[talanum1 (OP)]

Here is the paper:

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[Bored chemist]

As far as I can tell, the first word is inaccurate.
"We give a model for particles".
It's just you, isn't it?

And it doesn't get better.

"Is my Model for Particles Correct?"
It's not even wrong.

[Kryptid]

From now on, I would like you to limit all references to your model to this one thread.

[Kartazion]

Abstract
We give a model for particles which explains why particle properties are quantised. We define
particles as pictures. We define a pi-minus, electron, electron antineutrino and a proton. We prove
the model for electrons. We aslo show how to construct antiparticles. We show why Gravity is
fundamentally different from the other forces. The model predicts the Electromagnetic field of a
free electron. The model also predicts that antimatter will have attractive gravity with matter. Three new particles are predicted.

?

We define particles as pictures.

What QM is saying is that the particle is abstract and not tangible. You cannot have a picture of an electron, but rather a representation of it by an area of ​​greater energy density.

We define a pi-minus, electron, electron antineutrino and a proton.

I don't understand the importance of the meson pi in your model which is a composite particle, i.e. non-elementary. Why not the kaon?

We prove the model for electrons.

We don't prove anything. We have simply deduced the presence of the electron from experiments in a tube filled with gas with light rays transmitting energy and moving from the cathode to the anode. Moreover, by applying a magnetic field, we are able to deflect the rays, thus showing that the beam behaves as if it were charged.

We aslo show how to construct antiparticles.

Paul Dirac put forward the hypothesis of antimatter in relation to a problem: just as the equation x2 = 4 can have two solutions (x = 2 or x = −2) in classical physics wanted the energy of a particle always has a positive value. The conclusion is that in QM and for each particle of matter corresponds to an antiparticle of opposite value.

We show why Gravity is fundamentally different from the other forces.

Gravity is not necessarily a force according to the latest news.

The model predicts the Electromagnetic field of a free electron.

A free electron? Why a free electron? The model would be not more appropriate for a photon in relation to the EM?

The model also predicts that antimatter will have attractive gravity with matter.

Gravity is exerted in the same way as matter or antimatter. AFAIK antimatter is not attracted to matter.

Three new particles are predicted.

How can you confirm such a thing?

[talanum1 (OP)]

How can you confirm such a thing?

By measuring the energy of the electron anti-neutrino and seeing if there is missing energy.

[Bored chemist]

How can you confirm such a thing?

By measuring the energy of the electron anti-neutrino and seeing if there is missing energy.

How?

[talanum1 (OP)]

In a neutrino detector by measuring the frequency of the emitted photon and the recoil of the nucleus off which the antineutrino scattered.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Antineutrinos exists because they come from mesons and because of Structure Conservation.

There is no left handed antineutrinos because there is no particle to transform right handed antineutrinos. Z⁰_T exists but cannot interact with right handed antineutrinos since then the antineutrino will have spin -1, and this is not allowed.

[Kartazion]

In a neutrino detector by measuring the frequency of the emitted photon and the recoil of the nucleus off which the antineutrino scattered.

Photon emitted how?

[talanum1 (OP)]

Photon emitted how?

In a neutrino detector, light is emitted as a antineutrino scatters off a nucleus.

[Bored chemist]

... by measuring ... the recoil of the nucleus off which the antineutrino scattered.

How?

[talanum1 (OP)]

How?

This is the difficult part. One may be able to set up the experiment such that it is known what nucleus is going to recoil - a setup where on has a single isolated nucleus. Then use  a sensor like in the bomb experiment.

Or use a nucleus suspended in a magnetic field and sense how the field changes as the nucleus recoils.

[talanum1 (OP)]

It's not even wrong.

It's falsifiable: just prove Structure Conservation false.

[Kartazion]

Photon emitted how?

In a neutrino detector, light is emitted as a antineutrino scatters off a nucleus.

Maybe you're referring to Cherenkov radiation but AFAIK antineutrinos are produced in nuclear beta decay and this decay does not emit photons. Attempts to test a theory that photons result from neutrino-antineutrino interaction have been suggested. To check...

[Kryptid]

It's falsifiable: just prove Structure Conservation false.

And how would we do that?

[talanum1 (OP)]

And how would we do that?

Prove there is no missing energy in pi-minus decay.

[Kartazion]

Prove there is no missing energy in pi-minus decay.

In beta minus decay, a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino and the conservation of energy remains intact. Clearly the conservation of momentum and energy indicates the right solution.

Since the charged pions decay into two particles, a muon and a muon neutrino or antineutrino, then conservation of momentum and energy give the decay products definite energies... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/piondec.html

[Bored chemist]

How?

This is the difficult part. One may be able to set up the experiment such that it is known what nucleus is going to recoil - a setup where on has a single isolated nucleus. Then use  a sensor like in the bomb experiment.

Or use a nucleus suspended in a magnetic field and sense how the field changes as the nucleus recoils.

So; nothing actually possible.

[Kryptid]

Prove there is no missing energy in pi-minus decay.

Unless you define a lower limit on what that energy can be, that's not possible. Otherwise, you can always move the goalposts and claim that a particle with an energy of 0.000001 eV hasn't been ruled out, or one with 0.000000001 eV or 0.000000000000000001 eV and so on ad infinitum.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Lower limit on missing energy: 1.7*10^(-119) J.