> The mass issue for neutrinos is calculated via the loss of

Something like that indeed. The mass of the neutrinos is known just as a

> energy from beta

> type reactions, not from any actual interaction with the

> particle that

> could really measure it's mass.

domain in which it can take values. There are several sources to evaluate

the

upper limits of the neutrino mass. For instance, from cosmological

considerations

neutrinos cannot have a mass higher than 65 eV. Note that mass here is not

measured based on inertia or gravity, but rather from the energy

conservation and momentum conservation laws and their relativistic

relationship. Therefore, what actually is measured is the square of the

mass. That means when people say that muon neutrino is heavier than the

electronic neutrino, one should consider this with caution, because all mass

differences are also squared and the relationship may be actually the other

way round.

> neutrinos with 90 / 270 phase angle charge, we cannot use 0

Let's clarify this too: 270 phase neutrino is what is called antineutrino.

Or not? Logically, if you take electron and positron as being 180 degrees

apart, it follows that neutrino 90 and neutrino 270 are the particle and

antiparticle.

> 0 I assign to be positive, and 180 is negative, so 90 and 270

What you say is equivalent with: draw a circle of radius 1 in the xOy plane.

> are both neutral phases).

Start counting the phase from the point (1,0) (located on axis Ox),

anticlockwise.

Then at point (1,0) is the electron, at point (0,1) is the neutrino, at

point (-1,0) is the positron and at point (0,-1) is the antineutrino. The

axis Ox defines the electrical charge, while the axis Oy defines the

neutrino-charge (or whatever name). The neutrinos have both zero electrical

charge and the electrons have both zero neutrino-charge. That's at least how

I pictured this.

Then you can start wondering: what's at 30 degrees phase? At 60 degrees? and

so on.

With the assumptions from above, one can see that at 30 degrees phase the

electrical charge is +2/3, and at 60 degrees is +1/3. These reasamble the

quarks... You also get the right number of quarks (considering the spin

too).

I went through this sort of deduction, but sincerely I am not quite

satisfied. It does not give new answers and some other things are turning

out wrongly. I don't exclude a mistake on my side either.

> be the cause of nuclear beta decay. Further, it could

Yes. That's what I believe too, but from different reasons.

> reasonably be that

> we are bathed in a sea of neutrinos that really are just like

> electrons and

> The neutrino issue is far more complicated than others know,

Quite true. And it is a pity that efforts are not focussed on neutrinos.

> and far from solved.

Thousands of people study the heavy quarks, when these have little if no

impact at all in the going of the Universe. While with the neutrinos is a

totally different story: they play a major role in cosmology.

Cheers,

Daniel