neutron decay --- the nature of
hanson
and an antineutrino. .... IOW, the beta decay lets the
neutron "reincarnate" as a stable set of a proton and
an electron and an a-nu plus the respective kinetic
energies.
What is it in the character of the proton that prevents
this decay under certain circumstances?
neutron/proton combo half-lives
n 10 min
n + p = H stable
2n + p = D stable
3n + p = T 12.5 years
Why isn't there a linear half-life correlation for
the proton loading/association with neutrons?
Why/how does only one or 2 protons stabilize the n?
What is the reason for the "p-stabilization" of
neutron plateau to fail/fall on either side?
We see the same narrow band of elements stability
of n = p +/- a few n's throughout the periodic table.
What is the cause of the almost 1:1 p/n relation ship
that is necessary to produce stable elements?
--
hanson
PS: Gimme answers in English, not in QM "momentum
state" speak or with the help of octonions and other
math dances...
FrediFizzx
news:KIREf.412$Gg1.179@trnddc03...
Lowest energy levels of the configurations are the most stable? IOW, a
free neutron decays to a proton because it has enough excess energy to
allow the decay products. A neutron-proton pair is more stable than a
proton-proton pair or neutron-neutron pair for the same reasons.
Roughly.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Spaceman
| and an antineutrino. .... IOW, the beta decay lets the
| neutron "reincarnate" as a stable set of a proton and
| an electron and an a-nu plus the respective kinetic
| energies.
|
| What is it in the character of the proton that prevents
| this decay under certain circumstances?
|
| neutron/proton combo half-lives
| n 10 min
| n + p = H stable
| 2n + p = D stable
| 3n + p = T 12.5 years
|
| Why isn't there a linear half-life correlation for
| the proton loading/association with neutrons?
|
| Why/how does only one or 2 protons stabilize the n?
happy balance.
:)
| What is the reason for the "p-stabilization" of
| neutron plateau to fail/fall on either side?
balance/unbalance.
| We see the same narrow band of elements stability
| of n = p +/- a few n's throughout the periodic table.
|
| What is the cause of the almost 1:1 p/n relation ship
| that is necessary to produce stable elements?
balance again.
Take a fat guy and a skinny guy who are holding a rope
across the middle on a merry go round and spin and
see who leaves the merry go round first. (unbalance)
Now try with 2 skinny guys of the same basic mass.
(balance)
:)
| --
| hanson
|
| PS: Gimme answers in English, not in QM "momentum
| state" speak or with the help of octonions and other
| math dances...
I tried.
I hope I get an A+ !
:)
Traveler
ahahaha... Hanson, haven't you learned yet? You are not allowed to ask
why in physics. So says a recently departed ass kisser by the name of
Michael Varney. ahahaha... People like you are the reason he left. You
drove him crazy with your why questions. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Autymn D. C.
> What is it in the character of the proton that prevents
> this decay under certain circumstances?
>
> neutron/proton combo half-lives
> n 10 min
> n + p = H stable
> 2n + p = D stable
> 3n + p = T 12.5 years
Your isotopes overflow.
n -886 s-> 'nu'+H
0n+p+e = 0+H = P -···>
1n+p+e = n+P = D -···>
2n+p+e = n+D = T = epnn -12.5 yr> 'nu'+eeppn = 'nu'+He-3
3n+p+e = n+T = R = epnnn -*whoosh*>
0n+pp+ee = 0+HH -*whoosh*> 2P
1n+pp+ee = n+PP = He-3 -···>
2n+pp+ee = n+He-3 = He-4 -···>
3n+pp+ee = n+He-4 = He-5 -*whoosh*> n+He-4
4n+pp+ee = n+He-5 = He-6 -807 ms> 'nu'+eeepppnnn = 'nu'+Li-6
5n+pp+ee = n+He-6 = He-7 -*whoosh*> n+He-6
6n+pp+ee = n+He-7 = He-8 -119 ms> 'nu'+eeepppnnnn = 'nu'+Li-7
and
1'nu'+Li-6 -···>
0'nu'+Li-7 -···>
1'nu'+Li-7 -?> 'nu'+n+Li-6
> Why isn't there a linear half-life correlation for
> the proton loading/association with neutrons?
>
> Why/how does only one or 2 protons stabilize the n?
>
> What is the reason for the "p-stabilization" of
> neutron plateau to fail/fall on either side?
Did you expect the retards to show up after you asked these?
It looks like the nucleic blob wants tetrahedra, in line with hexagonal
close packing or face-centric cubic in atomic or orangeic lattices.
Unalike quarks topull, and down is heavier than up:
(quarks not to 2D and 3D spec)
p = uud -> u[ud] -···>
n = udd -> [ud]d -886 s> [ud]u + 'nu' + e
pn = uududd -> [u[ud][ud]d] -···>
pnn = uududdudd -> [u[ud][ud][du]d]d -···>
pp = uuduud -> uu[du][ud] -*whoosh*> p + p
ppn = uuduududd -> u[u[du][ud][ud]d] -···>
ppnn = uuduududdudd -> [u[du][ud][ud][du]d]d -···>
I wish we could use the Roman letters bdpq to more mechanic
advantage... Movie critics could.
> We see the same narrow band of elements stability
> of n = p +/- a few n's throughout the periodic table.
>
> What is the cause of the almost 1:1 p/n relation ship
> that is necessary to produce stable elements?
The quarks are complementary of course. Nuclei like pn in 1D and pnpn
in 3D. nn and nnnn make 1D and 3D halos. I had a theory on this:
<http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-1326.html>.
> PS: Gimme answers in English, not in QM "momentum
> state" speak or with the help of octonions and other
> math dances...
As English is the chosen tongueship from below, if they only knew how
to treat it.
-Aut
frank...@yahoo.com
everything which can be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html
In particular is the cubic atomic model which can be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/atmpics2.html
This physical model may explain the behavior of neutrons. I believe
that neutrons are not stable because space is effectively made up of a
crystal lattice of neutrons locked together like a box of sugar cubes.
If you try to shove another cube into the box, it just doesn't fit and
large pressures are placed upon any extra cube which eventually grind
it up and cause it to decompose into it's component proton/electron.
Another possiblity is that the neutron is simply absorbed into the
crystal matrix if it finds room. The generation of the anti-neutrino
may be the result of the decomposed neutron taking up less space than
the free neutron. A free neutron may take up 3 units of space, while a
proton/electron pair take up only 2 units. This leaves 1 unit empty
which is effectively an empty cube in a box of sugar cubes.
I have been working with this model to show that neutrons need to act
as the glue to keep free protons and electrons together. The neutrons
act very much like a proton/electron pair and attract a free
proton/electron to the neutron's dipole. This explains the stability of
H since it effectively forms a square arrangement which is stronger
than just a free neutron and can resist the pressures of fitting into
the crystal neutron matrix. D is also stable because this corresponds
to a balanced situation where neutrons can be fitted against the same
proton/electron pair (N-P-N). T is not stable because the 3rd neutron
cannot be in a linear arrangement with the proton/electron pair and
must attach somewhere in the middle. This is unbalanced and is not
stable.
N-P-N
|
N
The 1:1 ratio is required to form stable square and cube structures. My
newer models show that the maximum number of neutrons which can be
attached to any given atom is restricted by the number of spaces in the
atom's matrix that can be filled in by neutrons. In the pictures, you
can see the atoms form stair step like shapes. Neutrons can only fit
into these stairs steps. Once they are filled, that is the maximum the
atom can carry. Stability depends on how symettric the arrangement of
extra neutrons are. I hope to update my web site showing how this works
very closely for elements up to neon.
fhuneutron
PD
It's a good question and basically amounts to the same question as, why
does a neutron decay by itself and not in an atomic nucleus? And a
teasing answer would be, well, it *does* decay in some nuclei -- in
beta decay. And so this points to the follow-up question, well, (1)
what does the nucleus have to do with it, and (2) what's different
about one nucleus as opposed to the other? The answers to *both* those
questions are crucial.
The answer to (1) is that the neutron does not behave independently of
the other nucleons, which is what would give rise to the linear
behavior you expected. Ask yourself what the final state would be if
the neutron did decay in tritium -- you'd end up with a helium isotope
He-3 that is relatively rare. Why is it rare? Because the *combination*
of nucleons is energetically disfavored. And now ask yourself if the
energy liberated by neutron decay is enough to gain access to that
higher-energy combination.
The comparison between the energies of the initial and final nuclear
states, and whether the neutron decay provides access to that
difference, is the answer to (2).
PD
hanson
news:fqs7u1t66jtf1sejj...@4ax.com...
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/70d751acf37f2cb8
> ahahaha... Hanson, haven't you learned yet? You are not
> ass kisser by the name of Michael Varney [3]. ahahaha...
> People like you [2] are the reason he left. You drove
> him crazy with your why questions. ahahaha...
> Louis Savain
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
>
... ahahaha.. well, well, you, me and "them" do know behind
the scenes that this, [1] "allow" is rather "hollow", ahahaha...
"They", the teachers, preachers and proselytizers of geriatric
physics use the "No why" conveniently as their escape
hatch against those students who ask them embarrassing
questions that they cannot answer and some even do need
it as a hedge to protect their authority, believability and
credibility .... ahahahaha....
... [2] yes, of course there are people in/at this 24/7 crazy cyber
party who wanna make other folks leave. But I am not one of
them. I have never said FOaD nor "go away", etc. My motto is
==== "Let'em sing!... All of'em!... It's a beauful choir! ====
AFA Varney [3]... the only disagreement I ever had with
Mikey was that he swallowed and parroted the belief that
the gravitational force has an infinite reach. He just could
not get himself to see that normal common sense dictates
that this force only reaches from light wall to light wall, and
that even GR says so in its terminology that radius is just R
and not infinite as shown here in the concatenated form of the
cosmological skeleton of/for the visible universe which states
in a beautiful 1/(2,3,4) power chain that says:
:::: c = (G*M/R)^(1/2) = (G*M*H)^(1/3) = (G*M*br)^(1/4) :::
wherein
c= lightspeed, G= Newton, M= total mass in a sphere of R,
H= 1/Travel time from any center to R at the speed of c and
br = the deceleration (or = the curvature of space in SR/GR
terms) caused by G & M, fixing the value of c, or visa versa.
Plug in the numbers, use the Hubble value for H, and then
see for instance the Pioneer 11 anomaly thru' effects of [br].
Check it out. It's fun to see how elegantly things line up.
Louis, check this equation out at a level of 3 N_A steps futher
down (hence refined and magnified). You'll find there many
ear marks/properties of your accessible lattice domain, in
that "lattice from which nothing escapes". Great line, Louis!
......ahahaha.... ahahanson
>
------- Back to the neutron decay issue ---------
--- Retorts to the other respondents ---
Thanks you for your efforts. Mind you guys, I don't know a
good answer for this, myself. That's why I wanna hear some
new angles about this, radical notions, not a cloaked re-wording
of geriatric text book stuff [4]
== To Freddy: Your "drive to the lowest energy level" proposal
is not assailable but has the smell of [4].
== To Spaceman: Your thin man / fat man scenario is cute
but that's a wee bit too English only.
== To Autymn: Thanks for your considerable efforts of expanding
with a total flavor of [4], into quark lingo, what I was asking about
including your "isotope overflow" and "packing". This Feynman
q-slot machine gag maybe ok but it hasn't answered my question.
What your "retards", "Roman letters" and "movie critics" have to
do with it... unfortunately escapes me... ahahaha... but, I will take a
look at your t-1326-Theory and if a find a gem in it I'll let you know.
== To Franklin: Your abstract for your websites I like the best so far.
I will look though critically at whether or not yours is not simply the
same as the standard quark model but using different environments.
== To P Drake: Thank you for having managed to re-word my own
questions ... and adding no new insight, barring your generous
pontifications, vintage [4]
Generally, I have learned some good things from sci.physics...
I may not make a big deal about acknowledging it, because
the realization may happen much, much later in a thought
association when I remember a few little words, a number,
phrase or context that someone had uttered here in these *.sci
NGs. One thing though is sure, none of the novel, gap filling
gems came from the NG teacher types (or Louis' ass kissers)
who are only good at regurgitating what's written in a book.....
ahahaha... ahahanson
Spaceman
| == To Spaceman: Your thin man / fat man scenario is cute
| but that's a wee bit too English only.
Darn,
I did not include enough time dilation and length constraction stuff.
:(
:)
FrediFizzx
Smell of [4]? Sheesh hanson, it is exactly [4]! But you just said in
"words". But maybe you didn't quite ask the right question? Why
doesn't a free proton decay? Because it all hinges on that since it is
the lowest energy level for a nucleon. My take... Because a proton has
a triple quark configuration, it can't return to the quantum "vacuum"
unless it meets an anti-proton. Then it will decay. All its quarks
will have necessary decay partners that are necessary. Particles in or
out of the quantum "vacuum" always have to happen in pairs unless there
is a weak transformation.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
hanson
news:44o16aF...@individual.net...
> Smell of [4]? Sheesh hanson, it is exactly [4]! But you just said in
> "words".
>
ahahaha... AHAHA... ok, ok, sorry, let me change the word "smell"
to "scent" or even more ameliorating to "perfume"... ahahaha...
Unfortunately, here in this grand and crazy NG environment I do
not want a cut and paste out of text books [4]. I wanna hear new
and CRAZY ideas... right or wrong... on former one I go AWE!!...
awe! WOW!... and one the latter ones I ROTFLMAO... ahahaha...
>
[Freddy]
> But maybe you didn't quite ask the right question?
>
... Now here, Freddy, you snuck in a profound and little
appreciated remark.... because if one is lucky enough
to ask the right question...then one can see the problem
clear enough to find ways for a solution/answer. But
such is not visible to me from your next paragraph. May
be you or someone else can backtrack it to the inconsistent
varying life times of a neutron in various environs.....
>
[Freddy]
> Why doesn't a free proton decay?
> Because it all hinges on that since it is the lowest energy level
> for a nucleon. My take... Because a proton has a triple quark
> configuration, it can't return to the quantum "vacuum"
> unless it meets an anti-proton. Then it will decay. All its quarks
> will have necessary decay partners that are necessary. Particles
> in or out of the quantum "vacuum" always have to happen in pairs
> unless there is a weak transformation.
>
.... there is that perfume of [4] again....ahahahaha....
davidjons...@gmail.com
Physically both
n -> p+e+anti nu
and
n+nu ->p+e
are possible. Experiments can tell the difference. Try to find articles
on measurements of beta decay. I have only found
Experimental Investigations of Changes in ß-Decay Rate of 60Co
and 137Cs
by Baurov et al
http://www.worldscinet.com/mpla/16/1632/S0217732301005187.html
which I think support the latter reaction since there are variations in
the decay rate which could be explained by variations in neutrino flow.
There is also a correlation to the speed of earth which would imply a
doppler shift on the neutrino energies or neutrino waves depending on
how you see it. The latter reaction also has a more natural and
probable distribution of the neutrino energies. (The authors explain
the effect with the vector potential.)
We have been taught for 70 years or so about the nature of beta decay
being a process with a fixed decay rate. I just assume that there are
measurements confirming this but I have yet not found any. Can you find
anything?
David
Puppet_Sock
> neutron/proton combo half-lives
> n 10 min
> n + p = H stable
> 2n + p = D stable
> 3n + p = T 12.5 years
Your table is messed up.
Neutrons have a half life about 15 minutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
Ordinary Hydrogen is a single proton, no neutron.
The Deuteron, usually the symbol D, is one neutron and one proton.
A Tritium nucleus, usual symbol T, is two neutrons and one proton.
D's are stable. T's have a half life to Beta decay of about 12.3 years.
I don't know what three neutrons and a proton is called, but I'd expect
it to be pretty unstable. It's not labled "T."
See this link at the title "Notable Isotopes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen
> Why isn't there a linear half-life correlation for
> the proton loading/association with neutrons?
Why should there be? Lots of things are not linear.
> Why/how does only one or 2 protons stabilize the n?
If a deuteron were to decay through beta decay, it would
become a p + p. So, check out the energies of the start
and finish states, then explain why it does not happen.
> What is the reason for the "p-stabilization" of
> neutron plateau to fail/fall on either side?
It's to do with what energy levels are available and how
they are filled. For Beta decay to work, the end result
has to be lower energy so the decay products can have
some energy to leave with. If you pile rocks at the bottom
of a hole, they won't spontaneously roll away. If you pile
them at the top of a hill, they might.
> We see the same narrow band of elements stability
> of n = p +/- a few n's throughout the periodic table.
>
> What is the cause of the almost 1:1 p/n relation ship
> that is necessary to produce stable elements?
Well, actually, the number of neutrons rises as you
go up through the periodic table. By the time you get
to lead, you've got 82 protons and, depending on the
isotope, 123, 124, or 125 neutrons. Plus, the higher
you go in the periodic table, the less likely you are to
be able to find any ratio that is stable, though the
half lives can be pretty long.
Socks
hanson
news:1139241923....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Your table is messed up.
>
You are right.!!!! Sock, Thanks. (never mind the times).
You are keen observer, Sock. I am surprised that no one
caught the error at the outset. It should have read as you
correctly stated:
>> neutron/proton combo half-lives
>> n ~10 min
>> n + p = D stable
>> 2n + p = T ~12.5 years
... and now let me express it in a ***ratio form**
so that EACH neutron has a proton share of [A]
n + 0 p = (n) ~10 min
n + 1/2 p = (T) ~ 12.5 years
n + 1 p = (D) stable
to _illustrate_ how the p/n ratio influences longevity
(I don't mean fractional particles)
Why does the "linear" addition of p's to n's
give such a highly variable unexpected half-lives?
Add 1/2 to 1 proton-share to each n and n becomes
more stable. Make clumps of such arrangements and.....
[hanson]
>> We see the same narrow band of elements stability
>> of n = p +/- a few n's throughout the periodic table.
>>
>> What is the cause of the almost 1:1 p/n relation ship
>> that is necessary to produce stable elements?
>
[Sock]
> Well, actually, the number of neutrons rises as you
> go up through the periodic table. By the time you get
> to lead, you've got 82 protons and, depending on the
> isotope, 123, 124, or 125 neutrons. Plus, the higher
> you go in the periodic table, the less likely you are to
> be able to find any ratio that is stable, though the
> half lives can be pretty long.
> Socks
>
[hanson]
Right, but "WHY" ... what you said is textbook stuff.
But I like to hear NEW stuff. Wild & crazy. Gimme a new
story, a new angle why when that 82p/125n is around
the stabilty tends towards stable. That ratio: 82p/125n =~
2/3 proton shares per neutron. (this is what I tried to
convey in the messed up table). Now, fit that into table [A]..
and tell me where/what the neutron's property is that makes
it stable in that range, clumping and all ... and dream....
...... like the quark concept that occurred to the originator
when he looked at a slot machine in Vegas. That was coo
l and original. Be cool and original too. Find some such
**"it's like"**. They are all over. Nature is self-similar
over all domains and realms. ... And while you are at it ask
yourself "why is nature self-similar", why is it a gigantic heap
of "it's like". The answer to that brings you a GUT and a TOE...
ahahaha..... Thanks again Sock. hanson
frank...@yahoo.com
davidjons...@gmail.com wrote:
> See my thread about neutrino caused beta decay in sci.physics.particle.
> Physically both
> n -> p+e+anti nu
> and
> n+nu ->p+e
> are possible. Experiments can tell the difference.
Great observation! I just had a brainstorm about this. My own theories
indicate that the charge carriers for the postitive and negative charge
actually have the same mass and characteristics, but that we always see
a proton as the positive carrier (call it p!) with a neutron. This
means that even hydrogen always has a neutron associated with it.
A neutron n is a combination of just the postive/negative carriers (p!
e)
A proton p is a combination of neutron & postive carrier p! (p! e)
A neutrino nu is just a fast moving neutral aether particle (p! e)
If we plug this into your equation:
(p! e) neutron + (p! e) neutrino -> (p! p! e) proton + e
So the combination of neutron and neutrino is really the combination of
2 nearly identical neutral particles to produce a composite proton and
free electron. I think this explains the anti-neutrino and conservation
of particles in beta decay. If we can show that beta decay rates change
in the presence of a neutrino beam, we'd have confirmation.
PD
frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
> davidjons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > See my thread about neutrino caused beta decay in sci.physics.particle.
> > Physically both
> > n -> p+e+anti nu
> > and
> > n+nu ->p+e
> > are possible. Experiments can tell the difference.
>
> Great observation! I just had a brainstorm about this. My own theories
> indicate that the charge carriers for the postitive and negative charge
> actually have the same mass and characteristics, but that we always see
> a proton as the positive carrier (call it p!) with a neutron. This
> means that even hydrogen always has a neutron associated with it.
Really? Where?
You might be surprised to know that we can tell the difference between
isotopes with spectroscopy. You might even be surprised to know that
hydrogen with a neutron in it is measurably different in "heavy water"
than in regular water.
PD
PD
hanson wrote:
> Right, but "WHY" ... what you said is textbook stuff.
> But I like to hear NEW stuff. Wild & crazy. Gimme a new
> story, a new angle
...... like the quark concept that occurred to the originator
> when he looked at a slot machine in Vegas. That was coo
> l and original. Be cool and original too. Find some such
> **"it's like"**. They are all over. Nature is self-similar
> over all domains and realms. ... And while you are at it ask
> yourself "why is nature self-similar", why is it a gigantic heap
> of "it's like". The answer to that brings you a GUT and a TOE...
> ahahaha..... Thanks again Sock. hanson
Ah, so THAT'S what's important in this group. Be wild & crazy, cool and
original. Don't worry about being right....
PD
FrediFizzx
Look up "Gribov's vacuum". Basically the Coulomb field of the nucleus
gets to be so great that e+e- pairs are created from the vacuum in the
vicinity of the nucleus causing instability. The extra neutrons are
needed to "spread out" the Coulomb field so that it is not so intense at
any particular point.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
frank...@yahoo.com
PD wrote:
> frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > davidjons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > See my thread about neutrino caused beta decay in sci.physics.particle.
> > > Physically both
> > > n -> p+e+anti nu
> > > and
> > > n+nu ->p+e
> > > are possible. Experiments can tell the difference.
> >
> > Great observation! I just had a brainstorm about this. My own theories
> > indicate that the charge carriers for the postitive and negative charge
> > actually have the same mass and characteristics, but that we always see
> > a proton as the positive carrier (call it p!) with a neutron. This
> > means that even hydrogen always has a neutron associated with it.
>
> Really? Where?
To make it clear - the proton ALWAYS contains a neutron INSIDE of it.
To distinguish the postive charge carrier particle from the proton,
lets call it a "Postron". A proton is a combination of postron +
neutron. The mass of a prostron is equal to the mass of an electron. If
true, then we may be mistaking the postron as the anti-electron. This
also explains why the mass of a neutron is so close to the mass of a
proton. In this case, there are no quarks carrying 1/3 charges, just
postron & electron combinations.
I'd like to hear what you know that would rule out a proton as being a
composite neutron + postron.
Traveler
>[Louis]
>> ahahaha... Hanson, haven't you learned yet? You are not
>> allowed [1] to ask why in physics. So says a recently departed
>> ass kisser by the name of Michael Varney [3]. ahahaha...
>> People like you [2] are the reason he left. You drove
>> him crazy with your why questions. ahahaha...
>> Louis Savain
>> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
>> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
>>
>[hanson]
>... ahahaha.. well, well, you, me and "them" do know behind
>the scenes that this, [1] "allow" is rather "hollow", ahahaha...
>"They", the teachers, preachers and proselytizers of geriatric
>physics use the "No why" conveniently as their escape
>hatch against those students who ask them embarrassing
>questions that they cannot answer and some even do need
>it as a hedge to protect their authority, believability and
>credibility .... ahahahaha....
Yep. It's just an excuse.
>... [2] yes, of course there are people in/at this 24/7 crazy cyber
>party who wanna make other folks leave. But I am not one of
>them. I have never said FOaD nor "go away", etc. My motto is
>==== "Let'em sing!... All of'em!... It's a beauful choir! ====
You got a point. Let them sing indeed.
>AFA Varney [3]... the only disagreement I ever had with
>Mikey was that he swallowed and parroted the belief that
>the gravitational force has an infinite reach.
Ass kissers in general have an unholy love affair with infinity.
ahaha...
> He just could
>not get himself to see that normal common sense dictates
>that this force only reaches from light wall to light wall,
Absolutely.
> and
>that even GR says so in its terminology that radius is just R
>and not infinite as shown here in the concatenated form of the
>cosmological skeleton of/for the visible universe which states
>in a beautiful 1/(2,3,4) power chain that says:
>:::: c = (G*M/R)^(1/2) = (G*M*H)^(1/3) = (G*M*br)^(1/4) :::
>wherein
>c= lightspeed, G= Newton, M= total mass in a sphere of R,
>H= 1/Travel time from any center to R at the speed of c and
>br = the deceleration (or = the curvature of space in SR/GR
>terms) caused by G & M, fixing the value of c, or visa versa.
>Plug in the numbers, use the Hubble value for H, and then
>see for instance the Pioneer 11 anomaly thru' effects of [br].
>Check it out. It's fun to see how elegantly things line up.
IMO, the Pioneer anomaly and the so-called invisible dark matter are
secondary artifacts of the motion of radiating photons. Ultimately, it
has to do with energy conservation. As huge numbers of photons move
about, energy is often borrowed and has to be repaid. The repayment
takes the form of increased gravitational pull and red shifting. The
Big Bang theory is on shaky grounds because it uses red shifting as a
barometer for expansion, not taking into account that that light
shifts automatically to the red as it moves over huge distances.
>Louis, check this equation out at a level of 3 N_A steps futher
>down (hence refined and magnified). You'll find there many
>ear marks/properties of your accessible lattice domain, in
>that "lattice from which nothing escapes". Great line, Louis!
>......ahahaha.... ahahanson
Interesting.
>------- Back to the neutron decay issue ---------
> --- Retorts to the other respondents ---
>Thanks you for your efforts. Mind you guys, I don't know a
>good answer for this, myself. That's why I wanna hear some
>new angles about this, radical notions, not a cloaked re-wording
>of geriatric text book stuff [4]
OK. You asked in your original post:
>Why/how does only one or 2 protons stabilize the n?
In my opinion, the neutron is not really stabilized by the presence of
the protons in the nucleus. I strongly suspect that it constantly
decays but the decay products are immediately reabsorbed so as to
reconstitute the original neutron. This happens at such minute
distances that we cannot (yet) detect the interactions. In fact, I
would go so far as to suppose that an isolated proton continually
decays as well but is reabsorbed, giving the illusion of long term
stability.
Having said that, I must add that I do have problems with the quark
hypothesis and the concept of fractional charges. My current
hypothesis is that there really is a single charge but it moves about
among the constituent particles. It's like having multiple neutral
particles sharing the same charge property giving the appearance of
fractional charges. But that's another story for another time.
ahaha... Hey, you asked for a new angle. You got it. ahahaha...
hanson
> In my opinion, the neutron is not really stabilized by the presence of
> the protons in the nucleus. I strongly suspect that it constantly
> decays but the decay products are immediately reabsorbed so as to
> reconstitute the original neutron. This happens at such minute
> distances that we cannot (yet) detect the interactions. In fact, I
> would go so far as to suppose that an isolated proton continually
> decays as well but is reabsorbed, giving the illusion of long term
> stability.
>
> Having said that, I must add that I do have problems with the quark
> hypothesis and the concept of fractional charges. My current
> hypothesis is that there really is a single charge but it moves about
> among the constituent particles. It's like having multiple neutral
> particles sharing the same charge property giving the appearance of
> fractional charges. But that's another story for another time.
> ahaha... Hey, you asked for a new angle. You got it. ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
>
Now, that's a great angle. Louis. I do not know whether it's totally
novel by itself, because something like that is successfully used
in QM: Dirac's virtual pop-in/out charge sea and the non locality
of electron clouds, as opposed to the Bohr model. But perhaps
applying this/your type of mechanism to the inside of the nucleus'
machinations is intriguing. I hope someone professional in that
field picks this up and tells us whether this has not already been
tried. --- OT-Charge sharing... ahahaha... at this peculiar moment
this has a very personal meaning... ahahaha... I sure shared one:
Last week a piece of shrapnel broke my jaw and knocked two
teeth out... ahahaha... I gotta stop farting around with these
contracts. This time, Pretty Woman told me that it served me right.
I promised her after the last "outings" (see: "Gleaner9" or "134227" )
that I would stop, settle down and look after the biz. Maybe one
day I will wise up and listen... but maybe I will simple disappear
in Dirac's sea.... ahahaha... Thanks for a great post, Louis .
hanson
hanson
Thanks, Freddy, and so too to the rest of the guys of
this the clan, in this session of the neutron gathering.
Sock, thanks for correcting the issue! PD Padre Draper
go do your P_edagogic D_ispensing with your own clan
and if you have some P_rincipal D_esire left to P_robe
D_aring new, original and crazy stuff you are more than
welcome. Let me repeat for your benefit: "In looking for
new ways you have to be right only ONE time. To keep
things status quo you have to be right ALL the time.
Are you?.... ahahahaha... ahahaha... ahahanson
>
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44pkb2F...@individual.net...
hanson
news:1139251020....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> hanson wrote:
>> Right, but "WHY" ... what you said is textbook stuff.
>> But I like to hear NEW stuff. Wild & crazy. Gimme a new
>> story, a new angle
> [snip]
>> ...... like the quark concept that occurred to the originator
>> when he looked at a slot machine in Vegas. That was coo
>> l and original. Be cool and original too. Find some such
>> **"it's like"**. They are all over. Nature is self-similar
>> over all domains and realms. ... And while you are at it ask
>> yourself "why is nature self-similar", why is it a gigantic heap
>> of "it's like". The answer to that brings you a GUT and a TOE...
>> ahahaha..... Thanks again Sock. hanson
>
> Ah, so THAT'S what's important in this group.
> Be wild & crazy, cool and original. Don't worry about being right....
> PD
>
.... ahaha... there is some P_edantic D_demeanor in your note.
But you are right! You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, PeaDee.
There are some geriatric teachers here, like you, who fulfill the role
of cyber tutors and who do the home work for lazy students.. ahaha...
trying to P_urvey D_ogma in the hope to make P_avlovian D_ogs
by P_reventing D_octrins of geriatric physics to rejuvenate.
Listen, I am not looking down on you and your class. You are
essential in the greater scheme of things as is seen in the principle
of self similarity, reiterations and discreteness. So, try to be
discreet about it and realize that being right is an extremely
relativistic pov, completely frame dependent... unless your
are into frame dragging... which is what you tried to do in your
post.... ahahahahaha... ahahaha... Thanks for the laugh, PD.
ahahaha... ahhahahanson
Traveler
Yeah. Dirac was definitely onto something big. He correctly deduced
that we are moving in a highly energetic sea of real (not virtual)
particles. Bohr's model of the atom is, of course, pure crackpottery.
ahahaha...
>But perhaps
>applying this/your type of mechanism to the inside of the nucleus'
>machinations is intriguing. I hope someone professional in that
>field picks this up and tells us whether this has not already been
>tried. ---
It doubt it. There is too much religious indoctrination taking place
in the physics community's worldwide madrassas. ahahaha... It's not
easy to overcome.
> OT-Charge sharing... ahahaha... at this peculiar moment
>this has a very personal meaning... ahahaha... I sure shared one:
>Last week a piece of shrapnel broke my jaw and knocked two
>teeth out... ahahaha... I gotta stop farting around with these
>contracts. This time, Pretty Woman told me that it served me right.
>I promised her after the last "outings" (see: "Gleaner9" or "134227" )
>that I would stop, settle down and look after the biz. Maybe one
>day I will wise up and listen... but maybe I will simple disappear
>in Dirac's sea.... ahahaha... Thanks for a great post, Louis .
>hanson
Wow! You're kidding? If not, I hope you were not disfigured and not in
need of a face transplant. You know, Pretty Woman does not deserve a
Frankenstein monster. ahahaha... That said, you seem to have chosen a
dangerous line of business. Be very careful. If something should
happen to you, I, for one, would miss your spicy brand of humor and
your insightful posts.
Bob Cain
Traveler wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:35:35 GMT, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> ... If something should
> happen to you, I, for one, would miss your spicy brand of humor and
> your insightful posts.
Could this possibly be... Nah, Savain would never kiss ass would he.
How silly of me.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
hanson
news:rkghu1l35mknjo2sj...@4ax.com...
>>> In my opinion, the neutron is not really stabilized by the presence of
>>> the protons in the nucleus. I strongly suspect that it constantly
>>> decays but the decay products are immediately reabsorbed so as to
>>> reconstitute the original neutron. This happens at such minute
>>> distances that we cannot (yet) detect the interactions. In fact, I
>>> would go so far as to suppose that an isolated proton continually
>>> decays as well but is reabsorbed, giving the illusion of long term
>>> stability.
>>> Having said that, I must add that I do have problems with the quark
>>> hypothesis and the concept of fractional charges. My current
>>> hypothesis is that there really is a single charge but it moves about
>>> among the constituent particles. It's like having multiple neutral
>>> particles sharing the same charge property giving the appearance of
>>> fractional charges. But that's another story for another time.
>>> ahaha... Hey, you asked for a new angle. You got it. ahahaha...
>>>
>>Now, that's a great angle. Louis. I do not know whether it's totally
>>novel by itself, because something like that is successfully used
>>in QM: Dirac's virtual pop-in/out charge sea and the non locality
>>of electron clouds, as opposed to the Bohr model.
>
> Yeah. Dirac was definitely onto something big. He correctly deduced
> particles. Bohr's model [2] of the atom is, of course, pure crackpottery.
> ahahaha...
>
[hanson]
[1] Not only that, but his numerical approximations in his LNH
were fantastic given the time he issued it. He missed the N_A
connection though. [2] Reconsider. From the lattice pov it is,
in perhaps modyfied form, a milestone example of the self-
similarity in the manifest discreteness/lumpiness of nature.
>
[hanson]
>>But perhaps
>>applying this/your type of mechanism to the inside of the nucleus'
>>machinations is intriguing. I hope someone professional in that
>>field picks this up and tells us whether this has not already been
>>tried. ---
>
> It doubt it. There is too much religious indoctrination taking place
> in the physics community's worldwide madrassas. ahahaha...
> It's not easy to overcome.
>
... ahahaha... maybe getting around it is easier than overcoming it.
>
[hanson]
>> OT-- Charge sharing... ahahaha... at this peculiar moment this
>>[charge] has a very personal meaning... I sure shared one:
>>Last week a piece of shrapnel broke my jaw and knocked two
>>teeth out... ahahaha... I gotta stop farting around with these
>>contracts. This time, Pretty Woman told me that it served me right.
>>I promised her after the last "outings" (see: "Gleaner9" or "134227" )
>>that I would stop, settle down and look after the biz. Maybe one
>>day I will wise up and listen... but maybe I will simple disappear
>>in Dirac's sea.... ahahaha... Thanks for a great post, Louis .
>>hanson
>
> Wow! You're kidding? If not, I hope you were not disfigured and
> not in need of a face transplant. You know, Pretty Woman does
> not deserve a Frankenstein monster. ahahaha... That said, you
> seem to have chosen a dangerous line of business. Be very
> careful. If something should happen to you, I, for one, would miss
> your spicy brand of humor and your insightful posts.
> Louis Savain
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
>
Awe, that is so nice and considerate. I appreciate. But be careful
here with expressing well-wishes. Homo-Bob, the gay pig got really
aroused and Cained himself in grief-stricken jealousy and gross
envy in his news:dsbi3...@enews3.newsguy.com...... ahahaha...
AHAHA... --- I'll be alright. There will be a just scar under my chin
and there is now a titanium piece to mend the jawbone (and wires
for now) with 2 attached Ti pins to implant 2 crowns. --- Not being
able to eat pussy for a while and forgo chewing good food that's
the curse.
Used the same pain control techniques I learned from the natives
at my outings in the **Upper Irrawaddy**. (check ** great laughs)
To avoid the HD narcotic analgesics I take OTC med combos like
Ibuprofen+Aspirin or Aleve+Tylenol or any other combination of
||| a pain reducer and an anti-swelling NSAID ||| ... always in the
regular dosis, but NEVER more than once the same combo in
succession. Always rotate the meds. This way the system will not
have time to generate tolerance to/and demand larger doses. ---
My Biz line is manifold. And as soon as a venture is off the ground
I'll turn it over to people who like the daily routines. When so, I then
take off and look for new gags (how I find and get gigs, I described
already (see: **Pentagon or Mercenary**) and not only is the money
great but in about half of the times (by seeing a need and having a
1st built in customer) these outings create/generate a new branch to
my biz. Now, because of PW's incessant nagging I may settle down.
AFA danger... I found that most of the places I have "contracted"
to/at/on/in are not any more dangerous than is the gang infested
section/quarter in any US metropolis.
So, I behave accordingly. But shit happens...
Take care, Louis,
ahahaha... ahahanson
PD
1. Experiments indicate three, very small, identical, strongly
interacting, scattering centers inside the proton.
2. Protons never decay into neutrons and positrons. Never.
3. The mass of the neutron is larger than the mass of the proton.
It's always a good idea to bone up on the experimental facts before
putting together a theory. A theory based on one or two facts is not
likely to also match thirty or forty known facts. I suggest a book by
Donald Perkins.
PD
G=EMC^2 Glazier
object. When the top quark decays this produces the other 5 quarks.
Top quark having so much mass I feel gives my theory reality. TerBert
Traveler
<arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>Traveler wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:35:35 GMT, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>>
>> ... If something should
>> happen to you, I, for one, would miss your spicy brand of humor and
>> your insightful posts.
>
>Could this possibly be... Nah, Savain would never kiss ass would he.
>How silly of me.
You dumb shit. ahahaha... An ass kisser in science is someone who
heaps praise or adulates an individual or a group of individuals (and
what they stand for) in order to gain a certain advantage, usually
having to do with career moves or job security. Hanson does not put
food on my table nor do I put food on his. I admire him because he's
not an ass kisser like you. Now, go kiss Einstein's dead ass and see
if I give a rat's ass. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Making phun of "physicists" is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Sam Wormley
Herb, your theory has no support. In fact, it is contradicted by
observation.
Do Do
parallell question.
Ex, Why are the elemental charges on the electron and proton equal
(though opposite) although their massses are disparate?
HOW come the elemental charges ......
Traveler
>ahahaha... Hanson, haven't you learned yet? You are not allowed to ask
>why in physics. So says a recently departed ass kisser by the name of
>Michael Varney. ahahaha... People like you are the reason he left. You
>drove him crazy with your why questions. ahahaha...
On 8 Feb 2006 15:47:29 -0800, "Do Do" <ave...@verizon.net> wrote:
>You've got to be kidding. WHY is the only question to ask. HOW is a
>parallell question.
Of course, I was kidding. Why is the quintessential question in our
quest to understand nature. It is the only question that really
matters.
>Ex, Why are the elemental charges on the electron and proton equal
>(though opposite) although their massses are disparate?
Relativists ass kissers will disagree. They'll say that your question
has nothing to do with science. If you ask them "why do things fall?",
the assholes will reply that one must not ask why in physics.
>HOW come the elemental charges ......
Well "how come?" is essentially the same as "why?". Relativists will
claim that they answer the how of gravity with the equations of GR and
that the why has to do with metaphysics or philosophy, not science.
It's just a way to mask their cluelessness. They have no clue as to
what makes gavity work. They should all be tarred, feathered and caned
publically as an example to the younger generation. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA...
Do Do
Beta decay:
n(+ -) --> p(+) + e(-) + ~(0) where ~ is a neutrino
The charge neutral of the neutron is because it consists of both a
proton
and electron, so the charges neutralize each other.
The neutrino *of the neutron* is the binding energy.
We have spin parity: 1/2 before the reaction and 3/2 afterward (as the
neutrino has a half spin).
We also have charge parity as the neutrino has no charge.
Note, the mass of the binding energy is the difference in mass between
the neutron and the combined mass of the electron and proton.
This mass is 1.3891 x 10^-27 gr -- and this times c^2 is 1.24866 x
10^-6 erg
or .78 MeV -- the energy known to accompany this reaction.
Note, the mass remaining after the release of the proton is enough
mass to form *two* electrons. The reason that does
not happen is because it would violate charge parity.
So after the electron is formed, the remaining mass, 1.38909 x 10^-27
gr
has nowhere to go charge parity-wise and so goes flying off into space.
Question: If the neutrino is the left over after the proton and
electron are
released, it must have a negative spin also. Why, then, is the neutrino
charge
neutral and not negative?
Answer: We can assume the neutrino is not a bound particle but composed
of scattered sub-particles, traveling in the same direction but
disassociated
enough so as not to register a charge -- though the spin is there.
To enhance this view, we note there is no binding energy within the
neutrino.
As an addendum to this scenario, there have been experiments that
show -- approaching a neutron's exterior there is first detected a
negative
charge, and then as the probe goes further, the negative charge changes
to positive.
Question: If that is so, then we have a proton surrounded by an
electron.
Why, then, do we not have an hydrogen atom?
Answer: because of the binding force that is the neutrino when
released.
This binding force keeps the electron in close proximity to the proton.
Note. We see here why a *free* neutrino decays when in the free state.
When associated with a proton there is an interaction that supplies
stability
When that is missing, the binding force is insufficient to hold the
neutron
together so it breaks up (decays).
Also, we see why the heavier elements are unstable. They have an excess
of neutrons and there are not enough protons to maintain the stable
neutron/proton interaction, so radioactive decay sets in.
............................
As an aside, can anyone tell me why the charge on the electron and the
proton are equal (though opposite) despite their huge disparity in
mass?
**********************************************************************************
Autymn D. C.
> "Puppet_Sock" <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139241923....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Your table is messed up.
> >
> [hanson]
> You are right.!!!! Sock, Thanks. (never mind the times).
> You are keen observer, Sock. I am surprised that no one
> caught the error at the outset. It should have read as you
That's what I said.
> ... and now let me express it in a ***ratio form**
> so that EACH neutron has a proton share of [A]
> n + 0 p = (n) ~10 min
> n + 1/2 p = (T) ~ 12.5 years
> n + 1 p = (D) stable
> to _illustrate_ how the p/n ratio influences longevity
Nice.
n + 2/2 p = He-4 stable
n + 3/2 p = Li-5 stable
n + 2 p = He-3 stable
n + 4/2 p = Be-6 nope
n + 5/2 p = B-7 nope
> Why does the "linear" addition of p's to n's
> give such a highly variable unexpected half-lives?
> Add 1/2 to 1 proton-share to each n and n becomes
> more stable. Make clumps of such arrangements and.....
I don't get what's not to expect.
> But I like to hear NEW stuff. Wild & crazy. Gimme a new
> story, a new angle why when that 82p/125n is around
> the stabilty tends towards stable. That ratio: 82p/125n =~
> 2/3 proton shares per neutron. (this is what I tried to
> convey in the messed up table). Now, fit that into table [A]..
> and tell me where/what the neutron's property is that makes
> it stable in that range, clumping and all ... and dream....
Read the old article in /Popular Science/ about the surreal numbers,
how to construct any rational or irrational number from a series of ups
and downs (hmm, how kithly).
1 = u
.5 = ud
.25 = udd
...
.75 = udu
.875 = uduu
...
.625 = udud
.6925 = ududu
.65875 = ududud
.'6' = 'ud'
...
.375 = uddu
.3075 = uddud
.34125 = uddudu
.'3' = ud'du'
So halving of halves will easily and straihtly get 2/3. It works, so
it must be true.
-Aut
donsto...@hotmail.com
-Aut
***********************
I print "1 + 1 = 3" on a stick. I beat a dog to death with it.
Autymn D. C.
The stick is not the print.
Autymn D. C.
> The neutrino *of the neutron* is the binding energy.
Learn what "is" means, retard.
> Question: If the neutrino is the left over after the proton and
leftover
> electron are
> released, it must have a negative spin also. Why, then, is the neutrino
> charge
> neutral and not negative?
Then the neutron wouldn't be a neutron, dumbass.
> To enhance this view, we note there is no binding energy within the
> neutrino.
> As an addendum to this scenario, there have been experiments that
> show -- approaching a neutron's exterior there is first detected a
> negative
> charge, and then as the probe goes further, the negative charge changes
> to positive.
Those are the quarks.
> Question: If that is so, then we have a proton surrounded by an
> electron.
> Why, then, do we not have an hydrogen atom?
>
> Answer: because of the binding force that is the neutrino when
A force is not a particle. Learn English or shut up.
> released.
> This binding force keeps the electron in close proximity to the proton.
They're dead to quarks.
> Note. We see here why a *free* neutrino decays when in the free state.
neutron
> As an aside, can anyone tell me why the charge on the electron and the
> proton are equal (though opposite) despite their huge disparity in
> mass?
inequal coloral charge
-Aut
The Ghost In The Machine
<lysd...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote
on 12 Feb 2006 06:11:00 -0800
<1139753460....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Let's hope that anyone who does beat a dog with such a stick is
stuck with the stick so that the police can sack the sad sack
with the stuck stick (who's probably very sick and does suck).
:-)
Of course, the sad sack with the stuck stick might claim the
evidence was stacked...
In any event, 1 + 1 = 4.1 last I checked, at least in the United States.
(This is subject to evolution, of course. There's also the issue
that individuality checking does not include the food consumption
[presumably by body weight]; "you are what you eat" used to be a
maxim at one point, and "eating for two" is occasionally used to
indicate the consumption habits of a pregnant woman.)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
frank...@yahoo.com
Do Do wrote:
/proton interaction, so radioactive decay sets in.
> ............................
> As an aside, can anyone tell me why the charge on the electron and the
> proton are equal (though opposite) despite their huge disparity in
> mass?
See my other post on this thread which indicates that a the particle
that carries the positive charge (a postron or protron - not a
positron) is indeed identical in mass to an electron. What we normally
consider a proton is actually a combination of a neutron and a postron.
Thus, a proton has such a huge mass becuase it has a neutron inside of
it. What we normally consider positrons are actually the positive
charge carriers. Evidence for this is in the form of B+ decay where a
proton does indeed decay into a positron and a neutron within a
nucleus. We are just biased into thinking the proton is the opposite of
the electron, but in reality, the positron is the true opposite of the
electron. We know the positron exists, but it apparently cannot exist
on its own since it would immediately react wth an electron to probably
form a neutron or an aether particle which dissappears into the space
matrix according to my other theories. But a positron can apparently
exist in a stable form when combined with a neutron.
PD
Also see the response to his post in this thread that recounts the
experimental evidence that makes this explanation highly unlikely.
PD
frank...@yahoo.com
PD wrote:
>
> 1. Experiments indicate three, very small, identical, strongly
> interacting, scattering centers inside the proton.
subparticles (postron, postron, electron). The real question is if
experiments show that neutrons are made up of 3 centers, or only 2 (as
my model would predict). There are experiments to suggest that a
neutron has a negative outer shell and a positive inner core, which
would only indicate 2 components.
> 2. Protons never decay into neutrons and positrons. Never.
If you look at what B+ decay is, this indeed looks like a proton
decaying into a positron and a neutron. Exactly what you'd expect if a
proton is made up a positron (really a postron) and neutron.
> 3. The mass of the neutron is larger than the mass of the proton.
Not always. If you look at the difference in mass between He3 and He4,
there is only a difference of .98 amu. This is much smaller than the
standard value for a neutron which is about 1.008 amu. Strangely
enough, the weight of a neutron can vary quite a bit if you determine
the mass of the neutron by comparing atoms which only differ by a
single neutron. In my TOE, the mass of the object is proportional to
the size or volume it occupies. The variable mass of the neutron could
be explained by a variable amount of distance between the electron and
postron that form the neutron depending on the binding configuration.
Indeed, everything you cite as a counter-example actually appears to
support my model better than the existing quark based theory. It also
does so in a much simpler manner. No need to have 1/3 charge carriers.
It appears that the only reason why this was invented was so that the
charge math would work out, but I'd say there's more evidence that
neutrons are made up of only two subparticles than 3. The main reason
why science hasn't been able to find the quark is probably because they
don't exist. On the other hand, we have found the positron, neutron and
electron.
PD
frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
> PD wrote:
> >
> > 1. Experiments indicate three, very small, identical, strongly
> > interacting, scattering centers inside the proton.
> This would be consistent with my model of a proton consisting of 3
> subparticles (postron, postron, electron). The real question is if
> experiments show that neutrons are made up of 3 centers, or only 2 (as
> my model would predict).
Yes, there are experiments that show three scattering centers in
neutrons as well. See "deep inelastic scattering" in hydrogen and
deuterium.
> There are experiments to suggest that a
> neutron has a negative outer shell and a positive inner core, which
> would only indicate 2 components.
>
> > 2. Protons never decay into neutrons and positrons. Never.
> If you look at what B+ decay is, this indeed looks like a proton
> decaying into a positron and a neutron. Exactly what you'd expect if a
> proton is made up a positron (really a postron) and neutron.
Except a proton is not a B+. It doesn't have the same mass, it doesn't
have the same lifetime, etc, etc.
>
> > 3. The mass of the neutron is larger than the mass of the proton.
> Not always. If you look at the difference in mass between He3 and He4,
> there is only a difference of .98 amu. This is much smaller than the
> standard value for a neutron which is about 1.008 amu. Strangely
> enough, the weight of a neutron can vary quite a bit if you determine
> the mass of the neutron by comparing atoms which only differ by a
> single neutron. In my TOE, the mass of the object is proportional to
> the size or volume it occupies. The variable mass of the neutron could
> be explained by a variable amount of distance between the electron and
> postron that form the neutron depending on the binding configuration.
You make the mistake of assuming that the mass of a nucleus should be
the sum of the masses of the neutrons and protons. That assumption is
poor because it neglects the energy required to bind them together. In
the same way, a molecule's mass is not the sum of the masses of the
atoms that make it up (though for most purposes in chemistry, that sum
is close enough). It simply isn't true that the mass of the total is
the sum of the masses of the parts -- assuming that it would be would
be assuming a conservation law that doesn't exist.
You might be interested to compare the masses of isotopes that differ
not only by one in A, but also differ by one in Z. Here, the difference
is one *proton*, not one neutron. You'll find it interesting that the
difference in mass is not the mass of a proton, either.
>
> Indeed, everything you cite as a counter-example actually appears to
> support my model better than the existing quark based theory. It also
> does so in a much simpler manner. No need to have 1/3 charge carriers.
> It appears that the only reason why this was invented was so that the
> charge math would work out,
Actually, no, the opposite was true. Deep-inelastic scattering found
the scattering centers inside nucleons independently and they were
called "partons" and studied as partons, not quarks. Separately, the
notion of quarks was developed. It was only a while later that partons
were identified as quarks. So there was nothing done to "make the math
work out". Something interesting was found experimentally, and quite
independently, there was reason to suspect quark-like objects, and it
so happened that quarks worked well to describe partons.
> but I'd say there's more evidence that
> neutrons are made up of only two subparticles than 3. The main reason
> why science hasn't been able to find the quark
We *have* found quarks. They generate well-collimated jets of particles
in collider experiments all the time. Nothing but quarks and gluons
could create those jets, and the distributions of angle, energy, and
compositions of those jets are *precisely* what you would expect to see
if they were created by quarks.
ave...@verizon.net
impossible to give a coherent answer.
Sam Wormley
> Sometimes stupidity abounds in such great quantities that it is
> impossible to give a coherent answer.
>
Who are you replying to?
frank...@yahoo.com
PD wrote:
> frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. Experiments indicate three, very small, identical, strongly
> > > interacting, scattering centers inside the proton.
> > This would be consistent with my model of a proton consisting of 3
> > subparticles (postron, postron, electron). The real question is if
> > experiments show that neutrons are made up of 3 centers, or only 2 (as
> > my model would predict).
>
> Yes, there are experiments that show three scattering centers in
> neutrons as well. See "deep inelastic scattering" in hydrogen and
> deuterium.
I looked on the web and came up with one paper on this exact topic. It
did not specifically indicate that it found 3 scattering centers for
neutrons. In fact, it went on to explain how difficult it was to
determine the structure of the neutron when it was bound with a proton
in deuterium. I didn't find anything else to indicate 3 scattering
centers, do you have any references?
>
> > There are experiments to suggest that a
> > neutron has a negative outer shell and a positive inner core, which
> > would only indicate 2 components.
> >
> > > 2. Protons never decay into neutrons and positrons. Never.
> > If you look at what B+ decay is, this indeed looks like a proton
> > decaying into a positron and a neutron. Exactly what you'd expect if a
> > proton is made up a positron (really a postron) and neutron.
>
> Except a proton is not a B+. It doesn't have the same mass, it doesn't
> have the same lifetime, etc, etc.
>
I don't mean a B+ (positron) is a proton. I mean look at the B+ DECAY
process in which a proton within a nucleus decays into a neutron and a
positron and it changes the Z of the nucleus. You said that protons
never decay into a neutron/positron, but they do!
> >
> > > 3. The mass of the neutron is larger than the mass of the proton.
> > Not always. If you look at the difference in mass between He3 and He4,
> > there is only a difference of .98 amu. This is much smaller than the
> > standard value for a neutron which is about 1.008 amu. Strangely
> > enough, the weight of a neutron can vary quite a bit if you determine
> > the mass of the neutron by comparing atoms which only differ by a
> > single neutron. In my TOE, the mass of the object is proportional to
> > the size or volume it occupies. The variable mass of the neutron could
> > be explained by a variable amount of distance between the electron and
> > postron that form the neutron depending on the binding configuration.
>
> You make the mistake of assuming that the mass of a nucleus should be
> the sum of the masses of the neutrons and protons. That assumption is
> poor because it neglects the energy required to bind them together. In
> the same way, a molecule's mass is not the sum of the masses of the
> atoms that make it up (though for most purposes in chemistry, that sum
> is close enough). It simply isn't true that the mass of the total is
> the sum of the masses of the parts -- assuming that it would be would
> be assuming a conservation law that doesn't exist.
>
> You might be interested to compare the masses of isotopes that differ
> not only by one in A, but also differ by one in Z. Here, the difference
> is one *proton*, not one neutron. You'll find it interesting that the
> difference in mass is not the mass of a proton, either.
>
My point is that you make the same mistake of assuming that you can
just add up the mass of the components to get the mass of the composite
object. You say that a proton cannot be a combination of neutron and
positron because a neutron is more massive than a proton. You're
expecting to be able to add up the masses of a neutron and positrion to
get something heavier than a neutron, but as you noted, you cannot do
that. So a proton can easily be less massive than a neutron, even if it
is made up of more components.
> >
> > Indeed, everything you cite as a counter-example actually appears to
> > support my model better than the existing quark based theory. It also
> > does so in a much simpler manner. No need to have 1/3 charge carriers.
> > It appears that the only reason why this was invented was so that the
> > charge math would work out,
>
> Actually, no, the opposite was true. Deep-inelastic scattering found
> the scattering centers inside nucleons independently and they were
> called "partons" and studied as partons, not quarks. Separately, the
> notion of quarks was developed. It was only a while later that partons
> were identified as quarks. So there was nothing done to "make the math
> work out". Something interesting was found experimentally, and quite
> independently, there was reason to suspect quark-like objects, and it
> so happened that quarks worked well to describe partons.
>
> > but I'd say there's more evidence that
> > neutrons are made up of only two subparticles than 3. The main reason
> > why science hasn't been able to find the quark
>
> We *have* found quarks. They generate well-collimated jets of particles
> in collider experiments all the time. Nothing but quarks and gluons
> could create those jets, and the distributions of angle, energy, and
> compositions of those jets are *precisely* what you would expect to see
> if they were created by quarks.
OK, but certainly, they have never been directly found experimentally.
Nobody says they've seen an isolated quark. Just that the figure that
they can never be seen separately. (how convenient) - or they just
simply don't exist.
I have only begun to research this area, but all this fractional
charges seem totally unncecessary. Every particle combination that I've
looked at so far is a simple combination of full charge positron and
electrons. Can you cite a particle that would specifically require the
1/3 charge fractions?
FrediFizzx
news:1140569613....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> PD wrote:
> > frank...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > PD wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Experiments indicate three, very small, identical, strongly
> > > > interacting, scattering centers inside the proton.
> > > This would be consistent with my model of a proton consisting of 3
> > > subparticles (postron, postron, electron). The real question is if
> > > experiments show that neutrons are made up of 3 centers, or only 2
(as
> > > my model would predict).
> >
> > Yes, there are experiments that show three scattering centers in
> > neutrons as well. See "deep inelastic scattering" in hydrogen and
> > deuterium.
>
> I looked on the web and came up with one paper on this exact topic. It
> did not specifically indicate that it found 3 scattering centers for
> neutrons. In fact, it went on to explain how difficult it was to
> determine the structure of the neutron when it was bound with a proton
> in deuterium. I didn't find anything else to indicate 3 scattering
> centers, do you have any references?
Try seaching on DIS neutron. DIS for "deep inelastic scattering". What
was the paper you are reffering to above? It gets complicated the way
they mathematically obtained the three predominant "scattering centers".
An inexpensive reference that is fairly easy to follow is "The Ideas of
Particle Physics" by Coughlan and Dodd. When they first did the
experiments at SLAC, Feynman was insistent that they use the term
"parton" and not quarks so as to not bias the experiments. ;-)
> > > There are experiments to suggest that a
> > > neutron has a negative outer shell and a positive inner core,
which
> > > would only indicate 2 components.
> > >
> > > > 2. Protons never decay into neutrons and positrons. Never.
> > > If you look at what B+ decay is, this indeed looks like a proton
> > > decaying into a positron and a neutron. Exactly what you'd expect
if a
> > > proton is made up a positron (really a postron) and neutron.
> >
> > Except a proton is not a B+. It doesn't have the same mass, it
doesn't
> > have the same lifetime, etc, etc.
> >
> I don't mean a B+ (positron) is a proton. I mean look at the B+ DECAY
> process in which a proton within a nucleus decays into a neutron and a
> positron and it changes the Z of the nucleus. You said that protons
> never decay into a neutron/positron, but they do!
Free protons never decay that way. But look up "Gribov's Vacuum" for
more on what could happen in heavy nuclei.
It is much more complicated than this. I suggest you get Griffiths'
"Introduction to Elementary Particles" and study it.
Nobody has actually ever seen a neutrino either, but we can see what
they do by their interactions with other fermions. IMHO, a free quark
would just be a lepton. Or... quarks are leptons that have becomed
"confined" in a different way than leptons are "confined" (this is
assuming a string theory type of conjecture that there is a simple
fundamental entity that makes all "particles").
> I have only begun to research this area, but all this fractional
> charges seem totally unncecessary. Every particle combination that
I've
> looked at so far is a simple combination of full charge positron and
> electrons. Can you cite a particle that would specifically require the
> 1/3 charge fractions?
I suppose you mean a "free" particle but look up Anyons anywise.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
donsto...@hotmail.com
frank...@yahoo.com
http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/science/2002/j.visser/
Still didn't find any interesting topics using DIS. I suspect that
studying independent neutrons is much more difficult than studying
protons - is there really any direct evidence for 3 scattering centers
in independent neutrons? I doubt it.
> > > > There are experiments to suggest that a
> > > > neutron has a negative outer shell and a positive inner core,
> which
> > > > would only indicate 2 components.
> > > >
> > > > > 2. Protons never decay into neutrons and positrons. Never.
> > > > If you look at what B+ decay is, this indeed looks like a proton
> > > > decaying into a positron and a neutron. Exactly what you'd expect
> if a
> > > > proton is made up a positron (really a postron) and neutron.
> > >
> > > Except a proton is not a B+. It doesn't have the same mass, it
> doesn't
> > > have the same lifetime, etc, etc.
> > >
> > I don't mean a B+ (positron) is a proton. I mean look at the B+ DECAY
> > process in which a proton within a nucleus decays into a neutron and a
> > positron and it changes the Z of the nucleus. You said that protons
> > never decay into a neutron/positron, but they do!
>
> Free protons never decay that way. But look up "Gribov's Vacuum" for
> more on what could happen in heavy nuclei.
>
Of course, protons don't decay by themselves, but within heavy nuclei,
it does look like protons decay into a neutron/positron and that is my
point. That they don't decay spontaneously as free protons is not
relevant.
Yes, it is very much more complex, which is the point that you just
can't add up neutron + positron and get something that is more massive
than a neutron. You could get something less massive, like a proton.
Yes, I mean free particles. On Anyons, I found:
http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st14
This still appears highly theoretical in nature and makes lots of
assumptions about a 1/5 and 1/3 charge hanging around.
If you look at the table on:
http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st14
All real free particles have a charge of -1 , 0, +1 - only quarks have
fractional charges which I find unncessary since all particles could be
made up of whole charge positrions and electrons. I suspect this whole
mess of fractional charges is just to justify the 3 scattering centers
in a proton and then forcing all the other particles comply with this
initial assumption.
frank...@yahoo.com
> neutrons as well. See "deep inelastic scattering" in hydrogen and
> deuterium.
>
Here is a reference I found on the structure of the neutron based of
DIS:
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/13341/1/25277455.pdf
This also appears to indicate that the results are not as predicted
according to the various existing models - showing that the quark model
may be wrong. This paper is old and hard to read and I only looked at
the conclusions, so I may be misunderstanding, but that is what it
looks like to me.