Beta Decay!!??

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: 12431
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Beta Decay!!??

Post by Richard Hull » Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:13 pm

If anyone is interested in the full current explanation that the standard model is selling as being beta decay check out

http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/ ... 114658.htm

Of course it is important to realize that no living person or scientific group has even recorded an anti electron neutrino during any beta decay process. Instead, It is a given.... An article of faith. Such action MUST be so, we are told.

All that is actually recorded is that an electron and a proton result from the neutron breakup with only the electron leaving the nucleus from this decay process.

I realize that there are a lot of things we haven't seen or can't see or prove, but then there are also a lot of things in this same category that we do not have to believe either.

I am perfectly aware of the mass/energy deficit in the reaction. I am also aware that this is the hypothsized neutrino. Likewise, I am aware this has never been seen or recorded during beta decay........Only assumed.

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.

Roberto Ferrari
Posts: 349
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:21 pm
Real name: Roberto Ferrari
Location: Argentina
Contact:

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by Roberto Ferrari » Thu Jan 13, 2005 1:05 pm

Richard,
Do you know of alternative theories -almost forgotten or discarded by the official science- explaining the neutron disintegration?
Roberto

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12431
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by Richard Hull » Thu Jan 13, 2005 4:04 pm

Oddly, NO, I know of no real alternatives.

Beta decay was a nightmare for early physics way before the 1930's. So much so that Rutherford predicted the existence of a neutral particle in the nucleas of approx. the protons mass in 1915!

Once Rutherford's student, Chadwick, discovered the neutron, things clicked real fast and the observed disentegration of the free neutron into the proton and electron just pleased the whole community so very much. So much doubt and hand wringing disappeared.

It was quickly seen that the energy/mass balance was out of whack. This coupled with the beta coming out at a whole range of energies was a new enigma delivered by the neutron decay.

As measurements were refined, Pauli suggested another neutral particle might have been emitted to carry off the energy. It was left to Fermi to actually write the seminal neutrino paper in the mid thirties. The neutrino was begrudingly accepted by many inspite of best efforts to detect it failing miserably. This is stunning, for no one accepted and built physics up around Rutherford's rather obvious explanation for the existence of the neutron in 1915!

The neutrino was different! Its acceptance really put a finishing bow or ribbon on the entire field of nuclear physics at that time and was, to many, acceptable as the energy hauled off was of little consequnce and details were minor from this point on.

The discovery of real, measurable mesons and the like in the late thirties and 40's opened up a whole new can of worms.

Suddenly, the neutrino, it was felt, needed to actually be detected. The quest was on. It was detected well enough to the "powers that be" to grant its "discovers" a Noble prize in the mid-fifties, but still was not definitely proven to many folks liking and it would be the late 70's and early 80's before a far bigger hunt with bigger money and a gang of computing power stepped in with projects like the super Kamakande, et al. A lot of this activity was to ferret out the predicted massive wave of solar neutrinos.

The wave was never found.

The mystery between prediction and neutrino number is still open and newer and more far out theories are daily heaped on the standard model.

It turns out that neutrinos, like neutral neutrons, are only detectable as secondary events. All the neutrino producing events outside of Neutron decay are very, very energetic events. The neutrino is a PREDICTED and ASSUMED event in every instance in which it is claimed to be there.

Two companion events seen amongst literally millions of other events are assumed to be linked by a neutrino or any of a number of other of the uncharged sub-sub-sub atomic events in bubble chambers and large neutrino detectors. This is offered as proof based on theory of what we think we know. Mathematics backs all such shows of proof. (tragectories vs. energies and magnetic and electrostatic field paths all figured simultaneouly in reverse.)

It is all very convincing and has the cache of having created several hundred doctorates and several Nobels. Unseen, unknowable events satisfying mathematical and entrained theoretical predictions has manufactured and ever more complex FEELING OF UNDERSTANDING.

I certainly can offer nothing other than a doubting look from a jaundiced eye to the whole process. Pauli and, ultimately, Fermi addressed a pressing issue in the mid thirties to the best of their abilities and instrumentalities and are not to be faulted in any way. The blind acceptance of an unseen, undectable particle was due solely to the fact that accepting it would put a final finishing touch on all of the world of nuclear physics known at that moment in time.

Science likes to feel that it can ultimately "close out" mysteries and seal off branches as being fully contained. Such was the feeling in the mid 30's on into the late 40's. We have only inherited accepted physics. We have also extended our supposed knowledge to levels that will never really be fathomed, only theorized into ever deeper levels in serach of ever more self-satisfaction that we are really getting a "handle on things".

To my way of thinking it might be that we will have to just accept as fact that events much smaller than the proton and electron, as indivduals, are just not effectively quantifiable and knowable with any detail.

Finally, I do believe in an internuclear neutron. That is, a real particle within the nucleus that is what we call a neutron, as seen externally. However, there is absolutely no scientifically, verifiable reason NOT to assume that the neutron (only observed extra-nuclear), is not actually a condensate assembled at time of emission from the nucleus of a highly unstable proton-electron pair. Now this assumption would hurl us back to the ancient pre-Rutherfordian concept of the nucleus being a ball of protons and electrons bound in a strange and unique manner. Such a nucleus is not untennable as betay rays could still come out, the difference between atomic weight and atomic number would be preserved, etc.

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: Beta Decay!!??

Post by ChrisSmolinski » Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:30 pm

The anti electron neutrino produced during beta decay is an accounting
device, to balance the books. It reminds me of Einstein's cosmological
constant. All experimental evidence to date seems to imply something is
required to make the energy balance out on both sides of the equation.

User avatar
Adam Szendrey
Posts: 1333
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:36 pm
Real name: Adam Szendrey
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by Adam Szendrey » Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:01 pm

It's quite funny really...just watch the expression on a scientists face, when someone tells him/her that "mental energies" exist, though they can only be verified indirectly (but can be verified easily, in an extremely tihgtly controlled environment, and without any other possible explanation, thus scientifically).
What a freak out would that cause....and , here is the neutrino, that cannot be even indirectly verified (or just through estimation), and they accept it without doubt....don't you find this a little ironic?
While true scientist and researchers from the mid 19th century (to present days) had prooven one after the other that a yet unknown force does exist, people who had nothing to do with "spiritualism".
Like Sir William Crookes (who was an admired scientist of his time)....he had devised experiment which simply exluded any possible cheating...
I just don't see why should anyone accept a particle that just cannot be detected, and reject (along with a histerical outbrake) a yet unkown force of nature, that has an absolutely detectable influence on matter...And you know what is REALLY funny...the so-called "spiritualists", also reject these scientific results,along with the mainstream scientific community....one gang wants to keep their "spirits" and the other just wants to burry the whole thing as they cannot explain it yet....
Our so called "scientists" even refuse to try to proove the true researchers wrong, as they are affraid that it might be an existing phenomena, that does not fit into their comfortable little world...
Tell me...
In what whay did we humans change since the middle ages? ;)
We are still affraid of "lightning" (something that we cannot explain)...

Adam

TBenson
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 6:57 am
Real name:

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by TBenson » Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:10 pm

I can describe the state of modern physicis with one word: Epicycles

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12431
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by Richard Hull » Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:37 pm

Where were are within such an epicycle depends on who you are talking to, I suppose.

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.

Jon Rosenstiel
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:30 am
Real name: Jon Rosenstiel
Location: Southern California

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by Jon Rosenstiel » Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:52 pm

Yes, it really does stretch the imagination. Along with Richard I have to believe that we are somehow overlooking the simple answer.

My simplistic mind wants to think that the missing energy has gone into some kind of “recoil” process that we haven’t been able to detect.

Jon Rosenstiel

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12431
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by Richard Hull » Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:15 pm

I, too, have considered some sort of intra nuclear energy equilibration process in some sort of nuclear shell model, but as the shell model of the nucleus is not on much firmer ground than the standard model, I won't speculate. Obviously I believe in the conservation of energy-mass. As such, it has to wind up in some form. As we cannot weigh or see in individual and specific nuclei where an internal neutron decay occurs, we can't really know what mechanism deals with the excess energy-mass deficits. Our data and calcs comes from bulk, gross, observations for the most part. We are just used to having emitted particles balance out the equation in an extra-nuclear fashion, thus, the neutrino theory.

An advanced variable shell model of the nucleus is held as a distinct possibility by a growing number of scientists and offers advantages in that reordering energy might be variable depending on where in the packing shells the neutron that is located decays from. This could help explain the beta spectrum especially if the nucleus was a continuously rolling mass of protons and neutrons. With the idea that the neutron is an extra- nuclear condensate, the nucleus could be a rolling mass of protons and electrons. Remember, no one has ever recorded a neutron as existing in a nucleus. I personally believe it is in the nucleus, but without any proof that it does. (article of faith)

Of course this idea is as solid as any other guess including those guesses that are accepted.

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
Brian McDermott
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 10:28 pm
Real name:

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by Brian McDermott » Fri Jan 14, 2005 12:53 am

It is my understanding that neutrinos have been detected, and are regularly being detected. Solar neutrinos are measured all the time using the big underground detectors. The amounts measured seem to fall in line with the current models we have about stellar fusion. Furthermore, after supernova 1987A, a measured increase in the neutrino level occured, and would have been typical of such an event.

The cross section for the neutrino-proton reaction is obviously really small (10^-45 cm^2 or so), but the small cross section is made up for with a huge detector area. Cork's book, "Radioactivity and Nuclear Physics" details the process used in measuring this cross section.

The current theory isn't a baseless crackpot idea. What evidence has been collected in experiments to date seems to fit the models and predictions quite well. Until a major discrepancy is found, it will probably never be completely done away with, only modifed to better fit new experimental data. If someone thinks that there is a better explanation for what is going on, then they can go out, collect data, and formulate their theory and see if it holds true in all cases.

Post Reply