Sensei

Im sorry. Im deriving the formula for gravitational acceleration.

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

A critique of the experiment by John Baez here: https://plus.google.com/117663015413546257905/posts/C7vx2G85kr4

This is critique of Guido Fetta's engine, not Roger Shawyer engine..

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.

----- “An excessive lesson”, if you have not any “new” explanation : how energy injected in proton (inside? or out side?) , why the collide transform energy in mass particles, why they are unstable, why they move, why in the end of the end all they unstable decaying particles degraded in ten common elementary particles.

Make theory that does agree with experimental data, instead of one that is directly contradicting them..

The large mass of W Boson most likely is not measured in normal neutron at rest that's decaying to proton, electron and antineutrino.

----- So “pops” off nowhere, to vanish in nowhere.

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.

And why, instead to answer direct in questions, you see “odd” my doubt about assertion of annihilation,

You don't believe in annihilation??

or reappearing in or out of nowhere.

Nothing is appearing from nowhere, nor doesn't disappear.

Do you meant virtual particles?

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..

I brought the example of “ W boson “ (or others) which possess mass, to argue that it is not indispensable that mass --- must be added. In this case, after your logic, an unstable neutron that posses a “W boson” must have a total mass equal that of iron atom, because of adds of mass of “W boson”.

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

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.

-- I think it is false.

No, it's not false. It's fact.

Weight it in International Station and you will see that distance count.

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 m_e=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*m_e*v^2

so

v = sqrt( E.K.*2/m_e ) = sqrt( 1.602*10^-19 * 2 / 9.11*10^-31 ) = 593044 m/s

Now replace m_e by m_p mass of proton, helium or other particle and repeat calcs..

v= sqrt( E.K.*2/m_p ) = 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.

By the way: You are Okey with mass of W boson , (which pops out from?? in one of neutrons ), that has a mass “more large than that of atom of iron”.

Nope. But I don't know details how it was calculated/measured. And it's not subject of this thread.

Why you rebuke the existence of “subs” by the cause they have an enormous mass, but by those enormous mass they can be able to conserve basis particle of matter?

That's exactly reverse - because of their ridiculous high masses, conservation of mass-energy won't be possible.

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.

---- ?

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.

No

look at IsosortB

there is no neutron bombardment!

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

Sensei

Mass doesn't diminish with distance. Especially if you have it on weight and measuring its mass.

----- With distance diminish the energy of interaction. Hence the mass.

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.

1) Plank energy is equal summa of 2.5220631*10^41 time photons of frequency 1.

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)..

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

Now, being sure that nobody, is interested in my beloved naive hypothesis of simple structure of energy-matter by alleged “unique particles”, (and attracted by this, I am violating rules of this site), I will quit further debate.

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?

Take a closed system with mass M.

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.

There are measurable internal (radio) chemical process that can change M to M', the difference appearing as energy given by E = (M-M')c².

For more precise calculation, taking care of particular parent and daughter isotope, anybody can see mine signature..

This can happen spontaneously without any interaction with the surroundings.

(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)

Radioactivity is such a process as are some chemical reactions.

I cannot agree with it.

Radioactivity is decay of unstable isotope nucleus. Transformation of heavier nucleus to lighter nucleus.

So far as I am aware, a similar effect involving the partial convertion of an elementary charge into energy has never been observed, or proposed.

Even on this forum it was proposed in speculation section by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU in his thread.

Charge conservation is rigidly maintained in all processes.

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..

Is not pair production or annihilation interaction with another charge and is not total charge preserved by these processes?

Without any doubt.

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).

 

M = e / (4*pi* ε0 * G) ^ 0.5 kg = e / g = 1. 859389987* 10^ -9 (kg.?)

This mass is GIGANTIC... from point of view of particles that we know...

m_p = 1.67*10^-27 kg

m_e = 9.11*10^-31 kg

IMHO any sub-particle should have mass smaller than anything what we know currently.

Those are the characters of “ unique sub particle” that sure will scandalizes you with its huge “mass” if we call it mass, but maybe you will admit it, if I consider it “gravity energy”, the only factor able to hold photons around.

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.

And, for outer radius observers, it drastically diminished, in comparison with Plank mass.

Mass doesn't diminish with distance. Especially if you have it on weight and measuring its mass...

Nobody noticed errors in video @ 1 min.. ?

Fe-25?! Should be Fe-26

S-15? Should be S-16...

 

The implication is that we don't know of any states/transitions that would account for this. Otherwise it would not be unexplained.

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

 

So far as I'm aware, there has never been a formula for charge, equivalent to E=mc² for mass, relating charge to energy.

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*m_e*v^2

so

v=SQRT(E.K.*2/m_e)

v = SQRT(1.602e-19*2/9.11*10^-31)=593,044 m/s

------ When Fermi named it “neutrino”, they had not any idea what kind of particle was. He was based only in fact that was without electric charge, and that during nuclear reaction this “something” stole a formidable quantity of energy. As a no physicist, I think that this is enough for calling neutrinos “important”.

I thought so you're talking about something else.

Neutrino needed for conservation of energy, without any doubts.

It is kind of a joke on myself, like a debunk of my hypothesis about the structure of whatever common particles. I think that electron particle, the same as all the others, has:

1) An electric energy:

Ee = (e+e)^2 / (4 * (4*pi*ε0 )* R) where charge “e” can be + or – , and R – is a distance between two extremes of Plank area, but no zero and no infinite.

2) An inner gravity energy: Eg = ((Sqrt(G) * M)^2 / R Where Sqrt(G) may have + or - sign.

3) An outer observers “mass” m = Ee / C^2 or Eg / C^2

In my hypothesis, determine factor about energy and mass -- is the distance between two sub particles “R” .

Then solve your own equations for instance for m_e = 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..

And here I am stuck: Why Compton radiuses?

( you are scandalized that I doesn’t use, instead of “radius”, “wave - length”?

Yes, a bit.

Because I think that wave-lengths depend by radiuses)

But how they correlate?

For example E = h / 0 that you dodge to explain.[/size][/font]

But what is it?

Why are you dividing by 0?

E = h * c / wavelength, where wavelength = 0?

Thank you. I tried couple firsts and now they're loading fine.

We have debated elsewhere about the role of neutrinos in the process of disintegration and have quit with agree to not agree.

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?

May be you can solve (with your analyze) the problem why an electron particle, in upper Plank size area, degraded and stops in Compton size.?!!

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..

Means, work done decreases as velocity increases. Means, consumption of energy decreases as velocity increases but as per strong equivalence principle of mass & energy of relativity, consumption of energy should be increases, not decreases as velocity increases. This makes Einstein relativity wrong.

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.

But questions such as "what is an electron" and your questions cannot be answered in this way. These are (as far as we know) fundamental things. We can we can quantify them and describe them in terms of their interactions with other things. But they are what they are.

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 1^o C.

Neutron emission in neutron-rich nucleus.

----Isnt neutron emission decay in the end, results in spiting out neutrino?

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

I made this SpreadSheet for you:

Decay of isotopes with 56 mass number.zip

It doesn't. Don't project your crackpoterry on the laws of nature.

(...)

Not through crank misconceptions, that much is sure.

Can't you write single post without being rude?

If forum activity makes you so much angry, you should find other hobby..

People here want to help others, not to insult them..

XIX century argumentation for aether was that all waves they knew were requiring medium in which wave is propagating.

Waves in ocean need water. Sound waves need air or other material. etc. etc.

So that argumentation was also expanded to light propagating in vacuum.

To create vacuum you need to suck the all air molecules that are in hermetic container.

How do you create aether by sucking regular molecules out?

Is aether only in vacuum or everywhere, even inside of us and all matter?

You should first create experiment that is creating aether (if it exists) in lab then come with theory. Not reverse..