jcYoon's Physics

[Douglas J. Newman]

From: doug@sci-docs.com
2010-08-17 am 12:55

Dear Dr. Yoon,

This is mainly to check that your e-mail address is still valid. I would like to discuss Lorentz violation with you.

Best wishes,

Doug Newman - see web site associated with above e-mail address

[jcyoon]

2010-08-18 오전 5:01

Dear Professor Douglas J. Newman,

Yes, this e-mail address is valid.
And it will be my pleasure if we can discuss Lorentz violation issue.

Sincerely yours,
J.C. Yoon

[Douglas J. Newman]

2010-08-17 PM 9:43

Dear Dr. Yoon,

Basically, I think that your argument is correct, and would like to reference it (as on arXiv) when I submit the first paper on my website for publication. Do you have any updates of your paper? My paper provides a means of getting weak interactions with leptons that does not involve mass generation by interactions with a Higgs boson field. It is explicitly relativistic and (I think) rids the theory of the problem that you raise. It does, however, rely on the introduction of a rather complete revision of the current Dirac theory. Any comments would be appreciated.

Would you be willing to cross-link our websites?

All the best,

Doug Newman

[jcyoon]

2010-08-21 AM 3:27

Dear Professor Douglas J. Newman,

I will be very grateful for recognizing my argument. And I would like to crosslink your website ( http://sci-docs.com/Dirac.htm ) by posting our correspondence. In fact, it is quite exciting to see your work, since I have always been wondering about how to rebuild the Standard Model acknowledging the critical problem.

As you may already know, the most recent update is the accurate calculation on parity violation in SLAC E158 and SLD (as posted on http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.3700). Later I have tried to make it clear that parity violation by T.D. Lee and C.N. Yang should be reinterpreted as the asymmetry between opposite relative spin polarizations, not that between opposite helicities, for massive neutrinos. Though I have some concerns reserved for its conclusion, generally I would agree that neutrino is massive. Since this aspect was already implied from the previous works and I have no time for physics now, my article is left unfinished.

However, from this perspective it would be great if you could deal with massive neutrinos also in your research.

Sincerely yours,
J.C. Yoon

[Douglas J. Newman]

2010-08-25 오전 12:30

Dear Dr. Yoon,

You are welcome to put any of my comments on your website. I was perturbed, however, that you suggested that a Nobel prize in physics was wrongly awarded. Awards come from correct predictions of physical phenomena - they don't have to be based on theoretically impeccable arguments.

I think that the argument in your paper is essentially correct: no sort of perturbation can give a massless particle mass. This is because, however weak the interaction, in some Lorentz frame it would be instantly changed from moving at the velocity of light to being at rest, reducing its momentum to zero. Another argument is related to using Lorentz invariant normalisation, as in my paper. Spinors of zero rest mass particles are normalised to zero, while non-zero rest mass particles have normalisation one. Again, a discontinuous change would have to arise from an arbitrarily small interaction.

Re. your last remark, the neutrinos in my theory have zero mass, so that a new theory needs to be developed to account for flavour mixing.

I'm sorry that you have given up on physics, for you seem capable of doing good work.

All the best,

Doug Newman