Neutrinos do not exist

(1963)

Like all other nuclear objects, neutrinos must necessarily be Vector quantities, as they all have Nuclear Spin, that is, Angular Momentum. Their angular momentum must add as Vector quantities and not as (directionless) Scalar Quantities. Angular Momentum must always be Conserved.

As shown here, a Vector Addition Diagram of the Nuclear Spin of a Neutron's Beta-Decay happens to be an equilateral triangle. A Neutron's Spin of 1/2 unit is one (blue) side of that triangle with a Proton's Spin of 1/2 unit (green) and an Electron's Spin of 1/2 unit (red) being the other two Vector sides. (as shown in this Vector Addition graphic). There is no issue of any problem with Conservation of Angular Momentum regarding the Spin Vector of a Neutron and the consequent Spin Vectors of a Proton and Electron.

In 1930, Wolfgang Pauli had erred in thinking that another particle must also exist which had nuclear spin. Pauli wrongly assumed that a (new) fourth particle must also exist, his neutrino, so his (incorrect, Scalar) addition could work. A proper understanding of how Vector Addition works (as in the graphic above) shows that was very wrong.

Pauli had proposed that the ONLY reason that his neutrino must exist was to solve a problem of a failure in the Conservation of Angular Momentum, a problem which did not actually even exist!

As of yet, 2022, no experiment has ever been done which has actually confirmed that Neutrinos actually exist. It took 25 years after Wolfgang Pauli had (incorrectly) speculated that Neutrinos must exist, before the first claim of an experimental confirmation was made. In 1956, some creative assumptions were made by Reines and Cowan. They devised their own unique detector, which involved detecting protons, neutrons, positrons and electrons (in order to try to prove the existence of a neutral Neutrino). A Nuclear Reactor was found to have produced a handful of unexpected responses in their detector and they announced it as proving the Neutrino. No actual Neutrinos were ever found but instead only a microscopic number of creative sequences of nuclear processes. One of their favorite processes resulted in a burst of gamma radiation, and then, later, another second burst of gamma radiation. Based on a lot of assumptions, Reines and Cowan calculated the time delay they expected between the two gamma radiation bursts. On this, an assumed sequence of nuclear events which resulted in two unique gamma radiation bursts, Reines and Cowan announced that they had proven the existence of a Neutrino. All their experiment had actually proved was that some (unknown) process took place where two gamma ray bursts occurred, where no reference to any Neutrino at all was ever involved. By the way, no neutral Neutrino could ever cause even one gamma ray burst (due to the Conservation of Energy Law). But that specific experiment, inside a nuclear reactor, is still considered the "absolute proof of Neutrinos". No actual experiment, during the following 60 years has ever (yet) even detected even a single Neutrino.

And even the many assumptions that have been made are incredibly weak. It is acknowledged that a Neutrino has no electric charge. But one of the primary claims of having detected Neutrinos is that Cherenkov Radiation had been observed. I have certainly done (different) experiments which created Cherenkov Radiation, and it is a unique experience. But only charged particles can create Cherenkov Radiation. That would logically eliminate neutral Neutrinos from the picture. A very bizarre assumption was made where an (electrically neutral) neutrino somehow waves a magic wand to create a negatively charged electron. We Physicists know that such silliness is simply impossible. We know that Electric Charge Must Be Conserved. But that assumption, where a neutral Neutrino somehow creates a negatively charged electron (in order to then cause the observed Cherenkov Radiation), is somehow simply absolutely accepted by Physicists and the world, which then, they declare proves that Neutrinos exist. No they don't.

Not only have they adopted impossible assumptions, which everyone simply accepts as valid, but even if such a process could occur, they claim that Neutrinos pass through the entire Earth without actually interacting with any atom or object along the way is supposedly only one chance in 2,000,000,000,000. Yet, they claim that in their experiment, the Neutrino didn't just collide with something big, like a Uranium nucleus, but in the tiniest available target, an electron. To then do a process which violates the Conservation Laws.

The only other experiments that allegedly prove that Neutrinos exist are essentially enormous tanks of liquid Chlorine very deep in mines. In a given year, around three atoms of Chlorine can convert to Argon atoms. The "deep in a mine" phrase is to claim that surface events then could not affect their tank of Chlorine. But they neglect the fact that each of those deep mines are relatively near even deeper concentrations of Radium and Uranium and other radioactive ores in the Earth, which do (directly) cause Cherenkov Radiation and also do interact with Chlorine atoms to create a few Argon atoms. The results they see in their underground experiments may just be absolutely natural events.