Neutrinos are inferred from their decay products. These products can have other explanations, especially in high-energy environments wherein there are many interactors.
I hardly use Reddit, so I don’t know what is intended by the comparison with Reddit 2.0.
You are coming across to me as either a crank or a crackpot, and the “Manic” handle isn’t helping. I see no mathematics in what you have posted, and without mathematics, there is no physics. The theory, so far as it is saying definite things, gives no reasons for these particular things. Your insistence that neutrinos have not been detected is supported only by saying there may be other explanations for all the supposed detections, without giving any. This argument could be applied equally well to most of the known subatomic particles, including the gluons that you reply on.
The original post was a summary of the model, as it’s still in development and far from complete. That’s often the case with new models—they evolve over time. The gap between the Standard Model (SM) and the Dark Domain (DD) is as much philosophical as it is physical. The reasoning behind it is there, but in a summary, it might not come across as clearly as in a full, detailed presentation.
What I’m really looking for is feedback on the specifics within the model, rather than a critique of the overall presentation. I’m hoping to refine the model by addressing particular elements and ensuring they stand up to scrutiny.
Here’s a sample of some of the underlying mathematics:
Basic equation for photon-photon interaction energy:
E_γγ = ħ(ω₁ + ω₂) + E_Γ
Where:
E_γγ is the total energy from the photon-photon interaction,
ℏ is the reduced Planck constant,
ω1 and ω2 are the angular frequencies of the photons,
E_Γrepresents the energy contribution from the 1Γ gluon.
In the Γ Framework, Γ is the fundamental unit of energy that arises from photon-photon interactions. When we say:
Eγγ=Γ,
it means that the total energy from any photon interaction (E_γγ) simplifies to Γ, representing the baseline, unified energy state of the system. This makes Γ the key constant governing all photon and particle interactions, encapsulating the entire energy exchange in the framework.
Thus, Γ is both the result and the fundamental driver of all interactions.
Could you provide an example of prediction the Γ Framework makes which highlights the divergence between it and the Standard Model? Especially in cases the Standard Model falls short of describing reality well enough?
One prediction the Γ Framework makes is in the area of muon decay. In the Standard Model, a muon decays into an electron, a muon neutrino, and an electron neutrino. This relies on the existence of undetectable neutrinos to account for the missing energy. The Γ Framework, by contrast, eliminates the need for neutrinos altogether.
In the Γ Framework, a muon (43Γ) decays directly into two electrons (2 x 20Γ) and three 1Γ gluons, which then decay into six gamma-ray photons. The entire energy balance (105 MeV) is accounted for via photon-photon interactions. This divergence highlights a fundamental shift: whereas the Standard Model introduces undetectable particles to conserve energy, the Γ Framework explains particle decay entirely through photon-based interactions.
This prediction could be tested by revisiting high-precision experiments on muon decay, looking for potential discrepancies in missing energy or gamma-ray emissions (“halo data”) where the Standard Model currently predicts neutrinos.
Another area of divergence is the interpretation of proton-proton fusion. In the Standard Model, proton fusion releases energy partly through neutrinos. The Γ Framework, however, posits that this energy is carried entirely by photon-photon interactions and the emission of gamma rays, offering a cleaner explanation without the need for neutrinos.
In both cases, the Standard Model falls short in providing a direct observable explanation for neutrino-based processes, while the Γ Framework predicts energy outcomes that could be more empirically testable with future advancements.
Your model of muon decay doesn’t conserve charge—you start with −1e , then have −2e and finally have zero. Also, the second electron is never observed.
First, the Γ Framework doesn’t use charge. I know that so radical, right!?! Instead, it uses the oscillatory resonances of coupled photons (1Γ gluons) to form, stabilize and polarize particles.
In addition, like lepton numbers, charge is a construct—a useful tool but not necessarily the endgame in physics.
Also, keep in mind the volumes of interactors. Until there’s a way to actually count both muons and electrons, then all we can honestly say is x muons decay into y electrons (and, possibly, unconfined gluons that disintegrate into photons). We don’t know the actual ratio because, currently, there’s no way to know.
Besides, there’s another model that addresses the dynamics from a level below the SM that suggests it’s not the ground floor. :)
Models evolve. Like any fleeting zeitgeist, consensuses change.
You keep on describing neutrinos as “undetectable”. How do you interpret this catalogue of neutrino detectors? BTW, the neutrino idea took shape in 1930-1934, long before the Standard Model was formulated, to explain beta decay.
Neutrinos are inferred from their decay products. These products can have other explanations, especially in high-energy environments wherein there are many interactors.
The vibe I’m getting here is Reddit 2.0. Tell me that’s not the case.
I don’t mind the downvotes, but could you at least offer some feedback as to why you gave it?
I hardly use Reddit, so I don’t know what is intended by the comparison with Reddit 2.0.
You are coming across to me as either a crank or a crackpot, and the “Manic” handle isn’t helping. I see no mathematics in what you have posted, and without mathematics, there is no physics. The theory, so far as it is saying definite things, gives no reasons for these particular things. Your insistence that neutrinos have not been detected is supported only by saying there may be other explanations for all the supposed detections, without giving any. This argument could be applied equally well to most of the known subatomic particles, including the gluons that you reply on.
The original post was a summary of the model, as it’s still in development and far from complete. That’s often the case with new models—they evolve over time. The gap between the Standard Model (SM) and the Dark Domain (DD) is as much philosophical as it is physical. The reasoning behind it is there, but in a summary, it might not come across as clearly as in a full, detailed presentation.
What I’m really looking for is feedback on the specifics within the model, rather than a critique of the overall presentation. I’m hoping to refine the model by addressing particular elements and ensuring they stand up to scrutiny.
Here’s a sample of some of the underlying mathematics:
Basic equation for photon-photon interaction energy:
E_γγ = ħ(ω₁ + ω₂) + E_Γ
Where:
E_γγ is the total energy from the photon-photon interaction,
ℏ is the reduced Planck constant,
ω1 and ω2 are the angular frequencies of the photons,
E_Γrepresents the energy contribution from the 1Γ gluon.
In the Γ Framework, Γ is the fundamental unit of energy that arises from photon-photon interactions. When we say:
Eγγ=Γ,
it means that the total energy from any photon interaction (E_γγ) simplifies to Γ, representing the baseline, unified energy state of the system. This makes Γ the key constant governing all photon and particle interactions, encapsulating the entire energy exchange in the framework.
Thus, Γ is both the result and the fundamental driver of all interactions.
Could you provide an example of prediction the Γ Framework makes which highlights the divergence between it and the Standard Model? Especially in cases the Standard Model falls short of describing reality well enough?
Thank you for the question.
One prediction the Γ Framework makes is in the area of muon decay. In the Standard Model, a muon decays into an electron, a muon neutrino, and an electron neutrino. This relies on the existence of undetectable neutrinos to account for the missing energy. The Γ Framework, by contrast, eliminates the need for neutrinos altogether.
In the Γ Framework, a muon (43Γ) decays directly into two electrons (2 x 20Γ) and three 1Γ gluons, which then decay into six gamma-ray photons. The entire energy balance (105 MeV) is accounted for via photon-photon interactions. This divergence highlights a fundamental shift: whereas the Standard Model introduces undetectable particles to conserve energy, the Γ Framework explains particle decay entirely through photon-based interactions.
This prediction could be tested by revisiting high-precision experiments on muon decay, looking for potential discrepancies in missing energy or gamma-ray emissions (“halo data”) where the Standard Model currently predicts neutrinos.
Another area of divergence is the interpretation of proton-proton fusion. In the Standard Model, proton fusion releases energy partly through neutrinos. The Γ Framework, however, posits that this energy is carried entirely by photon-photon interactions and the emission of gamma rays, offering a cleaner explanation without the need for neutrinos.
In both cases, the Standard Model falls short in providing a direct observable explanation for neutrino-based processes, while the Γ Framework predicts energy outcomes that could be more empirically testable with future advancements.
Your model of muon decay doesn’t conserve charge—you start with −1e , then have −2e and finally have zero. Also, the second electron is never observed.
You made a couple of interesting points.
First, the Γ Framework doesn’t use charge. I know that so radical, right!?! Instead, it uses the oscillatory resonances of coupled photons (1Γ gluons) to form, stabilize and polarize particles.
In addition, like lepton numbers, charge is a construct—a useful tool but not necessarily the endgame in physics.
Also, keep in mind the volumes of interactors. Until there’s a way to actually count both muons and electrons, then all we can honestly say is x muons decay into y electrons (and, possibly, unconfined gluons that disintegrate into photons). We don’t know the actual ratio because, currently, there’s no way to know.
Besides, there’s another model that addresses the dynamics from a level below the SM that suggests it’s not the ground floor. :)
Models evolve. Like any fleeting zeitgeist, consensuses change.