Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kramer

RESEMBLANCE AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO ATOMS

Recommended Posts

RESEMBLANCE AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO ATOMS

When scientists say that disintegration of Neutron consists with an electron, one proton and one antineutrino, I make comparison with hydrogen and find the same, or quasi the same.
But is it known that neutron occupy a volume very small, instead hydrogen atom a quite formidable one.
For scientist, the fact of occupation of space by mass particles is a solved problem, or am I wrong?
I am a layman, and I see very strange “the statements” that elementary mass particles are points and indeed without volume.
I suppose that a debate about this theme will help to clear view -point of lay-mans, about “statements”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RESEMBLANCE AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO ATOMS

 

When scientists say that disintegration of Neutron consists with an electron, one proton and one antineutrino, I make comparison with hydrogen and find the same, or quasi the same.

But is it known that neutron occupy a volume very small, instead hydrogen atom a quite formidable one.

For scientist, the fact of occupation of space by mass particles is a solved problem, or am I wrong?

I am a layman, and I see very strange “the statements” that elementary mass particles are points and indeed without volume.

I suppose that a debate about this theme will help to clear view -point of lay-mans, about “statements”.

When a particle decays, such as the neutron, and you get back other particles such as a proton, electron, and an electron antineutrino, it's easy to come to the conclusion that such particle is similar to the hydrogen atom because of the particles that you get back are also found in such atom. However, you have to keep in mind that energy is transformed. So, a particle such as a neutron can decay releasing its energy, which is transformed into other particles that can be found in atoms such as hydrogen. This does not mean that a neutron is a hydrogen atom smashed to the point that it becomes a neutron, only that the energy released from such decay is transformed into particles that can also be found in the hydrogen atom.

 

As for point particles, I'm by no means an expert on particle physics, but from what I understand that is how the mathematics treats the particles. Perhaps, someone more knowledgeable in that field can weigh in on the topic.

Edited by Daedalus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neutrons and protons are not fundamental particles. Nobody is claiming they are point particles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swansont

Neutrons and protons are not fundamental particles. Nobody is claiming they are point particles.

Yes. That true.

With elementary particles I intended the “fundamental” particles, which are point particles, which build neutrons and hydrogen, and which being without any dimension create volumetric structure.
Different for hydrogen and neutron.

 

Daedalus

When a particle decays, such as the neutron, and you get back other particles such as a proton, electron, and an electron antineutrino, it's easy to come to the conclusion that such particle is similar to the hydrogen atom because of the particles that you get back are also found in such atom. However, you have to keep in mind that energy is transformed. So, a particle such as a neutron can decay releasing its energy, which is transformed into other particles that can be found in atoms such as hydrogen. This does not mean that a neutron is a hydrogen atom smashed to the point that it becomes a neutron, only that the energy released from such decay is transformed into particles that can also be found in the hydrogen atom.

As for point particles, I'm by no means an expert on particle physics, but from what I understand that is how the mathematics treats the particles. Perhaps, someone more knowledgeable in that field can weigh in on the topic.

Thanks Daedalus for your answer. I know that this is the model of answer about everything that has to do with “decays”: energy transformed in mass particles.
Now, just for this is the aim of the thread:
how on earth energy transformed in mass and vice-versa.

All i know about standard version is that neutron is nothing else but three quarks, bounded together by some boson.
In process of disintegration --- where they go? How comes that three quarks becomes three common elementary particles,
quasi, the same as those of hydrogen atom?
And why the mass –energy of the same elementary particles occupy different volume of space?
What is the role of “antineutrino”, in the structure of both “atoms”? Why the modern physics negate any role by antineutrino?
Why is discarded the version that anti neutrino has the potential to “smash”, I would say to bound, hydrogen components in another volume to became “neutron”?
For those dilemmas I thought to open this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swansont

Neutrons and protons are not fundamental particles. Nobody is claiming they are point particles.

Yes. That true.

With elementary particles I intended the “fundamental” particles, which are point particles, which build neutrons and hydrogen, and which being without any dimension create volumetric structure.

Different for hydrogen and neutron.

 

Hydrogen and neutrons have different constituent particles, and have different interactions. The electron in hydrogen is not contained within the nucleus and undergoes an electrostatic interaction with the proton, all different from the neutron.

 

 

Also: How to use the quote function

and the etiquette guide, aka the "posting in all bold, etc. is considered rude" guide (I've take the liberty of un-rudifying your last two posts)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so physics negate role of neutrino.

There are scientists that are studying it f.e.Ephraim Fischbach and Jere Jenkins.

 

Why is discarded the version that anti neutrino has the potential to “smash”, I would say to bound, hydrogen components in another volume to became “neutron”?

 

Neutrino detectors are utilizing f.e. isotopes that are prone to neutrino bombardment. f.e. Chlorine changes to Argon, and Gallium to Germanium.

After experiment you have to filter out original isotope from newly made to count how many reactions we had in container.

 

This shows how hard is to detect neutrino. Read "Detection techniques" in

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

(~500 tons of substance is not something that everybody have at home, don't you think so?)

 

Neutron decay neutrino has fraction of energy needed for these detectors to work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Swansont
Hydrogen and neutrons have different constituent particles, and have different interactions. The electron in hydrogen is not contained within the nucleus and undergoes an electrostatic interaction with the proton, all different from the neutron.
-----
This thread is just about the constituents. Why are they asserted as different when results that they are the same in fact after disintegration or disassociation? !
With (udd) constituents in neutron I can’t grasp how you may create an electron, a proton and an antineuitrino. The statement --- that the energy they have, is responsible for creation of those common elementary particles--, well known by physicists, is not enough convincing, and seems to me very artificial.

Sensei

I don't think so physics negate role of neutrino.

There are scientists that are studying it f.e.Ephraim Fischbach and Jere Jenkins
_
----.I don’t remember where I read that neutrinos and anti neutrinos, acting so feeble with mater, don’t play any role in interaction of mass particles.
In my layman’s logic, I think the opposite. They must play a powerful role in reactions, nevertheless that they are so difficult to detect or intercepts.

Neutrino detectors are utilizing f.e. isotopes that are prone to neutrino bombardment. f.e. Chlorine changes to Argon, and Gallium to Germanium.
----- That’s very interesting, I had no idea about. But any explanation about mechanism of their interactions? Will be very helpful for the theme we debate.

(~500 tons of substance is not something that everybody have at home, don't you think so?)

Neutron decay neutrino has fraction of energy needed for these detectors to work.
----- The difficulties to detect or intercept those particle, is not an argument to negate their exceptional role in physic.
About antineutrino I have a naïve idea, that their mass posses antigravity ability, and for this is so “wild” to catch with mass gravity instruments. The same cause is as about positrons. But why “neutrinos” are so “wild” to catch? They have gravity ability in my hypothesis?
By the way: have you any simple idea why neutrinos change mass? But please not with "flavors".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hydrogen and neutrons have different constituent particles, and have different interactions. The electron in hydrogen is not contained within the nucleus and undergoes an electrostatic interaction with the proton, all different from the neutron.

-----This thread is just about the constituents. Why are they asserted as different when results that they are the same in fact after disintegration or disassociation? !

 

Because they are, in fact, different. A neutron decaying does not give you the identical particles as a hydrogen atom.

 

With (udd) constituents in neutron I can’t grasp how you may create an electron, a proton and an antineuitrino. The statement --- that the energy they have, is responsible for creation of those common elementary particles--, well known by physicists, is not enough convincing, and seems to me very artificial.

 

That you can't grasp it does not make it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With (udd) constituents in neutron I cant grasp how you may create an electron, a proton and an antineuitrino.

The statement --- that the energy they have, is responsible for creation of those common elementary particles--, well known by physicists, is not enough convincing, and seems to me very artificial.

 

What really matter is what you can see in f.e. Cloud Chamber..

 

Imagine you have unstable isotope which is decaying through neutron emission.

You know what is mass of isotope, so you can calculate mass of nucleus (no electrons).

Both parent and daughter isotopes.

Then you know how much mass-energy is "missing" between them.

If it's > 939.565 MeV then there is enough energy to emit neutron.

That's the case when parent isotope is He-5 and daughter isotope is He-4.

So if you would inject He-5 to cloud chamber there should be neutron emitted and alpha particle.

And neutron should decay to proton and electron and anti neutrino.

At least alpha, proton and electron should leave traces.

 

Neutrino detectors are utilizing f.e. isotopes that are prone to neutrino bombardment. f.e. Chlorine changes to Argon, and Gallium to Germanium.

----- Thats very interesting, I had no idea about. But any explanation about mechanism of their interactions? Will be very helpful for the theme we debate.

That's in the link that I gave you yesterday.. Didn't you read it already?

 

----- The difficulties to detect or intercept those particle, is not an argument to negate their exceptional role in physic.

About antineutrino I have a naïve idea, that their mass posses antigravity ability, and for this is so wild to catch with mass gravity instruments. The same cause is as about positrons.

No. They don't have any antigravity ability.

Positron has positive energy, positive mass. Dirac was mistaken.

So the same with photons produced by annihilation of them with electrons.

If you would learn how to calculate Decay Energy, you would see it by yourself.

I have sent you in private example calculation.

 

But why neutrinos are so wild to catch?

 

There is very few of them. If I calculated right there is > 5 mln times more of photons from the Sun than neutrinos.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Swanson

Because they are, in fact, different. A neutron decaying does not give you the identical particles as a hydrogen atom.
--- Are they in “fact”-- first of all? As I know scientists have not intercept for sure a particle with (1 / 3 e } (Where “e” is electric charge) , giving the justification that they can’t exist out of neutron.
And if they are, (let say with no “if”), there must be a mechanism how the quarks transforms in electron, anti neutron, and proton from one single common particle. Aren’t the products of disintegration of neutron the similar with those of Hydrogen, except for neutrino that must be different?

That you can't grasp it does not make it wrong.
I get the allusion about my ignorance in modern physic. But has not a lay man the right to ask how a third of an orange, can magically transformed in a full apple?
Please don’t take my insistence as rudeness. I want to clarify the difference between quarks, and my poor “unique particle”, which I think gave a different outcome in this theme.

Sensay.

What really matter is what you can see in f.e. Cloud Chamber..

Imagine you have unstable isotope which is decaying through neutron emission.
You know what is mass of isotope, so you can calculate mass of nucleus (no electrons).
Both parent and daughter isotopes.
Then you know how much mass-energy is "missing" between them.
If it's > 939.565 MeV then there is enough energy to emit neutron.
That's the case when parent isotope is He-5 and daughter isotope is He-4.
So if you would inject He-5 to cloud chamber there should be neutron emitted and alpha particle.
And neutron should decay to proton and electron and anti neutrino.

-----Thanks Sensei. I like your accuracy, in debate. I have used the same method for calculation the balances:

Mneutron = (Mpr.+ Mel. + M?.= 1.674927211*10^-27Kg = 1 505349505*10^-10 J +
= 939565346 eV


The same for Hydrogen atom:
MH1atomic = ( Mpr. + Mel.) + M?? = 1.673532498*10^-27 kg.= 1. 504095999*10^-19J =
= 9387830119 eV.


(Mpr. + Mel.) = 1.673532572*10^-27 kg. = 1.504096069*10^-10 J. = 9387830119 eV.

Results: For neutron. M? = --782335. eV that is M? = Mantineutrino


Result for H1 M? = -- 47 eV. That is M/ = Mantineutrino too.
1 am not sure about exact accuracy. But that the third constituent, is negative for neutron I am sure.
And this is a potent “antineutrino” that bound other constituents in neutron I suppose I am right.
The same I may say for H1. The third constituent that bound and divide “Me” and “Mpr”.is an “antineutrino” Only here the “antineutrino” is low potential, and play different role.

That's in the link that I gave you yesterday.. Didn't you read it already?At least alpha, proton and electron should leave traces.
-----I am aware about Wilson camera even though I haven’t seen one. And I don’t doubt about reality of things.
No. They don't have any antigravity ability.
Positron has positive energy, positive mass. Dirac was mistaken.
So the same with photons produced by annihilation of them with electrons

Here I have different opinion. I think that no scientist has discarded with sure arguments the absence of anti – gravity. Otherwise are stupid they in C.E.R.N. that programmed artificial production of anti-hydrogen? What do you think is it the aim of their efforts.?
If you would learn how to calculate Decay Energy, you would see it by yourself.
I have sent you in private example calculation.

-----Thanks for the help. I take your post. Sorry that I was not able to respond in the same way.
I have an old , outdated computer.

There is very few of them. If I calculated right there is > 5 mln times more of photons from the Sun than neutrinos.
----- I doubt that here is it not the problem in the amount of neutrinos but in their unknown nature of them. For this I asked you as expert, to give me any clue about why neutrino change it’s “mass”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~782333 eV is energy of antineutrino + kinetic energy of electron + kinetic energy of proton.

939565378 eV - ( 938272046 + 510999 ) = 782333 eV

 

According to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_neutron#Stability_and_beta_decay

0.782 ± .013 MeV is kinetic energy of electron

so for antineutrino there is just 333 eV left!

 

You have to realize that how much energy one particle will take with it, is not constant, it's variable. We are calculating just averages.

Sometimes electron takes less, and neutrino more, sometimes reverse.

 

Same unstable isotope decaying in cloud chamber might have different length traces.

I don't know whether you know but there are neutrinoless beta decays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_beta_decay#Neutrinoless_double_beta_decay

 

-----I am aware about Wilson camera even though I haven’t seen one. And I don’t doubt about reality of things.

 

You rather mean chamber.

 

There is no single reason why you wouldn't have to build one by yourself. 50 usd is not much.

Some make it in tea glass (not very practical though).

 

----- I doubt that here is it not the problem in the amount of neutrinos but in their unknown nature of them.

One can be result of other to some level.

Same problem is with distant galaxies - small quantity of photons coming from them = little informations about them.

 

For this I asked you as expert, to give me any clue about why neutrino change it’s “mass”.

 

I will better send you in private message contact to Ephraim Fischbach.

 

To mine taste there is too little data to have definite answers.

 

There is too little known about fusion process inside of stars.

And there is no way we will extend our knowledge without miracles, as no device is able survive travel to Sun core, to gather data and send them back to Earth.

 

"Change mass" - we would first have to know what was initial mass (or energy) to tell that change really happened.

If you measured mass once, then let it go, and measured second time, if it's the same, then you know it's pretty constant over time.

 

Sun core has density 150 g/cm^3, that's 770% of gold on Earth. That's ~1.67 millions times density of gas Hydrogen on Earth.

So maybe neutrinos are also "squashed" and as such are ejected from core and 8 minutes later appearing on Earth with much more high energy than lab neutrinos.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they are, in fact, different. A neutron decaying does not give you the identical particles as a hydrogen atom.

--- Are they in “fact”-- first of all? As I know scientists have not intercept for sure a particle with (1 / 3 e } (Where “e” is electric charge) , giving the justification that they can’t exist out of neutron.

 

As far as science is concerned, yes. The model is quite successful.

 

 

And if they are, (let say with no “if”), there must be a mechanism how the quarks transforms in electron, anti neutron, and proton from one single common particle. Aren’t the products of disintegration of neutron the similar with those of Hydrogen, except for neutrino that must be different?

Similar? Yes, some of the particles are the same. Except for the neutrino, which you can't ignore. Meaning they are different.

 

Yes, there is a mechanism: the weak interaction.

 

 

That you can't grasp it does not make it wrong.

I get the allusion about my ignorance in modern physic. But has not a lay man the right to ask how a third of an orange, can magically transformed in a full apple?

Please don’t take my insistence as rudeness. I want to clarify the difference between quarks, and my poor “unique particle”, which I think gave a different outcome in this theme.

 

But you are not simply asking a question. You are also insinuating that the model is wrong, without actually understanding that which you are attacking. And that is rude, and presumptuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't the reason quarks in a neutron can spit out the particles they do is that the quarks are very massive? Does this mean that the actual mass of a neutron is contained within the individual UUD quarks? If so, is this mass equal within both types of quarks, presumably not....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean that the actual mass of a neutron is contained within the individual UUD quarks?

Well, don't forget we have the binding energy to take care of.

 

I know that lattice QCD can give predictions for the masses of light hardons, though I am ignorant to how accurate this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't the reason quarks in a neutron can spit out the particles they do is that the quarks are very massive? Does this mean that the actual mass of a neutron is contained within the individual UUD quarks? If so, is this mass equal within both types of quarks, presumably not....

 

Flipping of a down quark to an up releases energy. So we can conclude that the down is more massive, and it is. As ajb points out, them quarks are bound, so this is not due to a difference in the "bare" mass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sensei

According to

http://en.wikipedia...._and_beta_decay

0.782 ± .013 MeV is kinetic energy of electron

so for antineutrino there is just 333 eV left!

~782333 eV is energy of antineutrino + kinetic energy of electron + kinetic energy of proton.

939565378 eV - ( 938272046 + 510999 ) = 782333 eV

You have to realize that how much energy one particle will take with it, is not constant, it's variable. We are calculating just averages.

Sometimes electron takes less, and neutrino more, sometimes reverse.

Same unstable isotope decaying in cloud chamber might have different length traces.

I don't know whether you know but there are neutrinoless beta decays.

http://en.wikipedia....uble_beta_decay
------Your rebut about my simple structure of neutron with only three kind of common particles “:me”, “mpr”, and antigravity “mv” , show that my knowledge for this thread is lame. It is the same with other words -- as alluded mr. Swanson. And you are right.
But my aim was directed in two issue:
1- About the link between kind of particle’s structure and the occupation of space by this structure.
I supposed that “neutron atomic” and “Hydrogen “”atomic”” have the “same constituents” in their structures. Instead they occupy much different “volume of space”.
I made simple calculations and find that in neutron particle the “anti-neutrino constituent” was more powerful than in atomic hydrogen.
And I made “speculation conclusion” that the reason of the difference in occupied volume of space was just the state of neutrino.
In Hydrogen atomic, constituents are linked in series, in analogy of Khircoff law for resistances.:
RH1 = Rpr. + Rel + RV
Here the predominant is radius of antineutrino engaged in this link.
(Radius is inverse proportional with mass)
In neutron atomic particle, the same constituents are linked in parallel mode , in a single circular shell: (in analogy of second law of Khircof”)
1 / Rn = 1 / Rpr. +1 / Rel. + 1 / Rv(antineutrino).
In this case predominant is role of Rpr for the radius of shell. And the cause is a potent antineutrino.
2—I was curious about link between quarks (udd) of neutron and the by product of disintegration of neutron>(mpr. me. mv.) .
Do you see here any rudeness or presumption in my naïve speculative conclusions, or in my doubt?

 

 

 

There is no single reason why you wouldn't have to build one by yourself. 50 usd is not much.

.Some make it in tea glass (not very practical though)

One can be result of other to some level
-----I believe in graphs given by scientists. This is enough for me to scrutinize them with amazes and in the same time with the doubts about given interpretations.
Bluntly, my aim is to see, if my hypothesis of “unique sub particle” fits somehow with the reality realized by contemporary physics, but with an particular mode of explanation.

Same problem is with distant galaxies - small quantity of photons coming from them = little informations about them.

I will better send you in private message contact to Ephraim Fischbach.
I was un- able to make contact that you suggested. In short do you think it is unworthy to debate in speculation forum my thread because that “it is not worth to loose others time”?
But what about green and red points if we debate with each other in private? Have you any prerogative to give me at least one green point for which I am so eager? Joke!!

 

To mine taste there is too little data to have definite answers.

There is too little known about fusion process inside of stars.

And there is no way we will extend our knowledge without miracles, as no device is able survive travel to Sun core, to gather data and send them back to Earth.

"Change mass" - we would first have to know what was initial mass (or energy) to tell that change really happened.

If you measured mass once, then let it go, and measured second time, if it's the same, then you know it's pretty constant over time.

Sun core has density 150 g/cm^3, that's 770% of gold on Earth. That's ~1.67 millions times density of gas Hydrogen on Earth.

So maybe neutrinos are also "squashed" and as such are ejected from core and 8 minutes later appearing on Earth with much more high energy than lab neutrinos.
----- I see that like me you have doubt about many problems, But you are not stupid to make own statement for things that you are not certain. Good for you. You dodge the red points.
I like to speculate. Let debate about above Phrase. Neutrino squashed by high pressure in center of sun. This, for me, make sense. But:
1 –What a neutrino is, that gave it the possibility to be squished?
2—From this came question: Where is maximum of mass of neutrino: in center of sun? free released out of sun? far away from sun? What cause the change?
The scientist gave explanations with “flavors” that change in a particle of neutrino.?! None has give me any explanation what this mean?
And I gave a “ presumptuous?! speculative explanation”:
Elementary common particles have all in rest status the same structure: Two “unique sub-particle”, which evolve toward each other with C velocity in curve linear trajectories create glob steady cloud, helixes runaway cloud, conic runaway cloud and expanded glob cloud.
In my speculative hypothesis antineutrino is structured by two sub particles: - e / +g and + e / +g
Here g = sqrt (4*pi*epsilon0*G).
In hydrogen this particle has a radius around 5*10^-11 m.
Squished in neutron this particle take a radius around 10^-18m
after disintegration this particle free from pressure bounce in the dimension of hydrogen.
As for electric charges + and – this particle is like a photon, and can move with C velocity too. But different from photon that has different gravity charge in equilibrium with electric charge, neutrino has the same gravity charge +g. This make that sub-particles of neutrino attract each other, the radius diminished their mass augmented, the further they go. Until they reach the state of a plank black body particle.
Your rebut about my idea would be appreciared,

 

 

Swansont.

Similar? Yes, some of the particles are the same. Except for the neutrino, which you can't ignore. Meaning they are different.
----- I would like little more didactics in your rebuts, with concrete examples, for questions that have a concrete meaning. It is your laconic stile, but for lay-men like me that have a slow ability to chew hidden meaning of laconic phrase, it is difficult to understand. Although I know your answer: “that your problem not my”.

Yes, there is a mechanism: the weak interaction.
---- I must meditate more about the magic mechanism of bosons, especially those with mass?!

As far as science is concerned, yes. The model is quite successful.
---- For the side of artistry, it is crafted well. For the side of conviction is Einstainian - incomplete.

But you are not simply asking a question. You are also insinuating that the model is wrong, without actually understanding that which you are attacking. And that is rude, and presumptuous.
----To make question in the speculation forum is quite normal> To insinuate for a model that it is wrong it is not a crime, especially for the weirdness of model. Here I don’t see no rudeness no presumption. You may call presumption my naïve model of ”unique sub-particles”, that an ignorant dare to contravene toward the standard model. But is simple a naïve model. Every body can crash it in the state of egg. Even I can deride my idea in many aspects, but is it a try in a direction that is new, as I haven’t seen any similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will better send you in private message contact to Ephraim Fischbach.

I was un- able to make contact that you suggested.

 

I don't understand..

You asked me what is mine opinion about "change of mass of neutrinos".

So I gave you contact to scientist that is working with neutrinos on a daily basis, to ask him what is his opinion about subject.

 

Who has the most knowledge about heart than cardiac surgeon.. ?

 

In short do you think it is unworthy to debate in speculation forum my thread because that “it is not worth to loose others time”?

 

Rules of this forum is that OP is speculating and all others are replying with mainstream answers for speculation.

I can't introduce mine own speculations in yours speculative thread, even if I would like to.

 

But what about green and red points if we debate with each other in private?

 

If I recall correctly I never gave you any rep points.

 

I don't debate with people to give or receive rep points, so discussion in private is not problem for me.

I don't need large audience to read mine posts.

 

Have you any prerogative to give me at least one green point for which I am so eager? Joke!!

 

Answer somebody question in mainstream forum, and I am sure somebody will appreciate it, if it will be correct and helpful.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, there is a mechanism: the weak interaction.

---- I must meditate more about the magic mechanism of bosons, especially those with mass?!

As far as science is concerned, yes. The model is quite successful.

---- For the side of artistry, it is crafted well. For the side of conviction is Einstainian - incomplete.

But you are not simply asking a question. You are also insinuating that the model is wrong, without actually understanding that which you are attacking. And that is rude, and presumptuous.

----To make question in the speculation forum is quite normal> To insinuate for a model that it is wrong it is not a crime, especially for the weirdness of model. Here I don’t see no rudeness no presumption. You may call presumption my naïve model of ”unique sub-particles”, that an ignorant dare to contravene toward the standard model. But is simple a naïve model. Every body can crash it in the state of egg. Even I can deride my idea in many aspects, but is it a try in a direction that is new, as I haven’t seen any similar.

 

Calling science magic is another example of what I would consider rudeness. It's dismissive: science is not magic.

 

I never said it was a crime to question a model. It's not the contradiction that's the problem, it's the presumption that something that doesn't even rise to the level of model is true, while an actual model that's been tested for decades and shown its success is dismissed without regard for the experiments that have been done. It's the questioning based on the fallacy of personal incredulity.

 

One might consider that the reason that you haven't seen similar efforts is that people with a grasp of the experimental evidence realize that the suggested "missing" models are trivially wrong, by simple inspection.

 

Similar? Yes, some of the particles are the same. Except for the neutrino, which you can't ignore. Meaning they are different.

----- I would like little more didactics in your rebuts, with concrete examples, for questions that have a concrete meaning. It is your laconic stile, but for lay-men like me that have a slow ability to chew hidden meaning of laconic phrase, it is difficult to understand. Although I know your answer: “that your problem not my”.

 

 

Ignoring the antineutrino means ignoring conservation of angular momentum and conservation of lepton number. These are not trivial things to ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In hydrogen this particle has a radius around 5*10^-11 m.

More than radius of whole Hydrogen atom?

More than radius of nucleus?

That doesn't make sense to me..

 

Some people estimate proton radius to be 0.85 fm (0.85*10^-15 m)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sensei

I don't understand..
You asked me what is mine opinion about "change of mass of neutrinos".
So I gave you contact to scientist that is working with neutrinos on a daily basis, to ask him what is his opinion about subject.
Who has the most knowledge about heart than cardiac surgeon.. ?

------ Please don’t be offended, but haven’t you an your version, even though speculative and creasy,? Isn’t intriguing that a particle change it’s mass without any cause?
I listen once a scientist to say: we scientist have our hierarchy, we have our pope our bishops our….. deacons?!…
If pope or bishop say: “particle change mass because change “flavor””, does this mean that duty of deacon is to say “ amen”?

Rules of this forum is that OP is speculating and all others are replying with mainstream answers for speculation.
I can't introduce mine own speculations in yours speculative thread, even if I would like to.

------ ???!!! Is it a rule? An order to fight heresy?

If I recall correctly I never gave you any rep points.

I don't debate with people to give or receive rep points, so discussion in private is not problem for me.

I don't need large audience to read mine posts.
----- I am very sorry that you don’t get my sarcasm.
Answer somebody question in mainstream forum, and I am sure somebody will appreciate it, if it will be correct and helpful.
----- The participants of forum, have their preferred theme, and have not time to lose with somebody that is out of their interest. The good willed may give you the site where to dig.

Swanson

Calling science magic is another example of what I would consider rudeness. It's dismissive: science is not magic.
Who say science is magic? Not I. There are quantum interpretations of some phenomena of nature that leave intentionally open the door for metaphysics and transcendence. If I say with sarcasm about mechanism of bosons as magical, that is because, so is interpreted by quantum.
mechanic.
Who negate the particularity nature of bosons? Who think that they have not a spatial dimension? Who with a “boom” explain the mechanism of action of them with mater?
Not I.
I am nobody. A lay- man, not a physicist. The thread that we are debating in fact was about the relation of mass particles with “mass les particles” in building structure of H1 and Neutron.
And --- structures are in space.
And occupy a different volume of space.
Why? When the participants of both particles (H1 and neutron) are quite the same?
What is the role of mass-les particles in their structure?
I speculated that it is neutrino for both particles that cause different structure.
Based it, in the statement of physicists, that neutrino change mass.
I speculate that mass of common elementary particles is inverse proportional with their radius.
The debate instead of giving a clear answer about relation “mass –space” of compound particles, derailed in splitting the hair, in rudeness and presumption of O.P.
I never said it was a crime to question a model. It's not the contradiction that's the problem, it's the presumption that something that doesn't even rise to the level of model is true, while an actual model that's been tested for decades and shown its success is dismissed without regard for the experiments that have been done. It's the questioning based on the fallacy of personal incredulity.

I didn’t say that my so called model is true and the standard model is not.
I was not able to understand the standard model with all quarks that after disintegrations results always in participants well known as elementary common particle.
How they (elementary common particles) are integrated inside complex structure of various radio active particles, and have been changed in quarks. and vice-verse how happens during disintegration. The mechanism if any, please. Not with a simple “flipping”.
Are those questions based on the fallacy of personal incredibility? Or is the absence of an adequate explanation by specialists?

One might consider that the reason that you haven't seen similar efforts is that people with a grasp of the experimental evidence realize that the suggested "missing" models are trivially wrong, by simple inspection.
----- Or because that they are not conform, they are denigrated, derided, thrown in trash can.
Ignoring the antineutrino means ignoring conservation of angular momentum and conservation of lepton number. These are not trivial things to ignore.
What is this? Who ignore antineutrino. Not me. Instead I say that antineutrino is the main cause that may justify the differences between their radial dimension.

Sensei

More than radius of whole Hydrogen atom?

Jes. Quite the radius of hydrogen. Who do you think divide electron from proton in Hydrogen atom? Neutrino: bound and divide. I think.
More than radius of nucleus?
That doesn't make sense to me.
Some people estimate proton radius to be 0.85 fm (0.85*10^-15 m)
Yes. So I think. Give me your argument why not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rules of this forum is that OP is speculating and all others are replying with mainstream answers for speculation.

I can't introduce mine own speculations in yours speculative thread, even if I would like to.

------ ???!!! Is it a rule?

Yes. See rules 5 and 10

 

 

 

Calling science magic is another example of what I would consider rudeness. It's dismissive: science is not magic.

Who say science is magic? Not I.

Then someone hacked into your computer and posted "I must meditate more about the magic mechanism of bosons" using your account. (emphasis added)

 

 

There are quantum interpretations of some phenomena of nature that leave intentionally open the door for metaphysics and transcendence. If I say with sarcasm about mechanism of bosons as magical, that is because, so is interpreted by quantum.

mechanic.

Who negate the particularity nature of bosons? Who think that they have not a spatial dimension? Who with a “boom” explain the mechanism of action of them with mater?

Not I.

I am nobody. A lay- man, not a physicist.

Then you have no basis for making an assessment of physics. It would be like telling someone how to fix your car when you have no training as a car mechanic, or how to argue a court case, with no training as a lawyer.

 

Without studying the material, all you can say is you don't understand. Nothing more. To pretend that you do understand, and can make a critique, is presumptuous.

 

I never said it was a crime to question a model. It's not the contradiction that's the problem, it's the presumption that something that doesn't even rise to the level of model is true, while an actual model that's been tested for decades and shown its success is dismissed without regard for the experiments that have been done. It's the questioning based on the fallacy of personal incredulity.

I didn’t say that my so called model is true and the standard model is not.

I was not able to understand the standard model with all quarks that after disintegrations results always in participants well known as elementary common particle.

How they (elementary common particles) are integrated inside complex structure of various radio active particles, and have been changed in quarks. and vice-verse how happens during disintegration. The mechanism if any, please. Not with a simple “flipping”.

Are those questions based on the fallacy of personal incredibility? Or is the absence of an adequate explanation by specialists?

One is quite limited in how to answer your questions when you dictate that some answers are unacceptable, and that anything resembling a complete answer would require you to take several physics courses — what takes most people years to do. If an adequate explanation is one that makes sense to someone who has not undertaken the effort to meet halfway by learning some of the physics involved, then unfortunately the answer is no, there is no adequate explanation by your standards.

 

By some reasonable standard, yes, there is an adequate explanation. One that explains what happens, has experimental confirmation and has been able to make predictions about other interactions, which is the standard for science.

 

There is experimental evidence that baryons such as the neutron and proton are made up of three quarks, and that quarks interact with each other in certain ways. In one interaction, quarks can change identities be emitting particles. There are conservation laws that apply (charge, energy, etc.), so the properties of all of these particles can be determined.

 

In the decay of the neutron, the interaction is mediated by a W boson. A down quark emits a W-, which changes it to an up quark. The W- decays into an electron and an antineutrino. The resulting particle is a proton.

 

That's the model. It works.

 

One might consider that the reason that you haven't seen similar efforts is that people with a grasp of the experimental evidence realize that the suggested "missing" models are trivially wrong, by simple inspection.

----- Or because that they are not conform, they are denigrated, derided, thrown in trash can.

Which is not supported by the fact that alternative theories of science are proposed all the time, current theories are tested all the time, and experimental results are checked all the time when others try and replicate them. All of the whining about conformity, etc. does not square with reality. The one thing that these challenges have in common is that they're actual science, and not utter nonsense that disagrees with experiment. The latter goes in the trash heap. Often the scientist him/herself does the tossing, once s/he realizes the mistakes.

 

 

Ignoring the antineutrino means ignoring conservation of angular momentum and conservation of lepton number. These are not trivial things to ignore.

What is this? Who ignore antineutrino. Not me. Instead I say that antineutrino is the main cause that may justify the differences between their radial dimension.

You ignore it when you say that the neutron and hydrogen are the same.

 

The antineutrino doesn't exist until the decay occurs, so that's not the reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn’t intriguing that a particle change it’s mass without any cause?

 

It's theory, or rather hypothesis, that it changes mass. Because we don't know what really happens at Sun core. Just have theories what happens, basing on what we have in labs. It's extrapolation, to fill gap in missing data.

 

To confirm that this really happens we would have to know states at the beginning and at the end. For now we know just the end.

 

Do you see differences between hypothesis, theory and law in physics?

 

I listen once a scientist to say: we scientist have our hierarchy, we have our pope our bishops our….. deacons?!…

If pope or bishop say: “particle change mass because change “flavor””, does this mean that duty of deacon is to say “ amen”?

 

Every (most?) scientist wants to add his/her building block to better understanding nature and become famous respectful person with success in area they work in.

Otherwise work would be unproductive and senseless, don't you think so?

Scientists do hard work to find something unique that nobody else found before.

In science there is very few dogmas (f.e. for now speed of light being a limit).

Find violation of them, and you will be famous too.

But first you have to become experimentalist.

Theoretic, with little knowledge, won't be able to convince scientists to his/her theory and whole work will be meaningless and easily forgotten.

 

Jes. Quite the radius of hydrogen. Who do you think divide electron from proton in Hydrogen atom? Neutrino: bound and divide. I think.

 

But what with mesons, other baryons than proton and neutron, and leptons?

 

Muon- is decaying emitting two types of neutrinos (muonic & electron).

 

More than radius of nucleus?

That doesn't make sense to me.

Some people estimate proton radius to be 0.85 fm (0.85*10^-15 m)

Yes. So I think. Give me your argument why not.

 

If sub-particle is building block of everything, shouldn't it be the smallest thing in the Universe?

 

Classic analogy- how can brick be bigger than house made of bricks.. ?

 

Do you saw Gold foil experiment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment

 

Beam of alpha particles is emitted in direction of thin foil.

When alpha particle hits gold nucleus, it's reflected (at various angles).

If no nucleus is hit, alpha particle is detected behind foil.

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Swanson

Then someone hacked into your computer and posted "I must meditate more about the magic mechanism of bosons" using your account. (emphasis added)
----- No it’s mine, and I explained the sarcasm of “magic”, with examples.

Then you have no basis for making an assessment of physics.
------ Not to express a doubt? Not to contravene opposite assessment?


Without studying the material, all you can say is you don't understand. Nothing more. To pretend that you do understand, and can make a critique, is presumptuous.
------ Short the forum is only for Ph.D. Here is not place for lay mans?

There is experimental evidence that baryons such as the neutron and proton are made up of three quarks, and that quarks interact with each other in certain ways. In one interaction, quarks can change identities be emitting particles. There are conservation laws that apply (charge, energy, etc.), so the properties of all of these particles can be determined.
------I may say the opposite for the sake of debate; this is not a presumptuous assessment.
1--- There is not experimental evidence for the existence of quarks, a particle with fractured charge. The experimental evidence is that charge is a unity. The facts say that charges are saved in what-ever circumstance.
2---The experiments show that the proton has not “only three quarks”, as suggested by your guessing, but a lot of different particles ---- when collided in C.E.R.N.
3--- Quarks change identities be emmiting particles ---- doesn’t this sound like “magic”? Isn’t quark an elementary “ indivisible “ entity? How can it give birth to another particle? Or to many?



In the decay of the neutron, the interaction is mediated by a W boson. A down quark emits a W-, which changes it to an up quark. The W- decays into an electron and an antineutrino. The resulting particle is a proton.
----- All this is before known even though by a lay man, ignorant. The question is how happens that an elementary , let say Democritis atom, made “miracles” to produce other elementary particles? How are they others, incorporated in “one” elementary particle?

Theories of science are proposed all the time, current theories are tested all the time, and experimental results are checked all the time.
---- With the same encouragement moral and material?
Haven’t they any rule 5 and 10?


You ignore it when you say that the neutron and hydrogen are the same.

The antineutrino doesn't exist until the decay occurs, so that's not the reason.

----- I repeat again. I don’t ignore antineutrino. In opposite this thread is about the role of anti neutrino in spatial structures, taking ground by the participant of both neutron and hydrogen.
You may say that anti neutrino doesn’t exist in hydrogen structure.
I speculated by three reasons:
1-- Deficit of mass, (you insist energy of ….coupling? Whatever), in both cases is a reason which can explained by anti mass, of anti neutrino.
2--The change of mass, this mean and dimension --for me, of antineutrino, make it a candidate to determine different radius of both particles in thread.
3 – The space between electron and proton can’t be served by photon which is totally neutral.
-----As always ---- an assessment by a presumptuous crackpot.

Sensei.

It's theory, or rather hypothesis, that it changes mass. Because we don't know what really happens at Sun core. Just have theories what happens, basing on what we have in labs. It's extrapolation, to fill gap in missing data.

To confirm that this really happens we would have to know states at the beginning and at the end. For now we know just the end.

Do you see differences between hypothesis, theory and law in physics?

----- I based my thread in assertion of scientists, about change of mass. I dispute the concept of
change of flavor. I don’t understand what this mean. Do you?
I think that science of particles is based most of in guessing, supposing, logic, after in math and experiment. But I think, maybe I am wrong, that can happen this way: the in-come “guess and logic” determine the outcome of math and experiment, very different from the reality.
Laws of physic? Aren’t the basement of it eroded, changed, transformed that you can’t know the original?

Every (most?) scientist wants to add his/her building block to better understanding nature and become famous respectful person with success in area they work in.
Otherwise work would be unproductive and senseless, don't you think so?
Scientists do hard work to find something unique that nobody else found before.
In science there is very few dogmas (f.e. for now speed of light being a limit).
Find violation of them, and you will be famous too.
But first you have to become experimentalist.
Theoretic, with little knowledge, won't be able to convince scientists to his/her theory and whole work will be meaningless and easily forgotten.

---Let musa of research help them in their carrier. If I tease the specialists with controversial threads, that doesn’t mean that I make science. It is only a manner to pass the time with something interesting.
--- But what with mesons, other baryons than proton and neutron, and leptons?

Muon- is decaying emitting two types of neutrinos (muonic & electron).
If sub-particle is building block of everything, shouldn't it be the smallest thing in the Universe?
Classic analogy- how can brick be bigger than house made of bricks.. ?

----Hypothesis speculative: Sub particle is a solid, indivisible, Democritis atom,
with the spatial diameter size = Plank length*sqrt(alpha.),
which posses both electric and gravity ability of attraction and repulsion in “distance”,
conditioned by sort of charges (+,-): “e” / “g”.
Here “g” = sq.rt. ( 4*pi*epsilon0*G)
The sub-particles are responsible for all kind of common particles: mass and mass-les.
Even though they are so small they posses ability to structure all “things” that make reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you have no basis for making an assessment of physics.

------ Not to express a doubt? Not to contravene opposite assessment?

Not when you admittedly have zero expertise in the matter, no.

 

Without studying the material, all you can say is you don't understand. Nothing more. To pretend that you do understand, and can make a critique, is presumptuous.

------ Short the forum is only for Ph.D. Here is not place for lay mans?

Not at all. There is a huge spectrum of understanding between a layman who has not studied any physics and someone with a PhD. You need to be closer to the middle of that spectrum than the "hasn't studied physics" end if you want to have a chance at critiquing it.

 

 

There is experimental evidence that baryons such as the neutron and proton are made up of three quarks, and that quarks interact with each other in certain ways. In one interaction, quarks can change identities be emitting particles. There are conservation laws that apply (charge, energy, etc.), so the properties of all of these particles can be determined.

------I may say the opposite for the sake of debate; this is not a presumptuous assessment.

1--- There is not experimental evidence for the existence of quarks, a particle with fractured charge. The experimental evidence is that charge is a unity. The facts say that charges are saved in what-ever circumstance.

There is no "for the sake of debate". You can discuss the evidence if you wish, and how it fits in with the various models, but to say that there is no experimental evidence for quarks is presumptuous, because it's a lie. And the worst sort: a lazy lie. The experimental evidence for quarks is easily found in this day and age, so claiming that it does not exist is willful ignorance of the worst sort.

 

2---The experiments show that the proton has not “only three quarks”, as suggested by your guessing, but a lot of different particles ---- when collided in C.E.R.N.

An exceedingly uninformed interpretation might reach this conclusion. But being exceedingly uninformed is not a good place to start an alternate conjecture. It is, however, a good place to start learning, if one were interested in learning.

 

3--- Quarks change identities be emmiting particles ---- doesn’t this sound like “magic”? Isn’t quark an elementary “ indivisible “ entity? How can it give birth to another particle? Or to many?

I suppose that any sufficiently advanced materials is indistinguishable from magic. But to call it magic is a cop-oout, since one can learn the physics. The information is out there. It's not secret.

 

In the decay of the neutron, the interaction is mediated by a W boson. A down quark emits a W-, which changes it to an up quark. The W- decays into an electron and an antineutrino. The resulting particle is a proton.

----- All this is before known even though by a lay man, ignorant. The question is how happens that an elementary , let say Democritis atom, made “miracles” to produce other elementary particles? How are they others, incorporated in “one” elementary particle?

They aren't incorporated into an elementary particle.

 

Theories of science are proposed all the time, current theories are tested all the time, and experimental results are checked all the time.

---- With the same encouragement moral and material?

Haven’t they any rule 5 and 10?

In the realm of practicing scientists, things are much harsher than rules 5 and 10. There is no rule 1. If you interrupted someone's research time to tell them your idea they'd tell you to get lost and to stop wasting their time.

 

 

You ignore it when you say that the neutron and hydrogen are the same.

 

The antineutrino doesn't exist until the decay occurs, so that's not the reason.

----- I repeat again. I don’t ignore antineutrino. In opposite this thread is about the role of anti neutrino in spatial structures, taking ground by the participant of both neutron and hydrogen.

You may say that anti neutrino doesn’t exist in hydrogen structure.

I speculated by three reasons:

1-- Deficit of mass, (you insist energy of ….coupling? Whatever), in both cases is a reason which can explained by anti mass, of anti neutrino.

2--The change of mass, this mean and dimension --for me, of antineutrino, make it a candidate to determine different radius of both particles in thread.

3 – The space between electron and proton can’t be served by photon which is totally neutral.

-----As always ---- an assessment by a presumptuous crackpot.

You don't get to tell nature what it can and can't do.

 

If all you're going to do is take potshots at existing physics, at least learn what that physics is first. Right now you're just arguing a strawman. If you have a model to discuss, present it. Follow the rules of speculations.

 

1. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

 

 

For example: if you think there's an antineutrino hidden inside of a neutron that pops out when it decays, explain how it's confined there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

----- I have not offended you in any way. I only have asked question in the forum, and expressed my viewpoints about some issues in physic (Let say wrong, not based, even stupid after your evaluation) without attacking somebody personally.
If you think you have the right to offend your interlocutor because of your post, i am very disappointed with my opinion about you..

As I see from your and staff’s angry reaction, I feel that I have touched some kind of a nerve with my naïve questions for which I am convinced that are not potshots, not an arguing with straw-mans. At least, my try, was to understand the wizardry of Oz.

Recently, in C.E.R.N. is discovered a new particle structured by “four quarks”. I am curious to know the electric charge of this particle. Isn’t it a fraction of “e”?
Physicians say that quarks are impossible to identify out of structure of particle, Because they never go out of structure, via their kind of weird force that bind them. The same can say about their fractured charges.
It’s an opportunity to identify direct a fractured electric charge, in the new discovered particle. Isn’t it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.