Sticky energy. As the primordial "energy" cooled it started to "condense", as the particles grew in mass, then gravity was born. I believe that the understanding of what gravity is, is one of the keys to a unified theory.
David Trimmell
The theoretical musings continue.
-
davidtrimmell
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 5:37 pm
- Real name:
-
ChrisSmolinski
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 2:46 pm
- Real name:
- Contact:
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Richard Hull wrote:
>
> CAN ANYONE NAME ONE FORM OF ENERGY THAT IS NOT TRACEABLE TO STELLAR FUSION (gravity at work) OR COULOMBIC ACTION (electrons at work)?
>
> Richard Hull
If, as some theories suggest, [nearly] equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were produced during the big bang, and some of that anti-matter still exists, then you could produce some energy from the annihilation of the matter and anti-matter.
Lots of ifs, and that's the best I could come up with
Fusion is king. (but only on a large scale)
>
> CAN ANYONE NAME ONE FORM OF ENERGY THAT IS NOT TRACEABLE TO STELLAR FUSION (gravity at work) OR COULOMBIC ACTION (electrons at work)?
>
> Richard Hull
If, as some theories suggest, [nearly] equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were produced during the big bang, and some of that anti-matter still exists, then you could produce some energy from the annihilation of the matter and anti-matter.
Lots of ifs, and that's the best I could come up with
Fusion is king. (but only on a large scale)
-
guest
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
So was the initial energy source of the big bang, fusion?
Let me throw this in. I have been reading a number of studies that suggest tha the speed of light is decreasing. That the universe is a lot smaller and younger than we think. Some have said the speed of light at the instant of the big bang was 1 billion X faster than it is today.
Let me throw this in. I have been reading a number of studies that suggest tha the speed of light is decreasing. That the universe is a lot smaller and younger than we think. Some have said the speed of light at the instant of the big bang was 1 billion X faster than it is today.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15032
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
I think a lot of folks may have a wrong idea about mass creation in stellar furnaces. Real, ponderable, inertial mass is indeed created in all fusion processes, but it is without recognizable form in condensed matter!
So unfathomable is this extra mass that it is commonly referred to as "MASS DEFECT". This is effectively the fusion binding energy trapped in fused matter. It is released only in fission or in cataclyismic events for non-fissile material.
Stellar fusion uses ONLY already extant infallen matter (99.999% protons) to make all heavier atoms and certainly all neutrons are fusion products and, likewise, probably the first fusion in stellar furnaces as not one single observed atom save for hydrogen has ever been observed without neutrons. Neutrons are not found in space or as a component of cosmic rays simply due to the short half life of this highly unstable particle. I have always felt that the reason the neutron is stable in an atom is that it is involved in a complex dance with protons sharing its electron in some as yet to be understood electrostatic dance. In short the neutron bound to one or more protons in some nuclear shell arrangement is the nuclear glue. Such gluing can only occur in gravitationally locked matter systems we call stars. The proton electron soup at the core is probably the birth place of neutrons and bulk matter up to a point on the periodic chart where the star's size will not allow further construction. Iron is the accepted limit, but I bet on a grossly reduced basis the fusion probability goes on up the chain to all that we see on earth. The amount of lead or bismuth produced is so low that our spectra analysis can't detect it.
The accepted and somewhat accredited stellar first fusion theory of proton-proton fusion is a joke. Read up on it! It states that two protons fuse and one of them quickly "DECAYS" into a neutron! What an imagination!
The bottom line is that not one single primary charged particle is ever created in a star, by fusion or any known process. In the few observed instances when positrons and anti-protons are seen to form, it is the result of incredible energy releases AROUND BULK MATTER. That is the key....around bulk matter. We never see positrons or anti- protons in cosmic rays. (we do see them is cosmic ray showers as the real ultra energetic charged nuclei entering the atmosphere crash into the atmospheric atoms.) Such energies are rare in the observable universe.
Man makes devices that can really savage matter in the small. He creates non-universal energy densities and thinks that what pours out represents something current and real. The most real particles observed are the vaporous mesons so readily seen in cosmic ray star showers. The bulk of all the crap reaching the ground are mesonic debris. No meson survives beyond 1usec in the real universe and apparently represents a genuine form of proto matter.
Back to the antiproton-positron conundrum. Within a micro second or less of anti-particle creation, the same amount of charge and energy is rebalanced and the anti-particle disappears with the universe retaining the same amount of protons and electrons as before the event but with a crippled and weakened photon. The normal matter particles involved are now moving much faster than before the incident. Charge, energy, momentum, type and form of matter is fully conserved and preserved.
As great a mystery as that of the origin of nascent charge and gravitation associated with bulk matter is the methodology behind the acceleration of the nuclei found in Cosmic ray flux. (nuclei composes about 99.99% of all cosmic radiation) The average energy of the nuclei we detect (mostly protons) is far greater than any accelerator on earth can provide (10e14ev). The upper energy levels are beyond comprehension (10e24-10e26)ev. It appears that the interstellar medium is stirred and accelerated A LOT!
There is apparently a lot of high speed open, unbound coulombic charge moving about the universe. Neutral matter for the most part, just doesn't move except as gravitationally linked mass.
Richard Hull
So unfathomable is this extra mass that it is commonly referred to as "MASS DEFECT". This is effectively the fusion binding energy trapped in fused matter. It is released only in fission or in cataclyismic events for non-fissile material.
Stellar fusion uses ONLY already extant infallen matter (99.999% protons) to make all heavier atoms and certainly all neutrons are fusion products and, likewise, probably the first fusion in stellar furnaces as not one single observed atom save for hydrogen has ever been observed without neutrons. Neutrons are not found in space or as a component of cosmic rays simply due to the short half life of this highly unstable particle. I have always felt that the reason the neutron is stable in an atom is that it is involved in a complex dance with protons sharing its electron in some as yet to be understood electrostatic dance. In short the neutron bound to one or more protons in some nuclear shell arrangement is the nuclear glue. Such gluing can only occur in gravitationally locked matter systems we call stars. The proton electron soup at the core is probably the birth place of neutrons and bulk matter up to a point on the periodic chart where the star's size will not allow further construction. Iron is the accepted limit, but I bet on a grossly reduced basis the fusion probability goes on up the chain to all that we see on earth. The amount of lead or bismuth produced is so low that our spectra analysis can't detect it.
The accepted and somewhat accredited stellar first fusion theory of proton-proton fusion is a joke. Read up on it! It states that two protons fuse and one of them quickly "DECAYS" into a neutron! What an imagination!
The bottom line is that not one single primary charged particle is ever created in a star, by fusion or any known process. In the few observed instances when positrons and anti-protons are seen to form, it is the result of incredible energy releases AROUND BULK MATTER. That is the key....around bulk matter. We never see positrons or anti- protons in cosmic rays. (we do see them is cosmic ray showers as the real ultra energetic charged nuclei entering the atmosphere crash into the atmospheric atoms.) Such energies are rare in the observable universe.
Man makes devices that can really savage matter in the small. He creates non-universal energy densities and thinks that what pours out represents something current and real. The most real particles observed are the vaporous mesons so readily seen in cosmic ray star showers. The bulk of all the crap reaching the ground are mesonic debris. No meson survives beyond 1usec in the real universe and apparently represents a genuine form of proto matter.
Back to the antiproton-positron conundrum. Within a micro second or less of anti-particle creation, the same amount of charge and energy is rebalanced and the anti-particle disappears with the universe retaining the same amount of protons and electrons as before the event but with a crippled and weakened photon. The normal matter particles involved are now moving much faster than before the incident. Charge, energy, momentum, type and form of matter is fully conserved and preserved.
As great a mystery as that of the origin of nascent charge and gravitation associated with bulk matter is the methodology behind the acceleration of the nuclei found in Cosmic ray flux. (nuclei composes about 99.99% of all cosmic radiation) The average energy of the nuclei we detect (mostly protons) is far greater than any accelerator on earth can provide (10e14ev). The upper energy levels are beyond comprehension (10e24-10e26)ev. It appears that the interstellar medium is stirred and accelerated A LOT!
There is apparently a lot of high speed open, unbound coulombic charge moving about the universe. Neutral matter for the most part, just doesn't move except as gravitationally linked mass.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
The easiest way to look at the stability of the neutron in the nucleus is that of conservation of energy. Take the deuteron for example. It has a binding energy of 2.2 Mev, while beta decay yields only 1.3 Mev. So the deuteron is infinitely stable, since it would violate conservation of energy if it decayed.
Next example is C12, binding energy of 92.1 MeV, if it beta decayed it would go into N12, which has binding energy of 74 MeV, so beta decay is again prohibited, since 18.1 >> 1.3.
What i don't understand is for radioactive elemnts the undergo beta decay, what determines the half life.
Next example is C12, binding energy of 92.1 MeV, if it beta decayed it would go into N12, which has binding energy of 74 MeV, so beta decay is again prohibited, since 18.1 >> 1.3.
What i don't understand is for radioactive elemnts the undergo beta decay, what determines the half life.
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Hi Greg:
In Quantum Mechanics 509, we learn that the size and charge of the nucleus
determines whether an atom will be radioactive or not and how long the decay is. In elementary chem course we learned that charge imbalance is bad for a nucleus. Too many or too few charges. In the case of the beta decay ,too many neutrons, too few protons. In the advanced course we learned nifty concepts like the nucleus was mostly empty space with charges milling around at high speed. The particles are so small that the energy provided by the enviroment was enough to cause them to move at many km/sec...the lighter the particle the faster it goes. The "skin" of the nucleus is really where the particles are yanked back by attraction. This prevents the escape of those particles.
However if the nucleus is undergoing an imbalance of charge or energy a particle can tunnel out of the nucleus. The probabilty of escape can be calculated to the millisecond if you like by simply taking the depth of the energy well of the nucleus (energy to pull that particle away) vs the energy to form that particle. You would think the little fellow wouldn't have a chance. But by rebounding back and forth against the skin the particle reduces the probabilty by each hit so to speak. The size of a nucleus is pretty tiny so the hits would be several thousand per second.
It takes billions of hits or more to cause a decay. Until the number of hit equals the probality coefficient nothing happens.
But when it does the particle tunnels out of the nucleus and bounds away on it's merry way. Oh yeah most beta decays are fast due to the low mass of the electron...faster movement.
A tip of the hat to Dr Hammidi my advanced nuclear instructor.
PS this method seems to work pretty good on uranium decay natural decay series by alpha decay
It seems to work when a nucleas has too much energy and "boils" away neutrons.(just turn up the heat)
positron decay happens just like beta decay but a proton turns into a neutron
I hope this helps (?)
Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
In Quantum Mechanics 509, we learn that the size and charge of the nucleus
determines whether an atom will be radioactive or not and how long the decay is. In elementary chem course we learned that charge imbalance is bad for a nucleus. Too many or too few charges. In the case of the beta decay ,too many neutrons, too few protons. In the advanced course we learned nifty concepts like the nucleus was mostly empty space with charges milling around at high speed. The particles are so small that the energy provided by the enviroment was enough to cause them to move at many km/sec...the lighter the particle the faster it goes. The "skin" of the nucleus is really where the particles are yanked back by attraction. This prevents the escape of those particles.
However if the nucleus is undergoing an imbalance of charge or energy a particle can tunnel out of the nucleus. The probabilty of escape can be calculated to the millisecond if you like by simply taking the depth of the energy well of the nucleus (energy to pull that particle away) vs the energy to form that particle. You would think the little fellow wouldn't have a chance. But by rebounding back and forth against the skin the particle reduces the probabilty by each hit so to speak. The size of a nucleus is pretty tiny so the hits would be several thousand per second.
It takes billions of hits or more to cause a decay. Until the number of hit equals the probality coefficient nothing happens.
But when it does the particle tunnels out of the nucleus and bounds away on it's merry way. Oh yeah most beta decays are fast due to the low mass of the electron...faster movement.
A tip of the hat to Dr Hammidi my advanced nuclear instructor.
PS this method seems to work pretty good on uranium decay natural decay series by alpha decay
It seems to work when a nucleas has too much energy and "boils" away neutrons.(just turn up the heat)
positron decay happens just like beta decay but a proton turns into a neutron
I hope this helps (?)
Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15032
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Anthony has brought up some interesting points which are vey reasonable questions. Questions for which there appears to be little in the way of evidence. This would opt for an evolving universe with sliding constants which I happen to believe in strongly. I would imagine that in the universe I envision that only potential energy is fixed and inviolate. dynamic energy and all constants we hold dear alter to maintain the PE balance. Dynamic energy (EM, Photon, momentum) being mere secondary reactions acting as conveyance for the exchange and balance of PE.
As regards the big bang.......... this states that all matter was created from an infinitely small point with a virtually infinite amount of energy. I am still working out my thoughts here. I am positive whatever happened evolved exponentially with time as relates to what we call constants and matter particles. I am equally sure that charge and gravity were hear all along, although the relative balance and actions may have evolved to what we observe today, with all the PE perfectly perserved. We are currently on the long slow tail of that exponetial curve where things just aren't changing much per unit time anymore.
As to where the initial creation energy or matter or whatever came from...........you are on your own.....faith-religion..... or just happened kinda' because it did. Your choice.
I have also considered the very real possibility that when the universe as a whole detects a loss of coulombic charge (condensed, neutral, stable matter, that an equal amount of gravitational PE is formed as is actually exhibited in condensed, stable, neutral matter. This helps explain some balancing of the PE, but leaves the mystery still swimming nicely around charge and gravity. We don't know anything about the origins of charge. We are forced to say that it just is! Just as we are forced to admit the same of gravity. We have a smug feeling about charge because we think we have its source pinned down. (protons and electrons) Where did they get there charge? Don't say spin in a magentic field for that is crap. We know that with no charge there is no magnetic field. There is no charge made in or by a magnetic field. It is quite the other way around. All magnetic fields are the result of charges in motion as is all EM and all light and all gamma rays, etc. What is a root cause of motion of charged matter....coulombic force....potential energy.
Lots to cogitate over.
Finally, The neutron is not stable in a nucleus due to beta decay problems, for beta decay occurs in a whole gang o' isotopes and there is no problem here. What makes it stable in stable atoms is the nuclear shells are satisfied and balanced to rigidly hold and stabilize the neutrons which seem to link the protons, perhaps via the contained electron. Radioactive isotopes that beta decay are obviously unhappy with the neutron-proton ratio having been upset by the addition of a neutorn or the loss of other particles in the parent element which has left matters unsettled.
One doesn't hear much of the nuclear shell model today, but once it was a big deal with no congealed theory to advance it. It is found discussed in depth in numerous nuclear physics texts of the 50's and early 60's i.e. "Nuclear Phsics", Kaplan, 1955, Addison-Wesley.
Richard Hull
As regards the big bang.......... this states that all matter was created from an infinitely small point with a virtually infinite amount of energy. I am still working out my thoughts here. I am positive whatever happened evolved exponentially with time as relates to what we call constants and matter particles. I am equally sure that charge and gravity were hear all along, although the relative balance and actions may have evolved to what we observe today, with all the PE perfectly perserved. We are currently on the long slow tail of that exponetial curve where things just aren't changing much per unit time anymore.
As to where the initial creation energy or matter or whatever came from...........you are on your own.....faith-religion..... or just happened kinda' because it did. Your choice.
I have also considered the very real possibility that when the universe as a whole detects a loss of coulombic charge (condensed, neutral, stable matter, that an equal amount of gravitational PE is formed as is actually exhibited in condensed, stable, neutral matter. This helps explain some balancing of the PE, but leaves the mystery still swimming nicely around charge and gravity. We don't know anything about the origins of charge. We are forced to say that it just is! Just as we are forced to admit the same of gravity. We have a smug feeling about charge because we think we have its source pinned down. (protons and electrons) Where did they get there charge? Don't say spin in a magentic field for that is crap. We know that with no charge there is no magnetic field. There is no charge made in or by a magnetic field. It is quite the other way around. All magnetic fields are the result of charges in motion as is all EM and all light and all gamma rays, etc. What is a root cause of motion of charged matter....coulombic force....potential energy.
Lots to cogitate over.
Finally, The neutron is not stable in a nucleus due to beta decay problems, for beta decay occurs in a whole gang o' isotopes and there is no problem here. What makes it stable in stable atoms is the nuclear shells are satisfied and balanced to rigidly hold and stabilize the neutrons which seem to link the protons, perhaps via the contained electron. Radioactive isotopes that beta decay are obviously unhappy with the neutron-proton ratio having been upset by the addition of a neutorn or the loss of other particles in the parent element which has left matters unsettled.
One doesn't hear much of the nuclear shell model today, but once it was a big deal with no congealed theory to advance it. It is found discussed in depth in numerous nuclear physics texts of the 50's and early 60's i.e. "Nuclear Phsics", Kaplan, 1955, Addison-Wesley.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
davidtrimmell
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 5:37 pm
- Real name:
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Richard, all, very interesting stuff. Richard I have a question, though. What about Positron decay? Cu64 decays 19% of the time by Positron emission. The following process is the usual description: proton (+1 charge) => neutron (0 charge) + positron (+1 charge) + neutrino (0 charge).
David Trimmell
Richard wrote:
"Lots to cogitate over.
Finally, The neutron is not stable in a nucleus due to beta decay problems, for beta decay occurs in a whole gang o' isotopes and there is no problem here. What makes it stable in stable atoms is the nuclear shells are satisfied and balanced to rigidly hold and stabilize the neutrons which seem to link the protons, perhaps via the contained electron. Radioactive isotopes that beta decay are obviously unhappy with the neutron-proton ratio having been upset by the addition of a neutorn or the loss of other particles in the parent element which has left matters unsettled."
David Trimmell
Richard wrote:
"Lots to cogitate over.
Finally, The neutron is not stable in a nucleus due to beta decay problems, for beta decay occurs in a whole gang o' isotopes and there is no problem here. What makes it stable in stable atoms is the nuclear shells are satisfied and balanced to rigidly hold and stabilize the neutrons which seem to link the protons, perhaps via the contained electron. Radioactive isotopes that beta decay are obviously unhappy with the neutron-proton ratio having been upset by the addition of a neutorn or the loss of other particles in the parent element which has left matters unsettled."
-
guest
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Ooh Now you got me started!
What about the "Speed of Gravity?" (lots of articles on it lately)
Example: If the sun was snuffed out of existence, would the Earth hurl out orbit and into the universe immediately or would it take 8 minutes for the lack of gravity to reach Earth? (Speed of light reference)
Also, would it be a ripple effect? like plucking a bowling ball off of a waterbed.
What about the "Speed of Gravity?" (lots of articles on it lately)
Example: If the sun was snuffed out of existence, would the Earth hurl out orbit and into the universe immediately or would it take 8 minutes for the lack of gravity to reach Earth? (Speed of light reference)
Also, would it be a ripple effect? like plucking a bowling ball off of a waterbed.
-
davidtrimmell
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 5:37 pm
- Real name:
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Well I found a answer to my question regarding Positron decay.
See; http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1259.html
But it would be interesting to understand how this actually happens. Like Pair production...
David Trimmell
See; http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1259.html
But it would be interesting to understand how this actually happens. Like Pair production...
David Trimmell
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15032
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Dave,
The net effect following the decay is that no antimatter is to remain extant in microseconds.
The proton is seen to disappear and the leaves a neutron in the nucleus and a positron a flying. Now before all this happened the universe had a proton in the atom of copper and The extra-nuclear universe had X number of electrons. The instant the positron is free it will turn into a gamma ray after forcing the universe to give up an electron (probably within the copper somewhere).
NOW where there WAS a proton in the copper atom, there is now a neutron SO the atom now still has the proton in it plus the missing universal electron. (neutron is proton and electron). So no protons have disappeared from the pre-decay universe and no electrons have disappeared either. what has effectively happened is the atom did a gamma decay by way of a positron, converting its proton to a neutron. An extranuclear electron just moved into the atom with the proton. Energy is balanced, charge is conserved and particle type is conserved. All is as it was before where PE, charge and particle type is concerned.
Richard Hull
The net effect following the decay is that no antimatter is to remain extant in microseconds.
The proton is seen to disappear and the leaves a neutron in the nucleus and a positron a flying. Now before all this happened the universe had a proton in the atom of copper and The extra-nuclear universe had X number of electrons. The instant the positron is free it will turn into a gamma ray after forcing the universe to give up an electron (probably within the copper somewhere).
NOW where there WAS a proton in the copper atom, there is now a neutron SO the atom now still has the proton in it plus the missing universal electron. (neutron is proton and electron). So no protons have disappeared from the pre-decay universe and no electrons have disappeared either. what has effectively happened is the atom did a gamma decay by way of a positron, converting its proton to a neutron. An extranuclear electron just moved into the atom with the proton. Energy is balanced, charge is conserved and particle type is conserved. All is as it was before where PE, charge and particle type is concerned.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15032
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
I see Dave posted from the internet the solution. Nonetheless, particle type is even preserved. Something I have never really seen pushed.
Bulk charged matter... positive protons and negative electrons can't just go away from the universe, never to return. We can do a hell of a lot with all that mass defect energy from the original fusion, but we can't just trash those electrons and protons. The mass defect traditionally involves a bit of good old monetum transfer and very conveniently dreamed up uncharged neutrinos of horrendous energy and virtually zippo mass. This way the umpire can wave a "safe" in the game of the standard model without having to show wholecloth.
A look at Rad Decay shows that the probability of positron decay in Cu64 is only moderate. The most likely decays are standard negative Beta and Gamma. Notice that gamma is the tell-tale 511kev of a >1.2mev photon down conversion. Lots o' isotopes and lots o' ways to decay.
Richard Hull
Bulk charged matter... positive protons and negative electrons can't just go away from the universe, never to return. We can do a hell of a lot with all that mass defect energy from the original fusion, but we can't just trash those electrons and protons. The mass defect traditionally involves a bit of good old monetum transfer and very conveniently dreamed up uncharged neutrinos of horrendous energy and virtually zippo mass. This way the umpire can wave a "safe" in the game of the standard model without having to show wholecloth.
A look at Rad Decay shows that the probability of positron decay in Cu64 is only moderate. The most likely decays are standard negative Beta and Gamma. Notice that gamma is the tell-tale 511kev of a >1.2mev photon down conversion. Lots o' isotopes and lots o' ways to decay.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
It would take 8 minutes because it would be impossible for the force to travel at faster than the speed of light. If im not mistaken it has been measured,dont ask me how, to be the speed of light. This is obviously in agreement with the particle exchange model where the graviton mediates the force, and has zero mass, and travels at c.
-
ChrisSmolinski
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 2:46 pm
- Real name:
- Contact:
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Richard Hull wrote:
> Finally, The neutron is not stable in a nucleus due to beta decay problems, for beta decay occurs in a whole gang o' isotopes and there is no problem here. What makes it stable in stable atoms is the nuclear shells are satisfied and balanced to rigidly hold and stabilize the neutrons which seem to link the protons, perhaps via the contained electron. Radioactive isotopes that beta decay are obviously unhappy with the neutron-proton ratio having been upset by the addition of a neutorn or the loss of other particles in the parent element which has left matters unsettled.
This brings up the age old question - what is a neutron? I've had it beated into me by every physics text I read that a neutron is not a proton and an electron. They go out of their way to say this. Yet a free neutron decays into a proton and an electron (no doubt why they go out of their way to say that it isn't made up of those two particles, they just magically appear I guess). It was here on the forum that I first heard Richard suggest that is indeed the case, and that it is the electron that holds the neutron together, by binding it to a proton, sort of a mini molecule. (my words, forgive me if I changed the meaning of what you said)
It certainly seems to make sense, based on the emperical data available. It would also suggest that it might be possible to make a neutron, if you could somehow smash an electron and proton together. You'd need a lot of them to play with, and a lot of heat and pressure to get it to happen every so often. Now where oh where might you be able to find those conditions?
Have any serious attempts been made to produce neutrons here on Earth? I would think you'd have dozens of young postdocs chomping at the bit. Sure, it's heresy, but if you're first, you've assured yourself of a phone call from the guys in Stockholm, after the dust settles.
> Finally, The neutron is not stable in a nucleus due to beta decay problems, for beta decay occurs in a whole gang o' isotopes and there is no problem here. What makes it stable in stable atoms is the nuclear shells are satisfied and balanced to rigidly hold and stabilize the neutrons which seem to link the protons, perhaps via the contained electron. Radioactive isotopes that beta decay are obviously unhappy with the neutron-proton ratio having been upset by the addition of a neutorn or the loss of other particles in the parent element which has left matters unsettled.
This brings up the age old question - what is a neutron? I've had it beated into me by every physics text I read that a neutron is not a proton and an electron. They go out of their way to say this. Yet a free neutron decays into a proton and an electron (no doubt why they go out of their way to say that it isn't made up of those two particles, they just magically appear I guess). It was here on the forum that I first heard Richard suggest that is indeed the case, and that it is the electron that holds the neutron together, by binding it to a proton, sort of a mini molecule. (my words, forgive me if I changed the meaning of what you said)
It certainly seems to make sense, based on the emperical data available. It would also suggest that it might be possible to make a neutron, if you could somehow smash an electron and proton together. You'd need a lot of them to play with, and a lot of heat and pressure to get it to happen every so often. Now where oh where might you be able to find those conditions?
Have any serious attempts been made to produce neutrons here on Earth? I would think you'd have dozens of young postdocs chomping at the bit. Sure, it's heresy, but if you're first, you've assured yourself of a phone call from the guys in Stockholm, after the dust settles.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15032
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
The making of neutrons would be a fusion event of sorts, but the electron never fuses to the proton.
a fellow by the name of Mills running a company called Black Light Power claims to have a method of producing what he calls hydrinos. These are touted to be hydrogen atoms that have a whole interger sub-quantum orbital.
Quatum mechanics is based on the theory that as an electron falls into a lower orbit it loses energy and radiates photons. All fully observed.
The theory further states that all allowed orbits are described by a whole interger starting from zero. (the lowest observed energy state of the orbital electron.)
Mills proposes that by various processes, the electron can drop to yet lower orbits than found in natural processes. Still obeying quantum jump rules, but with negative whole intergers.
The problem is that we normally see the addition of energy to the normal hydrogen atom only excite the electron to a higher energy state or, at about 14 volts totally remove it.
Mills claims that only the hydrogen atom, with its single electron can do this sub-quantum jumping and then only under special conditions.
He claims to have produced the -1 variety and studied the peculiar behavior of same. One particularly interesting claim is that they just can't be contained in a normal vessel, leaking through the intermolecular bonds, much as helium in a balloon.
The neutron if a form of collapsed hydrogen atom would absolutely have to have energy added to collapse the orbital. This energy appears to be gravitational in nature and not the classical electrostatic energy for it tends to ecite the atom. Neutrons are made in stars, this is obvious. When neutrons decay, they impart a good deal of energy to the proton and electron within and this looks to be a form of gravitational binding energy.
The neutron is obviously very stable in an atom where other protons are huddles real close by almost as if it is acting as a form of nuclear glue. In the extra nuclear world, the neutron is very unstable, the tight orbital electron is just not allowed. It decays.
The question is wide open so far as I am concerned. Science hasn't answered the neutron question so far as I am concerned.
Something happens to compress an electrostatic system like the hydrogen atom into a new form in stars. When done it is ripe for the production of deuterium with the huge amount of protons about it. Fusion......collisional fusion........inertial fusion.... is just a shabby mime of nature's real fusion process, gravitational fusion.
Bottom line..... magnetic lensing, inertial colliding and electrostatic focusing are very poor confinement mechanisms of highly charged particles. Not one single scheme has been see to work at good efficiency. Only one way of doing fusion is observed to work well. The crushing force of gravity works because it doesn't give a damned about charge as it is in no way related to charge or electrodyamnics or electromagnetics. The charged electron and proton soup is hopelessly trapped and must do business regardless of charged state or magnetic field.
Every time man tries to confine the boogers they ooze out of his grip and flow away from the action. This is their job they are forced to do it by simple electrostatic and electrodynamic laws. It is like trying to compress water in the closed palms of two hands...Impossible.
Sneak arounds like pulsing, laser compression, collisional systems, etc seem good, but are woefully inefficient. Magnetic confinement systems are all but abandoned having been the main thrust of the 50-70s. Nothing on the horizon even looks slightly hopeful.
Gravity does fusion.
Get your hands on that through either a lucky punch or understanding the mechanism and you have a shot at it.
See. The neutron is a very strange critter and mostly likely, the first fusion.
I undertand that the proton and electron blasting you refer to has been tried, but with negative results. The energy of fusion of a neutron might be a bit out of the amateur range. besides, it is still an electrostatic effort. The very act of colliding would tend to sheer the electron right out again.
Man just can't make neutrons from pieces-parts.
The physicists go out of their way on the neutron to absolve themselves of a problem, having solved it with quarks and other components of the neutron. With quarks doing the right stuff even protons can be made up.
Richard Hull
a fellow by the name of Mills running a company called Black Light Power claims to have a method of producing what he calls hydrinos. These are touted to be hydrogen atoms that have a whole interger sub-quantum orbital.
Quatum mechanics is based on the theory that as an electron falls into a lower orbit it loses energy and radiates photons. All fully observed.
The theory further states that all allowed orbits are described by a whole interger starting from zero. (the lowest observed energy state of the orbital electron.)
Mills proposes that by various processes, the electron can drop to yet lower orbits than found in natural processes. Still obeying quantum jump rules, but with negative whole intergers.
The problem is that we normally see the addition of energy to the normal hydrogen atom only excite the electron to a higher energy state or, at about 14 volts totally remove it.
Mills claims that only the hydrogen atom, with its single electron can do this sub-quantum jumping and then only under special conditions.
He claims to have produced the -1 variety and studied the peculiar behavior of same. One particularly interesting claim is that they just can't be contained in a normal vessel, leaking through the intermolecular bonds, much as helium in a balloon.
The neutron if a form of collapsed hydrogen atom would absolutely have to have energy added to collapse the orbital. This energy appears to be gravitational in nature and not the classical electrostatic energy for it tends to ecite the atom. Neutrons are made in stars, this is obvious. When neutrons decay, they impart a good deal of energy to the proton and electron within and this looks to be a form of gravitational binding energy.
The neutron is obviously very stable in an atom where other protons are huddles real close by almost as if it is acting as a form of nuclear glue. In the extra nuclear world, the neutron is very unstable, the tight orbital electron is just not allowed. It decays.
The question is wide open so far as I am concerned. Science hasn't answered the neutron question so far as I am concerned.
Something happens to compress an electrostatic system like the hydrogen atom into a new form in stars. When done it is ripe for the production of deuterium with the huge amount of protons about it. Fusion......collisional fusion........inertial fusion.... is just a shabby mime of nature's real fusion process, gravitational fusion.
Bottom line..... magnetic lensing, inertial colliding and electrostatic focusing are very poor confinement mechanisms of highly charged particles. Not one single scheme has been see to work at good efficiency. Only one way of doing fusion is observed to work well. The crushing force of gravity works because it doesn't give a damned about charge as it is in no way related to charge or electrodyamnics or electromagnetics. The charged electron and proton soup is hopelessly trapped and must do business regardless of charged state or magnetic field.
Every time man tries to confine the boogers they ooze out of his grip and flow away from the action. This is their job they are forced to do it by simple electrostatic and electrodynamic laws. It is like trying to compress water in the closed palms of two hands...Impossible.
Sneak arounds like pulsing, laser compression, collisional systems, etc seem good, but are woefully inefficient. Magnetic confinement systems are all but abandoned having been the main thrust of the 50-70s. Nothing on the horizon even looks slightly hopeful.
Gravity does fusion.
Get your hands on that through either a lucky punch or understanding the mechanism and you have a shot at it.
See. The neutron is a very strange critter and mostly likely, the first fusion.
I undertand that the proton and electron blasting you refer to has been tried, but with negative results. The energy of fusion of a neutron might be a bit out of the amateur range. besides, it is still an electrostatic effort. The very act of colliding would tend to sheer the electron right out again.
Man just can't make neutrons from pieces-parts.
The physicists go out of their way on the neutron to absolve themselves of a problem, having solved it with quarks and other components of the neutron. With quarks doing the right stuff even protons can be made up.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
ChrisSmolinski
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 2:46 pm
- Real name:
- Contact:
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Richard Hull wrote:
> I undertand that the proton and electron blasting you refer to has been tried, but with negative results. The energy of fusion of a neutron might be a bit out of the amateur range. besides, it is still an electrostatic effort. The very act of colliding would tend to sheer the electron right out again.
That makes sense. The advantage of gravity is that it continues to squeeze the protons and electrons together, until finally they form a neutron. Neutrons in a star would then have the opportunity to join a proton, forming a deuteron.
In hindsight, it would have to be a very unlikely process, you can't have neutrons being formed all over the place from protons and electrons that happen to bump into each other. Of course fusion itself is a very unlikely process, the Sun just happens to have a large amount of raw material available.
> The physicists go out of their way on the neutron to absolve themselves of a problem, having solved it with quarks and other components of the neutron. With quarks doing the right stuff even protons can be made up.
This much is true.
Of course there is a readily observable method of neutron production available, electron capture. We see an atom with a proton surplus (or neutron deficit if you prefer) grab a nearby electron, and suddenly the proton and electron vanish, and a neutron appears. But the neutron isn't really a proton and electron. I understand that when in certain compounds, nuclides subject to electron capture even have ever so slightly longer half lives, due to a lower availability of electrons due to chemical bonding.
> I undertand that the proton and electron blasting you refer to has been tried, but with negative results. The energy of fusion of a neutron might be a bit out of the amateur range. besides, it is still an electrostatic effort. The very act of colliding would tend to sheer the electron right out again.
That makes sense. The advantage of gravity is that it continues to squeeze the protons and electrons together, until finally they form a neutron. Neutrons in a star would then have the opportunity to join a proton, forming a deuteron.
In hindsight, it would have to be a very unlikely process, you can't have neutrons being formed all over the place from protons and electrons that happen to bump into each other. Of course fusion itself is a very unlikely process, the Sun just happens to have a large amount of raw material available.
> The physicists go out of their way on the neutron to absolve themselves of a problem, having solved it with quarks and other components of the neutron. With quarks doing the right stuff even protons can be made up.
This much is true.
Of course there is a readily observable method of neutron production available, electron capture. We see an atom with a proton surplus (or neutron deficit if you prefer) grab a nearby electron, and suddenly the proton and electron vanish, and a neutron appears. But the neutron isn't really a proton and electron. I understand that when in certain compounds, nuclides subject to electron capture even have ever so slightly longer half lives, due to a lower availability of electrons due to chemical bonding.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15032
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Regarding EC electron capture. It is interesting to note that the density of matter inside the nucleus is probably highly favorable to neutron production IF DEMANDED TO SAVE AND PRESERVE THE NUCLEUS OR STABILIZE IT. Thus EC, per se, is not so hard to understand or fathom for the nucleus is undoubtedly a miniature contained system at stellar densities or beyond. The possible shelling within the nucleus would not allow neutrons to just be randomly produced there, as stability is the goal. When EC occurs, the electrons all filter down allowing the atom to just flat out steal another electron from the environment to complete its now depleted outer shell and, thereby, re-neutralize the positive ion so created by EC.
Remember, once an atom fuses in a star it is proof against any further action other than further fusion, thus, enlarging it further. It seems more than reasonable to assume that all extra-stellar nuclei are at least as dense and under the same internal energy levels as when created in the core of stars. Is there value in this realization?
I am feeling that the intra-nuclear neutron, if real, is the key. If the neutron doesn't exist as such within the nucleus, then the nuclear electrons and the manner of compression within the nucleus is the key. I have little objection to assuming that the nucleus is just a ball of compressed electrons and protons and that the neutron is a form of totally EXTRA-NUCLEAR condensate forming only under certain release conditions. Neutrons issuing from atoms is a very rare occurance, indeed. You have to really punch a nucleus to get a neutron out of it. They are jealously held items.
Is Richard saying there MIGHT be no neutrons in the nucleus?
Sure, why not! Have you or any scientist actually been inside of a givien nucleus? Of course not! We seen alpha particles issue from a nucleus all the time, but we don't assume helium nuclei to be in isolated form within the nucleus. If we accept the neutron as being in the nucleus, we have absolutely no reason not to further assume there to be bundles of helium atoms making up every nucleus.
There is absolutely no scientific basis or underpinning for assuming that the neutron exists within the nucleus. It is only a reasonable ASSUMPTION! Using this assumption, a fully self-consistent and predictive framework has grown up around it. It is a great place to work from until the model collapses. It is not observed fact.
There is certainly no more or less evidence that the nucleus contains neutrons than the neutron contains a proton and an electron, based strictly on observation. It is never a matter of it must be one way or the other, but more it must be observed and have replicable proof. We have never been inside a nucleus nor inside of a neutron.
Deep down, I like the idea of the neutron in the nucleus for the same logical reason that I like the electron and proton residing in the neutron......if it comes out of the room it was probably really in the room. There is rarely much wrong in that kind of logic. However, having never been in the room with them.........well.....
Richard Hull
Remember, once an atom fuses in a star it is proof against any further action other than further fusion, thus, enlarging it further. It seems more than reasonable to assume that all extra-stellar nuclei are at least as dense and under the same internal energy levels as when created in the core of stars. Is there value in this realization?
I am feeling that the intra-nuclear neutron, if real, is the key. If the neutron doesn't exist as such within the nucleus, then the nuclear electrons and the manner of compression within the nucleus is the key. I have little objection to assuming that the nucleus is just a ball of compressed electrons and protons and that the neutron is a form of totally EXTRA-NUCLEAR condensate forming only under certain release conditions. Neutrons issuing from atoms is a very rare occurance, indeed. You have to really punch a nucleus to get a neutron out of it. They are jealously held items.
Is Richard saying there MIGHT be no neutrons in the nucleus?
Sure, why not! Have you or any scientist actually been inside of a givien nucleus? Of course not! We seen alpha particles issue from a nucleus all the time, but we don't assume helium nuclei to be in isolated form within the nucleus. If we accept the neutron as being in the nucleus, we have absolutely no reason not to further assume there to be bundles of helium atoms making up every nucleus.
There is absolutely no scientific basis or underpinning for assuming that the neutron exists within the nucleus. It is only a reasonable ASSUMPTION! Using this assumption, a fully self-consistent and predictive framework has grown up around it. It is a great place to work from until the model collapses. It is not observed fact.
There is certainly no more or less evidence that the nucleus contains neutrons than the neutron contains a proton and an electron, based strictly on observation. It is never a matter of it must be one way or the other, but more it must be observed and have replicable proof. We have never been inside a nucleus nor inside of a neutron.
Deep down, I like the idea of the neutron in the nucleus for the same logical reason that I like the electron and proton residing in the neutron......if it comes out of the room it was probably really in the room. There is rarely much wrong in that kind of logic. However, having never been in the room with them.........well.....
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
ChrisSmolinski
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 2:46 pm
- Real name:
- Contact:
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Richard Hull wrote:
> I am feeling that the intra-nuclear neutron, if real, is the key. If the neutron doesn't exist as such within the nucleus, then the nuclear electrons and the manner of compression within the nucleus is the key. I have little objection to assuming that the nucleus is just a ball of compressed electrons and protons and that the neutron is a form of totally EXTRA-NUCLEAR condensate forming only under certain release conditions. Neutrons issuing from atoms is a very rare occurance, indeed. You have to really punch a nucleus to get a neutron out of it. They are jealously held items.
>
> Is Richard saying there MIGHT be no neutrons in the nucleus?
>
> Sure, why not! Have you or any scientist actually been inside of a givien nucleus? Of course not! We seen alpha particles issue from a nucleus all the time, but we don't assume helium nuclei to be in isolated form within the nucleus. If we accept the neutron as being in the nucleus, we have absolutely no reason not to further assume there to be bundles of helium atoms making up every nucleus.
OK... this got me to thinking about what we have observed (all examples grossly simplified!):
1. A nucleus can undergo beta decay, where a neutron disappears, replaced by a proton, and an electron comes shooting out.
2. A nucleus can undergo EC, where it grabs an electron, turning a proton into a neutron.
3. It can spit out a positron, which apparently gets created along with an electron, the latter along with a proton promptly turn into a neutron. The former quickly meets up with another electron, the pair turn into a pair of photons upon meeting.
4. It can undergo alpha decay, spitting out a helium nucleus.
5. It can spontaneously fission, breaking apart into two lower Z nuclei, not of equal mass, but typically one much heavier than the other, and a few (2 or 3) neutrons.
6. It can be made to fission by being hit with a neutron. Only neutrons of certain energies can do this, and, as in (4) above, only select few nuclei undergo this process.
7. It can be made to spit out a neutron when hit by an alpha particle, as in the case of Be-9
8. I don't have my references in front of me, but beryllium can be made to do a double alpha decay (essentially split in half).
Seems to be some evidence that neutron = proton + electron...
Now some random thoughts...
It's difficult to inject a proton into a nucleus due to electrostatic repulsion. A neutron will happily go in, since it is neutral. If a neutron is really a proton+electron, then at the "far field" it will appear neutral, since the charges cancel out. Near field, the individual charges should start to be observable. Could the proton/electron do some sort of dance with a nearby proton, forming a stable system? This appears to be the case with deuterium, which is stable. Likewise with helium. Tritium isn't stable, but there are two neutrons and just one proton.
So imagine (just for fun) some sort of complicated solar system. You've got three stars (protons) and two planets (electrons) in the nucleus, representing the two neutrons and one proton. Maybe not a fair analogy, since while the mass of the electrons is indeed small compared to protons, the charge is the same. Somehow the electrons help keep the system stable, for a while. But eventually one of them spins out (beta decay). Now you have just one electron. Somehow it is able to keep the three protons together. It's charge is opposite to the protons, so there is attraction. Enough to overcome the repulsion of the three protons with each other? I know modern physics invents gluons and other nifty particles, but I am trying to ignore that for now. Can you make it work without them?
I need to re-read the dusty nuclear shell theory texts sitting on my bookshelf...
> I am feeling that the intra-nuclear neutron, if real, is the key. If the neutron doesn't exist as such within the nucleus, then the nuclear electrons and the manner of compression within the nucleus is the key. I have little objection to assuming that the nucleus is just a ball of compressed electrons and protons and that the neutron is a form of totally EXTRA-NUCLEAR condensate forming only under certain release conditions. Neutrons issuing from atoms is a very rare occurance, indeed. You have to really punch a nucleus to get a neutron out of it. They are jealously held items.
>
> Is Richard saying there MIGHT be no neutrons in the nucleus?
>
> Sure, why not! Have you or any scientist actually been inside of a givien nucleus? Of course not! We seen alpha particles issue from a nucleus all the time, but we don't assume helium nuclei to be in isolated form within the nucleus. If we accept the neutron as being in the nucleus, we have absolutely no reason not to further assume there to be bundles of helium atoms making up every nucleus.
OK... this got me to thinking about what we have observed (all examples grossly simplified!):
1. A nucleus can undergo beta decay, where a neutron disappears, replaced by a proton, and an electron comes shooting out.
2. A nucleus can undergo EC, where it grabs an electron, turning a proton into a neutron.
3. It can spit out a positron, which apparently gets created along with an electron, the latter along with a proton promptly turn into a neutron. The former quickly meets up with another electron, the pair turn into a pair of photons upon meeting.
4. It can undergo alpha decay, spitting out a helium nucleus.
5. It can spontaneously fission, breaking apart into two lower Z nuclei, not of equal mass, but typically one much heavier than the other, and a few (2 or 3) neutrons.
6. It can be made to fission by being hit with a neutron. Only neutrons of certain energies can do this, and, as in (4) above, only select few nuclei undergo this process.
7. It can be made to spit out a neutron when hit by an alpha particle, as in the case of Be-9
8. I don't have my references in front of me, but beryllium can be made to do a double alpha decay (essentially split in half).
Seems to be some evidence that neutron = proton + electron...
Now some random thoughts...
It's difficult to inject a proton into a nucleus due to electrostatic repulsion. A neutron will happily go in, since it is neutral. If a neutron is really a proton+electron, then at the "far field" it will appear neutral, since the charges cancel out. Near field, the individual charges should start to be observable. Could the proton/electron do some sort of dance with a nearby proton, forming a stable system? This appears to be the case with deuterium, which is stable. Likewise with helium. Tritium isn't stable, but there are two neutrons and just one proton.
So imagine (just for fun) some sort of complicated solar system. You've got three stars (protons) and two planets (electrons) in the nucleus, representing the two neutrons and one proton. Maybe not a fair analogy, since while the mass of the electrons is indeed small compared to protons, the charge is the same. Somehow the electrons help keep the system stable, for a while. But eventually one of them spins out (beta decay). Now you have just one electron. Somehow it is able to keep the three protons together. It's charge is opposite to the protons, so there is attraction. Enough to overcome the repulsion of the three protons with each other? I know modern physics invents gluons and other nifty particles, but I am trying to ignore that for now. Can you make it work without them?
I need to re-read the dusty nuclear shell theory texts sitting on my bookshelf...
-
guest
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Richard Hull wrote:
> CAN ANYONE NAME ONE FORM OF ENERGY THAT IS NOT TRACEABLE TO STELLAR FUSION (gravity at work) OR COULOMBIC ACTION (electrons at work)?
>
Yes, there is the energy from the carrier of the strong force. You mentioned the energy from the carrier of the gravitational force (mass) and the carrier of the Coulomb force (electrostatic charge.) The strong force produces energy through photon exchange. Only this energy is constantly being added to the Universe.
It may seem like a violation of conservation of energy at first glance, but something is keeping the electrons spinning, and whatever that something is, we don't account for it in the Standard Model of physics. Just because we don't account for the cause of spinning subatomic particles doesn't mean they don't spin.
And as a part of that spin, there is precession (Lamb Shift for the electron) that causes magnetic moment.
If charge is seen as distributed, and the carrier of the strong force is seen as strong charge (as opposed to electrostatic charge), then it can be quantified that there is an exchange of photons between the electrons.
http://www.tshankha.com/energy_from_aether.htm
These photons can be tapped by creating a capacitor out of the material supporting the opposite facing electrons, and spacing the plates of this capacitor such that the exchange of photons build up standing charges on the plates. The capacitor plates could then have a load placed across them such that the photons will create electrons allowing the charge to dissipate through the circuit.
Dave
> CAN ANYONE NAME ONE FORM OF ENERGY THAT IS NOT TRACEABLE TO STELLAR FUSION (gravity at work) OR COULOMBIC ACTION (electrons at work)?
>
Yes, there is the energy from the carrier of the strong force. You mentioned the energy from the carrier of the gravitational force (mass) and the carrier of the Coulomb force (electrostatic charge.) The strong force produces energy through photon exchange. Only this energy is constantly being added to the Universe.
It may seem like a violation of conservation of energy at first glance, but something is keeping the electrons spinning, and whatever that something is, we don't account for it in the Standard Model of physics. Just because we don't account for the cause of spinning subatomic particles doesn't mean they don't spin.
And as a part of that spin, there is precession (Lamb Shift for the electron) that causes magnetic moment.
If charge is seen as distributed, and the carrier of the strong force is seen as strong charge (as opposed to electrostatic charge), then it can be quantified that there is an exchange of photons between the electrons.
http://www.tshankha.com/energy_from_aether.htm
These photons can be tapped by creating a capacitor out of the material supporting the opposite facing electrons, and spacing the plates of this capacitor such that the exchange of photons build up standing charges on the plates. The capacitor plates could then have a load placed across them such that the photons will create electrons allowing the charge to dissipate through the circuit.
Dave
-
guest
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Richard Hull wrote:
> We don't know anything about the origins of charge. We are forced to say that it just is! Just as we are forced to admit the same of gravity. We have a smug feeling about charge because we think we have its source pinned down. (protons and electrons) Where did they get there charge? Don't say spin in a magentic field for that is crap. We know that with no charge there is no magnetic field. There is no charge made in or by a magnetic field. It is quite the other way around. All magnetic fields are the result of charges in motion as is all EM and all light and all gamma rays, etc. What is a root cause of motion of charged matter....coulombic force....potential energy.
>
I have a mathematical explanation for the cause of charge. It is due to the angular momentum of the particle moving through the Aether. Specifically,
h * Cd = e.emax^2
This is the equation for the strong charge of the electron (which is proved to exist by the Casimir effect.)
http://www.tshankha.com/casimir_effect.htm
For a more detailed examination of the origin of charge, check out ...
http://www.tshankha.com/charge.htm
Dave
> We don't know anything about the origins of charge. We are forced to say that it just is! Just as we are forced to admit the same of gravity. We have a smug feeling about charge because we think we have its source pinned down. (protons and electrons) Where did they get there charge? Don't say spin in a magentic field for that is crap. We know that with no charge there is no magnetic field. There is no charge made in or by a magnetic field. It is quite the other way around. All magnetic fields are the result of charges in motion as is all EM and all light and all gamma rays, etc. What is a root cause of motion of charged matter....coulombic force....potential energy.
>
I have a mathematical explanation for the cause of charge. It is due to the angular momentum of the particle moving through the Aether. Specifically,
h * Cd = e.emax^2
This is the equation for the strong charge of the electron (which is proved to exist by the Casimir effect.)
http://www.tshankha.com/casimir_effect.htm
For a more detailed examination of the origin of charge, check out ...
http://www.tshankha.com/charge.htm
Dave
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15032
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Of course there is no actual real measurment of photon exchange in the sense that you posit. It is all theoretical. We have never observed these virtual photons. They are a dreamworld construct of mathematics and what what we think or wish would happen to make theories work out and the math balance.
Differing mathematical results or results that confute theory can always be turned into equalities by the adroit mind with only a few untestable assumptions and the demanded requisite math to link them. None of this will make those thoughts reality, but it will create a marvelous framework that links what we can test with ideas we want to make into wholecloth.
We have no idea of the ORIGIN of nascent primary charge. This is electrostatic charge. Strong charge is a mathematical construct and has no testability outside of superb mathematical machinations based on an assumption of an Aether and virtual photon exchange. Zero virtual photons exchange exists in my mind due to no one have ever observed virtual photons. Yet these same items are talked about theoretically as if they are accepted science.
The unobserved and unobservable used to support the dreams of some of the sharpest mathematical minds in history.
It is truly a wonderful structure we build on assumption creating vast amounts of untestable and ultimately unknowable events 6 orders of magnitude below the genuinely observable.
What has happened is that we have hit a wall in empiricism regarding the incredibly small and modern minds see no reason to let this stop the work of physics. The very science whose name is derived, oddly enough, from the "PHYSICAL" aspect of existence. If we can't see it, touch it, measure it and make useful wheelwork from it, it is just mathematically backed metaphysical extensions of "real physics" that hit the brick wall of the heisenberg limit of laboratory observation and measurement.
So the true origns of nascent electrostatic charge are still unknowable. Strong charge is still a theoretical construct.
Richard Hull
Differing mathematical results or results that confute theory can always be turned into equalities by the adroit mind with only a few untestable assumptions and the demanded requisite math to link them. None of this will make those thoughts reality, but it will create a marvelous framework that links what we can test with ideas we want to make into wholecloth.
We have no idea of the ORIGIN of nascent primary charge. This is electrostatic charge. Strong charge is a mathematical construct and has no testability outside of superb mathematical machinations based on an assumption of an Aether and virtual photon exchange. Zero virtual photons exchange exists in my mind due to no one have ever observed virtual photons. Yet these same items are talked about theoretically as if they are accepted science.
The unobserved and unobservable used to support the dreams of some of the sharpest mathematical minds in history.
It is truly a wonderful structure we build on assumption creating vast amounts of untestable and ultimately unknowable events 6 orders of magnitude below the genuinely observable.
What has happened is that we have hit a wall in empiricism regarding the incredibly small and modern minds see no reason to let this stop the work of physics. The very science whose name is derived, oddly enough, from the "PHYSICAL" aspect of existence. If we can't see it, touch it, measure it and make useful wheelwork from it, it is just mathematically backed metaphysical extensions of "real physics" that hit the brick wall of the heisenberg limit of laboratory observation and measurement.
So the true origns of nascent electrostatic charge are still unknowable. Strong charge is still a theoretical construct.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15032
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
I meant to reply to Chris earlier post regarding the microscopic distributed charge for the neutron. I have read papers and seen cross sections of the charge seen across the neutron. I wish I could remember where, but there is a sinusoid of sorts with both positive and minus aspects. the negative is muted and far extended compared to the positive lobe. What i'd like to know is "how dey do dat"?
For all that, the neutron is still just a proton and an electron in my mind, but with super natural characteristics where the normal electrostatic rope limit (hydrogen atom) is lifted enough to bond the two items, if not in some tight orbit, then some stasis condition perhaps in a form of electrical singularity that is only stable in a nucleus.
I feel that naked, unit, electrostatic charge is truly indestructable in the nuclear and subnuclear sense, being forever conserved and preserved throughout the universe. The key might be the fact that in no reaction do opposite charges come together and neutralize or extinguish on a net value, universal scale.
Charge is one of the most cherished of all energies in the universe as it is a key form of potential energy which keeps the universe moving and evolving. Charge can't be transformed into energy either for it is energy, albeit purely potential in nature.
Charge, for me, is the ultimate microscopic singularity. Perhaps at the core of reality itself.
Charge is the primal item that generates all photons, all magnetic forces and creates directly or indirectly 100% of all localized material motions and dynamic energies. It is the basis for all nuclear, atomic and molecular structure.
Photons, which every one is totally in love with, are the crap of the universe..... pretty much waste, secondary product, as is magnetisim. Don't get me wrong, they are links in the evolutionary chain, but not primal or nascent in the universe.
Finally all we can say about matter is it is always associated with charge. There is no uncharged matter in the nucleus or electron shells. It is no small discovery that matter has mass and this is related to gravity. The big question, is mass/matter a separate entity from charge and the primal source of gravity? Charge, while we don't know what it is can be looked at a primal. Gravity is obviously primal or certainly appears to be as it is certainly the demanded complimentary form of potential energy in the universe needed to keep things spun up along with charge.
Could matter, as we see it, be a manifestation of a singularity from which charge and gravity are exposed or radiate? Radiate is a bad term as these are potential energies, but you get my drift.
Bottom line is that you can't produce gravity or charge from any form of energy........Another perhaps salient point
Richard Hull
For all that, the neutron is still just a proton and an electron in my mind, but with super natural characteristics where the normal electrostatic rope limit (hydrogen atom) is lifted enough to bond the two items, if not in some tight orbit, then some stasis condition perhaps in a form of electrical singularity that is only stable in a nucleus.
I feel that naked, unit, electrostatic charge is truly indestructable in the nuclear and subnuclear sense, being forever conserved and preserved throughout the universe. The key might be the fact that in no reaction do opposite charges come together and neutralize or extinguish on a net value, universal scale.
Charge is one of the most cherished of all energies in the universe as it is a key form of potential energy which keeps the universe moving and evolving. Charge can't be transformed into energy either for it is energy, albeit purely potential in nature.
Charge, for me, is the ultimate microscopic singularity. Perhaps at the core of reality itself.
Charge is the primal item that generates all photons, all magnetic forces and creates directly or indirectly 100% of all localized material motions and dynamic energies. It is the basis for all nuclear, atomic and molecular structure.
Photons, which every one is totally in love with, are the crap of the universe..... pretty much waste, secondary product, as is magnetisim. Don't get me wrong, they are links in the evolutionary chain, but not primal or nascent in the universe.
Finally all we can say about matter is it is always associated with charge. There is no uncharged matter in the nucleus or electron shells. It is no small discovery that matter has mass and this is related to gravity. The big question, is mass/matter a separate entity from charge and the primal source of gravity? Charge, while we don't know what it is can be looked at a primal. Gravity is obviously primal or certainly appears to be as it is certainly the demanded complimentary form of potential energy in the universe needed to keep things spun up along with charge.
Could matter, as we see it, be a manifestation of a singularity from which charge and gravity are exposed or radiate? Radiate is a bad term as these are potential energies, but you get my drift.
Bottom line is that you can't produce gravity or charge from any form of energy........Another perhaps salient point
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Richard Hester
- Posts: 1519
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 12:07 am
- Real name:
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Charge does get extinguished if a particle and antiparticle collide, but that's another matter....
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15032
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Not really, I have mentioned this before in at least two posts. On a universal scale no charge is lost or signs exchanged. Anti- particles, apparently and observationally, have no normal existence. They are all the results of strings of violent events where photons have been created that are not allowed (too energetic).
Before antiparticles are created there are x number of electrons in the universe and y number of protons. Regardless, at the end of all reactions and energy downshifts, all charge is restored.
balance scenario:
initial conditions......
universe has X electrons, 0 or Z positrons, your choice
problem:
High speed photon >1.2mev not allowed in and amongst matter.
Converts to two matter particles... one positron ~512 kev + one electron ~512kev
net universal: resultant charge added ZERO Net particles added TWO.
Net Universal particle identity balance X+1 electrons and 1 or Z+1 positrons.
Quickly, as the photon had to be in the thick of matter to down convert in the first place, the positron finds an electron and annihilates to a photon of energy ~512kev. The regular electron created during pair production speeds off with added energy, effectively stolen or transfered to it during pair production.
New net charge status of the universe.................
one electron stolen or lost to make the new low energy gamma ray and one electron gained during pair production.... perfect balance, The positron's positive charge had a fleeting existence between creation and annihilation. however during its entire existence, the net universal added charge was still ZERO!
So net charge production added or lost, ZERO again.
Particle balance:
(X+1) - 1 = X
for positrons 1-1 = 0 or (Z+1) -1 = Z
Net result for the universe...........................
net charge created ZERO
net particles created ZERO
new energy formed ZERO
Nothing changed for the entire universe other than a hot gamma down converteda portion of its forbidden energy to an electron. This operation can never happen again and the reduced energy photon is free to do as it wishes from this point on.
Richard Hull
Before antiparticles are created there are x number of electrons in the universe and y number of protons. Regardless, at the end of all reactions and energy downshifts, all charge is restored.
balance scenario:
initial conditions......
universe has X electrons, 0 or Z positrons, your choice
problem:
High speed photon >1.2mev not allowed in and amongst matter.
Converts to two matter particles... one positron ~512 kev + one electron ~512kev
net universal: resultant charge added ZERO Net particles added TWO.
Net Universal particle identity balance X+1 electrons and 1 or Z+1 positrons.
Quickly, as the photon had to be in the thick of matter to down convert in the first place, the positron finds an electron and annihilates to a photon of energy ~512kev. The regular electron created during pair production speeds off with added energy, effectively stolen or transfered to it during pair production.
New net charge status of the universe.................
one electron stolen or lost to make the new low energy gamma ray and one electron gained during pair production.... perfect balance, The positron's positive charge had a fleeting existence between creation and annihilation. however during its entire existence, the net universal added charge was still ZERO!
So net charge production added or lost, ZERO again.
Particle balance:
(X+1) - 1 = X
for positrons 1-1 = 0 or (Z+1) -1 = Z
Net result for the universe...........................
net charge created ZERO
net particles created ZERO
new energy formed ZERO
Nothing changed for the entire universe other than a hot gamma down converteda portion of its forbidden energy to an electron. This operation can never happen again and the reduced energy photon is free to do as it wishes from this point on.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Richard Hester
- Posts: 1519
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 12:07 am
- Real name:
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
The only exception to the relatively violent production of positrons via pair production is their production by positron emitting isotopes.
I agree that the overall neutrality of the universe is not affected by electon-positron annihilation, but charge and mass still are converted into uncharged photons. Apparently the photon energy is accounted for by the mass of the particles. What happened to the charge? Is the mass a consequence of the self energy of the charge? What then is the real difference between the electron and positron besides the opposite charge? If we knew the real answers to these questions we would understand the universe a little better.
I agree that the overall neutrality of the universe is not affected by electon-positron annihilation, but charge and mass still are converted into uncharged photons. Apparently the photon energy is accounted for by the mass of the particles. What happened to the charge? Is the mass a consequence of the self energy of the charge? What then is the real difference between the electron and positron besides the opposite charge? If we knew the real answers to these questions we would understand the universe a little better.