(c) Robert Neil Boyd

[R. N. Boyd]:

NOTE: I really don't know if there actually are neutrinos. I always considered them as ghosts, whose sole existence was to make the energy equations balance out.

Neutrons have a magnetic moment. It's small, but it's there. It is possible to consider that neutrons might have some small charge, but it would be a fractional charge, and the QM folks wouldn't be real happy about that, although I can conceive of a situation in a hierarchical theory of matter, such as that of Kaivarainen, which might allow for some smaller particle than an electron to carry charge.

Consider the "quark". (Hypothetical particles.) The various properties of quarks, such as "color", "charm", and so on, could be indicative of fractional charge, or some new force which has not been accounted for in our macro-world.

Perhaps there are forces and events that only happen at certain scales, and have some sort of ensemble effect at the higher scales, e.g., the quantum field could be an example of this. Particles could even be involved with the quantum field.

The Fermi-Pasta-Ulam lattice describes an n-dimensional system of anharmonic (loosely coupled) oscillators. These oscillators could be considered to be particles, rather than a field. The FPU description for the subquantum field works perfectly well if there are subquantum particles. It might even explain a few things...

Doesn't LaViolette incorporate some sort of charge in his subquantum system, in his descriptions of the "Brusselator" mechanism? I haven't looked at his material in a long time, so I can't recall... And I've lost my copy of that particular book by him. Think I loaned it out to someone, and they never bothered to return it. (You know how it goes...) Perhaps you could look at that brusselator mechanism of his and let me know if charge is involved in there anywhere?

Tony says neutrinos are massless at tree level. Here's part what Tony Smith (with Siddharth) says about the neutrino:

"...the Neutrino ... can be treated as an electron with vanishing mass so that the [Compton Radius Vortex] becomes arbitrarily large. ... [our physical universe is] ... in effect, the region within the [Compton Radius Vortex] ... [where] the negative energy [two spinor solution] ... dominates. ... under reflection ... [the negative energy two spinor] ... behaves like a pseudo-spinor [and transforms into its negative] ... [thus giving] ... a rationale for the left handedness of the neutrino. ..."

Since the Compton Radius Vortex is arbitrarily large, Oscillatory Region I does not exist in our physical universe, and the effective picture for the Neutrino is [graphic].

Therefore, the Neutrino can be represented by a Kerr-Newman Black Hole Compton Radius Vortex whose radius is as large as our physical universe.

In the D4-D5-E6 physics model, Neutrinos have no Electric (or any other) Charge and have zero tree level Mass. Therefore only the Spin 1/2 of the Neutrino can give it a non-zero Kerr-Newman Radius.

* Neutrinos may see our entire universe as 4-Complex-dimensional, and Penrose Twistors can be used to describe them. *

Since Neutrinos are Chargeless they do not interact with the Charged ZPF fluctuations of relativistic virtual ghost particles within the Compton Radius Vortex.

Since Neutrinos are tree-level Massless they do not have the non-local Dirac Operator cA.p + Bmc^2 interactions within the Compton Radius Vortex, that is to say, a Neutrino just moves at the speed of light and does not have the massive characteristic of a nonzero amplitude to be at another spatial location.

As J. J. Sakurai says in Advanced Quantum Mechanics (Benjamin/Cummings 1967) (at pages 167-170), the massless character of the Neutrino means that it is not a Dirac particle, but a Weyl particle, so that all Neutrinos are left-handed and all AntiNeutrinos are right-handed.

If a given Neutrino is regarded as a small ball linked by strings to the boundary of its Compton Radius Vortex, then its Spin 1/2 Spinor nature can be directly visualized."

But the masses are predicted and found. Is this the case because neutrinos and neutrons are not really neutral?

You could be right about this. It would be interesting if you were. Is there somewhere to find information regarding neutrino masses? How can we test for neutrino charge? Can you see an experiment that would confirm or deny your suspicion? This seems difficult, because neutrinos are elusive little critters. Has anyone ever caught one yet?

In the book of Paul Laviolette I could read that they are slightly positive. What do you think?

Maybe a fractional charge. But the math doesn't seem to bear this concept out. Perhaps there are other subquantum creatures involved here, which are the real culprits.

Conjecture and speculations can be interesting. Sometimes they turn out to be right... Perhaps we can devise some way to find out.