Jump to content

Sensei

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    6149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by Sensei

  1. Nonsensical, completely irrational, and IMHO illegal tax. Against the main rule of justice: "there is no crime, if there is no victims" (which is violated in just modern centuries XX-XXI on mass scale). Even worse: paid before any hypothetical violation really had place. Like you would have tax for cars, added to its price in the shop, just in case it'll be used in accident and perhaps blindside pedestrian... ps. We have such here also.. List of countries, and tax amount (not complete AFAICS) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy tax 36 euros for digital video recorder?! tax 18 euros for hard disk?!
  2. Because it's particle. Are you aware that we can create electron and positron pair from single photon that has energy > 1.022 MeV? y -> e- + e+ Typically photon has to hit some nucleus to produce pair. The higher energy of photon can produce other pairs of particles. Photons with extreme energies are creating shower of new particles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_gamma_ray Photoelectric effect is just one of many effects confirming particle nature of light. Photon-atom interactions video:
  3. In this thread I showed how to measure gravitational acceleration, at home doing experiment: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84336-if-pi-ratio-was-squared-and-98-mss-how-would-this-change-the-whole-of-science/?p=815752
  4. This is critique of Guido Fetta's engine, not Roger Shawyer engine..
  5. If you don't know how scientists are checking what is charge of particle we see, or its mass, you should ask such questions in the mainstream physics part of this forum, and you will get answer.
  6. Make theory that does agree with experimental data, instead of one that is directly contradicting them.. IMHO Nope. Neutron has mass-energy 939.565 MeV, proton has 938.272 MeV, electron has 0.510999 MeV, antineutrino + kinetic energy = 0.782 MeV. Sum of input mass-energy is equal to sum of output products. Nothing is created from nowhere, nothing is vanishing. If particle accelerator will create relativistic velocity particle, energy will be conserved - in high kinetic energy of new particles that will be created (for instance). That energy won't vanish. You don't believe in annihilation?? Nothing is appearing from nowhere, nor doesn't disappear. Do you meant virtual particles?
  7. Have you heard about Positronium? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium or exotic atom made of antiproton-helium nucleus? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiprotonic_helium Once electron collides with positron there is annihilation. Once antiproton collides with nucleus there is annihilation. Have you heard about "breaking radiation" Bremsstrahlung? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung f.e. positive ion is attracting free electron, which is emitting photon and loses kinetic energy.. and it's slowed down, or intercepted by nucleus..
  8. Kramer, you don't understand how particle accelerators are used to detect new particles.. Proton at rest is accelerated to relativistic velocities (v > 0.9c), gaining relativistic mass (in some interpretations), have large kinetic energy, then collided with other particles (typically at rest). From their large kinetic energy there is created shower of new particles, that are usually unstable and decaying quickly. X-rays are/were used to take hundred photos, with slightly delay between them, revealing traces leaved by them in f.e. liquid Hydrogen (Bubble Chamber). The large mass of W Boson most likely is not measured in normal neutron at rest that's decaying to proton, electron and antineutrino. Read this http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/particle_creation.html
  9. No, it's not false. It's fact. On ISS weight device won't work, but you can easily make experiment: take 1 kg ball of iron, 2 kg ball of iron, 4 kg ball of iron. Then apply the same known force F to all 3 objects. And you will see that the more massive 4 kg is accelerated less than 2 kg, which is accelerated less than 1 kg. You need to spend more energy for acceleration to the same velocity, the more heavy is object. The same applies to quantum world - in uniform known electric field, more massive ion will be accelerated to smaller velocity than less massive one. Thus revealing their masses. It's used by mass spectrometry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_spectrometry Electron (with mass me=9.11*10^-31 kg) in 1 Volt potential difference has 1 eV kinetic energy. 1 eV = 1.602*10^-19 Joules. E.K.=1/2*me*v^2 so v = sqrt( E.K.*2/me ) = sqrt( 1.602*10^-19 * 2 / 9.11*10^-31 ) = 593044 m/s Now replace me by mp mass of proton, helium or other particle and repeat calcs.. v= sqrt( E.K.*2/mp ) = sqrt( 1.602*10^-19 * 2 / 1.67*10^-27 ) = 13851 m/s The more mass has particle, or object, the more you must spend energy to accelerate it. You're completely ignoring it in your hypothesis. Sum of masses of your sub-particles that are in electron must be 9.11*10^-31 kg Sum of masses of your sub-particles that are in proton must be 1.67*10^-27 kg etc. with the all other isotopes of all elements. Nope. But I don't know details how it was calculated/measured. And it's not subject of this thread. That's exactly reverse - because of their ridiculous high masses, conservation of mass-energy won't be possible. Mass of substance, that's uniform (made of the same particles, same molecules), tells us quantity of particles. And this knowledge is used by chemists for at least 250 years. f.e. 12 grams of Carbon-12 has 6.022141*10^23 atoms of Carbon. 56 grams of Iron-56 has 6.022141*10^23 atoms of Iron.
  10. Neutron bombardment was in supernova (in large quantity), billions years ago. That's how isotopes heavier than Iron were created (regular star fusion ends up on Iron). Stable isotopes remained that way until now. Unstable isotopes decayed and concentrated at more stable isotopes (like Uranium). Th-237 + n0 -> Th-238 Thorium-238 -> Protactinium-238 + e- + Ve + 1.86299 MeV Protactinium-238 -> Uranium-238 + e- + Ve + 3.45752 MeV We can take any isotope in the lab, and bombard it by free neutrons (from Beryllium-9 because it's isotope that has the lowest energy needed to split it to Be-8 and free neutron) and produce new isotope, whatever you like. Majority of elements with Z>92 are synthesized in the labs. The all Plutonium used in nuclear weapons is made by human using U-238 and Deuterium. List of synthetic elements, made by human: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_element Neutron capture article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_capture Read also about s-process and r-process, to learn how your Thorium was created in the first place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-process
  11. You misunderstand what is mass, what is energy, what is force. You can place object on weight, and measure its mass (rest-mass). It doesn't diminish with distance. We're in the same frame of reference as measured by us object. If you have 1 gram of water it's 1/18 = 0.055555 mol = 3.3456*10^22 molecules of H2O. Equal to 3.3456*10^22 atoms of Oxygen and 6.69*10^22 atoms of Hydrogen.. Each of them have mass 0.018 kg / 6.022141e23 = 2.989*10^-26 kg. Mass of single molecule of water multiplied by above quantity = 1 gram. If you move 1 meter or 1 km or 1 billion km from it, it's still the same quantity of particles. For pretty pure materials like water it's easy to make such calculations. What is diminishing with inverse-square law is force of electrostatic attraction/repelling between charged particles, and force of gravitational attraction between any particles. Planck energy = 1.956 × 109 J But 2.5220631*10^41 * 6.62607e-34 = 167113666.45 J I pay no attention to Planck units, except to Planck const (and reduced). And you're overestimating them (like in thread about Planck charge year ago, which has no meaning in quantum physics)..
  12. You can create any heavier isotope by bombarding lighter isotope by free neutrons. Actually that's a way to detect free neutrons. For instance if you will emit free neutrons to heavy water D2O once free neutron is absorbed by Deuterium, it's changing to Tritium 1H3 Tritium is unstable and decays to 2He3
  13. Not anymore, since now it's in speculations. You are free to speak. Please explain - how gigantic mass of your sub-particles (10^-9 kg) can create billions time less massive particles that we all know?
  14. If it's really closed, mass M should remain the same, regardless of radioactive decay of components inside. Take for example (more or less closed) Earth- we have significant radioactivity in inner & outer core of Earth. It doesn't mean that Earth is losing mass with time (as long as no neutrino is emitted to cosmic space).. All (significant) energy decaying particles are carrying with them, are used to heat remaining particles. For more precise calculation, taking care of particular parent and daughter isotope, anybody can see mine signature.. (unfortunately) it's principle of radioactivity.. Einstein didn't like it, as it appears happening without a cause. It's now known that we can at least stop unstable isotopes that have exclusive decay mode through electron capture from decaying by ionizing them permanently. The first one (the lightest) isotope undergoing electron capture exclusively isotope is Beryllium-7. Beryllium-7 + e- -> Lithium-7 + Ve + 0.861893 MeV (that's what Chlorine-37 based neutrino detector is detecting the most often) I cannot agree with it. Radioactivity is decay of unstable isotope nucleus. Transformation of heavier nucleus to lighter nucleus. Even on this forum it was proposed in speculation section by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU in his thread. Otherwise we would have problem... If protons would start turning to antiprotons, and electrons to positrons (like Arnaud proposes), they would annihilate with regular matter.. Without any doubt.
  15. Ultra high energy photons article mentions detection of gamma photons with energies above 10 EeV (16 Joules). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_gamma_ray Ultra high energy cosmic rays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle Electron-positron pair production happens at billions lower energies (1.022 MeV photon) than these gamma photons have energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production Ultra high energy photons (not only) are making shower of real particle-antiparticle pairs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensive_air_shower (so for gamma photon with >1.88 GeV, there might be created proton-antiproton pair) Pair production is real. It has been observed in Cloud Chamber the first time in 40's XX century (and scientist got Nobel price for it).
  16. This mass is GIGANTIC... from point of view of particles that we know... mp = 1.67*10^-27 kg me = 9.11*10^-31 kg IMHO any sub-particle should have mass smaller than anything what we know currently. Mass of Earth is equal to sum of all masses of all particles. Mass of Sun is equal to sum of all masses of all its particles. That's pretty known for centuries. So your sub-particles must have smaller mass, smaller energy, than anything they're making when you compose couple or more of them together. Otherwise it wouldn't have any bit of sense. Deuterium has mass almost double proton. Helium has mass almost quad proton. etc. etc. Mass doesn't diminish with distance. Especially if you have it on weight and measuring its mass...
  17. Nobody noticed errors in video @ 1 min.. ? Fe-25?! Should be Fe-26 S-15? Should be S-16... Sulfur with 16 protons, and 1 electron left, should have approximately 13.6*Z^2=13.6*16^2 = ~3494.1892 eV ionization energy... That's at least mentioned value in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energies_of_the_elements_%28data_page%29
  18. That's older than Einstein equation.. E = Q*U (P=I*U multiplied by time) 1 J = 1 C * 1 V so for Q=e 1.602e-19 J = 1.602e-19 C * 1 V (1 eV) Kinetic energy that has single electron in 1 Volt potential difference. E.K. = 1/2*me*v^2 so v=SQRT(E.K.*2/me) v = SQRT(1.602e-19*2/9.11*10^-31)=593,044 m/s
  19. I thought so you're talking about something else. Neutrino needed for conservation of energy, without any doubts. Then solve your own equations for instance for me = 9.11*10^-31 kg What you will get? What will be Ee and Eg and R for such input mass? If R is constant ("distance between two extremes of Plank area") then I see no way to match experimental data.. Yes, a bit. But how they correlate? But what is it? Why are you dividing by 0? E = h * c / wavelength, where wavelength = 0?
  20. Thank you. I tried couple firsts and now they're loading fine.
  21. Because you're giving neutrino special role that it does not have. At least there is no experiments that would show it. Am I mistaken? Sorry, but I don't understand what you even want from me.. Can you explain? Planck size area? Compton size? Planck length is 1.6*10^-35 m Compton wavelength is 2.42*10^-12 m Planck length is ~1.5*10^23 smaller value than Compton wavelength..
  22. If you have object at rest, how much energy you must spend to accelerate it to v=1 m/s? Repeat calcs with acceleration from v=1 to v=2 m/s Repeat calcs with acceleration from v=2 to v=4 m/s Then with any v you wish. Even in Newton's mechanics, energy is approaching infinity the higher is velocity. That's why cars, airplanes, space ships have natural limit of speed. Their engine can't provide more energy per unit of time to accelerate vehicle even further.
  23. It can be answered by analyze of what happens to electron while annihilation with positron, and production of gamma photons. They are later absorbed and emitted with less, and less energy, with more quantity... Single pair of electron-positron has enough energy to heat 1.3 billions of H2O molecules for 1o C.
  24. But that's neutron decay, 15+ minutes later.. If free neutron will be absorbed by some nucleus, and final isotope will be stable, then no neutrino, but f.e. photon or other particle will be emitted.. f.e. n0 + Li-6 -> T+ + He-4 + 4.784 MeV
  25. I made this SpreadSheet for you: Decay of isotopes with 56 mass number.zip
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.