Beta Decay!!??

[Roberto Ferrari]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Brian McDermott]

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.

[Richard Hull]

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

[Richard Hull]

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

[davidtrimmell]

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]

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.

[Adam Szendrey]

As usual something better is due to come by than the standard model, at some point...one thing is for sure, the current model is simply inadequate. Nothing more to say about that...

Adam

[Richard Hull]

Beta decay is fickle. In all cases so far observed there is no quantized beta energies as is found in all Gamma decays.

However, within the spectrum of emission, there are, in some isotopes, often found destinct peaks and valley's in the energy spectrum. Those involved in a quick rinse in Beta decay tend to walk away felling that there is a continuous uniform spectrum of Beta energies. This is rarely the case. This fact complicates matters a bit, but like little dutch boys plugging the dike, the neutrino boys often have well crafted explanations here as well. Gotta keep th' theory alive at all costs. Beta decay is still pretty much a poser for the thoughtful scientist.

If I remember correctly there is a brief but interesting discussion regarding the possibilities of the nuclear shell model in the general data portion of most every old edition of the venerable old standby, the "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics". The folks at the Common Sense Science website actually have the ring locked layered and stacked nucleus as a given in their developing ring model of the atom.

Richard Hull

[Richard Hull]

The standard model suffers more from an overburden of invisible fleas that are, themselves attended and infected by even less than invisible fleas, many of which are of different race, color and creed. Add to this, messenger particles in the GEV range with only intra nuclear existences, and the mix gets really complex.

But, we limp along as best we can.

Richard Hull

[walter_b_marvin]

Again you are fiddling with words. Of course noboday has observed a black hole, For that matter Noboday has visited another star, so the whole "star theory" is in question. These telescopes could be in error you know. The poit is if you have a theory, and observational data, however indirect, that can be predicted by that theory, then the theory is a viable way of describing the problem. The "black hole" theory fits that bill. Actually, I am a flat earther... All these pictures of the moon and spacecreaft have been forged...

It is true, (i believed the opposite) that there still is a solar "neutrino flux deficit" the current value is closer to 60% rather than 25% as you reported. please see http://neil-science.blogspot.com/2004_0 ... chive.html

Could this be due more to our lack of understanding of solar nuclear processes than a major problem with neutrino theory. You tell me both are possibilities, but I would tend to say the probability is the former.

[walter_b_marvin]

Richard,

Id point out again that theories are only theories and models are only models and they are only as usefull as the predictive results they can produce. One could describe atomic phenominia as faries and goblins doing a dance. If one were carefull about the math and the motion of the "faries" were ascribed to somthing physical, then the motion of the goblins could be deduced, and new throries of elves could be postilated, that might, if carefully followed be verifiable.

[Richard Hull]

Walter is thinking critically. If, indeed neutrinos exist and the defecit is real then the solar theory is messed up or both could be in error. All just theories.

As I have stated before I don't by into the solar fusion energy model, at all, mainly due to the first fusion demanded. (P + P)

Richard Hull

[Brian McDermott]

In 3rd or 4th generation stars like the sun, there probably aren't any straight P+P reactions due to the presence of heavier elements.

So what about the 1st generation stars, the ones that formed only from Hydrogen and Helium present in the early universe? There was some Deuterium left over from the big bang, but the rest was mainly Protium and Helium-4. These early stars would have to have been huge, possibly 20 times the mass of the sun or more.

[Richard Hull]

As I have mentioned in many posts regarding fusion and especially stellar evolution, I hold that the first fusion is P+E = N. From here P+N = D is the logical next step. For me neutrons are the atom builders, not protons. Proton net charges are only element identifiers for nuclei. I still say protons can't fuse and no one has ever seen of recorded a neutronless helium atom. Or any atom beyond protium that is without neutrons.

All elements and isotopes are heavy with neutrons....never protons. Neutrons are glue and can stick easily and bind to all manner of proton configurations as it is their lot in this universe to hold the electrostatically recalcitrant protons together via the bizarrely held electron within the neutron. There is absolutely no reason for neutrons to bind as individuals, (N+N). Though, it might be posited that such a union is far more likely that any P+P union. Still, I would imagine such unions would be forbidden for N+N as there would be no impetus for such unions. As one neutron alone is unstable, I would imagine pairs would not change matters.

Neutron stability demands at least one linked proton, effectively allowing the non-universe friendly P+E bond of the neutron to stabilize. Two neutrons can link to a single proton but the linkage is extremely weak and always doomed to a very short existance. In larger aggregates (heavy elements) special arrangements of 1.1 -1.3 neutrons per proton should make unusually strong bonds. As the ball of knotted nuclear material grows in volume, the outer surface linkages are ever more tenuous and strained as surface areas enlarge. Real problems now develop as we note and fission is possible for odd weighted heavies and decay begins for even weighted heavies. The cross over in mass appears at Bismuth.

A nuclear shell model might be the only explaination for the magic, oddball, 43 and 61 proton numbered radioactives which are so unstable that none exists of either element in cold matter. These elements are definitely whack jobs. It is obviously the fault of some dis-allowed structure in stacking or shelling with the nucleus. The protons and neutrons are unhappy mainly due to the proton number for there is no adding or subtracting of neutronic glue possible to create a stable Technicium or Promethium atom. These are effectively violently disallowed proton numbers. Every element has totally stable isotopes save for these two up to bismuth.

Forgings of neutrons from protons and electrons can only occur in stellar furnaces where there are also plenty of extra protons to form deuterium. Once free of such environments, such P+N atoms can be stable. This is why atoms will ditch a proton electron or a whole helium atom in decay and never emit a neutron. They are gealously guarded as the very "stuff" and substance of all matter. An atom would rather internally lose or un-couple a neutron rather than spit one out in whole form.

Here is where the unknown flows in. The energy needed to create a neutron is known only via its free decay energy, but it is obvious that the union is wierd in that it is locked or sees a compression stasis point. This locked energy of compression is huge but can unlock at any instance. An extra proton should actually be attracted to the neutron or vice versa as the locked compression tension is apparently totally relieved as the electron in its tight bipolar union expands to share amongst two protons, (deuterium), its natural reluctance to allow its charge to be destroyed. A third proton relieves this stress even more (He3). Naturally, this is all cerebration along logical, (occams razor), lines.

The neutron is the result of the first fusion in the universe and deuterium is result of the second fusion. He3 is the third and He4 is way down the list as putting another neutron on to He3 would be a chore though obviously doable. Tritium is easy to both make and break. Two neutrons trying to stabilize off of one proton is a doomed mission. He4 would be an easy build by my model from tritium (H3) buy having another proton link up to a twin neutron, proton starved, hydrogen atom.

To my thinking we need to look at development of a intra nuclear proton electron linked quantum system. Here the electron can approach and have stable locked states with protons right up to the "rope limit" of cancelization/destruction of charge which the universe resists with ever greater force, the closer the proton and electron stacking. It would be a grand mix of electrostatic charge attractive and charge cancel resistant forces with lock points similar to electron quantized orbits outside the nucleus in normal chemistry. Such a system could explain a lot without the use of a strong force as nuclear binding energy. As such, in my model, the neutron 'en nucleo' might cease to be an entity and the neutron condensate idea of the neutron might be what we see as the extranuclear particle. Who knows, the idea of a neutron within a complex nucleus, might just be the biggest joke we ever played on ourselves.

Richard Hull

[servant]

Elegant!

Fingerprint of the Creator.

Phil

[walter_b_marvin]

Remember though there is lots of universe and lots of time...

[servant]

Richard

Reading the paper posted by Darius on the Pulsar thread:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/tech ... aper30.pdf

listed on page 3:

1.) the recent analysis of mobility and spectroscopy data of individual electrons in liquid helium which shows direct experimental confirmation that electrons may have fractional principal quantum energy levels [6],

Set me to wondering if Electron "ground state" was only a very stable level on the way to the true ground state which is the Neutron. Maybe the 1/n states are all steps in a condensation that terminates with the electron tunneling into the proton. What if all of the "subatomic particles" are really just "photons" ejected during transitions between the 1/n states?

Your hypothesis:

"I hold that the first fusion is P+E = N" and "Here the electron can approach and have stable locked states with protons right up to the 'rope limit' of cancelization/distruction of charge which the universe resists with ever greater force, the closer the proton and electron stacking. "

raises some intreaguing questions.

Is an electron or a pair involved?

is a second electron an enabler or catalyst?

what happens to a diatomic molecule when one of the partners becomes neutral?

How is electron balance or distribution maintained?

is "hot" fusion just an an inefficient way of accomplishing this


The fact that these spectral lines are actually observed suggests that the states exist in a random distribution of natural energy levels. This may justify attempts to develop the Deuterium crystal generator for the Pulsar.

Phil

ps We live just across the river from Jefferson Lab in Gloucester. A friend of ours is one of the principal researchers at CEBAF, Bryon Anderson from Kent State. Have you run into him?

[Richard Hull]

My Contact at CEBAF retired. He was the great designer/chief engineer that brought the whole rig up from ground zero. He designed the niobium super conducting cavity resonators and brought one to one of our meetings back in the mid ninties.

His name was Jock Fugitt. He was a delightful fellow with a ton of memories of many accelerators that he had assembled world wide. He would come to many of our old Teslathons and bring a mass of images and slides of his long career showing massive stuff we just drooled over. His one hour talks went way over due to a myriad of questions.

Your thoughts on the electron-proton union are all valid and the answers are probably not truly knowable as we have no window into this world. Photonic emissions at sub quantum levels of electron decay ought to be detectable by some means. I'm not poo-pooing the thought, I just have my doubts. The wavelength of such jumps would be ultra-short due to the subatomic distances.

Black light power is Mills operation and his hydrino theory looked good to me, but his work has not brought forth wheelwork which is readily usable or definable. His hypothesis about 1/n quantum states is really appealing, intellectually.

What most folks don't realize is that at subquantum levels, you are going against the anti-electrostatic nature of the universe.

Opposite charges attract and in the simplest state neutralize at normal energies as the hydrogen atom. From this point, energy must be added to the system as you are now fighting for the destruction of charge....LITERALLY! This is a big, universal no-no. Lock points in this battle, if extant, to my way of thinking, should all be naturally unstable. All such lock points would store energy in the form of anti-electrostatic charge cancellation energy of repulsion. This would be far more energy per unit lock point than would be imagined on the simple extension of the quantized orbit ,(1/n), theory of Mills. Mills work is, as I view it, an attempt at a sub-molecular chemistry. It may be valid. I am in no position to do more that weigh and consider, internally, being limited to my level of thought and knowldge.

It just seems naturally apparent that once the H atom is reached, energy must be added to crush the electron orbitals. And, by extension, that if there are lock points, energy is stored in the resultant combination. This is where the orbital theory at 1/n breaks down, for by all orbital theory, one expects that lower orbital falls release energy. This is where Mills claims to be getting energy from by catalyzing such sub-qunatum states.

It is here where I feel mills is wrong. He is looking for free energy in reduced orbitals. I am saying the opposite. Huge amount of energy must be applied to the P-E pair and that such lock points as are found in this effort store huge amounts of energy. So much so that the neutrons in the atoms and the manner in which they are forged and interlinked in larger aggregate nuclei ARE THE SOURCE of all nuclear energy. In all nuclear energy releases THERE ARE NO LOSES AT ANY TIME OF PARTICULATE MATTER OR CHARGES. NO CHARGED MATTER IS EVER CONVERTED TO ENERGY. EVER..... Only stored energy of of anti-charge destruction compression energy is released.

There appears to be two stasis or lock points in the electrostatic domain. At normal temps and pressures up to about a hundred thousand degrees kelvin this would be the neutral hydrogen atom for the proton and electron. At the energy level found in a nucleus the neutral stasis point that is totally stable in a P-E union is the neutron. If the nucleus is the classic plum pudding model of 1910 of only protons and electrons, then there might be far more intense unions of P-E combos within the nucleus based on a very complex stacking. Such a model would relegate the neutron to being a rare but viable neutral nuclear condensate. A form of very long lived neutral meson

Richard Hull