
The Rotating Lepton Model - polytronic
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437119320515
======
hpcjoe
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...](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/012080/pdf)

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

~~~
wrycoder
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
Ok, I see that now. Thanks for the pointer.

------
wrycoder
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-
Boh...](https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Special-Relativity-Strong-Bohr-
Einstein-ebook-
dp-B00BLQYBW0/dp/B00BLQYBW0/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=)

They aren't attracting any citations.

~~~
T-A
> 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
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-...](https://cheme.stanford.edu/events/colloquium-constantinos-
g-vayenas-university-patras-greece)

~~~
gus_massa
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
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.

~~~
gus_massa
I can't find it in the paper. In which page it is?

This is a huge. Spin rules have a very strong experimental and theoretical
support. In this case they should write that in at the top of the article with
all-caps, red color and blink.

It is almost as big as breaking the conservation of charge. (Almost.)

\---

The condensation at the big bang makes no sense, because the particles are
created and destroyed constantly. But this requires some handwaving and
estimations.

The use of gravity here is very dubious, but this requires some handwaving and
estimations. Try to read more about the "standard model" and about this, and
compare the results. A good question is why there are two missing particles in
the figure "B.1"?

------
gus_massa
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
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
[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).

~~~
franki13
From this link [https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/978-1-4614-3936-3](https://sci-
hub.se/10.1007/978-1-4614-3936-3)

Neutrinos are fermions with spin 1/2 [10] and thus one may anticipate spin of
1/2 or 3/2 for composite states formed by three neutrinos. Indeed most baryons
have spin 1/2 and some, as shown in Table 4.4, have spin 3/2 [10]. Several
baryons are charged, e.g. the proton or the Ξ+. The differences in mass, m,
from their neutral brethren (i.e. the n or the Ξo) is small and of the order
of αm, where α(= e2/εch¯ = 1/137.0359) is the fine structure constant. Thus
the rotating neutrino model discussed here can describe with reasonable
accuracy (e.g. Fig. 4.8 and Table 6.2) the masses of both neutral and charged
baryons. However, since neutrinos are electrically neutral, the question
arises about how charged baryons can be formed within the rotating neutrino
model. One possibility is that in the distant past charged neutrinos existed.
Their stronger interaction among themselves and with other particles led to
their extinction via formation of hadrons, mesons, and neutral neutrinos. A
more likely explanation is that neutral hadrons were first formed (e.g.
neutrons) and then protons and electrons were formed via the β-decay [10],
i.e. n → p+ + e− + ν¯e, which has a half-life of 885.7 s.

I guess he assumes here that with three neutrinos you can have the right spin
and make neutrons, but for the charge aspect, in order to keep the half
integer spin, you either need charged neutrinos or charged particles from
neutron decay.. while tossing all strong and weak force away... if that's
possible !! I believe the real problem with this theory is the relativistic
newton gravitation law which he derived with handwaving arguments, while all
the theorists have expressed explicitly that these two cannot be combined..he
tossed the gamma factors in there, picked the neutrino mass of his choise and
everything coincided with some accuracy, which isnt even helpful or hints at
anything if it doesnt predict anything falsifiable, or better accuracy than
the current model

~~~
gus_massa
The part about the charged neutrinos is weird but not imposible (can we call
it electron?). The part about the beta decay only make sense if they provide a
good model for the internal structure of the proton.

I think it's an old theory from the same people, where they used three
neutrinos instead of four. The old version does not break the spin rules. It's
even more weird that now they added a fourth particle.

The combination of the Newtonian Gravity, with special and general relativity
is weird. Those gammas are in the wrong places. I'm 99% sure it is wrong, but
I should read the details carefully.

I think there is a problem with the uncertain principle because the neutrinos
must be too close, and other with the Pauli exclusion principle (perhaps they
solve it with the "resonance"). I'm 99% sure it is wrong, but I should read
the details carefully.

There are more problems with exchange symmetry, and partiles that these theory
predict nut don't appear experimentally.

The way they break the rules of spin is straightforward. As I said in a
comment in other thread, it's almost ass bad as if they break the charge
conservation rules. (Almost, because breaking the charge conservation rules is
even worst.)

~~~
franki13
I guess he needs a particle with the charge of the electron and the mass of
the neutrino (which he chose one out of many to get his results) and other
neutrinos without charge and the same mass with the previous particle. It
doesn't make any real sense on scrutiny apart from some coincidences.

The rule of spin is broken with the four particles, so that model is garbage
from the start.

In another paper, to justify the relativistic newtonian formula they used an
analogy with general relativity, using a schwartchild effective potential with
static masses (low velocities). But in general relativity you get different
contributions in the stress energy tensor from relativistic particles, than
static with the same enhanced relativistic mass. It's all so wrong... They
don't even try to solve the problem of gravitational attrachion of particles
with general relativity, i guess it's too difficult and in such scales maybe
requires quantum gravity? (i don't know if i'm correct on this one)

------
ur-whale
An Elsevier link? Really? ugh.

[https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.1236...](https://sci-
hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.123679)

------
wbhart
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.

~~~
gus_massa
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?)

------
mikhailfranco
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)

------
sofos123
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/proton-spin-
myste...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/proton-spin-mystery-
gains-a-new-clue1/)
[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
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
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
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
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..

~~~
sofos2
He plugs the masses for quarks and then tells you that the quarks are actually
relativistic neutrinos nothing new invented.So he keeps the same attractive
black hole force and based on that he calculates the hiĝgs W bosons masses. In
the proton the electron in the middle contributes only about 1/2 a Mev the
rest up to almost a Gev are made by the spinning neutrinos.He just added
gravity to the subatomic world. And told you that the strong nuclear force is
actually gravitational.

------
mechhacker
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...](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/012080/pdf)

------
lopsidedBrain
Press release: [http://www.academyofathens.gr/en/announcements/press-
release...](http://www.academyofathens.gr/en/announcements/press-
releases/20190328)

------
svd4anything
This model seems like an incredible breakthrough. Can any physicists comment
on why this model isn’t taken more seriously?

------
jml7c5
This should have a (2019), shouldn't it?

~~~
Rexxar
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
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.

------
peter_d_sherman
I see _two of my favorite words in all of physics_ in this theory:

 _Gravity_ and _Inertia_...

So maybe they're onto something there...

------
lostmsu
Any ELI15?

