from Hacker News

The Rotating Lepton Model

by polytronic on 2/2/20, 9:56 PM with 38 comments

  • by hpcjoe on 2/3/20, 12:01 AM

    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/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/0...

    [2] http://fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

  • by wrycoder on 2/2/20, 11:51 PM

    Couldn't find it on arxiv, but it is referenced in another of their current articles here:

    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-Boh...

    They aren't attracting any citations.

  • by gus_massa on 2/3/20, 12:40 PM

    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.

  • by ur-whale on 2/2/20, 11:35 PM

  • by wbhart on 2/3/20, 3:00 AM

    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.

  • by mikhailfranco on 2/3/20, 11:31 AM

    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

  • by sofos123 on 2/10/20, 4:49 PM

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/proton-spin-myste... https://phys.org/news/2017-03-proton.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

  • by mechhacker on 2/2/20, 11:44 PM

    It looks like there is a related article by the same author in 2016.

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/0...

  • by lopsidedBrain on 2/2/20, 11:33 PM

  • by svd4anything on 2/3/20, 10:18 PM

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

  • by jml7c5 on 2/2/20, 11:58 PM

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

  • by peter_d_sherman on 2/2/20, 11:42 PM

    I see two of my favorite words in all of physics in this theory:

    Gravity and Inertia...

    So maybe they're onto something there...

  • by lostmsu on 2/3/20, 8:13 AM

    Any ELI15?