And also, Why are antineutrinos right handed? These questions do not have answers. In quantum mechanics and the Standard model of particles it is assumed that the unique left and right spin properties, also called helicity, are fixed ‘intrinsic’ properties. (For example, see Hyperphysics on left handed neutrinos). These theories cannot explain why: the spin is assumed to just happen to be like this. Obviously this is not ontologically satisfactory. Not that weirdness is any stranger to QM.
It’s not hard to see why QM would have logical difficulties in this area. It assumes that particles are zero dimensional (0-D) points, and no physical interpretation is possible for ‘spin’ in such a model: there simply aren’t enough dimensions in a 0-D construct to accommodate something as complex as spin. It is true that string and M-theory have sufficient dimensions, about 11 depending on the theory. So in theory it might be possible to to accommodate ‘spin’ in that framework, except that these theories are entirely abstract. They do not map to the physical world.
So if there is an explanation for the peculiar handedness of the neutrino spins, it is beyond the current theories of physics.
And that’s where the hidden sector theories come in. By their very nature they contain internal structures, the ‘hidden variables’. These theories have the potential to give powerful explanations at levels deeper than quantum mechanics can go. However the difficulty is finding suitable candidate solutions. Our Cordus theory is one such design. Technically it’s called a non-local hidden-variable (NLHV) theory.
In our recent work we return to the question of neutrino spin, and have some explanations to offer. These have been published here 10.5539/apr.v6n3p50 based on a development of our earlier work (see vixra). Here’s how we approached it. We started by determining the internal structure of the neutrino (and antineutrino) within this NLHV framework. We did this by reverse-engineering the beta decays. In β- decay, or electron emission, the free-neutron decays into a proton, electron, and an antineutrino:
n => p + e + v
Since we already have the internal structures of the n, p and e, we can infer the structure of the antineutrino. Similarly, in β+ decay, also called positron emission, the proton converts into a neutron, antielectron (positron) and neutrino:
p + energy => n + e + v
This allows the neutrino structure to be determined, since everything else is known. Obviously in doing this we are relying on the hope that the Cordus theory has internal validity. The result we get is shown in the Figure.
In turn, this structure offers an explanation for why the neutrino moves: it has incomplete discrete forces and therefore has to borrow discrete fields from the surrounding fabric, and this means moving at the speed of propagation of the fabric fields, which is the speed of light.An explanation for the selective spin direction is that the energisation sequence of the neutrino’s discrete forces causes a rotational spin. The energisation sequence -of which there are only two options- also determines the matter-antimatter species differentiation. So the spin direction depends on the energisation sequence, and the latter also determines the matter-antimatter nature. So a species-specific spin arises. The linear velocity and spin also have a common cause, since it is the lack of discrete forces that causes both the velocity and the spin reactions. Consequently the neutrino takes one hand (left) and the antineutrino the other (right). Which is to say, helicity is species-specific.
So there, in one paragraph, we have a natural explanation for why the neutrino is left handed, and for why the neutrino moves at the speed of light. We also have an explanation for neutrino mass, but I’ll leave that for now. It is covered in the paper, which is open access.
The fact that we have been able to achieve an explanation of neutrino spin shows that the Cordus theory has a good degree of logical consistency and internal validity. However we do acknowledge that it could be coherent but still wrong. Nonetheless given the plausibility of the result, one either has to show why it’s wrong, or consider the consequences of it being correct. As for showing where the theory might be wrong, I’ll leave that to others. I suspect the easiest way to do that would be to show that the electron cannot have the structure we propose. Looking at our paper on pair-production might show weaknesses? On the other side of the equation, if this theory is correct then the implications are radical and unorthodox. Radical because it claims there is a deeper NLHV physics beneath quantum mechanics. Unorthodox because it means that that QM’s premise of particles being 0-D points would be merely a coarse approximation to a deeper reality. This implies that QM would be unsuitable -unfit for purpose- as a basis for new physics at the next level down.
There is no logical reason why particles should be 0-D points: it was merely a convenient assumption of ignorance on the part of the pioneers of quantum mechanics. Now times have moved on and more powerful NLHV designs are available that, by their wide-ranging explanatory power, demonstrate that it is possible to think beyond the cognitively stifling 0-D point premise of QM.
18 April 2014
- Pons, D. J., Pons, A., D., & Pons, A., J. (2014). Beta decays and the inner structures of the neutrino in a NLHV design. Applied Physics Research, 6(3), 50-63. http://vixra.org/pdf/1111.0022v1.pdf
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/35335 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v6n3p50 or http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0022