Sensei

Why do Protons and Neutrons have different masses?

1.67262E-27 kg Mass of Proton

Only free proton has such rest mass.

More precise value is given in eV unit:

938272046 eV/c^2 (or shorter 938.272 MeV/c^2)

1.67493E-27 kg Mass of Neutron

Only free neutron has such rest mass.

More precise value is given in eV unit:

939.565 MeV/c^2

2.30557E-30 kg Difference in Mass between Proton and Neutron. What could amount for this?

Free neutron is decaying within 15 minutes:

n0 -> p+ + e- + Ve + 0.78 MeV

You can multiply mass in kg by c^2 to get energy in Joules, then divide by e = 1.602e-19, to get energy in eV electron Volt unit. MeV is 1e6 eV

See 9.11e-31 * 299792458^2 / 1.602e-19 = 510999 eV = 0.511 MeV

9.10938E-31 kg Mass of an Electron.

Actually rest mass of free electron (or positron) is

m_e = h*f_C/c^2

f_C - Compton Frequency = 1.23559*10^20

Photon with at least double Compton Frequency has E =1.022 MeV

and is able to create electron and positron in pair production.

 

4.095224815 Electrons fit into the difference between a Neutron and Proton.

2970.957432 Electrons fit into a Proton

2975.052656 Electrons fit into a Neutron

That's simply not true.

m_p/m_e = 1836.15 times heavier.

Actually there are two possible decay paths from 238U

see http://periodictable.com/Isotopes/092.238/index.full.dm.html

The most probable (alpha decay) can ultimately lead to 206Pb or 208Pb.

the other most unlikely mode is a 2b- decay to 238Pu which yields several of the rare earths

It's hard to bother explaining decay branch that is happening in just 2.19×10⁻¹⁰% of decays of U-238... It's 1 decay per 456 billions decays that I showed.

I just wanted to show counter example to your claim that half-life of daughter isotope is higher than parent isotope.

238U is not a "source" isotope

You're mixing what is source.

During explosion of supernova existing lighter atoms are bombarded by free neutrons.

That doesn't mean that there will be created only uuh and uup etc, that will start decaying..

Somebody watching that graph might have such impression, because they're on top of it.

Apologies I set the permissions incorrectly

I hope I have now changed it,could someone check please.

Thanks.

About your observation: see Uranium.

Both U-235 and U-238 (especially) have very very large half-life, counted in billion years.

Daughter product of their decays have small half-life (days), and grand daughter product have even smaller half-life (minutes).

Isotope Uranium-238

Protons 92 Neutrons 146

Mass 238.051

Nucleus Energy 221696 [MeV]

Uranium-238 -> Thorium-234 + alpha + 4.26992 MeV

Proton emission prohibited (-7.626 MeV)

Neutron emission prohibited (-6.15392 MeV)

Beta decay- prohibited (-0.147362 MeV)

Beta decay+ prohibited (-4.47952 MeV)

Electron capture prohibited (-3.45752 MeV)

Thorium-234 half-life 24.10 days

Isotope Thorium-234

Protons 90 Neutrons 144

Mass 234.044

Nucleus Energy 217964 [MeV]

Thorium-234 -> Radium-230 + alpha + 3.67171 MeV

Proton emission prohibited (-8.17297 MeV)

Neutron emission prohibited (-6.19007 MeV)

Thorium-234 -> Protactinium-234 + e- + Ve + 0.272928 MeV

Beta decay+ prohibited (-5.51087 MeV)

Electron capture prohibited (-4.48887 MeV)

Protactinium-234 half-life 1.17 minutes.

Isotope Protactinium-234

Protons 91 Neutrons 143

Mass 234.043

Nucleus Energy 217963 [MeV]

Protactinium-234 -> Actinium-230 + alpha + 4.11231 MeV

Proton emission prohibited (-5.68104 MeV)

Neutron emission prohibited (-5.21991 MeV)

Protactinium-234 -> Uranium-234 + e- + Ve + 2.19451 MeV

Beta decay+ prohibited (-1.29493 MeV)

Electron capture prohibited (-0.272928 MeV)

Uranium-234 half-life 2.455×10⁵ years

Isotope Uranium-234

Protons 92 Neutrons 142

Mass 234.041

Nucleus Energy 217961 [MeV]

Uranium-234 -> Thorium-230 + alpha + 4.85778 MeV

Proton emission prohibited (-6.63247 MeV)

Neutron emission prohibited (-6.84425 MeV)

Beta decay- prohibited (-1.8098 MeV)

Beta decay+ prohibited (-3.2165 MeV)

Electron capture prohibited (-2.19451 MeV)

Thorium-230 half-life 7.538×10⁴ years

ps. Posts #24 & #25 links don't work as well..

It's ridiculous to give links on forum that need your permission to view them.

You should zip your files, and attach them to posts IMHO.

Your graph is also unreadable - what is in X axis, what is in Y axis? I have no idea..

Axes should be rescaled to the right unit (that doesn't have exponent, like f.e. GeV instead of eV when energies are too large), and have titles.

It would make sense to make graph showing different daughter and parent isotopes half-life.

f.e. half-life on Y axis, and Z atomic number on X axis.

----- I didn’t understand well this example. Please explain for me:

Summa of billions of electrons and positrons inside black-box:

before the “annihilation” is not (10^9 * me+) + (10^9 * me-) = 2*10^9*me kg.?

after the “annihilation” is not (10^9 * me+) + (10^9 * me-) = 0 kg?

How do you explain?

Mass of black-box before and after annihilation remain constant. And is 2*10^9*m_e kg

As long as no neutrino is emitted to outer space.

---- I doubt to have decay without emission of neutrinos.

Neutrinos (from unstable nucleus) are ONLY produced by beta decay-, beta decay+ and electron capture,

Proton emission in proton-rich nucleus,

Neutron emission in neutron-rich nucleus,

Alpha decay,

are always neutrinoless.

Double beta decay+ or double beta decay- are occasionally neutrinoless.

That are facts.

Neutrino is classic old quantum theory is needed only to conserve lepton number, and to explain mismatch of mass-energy between mass of parent isotope and daughter and other products of decay.

But later have been found reactions that violated conservation of lepton number.

Read carefully articles before proceeding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_emission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_emission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_decay

Yet Another "Aether theory"...

Not again.....

Then you are saying that higher gravitational fields have no effect on the compression of molecules.

ajb said MOLE.

Mole is quantity of particles or molecules.

1 mole of water is 6.022141*10^23 molecules of H₂O.

So it's 2 moles of Hydrogen = 2*6.022141*10^23 = 1.2044282*10^24 Hydrogens.

And 6.022141*10^23 Oxygens.

And if you had made the computation, you would have seen that it doesn't fit.

Did you do calcs? Or even better do experiment in real world electronic circuit?

Article says about wavelength = 760 nm

E = h*c/760 nm = 2.61374448971061E-019 J / e = 1.6315508675 eV

Article's voltage drop = 1.63 V (does match)

Article says about wavelength = 610 nm

E = h*c/610 nm = 3.25646854455747E-019 J / e = 2.0327519005 eV

Article's voltage drop = 2.03 V (does match)

Article says about wavelength = 590 nm

E = h*c/590 nm = 3.36685730877976E-019 J / e = 2.1016587446 eV

Article's voltage drop = 2.1 V (does match)

And so on so on with the rest, with little exceptions (f.e. white led with colorful plastic cover)

I didn't do just calcs in thread.

I have checked it a long time ago before, using colorful LEDs to check it by myself.

Before even seeing that table on wikipedia (that I noticed three days ago).

And drop of voltage on element is in many cases matching photon energy emitted by diode (h*f=e*U) (+ little lost).

Plug diode to breadboard, attach cables to laboratory power supply, with smooth adjustment of current and voltage, set I=10 mA, and start with U=0 V, and spin it until diode is starting emitting light. Compare with wavelength of emitted photon. Done.

Bail for all plastic and glass containers would solve all issues straight away..

Company that produced something would receive them back.

Majority of glass containers (99.9% of beer) are here with bail ($0.1)

It's pity it's not extended to the all containers.

They just need easy way to get ride of paper label, and glue used to attach it.

Different types of plastics have different densities:

http://www.dotmar.com.au/density.html

So by measuring mass, and volume, you can calculate density and more or less precisely identify used plastic.

As long as it's clean (no labels, no attached things), and measuring device is precise..

Plastics that have smaller density than 1 cm^3 (density of water) will float in water.

So to find out Polyethylene/Polypropylene you just need to blend plastic and let it float and sink in water.

I honestly don't understand what sort of explanation you are looking for.

He is searching for unified theory, that doesn't explain everything as excitations on fields.

That cannot be a property of matter as anything with mass cannot move at c.

That brings us back to the main question of this thread - what is energy, and what is mass.

Can you please explain “what” you mean by “antimatter” and “how” it can make “disappear” mass without “anti mass”?

Photons produced during annihilation of electron, and its antiparticle, positron have positive energy,

so the same mass of electron and positron is positive value.

Dirac was mistaken.

There is no need to exists negative mass to cancel positive mass.

Energy-mass is equal on both sides of equation..

e+ + e- -> y + y

in terms of energy can be written:

m_e*c^2 + m_e*c^2 = h*f_C + h*f_C

f_C - Compton Frequency = 1.23559*10^20 Hz

Compton Wavelength = c/f_c = 299792458 / 1.23559*10^20 = 2.42*10^-12 m = 2.42 pm.

in terms of charge:

+1e - 1e = 0e + 0e

___ With ”get heavier” you means obtain plus the “mass of photon”? What about proton, which absorbs so many photons during acceleration, gets heavier?

Suppose so we have electron and positron in black-box (or billions of them), that is put on precise weight,

They have total mass 2*m_e before annihilation.

After annihilation weight will not measure any change of total mass. Photons will be created, absorbed, another 2nd created, absorbed and so on.

Mass won't change at all. We don't know that they annihilated or not - it's inside of black-box.

Earth's core and internal have a lot of radioactive isotopes that decay, mass changes to energy (see mine signature to learn how to calculate it),

For alpha, proton and neutron decay, that doesn't make Earth decreasing mass in time.

As long as no neutrino is emitted to outer space.

Where have you been whole XX century when we were working on quantum physics.. ?

Molecules flowing in circle, will be of course colliding with them self, but also with pipe or container (in your case nano tubes), and giving part of their kinetic energy to particles of wall.

Which will result in increase of temperature of pipes/container.

If you would manage to make device that's absorbing energy from environment, and it would not ever release that energy back to environment, device would melt after some time.

There is not much energy in environment that you can get this way.

1 m^3 of air at RT has approximately just 2.7*10^25 molecules.

After decreasing their temperature for 1 C, you could get just 373 J energy (1.38*10^-23 J per single molecule per 1 C).

ps. Collisions between particles are elastic and inelastic.

 

No, you can have a definite polarization of a photon, but that photon would not be entangled.

Yes, I know. That is why I was asking him to clarify his statement....

 

So the (very broad) mainstream interpretation is that the polarization is not determined upon emission but upon detection,

Do you mean that ANY photon has random polarization during emission (regardless of entanglement).. ?

Average visible photon has wavelength ~532 nm
so energy of such photon is h*c/wavelength = 6.62607e-34 * 299792458 / 532e-9 = 3.73e-019 J
Sun is emitting at Zenith 1360 J/s of energy per m^2 of Earth (including absorbed by atmosphere). (I am simplifying calcs to not take care of UV/IR/MW - let's hypothetically assume the all is from visible spectrum)

1360 J / 3.73e-019 J = ~ 3.65*10^21 photons per m^2 per second.

Knowing above, you can calculate how many photons is in volume of sphere with radius equal to distance between Sun and Earth (or any further if you want)..

You should learn about inverse square law, to calculate energy per area unit.

In other thread I posted mine animation showing inverse square law for a few particles spreading in the all directions from one origin.

and how could it be used for teleportation ?

It cannot.

I try to understand quantum entanglement :

I suggest buying equipment and checking by yourself..

Lasers, polarization filters, beam splitters etc. are quite cheap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_entanglement

Have any experiments been done for testing and verification purpose in this context? (Including measurement of light being a straight line.)

Search google for:

snell's law

diffraction

single and double slit experiment

you might also being interested about polarization filters.

These things are cheap to buy in shop with physics equipment. Do experiments with lasers, and mirrors.

 

Thanks for your link, I believe there is electron, although we have never get the image about a standing electron.

Image not (hard to get image of particle at rest),

but whole electrostatics is about measuring charges coming from electrons at rest that repel each other..

http://www.sparkmuseum.com/STATIC_MISC.HTM

Wimshurst machine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimshurst_machine

Electroscope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroscope

Don't you have these devices.. ??

 

E=hv are only assumptions, the solution from them is assumption too.

See thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84357-how-to-calculate-planck-const-at-home/

post #5 and #26

how you can calculate Planck const from just a few electronic elements and voltmeter, ampere meter etc.

Maybe he will find peace now in his heart..

He appeared more and more pissed off.

Perhaps we were giving him too much data..

See section "Colors and materials" in article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode

There is table with data how drop of voltage on element is related to wavelength and color of photon emitted by LED.

ps. Iwonderaboutthings had already trouble understanding all these informations, without going into such details.

Yes, and a charge moving in a circle will give you a magnetic field.

Actually, in coil electrons don't move in circle, but in spiral. Single electron is just once passing through wire.

When electrons flow in one direction in coil of course it will produce magnetic field, that anybody with "compass array" device can see on his own eyes.

But if we will use alternating current, electrons flow once in one direction, once in opposite direction.

Can you detect magnetic field when frequency of AC would be counted in millions or billions Hz?

What does show "compass array" device, if you will place it close to coil through which there is flowing low frequency AC, or high frequency AC.. ?

What does show "compass array" device, if you will place it close to discharge tube with Hydrogen and turn high voltage on to ionize it.. ?

The issue I see here is that spectral lines are obtained from discharge tube, with ionized plasma.

But electric neutral Hydrogen gas is not mixture of proton and electron, but H₂ molecule, two protons and two electrons.

ps. Where in USA and UK somebody can buy "compass array" like below one? I searched couple times on Google and can't find anything.. Here it costs $40 in the regular shop.

Whenever somebody asks on physics forum about "moving electron in circle around proton" I know they don't mean it literally. Circle is 2d figure, with missing one axis to 3d. Analyze should be done using the all 3 dimensions.

What are your predictions of magnetic field lines around it for such "coil".. ? Imagine it's single long wire.

 

Yes, this problem has not be solved by present theories, so we must consider the interactions among radiations and charged particles in H atom for proving there is a steady state.

You turned mine answer upside down...

What we can not observe is not mean there is no!

Do you see an electron? do you believe there is elelctron?

Long traces in Cloud Chamber are from electrons (they are also called beta rays, or when we're making them using high voltage - cathode rays)

The more kinetic energy has particle, the longer trace.

 

At the ground state, whether the electron produces radiation?

It would violate conservation of energy, if electron would forever emit photons.

It would means that electron has infinite amount of energy (which is obviously not true).