Beta Decay!!??

[Richard Hull]

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

[Roberto Ferrari]

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

[Richard Hull]

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

[ChrisSmolinski]

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.

[Adam Szendrey]

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]

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

[Richard Hull]

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

Richard Hull

[Jon Rosenstiel]

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

[Richard Hull]

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

[Brian McDermott]

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.

[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.