Light and neutron
Maleki
Strange stuff :-)
--
"Abe daryA rA agar natvAn keshid
ham az An yek jor'eyi betvAn cheshid"
- Mowlana
Mark Martin
Maleki wrote:
> Does light "hit" neutron? Is there a collision at all?
>
> Strange stuff :-)
A neutron is a quark triplet, two downs and one up. The individual
quarks have fractional electric charges, and so they do couple to the
electromagnetic field. But of course, the sum of the quark charges
comes to zero, making the neutron electrically neutral. At some
distance from the quarks, the coupling to the EM field effectively
becomes zero.
-Mark Martin
Maleki
This doesn't answer my question.
Is there collision or not. If there's no collision, it's
just the strangest thing :) Probably very useful.
--
"khodAyA:
kAfar kist? mosalmAn kist? shi'eh kist? sonni
kist? marz-hAye doroste harkodAm kodAm ast?"
- Ali Shari'ati
Old Man
news:16pgcmituge9l.9...@40tude.net...
> Does light "hit" neutron? Is there a collision at all?
Yes. Although the neutron's electric charge is neutral,
incident EM radiation will interact with the neutron's
magnetic dipole moment (spin flip).
In a similar manner, the proton's magnetic dipole
moment is responsible for the occurrence of the
astronomical 21 cm line.
[Old Man]
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Maleki" <male...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:16pgcmituge9l.9...@40tude.net...
> Does light "hit" neutron? Is there a collision at all?
Google advanced, with the exact phrase
neutron photon scattering
49 hits
neutron photon interaction
9 hits
David A. Smith
Maleki
wrote:
Don't Google me unless you're willing to pay.
If they collide, what's the collision cross-section (versus
respective energies).
--
"nafahmidim nazr dAsht yA kaffAreh."
Sam Wormley
> Does light "hit" neutron? Is there a collision at all?
>
> Strange stuff :-)
>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=photodisintegration
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Maleki" <male...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:913sfokqmw0w$.15b3iqtcynjgu.dlg@40tude.net...
...
> Don't Google me unless you're willing to pay.
Sorry, I thought you attitude had changed. My mistake. Adding
your new nym to the killfile list. Goodbye.
<plonk>
David A. Smith
Maleki
wrote:
> Dear Maleki:
I see. I don't change attitude with a new alias. Hotmail
closed the previous one. So I'm using the yahoo. I don't
like changing aliases, but am not sick like Meron either.
--
"tA parishAn nashavad kAr be sAmAn naresad"
Maleki
They want money for someone to look up their online
dictionary. Hehe :) Are they paying, in turn, for my
internet access to their page, or for my computer, or the
phone line/LAN/etc ? Just how many bozos _must_ be there to
have given them such ideas for hustling? Dimwits.
"Photodisintegration". In my time it was called pair
production, and yes, I remember now that a third massive
body was required to absorb some of the photon's momentum
for that to happen. And I think one had to write the
equations in their 4-vector form to see it.
But this only says that it takes place. It doesn't say how.
"Oldman" (whom I'd presumed dead) said it's neutron's
magnetic moment that interacts with light, and since it's
also massive enough it triggers the pair production for high
energy photon.
--
"be khAbe khargushi foru rafteh."
Maleki
I'll get back to it later. Just curious, are you on clinical
trials for cross link breakers? :)
--
"Ahangari ke kAri nadAreh. Ahano az kureh
darmiyAri, gerdesh mikoni misheh mikh, pahnesh
mikoni misheh sikh!"
- Sadri Afshar
Maleki
> "Photodisintegration". In my time it was called pair
> production
No, this isn't what they meant by photodisintegration.
Sorry. Well, nucleus isn't nucleus without protons, and
protons are charged, so this case is different from a pure
photon-neutron interaction.
--
"Az AnjA mAndeh az injA rAndeh."
Sam Wormley
> But this only says that it takes place. It doesn't say how.
> "Oldman" (whom I'd presumed dead) said it's neutron's
> magnetic moment that interacts with light, and since it's
> also massive enough it triggers the pair production for high
> energy photon.
>
Crank up the voltage on your xray machine!
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/radmatinteraction.htm
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:rd%3e.137239$Ze3.76051@attbi_s51...
Be a little careful. Above 5 MeV, nucleii can be forced to
decay. Don't need to be making radioactively unstable
compounds...
David A. Smith
Maleki
I can understand why the cross-section for Pair Production
only rises for higher photon energies. But since the speed
of light is constant, why do the graphs for photon-"charged
particles" collisions drop for higher photon energies?
--
"_gandom_ az gandom beruyad _jow_ ze jow
az mokAfAte amal ghAfel mashow"
- Mowlana
Gregory L. Hansen
Maleki <male...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 3 Apr 2005 12:54:37 -0700, Mark Martin wrote:
>
>> Maleki wrote:
>>> Does light "hit" neutron? Is there a collision at all?
>>>
>>> Strange stuff :-)
>>
>> A neutron is a quark triplet, two downs and one up. The individual
>> quarks have fractional electric charges, and so they do couple to the
>> electromagnetic field. But of course, the sum of the quark charges
>> comes to zero, making the neutron electrically neutral. At some
>> distance from the quarks, the coupling to the EM field effectively
>> becomes zero.
>>
>
>
>This doesn't answer my question.
>
>Is there collision or not. If there's no collision, it's
>just the strangest thing :) Probably very useful.
Yes, there can be a collision. The probability is very small, but
neutrons do participate in the electromagnetic interaction.
--
"The preferred method of entering a building is to use a tank main gun
round, direct fire artillery round, or TOW, Dragon, or Hellfire missile to
clear the first room." -- THE RANGER HANDBOOK U.S. Army, 1992
Maleki
wrote:
> In article <k8es98am6u2l$.1930hgsd...@40tude.net>,
> Maleki <male...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On 3 Apr 2005 12:54:37 -0700, Mark Martin wrote:
>>
>>> Maleki wrote:
>>>> Does light "hit" neutron? Is there a collision at all?
>>>>
>>>> Strange stuff :-)
>>>
>>> A neutron is a quark triplet, two downs and one up. The individual
>>> quarks have fractional electric charges, and so they do couple to the
>>> electromagnetic field. But of course, the sum of the quark charges
>>> comes to zero, making the neutron electrically neutral. At some
>>> distance from the quarks, the coupling to the EM field effectively
>>> becomes zero.
>>>
>>
>>
>>This doesn't answer my question.
>>
>>Is there collision or not. If there's no collision, it's
>>just the strangest thing :) Probably very useful.
>
> Yes, there can be a collision. The probability is very small, but
> neutrons do participate in the electromagnetic interaction.
You're fresh from university, right? What do they teach you
these days on "radiant energy being quantized"? Is
quantization of radiant energy only a consequence of
existence and behavior of electric charge? Is there a
frequency or frequencies that no oscillation in the world
can have? Can we only have light in the world?
--
"ta'mine ma'naviyyAt do rAh ya do vajh dArad,
vajhe e'teghAdi va dini, va vajhe gharizi va
tabi'i. An vajh az ma'naviyyAt ke dar natijeye
e'teghAde sathi va gheshri va zAheriye dini
mibAshad dar ghAlebe mavAred arzesh va asare
kamtari dar moghAyeseh bA vajhe gharizi va
tabi'iye ma'naviyyAt dAshteh va dar amal che basA
az lahAze shaghAvat va la'Amat va su'e kholgh va
kesAfat va ghorur AsAre mokhAlef boruz dAdeh ast.
malakAt va akhlAghiyyAti ke molAzeme bA imAne
amigh va sahihe dini, eshgh va yaghine dini, va
molAzeme bA sho'ure dini bAshad a'lA darajeye
ma'naviyyAte pAke sahih ast."
- Mehdi Bazargan
Gregory L. Hansen
Uh... they still teach that E=hf. Radiant energy is quantized because
Planck's law applies to all forms of energy transmission, fields as well
as sound waves (phonons). Charge is quantized in a somewhat different
sense, being multiples of the electron charge. Electromagnetic
radiation is quantized in the sense that given some frequency f you can
have an energy hf, 2hf, 3hf..., but f can be anything. In e.g. line
spectra it's determined by the boundary conditions of the system, plus
Doppler shifting and other effects. There is no theoretical largest or
smallest frequencies, but cosmic rays are more energetic than the
radiation we can produce on Earth. The world can't be only light because
things display properties like charge and bound states that light doesn't
have.
--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Mark Fergerson
> Does light "hit" neutron? Is there a collision at all?
>
> Strange stuff :-)
When you say "light", do you mean to limit the discussion to the
visible part of the spectrum? If not, NMR.
Mark L. Fergerson
Maleki
No. Any frequency.
Is there anything around that's understood not to be bearing
electric charges? If you take the positron out of proton,
what's left there?
--
"khishtan rA Adami arzAn forukht
bud atlas khish rA bar dalgh dukht"
- Mowlana
Mark Fergerson
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:31:29 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:
>>Maleki wrote:
>>
>>>Does light "hit" neutron? Is there a collision at all?
>>>
>>>Strange stuff :-)
>>
>> When you say "light", do you mean to limit the discussion to the
>>visible part of the spectrum? If not, NMR.
> No. Any frequency.
Then NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) qualifies. Note that neutrons
have a so-called "anomalous" magnetic moment, thus can resonate with an
impressed RF field in the absence of the usual polarizing DC magnetic
field. It ain't easy to do due to the short halflife of free neutrons
and the fact that it's hard to make them hold still; for fast neutrons
the frequency is sensitive to the neutron velocity (Relativity doncha
know). No, I don't have a ready reference, but Google should scrape
something up.
Also, neutrons exhibit the Cerenkov effect; I vaguely recall somebody
trying to make a neutron accelerator some decades ago via
reverse-Cerenkov action. The idea was to put a fissile material that
emitted neutrons next to a crystal with an internal speed of light
slower than the initial velocity of the neutrons, and simultaneously
illuminate the crystal with light of the appropriate frequency to shove
the neutrons in a preferred direction. Don't know how well it worked.
And no, I don't have a reference for that either. Sorry.
> Is there anything around that's understood not to be bearing
> electric charges?
Among massed particles? As for bosons; gluons, and neutral weak
vector bosons (Zee-zero) come to mind. Fermions; maybe neutrinos, but
the mass issue for them still isn't settled.
Let's dont even consider gravitons until somebody actually finds one. ;>)
> If you take the positron out of proton, what's left there?
Hrm, positron decay of a proton yields a neutron (and a neutrino),
but AFAIK it's only seen in proton-rich nuclei. Not sure how you'd force
it, though.
Mark L. Fergerson
Y.Porat
i will not sahy how much above......
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Y.Porat
at the iron nuc description
http://geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html
see the NAPAN neutrons
demostarted tangibly just ocationaly on the above iron nuc.
the reduced intensity might well be bacause
the binding energy of thos napan's is close to 10 Mev!
i will not quote here the exact figure though i have it (:-)
all th ebest
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
GR_GR
Submitted to www.crank.net
GR_GR
Why not say nothing?
Y.Porat
disturbed homo
my model is marching on
you can cheat someone forevr
you can cheat everybody just once
but you cant cheat everybody forever
people know waht is your real worth as a physicist
and know what is my worth
people are not fools not to make the difference
so fuck of it whant help you nor your gangsters
pleae bypass the disturbed gangster Varney.
Y.Porat
------------------------
GR_GR
> it whant help you gangster
> disturbed homo
It what?
Varney was right, you are a total retard.
Y.Porat
everyone can understnd that had i been a retard you would ignore me!
the fact that you invest such big efforts to shut me up
means i am meaningful for you (most likely afried of my findings)
now if you in the good case are a messenger of 'big brother'
which i doubt because 'big brother' will not send an idiot to be his
messenger
anyway just in case
so tell 'brother ' not to be worried of me
i am not talking more than needed.........
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
GR_GR
Varney said this would work nicely on you.
Ding porat.
Y.Porat
Y.P
-------------------
GR_GR
Because, moron, we are at the same university, same department, and have
offices right down the hall from each other.
We have shared much laughter over your ravings.
You really are dumb as a post.
Mark Fergerson
<snip>
> Also, neutrons exhibit the Cerenkov effect
This may or may not be true. From memory I recalled some
experimental evidence for it but can't find any current cites.
Mark L. Fergerson
tadchem
"GR_GR" <n...@colorado.edu> wrote in message
news:d398q1$j00$2...@peabody.colorado.edu...
Was that pun intentional or not?
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Y.Porat
NWA
Y.P
GR_GR
> psst disturbed homo!
> NWA
>
> Y.P
>
Are you coming on to me, fudgepacker?
Schoenfeld
What else did you share, strange one?
Y.Porat
suceded to obfuscate and paralize the apposite discusion
please bypass them .
Y.Porat
--------------
OsherD
Maleki said:
> "nafahmidim nazr dAsht yA kaffAreh."
Not to change the subject, but an Ancient Latin proverb translates as:
"Old men quote aphorisms."
Since I'm 66 and don't quote aphorisms, you must be close to the end.
Try to see the light at the end of the rainbow, and your passing will
be merciful. Negative thinking goes down, not up.
Osher Doctorow
OsherD
Osher (that's me) said:
>Since I'm 66 and don't quote aphorisms...
Except just now, of course. But you quote them all the time. An
"aphoristic profane elitist" is an ape. Do you get the picture?
Osher
Tom Potter
"OsherD" <mdoc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1113202094.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >From Osher Doctorow
>
> Maleki said:
>
> > "nafahmidim nazr dAsht yA kaffAreh."
>
>
> Not to change the subject, but an Ancient Latin proverb translates as:
>
> "Old men quote aphorisms."
>
I just turned 27.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
Y.Porat
'> Crank up the voltage on your xray machine!
>
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography...
I can understand why the cross-section for Pair Production
only rises for higher photon energies. But since the speed
of light is constant, why do the graphs for photon-"charged
particles" collisions drop for higher photon energies?
end of quote.
--
can any of the smart guys answer his question??
may be farter GR ?? or Uncle farter??
Y.Porat
---------------------------------
Maleki
I'm just trying to see if there's anything that light
doesn't feel, hit, see; i.e. anything it doesn't collide
with. If there's something with no electric charge in its
built, then light would not have collision with it. Two
totally alien things in the same place at the same time! Not
even knowing of each other's existence. Isn't this odd?
--
"bA gorg donbeh mikhoreh bA chupun geryeh
mikoneh."
Mark Fergerson
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:59:44 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:
>>Mark Fergerson wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Also, neutrons exhibit the Cerenkov effect
>>
>> This may or may not be true. From memory I recalled some
>>experimental evidence for it but can't find any current cites.
> I'm just trying to see if there's anything that light
> doesn't feel, hit, see; i.e. anything it doesn't collide
> with. If there's something with no electric charge in its
> built, then light would not have collision with it. Two
> totally alien things in the same place at the same time! Not
> even knowing of each other's existence. Isn't this odd?
Well, for sufficient values of "odd", I suppose so. I earlier
mentioned several Standard Model particles that don't participate in
the EM interaction; gluons, neutral weak vector bosons, and neutrinos.
FTM most particles "feel" one or more of the "four forces" but
not the rest, and a good thing it is too. Imagine if electrons felt
the strong nuclear force; would stable atoms even be possible, and
under what conditions?
Nature keeps reminding us that often, our concept of "odd" is her
idea of "commonplace" and vice versa. We have so much more to learn.
Mark L. Fergerson
Y.Porat
in order that it will interact with it.
even so
th eneutron has an electron on it
so it can interact with the electron that is
on the neutron.
and vice versa
a neutrron can by some exitation
emmit light may be through the electron part of it.
how about that ?
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------
Maleki
> Maleki wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 13:59:44 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:
>
>>>Mark Fergerson wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> Also, neutrons exhibit the Cerenkov effect
>>>
>>> This may or may not be true. From memory I recalled some
>>>experimental evidence for it but can't find any current cites.
>
>> I'm just trying to see if there's anything that light
>> doesn't feel, hit, see; i.e. anything it doesn't collide
>> with. If there's something with no electric charge in its
>> built, then light would not have collision with it. Two
>> totally alien things in the same place at the same time! Not
>> even knowing of each other's existence. Isn't this odd?
>
> Well, for sufficient values of "odd", I suppose so. I earlier
> mentioned several Standard Model particles that don't participate in
> the EM interaction; gluons, neutral weak vector bosons, and neutrinos.
>
Ahh... How should I put it. If something _is_ to a second
thing, and something else _is_ to that same second thing,
then how in the world can that first thing not _be_ for that
"something else"?? How can neutrinos be felt and light be
felt, but light and neutrinos stay totally alien to each
other. Do you see the "collision" of the two that this
process indicates? Now reduce its complication to simpler
situations until its limit is reached. Well we'll still have
a collision between the two, only a bit more involved. No?
> FTM most particles "feel" one or more of the "four forces" but
> not the rest, and a good thing it is too. Imagine if electrons felt
> the strong nuclear force; would stable atoms even be possible, and
> under what conditions?
>
> Nature keeps reminding us that often, our concept of "odd" is her
> idea of "commonplace" and vice versa. We have so much more to learn.
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
--
"konjkAviyetAn be marAseme hajj va ghorbAni shAyad
az in jahat bishtar tahrik shodeh bAshad ke Anche
rAje' be manAsek va a'mAle hajj shenide'id
benazaretAn agar naguyam khorAfi va vahshiyAneh,
lA'aghal ajib va badavi biyAyad va gheyre ghAbele
hazm bAshad, mAnande sartarAshidan, long bastan,
dowre yek chahArdivAri gardidan, leyley davidan,
rig be sheytAn parAndan, gusfandhAye zabAnbasteh
rA koshtan va gandAndan, ..., arze mamlekat rA be
jibe arabhA rikhtan, khAk va AftAb khordan, va
andaki rowghane siyAh va Abe talkh be armaghAn
Avardan. chenin estefhAm va ta'ajjob barAye
besyAri az ashkhAs pish miAyad."
- Mehdi Bazargan
Maleki
> Since I'm 66 and don't quote aphorisms, you must be close to the end.
> Try to see the light at the end of the rainbow, and your passing will
> be merciful.
If I was close to the end then how come I listen to 50 Cent?
Right now his "In My Hood" is playing in my brain and I'm
getting a great kick out of it. Great music. Not one tiny
sound less, and not a tiny sound more than it should have
had. Pure mastery.
Other rap songs are simply crap in comparison. It is the man
behind it that matters. As always is.
--
"shotor khAbide'ash ham boland tar az khare
istAdeh ast."
Mark Fergerson
<snippage>
> Ahh... How should I put it. If something _is_ to a second
> thing, and something else _is_ to that same second thing,
> then how in the world can that first thing not _be_ for that
> "something else"?? How can neutrinos be felt and light be
> felt, but light and neutrinos stay totally alien to each
> other. Do you see the "collision" of the two that this
> process indicates? Now reduce its complication to simpler
> situations until its limit is reached. Well we'll still have
> a collision between the two, only a bit more involved. No?
Ah, now I get your meaning. Both neutrinos and electrons can
"see" photons, but photons and neutrinos can't "see" each other. One
imagines an electron trying to introduce two of his best buds, a
photon and a neutrino, and helplessly telling them "But he's _right
there_, what do you mean you can't see him?". The electron "sees"
the other two particles in different ways; one by EM, the other via
the weak interaction.
Of course the possibility of interaction for two disparate
particles is also dependent on energy, and the electron can make use
of Electroweak unification; "Look you two, just run around fast
enough and you'll eventually bang into each other!"... "Ah, there
you are!".
Mark L. Fergerson