory - but that the theory we have is so difficult to calculate even our biggest computers cannot do it. Maybe quantum computers one day will help us resolve quantum mechanics!
Or, maybe, a new theory, or new way of calculating the old theory, will make things much better.
To be fair, we do go on getting better at calculating QCD. But no-one likes something so very complex.
Philosophically - scientists tend to like things which are simple and easy to calculate. But there is no rule book which says our most accurate theory of everything HAS to be easy or even possible to calculate.
Santilli was sent to the fringe of science because he invented his own alternative to Quantum Mechanics, which he called Hadronic Mechanics. IMHO this is only a different set of assumptions but at least from his point of view the neutron doesn’t exist as such nor the neutrino (he comes with other particle tho, and calls it “aetherino”)
Would you agree to the idea that the sacred “100 years of experiments” are more correctly described as “100 years of interpretation of experimental results under a wrong set of assumptions that built one over another”?
Not at all.
That would be like saying Newton is wrong because his theory is only an approximation to general relativity - and we now have measurements that show GR correct (always, so far, except in quantum limits, and it is not exactly wrong then, just incomplete) and a far better predictor of reality than Newton.
Nevertheless Newtonian gravity is useful and a very good theory - I am sure you have used it yourself in everyday life...
The key thing is that GR, although better, is provably the same as Newtonian gravity asymptotically, and those asymptotic conditions dominate in our everyday world. So without any work you have all of the successes of Newton also successes of GR.
Thus GR, in some sense, includes all of Newtonian gravity. Einstein knew that he had to make something that would be compatible with Newton to the extent of all those experiments.
It is like that with QM. Any better theory has to be equivalent to that spooky QM maths in approximation - because the QM maths explains so much of the world with great quantitative accuracy.
Santilli was sent to the fringe of science because he invented his own alternative to Quantum Mechanics, which he called Hadronic Mechanics. IMHO this is only a different set of assumptions but at least from his point of view the neutron doesn’t exist as such nor the neutrino (he comes with other particle tho, and calls it “aetherino”)
I think people who invent something equivalent to existing theory, without acknowledging the equivalence, deserve to be on the fringe.
It is a bit like plagiarism! And comes from hubris and arrogance.
Whereas, if this theory is not equivalent, I am quite sure if overall it predicts the world better than existing theories he would be lauded. But, for it do do that, he has to not only acknowledge but prove that it will give identical results for nearly all of physics - just as Einstein had to.
I think the evidence for something with all the known properties of the neutron existing is pretty strong.
Display MoreI think people who invent something equivalent to existing theory, without acknowledging the equivalence, deserve to be on the fringe.
It is a bit like plagiarism! And comes from hubris and arrogance.
Whereas, if this theory is not equivalent, I am quite sure if overall it predicts the world better than existing theories he would be lauded. But, for it do do that, he has to not only acknowledge but prove that it will give identical results for nearly all of physics - just as Einstein had to.
I think the evidence for something with all the known properties of the neutron existing is pretty strong.
6.1. INTRODUCTION
6.1A. Foreword
Hadronic mechanics has been conceived, built and verified to achieve one of the biggest syntheses in scientific history: the reduction of matter to protons and electrons. Santilli's view is that stars initiate their lives as being solely composed of hydrogen; they first synthesize neutrons from protons and electrons; and then they synthesize all elements existing in nature. Therefore, a consistent interpretation of the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron under a generalized mechanics ensures the achievement of the indicated reduction.
The first major difficulty facing said reduction, whose solution required decades of research, is that quantum mechanics prohibits the neutron from being a bound state of a proton and an electron for numerous reasons studied in this chapter, such as the impossibility of representing the spin, rest energy, magnetic moment, charge radius, and other features of the neutron.
Santilli has shown that quantum mechanics is exactly valid for the dynamics of the proton and the electron when at the large mutual distance of the hydrogen atom, in which case only potential and, therefore, Hamiltonian interactions occur with their well known unitary time evolution. By contrast, Santilli has shown that quantum mechanics is inapplicable (rather than being "violated") for the conditions of total mutual penetration of the electron within the hyperdense medium inside the proton.
In fact, the latter conditions imply the emergence of fundamentally new interactions of contact, nonpotential and non-Hamiltonian type that, as such, require a generalized mechanics with a nonunitary time evolution (evidently in view of its non-Hamiltonian character). This is a main motivation for the proposal, construction and verification of hadronic mechanics as a nonunitary covering of quantum mechanics.
Another major difficulty in the achievement of the indicated reduction is the rather general belief that the neutron is a bound state of particles, known as quarks, that cannot be directly detected, yet are popularly believed as being real particles in our spacetime, thus obstructing alternative views. However, as Santilli puts it:
It has been impossible for me to believe that, at the time of the synthesis of the neutron inside a star, the permanently stable proton and electron simply "disappear" from our universe to be replaced by the hypothetical quarks, and then, at the time of the neutron decay, the proton and the electron simply "reappear" by academic fiat. Rather than conjecturing the existence of hypothetical particles for the evident purpose of maintaining the validity of a preferred theory inside hadrons, I elected instead to adapt the theory to nature and represent the neutron as a generalized bound state of a proton and an electron which is quantitatively possible when admitting their condition of total mutual penetration, with resulting non-Hamiltonian, thus nonunitary time evolution.
In essence, Santilli fully accepts SU(3)-color theories, also called the "standard model," as providing the final Mendeleev-type classification of hadrons into families; he accepts quarks as being necessary for the elaboration of SU(3) theories; but he considers quarks what they technically are, purely mathematical representations of a unitary symmetry that cannot be even defined in our spacetime; and has established a basically novel structure models of hadrons with physical constituents in such a way to reach full compatibility with the SU(3) classification.
Here, for example, is a mathematical language that allows you to rewrite all of physics in a different (but provably equivalent) way.
Many would say it is more elegant and beautiful than classical formulations.
In fact, the latter conditions imply the emergence of fundamentally new interactions of contact, nonpotential and non-Hamiltonian type that, as such, require a generalized mechanics with a nonunitary time evolution (evidently in view of its non-Hamiltonian character). This is a main motivation for the proposal, construction and verification of hadronic mechanics as a nonunitary covering of quantum mechanics.
This makes HM a lot more complex than QM. For this complexity to be justified you need strong evidence that it better predicts experiment.
Remember, adding degrees of freedom to theories allows them to predict things more accurately, even if not correct. You would need to look at this in detail to see how many new arbitrary parameters it adds, it is difficult to imagine that there are none such because it covers QM and is more complex.
I'm not against something more complex than QM. But it is tough to justify.
It has been impossible for me to believe that, at the time of the synthesis of the neutron inside a star, the permanently stable proton and electron simply "disappear" from our universe to be replaced by the hypothetical quarks, and then, at the time of the neutron decay, the proton and the electron simply "reappear" by academic fiat. Rather than conjecturing the existence of hypothetical particles for the evident purpose of maintaining the validity of a preferred theory inside hadrons, I elected instead to adapt the theory to nature and represent the neutron as a generalized bound state of a proton and an electron which is quantitatively possible when admitting their condition of total mutual penetration, with resulting non-Hamiltonian, thus nonunitary time evolution.
Just a note on this.
I think this person is allowing their feelings too much priority. What we feel is less important than what experiments tell us.
I also suspect that they are not familiar with the whole structure of modern physics. If they were they would not see protons as particles in that fundamental way, and would know we have evidence of particles appearing and disappearing (temporarily or in some cases permamently) all the time.
These "hypothetical" particles have been observed through deep inelastic scattering experiments, which are not compatible with electron + proton.
Obviously you can claim that everything changes and the properties of electrons do so too - at hadronic scales - but without that change electrons cannot be bound into nuclei. With that change you most certainly have a lot of extra arbitrary complexity. I guess you could fudge that to match some results. But not the deep inelastic scattering ones.
In fact, the latter conditions imply the emergence of fundamentally new interactions of contact, nonpotential and non-Hamiltonian type that, as such, require a generalized mechanics with a nonunitary time evolution (evidently in view of its non-Hamiltonian character). This is a main motivation for the proposal, construction and verification of hadronic mechanics as a nonunitary covering of quantum mechanics.
Sorry to keep on - but there is so much here...
unitary time evolution in QM is forced by the fact that probabilities of resulting states add up to 1.
You get non-unitary behaviour of subsystems - because of interactions with some arbitrary unmodelled external system - but not of the whole thing.
So this idea, mathematically, is opening lots of cans of worms and difficulty for the formulator - requiring all those worms to be put back into new cans properly.
