Hi david,
From what I have read research into Neutrinos is more far reaching than I
expected.
I am putting together some thoughts on it but I came across experimental data
measuring the binding energy of atoms.

The presentation "Physics of 21st Century" by Moskov Amarian of the Department
of
Physics, Old Dominion University is at:

http://argon.physics.odu.edu/~amarian/PHYS120/NOTES/nuclear.ppt

Shows a graph for nuclear binding energy that Is similar to my S wave but does
differ slightly (as it has a logarithmic element).

While this research is obviously difficult for the experimenters to push forward
I feel their result help to proof the existence of S wave.
Basically, to recap, I believe a nucleus is fundamentally DYNAMIC not static.
The S wave TENDS to expand and then contract the nucleus but by such a small
amount it would be very hard to detect.
Not only that but there is a compressive F wave counter-balancing the S force.
I am uploading the file:

Alex Theory - S Wave Proof (1 JULY 2009).doc

which contains the images I am using. I will also try to get around to adding it
to:

http://complexqm.synthasite.com

I admit it is not conclusive but is the BEST that anyone has provided to date.
Alex

--- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, "David Rountree"
<ghost_hunter_01@...> wrote:
>
> I thought you would be interested. I sure as hell am....
>
> --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, "ukdistributors" <alexross53@>
wrote:
> >
> > Hi David,
> > Thanks for your comments. It has made me think a little more about what is
happeninmg here...
> >
> > I believe that advancing my hypothesis that quarks and elementary particles
have characteristics based upon their energy/mass (or photonic energy)
relationship
> > would be aided by describing why quarks form more or less in quantised
amounts.
> > This is obstructed by my lack of empirical data.
> > I will asssume that each atom has it's own unique F wave. That is even if
there is more than one electron shell the same F wave determines the electron's
> > orbital path.
> > It seems that this gives the energy required for one phase as the energy
quanta.
> > Now why should we need one complete phase?
> > Perhaps I have already explained this in how the energy to mass reaction
takes place.
> > Basically if you have a spherical neucleus the energy (or mass level) can be
represented by internal counter-acting spheres that move from the surface to the
centre and back again.
> > So one phase represents one complete energy change. Note that (in this case)
the neutrino needs to be exactly the correct size for this to take place.
> > In other words the quantisation is built into the fabric of the neutrino!
> > This goes slightly farther than what I have said before and seems a nice
explanation that Classical QM cannot get to grips with.
> >
> > The article:
> > "Fermilab's particle discovery conflicts with earlier finding"
> > goes into a lot of detail. I am intrigued by the picture:
> >
> > http://www.rdmag.com/images/0906/RD_Daily_image3l_0630_2009.jpg
> >
> > The thing that concerns me is understanding why the components split in the
lowest green layer. I think the picture can be viewed in a different light and
mesh with Compex QM. It really is at its best as it stands but consider treating
this solely as the diagram for the MASS relationships.
> > For the ENERGY relationships I would rotate the blue triangle 180 degrees.
> > The ssb component at one corner does NOT then translate onto the red
traingle. What we have is a blue triangle inside a red but more than this the
energy levels would try to repels each other. I expect that this would form a
Star of David effect and so the Hexagon pattern.
> > I realise that this is an over simplification but what do you think?
> > I will review your other link and get back to you soon.
> > Yours sincerely,
> > Alex
> >
> > --- In complexquantummechanics@yahoogroups.com, "David Rountree"
<ghost_hunter_01@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Fermilab's particle discovery conflicts with earlier finding
> > >
> > >
> > >
http://www.rdmag.com/ShowPR.aspx?PUBCODE=014&ACCT=1400000101&ISSUE=0906&RELTYPE=\
PSC&PRODCODE=00000000&PRODLETT=QF&CommonCount=0
> > >
> > > Physics anomaly solved, revises our notions of the nucleus
> > >
> > >
> > >
http://www.rdmag.com/ShowPR~PUBCODE~014~ACCT~1400000101~ISSUE~0906~RELTYPE~PSC~P\
RODCODE~00000000~PRODLETT~QL.html
> > >
> >
>