Beta Decay!!??

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
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 » Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:07 am

Brian,
Your points are flawless, is the way a scientist would go.
But... also Richard's approach belongs to the activity of a scientist.
As Tom pointed, may be we are in the era of the epicycles: all was explained... but wrongly!
Let's speculate imagining alternative scenarios, looking for the dark spot in the immaculate screen. Is our time and energies... May be we cannot be back with an alternative solution, but we will return stronger in our knowledge.
Richard doesn't deny neutrinos per se; he says may be there are other things around in the neutron disintegration.
Roberto

walter_b_marvin

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by walter_b_marvin » Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:10 am

Not everthing has to have direct evidence, indriect evidence will do. Ant throritical discoveries can be important. A prime example is Einstien's prediction of black holes, long before they were actually verified.

walter_b_marvin

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by walter_b_marvin » Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:15 am

Nice try, but unfortuantely wrong. Neutrinos were eventually detected, and the solar flux has been verified. The primary observatory is located in abandoned salt mines under Lake Erie.

walter_b_marvin

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by walter_b_marvin » Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:27 am

Actually current thought tends to give more time to the concept of what we mean by a "model" . A model is just somthing that is simpler than the real thing and to some degree behaves the same way. What physics is faced with when trying to describe the final workings of the universe is that they are in a realm where "models" become less and less effective, since one loses physic inutitive perspective on the problems. If you've ever been in a physics calss, you know tha the math is just the logic, the assumptions come from physical intuition, or "models". A good example of how models have become overstretched is "string" theory. The reason is is called string theory is that somome found out that the nuclear strong force obeyed Oiler's equations, which describe the motion of a string moving freely in space. If you read the liture, all sorts of analogies have been made, including "knots". It is well to remember that the Bohr model of the atom gives usefull results to a degree, and quantum mechanics give better results, but they still are all models, and explain some things weel and others not so well. I'm afraid mankind is still a gagle of blind men describing an elephant.

Alex Aitken
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2003 10:33 am
Real name:

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by Alex Aitken » Fri Jan 14, 2005 7:58 am

Black holes have never been verified and the evidence hasnt changed in the past 50 years. We just have a number of X ray and radio sources that dont make sense unless they are very massive, and theory predicts these are too massive to be ordinary matter, so we assume them to be neutron stars or black holes.

Neutrenos have been detected routinely for decades now but,

"The amounts measured seem to fall in line with the current models we have about stellar fusion. "

Is actually not true. Only something like 1/4 of the expected neutrenos were being detected in the several experiments around the world and for a while this was the subsidence under the new home of newly married practical neutreno and theoretical stellar physics. The underpinning consisted of the assumption that neutrenos decay. That somewhere between the core of the sun and the earth they change into something else, probably a different type of neutreno. The last person I spoke to that claimed to understand this area of physics said that neutrenos changing type had actually been verified on earth using detectors next to reactors.

For the part about the supernova just one thing bothers me, how can the process that produces so many neutrenos produce so little light. For accelerated fusion it seems odd that the light produced is a faint dot amongst the other stars but the the neutrenos are detectable amongst that produced by our own sun, with many orders of magnetude more light.

It seems to me the hunt for particles is like watching people build bigger and bigger ships to crash into one another so they can look at the waves produced. They make notes of shapes, the volume, the directions, how they collide with eachother and fit them all into tables when maybe it would be more helpful to study the water.

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 11:07 am

I remember reading a figure that 98% of a supernova's initial energy is released as neutrinos. The density at the center of the collapsing star is so great, that neutrino reactions become very likely, adding to the awesome power of the event.

That is not to say the other forms of energy released are insignificant. If a supernova occured 1000 light years from Earth, we would be cooked by the incoming radiation flux. Normal supernovae can be seen 1/2 the way across the observable universe, and some really large ones can actually be visible with binoculars at that distance.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12434
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by Richard Hull » Fri Jan 14, 2005 3:10 pm

Again, they were detected by not actually being seen in any particle chamber or electronic counter, but instead by accepted and pre-agreed inference of other events. If the events were isolated I might readily go along, but they pull this stuff out of billions of events and say that two of them were obviously related.

I wouldn't believe in the neutron as it can't be directly detected either, but the sources are obvious and can be easily isolated, shielded and modified in a real physical sense to give about twenty different pathways of physical detection.

Still, The small number of "detected" solar neutrinos compared to accepted solar theory has not been explained beyond the morphing to other forms. (very convenient)

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: 12434
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by Richard Hull » Fri Jan 14, 2005 3:37 pm

This is really what bothers me................ We can now, with this invented, vaporous, virtual zero mass, zero charge particle, ascribe all sorts of nuclear losses and little understood imbalances that we can't explain or fathom. It's like the old saw in mysteries, "the butler did it".

We now just say...." OH! all the power of supernova's, the hand of God and the entire universe resides in only two omnipresent, never seen entities, dark matter and neutrino fluxes. Isn't that just so all self-satisfying. "We got every base covered".......

Pull the other one!

We have our own little scapegoat, our own article of faith. It is the physics community's equivalent of the all powerful, hand of God.

Neutrinos can change forms too! No need to really follow just one because if all of a sudden it is gone...........it only changed form and morphed into another less detectable form. What is less detectable than the virtually undetectable. It is the hand of God.

I don't care who is selling, or how good the pitch. I ain't buyin'......I'm listening......just not buyin'

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.

davidtrimmell
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:37 pm
Real name:

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by davidtrimmell » Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:31 pm

Actually I believe they are only seeing 40% of the neutrinos current theories predict from the Sun. They have come up with some sort of phase shift thing (now that’s proper scientific tongue!) to explain 60% of the missing neutrinos. That’s great if your a mathematician as the equations now balance, but I don't expect we will find a answer to this mystery with physical proof anytime soon...

David Trimmell

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

Re: Beta Decay!!??

Post by ChrisSmolinski » Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:45 pm

Richard Hull wrote:
> 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)

That's an interesting idea. Would the emitted electrons have the measured
continuous energy distribution, rather than quantized energies?

I seem to recall that calorimetry experiments were done (perhaps decades
ago) with beta decay, indicating that the energy detected was indeed that of
the average beta decay energy, not the peak, which helped the validity of the
neutrino scenerio. Of course the results would also support the above model
of beta decay as well.

Post Reply