The theoretical musings continue.

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12505
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull » Tue Sep 16, 2003 6:17 pm

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
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
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12505
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull » Tue Sep 16, 2003 6:29 pm

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
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
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 3:10 am
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by grrr6 » Wed Sep 17, 2003 4:42 am

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 6:46 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by ChrisSmolinski » Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:06 pm

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.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12505
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull » Wed Sep 17, 2003 2:55 pm

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
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
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

ChrisSmolinski
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 6:46 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by ChrisSmolinski » Wed Sep 17, 2003 4:50 pm

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.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12505
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull » Wed Sep 17, 2003 5:26 pm

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
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
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

ChrisSmolinski
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 6:46 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by ChrisSmolinski » Thu Sep 18, 2003 2:51 pm

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...

guest

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest » Wed Dec 10, 2003 5:26 am

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

guest

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest » Wed Dec 10, 2003 5:38 am

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

Post Reply