A Question for non-believers in Relativity
Titan Point
whatever aether theory, newtonian absolute space, galilean transformation or
other theory that refutes the General or Special Theory of Einstein:
You have an iron bar in front of you. The iron bar is at rest with respect
to you, me, and the spaceship which is at rest with respect to some
absolute coordinate scheme (insert favoured theory here)
The iron bar is made of pure iron, which contains mostly Iron-56 which is
the most stable, boring isotope of any element known. But it also contains
a small amount of Iron-57 which is radioactive. You can tell that its
radioactive because you have a geiger-counter ticking away merrily as the
iron-57 decays into cobalt-57 via emission of a beta-particle (an
electron).
The half-life of this decay is around 270 days so for the purposes of this
experiment, its constant.
Here's the experiment:
The iron bar is at 20 degrees Celcius and produces a constant number of
clicks per second.
However when the iron bar is heated, the number of clicks falls, and it
falls at a constant rate depending on the increase in temperature.
When the iron bar is allowed to return to its initial temperature, the
number of clicks registered by the geiger counter returns to its initial
temperature.
Similarly, if the iron bar is cooled, the number of clicks rises in
proportion to the change in temperature.
Since the radioactive decay is a quantum process unaffected by
temperature, can you explain using your non-Einstein theory, why this
effect should happen?
(Incidentally, yes this is a real result of an experiment)
Titan Point
..and before someone mentions it, yes I've got the transition wrong,
because Co-57 is the parent isotope and Fe-57 is the daughter.
Duh!
Never mind, the iron bar is radioactive but when heated the radioactivity
appears to fall and when cooled rises.
Now, aetherists, explain the result.
elea...@bellsouth.net
"Titan Point" <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.04.12....@myrealbox.com...
> Here is a simple experimental result that I would like you to explain with
> whatever aether theory, newtonian absolute space, galilean transformation
or
> other theory that refutes the General or Special Theory of Einstein:
I can't respond on behalf of all others but I can point out that your
question is to some extent a straw man argument, certainly as far as any
'belief' of mine is concerned.
The clue is in the word 'relativity', and it is the supposed effects of
motion that are a non-belief, so only contration, dilation, and the absolute
speed of light are in question.
Anything else you may call relativity but aren't basic.
greywolf42
> whatever aether theory, newtonian absolute space, galilean transformation
or
> other theory that refutes the General or Special Theory of Einstein:
>
> You have an iron bar in front of you. The iron bar is at rest with respect
> to you, me, and the spaceship which is at rest with respect to some
> absolute coordinate scheme (insert favoured theory here)
>
> The iron bar is made of pure iron, which contains mostly Iron-56 which is
> the most stable, boring isotope of any element known. But it also contains
> a small amount of Iron-57 which is radioactive. You can tell that its
> radioactive because you have a geiger-counter ticking away merrily as the
> iron-57 decays into cobalt-57 via emission of a beta-particle (an
> electron).
>
> The half-life of this decay is around 270 days so for the purposes of this
> experiment, its constant.
According to which theory?
How long did they measure the "constant" half-life, and to what precision?
(i.e. what was the background variation?)
>
> Here's the experiment:
>
> The iron bar is at 20 degrees Celcius and produces a constant number of
> clicks per second.
What was the number of clicks per second? What is the background standard
deviation? What was the detector dead time? What was the detector
geometry?
>
> However when the iron bar is heated, the number of clicks falls, and it
> falls at a constant rate depending on the increase in temperature.
What is the temperature dependence of the detector? How was this
determined? To what accuracy? How does this change the dead time or
response?
Is the click rate
1) inversely proportional to absolute temperature?
2) inversely proportional to absolute temperature, squared?
3) inversely proportional to sqrt(absolute temperature)?
4) inversely proportional to fourth root(absolute temperature)?
or some other dependence. Over what range of temperatures?
> When the iron bar is allowed to return to its initial temperature, the
> number of clicks registered by the geiger counter returns to its initial
> temperature.
(sic, rate prior to heating)
> Similarly, if the iron bar is cooled, the number of clicks rises in
> proportion to the change in temperature.
Same question choice as above (hopefully the same answer) :)
> Since the radioactive decay is a quantum process unaffected by
> temperature,
Wherever did you get this assumption? This is untrue even in SR!
As you increase temperature, the speed of the isotopes relative to the
counter changes!
> can you explain using your non-Einstein theory, why this
> effect should happen?
>
> (Incidentally, yes this is a real result of an experiment)
Excellent! Reference please and "absolute coordinate system" used in the
experiment.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Titan Point
>
> Titan Point <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.04.12....@myrealbox.com...
>> Here is a simple experimental result that I would like you to explain with
>> whatever aether theory, newtonian absolute space, galilean transformation
> or
>> other theory that refutes the General or Special Theory of Einstein:
>>
>> You have an iron bar in front of you. The iron bar is at rest with respect
>> to you, me, and the spaceship which is at rest with respect to some
>> absolute coordinate scheme (insert favoured theory here)
>>
>> The iron bar is made of pure iron, which contains mostly Iron-56 which is
>> the most stable, boring isotope of any element known. But it also contains
>> a small amount of Iron-57 which is radioactive. You can tell that its
>> radioactive because you have a geiger-counter ticking away merrily as the
>> iron-57 decays into cobalt-57 via emission of a beta-particle (an
>> electron).
>>
>> The half-life of this decay is around 270 days so for the purposes of this
>> experiment, its constant.
>
> According to which theory?
Which theory would you like? The experiment runs for 6 hours, during which
time the number of clicks coming from the geiger counter is essentially
constant.
>
> How long did they measure the "constant" half-life, and to what precision?
> (i.e. what was the background variation?)
>
The the number of clicks registered took into account the much lower level
background radiation and can be ignored. Since the background radiation
was constant during the experiment, it can be ignored.
>>
>> Here's the experiment:
>>
>> The iron bar is at 20 degrees Celcius and produces a constant number of
>> clicks per second.
>
> What was the number of clicks per second? What is the background standard
> deviation? What was the detector dead time? What was the detector
> geometry?
Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant,
>
>>
>> However when the iron bar is heated, the number of clicks falls, and it
>> falls at a constant rate depending on the increase in temperature.
>
> What is the temperature dependence of the detector? How was this
> determined? To what accuracy? How does this change the dead time or
> response?
Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelvant. Irrelevant.
>
> Is the click rate
> 1) inversely proportional to absolute temperature?
> 2) inversely proportional to absolute temperature, squared?
> 3) inversely proportional to sqrt(absolute temperature)?
> 4) inversely proportional to fourth root(absolute temperature)?
>
> or some other dependence. Over what range of temperatures?
>
Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant.
>
>> When the iron bar is allowed to return to its initial temperature, the
>> number of clicks registered by the geiger counter returns to its initial
>> temperature.
>
> (sic, rate prior to heating)
Yes
>
>> Similarly, if the iron bar is cooled, the number of clicks rises in
>> proportion to the change in temperature.
>
> Same question choice as above (hopefully the same answer) :)
Yes
>
>> Since the radioactive decay is a quantum process unaffected by
>> temperature,
>
> Wherever did you get this assumption? This is untrue even in SR!
Where did I get this assumption? From textbooks on quantum theory. Its
another irrelevant question. SR has nothing whatsoever to say about
the causes of radioactive decay.
>
> As you increase temperature, the speed of the isotopes relative to the
> counter changes!
So how does this affect the rate at which the radioactive isotopes decay?
>
>> can you explain using your non-Einstein theory, why this
>> effect should happen?
>>
>> (Incidentally, yes this is a real result of an experiment)
>
> Excellent! Reference please and "absolute coordinate system" used in the
> experiment.
Reference? Nope I'm not going to give the reference until such a time as
you or somebody else answers the question without spewing out irrelvancies
like the geiger counter geometry. Absolute coordinate system is whatever
your choice is: ether, Setomatical system, GMBR whatever.
Now, how does a non-Einsteinian theory cope with the experimental result
that when the bar is heated the radioactactivity appears to fall and when
the bar is cooled the radioactivity appears to rise?
Titan Point
>
> "Titan Point" <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.04.12....@myrealbox.com...
>> Here is a simple experimental result that I would like you to explain with
>> whatever aether theory, newtonian absolute space, galilean transformation
> or
>> other theory that refutes the General or Special Theory of Einstein:
>
> I can't respond on behalf of all others but I can point out that your
> question is to some extent a straw man argument, certainly as far as any
> 'belief' of mine is concerned.
It's not a straw man. It's an experimental test to invalidate theories.
The experiment has been done. The results are unambiguous. When the
temperature of the bar is raised, the radioactivity registered falls,
when the temperature is lowered, the radioactivity rises.
>
> The clue is in the word 'relativity', and it is the supposed effects of
> motion that are a non-belief, so only contration, dilation, and the absolute
> speed of light are in question.
I'm not asking about relativity at all. I'm asking YOU to account for the
results of this experiment using your non-relativity theory.
>
> Anything else you may call relativity but aren't basic.
When you stop making "hand-waving arguments" and answer the questions we
may see whether your theory can explain experimental results.
We're waiting.
Harold Ensle
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:54:04 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>
> >
> > Titan Point <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2003.04.12....@myrealbox.com...
[...........]
> Now, how does a non-Einsteinian theory cope with the experimental result
> that when the bar is heated the radioactactivity appears to fall and when
> the bar is cooled the radioactivity appears to rise?
Interesting experiment...........but if SR does not explain it, why should
a replacement for SR need to explain it?
H.Ellis Ensle
Phaedrus
I have simple explanation, whether it is valid or not I do not know.
When you heat the bar the atoms vibrate, if you were to heat the bar up to
the melting point of the iron bar, the kinetic energy of the vibrating atoms
would be sufficient to overcome the atomic bonding force and allow the atoms
to move around freely, thus the bar becomes a molten liquid.
Now before the melting point is reached vibrations are still occurring,
these vibrations can only occur if some absolute bonding level between atoms
is broken, theoretically even at 0 Kelvin vibrations would still occur due
to Heisenbergs Uncertaintity Principle I believe.
Because the inter atomic bonds are being made and unmade to differing
degrees, ie vibrations, then this could account for the variations in
radioactive decay, as I propose the decays only occur when the magnitude and
phase of the EM wave of a shell electron travelling to the nucleus are
correct. By this I mean the there will be a cancelling effect of attraction
and this gives rise to the ejection of the electron, ie a radioactive decay
event. This possibly happens when the shell electron is closest to the
nucleus and in antiphase to an outer proton of the nucleus.
This would then explain the phenomena you see in the experiment you
describe.
Joe
greywolf42
The one that you are using to claim that the half-life is "around" 270 days
and "for the purposes of the experiment" is "constant."
> The experiment runs for 6 hours, during which
> time the number of clicks coming from the geiger counter is essentially
> constant.
What do you mean by "essentially?"
> > How long did they measure the "constant" half-life, and to what
precision?
> > (i.e. what was the background variation?)
> >
> The the number of clicks registered took into account the much lower level
> background radiation and can be ignored.
LOL!!!
Not the celestial background (which can not be ignored unless the experiment
is performed behind massive shielding), the "resting" or "pre-heating"
count rates.
> Since the background radiation
> was constant during the experiment, it can be ignored.
The "background" is the pre-experiment (pre-heating rate). NOT the
celestial background rate. (Which is also never quite constant).
> >>
> >> Here's the experiment:
> >>
> >> The iron bar is at 20 degrees Celcius and produces a constant number of
> >> clicks per second.
> >
> > What was the number of clicks per second? What is the background
standard
> > deviation? What was the detector dead time? What was the detector
> > geometry?
>
> Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant,
LOL!!!!
I'll never enter a lab you're running.
> >>
> >> However when the iron bar is heated, the number of clicks falls, and it
> >> falls at a constant rate depending on the increase in temperature.
> >
> > What is the temperature dependence of the detector? How was this
> > determined? To what accuracy? How does this change the dead time or
> > response?
>
> Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelvant. Irrelevant.
LOL!!!
> >
> > Is the click rate
> > 1) inversely proportional to absolute temperature?
> > 2) inversely proportional to absolute temperature, squared?
> > 3) inversely proportional to sqrt(absolute temperature)?
> > 4) inversely proportional to fourth root(absolute temperature)?
> >
> > or some other dependence. Over what range of temperatures?
> >
> Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant.
*&!%*&!^*$@(^#@*&^
That would be the result of the experiment! What did you do, make a
gedanken and claim it was "experiment?"
Which was it???
> >
> >> When the iron bar is allowed to return to its initial temperature, the
> >> number of clicks registered by the geiger counter returns to its
initial
> >> temperature.
> >
> > (sic, rate prior to heating)
>
> Yes
> >
> >> Similarly, if the iron bar is cooled, the number of clicks rises in
> >> proportion to the change in temperature.
> >
> > Same question choice as above (hopefully the same answer) :)
>
> Yes
So you really have not data. Some experiment.
> >
> >> Since the radioactive decay is a quantum process unaffected by
> >> temperature,
> >
> > Wherever did you get this assumption? This is untrue even in SR!
>
> Where did I get this assumption? From textbooks on quantum theory. Its
> another irrelevant question. SR has nothing whatsoever to say about
> the causes of radioactive decay.
Step 1: According to SR, time (rate of decay) changes with relative speed.
Step 2: According to the definition of temperature, the relative speed of
molecules in a substance increases with increasing temperature.
Conclusion: Increase in relative speed will result in change of time, will
result in change in observed count rate.
> >
> > As you increase temperature, the speed of the isotopes relative to the
> > counter changes!
>
> So how does this affect the rate at which the radioactive isotopes decay?
See above.
> >
> >> can you explain using your non-Einstein theory, why this
> >> effect should happen?
> >>
> >> (Incidentally, yes this is a real result of an experiment)
> >
> > Excellent! Reference please and "absolute coordinate system" used in
the
> > experiment.
>
> Reference? Nope I'm not going to give the reference until such a time as
> you or somebody else answers the question without spewing out irrelvancies
> like the geiger counter geometry.
Ah, perfect! An invisible experiment.
OK, forget the reference, please provide the details of the experiement --
with all the details. That you don't understand anything about experiments
with geiger counters or radioactivity is now perfectly clear. Detector
geometry is critical in non-point source (and self-shielded) experiments.
> Absolute coordinate system is whatever
> your choice is: ether, Setomatical system, GMBR whatever.
You claimed that it was "at rest with respect to some absolute coordinate
scheme ". However, I'm not aware of any serious aether theories that
contain an "absolute coordinate scheme." Thus, I was curious how you
determined that your experiment (which you claim has already been done) is
at rest with some as-yet-undetermined "absolute coordinate scheme."
> Now, how does a non-Einsteinian theory cope with the experimental result
> that when the bar is heated the radioactactivity appears to fall and when
> the bar is cooled the radioactivity appears to rise?
The same way SR does.
Give me some description to work with, and I'll take a crack at it.
Bilge
> Titanpoint:
>> The the number of clicks registered took into account the much lower
>> level background radiation and can be ignored.
>LOL!!!
>
> Not the celestial background (which can not be ignored unless the
> experiment is performed behind massive shielding), the "resting"
> or "pre-heating" count rates.
>> Since the background radiation
>> was constant during the experiment, it can be ignored.
>
>The "background" is the pre-experiment (pre-heating rate). NOT the
>celestial background rate. (Which is also never quite constant).
Surely you jest. It's not a prescision half-life measurement. Given a
reeasonable count rate over a moderate time, it makes no difference since
all one cares about is a difference in the time averaged count rate.
But hey, if you want to go overboard, one can always set it up like:
+-------------|cfd|------------+ +---+ +------+
| | |clk|->|scalar|
veto v | | | +------+
det ------------ +-+ anti | +___+ |
|c|<-------+ ^ +-->--> computer
det2 ----- >------------>|cfd|--->|o| anti |
det1 ----- >------------>|cfd|--->|i|<----------+-<- computer busy
|n|
====== ====== collimator |c|->-------->--> computer
O source +-+ out
Rangeout material may be placed between det1 and det2 so that the
betas from the source are stopped and never reach the veto detector.
A four-fold coincidence is required with the veto detector and
computer busy signal in anti-coincidence with det1 and det2. The
computer busy signal is also sent to a scalar to measure the dead
time. The veto detector can also be sent to the computer to count
the number of vetos due to cosmics. The source is collimated in
order to insure the trajectory of the betas passes through both
detectors but not into the veto detector.
[...]
>> Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant,
>
>LOL!!!!
>
>I'll never enter a lab you're running.
It appears you have a hard time determining what data is relevant
to an experiment.
[...]
>> > or some other dependence. Over what range of temperatures?
>> >
>> Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant.
>
>*&!%*&!^*$@(^#@*&^
>
>That would be the result of the experiment! What did you do, make a
>gedanken and claim it was "experiment?"
I just "fixed" his gedanken experiment. In any case, you don't seem
to think about what is being measured before spewing jargon.
[...]
>> >> Similarly, if the iron bar is cooled, the number of clicks rises in
>> >> proportion to the change in temperature.
>> >
>> > Same question choice as above (hopefully the same answer) :)
>>
>> Yes
>
>So you really have not data. Some experiment.
I was actually waiting for the claim before commenting. Try applying
your own experimental overkill to your "centrifuge" experiment.
[...]
>> Now, how does a non-Einsteinian theory cope with the experimental result
>> that when the bar is heated the radioactactivity appears to fall and when
>> the bar is cooled the radioactivity appears to rise?
>
>The same way SR does.
>
>Give me some description to work with, and I'll take a crack at it.
My guess is that you stepped in it. You're claiming, a priori, that
you'll explain the experiment any way that special relativity does
before even knowing the explanation or if there is even an effect.
Essentially, you've claimed that despite not having the slightest
clue what the so-called experiment is supposed to show, you're going
to insure you can come up with the same result that special relativity
does. Gee, that really says a lot about not only the ability of your
model to stand on its own and make a prediction, but about your faith
in your own model. I believe you've just been trolled and if not, I'd
personally like to gear the claim before deciding what it is. The
experimental setup itself is not unreasonable as described so long
as one counts for a number of hours and has a source with a moderately
long half-life. If one was unable to average out backgrounds from
relative measurements, things like lock-in amplifiers wouldn't work.
Backgrounds matter most when one wants an absolute decay count.
Titan Point
How does the jiggling of the iron nuclei affect the decay rate, since
radioactive decay is a quantum process unaffected by heat. \
And no, the bar does not have to become molten for this effect to occur.
Titan Point
>
> Titan Point <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.04.13....@myrealbox.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:54:04 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Titan Point <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> > news:pan.2003.04.12....@myrealbox.com...
>
> [...........]
>
>> Now, how does a non-Einsteinian theory cope with the experimental result
>> that when the bar is heated the radioactactivity appears to fall and when
>> the bar is cooled the radioactivity appears to rise?
>
>
> Interesting experiment...........but if SR does not explain it, why should
> a replacement for SR need to explain it?
>
> H.Ellis Ensle
I didn't say that SR predicted it, but GR does.
What I'd like to know is whether other theories predict and explain this
result.
Titan Point
[snipped irrelevant crap}
>
> greywolf42
> ubi dubium ibi libertas
Come on Greywolf, explain the experimental result that when the iron bar
is heated the radioactive decay falls in direct proportion to the
rise in absolute temperature, without using Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity.
The experiment is real. Now lets here the explanation.
Phaedrus
"Titan Point" <Titan...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.04.14....@myrealbox.com...
This is an assumption that the radioactive decay is a quantum process
unaffected by heat, I have given an explanation of how this quantum process
is affected by the jiggling of the nuclei and the valence electrons with
regard to the binding EM force that binds the valence electrons to the
nuclei.
> And no, the bar does not have to become molten for this effect to occur.
I did not suggest that the bar would have to melt for this experimental
effect to occur.
Joe
Harold Ensle
GR explains this??????
How could it possibly do so? What is the strength of the gravitational
field? How is the gravitational field changed in the experiment?
This is an obvious case of being outside the domain of applicability.
H.Ellis Ensle
>
Titan Point
Nope, the binding energy is too high to be affected by temperature much
less than the internal temp of the Sun, and valence electrons have NOTHING
to do with radioactive decay.
Yet the radioactivity falls as the temp rises. Without GR, how would you
account for this result?
Titan Point
Ah but it does....now the question is whether any competing theory does
the same.
greywolf42
Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnb9kglq....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> greywolf42:
> > Titanpoint:
> >> The the number of clicks registered took into account the much lower
> >> level background radiation and can be ignored.
>
> >LOL!!!
> >
> > Not the celestial background (which can not be ignored unless the
> > experiment is performed behind massive shielding), the "resting"
> > or "pre-heating" count rates.
> >> Since the background radiation
> >> was constant during the experiment, it can be ignored.
> >
> >The "background" is the pre-experiment (pre-heating rate). NOT the
> >celestial background rate. (Which is also never quite constant).
>
> Surely you jest. It's not a prescision half-life measurement.
It would have to be a precision half-life experiment to see a deviation.
I'm not interested in a non-precision experiment.
> Given a
> reeasonable count rate over a moderate time, it makes no difference since
> all one cares about is a difference in the time averaged count rate.
True, but I do care.
> But hey, if you want to go overboard, one can always set it up like:
>
> +-------------|cfd|------------+ +---+ +------+
> | | |clk|->|scalar|
> veto v | | | +------+
> det ------------ +-+ anti | +___+ |
> |c|<-------+ ^ +-->--> computer
> det2 ----- >------------>|cfd|--->|o| anti |
> det1 ----- >------------>|cfd|--->|i|<----------+-<- computer busy
> |n|
> ====== ====== collimator |c|->-------->--> computer
> O source +-+ out
>
>
> Rangeout material may be placed between det1 and det2 so that the
> betas from the source are stopped and never reach the veto detector.
> A four-fold coincidence is required with the veto detector and
> computer busy signal in anti-coincidence with det1 and det2. The
> computer busy signal is also sent to a scalar to measure the dead
> time. The veto detector can also be sent to the computer to count
> the number of vetos due to cosmics. The source is collimated in
> order to insure the trajectory of the betas passes through both
> detectors but not into the veto detector.
But I need to know what WAS done. Not what COULD HAVE BEEN done. This has
been represented as a real experiment that has been completed in the past.
> [...]
> >> Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant,
> >
> >LOL!!!!
> >
> >I'll never enter a lab you're running.
>
> It appears you have a hard time determining what data is relevant
> to an experiment.
All of it. That's how one determines whether it has an effect on the
experiment!
> [...]
> >> > or some other dependence. Over what range of temperatures?
> >> >
> >> Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant.
> >
> >*&!%*&!^*$@(^#@*&^
> >
> >That would be the result of the experiment! What did you do, make a
> >gedanken and claim it was "experiment?"
>
> I just "fixed" his gedanken experiment. In any case, you don't seem
> to think about what is being measured before spewing jargon.
His is claimed to be a "real" experiment. I have no desire to bother with
somebody's gedanken.
>
> [...]
> >> >> Similarly, if the iron bar is cooled, the number of clicks rises in
> >> >> proportion to the change in temperature.
> >> >
> >> > Same question choice as above (hopefully the same answer) :)
> >>
> >> Yes
> >
> >So you really have not data. Some experiment.
>
> I was actually waiting for the claim before commenting. Try applying
> your own experimental overkill to your "centrifuge" experiment.
It wasn't *my* centrifuge experiment. And I believe they did apply what you
call "overkill", prior to providing a counter-SR result.
>
> [...]
> >> Now, how does a non-Einsteinian theory cope with the experimental
result
> >> that when the bar is heated the radioactactivity appears to fall and
when
> >> the bar is cooled the radioactivity appears to rise?
> >
> >The same way SR does.
> >
> >Give me some description to work with, and I'll take a crack at it.
>
> My guess is that you stepped in it. You're claiming, a priori, that
> you'll explain the experiment any way that special relativity does
> before even knowing the explanation or if there is even an effect.
Nope. I'll said I'll attempt an explanation of a "real" experiment. That's
the nature of science, after all. There's nothing to "step in," except your
own verbal droppings. But before I waste my time, I'd like to determine
whether the experiment is real, and if it is reliable.
> Essentially, you've claimed that despite not having the slightest
> clue what the so-called experiment is supposed to show, you're going
> to insure you can come up with the same result that special relativity
> does.
Nope. I'm not "insuring" anything. I said I'd take a crack at it. I
already suspect I know what the result will be, based on my understanding of
aether theories. Also based on my understanding of SR, I have an idea how
SR will explain it (though I'm at a loss as to how GR will do this).
If -- on the other hand -- this is merely an SR-gedanken, I don't wish to be
bothered.
> Gee, that really says a lot about not only the ability of your
> model to stand on its own and make a prediction, but about your faith
> in your own model. I believe you've just been trolled
I've begun to suspect the same......
> and if not, I'd
> personally like to gear the claim before deciding what it is. The
> experimental setup itself is not unreasonable as described so long
> as one counts for a number of hours and has a source with a moderately
> long half-life. If one was unable to average out backgrounds from
> relative measurements, things like lock-in amplifiers wouldn't work.
> Backgrounds matter most when one wants an absolute decay count.
Which we do in this experiment, in order to check the "inversely linear"
claim now made by Titan Point. Making a general observation (decay rate
decreases) is easy. The question is to address the quantification.
greywolf42
>
> [snipped irrelevant crap}
LOL!
> Come on Greywolf, explain the experimental result that when the iron bar
> is heated the radioactive decay falls in direct proportion to the
> rise in absolute temperature, without using Einstein's General Theory of
> Relativity.
See? My questions weren't irrelevant. You've here added "direct
proportion", "absolute temperature", and GR (although what gravity has to do
with this, I don't know).
==============================
greywolf42: (snipped):
> > Is the click rate
> > 1) inversely proportional to absolute temperature?
> > 2) inversely proportional to absolute temperature, squared?
> > 3) inversely proportional to sqrt(absolute temperature)?
> > 4) inversely proportional to fourth root(absolute temperature)?
> >
> > or some other dependence. Over what range of temperatures?
Titan Point: (snipped)
> Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant.
==============================
> The experiment is real. Now lets here the explanation.
Will do. Just as soon as you provide the real description that I need to
work with. I've seen horrendous errors made over just the things that I've
described in the real world. Such "irrelevancies" as the measured count
rate before heating (the background or resting rate). One of the few
"specifications" that you originally provided ("small amount of Iron-57")
was immediately contradicted by the clarification that cosmic background was
"negligible." Such little realities must be included in the analysis.
Perhaps if you just posted the SR explanation first (or the "GR
explanation").
Phaedrus
The valency bonding energy is overcome to allow the atoms to jiggle around
and even move freely when the metal becomes a liquid. I just used the molten
state to illustrate the point I am making about the fact that atoms can move
about despite the valency bonding due to temperature.
I have give an explanation as to why the EM force between the valency
electrons and the nuclei is affected by the jiggling of the atoms. I then
went on to explain why the beta decays occur.
What makes you assert that valence electrons have nothing to do with
radioactive decay?
Lawrence Foard
Titan Point <Titan...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>Nope, the binding energy is too high to be affected by temperature much
>less than the internal temp of the Sun, and valence electrons have NOTHING
>to do with radioactive decay.
>
>Yet the radioactivity falls as the temp rises. Without GR, how would you
>account for this result?
I assume you mean falls as temp rises. I don't see where GR comes in this
is a simple SR 'twins paradox' problem.
--
Be a counter terrorist perpetrate random senseless acts of kindness
Rave: Immanentization of the Eschaton in a Temporary Autonomous Zone.
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security"
-Benjamin Franklin
Bilge
>Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnb9kglq....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> greywolf42:
>> > Titanpoint:
>> >> The the number of clicks registered took into account the much lower
>> >> level background radiation and can be ignored.
>>
>> >LOL!!!
>> >
>> > Not the celestial background (which can not be ignored unless the
>> > experiment is performed behind massive shielding), the "resting"
>> > or "pre-heating" count rates.
>> >> Since the background radiation
>> >> was constant during the experiment, it can be ignored.
>> >
>> >The "background" is the pre-experiment (pre-heating rate). NOT the
>> >celestial background rate. (Which is also never quite constant).
>>
>> Surely you jest. It's not a prescision half-life measurement.
>
>It would have to be a precision half-life experiment to see a deviation.
>I'm not interested in a non-precision experiment.
is necessary to determine that the reduction in the count rate following
the insertion of a sheet of lead between a source and detector is actually
due to the insertion of the lead?
>> Given a
>> reeasonable count rate over a moderate time, it makes no difference since
>> all one cares about is a difference in the time averaged count rate.
>
>True, but I do care.
That's because you have no comprehension of the difference between
a measurement which answers a specific question and an experiment
which can answer any question one dreams up later.
Since it's not very clear what the experiment is supposed to show,
no basis exists for determining whether or not it shows what it claims.
Until, that is clear, there is nothing more that can be said, beyond
the fact that as the experiment is stated, one can certainly determine
whether or not the count rate corresponds to decay rate in the steel
bar. There is nothing wrong, in principle, with the apparatus taken
at face value.
By contrast, you havent even given the most basic description
of the the centrifuge experiment you posted. I suppose that one
handicaps one's self by actully describing the experimental apparatus
and opening the results up to question, huh? I notice that you
don't criticise yourself for asserting a result, but criticise
others for describing the apparatus, even though they haven't
asserted much in the way of what it means yet. You are completely
ignorant of how to deal with real experiments and apparently believe
a single, definitive, all encompassing experiment is needed to deal
with the most trivial questions which can be addressed very simply.
[...]
>
>But I need to know what WAS done.
So, why have you not described what was done on the centrifuge
experiment? As far as I can tell, every objection you've given
here is not only applicable to your centrifuge experiment, but
much more of an issue, due to the short half-life of 198Au and
the fact that placing the sample in the centrifuge means there
exist lots of questions about the detector geometry which are
highly dependent on the exact proceedure used. Here, the geometry
is irrelevant, since it never changes.
>Not what COULD HAVE BEEN done. This has been represented as a real
>experiment that has been completed in the past.
So far, none of your objections are pertinent. While there may
exist some objections about whether or not this experiment supports
some claim, its not very clear what the claim is, so I can't address
the validity of the experiment in addressing it. Just like your
centrifuge, except that your description is even more vague, while
your claims are far more specific. Live up to the same requirements
you impose on others rather than engaging in the intellectual
dishonesty that is your trademark.
[...]
>> It appears you have a hard time determining what data is relevant
>> to an experiment.
>
>All of it. That's how one determines whether it has an effect on the
>experiment!
Be specific and provide quantitative examples that would be significant.
[...]
>> I was actually waiting for the claim before commenting. Try applying
>> your own experimental overkill to your "centrifuge" experiment.
>
>It wasn't *my* centrifuge experiment. And I believe they did apply what you
>call "overkill", prior to providing a counter-SR result.
It wasn't his "iron bar experiment" either. However, his claims are
rather vague and his apparatus is described fairly well, while your
claims regarding the centrifuge are quite specific and your description
of the experiment is non-existent. Why should one be penalized for
providing more information and claiming less about what it means?
>>
>> My guess is that you stepped in it. You're claiming, a priori, that
>> you'll explain the experiment any way that special relativity does
>> before even knowing the explanation or if there is even an effect.
>
>Nope. I'll said I'll attempt an explanation of a "real" experiment. That's
>the nature of science, after all.
You know nothing about science. I'm guessing you stepped right into
a troll.
[...]
>
>> Gee, that really says a lot about not only the ability of your
>> model to stand on its own and make a prediction, but about your faith
>> in your own model. I believe you've just been trolled
>
>I've begun to suspect the same......
Well, then it should be obvious that you fell for it and rejected
something based upon non-sensical experimental issues prior to finding
out what exactly you were rejecting.
[...]
>Which we do in this experiment, in order to check the "inversely linear"
>claim now made by Titan Point. Making a general observation (decay rate
>decreases) is easy. The question is to address the quantification.
It hardly matters how the decay rate changes for the experiment to
be of significance. Unfortunately, he has not yet explained that
significance (probably for trolling value, which you've grabbed onto,
hook, line and sinker). I'm waiting for the actual claims to be
stated before commenting on anything other than your inability to
grasp a basic experimental concept and the double standards you
employ.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Phaedrus" <phae...@talk.com> wrote in message
news:b7f6vm$ts2$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Titan Point" <Titan...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.04.14....@myrealbox.com...
...
> > Nope, the binding energy is too high to be affected by temperature much
> > less than the internal temp of the Sun, and valence electrons have
NOTHING
> > to do with radioactive decay.
> >
>
> The valency bonding energy is overcome to allow the atoms to jiggle
around
> and even move freely when the metal becomes a liquid. I just used the
molten
> state to illustrate the point I am making about the fact that atoms can
move
> about despite the valency bonding due to temperature.
>
> I have give an explanation as to why the EM force between the valency
> electrons and the nuclei is affected by the jiggling of the atoms. I then
> went on to explain why the beta decays occur.
>
> What makes you assert that valence electrons have nothing to do with
> radioactive decay?
Does iron in a plasma decay at the same rate as a solid iron sample moving
with an equivalent velocity? It would not be simple to do... but you could
eliminate the "valence electrons" from the equation.
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
Doesn't the average velocity of the particle increase with increasing
temperature? SR might predict the effect also, but the actual change
observed might be off...
David A. Smith
Phaedrus
"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FQIma.122$YX6.57@fed1read05...
Hi David,
I gave what I thought was a plausible explanation for the effect seen in the
experiment but was told that electrons play no part in the beta decay that
ejects electrons? Sounds a bit Irish to me. Also I feel that the phase and
amplitudes of EM waves between the about to be ejected electron and some
part of the nuclei is important to the decay process, but I am curtly told
this is not the case with no reason given as to why. Maybe it is because QFT
has provided answers in the past, therefore no new reason is required.
Do you have any views on this?
Joe
Phaedrus
What makes you so sure that valence electrons have nothing to do with beta
decay that ejects electrons? The electrons are part of the radioactive decay
interaction events!
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Phaedrus" <phae...@talk.com> wrote in message
news:b7fos3$cto$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:FQIma.122$YX6.57@fed1read05...
...
> > > What makes you assert that valence electrons have nothing to do with
> > > radioactive decay?
> >
> > Does iron in a plasma decay at the same rate as a solid iron sample
moving
> > with an equivalent velocity? It would not be simple to do... but you
> could
> > eliminate the "valence electrons" from the equation.
>
> Hi David,
>
> I gave what I thought was a plausible explanation for the effect seen in
the
> experiment but was told that electrons play no part in the beta decay
that
> ejects electrons? Sounds a bit Irish to me. Also I feel that the phase
and
> amplitudes of EM waves between the about to be ejected electron and some
> part of the nuclei is important to the decay process, but I am curtly
told
> this is not the case with no reason given as to why. Maybe it is because
QFT
> has provided answers in the past, therefore no new reason is required.
>
> Do you have any views on this?
My argument will not be quantitative.
By reviewing the "mass deficit" of all the nucleii that are reported by
NIST to more than 7 sig figs (so the electrons and their binding energy
show up), it becomes clear that "compressing" a positive charge into the
nucleus does not make a clear difference in the resulting binding energy.
It is almost twice as often that it is more difficult to push a neutron in
(but the average difference is about half as great as when it is harder to
push in a proton). This is comparing equal numbers of nucleons, and just
seeing what the various combinations of p and n result in, in terms of net
rest mass.
So my suggestion is that the "charge cloud" outside the nucleus is
inconsequential, just as it is when the positive charges are initially
driven toghether. If a Beta particle needs to be emitted to satisfy
internal-to-nucleus dynamics, and the time is "ripe", a Beta particle is
coming out. You might be able to control how far it'll go before it stops,
but you won't affect it coming out.
My two cents worth.
David A. Smith
Bilge
>By reviewing the "mass deficit" of all the nucleii that are reported by
>NIST to more than 7 sig figs (so the electrons and their binding energy
>show up), it becomes clear that "compressing" a positive charge into the
>nucleus does not make a clear difference in the resulting binding energy.
>It is almost twice as often that it is more difficult to push a neutron in
>(but the average difference is about half as great as when it is harder to
>push in a proton).
This most obvious case would be 3H-3He, where tritium is _less_ stable
than 3He, depsite having 2 protons and a neutron as opposed to 2 neutrons
and a proton. However, nuclei with N=Z are stable only through medium
heavy nuclei, almost up through nickel (56Ni is not stable, despite being
doubly magic). Eventually coulomb energy wins out overall because it's a
long range force, while the nuclear forces saturate. 40Ca and 48Ca are
both stable (and doubly magic), but from thhere on up, it's a balancing
act between the attractive part of the strong nuclear nuclear force which
is most bound when N =~ Z, and coulomb repulsion, which tends to prevent
that from happening. If you look at the so-called valley of stability,
it's bounded on either side by a proton drip line and a neutron drip line.
You can basically add a proton or neutron until you reach the drip line,
then one must add the other to go back toward a stable nucleus.
>So my suggestion is that the "charge cloud" outside the nucleus is
>inconsequential, just as it is when the positive charges are initially
>driven toghether.
For the most part, yes. The nuclear force itself doesn't care about
charge, but does care about how the shells are filled, which unlike
electron shells in atoms, is highly spin dependent.
Titan Point
> In article <pan.2003.04.14....@myrealbox.com>, Titan Point
> <Titan...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>Nope, the binding energy is too high to be affected by temperature much
>>less than the internal temp of the Sun, and valence electrons have
>>NOTHING to do with radioactive decay.
>>
>>Yet the radioactivity falls as the temp rises. Without GR, how would you
>>account for this result?
>
> I assume you mean falls as temp rises. I don't see where GR comes in
> this is a simple SR 'twins paradox' problem.
True, but first you have to get through the "how does radioactive decay
work" basic physics first.
I mean, really! Radioactive decay is NOT and never has been a property to
do with valence electrons. It is a quantum effect of the nucleus and
happens AT RANDOM.
GR does account for this effect.
It appears that the cranks on this board go straight for the "Bullshit
Mode" when ever challenged to account for this effect using their
non-Einsteinian aether/Seto-crap/absolute space and time/ Spaceman
"theory"
I'm still waiting for Eleacticus to stop his "hand waving" and answer the
question.
greywolf42
> greywolf42:
> >
> >Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> >news:slrnb9kglq....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >> greywolf42:
> >> > Titanpoint:
> >> >> The the number of clicks registered took into account the much
lower
> >> >> level background radiation and can be ignored.
> >>
> >> >LOL!!!
> >> >
> >> > Not the celestial background (which can not be ignored unless the
> >> > experiment is performed behind massive shielding), the "resting"
> >> > or "pre-heating" count rates.
> >> >> Since the background radiation
> >> >> was constant during the experiment, it can be ignored.
> >> >
> >> >The "background" is the pre-experiment (pre-heating rate). NOT the
> >> >celestial background rate. (Which is also never quite constant).
> >>
> >> Surely you jest. It's not a prescision half-life measurement.
> >
> >It would have to be a precision half-life experiment to see a deviation.
> >I'm not interested in a non-precision experiment.
>
> Oh? And do you also believe that a precision half-life measurement
> is necessary to determine that the reduction in the count rate following
> the insertion of a sheet of lead between a source and detector is actually
> due to the insertion of the lead?
Depends on the amount of lead inserted, and the geometry of the lead, vs
source and detector. And -- since a "small amount" of activity was
specified -- it also depends on how *small* this is (relative to cosmic
background).
> >> Given a
> >> reeasonable count rate over a moderate time, it makes no difference
since
> >> all one cares about is a difference in the time averaged count rate.
> >
> >True, but I do care.
>
> That's because you have no comprehension of the difference between
> a measurement which answers a specific question and an experiment
> which can answer any question one dreams up later.
There is no difference. Experiments (nature) are not limited to the
questions we think of beforehand. If one does not record all of the
"recipie" of the experiment, you may hide many systematic effects and
outright assumptions.
Now since I've actually had experience in the area of counting radioactive
sources under varying conditions (including such minor realities as
buildup), I identified several areas that needed to be addressed. Titan
Point was obviously setting up a challenge -- so he thought he had an
ironclad reason why aether theories would fail. If this was a real,
physical experiment, I wanted to know what systematic errors might exist.
> Since it's not very clear what the experiment is supposed to show,
> no basis exists for determining whether or not it shows what it claims.
Experiments make no claims. They are supposed to show *nature.* The
physical universe.
> Until, that is clear, there is nothing more that can be said, beyond
> the fact that as the experiment is stated, one can certainly determine
> whether or not the count rate corresponds to decay rate in the steel
> bar. There is nothing wrong, in principle, with the apparatus taken
> at face value.
But with what is stated one CANNOT determine whether or not the count rate
corresponds to the decay rate in the steel. That's why I asked the
questions.
> By contrast, you havent even given the most basic description
> of the the centrifuge experiment you posted.
I did, however, post the references. So you can look it up if you like.
Here, Titan and you claim that you won't post the reference or give me a
description.
> I suppose that one
> handicaps one's self by actully describing the experimental apparatus
> and opening the results up to question, huh?
Apparently you think that it's OK for relativists to refuse references and
descriptions of experiments that support SR. But not OK for aetherists to
provide references to experiments that others note conclusions that might
NOT support SR.
> I notice that you
> don't criticise yourself for asserting a result,
I was reporting a quote. The assertion was by others.
> but criticise
> others for describing the apparatus, even though they haven't
> asserted much in the way of what it means yet.
The assertion was that the results of the experiment support SR and GR.
> You are completely
> ignorant of how to deal with real experiments and apparently believe
> a single, definitive, all encompassing experiment is needed to deal
> with the most trivial questions which can be addressed very simply.
Simply, but incorrectly -- as noted above. Somehow, you consider Titan's
gekanken "real." And the referenced LANL experiment "unreal."
> [...]
> >
> >But I need to know what WAS done.
>
> So, why have you not described what was done on the centrifuge
> experiment?
Because I provided the reference.
> As far as I can tell, every objection you've given
> here is not only applicable to your centrifuge experiment, but
> much more of an issue, due to the short half-life of 198Au and
> the fact that placing the sample in the centrifuge means there
> exist lots of questions about the detector geometry which are
> highly dependent on the exact proceedure used. Here, the geometry
> is irrelevant, since it never changes.
LOL! Geometry is not an issue of "change."
> >Not what COULD HAVE BEEN done. This has been represented as a real
> >experiment that has been completed in the past.
>
> So far, none of your objections are pertinent.
Titan demonstrated that they were pertinent (even though he claimed
irrelvance). By providing a few of the conditions.
> While there may
> exist some objections about whether or not this experiment supports
> some claim, its not very clear what the claim is, so I can't address
> the validity of the experiment in addressing it.
The experiment is valid or invalid regardless of what theoretical claim
somebody makes about it before it is done.
> Just like your
> centrifuge, except that your description is even more vague, while
> your claims are far more specific. Live up to the same requirements
> you impose on others rather than engaging in the intellectual
> dishonesty that is your trademark.
The trademark Bilge insult. Substance-free as usual.
>
> [...]
> >> It appears you have a hard time determining what data is relevant
> >> to an experiment.
> >
> >All of it. That's how one determines whether it has an effect on the
> >experiment!
>
> Be specific and provide quantitative examples that would be significant.
I don't have to, but here's a simple example for "small amount" of
radioactivity specified:
Cosmic background/ counter contamination: 45 cpm +- 8.
Cold count w/steel: 60 cpm +- 9
Heated count w/steel: 55 cpm +- 9.
Net result: No determination possible.
>
> [...]
> >> I was actually waiting for the claim before commenting. Try applying
> >> your own experimental overkill to your "centrifuge" experiment.
> >
> >It wasn't *my* centrifuge experiment. And I believe they did apply what
you
> >call "overkill", prior to providing a counter-SR result.
>
> It wasn't his "iron bar experiment" either. However, his claims are
> rather vague and his apparatus is described fairly well,
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! A vague description about an "iron bar", "small" amount of
isotope, unmentioned temperature range, unmentioned background rate, etc.
> while your
> claims regarding the centrifuge are quite specific
They are the claims of the standard reference -- not mine.
> and your description of the experiment is non-existent.
But the reference to the experiment explicitly existent.
> why should one be penalized for
> providing more information and claiming less about what it means?
Because Titan refuses to provide pertinent information or a reference.
Whereas I've provided two references.
> >>
> >> My guess is that you stepped in it. You're claiming, a priori, that
> >> you'll explain the experiment any way that special relativity does
> >> before even knowing the explanation or if there is even an effect.
> >
> >Nope. I'll said I'll attempt an explanation of a "real" experiment.
That's
> >the nature of science, after all.
>
> You know nothing about science. I'm guessing you stepped right into
> a troll.
I thought I smelled something! ;)
However, you'll note that (if Titan is just trolling) I didn't let him get
away with it. I started asking him real-world questions, and he ran.
> [...]
> >
> >> Gee, that really says a lot about not only the ability of your
> >> model to stand on its own and make a prediction, but about your faith
> >> in your own model. I believe you've just been trolled
> >
> >I've begun to suspect the same......
>
> Well, then it should be obvious that you fell for it and rejected
> something based upon non-sensical experimental issues prior to finding
> out what exactly you were rejecting.
Huh? I haven't rejected anything. I simply said that I'd take a crack at
providing the theoretical derivation of an effect ... IF Titan provided the
relevant experimental data. Titan has not provided the relevant data.
Are you so afraid that an aetherist COULD come up with a theoretical
explanation?
>
> [...]
> >Which we do in this experiment, in order to check the "inversely linear"
> >claim now made by Titan Point. Making a general observation (decay rate
> >decreases) is easy. The question is to address the quantification.
>
> It hardly matters how the decay rate changes for the experiment to
> be of significance.
ROTFLMAO!!!! Whoop! Whoop!
SR (GR if you believe Titan) predicts a specific type of rate of change with
temperature. Now if the experiment comes out with a different type of rate
of change, this would contradict SR. Which would certainly be of
significance!
> Unfortunately, he has not yet explained that
> significance (probably for trolling value, which you've grabbed onto,
> hook, line and sinker). I'm waiting for the actual claims to be
> stated before commenting on anything other than your inability to
> grasp a basic experimental concept and the double standards you
> employ.
Bilge demonstrates his "understanding" of the scientific method.
Experiments have no meaning unless somebody's made a theoretical claim,
beforehand.
Titan Point
I don't have to provide the nuts and bolts. The experiment is real and
done to a high accuracy. Now explain the result without using GR.
>
>> While there may
>> exist some objections about whether or not this experiment supports
>> some claim, its not very clear what the claim is, so I can't address
>> the validity of the experiment in addressing it.
>
> The experiment is valid or invalid regardless of what theoretical claim
> somebody makes about it before it is done.
>
>> Just like your
>> centrifuge, except that your description is even more vague, while
>> your claims are far more specific. Live up to the same requirements
>> you impose on others rather than engaging in the intellectual
>> dishonesty that is your trademark.
>
> The trademark Bilge insult. Substance-free as usual.
>
>>
>> [...]
>> >> It appears you have a hard time determining what data is relevant
>> >> to an experiment.
>> >
>> >All of it. That's how one determines whether it has an effect on the
>> >experiment!
>>
>> Be specific and provide quantitative examples that would be significant.
>
> I don't have to, but here's a simple example for "small amount" of
> radioactivity specified:
> Cosmic background/ counter contamination: 45 cpm +- 8.
> Cold count w/steel: 60 cpm +- 9
> Heated count w/steel: 55 cpm +- 9.
>
> Net result: No determination possible.
But if the radioactive decay is of the order of 10000 counts, then the
background is irrelevant. Now stop bullshitting and pony up the
non-Einsteinian explanation for this experiment.
>
>>
>> [...]
>> >> I was actually waiting for the claim before commenting. Try applying
>> >> your own experimental overkill to your "centrifuge" experiment.
>> >
>> >It wasn't *my* centrifuge experiment. And I believe they did apply what
> you
>> >call "overkill", prior to providing a counter-SR result.
>>
>> It wasn't his "iron bar experiment" either. However, his claims are
>> rather vague and his apparatus is described fairly well,
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! A vague description about an "iron bar", "small" amount of
> isotope, unmentioned temperature range, unmentioned background rate, etc.
>
>> while your
>> claims regarding the centrifuge are quite specific
>
> They are the claims of the standard reference -- not mine.
>
>> and your description of the experiment is non-existent.
>
> But the reference to the experiment explicitly existent.
>
>> why should one be penalized for
>> providing more information and claiming less about what it means?
>
> Because Titan refuses to provide pertinent information or a reference.
> Whereas I've provided two references.
You've provided no explanation. I wil provide a reference to the
experiment when you have provided a non-bullshit answer to a
straightforward proposition.
>
>> >>
>> >> My guess is that you stepped in it. You're claiming, a priori, that
>> >> you'll explain the experiment any way that special relativity does
>> >> before even knowing the explanation or if there is even an effect.
>> >
>> >Nope. I'll said I'll attempt an explanation of a "real" experiment.
> That's
>> >the nature of science, after all.
>>
>> You know nothing about science. I'm guessing you stepped right into
>> a troll.
>
> I thought I smelled something! ;)
>
> However, you'll note that (if Titan is just trolling) I didn't let him get
> away with it. I started asking him real-world questions, and he ran.
Crap. The experiment is real. The insistence on knowing the geometry of
the geiger counter is wasting all of our time.
>
>> [...]
>> >
>> >> Gee, that really says a lot about not only the ability of your
>> >> model to stand on its own and make a prediction, but about your faith
>> >> in your own model. I believe you've just been trolled
>> >
>> >I've begun to suspect the same......
>>
>> Well, then it should be obvious that you fell for it and rejected
>> something based upon non-sensical experimental issues prior to finding
>> out what exactly you were rejecting.
>
> Huh? I haven't rejected anything. I simply said that I'd take a crack at
> providing the theoretical derivation of an effect ... IF Titan provided the
> relevant experimental data. Titan has not provided the relevant data.
>
> Are you so afraid that an aetherist COULD come up with a theoretical
> explanation?
No I'm not afraid of reality. I am afraid of waiting a lifetime waiting
for you to produce an explanation of this result using a non-GR theory.
>
>>
>> [...]
>> >Which we do in this experiment, in order to check the "inversely linear"
>> >claim now made by Titan Point. Making a general observation (decay rate
>> >decreases) is easy. The question is to address the quantification.
>>
>> It hardly matters how the decay rate changes for the experiment to
>> be of significance.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!! Whoop! Whoop!
>
> SR (GR if you believe Titan) predicts a specific type of rate of change with
> temperature. Now if the experiment comes out with a different type of rate
> of change, this would contradict SR. Which would certainly be of
> significance!
I didn't specify SR. I wrote that I wanted to see a non-Einsteinian theory
explain the result. For the purposes of the experiment within the
limitations of time for the experiment to run, the rate of radioactive
decay was essentially constant.
Now answer the damn question.
Titan Point
>
> Titan Point <Titan...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.04.14....@myrealbox.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 11:44:16 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>>
>> [snipped irrelevant crap}
>
> LOL!
>
>
>> Come on Greywolf, explain the experimental result that when the iron bar
>> is heated the radioactive decay falls in direct proportion to the
>> rise in absolute temperature, without using Einstein's General Theory of
>> Relativity.
>
> See? My questions weren't irrelevant. You've here added "direct
> proportion", "absolute temperature", and GR (although what gravity has to do
> with this, I don't know).
If you think GR is just about gravity then you're sadly lacking in
knowledge of GR.
Direct proportion means what its says. Absolute temperature means absolute
temperature using Kelvin scale.
>
> ==============================
> greywolf42: (snipped):
>> > Is the click rate
>> > 1) inversely proportional to absolute temperature?
>> > 2) inversely proportional to absolute temperature, squared?
>> > 3) inversely proportional to sqrt(absolute temperature)?
>> > 4) inversely proportional to fourth root(absolute temperature)?
>> >
>> > or some other dependence. Over what range of temperatures?
>
> Titan Point: (snipped)
>> Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant.
> ==============================
>
>> The experiment is real. Now lets here the explanation.
>
> Will do. Just as soon as you provide the real description that I need to
> work with. I've seen horrendous errors made over just the things that I've
> described in the real world. Such "irrelevancies" as the measured count
> rate before heating (the background or resting rate).
The background or resting rate was less than 0.1% of the count rate during
the experiment and can be ignored. The fall in radioactivity was in direct
proportion to the rise in absolute temperature of the bar.
> One of the few
> "specifications" that you originally provided ("small amount of Iron-57")
> was immediately contradicted by the clarification that cosmic background was
> "negligible." Such little realities must be included in the analysis.
No they don't. The radioactive source could be any beta-decay source. The
little realities do not have any bearing on the result. The cause of
radioactive decay is a quantum process unaffected by heat.
>
> Perhaps if you just posted the SR explanation first (or the "GR
> explanation").
No clues. The experiment is real. The result can be interpreted directly
by GR. Now lets see if there are other explanations.
So far, hot air and bluster appear to be your only scientific friends.
Ilja Schmelzer
Of course, waiting for greywolf42 to produce such an explanation based
on greywolf42's pet theory may be waste of time.
But once the question is if "an aetherist COULD come up", resp. about
"_a_ non-GR theory", no problem: The non-GR theory proposed in
gr-qc/0205035 gives the Einstein equations of GR in some limit.
This should be sufficient to explain such results, not?
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net
lukas saul
>Here is a simple experimental result that I would like you to explain with
>whatever aether theory, newtonian absolute space, galilean transformation or
>other theory that refutes the General or Special Theory of Einstein:
>
>You have an iron bar in front of you. The iron bar is at rest with respect
>to you, me, and the spaceship which is at rest with respect to some
>absolute coordinate scheme (insert favoured theory here)
>
>The iron bar is made of pure iron, which contains mostly Iron-56 which is
>the most stable, boring isotope of any element known. But it also contains
>a small amount of Iron-57 which is radioactive. You can tell that its
>radioactive because you have a geiger-counter ticking away merrily as the
>iron-57 decays into cobalt-57 via emission of a beta-particle (an
>electron).
>
>The half-life of this decay is around 270 days so for the purposes of this
>experiment, its constant.
>
>Here's the experiment:
>
>The iron bar is at 20 degrees Celcius and produces a constant number of
>clicks per second.
>
>However when the iron bar is heated, the number of clicks falls, and it
>falls at a constant rate depending on the increase in temperature.
>
>When the iron bar is allowed to return to its initial temperature, the
>number of clicks registered by the geiger counter returns to its initial
>temperature.
>
>Similarly, if the iron bar is cooled, the number of clicks rises in
>proportion to the change in temperature.
>
>Since the radioactive decay is a quantum process unaffected by
>temperature, can you explain using your non-Einstein theory, why this
>effect should happen?
>
>(Incidentally, yes this is a real result of an experiment)
Good question!
I hope I'm not repeating someone else's answer, but I'll give it a
shot here.
In a heated iron bar, the radioactive nuclei are moving around quicker
throught the aether due to vibrational heat in the crystals. This
motion makes their structure more long-lived, and hence kicks out less
radiation.
The same is observed in cosmic ray muon decay and moving atomic clocks
and is commonly referred to as time dilation.
BTW, I kind of missed the point because I'm not refuting Einstein, but
oh well, I used the word aether at least, give me some credit?
Phaedrus
[Joe]
I have just read in "Essential Pre-University Physics" by Whelan & Hodgson
"We suspect that it is the nucleus that is concerned with the effect
(radioactivity), but not the orbital electrons."
Please not the word suspect! It has not been proven that electrons do not
play a part in radioactive decay. If it has then please show the reference.
I have given you a plausible explaination for your experiment, and you have
avoided the content and meaning of my explanation, stating binding energies
are too high to be affected by temperature, when all the world knows an iron
bar expands when heated. How do you think this phenomen occurs if the
binding energy is too high?
When the EM magnitude and phase an electron, or possibly more than one
electron is matched with the EM phase and magnitude of the nucleus
composites, then a decay event will occur, ejecting a nucleon and an
electron, or whatever happens in a decay event of your radioactive iron
isotope.
All you seem interested in at the moment is defying anyone to give you a
plausible explaination, when you get one, you choose to ignore it.
Dennis McCarthy
Are you trying to show that since you are willing to insult other
etherists that this may help to legitimize you in some way? Do you
feel that since relativists are so quick to launch into personal and
degrading attacks, so eager to brand and to destroy character, that
these tactics may help you move within their penumbra of self-imposed
authority?
You are the only etherist of whom I am aware (and I know dozens
personally), who is so eager to help throw rocks at the heretics, so
willing to defend the despicable personal attacks and inexcusable
tactics of relativists.
So I guess what I'm trying to ask: Do you try to belittle other
etherists because you endeavor to ingratiate yourself with relativists
or do you do it just because you are obnoxious?
--Dennis McCarthy
Bilge
How much lead can I insert anywhere between the detector and the
source and not have it affect the count rate? Don't be an imbecile.
>And -- since a "small amount" of activity was specified -- it also
>depends on how *small* this is (relative to cosmic background).
>
>> >> Given a
>> >> reeasonable count rate over a moderate time, it makes no difference
>since
>> >> all one cares about is a difference in the time averaged count rate.
>> >
>> >True, but I do care.
>>
>> That's because you have no comprehension of the difference between
>> a measurement which answers a specific question and an experiment
>> which can answer any question one dreams up later.
>
>There is no difference. Experiments (nature) are not limited to the
>questions we think of beforehand.
In that case, no experiment that has ever been done means anything.
Thank you, mr. science, for that very enlightening insight on just
how much of an imbecile you are.
>If one does not record all of the
>"recipie" of the experiment, you may hide many systematic effects and
>outright assumptions.
>
>Now since I've actually had experience in the area of counting radioactive
>sources under varying conditions (including such minor realities as
>buildup),
I have as well, including two extremely low count rate experiments
which have been published in phys rev C. The first measurement of
the 57Cu mass, in which the count rate was less than 1 57Cu nucleus
per several hours and the first (and as far as I know, only) measurement
of the branching ratio for the L-forbidden gamow-teller decay of 57Cu to
the 1st excited state in 56Ni (which at a part in 10^5 was 2 orders of
magnitude larger than we had designed the experiment to deal with and
could have seen parts in 10^7). The gamma ray energy for that decay is
identical to one of the gamma ray energies from radon (762 keV) and the
count rate from the radon due to just the concrete walls was larger than
the gamma count rate from the 57Cu beta decay. Apart from that, I've
spent lots of time counting decays from all sorts of isotopes with all
sorts of detectors. So, whatever you think you're going to tell me about
radiation and counting, save it. You aren't telling me anything I don't
aleady know.
[...]
>> Since it's not very clear what the experiment is supposed to show,
>> no basis exists for determining whether or not it shows what it claims.
>
>Experiments make no claims. They are supposed to show *nature.* The
>physical universe.
Do you ever have anything to say which is related to physics or is
your entire reason for posting to debate common colloquial expressions
with semantic bullshit?
>> Until, that is clear, there is nothing more that can be said, beyond
>> the fact that as the experiment is stated, one can certainly determine
>> whether or not the count rate corresponds to decay rate in the steel
>> bar. There is nothing wrong, in principle, with the apparatus taken
>> at face value.
>
>But with what is stated one CANNOT determine whether or not the count rate
>corresponds to the decay rate in the steel. That's why I asked the
>questions.
I certaily hope you are never left around radioactive sources alone. I'd
hate to see what would happen if you had to decide whether anyone would
really benefit from placing a 10 kCi tritium source in a lead box, in case
the lead wasn't really responsible for reducing the beta count rate, due
to a question of cosmic ray background and detector geometry leaving that
issue ambiguous from your perspective.
>> By contrast, you havent even given the most basic description
>> of the the centrifuge experiment you posted.
>
>I did, however, post the references. So you can look it up if you like.
>Here, Titan and you claim that you won't post the reference or give me a
>description.
At the moment, I find it entertaining enough to watch you throw out
totally irrelevant objections in an attempt to diffuse something he
hasn't yet posted, just in case what he posts casts your ether theory
in a negative light. It's rather funny, actually, since you are so
fond of referring to special relativity as a religion. I'd say you
can't get much more religious than building up a pre-emptive defense
just in case you have difficulty reconciling your theory with whatever
titanpoint eventually posts.
>> I suppose that one
>> handicaps one's self by actully describing the experimental apparatus
>> and opening the results up to question, huh?
>
>Apparently you think that it's OK for relativists to refuse references and
>descriptions of experiments that support SR. But not OK for aetherists to
>provide references to experiments that others note conclusions that might
>NOT support SR.
Who is refusing references and descriptions of experiments? Titanpoint
at least posted a description. You haven't and I'm not refusing to read
a reference or a description of your centrifuge experiment. I'm refusing
to spend any effort hunting down your reference based upon having previously
done so and I'm telling you my honest opinion of just how likely I think
it is that your reference will turn out to be of any significance. I
haven't said I'm going to spend any effort looking up titanpoint's
reference either. I'll wait until I see what else he has to say and
how convenient it is to look it up. I'm responding to your post here
because of all of the inane things you've posted as a pre-emptive strike
against something that hasn't even been stated yet.
>> I notice that you
>> don't criticise yourself for asserting a result,
>
>I was reporting a quote. The assertion was by others.
Apparently titanpoint claims the same thing, since I don't think he
said that he performed the experiment in question.
>
>> but criticise
>> others for describing the apparatus, even though they haven't
>> asserted much in the way of what it means yet.
>
>The assertion was that the results of the experiment support SR and GR.
If I recall, what he said was that gr explained the results and that
he wanted to see an ether explanation. You've spent all of your effort
trying to invalidate the experiment just in case general relativity does
explain it and you can't explain it using your ether theory. As I keep
telling, you've been trolled and you keep striking the hook.
>> You are completely
>> ignorant of how to deal with real experiments and apparently believe
>> a single, definitive, all encompassing experiment is needed to deal
>> with the most trivial questions which can be addressed very simply.
>
>Simply, but incorrectly -- as noted above. Somehow, you consider Titan's
>gekanken "real." And the referenced LANL experiment "unreal."
I gave you my opinion based upon what you posted and I explained my
opinion. I didn't argue about the the experimental set up because you
didn't post it, nor did I argue that what was in the technical report
was not data of some part of an experiment. You have spent your time
trying explain why something which can obviously count decays can't
count decays without first trying to find out anything relevant.
I haven't said anything about titanpoint's experiment. Everything I've
said is related to the inane objections you've posted.
[intermediate rambling snipped*]
>
>However, you'll note that (if Titan is just trolling) I didn't let him get
>away with it. I started asking him real-world questions, and he ran.
Not only did he get away with it, you keep trying to get him to throw
you more hooks.
[*babbling snipped*]
Bilge
>
>I have just read in "Essential Pre-University Physics" by Whelan & Hodgson
>
>"We suspect that it is the nucleus that is concerned with the effect
>(radioactivity), but not the orbital electrons."
>
>Please not the word suspect! It has not been proven that electrons do not
>play a part in radioactive decay. If it has then please show the reference.
Atomic electrons have nothing to do with radioactive decay except for
perhaps electron capture. Electron capture occurs with the innermost
electrons (hence the alternative name k-capture) and those electrons
are not going to be affected by heating.
[...]
>When the EM magnitude and phase an electron, or possibly more than one
>electron is matched with the EM phase and magnitude of the nucleus
>composites, then a decay event will occur, ejecting a nucleon and an
>electron, or whatever happens in a decay event of your radioactive iron
>isotope.
Nuclear decay energies are typically on the order of MeV. Even the
lowest energy gammas are in the tens of keV (x-rays) with a (very) few
isomeric transitions possibly in the keV range. Atomic energies are
in the eV range.
Minor Crank
news:68aae149.03041...@posting.google.com...
> What on Earth is the purpose of your first sentence above?
> Are you trying to show that since you are willing to insult other
> etherists that this may help to legitimize you in some way? Do you
> feel that since relativists are so quick to launch into personal and
> degrading attacks, so eager to brand and to destroy character, that
> these tactics may help you move within their penumbra of self-imposed
> authority?
> You are the only etherist of whom I am aware (and I know dozens
> personally), who is so eager to help throw rocks at the heretics, so
> willing to defend the despicable personal attacks and inexcusable
> tactics of relativists.
Ilja is the only aetherist on these boards who is not a crackpot. He
genuinely understands GR, is willing to make predictions that make his
alternate theory falsifiable, accepts the correctness of existing
experimental results in support of SR and GR, and because of his
understanding and acceptance of those results, has designed the predictions
of his alternate theory to match GR predictions in the weak-field limit.
None of the other aetherists on these boards do any of that.
> So I guess what I'm trying to ask: Do you try to belittle other
> etherists because you endeavor to ingratiate yourself with relativists
> or do you do it just because you are obnoxious?
Anybody even slightly familiar with Ilja's vigorous exchanges with
mainstream relativists would know that you are being totally absurd.
Minor Crank
Stephen Speicher
"totally absurd" is a synonym for Dennis McCarthy.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ilja Schmelzer
> Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@wias-berlin.de> wrote
>> "Titan Point" <Titan...@myrealbox.com> writes:
>>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:45:45 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>>>> Are you so afraid that an aetherist COULD come up with a theoretical
>>>> explanation?
>>
>>> No I'm not afraid of reality. I am afraid of waiting a lifetime waiting
>>> for you to produce an explanation of this result using a non-GR theory.
>>
>> Of course, waiting for greywolf42 to produce such an explanation based
>> on greywolf42's pet theory may be waste of time.
>>
>> But once the question is if "an aetherist COULD come up", resp. about
>> "_a_ non-GR theory", no problem: The non-GR theory proposed in
>> gr-qc/0205035 gives the Einstein equations of GR in some limit.
>> This should be sufficient to explain such results, not?
>
> What on Earth is the purpose of your first sentence above?
To clarify that it is not my intention to defend greywolf42.
greywolf42 has the following choices:
a) to become a proponent of my ether theory, then he can easily answer
the challenge made by Titanpoint.
b) to meet this challenge in another way, by proposing another viable
ether theory.
c) to loose this discussion.
> Are you trying to show that since you are willing to insult other
> etherists that this may help to legitimize you in some way?
Once I'm talking only about a possibility (note the "may be" instead
of "is") there is no insult against greywolf42. On the other hand, to
be honest, I don't believe that (b) is probable.
> You are the only etherist of whom I am aware (and I know dozens
> personally), who is so eager to help throw rocks at the heretics, so
> willing to defend the despicable personal attacks and inexcusable
> tactics of relativists.
I do not defend despicable personal attacks. For example, I have
defended greywolf in Message-ID: <i3gbrzm...@wias-berlin.de>
against a personal attack.
On the other hand, I don't have a very high opinion about the
scientific value of the proposals of the other etherists here.
Sometimes I try to show them their errors, but without personal
attacks.
Titan Point
Yes you used the word aether. No this does not make any sense.
> In a heated iron bar, the radioactive nuclei are moving around quicker
> throught the aether due to vibrational heat in the crystals. This
> motion makes their structure more long-lived, and hence kicks out less
> radiation.
The second sentence needs a little work....
Titan Point
I think, Stephen, that I have proved:
1. That "Eleacticus" has no viable theory but is prone to "hand-waving
arguments"
2. That Greywolf has no viable theory but tremendous bluster and powers of
obfuscation and attempts to mislead that are second to none.
3. That Ilja may have an aether theory but it lacks predictive or
explanatory power.
4. That none of the aetherists can explain the experimental result (which
came out of John Wheeler's book "A Journey into Gravity and Spacetime")
5. That none, other than perhaps Ilja, understands that GR, which does
explain this result, is not simply about gravity but about accelerations
as well.
Jeff Relf
" The non-GR theory proposed in gr-qc/0205035 gives
the Einstein equations of GR in some limit. "
Where is gr-qc/0205035 ?
Is this an " Interpretation of QM " ?
Is it a " refinement " to SR and GR ?
Ilja Schmelzer
> explanatory power.
How this? It has well-defined field equations. In the limit X,Y->0
we obtain the Einstein equations. For Y>0 we have a "big bounce"
instead of a big bang and stable "frozen stars" instead of black
holes, X>0 gives a dark energy term. Are these not predictions?
We can possibly argue about the question which theory - GR or GLET -
has more predictive power. But that my GLET lacks predictive power is
simply nonsense.
Explanatory power: the general Lagrangian has been derived in
gr-qc/0205035 from simple axioms. Especially, the EEP is derived from
these axioms. What, if not this, is explanatory power?
And, last not least, where you have proven something about my theory?
(Msg-Id. please)
> 4. That none of the aetherists can explain the experimental result (which
> came out of John Wheeler's book "A Journey into Gravity and Spacetime")
How this? Why is the GR limit of GLET not sufficient, but GR itself is?
> 5. That none, other than perhaps Ilja, understands that GR, which does
> explain this result, is not simply about gravity but about accelerations
> as well.
Even more strange. Accelerations are well handled in SR, thus, there
is no need for GR to handle them.
Ilja Schmelzer
> Ilja Schmelzer wrote :
> " The non-GR theory proposed in gr-qc/0205035 gives
> the Einstein equations of GR in some limit. "
> Where is gr-qc/0205035 ?
On http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035
> Is this an " Interpretation of QM " ?
> Is it a " refinement " to SR and GR ?
No, it is an ether theory of gravity, which generalizes the Lorentz
ether, derives the Einstein equivalence principle, and gives the
Einstein equations of GR in some limit X,Y->0.
Jeff Relf
Ilja Schmelzer wrote :
The paper " is an ether theory of gravity,
derives the Einstein equivalence principle,
and gives the Einstein equations of GR in some limit X,Y->0. "
Without using math,
What does " in some limit X,Y->0 " mean here ?
In gr-qc/0205035, Ilja writes :
" Thus, the Einstein equivalence may be
derived from simple condensed matter axioms. "
Again, Without the math,
What is a " Condensed matter axiom " ?
Are you saying that either is composed of matter ?
( Or energy ? )
Jeff Relf
" Are you saying that either is composed of matter ?
( Or energy ? ) "
I meant :
Are you saying that the ether is composed of matter,
rather than energy ?
greywolf42
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:45:45 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>
> >
> > Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> > news:slrnb9mnqv....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >> greywolf42:
> >> >
{snipping my responses to Bilge, to address Titan}
> >> >Not what COULD HAVE BEEN done. This has been represented as a real
> >> >experiment that has been completed in the past.
> >>
> >> So far, none of your objections are pertinent.
> >
> > Titan demonstrated that they were pertinent (even though he claimed
> > irrelvance). By providing a few of the conditions.
>
> I don't have to provide the nuts and bolts. The experiment is real and
> done to a high accuracy. Now explain the result without using GR.
> >
{snip more Bilge-only}
> >> >> It appears you have a hard time determining what data is relevant
> >> >> to an experiment.
> >> >
> >> >All of it. That's how one determines whether it has an effect on the
> >> >experiment!
> >>
> >> Be specific and provide quantitative examples that would be
significant.
> >
> > I don't have to, but here's a simple example for "small amount" of
> > radioactivity specified:
> > Cosmic background/ counter contamination: 45 cpm +- 8.
> > Cold count w/steel: 60 cpm +- 9
> > Heated count w/steel: 55 cpm +- 9.
> >
> > Net result: No determination possible.
>
> But if the radioactive decay is of the order of 10000 counts, then the
> background is irrelevant. Now stop bullshitting and pony up the
> non-Einsteinian explanation for this experiment.
{snip more Bilge only}
> >> why should one be penalized for
> >> providing more information and claiming less about what it means?
> >
> > Because Titan refuses to provide pertinent information or a reference.
> > Whereas I've provided two references.
>
> You've provided no explanation.
Correct. Because I don't have enough data to believe this is a "real"
experiment.
> I wil provide a reference to the
> experiment when you have provided a non-bullshit answer to a
> straightforward proposition.
If the proposition is straightforward, then it should be simple to provide
minimal data.
WHICH question?
First you claimed that the rate of decay was inversely proportional to the
absolute temperature. (Or at least "lower" under high-heat.) NOW you are
claiming "the rate of radioactive decay was essentially constant. Which
statement correctly describes the "real" experiment?
greywolf42
Your claim that the result would be unchanged by using other unstable
isotopes is an assumption that is not part of this apparent experiment.
One would presume that the experiment would be repeated with other isotopes
to test the theory.
It also doesn't address the issue of the contradiction between small amount
an negligible background. Just give the resting count rate (average) of the
iron bar, please. That will be sufficient to start.
> > Perhaps if you just posted the SR explanation first (or the "GR
> > explanation").
>
> No clues. The experiment is real. The result can be interpreted directly
> by GR. Now lets see if there are other explanations.
>
> So far, hot air and bluster appear to be your only scientific friends.
>
LOL! You make a bald, unsupported claim that GR (not SR?) can directly
interpret an experiment that you won't identify. That you won't even
provide basic data about (count rates, temperature range). And you accuse
me of hot air and bluster for saying I'd like some data, please.
First you said "small amount" of isotope. Then you said background would be
negligible (contradicting "small amount"). You then say (in a parallel
thread) "radioactive decay is of the order of 10000 counts". Failing even
to get the units of your counter correct.
In same said parallel line, you back off the *inversely proportional to
absolute temperature* claim, and state that the count rate is *essentially
constant* throughout the experiment.
Forgive me if I suspect yours is just a gedanken troll.
Tell you what. I'll provide an analysis if you just add two more pieces of
data from that experiment. The resting (unheated) count rate of the bar and
the temperature range (unheated to hottest). You may continue to hide your
reference experiment and your unsupported claim that GR explains the
results.
To ensure that I'm on the right track, I'll start with an attempt at an SR
explanation, first. You may then critique any general mistakes I make prior
to addressing the aether portion. Or does your claim that GR works imply
that SR (alone) won't?
Titan Point
Complete crap. If radioactive decay is a random quantum process unaffected
by heat, then this is a waste of time. It doesn't affect the conclusion of
the experiment.
>
> It also doesn't address the issue of the contradiction between small amount
> an negligible background. Just give the resting count rate (average) of the
> iron bar, please. That will be sufficient to start.
>
You want a number? 100000 per minute. Background? 6 per minute
Drop in activity per degree rise? 300
Rise in activity per degree fall? 300
>> > Perhaps if you just posted the SR explanation first (or the "GR
>> > explanation").
>>
>> No clues. The experiment is real. The result can be interpreted directly
>> by GR. Now lets see if there are other explanations.
>>
>> So far, hot air and bluster appear to be your only scientific friends.
>>
>
> LOL! You make a bald, unsupported claim that GR (not SR?) can directly
> interpret an experiment that you won't identify. That you won't even
> provide basic data about (count rates, temperature range). And you accuse
> me of hot air and bluster for saying I'd like some data, please.
Really, you want the fucking geiger counter geometry and the dead-time of
the geiger counter doesn't sound to me much like you could care.
The count rates in numbers are arbitrary and depend on the activity of the
isotope and the amount of isotope in the sample. All I would have to say
is that the background rate is negligable.
But no, this isn't enough.
>
> First you said "small amount" of isotope. Then you said background would be
> negligible (contradicting "small amount"). You then say (in a parallel
> thread) "radioactive decay is of the order of 10000 counts". Failing even
> to get the units of your counter correct.
>
What units? The small amount of isotope could have a large activity.
I can imagine the counts to be a suitably large number, like 100,000
> In same said parallel line, you back off the *inversely proportional to
> absolute temperature* claim, and state that the count rate is *essentially
> constant* throughout the experiment.
HELLO??????
If the experimental bar is simply left there at constant temperature then
the activity is essentially constant. WE could use a reference bar which
isn't heated or cooled, if you want.
Now get to it or STFU
>
> Forgive me if I suspect yours is just a gedanken troll.
No, I'm no gedanken troll. But you ARE a waste of time.
>
> Tell you what. I'll provide an analysis if you just add two more pieces of
> data from that experiment. The resting (unheated) count rate of the bar and
> the temperature range (unheated to hottest). You may continue to hide your
> reference experiment and your unsupported claim that GR explains the
> results.
I will support my claim, when first I see you demonstrate anything other
than wasting all of our time.
The temperature range is +100K to -100K around the mean of 293K, so no
melting in this range.
>
> To ensure that I'm on the right track, I'll start with an attempt at an SR
> explanation, first. You may then critique any general mistakes I make prior
> to addressing the aether portion. Or does your claim that GR works imply
> that SR (alone) won't?
It would be interesting if you would simply explain the result in non-SR
or GR terms. I didn't ask for the Einsteinian explanation, I asked for
alternative explanations.
If I wanted an Einsteinian explanation I wouldn't have asked you, I would
have asked somebody knowledgeable.
So far you've provided squat.
Titan Point
> "Titan Point" <Titan...@myrealbox.com> writes:
>> I think, Stephen, that I have proved:
>>
>> 3. That Ilja may have an aether theory but it lacks predictive or
>> explanatory power.
>
> How this? It has well-defined field equations. In the limit X,Y->0
> we obtain the Einstein equations. For Y>0 we have a "big bounce"
> instead of a big bang and stable "frozen stars" instead of black
> holes, X>0 gives a dark energy term. Are these not predictions?
>
> We can possibly argue about the question which theory - GR or GLET -
> has more predictive power. But that my GLET lacks predictive power is
> simply nonsense.
It lacks explanatory power, because you have not explained the result. This is not
an advertisement for your "field equations" whatever they may be.
>
> Explanatory power: the general Lagrangian has been derived in
> gr-qc/0205035 from simple axioms. Especially, the EEP is derived from
> these axioms. What, if not this, is explanatory power?
>
> And, last not least, where you have proven something about my theory?
> (Msg-Id. please)
I do not give a shit about your theory unless it predicts the result of
experiments.
>
>> 4. That none of the aetherists can explain the experimental result (which
>> came out of John Wheeler's book "A Journey into Gravity and Spacetime")
>
> How this? Why is the GR limit of GLET not sufficient, but GR itself is?
>
Because unless GR does not predict the results of experiments and GLET
does, then and only then would GLET be required. But since GR does predict
the results of experiments to a high degree of accuracy, then GLET appears
to be an unnecessary speculation.
>> 5. That none, other than perhaps Ilja, understands that GR, which does
>> explain this result, is not simply about gravity but about accelerations
>> as well.
>
> Even more strange. Accelerations are well handled in SR, thus, there
> is no need for GR to handle them.
>
> Ilja
Because I'm not trying to get an Einsteinian explanation but to see (so
far without success) whether non-Einsteinian explainations predict the
same result.
I am not interested in your field equations. I want, in simple terms, the
result of the experiment explained.
greywolf42
> greywolf42:
> >
> >Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> >news:slrnb9mnqv....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
{snip higher levels}
> >> Oh? And do you also believe that a precision half-life measurement
> >> is necessary to determine that the reduction in the count rate
following
> >> the insertion of a sheet of lead between a source and detector is
actually
> >> due to the insertion of the lead?
> >
> >Depends on the amount of lead inserted, and the geometry of the lead, vs
> >source and detector.
>
> How much lead can I insert anywhere between the detector and the
> source and not have it affect the count rate? Don't be an imbecile.
My personal favorite was about 1 cm. The block was large (bad geometry).
And the junior physics lab TAs had selected it explicitly for the purpose.
It actually INCREASED the count rate in some runs.
Because without lead shield the point-source has only a small solid-angle
window to the detector -- as air is a poor scatterer of gamma rays. Lead is
a wonderful scatterer of x-rays. And the block extended well out to the
sides and above and below the line-of-sight. So the lead scattered x-rays
from almost a 2 pi solid angle. So the detector saw scattered gamma rays --
which made up for the reduced contribution from the line-of-sight.
My lab partner made the run with the "trick" lead shield. The look on his
face was priceless! (I must admit my own face was probably the same, until
we figured out what was going on.) My partner had gone so far as to start
playing with the statistics to try to "explain" the problem. Because he
"knew" (just like you) that shields *always* reduce the count rate.
> >And -- since a "small amount" of activity was specified -- it also
> >depends on how *small* this is (relative to cosmic background).
> >
> >> >> Given a
> >> >> reeasonable count rate over a moderate time, it makes no
difference
> >since
> >> >> all one cares about is a difference in the time averaged count
rate.
> >> >
> >> >True, but I do care.
> >>
> >> That's because you have no comprehension of the difference between
> >> a measurement which answers a specific question and an experiment
> >> which can answer any question one dreams up later.
> >
> >There is no difference. Experiments (nature) are not limited to the
> >questions we think of beforehand.
>
> In that case, no experiment that has ever been done means anything.
> Thank you, mr. science, for that very enlightening insight on just
> how much of an imbecile you are.
If your reasoning were correct, then the "meaning" of the Sagnac experiment
(first run by aetherists and first interpreted by same) would have forever
falsified SR. The SR "explanation" did not arrive until well AFTER the
experiment was complete. Yet I don't claim that relativists do not get to
interpret the experiment, because they couldn't explain it until later. (I
do claim they're wrong, but it's not because they weren't first.)
> >If one does not record all of the
> >"recipie" of the experiment, you may hide many systematic effects and
> >outright assumptions.
> >
> >Now since I've actually had experience in the area of counting
radioactive
> >sources under varying conditions (including such minor realities as
> >buildup),
>
> I have as well, including two extremely low count rate experiments
> which have been published in phys rev C. The first measurement of
> the 57Cu mass, in which the count rate was less than 1 57Cu nucleus
> per several hours and the first (and as far as I know, only) measurement
> of the branching ratio for the L-forbidden gamow-teller decay of 57Cu to
> the 1st excited state in 56Ni (which at a part in 10^5 was 2 orders of
> magnitude larger than we had designed the experiment to deal with and
> could have seen parts in 10^7). The gamma ray energy for that decay is
> identical to one of the gamma ray energies from radon (762 keV) and the
> count rate from the radon due to just the concrete walls was larger than
> the gamma count rate from the 57Cu beta decay. Apart from that, I've
> spent lots of time counting decays from all sorts of isotopes with all
> sorts of detectors. So, whatever you think you're going to tell me about
> radiation and counting, save it. You aren't telling me anything I don't
> aleady know.
Except that shields don't "always" reduce a count rate. :)
> [...]
> >> Since it's not very clear what the experiment is supposed to show,
> >> no basis exists for determining whether or not it shows what it
claims.
> >
> >Experiments make no claims. They are supposed to show *nature.* The
> >physical universe.
>
> Do you ever have anything to say which is related to physics or is
> your entire reason for posting to debate common colloquial expressions
> with semantic bullshit?
I was merely addressing your metaphysical misunderstanding. Using your own
terminology.
> >> Until, that is clear, there is nothing more that can be said, beyond
> >> the fact that as the experiment is stated, one can certainly determine
> >> whether or not the count rate corresponds to decay rate in the steel
> >> bar. There is nothing wrong, in principle, with the apparatus taken
> >> at face value.
> >
> >But with what is stated one CANNOT determine whether or not the count
rate
> >corresponds to the decay rate in the steel. That's why I asked the
> >questions.
>
> I certaily hope you are never left around radioactive sources alone. I'd
> hate to see what would happen if you had to decide whether anyone would
> really benefit from placing a 10 kCi tritium source in a lead box, in case
> the lead wasn't really responsible for reducing the beta count rate, due
> to a question of cosmic ray background and detector geometry leaving that
> issue ambiguous from your perspective.
There's are many "entertaining" stories from the nuclear industry about
using metals for shielding. Fortunately, they usually send the HP techs in
before the work group goes in. So most of the errors are caught before
overexposing anyone.
The described experiment mentioned an "iron bar." Which is likely to be a
"self-shielded" source.
I have no doubt that your counting trace amounts of materials or events, you
don't bother a lot with counting outside shields. This may have lead to
your assumption that shields and self-shielding are never an issue. To be
honest, I smiled when I saw your claims of measuring trace decay rates to
precision of one part in 10^7. But then, in my own trade "high precision"
meant 2 or 3 significant figures.
> >> By contrast, you havent even given the most basic description
> >> of the the centrifuge experiment you posted.
> >
> >I did, however, post the references. So you can look it up if you like.
> >Here, Titan and you claim that you won't post the reference or give me a
> >description.
>
> At the moment, I find it entertaining enough to watch you throw out
> totally irrelevant objections in an attempt to diffuse something he
> hasn't yet posted, just in case what he posts casts your ether theory
> in a negative light. It's rather funny, actually, since you are so
> fond of referring to special relativity as a religion. I'd say you
> can't get much more religious than building up a pre-emptive defense
> just in case you have difficulty reconciling your theory with whatever
> titanpoint eventually posts.
You also claim Titan Point's post was just a troll. I'm merely trying to
get enough information to avoid bothering with a troll.
> >> I suppose that one
> >> handicaps one's self by actully describing the experimental apparatus
> >> and opening the results up to question, huh?
> >
> >Apparently you think that it's OK for relativists to refuse references
and
> >descriptions of experiments that support SR. But not OK for aetherists
to
> >provide references to experiments that others note conclusions that
might
> >NOT support SR.
>
> Who is refusing references and descriptions of experiments? Titanpoint
> at least posted a description.
Titan Point refused to provide a reference (he has now metioned a textbook).
He also refused to provide basic data on the experiement (i.e. count rates).
> You haven't and I'm not refusing to read
> a reference or a description of your centrifuge experiment. I'm refusing
> to spend any effort hunting down your reference based upon having
previously
> done so and I'm telling you my honest opinion of just how likely I think
> it is that your reference will turn out to be of any significance.
You are welcome to your opinion.
> I
> haven't said I'm going to spend any effort looking up titanpoint's
> reference either.
You couldn't have. That was MY point. Titan point had REFUSED to give a
reference.
> I'll wait until I see what else he has to say and
> how convenient it is to look it up. I'm responding to your post here
> because of all of the inane things you've posted as a pre-emptive strike
> against something that hasn't even been stated yet.
I've been clear that I wasn't going to waste my time and energy attempting
to prove what might turn out to be a gedanken or a troll.
> >> I notice that you
> >> don't criticise yourself for asserting a result,
> >
> >I was reporting a quote. The assertion was by others.
>
> Apparently titanpoint claims the same thing, since I don't think he
> said that he performed the experiment in question.
Non sequiteur. Titan point claimed he HAD a reference... just that he
wouldn't give it to me. Nothing was said about Titan point actually DOING
the experiment.
> >> but criticise
> >> others for describing the apparatus, even though they haven't
> >> asserted much in the way of what it means yet.
> >
> >The assertion was that the results of the experiment support SR and GR.
>
> If I recall, what he said was that gr explained the results and that
> he wanted to see an ether explanation. You've spent all of your effort
> trying to invalidate the experiment just in case general relativity does
> explain it and you can't explain it using your ether theory. As I keep
> telling, you've been trolled and you keep striking the hook.
Make up your mind. Either it's a troll, or it's worthwhile. If the former,
then there is no shame in my identifying the silliness by asking for real
data (thus exposing the troll). If it's worthwhile, why was Titan Point
unwilling to provide basic data?
> >> You are completely
> >> ignorant of how to deal with real experiments and apparently believe
> >> a single, definitive, all encompassing experiment is needed to deal
> >> with the most trivial questions which can be addressed very simply.
> >
> >Simply, but incorrectly -- as noted above. Somehow, you consider
Titan's
> >gekanken "real." And the referenced LANL experiment "unreal."
>
> I gave you my opinion based upon what you posted and I explained my
> opinion. I didn't argue about the the experimental set up because you
> didn't post it, nor did I argue that what was in the technical report
> was not data of some part of an experiment. You have spent your time
> trying explain why something which can obviously count decays can't
> count decays without first trying to find out anything relevant.
> I haven't said anything about titanpoint's experiment. Everything I've
> said is related to the inane objections you've posted.
Requesting data is an "inane objection?"
> [intermediate rambling snipped*]
> >
> >However, you'll note that (if Titan is just trolling) I didn't let him
get
> >away with it. I started asking him real-world questions, and he ran.
>
> Not only did he get away with it, you keep trying to get him to throw
> you more hooks.
>
> [*babbling snipped*]
Your timing is off. Titan Point finally was backed into the corner and had
to admit the source of his claim (a John Wheeler text).
greywolf42
> djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) writes:
> > Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@wias-berlin.de> wrote
> >> "Titan Point" <Titan...@myrealbox.com> writes:
> >>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:45:45 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
> >>>> Are you so afraid that an aetherist COULD come up with a theoretical
> >>>> explanation?
> >>
> >>> No I'm not afraid of reality. I am afraid of waiting a lifetime
waiting
> >>> for you to produce an explanation of this result using a non-GR
theory.
> >>
> >> Of course, waiting for greywolf42 to produce such an explanation based
> >> on greywolf42's pet theory may be waste of time.
I don't see a response to the immediate question posted for *your* theory,
either. (Though I would not refer to it with a diminuitive such as "pet
theory", or imply that waiting for an actual response would be a "waste of
time.")
I personally don't care whether you felt you had enough data to go on at the
time you wrote this. My issue is simply not wasting my time for SR/GR
gedankens and trolls -- which Titan's post looked like. (And I don't have a
copy of Wheeler at hand to see if this "real" experiment is referenced,
gedanken or summary) Each of the three types of "real" experiment has it's
place in learning. But if one is attempting to discriminate which theory is
"more correct" about reality, then I believe one should insist on "really
real", referenceable, repeatable experiments.
> >> But once the question is if "an aetherist COULD come up", resp. about
> >> "_a_ non-GR theory", no problem: The non-GR theory proposed in
> >> gr-qc/0205035 gives the Einstein equations of GR in some limit.
> >> This should be sufficient to explain such results, not?
> >
> > What on Earth is the purpose of your first sentence above?
>
> To clarify that it is not my intention to defend greywolf42.
>
> greywolf42 has the following choices:
>
> a) to become a proponent of my ether theory, then he can easily answer
> the challenge made by Titanpoint.
>
> b) to meet this challenge in another way, by proposing another viable
> ether theory.
>
> c) to loose this discussion.
>
> > Are you trying to show that since you are willing to insult other
> > etherists that this may help to legitimize you in some way?
>
> Once I'm talking only about a possibility (note the "may be" instead
> of "is") there is no insult against greywolf42. On the other hand, to
> be honest, I don't believe that (b) is probable.
Titan Point challenged an aether theory to describe an experiment that was
not yet identified at the time you wrote this. (It has now been identified
as taken from John Wheeler's text.) You have not yourself provided a
calculation showing the claimed temperature dependence of decay. Yet you
blithely assume that you can -- based on nothing more than Titan's claim
that GR explained it.
I cannot meet Titan's challenge by simply becoming your disciple. Nor can
you meet Titan's challenge by claiming your theory is *just like GR*.
> > You are the only etherist of whom I am aware (and I know dozens
> > personally), who is so eager to help throw rocks at the heretics, so
> > willing to defend the despicable personal attacks and inexcusable
> > tactics of relativists.
>
> I do not defend despicable personal attacks. For example, I have
> defended greywolf in Message-ID: <i3gbrzm...@wias-berlin.de>
> against a personal attack.
>
> On the other hand, I don't have a very high opinion about the
> scientific value of the proposals of the other etherists here.
> Sometimes I try to show them their errors, but without personal
> attacks.
That is appreciated.
Dirk Van de moortel
Your second entry:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Why
Title: "Why are you, fellow etherist, not as stupid as we are?"
Dirk Vdm
Ken S. Tucker
>On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 21:12:45 +0000, Lawrence Foard wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2003.04.14....@myrealbox.com>, Titan Point
>> <Titan...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Nope, the binding energy is too high to be affected by temperature much
>>>less than the internal temp of the Sun, and valence electrons have
>>>NOTHING to do with radioactive decay.
>>>
>>>account for this result?
>>
>> I assume you mean falls as temp rises. I don't see where GR comes in
>> this is a simple SR 'twins paradox' problem.
>
>True, but first you have to get through the "how does radioactive decay
>work" basic physics first.
>
>I mean, really! Radioactive decay is NOT and never has been a property to
>do with valence electrons. It is a quantum effect of the nucleus and
>happens AT RANDOM.
>
>GR does account for this effect.
I personally think GR is an operation unified field theory that is
applicable to Quantum Effects, however, thinking along conventional
lines, the quantity of heat energy imparted to radioactive material that
could produce a measureable variation in the Einstein Law,
G_uv = k*T_uv, to effect the radioactive time base, by changing
the time metric g_00 is not a practical experiment.
In order to have GR account for the described phenomena,
you would need to extend GR beyond it's currently accepted
boundaries and thus unify GR and Atomic physics. But, we do
know that Atomic physics is based on relativity, so your claim
needs clarifying.
Regards Ken S. Tucker
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Dennis McCarthy" <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message news:68aae149.03041...@posting.google.com...
> > Ilja Schmelzer <schm...@wias-berlin.de> wrote in message news:<i3gwuhv...@wias-berlin.de>...
> > > "Titan Point" <Titan...@myrealbox.com> writes:
> > > > On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:45:45 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
> > > > > Are you so afraid that an aetherist COULD come up with a theoretical
> > > > > explanation?
> > >
> > > on greywolf42's pet theory may be waste of time.
> > >
> > etherists because you endeavor to ingratiate yourself with relativists
> > or do you do it just because you are obnoxious?
> >
>
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Why
> Title: "Why are you, fellow etherist, not as stupid as we are?"
>
Perfect title.
You better enlarge your disk space if McCarthy is going to hang
around for a while.
Major Crank
> "Dennis McCarthy" <djm...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:68aae149.03041...@posting.google.com...
>
> > What on Earth is the purpose of your first sentence above?
> > Are you trying to show that since you are willing to insult other
> > etherists that this may help to legitimize you in some way? Do you
> > feel that since relativists are so quick to launch into personal and
> > degrading attacks, so eager to brand and to destroy character, that
> > these tactics may help you move within their penumbra of self-imposed
> > authority?
> > You are the only etherist of whom I am aware (and I know dozens
> > personally), who is so eager to help throw rocks at the heretics, so
> > willing to defend the despicable personal attacks and inexcusable
> > tactics of relativists.
>
> Ilja is the only aetherist on these boards who is not a crackpot. He
> genuinely understands GR, is willing to make predictions that make his
> alternate theory falsifiable, accepts the correctness of existing
> experimental results in support of SR and GR, and because of his
> understanding and acceptance of those results, has designed the predictions
> of his alternate theory to match GR predictions in the weak-field limit.
>
> None of the other aetherists on these boards do any of that.
Funny, if one has to do all that -such as genuinely understanding GR
and developing an alternate theory- to be not named a crackpot, I bet
that most anti-etherists on this board would also be branded crackpot!
Major Crank
Please give us the reference, thanks!
Stephen Speicher
> "Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Nk3na.229332$Zo.42764@sccrnsc03>...
> >
> > None of the other aetherists on these boards do any of that.
>
> Funny, if one has to do all that -such as genuinely understanding GR
> and developing an alternate theory- to be not named a crackpot, I bet
> that most anti-etherists on this board would also be branded crackpot!
>
That is not the main point. The point is that most all
"etherists" are _critical_ of standard relativity, while
simultaneously being _ignorant_ of it. One does not have to learn
relativity to prove one is not a crackpot, put to criticize that
which you do not understand, and to remain willfully ignorant of
the facts, that is the key to crackpottery.
Bilge
>> How much lead can I insert anywhere between the detector and the
>> source and not have it affect the count rate? Don't be an imbecile.
>
>My personal favorite was about 1 cm. The block was large (bad geometry).
>And the junior physics lab TAs had selected it explicitly for the purpose.
>It actually INCREASED the count rate in some runs.
We aren't talking about counting gamma rays, and even if we were,
it would be of little consequence in the experiment described. I only
see a single parameter being varied - the temperature. The geometry is
largely irrelevant. For a relative measure, it's a lot more important
to make sure the geometry doesn't change during the experiment than
it is to know what the geometry is. It makes little difference whether
you measure the counts in 4pi sr or pi sr, so long as you keep the
geometry the same.
[...]
>> >There is no difference. Experiments (nature) are not limited to the
>> >questions we think of beforehand.
>>
>> In that case, no experiment that has ever been done means anything.
>> Thank you, mr. science, for that very enlightening insight on just
>> how much of an imbecile you are.
>
>If your reasoning were correct, then the "meaning" of the Sagnac experiment
>(first run by aetherists and first interpreted by same) would have forever
>falsified SR.
As usual, you are misconstruing what was said. Your insisted that the
experiment needed to address more than was necessary to answer a
particular question, just in case you wanted it to answer anything else.
Experiments don't work that way. If I use your example of the sagnac
effect, then it's simple to see that it was capable of addressing what it
did. That doesn't preclude anyone from discovering additonal explanations
for the results nor does it mean that given additional explanations, that
a better experiment won't need to be done. That's quite different from
insisting up front, that the experiment be designed such that it's
overkill and spend a lot of effort on things which are irrelevant to what
the experiment is intended to address. What you are claiming is the same
as claiming that the sagnac interferometer was incapable of demonstrating
any fringe shifts, because it wasn't capable of answering questions to all
orders in v/c.
[...]
>> spent lots of time counting decays from all sorts of isotopes with all
>> sorts of detectors. So, whatever you think you're going to tell me about
>> radiation and counting, save it. You aren't telling me anything I don't
>> aleady know.
>
>Except that shields don't "always" reduce a count rate. :)
That's why one studies the shielding if one is interested in knowing
the effect. This was an important detail in measuring the absolute
branching ratio for the 57Cu decay, for example. So was the geometry.
I spent an entire day with a transit insuring the detector position was
reproducible to with several mils. But that isn't really important here
either.
[...]
>> I certaily hope you are never left around radioactive sources alone. I'd
>> hate to see what would happen if you had to decide whether anyone would
>> really benefit from placing a 10 kCi tritium source in a lead box, in case
>> the lead wasn't really responsible for reducing the beta count rate, due
>> to a question of cosmic ray background and detector geometry leaving that
>> issue ambiguous from your perspective.
>
>There's are many "entertaining" stories from the nuclear industry about
>using metals for shielding. Fortunately, they usually send the HP techs in
>before the work group goes in. So most of the errors are caught before
>overexposing anyone.
The "nuclear industry" is not a stellar example of common sense or
intelligent descision making. It's a stellar example of how to find
engineers who will tell someone what they want to hear with respect
to monetary concerns.
[...]
>I have no doubt that your counting trace amounts of materials or events, you
>don't bother a lot with counting outside shields. This may have lead to
>your assumption that shields and self-shielding are never an issue.
On the contray. It was a big issue in the 57Cu branching ratio
measurement. It just isn't in this one.
[...]
>
>You also claim Titan Point's post was just a troll. I'm merely trying to
>get enough information to avoid bothering with a troll.
I'm just waiting to see the claim, prior to commenting.
[...]
>> Who is refusing references and descriptions of experiments? Titanpoint
>> at least posted a description.
>
>Titan Point refused to provide a reference (he has now metioned a textbook).
>He also refused to provide basic data on the experiement (i.e. count rates).
>
>> You haven't and I'm not refusing to read
>> a reference or a description of your centrifuge experiment. I'm refusing
>> to spend any effort hunting down your reference based upon having
>previously
>> done so and I'm telling you my honest opinion of just how likely I think
>> it is that your reference will turn out to be of any significance.
>
>You are welcome to your opinion.
>
>> I
>> haven't said I'm going to spend any effort looking up titanpoint's
>> reference either.
>
>You couldn't have. That was MY point. Titan point had REFUSED to give a
>reference.
That wouldn't matter. I could always search without a reference, which
is what I usually do anyway, since most everyone makes claims based upon
reading something they can't recall a reference for anyway. I never rely
on someone to provide a reference if I can find something myself. I
didn't rely on your reference either. I just couldn't find _anything_
at all. I haven't looked for any reference for titanpoint's claim yet,
since he hasn't really made much of a claim beyond what doesn't appear
to be an unreasonable experimental result, given what he described.
However, my questions would certainly not be about what he has presented
so far.
[...]
>> Apparently titanpoint claims the same thing, since I don't think he
>> said that he performed the experiment in question.
>
>Non sequiteur. Titan point claimed he HAD a reference... just that he
>wouldn't give it to me. Nothing was said about Titan point actually DOING
>the experiment.
Titanpoint apparently has a reason for the way he is going about it.
His reasons are his own. Until he posts something about the explanation,
his reasons don't involve me. After he posts it, I might or might not
have something to say, but whatever it is, it's not likely to be
about the apparatus so far described.
[...]
>> If I recall, what he said was that gr explained the results and that
>> he wanted to see an ether explanation. You've spent all of your effort
>> trying to invalidate the experiment just in case general relativity does
>> explain it and you can't explain it using your ether theory. As I keep
>> telling, you've been trolled and you keep striking the hook.
>
>Make up your mind. Either it's a troll, or it's worthwhile. If the former,
>then there is no shame in my identifying the silliness by asking for real
>data (thus exposing the troll). If it's worthwhile, why was Titan Point
>unwilling to provide basic data?
There is silliness in asking for data that has little or no bearing
on the actual validity of the data, which was a change in count rate
based upon varying a single parameter - temperature. The apparatus
didn't change.
Phaedrus
Then is it not possible that EM amplitudes and phase alignments between the
electron and the nucleons could cause some nucleons and an electron to be
ejected due to the repulsive force of the nucleus then overcoming the strong
force?
Joe
shuba
[in response to Ilja Schmelzer]
> I do not give a shit about your theory unless it predicts the result of
> experiments.
It does. It's designed to ride along on the success of GR.
> >> 4. That none of the aetherists can explain the experimental result (which
> >> came out of John Wheeler's book "A Journey into Gravity and Spacetime")
> >
> > How this? Why is the GR limit of GLET not sufficient, but GR itself is?
> >
> Because unless GR does not predict the results of experiments and GLET
> does, then and only then would GLET be required. But since GR does predict
> the results of experiments to a high degree of accuracy, then GLET appears
> to be an unnecessary speculation.
It's necessary for Ilja because of metaphysics, not physics. To
conform to his metaphysics, he has essentially deconstructed
general relativity, then rebuilt it using an unobservable
preferred frame plus equally unobservable scalar fields. It is
to his credit that he has gone on to attempt to give physical
justification to these hidden variables by using analogies to
condensed matter physics. Perhaps his ideas are ingenious enough
to provide insight for further theorectical development. Perhaps
not. If, as it appears, that no realizable experiments can be
conducted in the near future to differentiate between Ilja's
theory and GR, his only option is to continue to promote it on
metaphysical grounds.
> Because I'm not trying to get an Einsteinian explanation but to see (so
> far without success) whether non-Einsteinian explainations predict the
> same result.
>
> I am not interested in your field equations. I want, in simple terms, the
> result of the experiment explained.
I suspect you won't get that. Let me just stick to LET vs SR to
try to illustrate my point. I believe the generalization to the
gravity-inclusive theories is similar.
LET is not a practical physical theory, in that it is completely
impossible to use it to solve any physical problem. We can never
know when or by how much our measuring instruments are distorted,
according to LET, so the only practical way to solve a problem is
to rely on Lorentz symmetry. In other words, jettison any
thoughts about what might be the preferred frame and use SR. If
one's metaphysics allow only a Euclidean (R^3 x R) spacetime,
then it can be claimed that SR follows from LET. But on physical
grounds it is just as valid to assume Minkowski space and
dispense entirely with the complications of both an ether and the
mechanism to distort measuring instruments.
Now back to your question. According to Ilja, "The non-GR theory
proposed in gr-qc/0205035 gives the Einstein equations of GR in
some limit. This should be sufficient to explain such results,
not?" I think this answers your question. If you want the
result explained in simple terms, use general relativity.
Rather than simply asserting that the result of this experiment
is explained by riding along on the success of GR, it would be
much more interesting if Ilja could give a plausible argument
(even handwaving) based on the axioms of his theory.
---Tim Shuba---
Stephen Speicher
> Titan Point wrote:
>
> [in response to Ilja Schmelzer]
>
> > I do not give a shit about your theory unless it predicts the result of
> > experiments.
>
> It does. It's designed to ride along on the success of GR.
>
That is a very perceptive comment. The theory is not one derived
from first principles based on an ether, but rather a theory
which is dependent on general relativity for its existence.
If anyone is interested in reviewing critiques of the theory, as
presented by a true expert in the field of gravitation, search
google for sci.* for postings by Steve Carlip, with "Schmelzer"
and GET" as the search arguments, or just "Schmelzer" to see even
more.
Bilge
Do you mean, "can an electron with a few eV of energy do anything to
affect a nuclear decay?" No. Consider the deuteron. It has a binding
energy of 2.2 MeV. It's the least bound stable nucleus and it's so close
to being unbound that 4% of the time, the neutron and proton are outside
the potential well (i.e., just outside the range of the strong nuclear
force - yes, our existence is that tenuous). But that binding energy is
2.2 MeV. That corresponds to a temperature around 10^10 K. That's why a
nuclear explosion created from about 6 kg of uranium is equivalent to many
kilotons of TNT. Think in those terms instead. It's really hard to give a
good picture of just how strong the nuclear force is. Here's another way
to look at it. Tritium is 2 neutrons and a proton. 3He is 2 protons and a
neutron. The two nuclei are roughly the same size. Call it 1.8 fermis (1.8
x 10^-15 meters). The additional coulomb repulsion in 3He is then about 71
Newtons. Assume that the 71 N is uniformly applied across the radius of
the protons (about 0.9 fm) so that you have a pressure of 71 N/(0.9 fm)^2
pi. The pressure pushing them apart is then about 9 x 10^31 Pa or about
10^28 psi. This same force is absent in the tritium nucleus, yet tritium
is unstable and decays to 3He. In other words, that additional coulomb
repulsion is negligible compared to the strength of the strong nuclear
force. 3He is more stable despite the additional force trying to push
the two protons apart. (protons are slightly lighter than neutrons,
which is why 3He is more stable - it's also the only stable nucleus with
Z > N, except for the proton by itself, i.e., 1H).
lukas
(original question snipped)
> >
> > Good question!
> >
> > I hope I'm not repeating someone else's answer, but I'll give it a
> > shot here.
> >
> > In a heated iron bar, the radioactive nuclei are moving around quicker
> > throught the aether due to vibrational heat in the crystals. This
> > motion makes their structure more long-lived, and hence kicks out less
> > radiation.
> >
> > The same is observed in cosmic ray muon decay and moving atomic clocks
> > and is commonly referred to as time dilation.
> >
> > BTW, I kind of missed the point because I'm not refuting Einstein, but
> > oh well, I used the word aether at least, give me some credit?
>
> Yes you used the word aether. No this does not make any sense.
>
> > In a heated iron bar, the radioactive nuclei are moving around quicker
> > throught the aether due to vibrational heat in the crystals. This
> > motion makes their structure more long-lived, and hence kicks out less
> > radiation.
>
> The second sentence needs a little work....
Thanks -
What doesn't make any sense? The word itself or my use of it?
I may be wrong (please tell me), but I would calculate the reduction
in the count rate of radiation based on the motion of the Iron-56
atoms through (space)..
The reduction from initial temp to final temp would be by a factor of
gamma(Vthermal,init)/gamma(Vth,final) where gamma is the usual Lorentz
factor due to your favorite explanation (i.e. properties of (space)).
greywolf42
> greywolf42:
> >Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> >news:slrnb9ph1o....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>
> >> How much lead can I insert anywhere between the detector and the
> >> source and not have it affect the count rate? Don't be an imbecile.
> >
> >My personal favorite was about 1 cm. The block was large (bad
geometry).
> >And the junior physics lab TAs had selected it explicitly for the
purpose.
> >It actually INCREASED the count rate in some runs.
>
> We aren't talking about counting gamma rays,
In which case one doesn't need lead shielding. Cardboard works just fine
for alpha and beta emissions.
But I'm wondering what Titan's "geiger counter" was counting without gamma
rays. Perhaps he was using something more refined?
> and even if we were,
> it would be of little consequence in the experiment described. I only
> see a single parameter being varied - the temperature. The geometry is
> largely irrelevant. For a relative measure, it's a lot more important
> to make sure the geometry doesn't change during the experiment than
> it is to know what the geometry is. It makes little difference whether
> you measure the counts in 4pi sr or pi sr, so long as you keep the
> geometry the same.
I agree that it's best to keep the geometry the same during an experiment.
>
> [...]
>>> >> That's because you have no comprehension of the difference between
>>> >> a measurement which answers a specific question and an experiment
>>> >> which can answer any question one dreams up later.
>>> >
> >> >There is no difference. Experiments (nature) are not limited to the
> >> >questions we think of beforehand.
> >>
> >> In that case, no experiment that has ever been done means anything.
> >> Thank you, mr. science, for that very enlightening insight on just
> >> how much of an imbecile you are.
> >
> >If your reasoning were correct, then the "meaning" of the Sagnac
experiment
> >(first run by aetherists and first interpreted by same) would have
forever
> >falsified SR.
>
> As usual, you are misconstruing what was said.
I don't think I did.
> Your insisted that the
> experiment needed to address more than was necessary to answer a
> particular question, just in case you wanted it to answer anything else.
Huh? I never said the experiment had to "address" anything. However, if
I'm going to use an experiment to determine some aspect of physical reality,
then I want to be sure that I've eliminated all the sources of systematic
error.
> Experiments don't work that way. If I use your example of the sagnac
> effect, then it's simple to see that it was capable of addressing what it
> did. That doesn't preclude anyone from discovering additonal explanations
> for the results nor does it mean that given additional explanations, that
> a better experiment won't need to be done.
How would we know if we just *assume* that there are no variations due to
other processes?
> That's quite different from
> insisting up front, that the experiment be designed such that it's
> overkill and spend a lot of effort on things which are irrelevant to what
> the experiment is intended to address.
Balderdash. I haven't asked the experimenters to *spend a lot of effort*
before the experiment is done. Just to identify what WAS done.
> What you are claiming is the same
> as claiming that the sagnac interferometer was incapable of demonstrating
> any fringe shifts, because it wasn't capable of answering questions to all
> orders in v/c.
Nope. I just want to eliminate known sources of error.
>
> [...]
> >> spent lots of time counting decays from all sorts of isotopes with all
> >> sorts of detectors. So, whatever you think you're going to tell me
about
> >> radiation and counting, save it. You aren't telling me anything I
don't
> >> aleady know.
> >
> >Except that shields don't "always" reduce a count rate. :)
>
> That's why one studies the shielding if one is interested in knowing
> the effect. This was an important detail in measuring the absolute
> branching ratio for the 57Cu decay, for example. So was the geometry.
> I spent an entire day with a transit insuring the detector position was
> reproducible to with several mils. But that isn't really important here
> either.
Then why did you bring in this tangent? Just to bragg? (pun intended)
You stated (and now have snipped): "How much lead can I insert anywhere
between the detector and the source and not have it affect the count rate?
Don't be an imbecile."
I simply demonstrated that shielding (or self-shielding) can have an effect.
>
> [...]
> >> I certaily hope you are never left around radioactive sources alone.
I'd
> >> hate to see what would happen if you had to decide whether anyone
would
> >> really benefit from placing a 10 kCi tritium source in a lead box, in
case
> >> the lead wasn't really responsible for reducing the beta count rate,
due
> >> to a question of cosmic ray background and detector geometry leaving
that
> >> issue ambiguous from your perspective.
> >
> >There's are many "entertaining" stories from the nuclear industry about
> >using metals for shielding. Fortunately, they usually send the HP techs
in
> >before the work group goes in. So most of the errors are caught before
> >overexposing anyone.
>
> The "nuclear industry" is not a stellar example of common sense or
> intelligent descision making. It's a stellar example of how to find
> engineers who will tell someone what they want to hear with respect
> to monetary concerns.
I merely pointed out a personality trait that you share with some of the
less-talented industry types. Specifically, the assumption that shields
will always reduce radiation exposure. Your overweening ego and sense of
self-importance w.r.t. someone who produces a product for consumption
(instead of by brown-nosing grant donors) is noted.
> [...]
>
> >I have no doubt that your counting trace amounts of materials or events,
you
> >don't bother a lot with counting outside shields. This may have lead to
> >your assumption that shields and self-shielding are never an issue.
>
> On the contray. It was a big issue in the 57Cu branching ratio
> measurement. It just isn't in this one.
Reference, please.
>
> [...]
>
> >
> >You also claim Titan Point's post was just a troll. I'm merely trying
to
> >get enough information to avoid bothering with a troll.
>
> I'm just waiting to see the claim, prior to commenting.
What claim?
That is your prerogative. That doesn't mean the rest of the world fails
because they don't share your trust or sloppiness.
> [...]
> >> Apparently titanpoint claims the same thing, since I don't think he
> >> said that he performed the experiment in question.
> >
> >Non sequiteur. Titan point claimed he HAD a reference... just that he
> >wouldn't give it to me. Nothing was said about Titan point actually
DOING
> >the experiment.
>
> Titanpoint apparently has a reason for the way he is going about it.
> His reasons are his own. Until he posts something about the explanation,
> his reasons don't involve me.
Then quit insulting others over those reasons.
> After he posts it, I might or might not
> have something to say,
To paraphrase Tom Lehrer: "If someone has nothing to say, the least they
can do is to shut up."
> but whatever it is, it's not likely to be
> about the apparatus so far described.
>
> [...]
> >> If I recall, what he said was that gr explained the results and that
> >> he wanted to see an ether explanation. You've spent all of your effort
> >> trying to invalidate the experiment just in case general relativity
does
> >> explain it and you can't explain it using your ether theory. As I keep
> >> telling, you've been trolled and you keep striking the hook.
> >
> >Make up your mind. Either it's a troll, or it's worthwhile. If the
former,
> >then there is no shame in my identifying the silliness by asking for
real
> >data (thus exposing the troll). If it's worthwhile, why was Titan Point
> >unwilling to provide basic data?
>
> There is silliness in asking for data that has little or no bearing
> on the actual validity of the data, which was a change in count rate
> based upon varying a single parameter - temperature. The apparatus
> didn't change.
So you assume.
Bye to Bilge in this thread.
greywolf42
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 06:12:32 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>
> >
> > Titan Point <Titan...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2003.04.15....@myrealbox.com...
> >> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:55:21 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
{snip higher levels}
>>> > One of the few
>>> > "specifications" that you originally provided ("small amount of
Iron-57")
>>> > was immediately contradicted by the clarification that cosmic
background
was
>>> > "negligible." Such little realities must be included in the analysis.
> >>
> >> No they don't. The radioactive source could be any beta-decay source.
The
> >> little realities do not have any bearing on the result. The cause of
> >> radioactive decay is a quantum process unaffected by heat.
> >
> > Your claim that the result would be unchanged by using other unstable
> > isotopes is an assumption that is not part of this apparent experiment.
> > One would presume that the experiment would be repeated with other
isotopes
> > to test the theory.
>
> Complete crap. If radioactive decay is a random quantum process unaffected
> by heat, then this is a waste of time. It doesn't affect the conclusion of
> the experiment.
One reason we do experiments is to check up on those assumptions. Even if
the experiments fall exactly in line with our predictions, they are not a
waste of time.
> > It also doesn't address the issue of the contradiction between small
amount
> > an negligible background. Just give the resting count rate (average) of
the
> > iron bar, please. That will be sufficient to start.
> >
>
> You want a number? 100000 per minute. Background? 6 per minute
> Drop in activity per degree rise? 300
> Rise in activity per degree fall? 300
I don't want *a* number. I want *the* number measured in the experiment.
> >> > Perhaps if you just posted the SR explanation first (or the "GR
> >> > explanation").
> >>
> >> No clues. The experiment is real. The result can be interpreted
directly
> >> by GR. Now lets see if there are other explanations.
> >>
> >> So far, hot air and bluster appear to be your only scientific friends.
> >
> > LOL! You make a bald, unsupported claim that GR (not SR?) can directly
> > interpret an experiment that you won't identify. That you won't even
> > provide basic data about (count rates, temperature range). And you
accuse
> > me of hot air and bluster for saying I'd like some data, please.
>
> Really, you want the fucking geiger counter geometry and the dead-time of
> the geiger counter doesn't sound to me much like you could care.
>
> The count rates in numbers are arbitrary and depend on the activity of the
> isotope and the amount of isotope in the sample. All I would have to say
> is that the background rate is negligable.
>
> But no, this isn't enough.
You've just let slip that this is just a piece of gedanken crap. The
numbers are not arbitrary if this was a real-world experiment.
> >
> > First you said "small amount" of isotope. Then you said background
would be
> > negligible (contradicting "small amount"). You then say (in a parallel
> > thread) "radioactive decay is of the order of 10000 counts". Failing
even
> > to get the units of your counter correct.
> >
> What units? The small amount of isotope could have a large activity.
>
> I can imagine the counts to be a suitably large number, like 100,000
But I don't give a rat's patoot what you can *imagine*. Gedankens (that
assume SR or GR is correct) teach nothing about the real world. I choose
not to bother with trying to match your estimate for the number of angels on
a pinhead.
> > In same said parallel line, you back off the *inversely proportional to
> > absolute temperature* claim, and state that the count rate is
*essentially
> > constant* throughout the experiment.
>
> HELLO??????
>
> If the experimental bar is simply left there at constant temperature then
> the activity is essentially constant. WE could use a reference bar which
> isn't heated or cooled, if you want.
But the experiment you describe *requires* the bar to be heated. No heat,
no experiment. Now, is the count rate inversely proportional to
temperature, or is it constant?
Well, since you've shown that your claim of a *real* experiment is
dishonest. All you've got is a gedanken.
Bye, troll.
greywolf42
Titan Point <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.04.12....@myrealbox.com...
> Here is a simple experimental result that I would like you to explain with
> whatever aether theory, newtonian absolute space, galilean transformation
or
> other theory that refutes the General or Special Theory of Einstein:
>
> You have an iron bar in front of you. The iron bar is at rest with respect
> to you, me, and the spaceship which is at rest with respect to some
> absolute coordinate scheme (insert favoured theory here)
>
> The iron bar is made of pure iron, which contains mostly Iron-56 which is
> the most stable, boring isotope of any element known. But it also contains
> a small amount of Iron-57 which is radioactive. You can tell that its
> radioactive because you have a geiger-counter ticking away merrily as the
> iron-57 decays into cobalt-57 via emission of a beta-particle (an
> electron).
[Cobalt-57 into Iron-57 noted by Titan Point in other post]
[amount of Co-57 is not "small", as emissions dwarf all source of
background -- at highest temperature -- as noted by Titan Point in other
post]
> The half-life of this decay is around 270 days so for the purposes of this
> experiment, its constant.
>
> Here's the experiment:
>
> The iron bar is at 20 degrees Celcius and produces a constant number of
> clicks per second.
>
> However when the iron bar is heated, the number of clicks falls, and it
> falls at a constant rate depending on the increase in temperature.
[Inversely proportional to absolute temperature noted by Titan Point in
other post]
> When the iron bar is allowed to return to its initial temperature, the
> number of clicks registered by the geiger counter returns to its initial
> temperature.
>
> Similarly, if the iron bar is cooled, the number of clicks rises in
> proportion to the change in temperature.
>
> Since the radioactive decay is a quantum process unaffected by
> temperature, can you explain using your non-Einstein theory, why this
> effect should happen?
>
> (Incidentally, yes this is a real result of an experiment)
[Titan Point claimed to have gotten this out of John Wheeler's book "A
Journey into Gravity and Spacetime"]
It so happens that Wheeler has no actual reference to said experiment. (The
book is about as lightweight as one can get.) All he's got is a "dialog"
that asserts the answer is true and supports GR.
=============================
(begin page 50, Wheeler)
Bill is a reasonable man. "I won't believe this relativity business without
some rock-hard observational evidence. I'm not asking for an actual
experiment with twins or anything like that, but I need something besides
words and tables and diagrams to convince me."
"Well, since the journey to Canopus that I am proposing would be a first, "
I point out, "there never has been a direct test of the 'twin effect'
involving people. However, if we trim down the distances, I can show you
some laboratory evidence that the 'twin effect' occurs."
"I'm listening," Al replies.
"Let's put aside for the moment the spaceship trip to Canopus. Instead,
consider a bullet shot out at the same speed but turned around at a much
smaller distance from the Earth. Forty seconds of round-trip time will
register on each tiny atomic clock placed inside the bullet, but 202 seconds
will register here on Earth as the time for theesame trip. You agree that
the principle is the same?"
"Same principle. Same nonsense," mutters Al.
"After a thousand such round trips," I continue, "202,000 seconds of
stay-at-home time will have clicked away, but only 40,000 seconds of bullet
time, of bullet aging, of increased bullet seniority. Same principle
right?"
"Yes, again. The same principle, the same nonsense," Al agrees. "But still
no evidence!"
"Not so. Just such a multi-zigzag experiment HAS been done, and the time --
the seniority, the aging -- racked up ty the zigzag clocks turned out to be
less than the aging or time registered on the stay-at-home clocks -- and
reliably so, and by an amount in good agreement with the concept of proper
time."
"Let's hear the details, then," Al says grudgingly.
"Robert Pound and Glen Rebka, Jr., wound up their wonderful small-scale
experimental test of the twin effect in early 1960. Of course, the distance
was nothing like 99 lightyears. It was only about one-tenth of the distance
between one atom and the next in a piece of iron. And tht speed of the
zigzagging atom was nowhere near the speed of light. It was only about 300
meters per second going out, and 300 meters per second coming back, the
speed of the normal thermal agitation of iron atoms. So you can understand
that the seniority, the aging, the proper time registered by an out-and-back
iron atom was only slightly less than the proper time registered by a
stay-at-home iron atom. The calculated proper time of the kinked worldline
for my trip to Canopus and back is only about 20 percent of stay-at-home
straight-worldline time. But an iron atom travels at a speed enormously
slower than my spaceship. Thus the calculated reduction in seniority for
the zigzag route, instead of being 80 percent, as for my Canopus trip, is
for a room-temperature iron atom only about one part in a million million."
Al breaks in, "You're telling me that there is a clock accurate enough to
measure a difference that small?"
"Yes, an atomic clock," I reply. "It happens that the nucleus inside an
atom of mass-number 57 ticks away billions upon billions of times a second
and serves as a clock of fantastic precision. Counting those clicks is not
the problem in this experiment. The difficulty is that there are no
stay-at-home iron atoms in a piece of iron; the are ALL moving. But when a
piece of iron is heated, the zigzag speed of the atoms increases; their
worldlines kink more sharply. So the atoms in a heated piece of iron rack
up fewer clicks in a second of laboratory time than do the ones in a colder
piece. That that's not talk. That's fact. Warming iron by just 1 degree
Celcius cuts down by 7700 the number of clicks ticked off by each internal
iron-atom clock during a laboratory second."
"Is that 7700-click difference a large effect?" Al asks.
"No. It's fantastically small compared with the total number of cklicks
from the internal clock carrided by either thhe coller or the warmer iron
atom, about 3.5 billion billion (3.5 10^18). That is a predicted difference
of only 2.21 parts in 10^15," I explain. "But Pound and Rebka were able to
measure that difference. They found that warming iron by 1 degree Celsius
reduced the iron click rate by 2.09 +- 0.24 parts in 10^15. That's right on
the mark."
"There's your evidence, Bill and Al," I continue. "Real numbers, measured
on real instruments in the real world! A marvelous check that the twin
effect, relativity itself, is no hoax. It's real. It's part of the working
of the world."
"The measurement by Pound and Rebka verifies impressively the idea of
spacetime interval. It shows that what counts for the moving internal
iron-atom clock is not laboratory time, but proper time, time toted up from
the start to end along all the segments of the worldline. That's what
spacetime geometery is all about."
"Seniority or aging or proper time, as measured by a carried-along clock is
what counts for a moving object, not laboratory time," I summarize. "This
lesson stands out in experiments of the greatest variety. In some, the two
time measures differ enormously more than they do in the Pound-Rebka
experiment. In some, the precision of the time measurements rivals their
work. In no other experimentn is the connection clearer to the chronometric
compression caused by the kinked course of the coming carom on Canopus."
Kip breaks in, "John is right. The iron atom goes back and forth at a speed
high by automobile standards but low compared with the speed of light. That
is the only reason for the smallness of the kink effect in the Pound-Rebka
experiment. About the reality of the shorter time, there can be no
question." Looking at Al and Bill, he asks impatiently, "Do you two
gentlemen now agree that the Canopus trip IS feasible?"
Al and Bill confer briefly and then chorus in unison, "We concede."
Without further dissent the entire staff votes to accept my plan. Canopus,
here I come!
[There is a photo of the cesium clock of the US Bureau of Standards adjacent
to the text.]
=============================
A pretty pathetic "source", indeed. Though we clearly see where Titan Point
got his "real" experiment, as well as the confusion between SR and GR
proofs.
Note that the experiment above is apparently not the Pound and Rebka
experiment that most folks here understand by the name (gravitational time
dilation experiment).
*THIS* experiment of Pound and Rebka is not listed in the relativity FAQ. I
did a quick web search, and found only references to Pound and Rebka's
gravitational shift experiment. I looked at about 100 sites, then tired.
(Perhaps because it's swamped by the more famous experiment?) For example,
I find no mention of the 1960 temperature experiment by Pound and Rebka in
Chris Hillman's website on evidence:
[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html]
A thorough waste of time. A simple reference (to a really, real experiment)
was all that was needed.
kenseto
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:v9ufm47...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Titan Point <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.04.12....@myrealbox.com...
> > Here is a simple experimental result that I would like you to explain
with
> > whatever aether theory, newtonian absolute space, galilean
transformation
> or
> > other theory that refutes the General or Special Theory of Einstein:
>
> > The half-life of this decay is around 270 days so for the purposes of
this
> > experiment, its constant.
> >
> > Here's the experiment:
> >
> > The iron bar is at 20 degrees Celcius and produces a constant number of
> > clicks per second.
>
> > When the iron bar is allowed to return to its initial temperature, the
> > number of clicks registered by the geiger counter returns to its initial
> > temperature.
> >
> > Similarly, if the iron bar is cooled, the number of clicks rises in
> > proportion to the change in temperature.
> >
> > Since the radioactive decay is a quantum process unaffected by
> > temperature, can you explain using your non-Einstein theory, why this
> > effect should happen?
> >
> > (Incidentally, yes this is a real result of an experiment)
>
> [Titan Point claimed to have gotten this out of John Wheeler's book "A
> Journey into Gravity and Spacetime"]
>
> It so happens that Wheeler has no actual reference to said experiment.
(The
> book is about as lightweight as one can get.) All he's got is a "dialog"
> that asserts the answer is true and supports GR.
greywolf:
Don't get such into this pointless discussion. Why?
He said:
1. He said: the decay is a constant quantum process and it is insentive to
temperature variation.
2. At the same time he said: the decay according to the allege experiment is
temerature sensitive. So we have a cinflict between items 1 and 2.
3. He said: The result of the experiment can be explained by GR.
4. GR is incompatible with QM. So what we have is that GR explains a
constant quantum process that is insentive to temperature variation
and at the same time explains the same quantum process that is
temperature sensitive.
The normal quantum explanation of the experiment result is as follows:
1. The decay process is initiated by the neutron capture.
2. When the temperature is increased it is harder for the decaying atom to
capture a neutron because of its more rapid movement and thus the decay rate
is lowered.
3. When the temperature is lowered it is easier for the decaying atom to
capture a neutron and thus the decay rate is higher.
Ken Seto
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:va0d629...@corp.supernews.com...
We do not. The nucleus does not see the temperature. We see the nucleus
as having different energies, based on it "temperature". I wouldn't expect
you to frame jump.
> 3. He said: The result of the experiment can be explained by GR.
Also SR, since the velocity of the average nucleus is increased with
increasing temperature.
> 4. GR is incompatible with QM. So what we have is that GR explains a
> constant quantum process that is insentive to temperature variation
> and at the same time explains the same quantum process that is
> temperature sensitive.
No, we have your usual errors in logic.
> The normal quantum explanation of the experiment result is as follows:
> 1. The decay process is initiated by the neutron capture.
Not a neutron capture.
> 2. When the temperature is increased it is harder for the decaying atom
to
> capture a neutron because of its more rapid movement and thus the decay
rate
> is lowered.
Not a neutron capture. Other than that, you got the rest exactly right.
The motion reveals the average slowing. Standard SR.
> 3. When the temperature is lowered it is easier for the decaying atom to
> capture a neutron and thus the decay rate is higher.
The temperature of the matrix has no effect on the "temperature" of the
neutron. It has no charge, remember? It can only "bump" into nucleii.
David A. Smith
Dennis McCarthy
> >>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:45:45 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
> >>>> Are you so afraid that an aetherist COULD come up with a theoretical
> >>>> explanation?
>
> >>> for you to produce an explanation of this result using a non-GR theory.
> >>
> >> on greywolf42's pet theory may be waste of time.
> >>
> >> gr-qc/0205035 gives the Einstein equations of GR in some limit.
> >> This should be sufficient to explain such results, not?
> >
Ilja:
> To clarify that it is not my intention to defend greywolf42.
Dennis: No, it is not simply that you are not "defend"ing greywolf,
you
are taking a shot at him with the phrases: "pet theory" and "waste of
time."
But these statements are kinder than usual. Often you defend or use
terms
like "crank" and "crackpot" -- terms that are merely meant to be
personally demeaning
and which , of course, have no scientific value.
Dennis:
> > You are the only etherist of whom I am aware (and I know dozens
> > personally), who is so eager to help throw rocks at the heretics, so
> > willing to defend the despicable personal attacks and inexcusable
> > tactics of relativists.
Ilja:
> I do not defend despicable personal attacks. For example, I have
> defended greywolf in Message-ID: <i3gbrzm...@wias-berlin.de>
> against a personal attack.
Dennis: Well, I'm glad you have recently begun to distance yourself
from Speicher's
never-ending abuses and accusations of "dishonesty" -- but I also
noticed that your recent enlightenment
about the worthiness of Speicher's insults was concurrent with his
depiction of you as a "religious fanatic."
This revelation regarding Speicher seemed to elude you last year --
when you would actually vaguely reference Speicher's (and
Speicher-like) attacks as legitimate, suggesting that the accused must
be doing something wrong in order to elicit such slander.
Ilja:
> On the other hand, I don't have a very high opinion about the
> scientific value of the proposals of the other etherists here.
> Sometimes I try to show them their errors, but without personal
> attacks.
Dennis: 1) What about fluid dynamic ether theories based on analog
models of gravity (particularly fluid sink models) and fluid dynamic
derivations of EM phenomena? Do you have a low opinion of that?
2) I disagree you do this without personal attacks as you often use
or defend the use
of the words "crank" and "crackpot." (I won't antagonize you with
your own quotes.) At times,
you have defended "crackpot" labels as a shorthand method of
identifying those who favor
certain types of arguments or who reject SR for certain-reasons with
which you disagree.
But not only is yours simply a justification for rudeness and
humiliation, the criteria
you have defended, or at least condoned, in the past is unscientific
and naive. Within the last year you have defended such a label for
someone who was arguing that it is false that there is no evidence of
the ether. As another example, you have condoned criterion 16 of
Baez's "crackpot index," in which crackpot points are awarded for:
'for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts
phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain 'why' they occur, or fails to
provide a 'mechanism.'"
Astoundingly, this is not only a naked defense of positivism -- it is
a labeling of all anti-positivist speculation as "crackpot." It is
the claim that one should be referred to as a "crackpot" if he or she
even thinks a hidden causal mechanism would make some theory more
satisfactory -- and so this of course awards crackpot points to many
of our greatest scientists from the past.
As the history of science has clearly shown, in battles involving
mainstream positivist theorists vs. materialist dissenters, the wrong
group is usually labeled "crackpot." In other words, Ilja, not only
is it obnoxious and demeaning to use such labels, it is very often
ignorant.
--Dennis McCarthy
greywolf42
dl...@aol.com (formerly) <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:RdXna.2192$kj.997@fed1read05...
Translation: The "constant quantum process" claimed by Titan Point is the
assumption that the nucleus will decay regardless of any outside
interaction. The nuclues is assumed not to interact. The temperature is
the temperature of the material (not the nucleons). The nuclei move with
the atoms (or vice versa), and it is the translational (not internal)
motions that we define and observe as "temperature."
> > 3. He said: The result of the experiment can be explained by GR.
>
> Also SR, since the velocity of the average nucleus is increased with
> increasing temperature.
Actually, Titan Point only claimed that GR explained things. This is what
Titan's source (Wheeler) claimed. I've already questioned Titan's
understanding. But he retreats to "Einsteinian" explanations -- avoiding
making the commitment to SR or GR.
Personally, I agree with you.
> > 4. GR is incompatible with QM. So what we have is that GR explains a
> > constant quantum process that is insentive to temperature variation
> > and at the same time explains the same quantum process that is
> > temperature sensitive.
>
> No, we have your usual errors in logic.
It is well known that GR and QM are incompatible by 50 orders of magnitude.
If QM were correct, and the vaccum energy really exists, then GR will
provide a size of the universe on the order of a centimeter -- due to energy
density.
> > The normal quantum explanation of the experiment result is as follows:
> > 1. The decay process is initiated by the neutron capture.
>
> Not a neutron capture.
Decomposition of a nucleus CAN be initiated by neutron capture (i.e. fission
and stimulated emissions). But that is NOT the case of "decay" -- which by
definition does not depend on neutrons.
> > 2. When the temperature is increased it is harder for the decaying atom
> to
> > capture a neutron because of its more rapid movement and thus the decay
> rate
> > is lowered.
>
> Not a neutron capture.
Ken, you seem to be confusing stimulated fission with radioactive decay.
Both result in the release of energy and by-products. But the source is
different.
> Other than that, you got the rest exactly right.
> The motion reveals the average slowing. Standard SR.
Actually, SR is not the issue in neutron capture. Neutron capture is a
complex process with many resonances. This has to do with nuclear structure
more than SR.
> > 3. When the temperature is lowered it is easier for the decaying atom to
> > capture a neutron and thus the decay rate is higher.
>
> The temperature of the matrix has no effect on the "temperature" of the
> neutron. It has no charge, remember? It can only "bump" into nucleii.
Actually, a neutron could also physically "bump" into an electron, ionizing
an atom. Also, neutrons ARE affected by the temperature of the matrix.
"Thermal" neutrons (in thermal equilibrium with the matrix) are easier to
capture than "fast" neutrons. This is the function of a "moderator" in
thermal fission reactors (as opposed to "fast" neutron reactors).
But, despite the confusion with stimulated decay, Titan's claims are
contradictory in many respects. After looking at his "reference", I can
sympathise with him. There wasn't much to go on, and the explanation was
almost non-existent.
But the subject interests me. Such an experiment should be possible, and
I'd like to utilize it in my own work. However, my first glance at Titan's
claims make me skeptical. As I understand of SR, the average motion
(speed) of the iron atoms vibrating at temperature should result in a
reduction in measured decay rate as temperature increases.
However, temperature is a measure of the square of the average speed of the
molecules of a substance [<v^2> = 3kT/m_0]. And SR "time" is "roughly"
linear with the speed. [t = t_0 sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]. So I'm curious how
"linear" the "real experiment" results were. And how SR actually
"explained" them.
Bilge
>Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnb9rm7k....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> greywolf42:
>> >Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>> >news:slrnb9ph1o....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>>
>> >> How much lead can I insert anywhere between the detector and the
>> >> source and not have it affect the count rate? Don't be an imbecile.
>> >
>> >My personal favorite was about 1 cm. The block was large (bad
>> >geometry).
>> >And the junior physics lab TAs had selected it explicitly for the
>> >purpose.
>> >It actually INCREASED the count rate in some runs.
>>
>> We aren't talking about counting gamma rays,
>
>In which case one doesn't need lead shielding. Cardboard works just fine
>for alpha and beta emissions.
If I recall, a 1 MeV beta will go through roughly 1/2 inch of lucite.
However, since I have the stopping power for a 1 MeV beta in Al handy,
I can determine the thickness of Al more precisely:
Stopping power for 1 MeV beta on Al is =~ 1.5 MeV cm^2/g so the thickness
of Al needed is th_Al =~ 0.67 g/cm^2. Al has a density of about 2.7 g/cm^3,
so the thickness in cm, is 1/(1.5 (cm^2/g) x 2.7 g/cm^3) =~ 0.25 cm or about
97 mils. That's just under 1/8 inches (or slightly larger than 3/32 inches).
>But I'm wondering what Titan's "geiger counter" was counting without gamma
>rays. Perhaps he was using something more refined?
I assumed betas. Geiger counters aren't very efficient gamma counters,
so I doubt anyone would actually use them for counting decays for rate
purposes other than "hey, this thing is hot". To do decent gamma ray
counting, one needs a better detector, like germanium.
Since I know what I said, I know otherwise.
>
>> Your insisted that the
>> experiment needed to address more than was necessary to answer a
>> particular question, just in case you wanted it to answer anything else.
>
>Huh? I never said the experiment had to "address" anything. However, if
>I'm going to use an experiment to determine some aspect of physical reality,
>then I want to be sure that I've eliminated all the sources of systematic
>error.
>
>> Experiments don't work that way. If I use your example of the sagnac
>> effect, then it's simple to see that it was capable of addressing what it
>> did. That doesn't preclude anyone from discovering additonal explanations
>> for the results nor does it mean that given additional explanations, that
>> a better experiment won't need to be done.
>
>How would we know if we just *assume* that there are no variations due to
>other processes?
We don't, but in lieu of being able to identify any other processes
we do the experiment anyway and publish the results. Then, if one
identifies a process that could have given the same results seen in
the experiment, one analyzes the process, makes a quantitative prediction
for its contribution to the overall results and publishes it. Then, if
someone figures out a way to sort that out in an experiment he/she
performs the experiment and publishes it. The cycle then iterates.
As for the sagnac effect, it's obvious now, that to first order, the
result is incapble of distinguishing relativity and classical theory in
which one just adds the velocities, c + v and c - v. A problem has there-
for been identified and quantified. So, the sagnac experiment does not
answer the question for which it was intended. This does not imply that
the sagnac experiment was done poorly or that sagnac did not know how
to measure fringes.
A new experiment would need to be done with enough resolution to obtain
data at higher order in v/c. If don't know if that has been done or not.
If not, then anyone who wants to build a sagnac interferometer can do so.
I assume that someone who performs a simple particle counting experiment
is capable of counting particles and can at least determine if the count
rate goes up or down as parameters are varied. Titanpoint has given that
much information.
Phaedrus
To all interested parties.
I would be interested in measuring the decay rate of just the Fe57 in a
fully plasma state with all the electrons removed altogether from the atoms,
ie just measure the rate of decay without any electrons. It would be
interesting to do this in a Penning trap where a single nucleus could be
held. Then also vibrate it to degrees, ie give the effect of heating it and
see if this affects the decay times. Obviously this would have to be done
with a great many nucleons to gain an idea of the half-life period.
I would then also like to see the affect of holding a single Fe57 atom in a
Penning trap and subjecting it to vibrations, thus simulating heating and
see the effect on decay times, again a lot would be need to gain an average
half-life. Then conduct the same experiment with a handful of Fe57 atoms,
this time the vibrations could be sufficiently strong enough to cause the
inter-atomic bonding to break down and see what the effect of this has with
regard to the half-life period.
Although I a have been told that that electrons play no part in the decay
process I do not feel this is a reasonable position to adopt unless such
experiments have been conclusively conducted. The decay process I feel
occurs when the electric and magnetic components of the nucleons are of the
correct amplitude and phase with regard to one another to cause a decay
event to occur. Dependent upon the atom and isotopes this results in stable
atoms to highly unstable atoms for very large nucleon atoms. I feel that the
electron electric and magnetic field strengths and phases interact with the
individual nucleons electric and magnetic field strengths and phases to some
degree that could account for the phenomena of decay events reducing due to
heating of the Fe57 bar. I accept that the nucleon is still capable of
decaying even when wholly stripped of all electrons, but feel it would have
its half life affected due to the stripping away of these electrons. I have
been effectively told that this would not be the case as electrons play no
part in the decay process.
Obviously only experiments could prove if my hypothesis is in/correct. But
to dismiss it out of hand seems a tad unreasonable.
To sum up, the cause of temperature related half-life change increasing with
increasing temperature is due to the influence of inter-atomic bonding of
the atoms being broken due to thermal energy effectively freeing clumps of
atoms, the higher the temperature the larger the number of broken atomic
bonds. The atomic electrons have a degree an influence on the decay process
of the nucleon in such a manner that they assist in the decay process when
all the electron shells are full. Therefore due to heating not all electron
shells are filled in all atoms and this has the net effect in reducing the
decay events and thus increasing the half-life.
I see no need to introduce SR or GR to solely explain this phenomena.
Regards
Joe
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Phaedrus" <phae...@talk.com> wrote in message
news:b84st2$1ig$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> <snip>
>
> To all interested parties.
>
> I would be interested in measuring the decay rate of just the Fe57 in a
> fully plasma state with all the electrons removed altogether from the
atoms,
> ie just measure the rate of decay without any electrons. It would be
> interesting to do this in a Penning trap where a single nucleus could be
> held. Then also vibrate it to degrees, ie give the effect of heating it
and
> see if this affects the decay times. Obviously this would have to be done
> with a great many nucleons to gain an idea of the half-life period.
URL:http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nndc/nudat/walform.html
If you enter element number "26", you find that mass number 57 (as well as
56 and 58) are stable. There are mass numbers as low as 45 and as high as
72 listed. Perhaps one of those will do?
After all, they did bother to measure the mass of the massless photon!
David A. Smith
Bilge
>
>To all interested parties.
>
>I would be interested in measuring the decay rate of just the Fe57 in a
>fully plasma state with all the electrons removed altogether from the atoms,
>ie just measure the rate of decay without any electrons.
(2) No such luck
(3) 57Fe is stable
>It would be interesting to do this in a Penning trap where a single
>nucleus could be held.
Assuming you meant some other isotope, you can eliminate (3) from
above. The chances of keeping a nucleus with Z=27 fully stripped for
any length of time is not all that great. I'm not certain how long
you could expect to keep such a nucleus from picking up an electron
in a penning trap with a vacuum of < 10^-10, but it's probably not
very long. I would guess milliseconds.
>Then also vibrate it to degrees, ie give the effect of heating it and
>see if this affects the decay times. Obviously this would have to be done
>with a great many nucleons to gain an idea of the half-life period.
Here, it doesn't matter whether you choose a nucleus that will decay.
A stable nucleus just won't do anything, and you'll nver get enough
fully stripped, unstable nuclei in one place to do the experiment.
>
>I would then also like to see the affect of holding a single Fe57 atom in a
>Penning trap and subjecting it to vibrations, thus simulating heating and
>see the effect on decay times,
In which case, you'll heat up (and from the vibration, possibly break)
the cryostat, destroy the vacuum, ruin the superconducting magnets when
they go critical, etc.
>again a lot would be need to gain an average
>half-life. Then conduct the same experiment with a handful of Fe57 atoms,
>this time the vibrations could be sufficiently strong enough to cause the
>inter-atomic bonding to break down and see what the effect of this has with
>regard to the half-life period.
>
>Although I a have been told that that electrons play no part in the decay
>process I do not feel this is a reasonable position to adopt unless such
>experiments have been conclusively conducted. The decay process I feel
It's perfectly reasonable to assume the electrons are not important.
If you drew a scale model of an atom with the nucleus 1 meter in radius,
an electron at the bohr radius would be about 16.5 miles away.
>occurs when the electric and magnetic components of the nucleons are of the
>correct amplitude and phase with regard to one another to cause a decay
>event to occur.
Beta and alpha decays are due to nuclear forces, not electromagnetic
forces.
Phaedrus
Hi David,
Thanks for your link, as you say at this link it shows Fe57 as being stable,
yet the original post stated it was unstable? find this puzzling, what is
the table showing, non-ionised stability of different isotopes? If it is
stable then I wonder why the original poster stated it was unstable, am I
missing something here?
Thanks for your help.
Joe
Phaedrus
Hi Bilge,
I accept what you say that beta decays are due to nuclear forces, but
possible the electromagnetic force has some role also to play despite the
distances involved, I don't think we can rule them out unless we could
conduct some experiments to see if that is really the case. As I stated the
influence of electrons with the nucleus could give rise to a change in decay
events due to heating with an unstable isotope.
Joe
greywolf42
stable,
> yet the original post stated it was unstable? find this puzzling, what is
> the table showing, non-ionised stability of different isotopes? If it is
> stable then I wonder why the original poster stated it was unstable, am I
> missing something here?
>
> Thanks for your help.
Titan later "corrected" his original post to indicate it was Co-57, instead
of Fe-57. (Though his reference does not refer to Cobalt.)
I belive Titan was originally mislead by his very poor reference (Wheeler).
Wheeler referenced the 1960 Experiment of Pound and Rebka. Which DID use
Iron-57 -- but did not use radioactive decay. (It measured gravitational
effects.) Nor did it heat iron bars. It appears that Wheeler made a major
hash of the Pound and Rebka experiment. And Titan Point swallowed it hook,
line, and sinker. And refuses to admit any "problem" exists. And still
insists that "Einsteinian" physics can explain the (yet unidentified)
physical results.
Harold Ensle
Here is what happens according to my ether theory.
Electrons are not a probability distribution but are rings
which encompass the nucleus. They maintain a consistent
distance from the nucleus because they occupy equilibrium
points.
However, due to the molecular accelerations (and the
resulting shift of the equilibrium points) in a material
which has a non-zero temperature, low energy photons
are being produced and reabsorbed by the rings. The
energy of these photons are not enough to raise the
electron ring to its next quasistable level, so it only gets
reemitted in a type of "elastic absorption".
The result of this is that the electron rings spend more
time at a distance which is actually a bit further from the
nucleus than the ideal ground state distance would be at
absolute zero temperature.
This changes the energy required for a nuclear reaction
that would involve internal conversion or electron capture,
thus making it a bit less likely to occur. Thus the decay
rate is reduced.
Note that only these type of decays would be affected.
Decays that involved only on alpha and beta decay would
not change their rates.
H.Ellis Ensle
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Phaedrus" <phae...@talk.com> wrote in message
news:b866v6$t9e$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
I had it in my mind that Fe-56 was unstable. I was wrong.
There is a good link (the second one) provided by Jon Bell on the thread
"Radioactivity question" on this newsgroup...
<http://www2.bnl.gov/ton/>
Perhaps you can find what you seek there. Click on the graph... lower left
is hydrogen.
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Phaedrus" <phae...@talk.com> wrote in message
news:b86779$ad0$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
...
> I accept what you say that beta decays are due to nuclear forces, but
> possible the electromagnetic force has some role also to play despite the
> distances involved, I don't think we can rule them out unless we could
> conduct some experiments to see if that is really the case. As I stated
the
> influence of electrons with the nucleus could give rise to a change in
decay
> events due to heating with an unstable isotope.
There may not be much nuclear activity near the surface, but surely the
nucleii in the Sun are bare?
David A. Smith
Phaedrus
Yes I would think the atoms in the sun are in a state of plasma, but that
does not really bear a lot of reference to the subject raised in this thread
as the nuclei of hydrogen and helium are probably stable, I am not sure if
there are unstable isotopes of hydrogen and helium in the sun. Even if there
are then it doesn't alter what I gave as a mechanism for the decreased decay
rate due to thermal energy. Someone mentioned about the distance of the
electrons from the nuclei being so great that they would have little
influence on the effect of decay events. But then I recall that the EM force
is alpha (1/137.036) and the strong force is about 1, so it is only about
two order of magnitude different, not as great as the distance of the
electron from the nuclei to the nuclei radius. Because I can't conduct any
experiments myself it can only remain a plausible idea that I have until
proven incorrect by experiments. I feel the decay events occur when the
Electric and Magnetic (EM) amplitudes and phases of the nuclei and
interacting electrons come to some point that would then cause the decay
event to occur.
One day we will probably find the super force that gives rise to all the
known four forces is based on EM waves and their interactions. It may even
be the case that everything in our universe is purely made from just EM
waves. I doubt I will live long enough to find out though whether this is
the case or not.
Joe
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Phaedrus" <phae...@talk.com> wrote in message
news:b87jjv$cto$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:YwGpa.6934$kj.1263@fed1read05...
> > Dear Phaedrus:
> >
> > "Phaedrus" <phae...@talk.com> wrote in message
> > news:b86779$ad0$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > ...
> > > I accept what you say that beta decays are due to nuclear forces, but
> > > possible the electromagnetic force has some role also to play despite
> the
> > > distances involved, I don't think we can rule them out unless we
could
> > > conduct some experiments to see if that is really the case. As I
stated
> > the
> > > influence of electrons with the nucleus could give rise to a change
in
> > decay
> > > events due to heating with an unstable isotope.
> >
> > There may not be much nuclear activity near the surface, but surely the
> > nucleii in the Sun are bare?
> >
> >
>
> Yes I would think the atoms in the sun are in a state of plasma, but that
> does not really bear a lot of reference to the subject raised in this
thread
> as the nuclei of hydrogen and helium are probably stable, I am not sure
if
> there are unstable isotopes of hydrogen and helium in the sun.
There are all manner of things in the Sun, at any given instant. If we can
create them, however briefly on Earth, the Sun has a lot more energy
available, plenty of raw materials, and lots of pressure. NIST has masses
listed for H-1 through H-6, and for He-3 though He-10
> Even if there
> are then it doesn't alter what I gave as a mechanism for the decreased
decay
> rate due to thermal energy. Someone mentioned about the distance of the
> electrons from the nuclei being so great that they would have little
> influence on the effect of decay events. But then I recall that the EM
force
> is alpha (1/137.036) and the strong force is about 1, so it is only about
> two order of magnitude different, not as great as the distance of the
> electron from the nuclei to the nuclei radius. Because I can't conduct
any
> experiments myself it can only remain a plausible idea that I have until
> proven incorrect by experiments. I feel the decay events occur when the
> Electric and Magnetic (EM) amplitudes and phases of the nuclei and
> interacting electrons come to some point that would then cause the decay
> event to occur.
Keep a couple of things in mind.
The mass deficit of the electron in hydrogen appears to be on the order of
1.3 e -8 gm-mol. The mass deficit of the proton+neutron+electron in
deuterium is 2.3 e -3 gm-mol.
The strong and weak nuclear forces are r^-4, while electrostatic forces are
r^-2.
Keep in mind that when you are talking heat (such as around ambient
±100C°), the effects are entirely in atomic motion and alteration of
*valence* electrons. So they are even further "out" than you suppose.
Saying that electrostatic forces play no part in the nucleus would be to
wear blinders. Saying that an external charge would have any effect on
when a nucleus decays would be false. The external charge is entirely
inconsequential when it comes to "timing".
> One day we will probably find the super force that gives rise to all the
> known four forces is based on EM waves and their interactions. It may
even
> be the case that everything in our universe is purely made from just EM
> waves. I doubt I will live long enough to find out though whether this is
> the case or not.
Such a theory has waited 100 years. I doubt it will come in our lifetimes,
though not for lack of trying. But I have been wrong...
David A. Smith
Phaedrus
based on these facts one could assume that the electrons should play no part
in the decay process. But I don't accept it as a given that that is the
case. I'm still keeping an open mind on this.
> Saying that electrostatic forces play no part in the nucleus would be to
> wear blinders. Saying that an external charge would have any effect on
> when a nucleus decays would be false.
In your opinion. I accept that, but until it has been conclusively proven to
be the case then I think it wise to keep an open mind, as I am trying to
give a rational reason as to why a heated unstable isotope would lead to an
increased half-life, and I do not see the need to resort to SR or GR at the
moment to come up with a reason. Remember that bonded atoms will have
numerous EM fields interacting with the nucleus and less when some of the
bonds are broken. I accept that it would seem wise to discount the electron
EM fields due to their relatively weak field strength interactions with
those compared to the fields that give rise to the strong and weak forces,
but that is not to say they play no part. Again I stress numerous
experiments would need to be conducted to see what the effect of atomic bond
breaking has in relationship to increased half-life. From what was
originally stated in the original post here, increasing temperature and thus
decreasing atomic bonding gave rise to increased half life of the atoms. I
don't want to appear antagonistic here, I am just trying to come up with a
mechanism to explain the observed effect of heating an aggregate of unstable
atoms.
The external charge is entirely
> inconsequential when it comes to "timing".
Electrons are initimate with the nuclei supposedly via virtual photons and
are thus not external in the strict sense and therefore you cannot say they
are inconsequential when it comes to timing as you have no way of measuring
the phase and amplitude of all the interacting parts that make up the atom
and the effect of these supposedly virtual photons interactions as you are
not able to measure them, or even detect them directly or indirectly.
>
> > One day we will probably find the super force that gives rise to all the
> > known four forces is based on EM waves and their interactions. It may
> even
> > be the case that everything in our universe is purely made from just EM
> > waves. I doubt I will live long enough to find out though whether this
is
> > the case or not.
>
> Such a theory has waited 100 years. I doubt it will come in our
lifetimes,
> though not for lack of trying. But I have been wrong...
>
> David A. Smith
>
>
I'll be happy to go to my grave having made some sense of the universe we
live in. Hopefully I will be around still to see some years of development
yet in the sciences and what the LHC and LIGO will discover, and whether M
theory can be made into an elegant theory to unify the four forces.
Joe Kiss
Bilge
>I accept what you say that beta decays are due to nuclear forces, but
>possible the electromagnetic force has some role also to play despite the
>distances involved, I don't think we can rule them out unless we could
>conduct some experiments to see if that is really the case. As I stated
>the influence of electrons with the nucleus could give rise to a change in
>decay events due to heating with an unstable isotope.
It's actually very straightforward to perform measurements which show
that the atomic electrons are irrelvant. Beta decay rates are determined
by 3 things: the weak coupling strength, the energy available for the
decay and selection rules (matrix elements) for the transition, which
depends upon the initial and final nuclei. The beta coupling strength is a
universal parameter which may be obtained from any weak decay and in
particular, may be obtained from neutron decay or pion decay (which has
been done and found to be in agreement for both). The available energy for
the decay is essentially just the mass difference of the parent and
daughter nucleus. So, when measuring the lifetime of any beta decay, one
is measuring the matrix elements determined by the selection rules.
There are a number of nuclei, for which precise calculations may be
made and compared with the experimental results. These calculations
have been done for many nuclei, the calculations agree very well with
the measurements and atomic electrons never enter into the calculation.
There is no other place the electrons could play a part, since the
other two factors are determined independently of any decay process.
You are wasting your time on a dead end, however it is really
difficult to make this explicit if you've never been involved in
comparing theoretical calculations to measured lifetimes to see
how well the two agree and what goes into the calculations.
Phaedrus
increases the half life then of unstable isotopes?
Joe
Bilge
>Ok I accept what you say.
There are data reflecting a number of experiments that you might find
interesting. One group of experiments tests what is called the "Conserved
Vector Current hypothesis" (CVC), which serves as a test for the standard
model. With respect to that in which you are interested, it says very
simply that after correcting for the phase space, the decay rate of _ANY_
superallowed fermi decay, must be identical. The decays which are well
enough known and may be tractably calculated for comparison are: 10C, 160,
26Al, 34Cl, 38K, 42Sc, 46V, 50Mn, and 54Co. "Phase space" correction
essentialy means that since the mass difference in the parent and daughter
for the 10C decay are different than for the 54Co decay, one factors that
in in order to compare them (also called "comparative half-life, expressed
as a value called the ft-value). Within the experimental uncertainty, all
of these nuclei have ft-values of 3070 seconds. These nuclei have been
studied many times under a variety of conditions and always yield this
same value.
In effect, what the above experiments can determine is two-fold.
(1) whether the form of the interaction between the initial and
final state is the same interaction, and in the form believed to
be the one we think it is and (2) additional confirmation of the
universality of the weak coupling constant.
The above is a very high precision test of CVC, so for reasons other
than the one yo mentioned, data on these nuclei have been extremely
important to obtain. These measurements are one of the few tests which
can be carried out relatively inexpensively at low energy (nuclear
physics) energies.
>Do you have any idea then why thermal excitation increases the half life
>then of unstable isotopes?
Not really. I haven't given it any thought, yet. I'm waiting for the
punch line before I decide what to make of it. I'd be more skeptical
if it hadn't originated from wheeler, et al. But, while the experiment
decribed is simple to do, I'd like to first find out additional details,
preferably with some numbers on counts vs T and who did the experiment,
and a reference for it.
Phaedrus
do have an influence on beta decay, unlike what you have stated to me that
they have no effect on beta decay.
"Inverse beta decay can occur when an electron or positron strikes a
nucleus. The cross-section for such interactions is quite small and
decreases with beta particle energy."
Reference: Page 303 of "Princeton Guide to Advanced Physics" Oxford
University Press, Author: Alan C. Tribble.
Seems there are differing opinions to the effects of electrons with regard
to beta decay, not sure though what is meant by inverse beta decay, maybe it
is so named because it is due to electrons rather than the nucleus itself.
Joe
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Phaedrus" <phae...@talk.com> wrote in message
news:b87qtv$hki$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:oWIpa.7190$kj.4821@fed1read05...
...
> > Keep a couple of things in mind.
> >
> > The mass deficit of the electron in hydrogen appears to be on the order
of
> > 1.3 e -8 gm-mol. The mass deficit of the proton+neutron+electron in
> > deuterium is 2.3 e -3 gm-mol.
> >
> > The strong and weak nuclear forces are r^-4, while electrostatic forces
> are
> > r^-2.
> >
> > Keep in mind that when you are talking heat (such as around ambient
> > ±100C°), the effects are entirely in atomic motion and alteration of
> > *valence* electrons. So they are even further "out" than you suppose.
> >
> Yes I'll bear those things in mind. I accept what your are implying that
> based on these facts one could assume that the electrons should play no
part
> in the decay process. But I don't accept it as a given that that is the
> case. I'm still keeping an open mind on this.
As you should.
> > Saying that electrostatic forces play no part in the nucleus would be
to
> > wear blinders. Saying that an external charge would have any effect on
> > when a nucleus decays would be false.
>
> In your opinion. I accept that, but until it has been conclusively proven
to
> be the case then I think it wise to keep an open mind, as I am trying to
> give a rational reason as to why a heated unstable isotope would lead to
an
> increased half-life, and I do not see the need to resort to SR or GR at
the
> moment to come up with a reason.
Please consider that the predictions of SR and GR *are* of the order of the
perceived effect, within measurement error. So either the "electron cloud"
is a second order effect (note that some reactions require capture of an
electron), ro it is the only place in the local neighborhood where SR/GR
don't apply.
> Remember that bonded atoms will have
> numerous EM fields interacting with the nucleus and less when some of the
> bonds are broken.
What is the net effect of layers of soil above you when determining the
gravity field at some position in a hole through the Earth?
> I accept that it would seem wise to discount the electron
> EM fields due to their relatively weak field strength interactions with
> those compared to the fields that give rise to the strong and weak
forces,
> but that is not to say they play no part. Again I stress numerous
> experiments would need to be conducted to see what the effect of atomic
bond
> breaking has in relationship to increased half-life. From what was
> originally stated in the original post here, increasing temperature and
thus
> decreasing atomic bonding gave rise to increased half life of the atoms.
I
> don't want to appear antagonistic here, I am just trying to come up with
a
> mechanism to explain the observed effect of heating an aggregate of
unstable
> atoms.
Yet if you consider that the nucleus is surrounded by a more or less
uniform cloud of net negative charge, at a great distance, while really
huge electrostatic forces should be driving the positive charges away from
these really close protons (hands waving furiously), you will have a lot of
explaining to do for 5 orders of magnitude.
> > The external charge is entirely
> > inconsequential when it comes to "timing".
>
> Electrons are initimate with the nuclei supposedly via virtual photons
and
> are thus not external in the strict sense and therefore you cannot say
they
> are inconsequential when it comes to timing as you have no way of
measuring
> the phase and amplitude of all the interacting parts that make up the
atom
> and the effect of these supposedly virtual photons interactions as you
are
> not able to measure them, or even detect them directly or indirectly.
The important ones are next to the nucleus. When a chain reaction of
plutonium is set up, there are very few electrons left in orbitals, with
millions of degrees of temperature (for a bomb). The electrons are just
distributed as part of the plasma. No delicate timing here, surely?
...
> > Such a theory has waited 100 years. I doubt it will come in our
> lifetimes,
> > though not for lack of trying. But I have been wrong...
>
> I'll be happy to go to my grave having made some sense of the universe we
> live in. Hopefully I will be around still to see some years of
development
> yet in the sciences and what the LHC and LIGO will discover, and whether
M
> theory can be made into an elegant theory to unify the four forces.
Do this instead. Go to the grave knowing. That will be a challenge in and
of itself. "To thine own self be true." The machinations of current
theories are still the result of the various blind men describing the
elephant to one another.
David A. Smith
Bilge
>>
>Very interesting. I just read a few hours ago in a book shop that electrons
>do have an influence on beta decay, unlike what you have stated to me that
>they have no effect on beta decay.
>
>"Inverse beta decay can occur when an electron or positron strikes a
>nucleus. The cross-section for such interactions is quite small and
>decreases with beta particle energy."
>Reference: Page 303 of "Princeton Guide to Advanced Physics" Oxford
>University Press, Author: Alan C. Tribble.
"Ordinary" beta decay occurs when a neutron decays into a proton,
an electron and an anti-neutrino:
n -> p + e- + \nubar
Positron or \beta+ decay occurs when a proton changes into a neutron,
a positron and a neutrino:
p -> n + e+ + \nu
Electron capture occurs when the nucleus captures an electron, which
may be the inner shell electron of a heavy atom:
e- + p -> n + \nu
Electron capture is generally folded in with positron decay. Tables will
often list either \beta+,\beta- values or refer to \beta+ decays as
electron capture, since a nucleus which positron decays can decay either
way, therfore the atomic electrons are not really important here.
Inverse beta decay typically refers to a process which is induced
in a nucleus to cause the "daughter" nucleus to "inverse" decay
to the parent. I don't know if your book refers to electron capture
as inverse beta decay or not. I might, but it shouldn't even though
the two might appear similar. If you take a stable nucleus, it's
possible to produce a radioactive one via several processes:
e- + p -> n + \nu
e+ + n -> p + \nubar
(which is one way that radioactive isotopes can make ordinary materials,
like their containers radioactive as they decay). The most famous example
of inverse beta decay is probably the reaction used by the homestake
neutrino detector which contains about 600 tons of dry cleaning
fluid (tetrachloroethylene, for it's high chlorine content):
\nubar + n -> p + e-
\nubar + 37Cl -> 37Ar + e-
37Ar is radioactive and by collecting and counting the argon atoms
periodically, the experimentors try to determine the solar neutrino
flux.
In _all_ of these decays, the processes are well understood and
occur exactly as I told you previously. In none of these, are the
atomic electrons important to the decay process.
>Seems there are differing opinions to the effects of electrons with regard
>to beta decay, not sure though what is meant by inverse beta decay, maybe it
>is so named because it is due to electrons rather than the nucleus itself.
I hope I cleared up what inverse beta decay means. Beta decay is just
one aspect of the weak interaction. It always involves the nucleus.
Other types of weak decays are:
\pi+ -> e+ + \nu
\pi- -> e- + \nubar
some very famous weak deacys are:
K0 -> \pi\pi
K0 -> \pi\pi\pi
K0 -> \pi+\pi-
And again, these all follow the same rules I gave initially.
Phaedrus
I read today the following which I found interesting as I have been told
electrons play no part in beta decay.
"Inverse beta decay can occur when an electron or positron strikes a
nucleus. The cros-section for such interactions is quite small and decreases
with with beta particle energy."
Page 303 of Princeton Guide to Advanced Physics, author Alan C. Tribble -
Oxford University Press.
This was the point I was making that electrons could affect the decay events
in some small way but have been consistently told this is not the case.
> > Remember that bonded atoms will have
> > numerous EM fields interacting with the nucleus and less when some of
the
> > bonds are broken.
>
> What is the net effect of layers of soil above you when determining the
> gravity field at some position in a hole through the Earth?
>
Are we comparing apples with oranges here, or the macroscopic with the
atomic? The gravity potential varies with height I have read, but I
understand the point you are making.
> > I accept that it would seem wise to discount the electron
> > EM fields due to their relatively weak field strength interactions with
> > those compared to the fields that give rise to the strong and weak
> forces,
> > but that is not to say they play no part. Again I stress numerous
> > experiments would need to be conducted to see what the effect of atomic
> bond
> > breaking has in relationship to increased half-life. From what was
> > originally stated in the original post here, increasing temperature and
> thus
> > decreasing atomic bonding gave rise to increased half life of the atoms.
> I
> > don't want to appear antagonistic here, I am just trying to come up with
> a
> > mechanism to explain the observed effect of heating an aggregate of
> unstable
> > atoms.
>
> Yet if you consider that the nucleus is surrounded by a more or less
> uniform cloud of net negative charge, at a great distance, while really
> huge electrostatic forces should be driving the positive charges away from
> these really close protons (hands waving furiously), you will have a lot
of
> explaining to do for 5 orders of magnitude.
>
The EM force is alpha (1/137.036), the weak force is 1E-5, and the
gravitational force is about 1E-39 times weaker than the strong force which
is about 1. So the EM force is far stronger than the weak force. Anotheer
thing, the electron cloud is not uniform but has a varying probability
density that weakens the closer one goes towards the nucleus and outwards
away from the classical atomic diameter. Due to the Schroedinger Wave
equation for an electron there is still a small probability the electron can
reach the nucleus despite the supposed huge Coloumb repulsion force. I don't
like to use the term electrostatic force as the electrons have spin even
though they are standing waves, hence the fuzzy electron cloud permeates
even towards the nucleus, albeit with a small probability. I still see no
other plausible mechanism described yet to account for what is described to
happen when heating an unstable isotope, and now contrary to what I have
been told, I now have read that electrons can cause inverse beta decay. The
word inverse in this context I believe means that the electron rather than
the nucleus is responsible for the beta decay. I accept it is a very small
probability as stated in the text I quoted, but it is still a valid
mechanism. A point worth mentioning is that the assumptions that our simple
equations of the forces holds true at all distances.
It is also worth mentioning that when viewing an electron in an orbit as a
stationary wave then relative to the nucleus its velocity would be zero as
the nucleons and electrons both possess 1/2 integer spin. According to
DeBroglie the matter waves are in accordance with his formula
lamda = h/p where p is the momentum of the particle, in the case of a
standing wave electron relative to the nucleus then p = 0 and hence lambda
becomes infinite ostensibly. I know we could argue that we need to treat the
electron as a pointlike particle with motion rather than as a standing wave
spread out around a volume of space in the atom. I would be interested to
know what relative speed would we need to attribute to the electron relative
to the nucleus, and how this would affect the DeBroglie matter wavelength?
> > > The external charge is entirely
> > > inconsequential when it comes to "timing".
> >
> > Electrons are initimate with the nuclei supposedly via virtual photons
> and
> > are thus not external in the strict sense and therefore you cannot say
> they
> > are inconsequential when it comes to timing as you have no way of
> measuring
> > the phase and amplitude of all the interacting parts that make up the
> atom
> > and the effect of these supposedly virtual photons interactions as you
> are
> > not able to measure them, or even detect them directly or indirectly.
>
> The important ones are next to the nucleus. When a chain reaction of
> plutonium is set up, there are very few electrons left in orbitals, with
> millions of degrees of temperature (for a bomb). The electrons are just
> distributed as part of the plasma. No delicate timing here, surely?
>
Again you are not arguing against a mechanism for decreased decay events due
to heating. When plutonium is ignited in an atomic explosion, yes the
plutonium will be in a state of plasma with lots of high energy neutrons
capable of causing fusion (I think its fusion with plutonium bombs) to
occur. You have still not presented a valid case to discount electrons to
influence decay events in an aggregate of unstable material that will change
with reasonable changes in temperature, as was cited in the original post. I
am not going to try and predict what happens in the sun, or during atomic
fission/fusion cases, I'd need to feed my ideas into a computer and run a
Monte Carlo simulation (and I'm not a betting man :-) ).
> ...
> > > Such a theory has waited 100 years. I doubt it will come in our
> > lifetimes,
> > > though not for lack of trying. But I have been wrong...
> >
> > I'll be happy to go to my grave having made some sense of the universe
we
> > live in. Hopefully I will be around still to see some years of
> development
> > yet in the sciences and what the LHC and LIGO will discover, and whether
> M
> > theory can be made into an elegant theory to unify the four forces.
>
> Do this instead. Go to the grave knowing. That will be a challenge in
and
> of itself. "To thine own self be true." The machinations of current
> theories are still the result of the various blind men describing the
> elephant to one another.
>
> David A. Smith
>
Yes it is an interesting analogy to describe the state of physics to that of
blind men describing an elephant to one another. This is why GR & SR is so
contentious to so many people. I accept that it works so well and I can even
accept the concept of curved space as I have already have an idea on how the
physical nature of space arises and can curve, I have posted this idea but
it received not one comment, except to say that the joke footnot about the
Russians using pencils in space instead of following NASA's lead to invest
billions of dollars to develop a pen that could write in zero g, and huge
temperature ranges.
The idea is based on the fact as I have already stated that their exists the
possibility that the universe comprises only of EM waves, which gives rise
to space in three dimensions because of rotations of the Electric amplitudes
and Magnetic amplitudes, which lie at 90 degrees to one another, such that
the two 2D waves describe a 3D volume that we call space. And the so called
vaccuum is similarly filled with EM waves. Before you mention a Faraday cage
that is capable of screening out EM waves, consider this, you cannot measure
a reference just against itself, it would be like trying to measure a
perfect ground to another perfect ground. Using a ground is a really bad
analogy as you can measure the impedance between different ground points. I
have already had to do this in my past engineering job.
I did come across a site where the author explains SR/GR effects using
purely classical techniques that gave the same results without having to use
Lorentz contractions of lengths and time dilations. His technique was simply
based on energy conservation, it may have also used some other conservation
principle as well. I can't remember now. I can try and look up the site,
hopefully I have it somewhere in my favourites list. Of course SR and GR are
so well established and so well proven so why bother changing them now to
describe the effects of relativity, unless this guys technique comes up with
some other effects not predicted by SR & GR. I have also a book called What
is the Matter with Light by Jeff Lee, where he simply assumes the speed of
time travels at c and then goes on to predict the effect of the anomaly with
Mercury's orbit anomally and many other things in line with SR and GR, he
does make extensive use of the Lorentz equations though. So there are people
not going along with the idea of curved space and still getting the right
answers with a consistent theory.
So yes I agree there will be many blind men describing an elephant
wonderfully well and some are positioned on top of it and others at the
bottom of it and some to one side and others to another side. All arguing
the others are wrong, but all seeing some aspect of the whole.
I have always felt when Feyman wrote, that trying to understand nature was
like watching a ball move in mysterious ways and then trying to work out the
rules of the game. When something new pops up with the way the ball moves
then we have to put on our thinking caps and try to come to some
understanding as to why this occurs. I was going to say come to some logical
understanding, but now we know we have had to abandon logic in many areas of
physics to explain nature - supposedly because we have thus far not found a
logical explanation that has been accepted by the physics community. And at
the end of the day when we have all the rules we could still be thinking we
are watching a game of soccer without being able to see the players and be
totally wrong! As science has shown us in the past where people have gotten
the right answer but for the wrong reasons as the reasoning was later found
to be flawed as more detailed experiments and observations were carried out.
So we'll either go along with Hawking and not care what reality is and only
care that we can predict outcomes, or we'll form beliefs that will always be
open to challenge, much like our theories. We accept Coulombs formula F =
q1*q2/(4*pi*epsilon*d^2) but how do we know that this holds true in the
electron cloud zone, especially when the electron EM waves are very close to
the nucleus? We have not even been able to measure the gravitational force
below quite a few millimetres due to the large amount of mass required to
cause a force measurement, so who knows how the gravitation formula should
look at close distances? I have read that the general Newton formula for
gravitation is not valid and one should use GR. I would be interested to see
how it varies from Newton's formula, probably its all couched in tensor
algebra and Riemian (sorry I don't know how to spell his name) space.
Apologies for drivelling on for so long David, I get quite philosophical
during the late hours of the night, and i have read how you shouldn't mix
philosophy and physics and never mention religion, unless your religion is
'approved convential physics'.
Best Regards
Joe
Phaedrus
> Phaedrus:
> >>
> >Very interesting. I just read a few hours ago in a book shop that
electrons
> >do have an influence on beta decay, unlike what you have stated to me
that
> >they have no effect on beta decay.
> >
> >"Inverse beta decay can occur when an electron or positron strikes a
> >nucleus. The cross-section for such interactions is quite small and
> >decreases with beta particle energy."
> >Reference: Page 303 of "Princeton Guide to Advanced Physics" Oxford
> >University Press, Author: Alan C. Tribble.
>
> Actually, you misunderstood what that inverse beta decay is.
> "Ordinary" beta decay occurs when a neutron decays into a proton,
> an electron and an anti-neutrino:
>
>
> n -> p + e- + \nubar
>
This I understand as I have read about this already.
> Positron or \beta+ decay occurs when a proton changes into a neutron,
> a positron and a neutrino:
>
>
> p -> n + e+ + \nu
This I find hard to understand as to make a neutron you would need an
electron and an anti-electron neutrino, but if you say that is what happens
then I will have to accept it.
>
> Electron capture occurs when the nucleus captures an electron, which
> may be the inner shell electron of a heavy atom:
>
>
> e- + p -> n + \nu
>
> Electron capture is generally folded in with positron decay. Tables will
> often list either \beta+,\beta- values or refer to \beta+ decays as
> electron capture, since a nucleus which positron decays can decay either
> way, therfore the atomic electrons are not really important here.
>
But consider this now, from the information you have presented that electron
capture is possible and does affect beta decay then this is having a direct
affect on the decay process. Also the unfilled electron shell will remain so
for some unspecified period of time before it is refilled, this will give
rise to an increased delay in further electron stimulated decay events, so I
can still argue that my mechanism holds true to explain the decreased decay
events due to breaking of the electron valency bonds due to heating and the
loss of the absorbed electron and ejected electrons which are to fast to be
captured by the inner shell. The neutron has a half life of some 911s.
Many thanks, I found your information very informative. You obviously know a
lot more about weak decays than I do. Hopefully you can accept that I have
made a valid point though in this post.
Also what mechanism would you ascribe to the cause of decreased decay events
in an aggregate of a common unstable isotope when heated over say a range
from a few Kelvin to say 273 Kelvin?
I would be interested if you have any ideas on what this mechanism might be
as you maintain it has nothing to do with electrons, now after I have
pointed out that electrons affect decay events you have provided me with a
lot more information on how they do this, when you initially claimed they
had no affect on the decay events. I do not want to be antagonistic, I am
just trying to come up with a plausible mechanism please.
Best regards
Joe
Phaedrus
Dear David,
I found this reference about the discrete steps that neutrons were found to
bounce of a mirror, I don't think this is exactly the same experiment that I
mentioned to you before about measuring the discrete fall of ultra cold
neutrons, when I was trying to work out what the discrete step sizes were
using the energy amount measure in pico Joules.
It mentions in the penultimate paragraph of this article that the step sizes
related to the DeBroglie wavelengths which interfered with its reflection on
the mirror when bouncing neutrons off a mirror and by moving a neutron
absorber up and down.
Best Regards
Joe Kiss
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/1/9/1
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Phaedrus" <phae...@talk.com> wrote in message
news:b8adrl$2qn$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
To quote Uncle Al:
KEWL.
Of course I wouldn't want those neutrons bouncing around me.
David A. Smith
Bilge
>
>The EM force is alpha (1/137.036), the weak force is 1E-5, and the
>gravitational force is about 1E-39 times weaker than the strong force which
>is about 1. So the EM force is far stronger than the weak force.
Yes, that's correct.
>Anotheer thing, the electron cloud is not uniform but has a varying
>probability density that weakens the closer one goes towards the
>nucleus and outwards away from the classical atomic diameter.
That's also more or less correct.
>Due to the Schroedinger Wave equation for an electron there is still a
>small probability the electron can reach the nucleus despite the supposed
>huge Coloumb repulsion force.
There, you goofed. If you think about for a second, you'll realize that
because the electron has a negative charge and the nucleus has a positive
charge, the force is attractive. What the schroedinger equation tells you
is that the electron doesn't spiral into the nucleus and do exactly what
you suggest (interact and anihilate with the positive charge) precisely
because the probability that the electron will be within the nuclear
radius is so small that atoms can exist. As it turns out, if \alpha were
much different than it is, or the charge to mass ratio of the electron
were much different than what it is, atoms would not exist. A lot of early
nuclear physics was done using "mu-mesic" atoms. Muons are like electrons
but about 206 times heavier. They _do_ orbit close to or inside the
nucleus and _do_ cause nuclear reactions when they anihilate.
>I don't like to use the term electrostatic force as the electrons have
>spin even though they are standing waves, hence the fuzzy electron cloud
>permeates even towards the nucleus, albeit with a small probability.
Very small. So small that the electron won't be inside of the nuclear
radius long enough to interact. The exception is a nucleus with high
enough Z that the nucleus beta decays by electron capture (sometimes
called "k-capture" by chemists and old textbooks). But, this is really not
a "contribution" from the atomic electrons. A nucleus that can electron
capture can also decay by positron emission. It doesn't matter much to the
nucleus, since the nucleus is unstable. In any case, this is all dealt
with in beta decay theory and agrees with what I told you previously.
[...]
>It is also worth mentioning that when viewing an electron in an orbit as a
>stationary wave then relative to the nucleus its velocity would be zero as
>the nucleons and electrons both possess 1/2 integer spin.
The velocity is not a well defined concept, quantum mechanically.
You can speak of characteristic velocities, as deduced from the
expectation (average) value of the momentum, but that's about it.
>According to DeBroglie the matter waves are in accordance with his formula
>lamda = h/p where p is the momentum of the particle, in the case of a
>standing wave electron relative to the nucleus then p = 0 and hence lambda
>becomes infinite ostensibly.
p is NOT 0. In fact, p is indeterminate. If you want a "characteristic
velocity" associated with the electron when it can be determined to
be within the nuclear radius, then you have to calculate it relativist-
ically. For a radius of about 1.5 fm, I get something like 0.998c.
>I know we could argue that we need to treat the
>electron as a pointlike particle with motion rather than as a standing wave
>spread out around a volume of space in the atom. I would be interested to
>know what relative speed would we need to attribute to the electron relative
>to the nucleus, and how this would affect the DeBroglie matter wavelength?
Done. At the bohr radius, the characteristic velocity is about
\alpha c.
[...]
>The idea is based on the fact as I have already stated that their exists the
>possibility that the universe comprises only of EM waves, which gives rise
>to space in three dimensions because of rotations of the Electric amplitudes
>and Magnetic amplitudes, which lie at 90 degrees to one another, such that
>the two 2D waves describe a 3D volume that we call space. And the so called
>vaccuum is similarly filled with EM waves. Before you mention a Faraday cage
>that is capable of screening out EM waves, consider this, you cannot measure
>a reference just against itself, it would be like trying to measure a
>perfect ground to another perfect ground. Using a ground is a really bad
>analogy as you can measure the impedance between different ground points. I
>have already had to do this in my past engineering job.
You seem to have a pretty good intuitive picture of things. However, you
are trying to hard to limit yourself to E&M and gravity and create
everything from that. The standard model, which describes the strong, weak
and electromagnetic forces would be worth your while to study. It can be
made very intuitive in a way that seems to fit with the way you appear to
think about E&M. The standard model gives an outline of how the strong,
weak and electromagnetic interactions are all really different manifest-
ations of a single force and this can be pictured quite easily in terms of
solid state physics and in particular, super- conductors. The article
referenced below gives a very good overview of the electroweak sector of
the standard model and describes how particles acquire masses. Most of
it very readable, although understanding it in detail will require some
additional effort from other sources:
arXiv:/hep-ph/9905369
[...]
>describe the effects of relativity, unless this guys technique comes up with
>some other effects not predicted by SR & GR. I have also a book called What
>is the Matter with Light by Jeff Lee, where he simply assumes the speed of
>time travels at c and then goes on to predict the effect of the anomaly with
>Mercury's orbit anomally and many other things in line with SR and GR, he
If it's the same Jeff Lee that posts in this forum periodically, he's
a crackpot. Long on swell sounding verbiage, short (or non-existent) on
rigor.
[...]
>understanding as to why this occurs. I was going to say come to some logical
>understanding, but now we know we have had to abandon logic in many areas of
>physics to explain nature - supposedly because we have thus far not found a
>logical explanation that has been accepted by the physics community.
No need to abandon logic. Look how long it took to go from aristotle
just to newtonian physics. If you think about the amount of physics which
has been discovered in the last century or even the last 50 years, it's
incredibly astounding in comparison to all of the physics discovered in
the entire history of civilization. We have two theories, General
relativity and the standard model, which together, agree with every
experiment ever performed and have predicted a great deal of the physics
along the way to developing those theories. In most instances, the
theories are capable of predictions with precision that technology is not
yet suffient to verify.
>And at
>the end of the day when we have all the rules we could still be thinking we
>are watching a game of soccer without being able to see the players and be
>totally wrong! As science has shown us in the past where people have gotten
>the right answer but for the wrong reasons as the reasoning was later found
>to be flawed as more detailed experiments and observations were carried out.
I went to a colloquium given by steven weinberg last year and he gave
his idea of what he would consider "all the rules" as it were. What he
said was that such a theory should give one the satisfaction of being
confident that one understands the underlying physics responsible for
the way nature works. Basically, I think he was saying that when we have
such a theory, we will know why it works and be confident that it is the
correct theory.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Phaedrus" <phae...@talk.com> wrote in message
news:b8ab32$tgc$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:NP%pa.8278$kj.544@fed1read05...
...
> > Please consider that the predictions of SR and GR *are* of the order of
> the
> > perceived effect, within measurement error. So either the "electron
> cloud"
> > is a second order effect (note that some reactions require capture of
an
> > electron), ro it is the only place in the local neighborhood where
SR/GR
> > don't apply.
> >
>
> I read today the following which I found interesting as I have been told
> electrons play no part in beta decay.
> "Inverse beta decay can occur when an electron or positron strikes a
> nucleus. The cros-section for such interactions is quite small and
decreases
> with with beta particle energy."
> Page 303 of Princeton Guide to Advanced Physics, author Alan C. Tribble -
> Oxford University Press.
> This was the point I was making that electrons could affect the decay
events
> in some small way but have been consistently told this is not the case.
Agreed. In fact I found that 11% of the time K-40 decays through ingestion
of its own electron. Burp. Lots of low energy gamma, and X-rays.
...
This would make electron capture less of an issue, if it is already "in"
the nucleus. Electron capture is also synonymous with creation of a
positron, too.
> > The important ones are next to the nucleus. When a chain reaction of
> > plutonium is set up, there are very few electrons left in orbitals,
with
> > millions of degrees of temperature (for a bomb). The electrons are
just
> > distributed as part of the plasma. No delicate timing here, surely?
> >
>
> Again you are not arguing against a mechanism for decreased decay events
due
> to heating. When plutonium is ignited in an atomic explosion, yes the
> plutonium will be in a state of plasma with lots of high energy neutrons
> capable of causing fusion (I think its fusion with plutonium bombs) to
> occur. You have still not presented a valid case to discount electrons to
> influence decay events in an aggregate of unstable material that will
change
> with reasonable changes in temperature, as was cited in the original
post. I
> am not going to try and predict what happens in the sun, or during atomic
> fission/fusion cases, I'd need to feed my ideas into a computer and run a
> Monte Carlo simulation (and I'm not a betting man :-) ).
Plutonium absorbs the neutron only to fission and release more neutrons.
Describing the photoelectric effect with waves is problematic. Maybe all
the particles in the Universe are entangled in some way, without invoking
EM.
...
> So we'll either go along with Hawking and not care what reality is and
only
> care that we can predict outcomes, or we'll form beliefs that will always
be
> open to challenge, much like our theories. We accept Coulombs formula F =
> q1*q2/(4*pi*epsilon*d^2) but how do we know that this holds true in the
> electron cloud zone, especially when the electron EM waves are very close
to
> the nucleus? We have not even been able to measure the gravitational
force
> below quite a few millimetres due to the large amount of mass required to
> cause a force measurement, so who knows how the gravitation formula
should
> look at close distances? I have read that the general Newton formula for
> gravitation is not valid and one should use GR. I would be interested to
see
> how it varies from Newton's formula, probably its all couched in tensor
> algebra and Riemian (sorry I don't know how to spell his name) space.
Reimann, and Reimannian geometry. I believe his methods have been applied
to description of flooding and waves therein...
> Apologies for drivelling on for so long David, I get quite philosophical
> during the late hours of the night, and i have read how you shouldn't mix
> philosophy and physics and never mention religion, unless your religion
is
> 'approved convential physics'.
Good night. Everyone has motivation. Religion does not encourage looking
at ones "assumptions", while science does.
David A. Smith
Bilge
>
>> Positron or \beta+ decay occurs when a proton changes into a neutron,
>> a positron and a neutrino:
>>
>>
>> p -> n + e+ + \nu
>
>This I find hard to understand as to make a neutron you would need an
>electron and an anti-electron neutrino, but if you say that is what happens
>then I will have to accept it.
For example, 57Cu decays by positron emission as descibed above. It is
possible to make these nuclei with some generic nuclear reaction and
then "catch" them and wait for them to decay, then count the decays by
counting the positrons that land in a detector (I've done this, so
I know it's possible). How do I know these are positrons and not electrons
other than by assuming the decay is what I think is happening? It's
actually rather simple. When the positrons land in a detector, they
will propagate through the detector and lose energy just like ordinary
electrons. BUT, once they slow down, they will anihilate with the
electrons in the detector (since all materials have lots of electrons
and collisions with the electrons is what causes charged particles to
stop in materials). If you place another detector which can detect gamma
rays close to the positron detector, when the positron anihilates, you
will see a _very_ sharp spectral line at 0.511 MeV which corresponds
to the positron mass: 0.511 MeV/c^2. Electrons don't do this.
[...]
>
>But consider this now, from the information you have presented that electron
>capture is possible and does affect beta decay then this is having a direct
>affect on the decay process.
Not really. Nuclei which undergo electron capture also decay by
positron emission. For a small range of N and Z there are some nuclei
which can undergo electron capture but not positron emission, but the
reason is conservation of energy, not anything intrinsic to the decay
process. On the other hand, any nucleus which decays by positron emission
can decay by electron capture. So, in principle, you could prevent a
decay from occuring in a few nuclei by removing all of the electrons,
but for a rather boring reason unrelated to the decay mechanism.
All beta decay rates (as well as the rate of _ANY_ other type of
interaction) depends upon the energy (or "phase space") available
for the decay. In fact, any reaction rate depends upon the energy
through a power of the energy in the denominator. Fermi's golden
rule for transition (decay rates, scattering rates, etc) can be
broken down roughly as follows:
1/T = K x density of final states
K is a coupling constant like \alpha, G_F, \alpha_s or G
\alpha = electromagnetic, \alpha_s = strong, G_F = weak, G = gravity
The density of final states is just the number of possible different
final states that can result from a given initial state divided by
the energy for each of the possible final states.
>Also the unfilled electron shell will remain so for some unspecified
>period of time before it is refilled, this will give rise to an increased
>delay in further electron stimulated decay events, so I
Except that once a nucleus decays, it's spent its nickel, so to speak.
There are a few nuclei which double beta decay, but right off hand I
can't think of any that do so by double electron capture. In any case, let
me give you an idea of how difficult ot would be for a nucleus to get very
very far without regaining it's electrons. Say you want to accelerate
something like fully stripped Uranium (Z = 92). In order to get some of
those nuclei from the ion source which produces them (which, in itself is
no easy task) to the exit of the accelerator, the vacuum between the
accelerator and the ion source has to be very good (like 10^-9 - 10^-10
torr). In the accelerator itself, it's a little easier, but you still need
vacuums at least as good as 10^-8 or 10^-9 torr, using something like
cryopanels stuffed down into the accelerator. When any nucleus enters
any medium whatsoever, it will (very) quickly be in a state of "charge
equilibrium". This basically means that for whatever velocity it happens
to have, a collision with an electron is just as likely to end up in
one of the vacant orbitals as the collision is likely to knock one loose.
>can still argue that my mechanism holds true to explain the decreased decay
>events due to breaking of the electron valency bonds due to heating and the
>loss of the absorbed electron and ejected electrons which are to fast to be
>captured by the inner shell. The neutron has a half life of some 911s.
Right. But to get an idea of what we are talking about energy-wise, we
should put this in perspective by looking at temperatures. The energy
associated with the atomic electrons is on the order of eV's. Using E =~
kT, we get a temperature of around 11,000 K. The average nucleon has a
kinetic energy of close to 10 MeV. This is a temperature of around 1 x
10^11 K. Now, in any system, the temperature is a mean value and the
actual energies of the particles fluctuate about the mean as they undergo
collisions. (picture the nucleus as a liquid drop). The fluctuations will
be far in excess of the largest energies of the atomic electrons.
There is an influence from coulomb repulsion on beta decay which
is small, but can be seen in beta spectra. Because the electron is
negative and the nucleus is positive, the coulomb attraction results
in a small distortion of the spectrum due to slowing the electron
down a tiny bit. Conversely, for positrons, the coulomb force
is repulsive and tends to give the positrons a little extra push.
>>
>Many thanks, I found your information very informative. You obviously know a
>lot more about weak decays than I do.
Hopefully, that is the case. I published my thesis research on beta
decay in phys rev., so I hope I learned something about it in the process
rather than fooled the referees.
>Hopefully you can accept that I have made a valid point though in this
>post.
I can accept that there is a point to be made, and you are trying
to quantify it. I'm simply trying to steer you in a direction that
will help you make it without a lot of false starts as false starts
are inevitable when trying to explain some phenomenon and one might
as well make use of the work and mistakes done by one's predecessors
in order to avoid "re-discovering" a mistake rather than discovering
an explanation.
>
>Also what mechanism would you ascribe to the cause of decreased decay events
>in an aggregate of a common unstable isotope when heated over say a range
>from a few Kelvin to say 273 Kelvin?
As I mentioned earlier, I'm still waiting for the punch line from
titanpoint on this one before I give it too much consideration. Without
knowing more details and the alleged explanation, one is pretty much
shooting in the dark. I'd prefer to see if the explanation makes sense
given the numbers he quotes before I go of chasing wild geese.
>I would be interested if you have any ideas on what this mechanism might be
>as you maintain it has nothing to do with electrons, now after I have
>pointed out that electrons affect decay events you have provided me with a
>lot more information on how they do this, when you initially claimed they
>had no affect on the decay events. I do not want to be antagonistic, I am
>just trying to come up with a plausible mechanism please.
You aren't being antagonistic, there just happens to be lot of details
in the picture. Beta decay is best described by looking at how the
standard model groups particles into quarks and leptons, the fundamental
building blocks of matter and the forces that act between the various
particles.
quarks [u] [c] [t] charge = +2/3
[d] [s] [b] charge = -1/3
leptons [e- ] [ \mu- ] [ \tau- ] charge = -1
[nu ] [\nu_\mu ] [\tau_\nu] charge = 0
(This is simplified and I didn't list antiparticles or denote anything
that explains parity violation, but that's just unnecessary complexity
here).
A proton is 2 u quarks and d quark, while a neutron is two d quarks
and a u quark.
The electromagnetic interaction is carried by a photon, the photon
has no charge, so when a charged particle like a quark or one of
the charged leptons interacts with another electromagnetically,
the particles retain their idenitiy (neutrinos don't interact
electromagnetically).
The weak interaction on the other hand is carried by three different
particles, the W+, W-, and Z. The W+ has a charge of +1, the W- has a
charge of -1. The Z has no charge.
When a neutron decays, what happens is that one of the d quarks
emits a W- and becomes a u quark. You can add the total charge
up and see that charge is conserved:
-1/3 = +2/3 + (-1)
Since one of the d quarks is now a u quark you have changed a neutron
(udd) into a proton (uud). The W- is then "decays" into an electron and
anti-neutrino. Again, charge is conserved. However there are a couple of
other rules (which are not completely understood, but known to hold to
parts in 10^12 or 10^13). One is conservation of brayon number. The u and
d quarks have the same baryon number, and the W- has a baryon number of 0,
so that adds up. Another is conservation of lepton number. We started with
no leptons, the W- has a lepton number of 0, so we must have an electron
with lepton number of 1 and an _anti_neutrino, with lepton number -1.
Furthermore, it can't be a muon or tau antineutrino because the lepton
family number is also conserved (but at the moment rather confusing in the
neutrino sector in which neutrinos appears to oscillate amongst themselves
to become a mixture of all three - this was suspected and happens with
quarks, too, but no one has a really good idea of how this all fits into a
complete theory and my guess is that gravity will pop up in there to
answer that).
What is known is that the neutrinos are different. The muon neutrino was
shown to be different from the electron neutrino by a very famous
experiment done by steinberger, et al, in 1962 at CERN (for which he and
two thers received the nobel prize, in 1989, I think - possibly 1988 or
maybe even 1987).
The strong interaction is very similar to the weak and electromagnetic
interactions, except that the strong force is carried by 8 different
gluons. The standard model alleges that these coupling constants are not
really constant, but only appear that way at low energy (this has been
verified for \alpha which becomes larger at high energies as predicted and
has been measured to be =~ 1/128 at the energy of the scattered particles
used in the experiment. At very high energies, all three constants (the
weak, strong and electromagnetic couplings) become the same, and therefore
become a single forcerather than three different forces (also, the quarks
and leptons become massless and lots of other things happen). No one has
yet figured out how to get gravity to cooperate yet, but the basic idea is
that somewhere along the way (like at the scale of the plank length) it
joins the pack in some as-of-yet unknown fashion.