I got this link for you about the same subject. I think it will help me to explain my idea although it's not there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation
My point was that for some type of quantum ["particles"] there has to be a component of different waves having also different density and spin configuration. I tried to give you this views when I explained the photoelectric effect under a new set of theoretical rules. I saw "photo-electrons" as physical "entities" produced by a transformation of ULTRAVIOLET light [it's energy to be more precise] into a complex structure we observe as "electrons." We used the structure offered by atoms naturally and we facilitated that high energy photons to be absorbed into the spinning atomic pattern [atomic oscillator].
The interesting point in all this is that "electrons" show something we call CHARGE. Charge is due to the spin of energy creating an alternating electrical field and another called magnetic field in the process.
But we know that in order to have those fields we need potential and that also mean a different energy density in space linked one another in the same place. Now we know that the only energy FORCED to BE THERE and not scattered away or dissipated only exist in the QUANTUM WORLD. We have seen that phenomenon in the neutrino oscillation process by now.
So! If "electrons" were [as I see them] a sort of a "in-site" configuration of two different densities of E-M energy "PUT TOGETHER" by atomic oscillators (!) Wouldn't be logical to see why their existence is similar to the existence of the other three type of neutrinos?
The wavelength of electrons are
huge compared to that of neutrinos and that could make the observation of their disappearance and their spin change an impossible technically speaking. For us "electrons" are eternal entities with a permanent charge that gives them the FALSE rights to be considered ELEMENTAL PARTICLES... But they are not so!!!
Just as neutrinos are the rest of the catalogue of "human particles" are the "illusion of our apparatus" in a sense. OH! They are real do not misunderstand me! But their reality is space-dependent (!) Imagine the same argument in relationship with LIGHT... (!)
WE WOULD NEED THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IN LENGTH TO BE ABLE TO SEE HOW THE LIGHT FROM STARS CHANGE IN COLORS AND IN INTENSITY ALONG THE WAVELENGTH... That is hard to believe, I know.
Gluons are believed to have "color charge." 1/3? Asymptotic freedom? Negative beta functions? Wouldn't be easier to see the whole picture in a different logical way?
HUMANBYDEFAULT